Cuonzo is Perfectly Fine for Vols

[Rudy123]

It all depends on how you look at it. I noticed that you named Izzo, Donovan & compared them to Martins records.

Lets look on the other perspective though. John Wooden 1947 - 1948 Indiana State 25 -17. 1948 - 1949 Indiana State 34 - 27, 1949 - 1950 UCLA 29 - 22.

So, compared to Wooden, Martin doesn't fair very well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[OrangeInKy]

I'm glad we kept Cuonzo but the one area he needs to shore up is recruiting. I think Jarnell was coming anyways because Bruce recruited him hard before he got fired and he got Hubbs to come, but everybody else has been a 3 star. If he's gonna be a consistent winner in the SEC he's gonna have to land a few more of the 4 and 5 star guys.

you are incorrect

 

[99gator]

i can't speak to other coaches....., but i know what donovan inherited when he got to florida.

let's just say by comparison, cuonzo inherited the 96 bulls.

 

[volstatic]

I very rarely start threads, and it's even rarer that I post in the basketball forums, but there's a first time for everything.

I'm a proud "told ya so"er for Cuonzo. Backed the guy the entire season (check my twitter, as that's the proof for everything). When the Vols were 10-4, and people were calling for Cuonzo's job, I knew there was very little our coach could do right in the final season of Bruce's show-cause.

Forget, if you can, the insanity of Bruce Pearl. It was fun. It was crazy. We were awesome. It was destined to be short-lived. But just try to set it aside for a moment.

As a realistic Vol fan (I know that's tough for some), how can you fire/want someone gone who has won 20 games in each of his three years at Tennessee? (Yeah his first year it was just 19 but whatevski.)

In the words of Milton Friedman, "it's important to have a sense of proportion." We're not freaking Duke, Kentucky, or UCLA. You can sit there and say that we should be and then fire any coach who doesn't always reach the Elite 8, but all you're going to do is dig a deeper hole.

A successful Tennessee basketball program is 20ish plus wins per year, compete hard in the SEC tournament, and make an NCAA run every couple years. Mix in some special teams every five to seven years. If you demand Sweet 16 finishes every year, you're going to have to de-emphasize football because the kind of recruits that will get you there consistently want to go to basketball-first schools.

Being the exceptions like Ohio State, Michigan, or Florida (good in both) takes years of development.

Take a look at the first three seasons of Billy Donovan:
13-17
14-15
22-9 Sweet 16

Tom Izzo:
16-16
17-12
22-8 Sweet 16

Cuonzo Martin:
19-15
20-13
24-13 Sweet 16

I'm not quite ready to call Cuonzo the next Billy or Izzo, but would you not agree that Florida and Michigan State were right in giving their coaches more than 2 years? And Cuonzo's been better!

Chill out, dumbasses.

Add John Beilein to the list.

 

[CobbVol]

i can't speak to other coaches....., but i know what donovan inherited when he got to florida.

let's just say by comparison, cuonzo inherited the 96 bulls.

Lets also say that SEC basketball in 1996-97 compared to today is, well ... weaker.

 

[99gator]

Lets also say that SEC basketball in 1996-97 compared to today is, well ... weaker.

oh, i didn't realize this was the golden age of sec basketball.

i went and looked it up.

5 sec teams got into the ncaa tournament in 1997 and 1998. the field of 64, not the field of 68.

5 out of 12, not 5 out of 14. that also includes the ncaa runner-up in 1997 and the ncaa champion in 1998.

in 2013 and 2014, the sec has put in 3 out of 14.

 

[CobbVol]

oh, i didn't realize this was the golden age of sec basketball.

i went and looked it up.

5 sec teams got into the ncaa tournament in 1997 and 1998. the field of 64, not the field of 68.

5 out of 12, not 5 out of 14. that also includes the ncaa runner-up in 1997 and the ncaa champion in 1998.

in 2013 and 2014, the sec has put in 3 out of 14.

South Carolina won the SEC East with a 15-1 conference record.

 

[99gator]

South Carolina won the SEC East with a 15-1 conference record.

what the heck is that supposed to mean?

obviously, south carolina was good that season. they posted that record with an ncaa finalist in the division and a total of 5 sec teams that got an ncaa invite.

imagine if i were to say, college football was really bad in 1998. i mean, come on, tennessee won the national championship that season.

 

[AZVOLSFAN]

UT also isn't a premier football program, and haven't been for over a decade. Should have just kept Dooley...forget trying to get to winning the SEC and championships.

 

[21VOL]

Lost me at Cuonzo is Perfectly Fine for Vols .

let's see what happens in year 4

 

[Tux]

It all depends on how you look at it. I noticed that you named Izzo, Donovan & compared them to Martins records.

Lets look on the other perspective though. John Wooden 1947 - 1948 Indiana State 25 -17. 1948 - 1949 Indiana State 34 - 27, 1949 - 1950 UCLA 29 - 22.

So, compared to Wooden, Martin doesn't fair very well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sam Gilbert.

 

[CobbVol]

what the heck is that supposed to mean?

obviously, south carolina was good that season. they posted that record with an ncaa finalist in the division and a total of 5 sec teams that got an ncaa invite.

imagine if i were to say, college football was really bad in 1998. i mean, come on, tennessee won the national championship that season.

The Top5 programs historically in the SEC are KY, AL, TN, VANDY, and LSU. In 96-97 they finished 2, 7, 11, 5, and 12 during Billy's first season. Compare that to Martin's first year where they finished 1, 5, 2, 2, and 7.

Years where SC and Ole Miss win the Divisions, like they did that year, are considered down years in basketball.

 

[99gator]

The Top5 programs historically in the SEC are KY, AL, TN, VANDY, and LSU. In 96-97 they finished 2, 7, 11, 5, and 12 during Billy's first season. Compare that to Martin's first year where they finished 1, 5, 2, 2, and 7.

Years where SC and Ole Miss win the Divisions, like they did that year, are considered down years in basketball.

what difference does it make what "historical" teams did in a given year? a "historical" team having a so-so year automatically means that a "non-historical" team isn't good that particular year.

and news flash.....there is no team that is historically good in the sec except the one in lexington.

 

[D-rock]

should've had the balls to post this after the Vandy loss or one of the Aggies' losses. If you don't have them then, I doubt we'll see them in 2 years when we have been to one ncaa tourney in 5 years.

What is wrong, the factual data presented does not go with your agenda of Cuonzo hate? It was a 3 year comparison, not a 2.5 year.

I bet you won't have the balls to admit you are wrong when Martin gets back to the tournament multiple times.

See that, it works both ways.

You can choose to be a fountain or a drain. Which one do you think you are?

 

[TGVol]

It's amazing how all these other coaches have so much respect for Counzo Martin's COACHING ability!

That's not surprising at all. Because they actually know basketball (unlike most people on the anonymous internet forums).

 

[Spartacavolus]

What is wrong, the factual data presented does not go with your agenda of Cuonzo hate? It was a 3 year comparison, not a 2.5 year.

I bet you won't have the balls to admit you are wrong when Martin gets back to the tournament multiple times.

See that, it works both ways.

You can choose to be a fountain or a drain. Which one do you think you are?

I don't hate Cuonzo. Never have. Go ahead and join the emotional basketcase group.
If the team gets to the tourney this coming year without Rhett and Stokes, it'll be a top notch coaching job. I'm simply looking at our post players over the next 2 years and wondering where pts, rebounds and defense are coming from, and I don't see any shooters outside of jrich and hubbs. And we are going into yr 4 with still no guys that can fill it up.

Too bad many of you are too blind to ask good questions and have valid concerns. If Stokes and Rhett are here, we could win the SEC. Should have more depth than having to rely on a transfer and an EE that could leave.

 

[CobbVol]

what difference does it make what "historical" teams did in a given year? a "historical" team having a so-so year automatically means that a "non-historical" team isn't good that particular year.

and news flash.....there is no team that is historically good in the sec except the one in lexington.

We disagree then. When Ole Miss and SC win the divisions in basketball in the same year, like they did that year, I consider the Conference had a down year. The same thought would apply in football as well.

 

[D-rock]

I don't hate Cuonzo. Never have. Go ahead and join the emotional basketcase group.
If the team gets to the tourney this coming year without Rhett and Stokes, it'll be a top notch coaching job. I'm simply looking at our post players over the next 2 years and wondering where pts, rebounds and defense are coming from, and I don't see any shooters outside of jrich and hubbs. And we are going into yr 4 with still no guys that can fill it up.

Too bad many of you are too blind to ask good questions and have valid concerns. If Stokes and Rhett are here, we could win the SEC. Should have more depth than having to rely on a transfer and an EE that could leave.

So anyone that disagrees with you is emotional and a basket case? What happened to see what happens on the court? Enough of the doom and gloom. Maybe you should coach or hit the recruiting trail with all of your wisdom.

I am not saying he is or isn't the answer. All I am saying is that he earned more time and the respect of the fan base. If you choose to ignore progress, that's on you.

 

[Spartacavolus]

So anyone that disagrees with you is emotional and a basket case? What happened to see what happens on the court? Enough of the doom and gloom. Maybe you should coach or hit the recruiting trail with all of your wisdom.

I am not saying he is or isn't the answer. All I am saying is that he earned more time and the respect of the fan base. If you choose to ignore progress, that's on you.

This is what gets old. I don't really care if you love Martin or hate him. I haven't told you your opinion was stupid or wrong. You posted that I hated Martin in a post to me and you are wrong. You tie emotion in it and me discussing what actually occured/s on the court. When you are telling me I hate Martin, you are too emotional. Like I said prior.
Playing the victim and acting like I disagree with something valid under the guise of blatantly lying by saying I hate Martin deserves whatever it gets. If people like you didn't misrepresent or lie during a discussion, you'd have nothing to bring.

 

[99gator]

We disagree then. When Ole Miss and SC win the divisions in basketball in the same year, like they did that year, I consider the Conference had a down year. The same thought would apply in football as well.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 

[ZZ13]

I think this post fits here (there are so many Martin threads...)

Steve Kerr was on John Feinstein's radio show today and the discussion focused on how the NCAA tournament has evolved to be the "all or nothing" in college basketball. Mentioned how in football and baseball making the playoffs or a bowl game leaves the fans with a good feeling about the year. But in NCAAB, its now all about making the Final Four. He said even making the Sweet Sixteen or Elite Eight leaves a bad taste with a lot of the fan's. That the regular season conference championship and conference tournaments do nothing for the fans. He then used Martin as an example. He pointed out how Martin was on the hot seat ready to be fired then he wins three games in the NCAAT and suddenly he's the hot candidate for the Marquette job. He pointed out that was all because he just happened to win three games at the right time, but that winning or losing any of those three games shouldn't change his qualifications one bit. But it does.

Oh, and they both are not fans of replay reviews in the NCAA basketball. Basically they consider it a waste of time.

 

[Spartacavolus]

I think this post fits here (there are so many Martin threads...)

Steve Kerr was on John Feinstein's radio show today and the discussion focused on how the NCAA tournament has evolved to be the "all or nothing" in college basketball. Mentioned how in football and baseball making the playoffs or a bowl game leaves the fans with a good feeling about the year. But in NCAAB, its now all about making the Final Four. He said even making the Sweet Sixteen or Elite Eight leaves a bad taste with a lot of the fan's. That the regular season conference championship and conference tournaments do nothing for the fans. He then used Martin as an example. He pointed out how Martin was on the hot seat ready to be fired then he wins three games in the NCAAT and suddenly he's the hot candidate for the Marquette job. He pointed out that was all because he just happened to win three games at the right time, but that winning or losing any of those three games shouldn't change his qualifications one bit. But it does.

Oh, and they both are not fans of replay reviews in the NCAA basketball. Basically they consider it a waste of time.

Kerr is a smart man

 

[calban]

I think this post fits here (there are so many Martin threads...)

Steve Kerr was on John Feinstein's radio show today and the discussion focused on how the NCAA tournament has evolved to be the "all or nothing" in college basketball. Mentioned how in football and baseball making the playoffs or a bowl game leaves the fans with a good feeling about the year. But in NCAAB, its now all about making the Final Four. He said even making the Sweet Sixteen or Elite Eight leaves a bad taste with a lot of the fan's. That the regular season conference championship and conference tournaments do nothing for the fans. He then used Martin as an example. He pointed out how Martin was on the hot seat ready to be fired then he wins three games in the NCAAT and suddenly he's the hot candidate for the Marquette job. He pointed out that was all because he just happened to win three games at the right time, but that winning or losing any of those three games shouldn't change his qualifications one bit. But it does.

Oh, and they both are not fans of replay reviews in the NCAA basketball. Basically they consider it a waste of time.

Conference tournaments.
Completely worthless and unfair to the one bid leagues.
Imagine going undefeated and some .500 team gets hot for a few games.
Really need to rethink post season.

 

[tnvols72]

OP trying to get a atta boy. funny he left off Zos 1st 3 years.

 

[webleedorange]

If I were a BB coach I would love to have him as an opposing coach in my conference, so I would talk him up as well...

My opinion of the NCAA tournament is much like the CFB bowl season. Too many teams and really watered down. It should be the top 32 teams make the tournament and the rest fight it out for NIT slots.