Cuonzo is Perfectly Fine for Vols

#76
#76
daniel3417 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The fact that you're not "quite" ready to proclaim Martin good as Izzo or Donovan pretty much invalidates anything else you posted.

Martin couldn't hold the jock of either of those guys and it's doubtful from what we have seen in 3 seasons that he will ever develop to that level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#77
#77
I like Coach Martin, and I hope he stays here for a long time and has great success! Go Vols!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#78
#78
99gator said:
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.
Click to expand...

And it's complete bias that has produced this. The A10 gets 6?! (4 of the 6 lost in the first round.) The committee has willfully decided to overcompensate the second tier. Tennessee was better than a dozen of the teams that made it last year, but were considered a bubble team. (By comparison, twice we were worried about Bruce's teams being on the bubble and they ended up with #9 seeds.)
 
#79
#79
papatomany said:
And it's complete bias that has produced this. The A10 gets 6?! (4 of the 6 lost in the first round.) The committee has willfully decided to overcompensate the second tier. Tennessee was better than a dozen of the teams that made it last year, but were considered a bubble team. (By comparison, twice we were worried about Bruce's teams being on the bubble and they ended up with #9 seeds.)
Click to expand...

it wasnt bias.....the sec looked like crap during the yr......We werent worried about Bruce's teams being on the bubble bc even Bruce's last yr we had an rpi of 32 while last yr our rpi was 58.
 
#80
#80
Spartacavolus said:
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.
Click to expand...

I really don't want to see his balls.
 
#81
#81
Spartacavolus said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am not as negative about our future as you are, but I agree: the time to say something was after the Vandy loss, not now. Very hypocritical to start now. I just wonder where all the smart people were then.

Come on back next February and remind us how you are all Cuonzo. I'm all for Cuonzo now, too, who wouldn't be, but I am going to have trouble with that if the players quit on him again like they did there for a while.
 
#82
#82
i2amavol said:
I am not as negative about our future as you are, but I agree: the time to say something was after the Vandy loss, not now. Very hypocritical to start now. I just wonder where all the smart people were then.

Come on back next February and remind us how you are all Cuonzo. I'm all for Cuonzo now, too, who wouldn't be, but I am going to have trouble with that if the players quit on him again like they did there for a while.
Click to expand...


I'm basing my opinion on the future simply based on current roster and recruiting and wondering who our post players and shooters are in 2 years.
If Stokes stays and Rhett comes, we have a potentially badass team. If our starting 5 is DT, Hubbs, Jrich, Pops and Reese, I'm realistic enough to have low expectations.
 
#83
#83
This thread is further evidence that UT's "basketball fans" are just not knowledgeable about the game but they will become rabid for a few weeks in March. Hopefully we grow out of this cycle (probably wont).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#84
#84
Stoerner's Fumble said:
This thread is further evidence that UT's "basketball fans" are just not knowledgeable about the game but they will become rabid for a few weeks in March. Hopefully we grow out of this cycle (probably wont).
Click to expand...

well look who made an appearance. Dr. Phil. he is going to give us knowledge of the game we call basketball.
enlighten everybody about all this knowledge you have.
 
#85
#85
InVOLuntary said:
I'm good bud. Hope you and yours are doing well. Out of town right now.

I don't understand these folks that think you have it in for the program or even Cuonzo for that matter if you have a bleak outlook for the future. You know the TV disclaimer? The one that states "past results are not indicative of future success"?
Click to expand...


I agree. Sparty is one of the most fair and balanced posters on this board and he knows the game as well .
 
#87
#87
CobbVol said:
I discussed this with 4 co-workers to get their perspective and to maybe see if I am typing wrong. One VT, two UVA, and one KY fan. They understood.
Click to expand...

so, again, by that rationale, any time tennessee wins the sec title in a sport other than women's basketball, it's a down year in the sec in that sport.
 
#88
#88
99gator said:
so, again, by that rationale, any time tennessee wins the sec title in a sport other than women's basketball, it's a down year in the sec in that sport.
Click to expand...

You are expanding the scope, but before we do that we need to level set this discussion, as it involved looking at the first 3 years of various coaches comparing to Coach Martin, one being Donavan. You made the statement that in his first year he had no talent. I then added that it was also a weaker conference in 1996-97 versus 2011-12. You disagreed by saying that the SEC placed more teams in the NCAAT in 1996-97 versus this past season, however this past season was not part of the discussion.


Never mind that and looking at 1996-97, the Atlantic 10 placed more teams in the NCAAT than any conference that year… so following your logic you would say they were the strongest conference in the nation that year. I would disagree. In any event, using this logic is a poor barometer of a conference’s strength, especially when you have conference tournament surprises and a committee making selections with changing decision variables every season.


My focus was who are traditionally the best teams in the conference, and pointing out that two traditionally less successful teams in 1996-97 (Ole Miss and SC) won their divisions. That is a sign of a weaker conference than normal. The same would be said if these two teams won their divisions in football. Just like my ACC co-workers mentioned with Duke winning one of the divsions in the ACC this past season in football.


Now, with your last question and shot at Tennessee, depends on who won the SECC in women’s basketball and what the other sport is. Say if Florida won the SEC women’s b-ball title, it would be a down year since it has never been accomplished. However, Tennessee being a traditional strong team in other sports such as football, men’s basketball, tennis, swimming, track, and others – no it would not be a down year
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#89
#89
CobbVol said:
You are expanding the scope, but before we do that we need to level set this discussion, as it involved looking at the first 3 years of various coaches comparing to Coach Martin, one being Donavan. You made the statement that in his first year he had no talent. I then added that it was also a weaker conference in 1996-97 versus 2011-12. You disagreed by saying that the SEC placed more teams in the NCAAT in 1996-97 versus this past season, however this past season was not part of the discussion.


Never mind that and looking at 1996-97, the Atlantic 10 placed more teams in the NCAAT than any conference that year… so following your logic you would say they were the strongest conference in the nation that year. I would disagree. In any event, using this logic is a poor barometer of a conference’s strength, especially when you have conference tournament surprises and a committee making selections with changing decision variables every season.


My focus was who are traditionally the best teams in the conference, and pointing out that two traditionally less successful teams in 1996-97 (Ole Miss and SC) won their divisions. That is a sign of a weaker conference than normal. The same would be said if these two teams won their divisions in football. Just like my ACC co-workers mentioned with Duke winning one of the divsions in the ACC this past season in football.


Now, with your last question and shot at Tennessee, depends on who won the SECC in women’s basketball and what the other sport is. Say if Florida won the SEC women’s b-ball title, it would be a down year since it has never been accomplished. However, Tennessee being a traditional strong team in other sports such as football, men’s basketball, tennis, swimming, track, and others – no it would not be a down year
Click to expand...

this is just a terrible rationale. without knowing any other information, it would automatically be a down year.

regardless of how well the rest of the conference performed or any other measurement to conference strength.

again, by that method of thinking, when florida won the sec in 1991, it was a down year in sec football because florida never won the sec.

but, in 2008, it wasn't necessarily a down year for the sec in football because florida had won the sec title on previous occasions.
 
#90
#90
JonGrudensAgent said:
The fact that you're not "quite" ready to proclaim Martin good as Izzo or Donovan pretty much invalidates anything else you posted.

Martin couldn't hold the jock of either of those guys and it's doubtful from what we have seen in 3 seasons that he will ever develop to that level.
Click to expand...

You know what he meant. If he had put down the season comparison and not the disclaimer statement that they're not on the same level as a coach (sarcastically) you would have chewed him out for that as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#91
#91
99gator said:
this is just a terrible rationale. without knowing any other information, it would automatically be a down year.

regardless of how well the rest of the conference performed or any other measurement to conference strength.

again, by that method of thinking, when florida won the sec in 1991, it was a down year in sec football because florida never won the sec.

but, in 2008, it wasn't necessarily a down year for the sec in football because florida had won the sec title on previous occasions.
Click to expand...

No, in football, Florida has always been one of the top winning programs in the conference, they just could not get over the hump and win the title until Spurrier arrived. In women's basketball, they are not even on the scale of successful programs in the SEC and therefore them winning it would make it a down year.
 
#92
#92
CobbVol said:
No, in football, Florida has always been one of the top winning programs in the conference, they just could not get over the hump and win the title until Spurrier arrived. In women's basketball, they are not even on the scale of successful programs in the SEC and therefore them winning it would make it a down year.
Click to expand...

keeping in mind that in 1991, the sec was a 10 team league.....

at that time, florida was 6th in winning percentage (out of 10) all time in the sec.

florida was 7th in wins (out of 10) all time in the sec.

florida had never won the sec.

it seems like it would very difficult to, at that time, refer to florida as "one of the top winning programs in the conference"
 
#93
#93
volbeast33 said:
it wasnt bias.....the sec looked like crap during the yr......We werent worried about Bruce's teams being on the bubble bc even Bruce's last yr we had an rpi of 32 while last yr our rpi was 58.
Click to expand...

First of all, RPI is a muddled mess. It is statistically unsound. Here's but one take on that:

Death to the RPI - The Only Colors

And that just scratches the surface of the problem.

Secondly, there was constant nail-biting right here on Volnation, especially that last year of Bruce's.

http://www.volnation.com/forum/tenn...31-current-rpi-bracketology-has-tn-first.html

Most folks were stunned by the 9 seed. (Almost as stunned as the 2 seed in year 1.)

Thirdly, I don't have time right now to give data to back up my bias claim (I'd think 6 A10 teams should be evidence enough, but obviously for some it's not), but if I get the chance later I'll post again.
 
#96
#96
LittleCat said:
That's not a bad comparison to make between the records and the teams results.

CCM had a very very talented team this year. How much of the Vols run is dependent on him? Izzo and Donovan are elite coaches. I was far to young to remember how talented those MSU and UF teams were...but if I had to guess their coaching had a lot to do with their success.

Some other elite coaches

Coach K:
17-13
10-17
11-17
24-10 Loss in 2nd Round

Roy Williams (at KU)
19-12
30-5
27-8 Runner Up

Calipari (UMass):
10-18
17-14
20-13
30-5 (Regional Semifinal Loss)

Pitino (At Both UK and UL)

14-14
22-6
29-7

19-13
25-7
20-10
33-5
Click to expand...

Agreed. And Coach K came to Duke from a 9 win season at Army. I'm pretty sure Duke fans weren't rubbing their hands together after year 3 (you know, Johnny Dawkins, Jay Bilas and Mark Alarie with 11 wins...) raving about his coaching prowess, and claiming he'd be the all-time leader in wins before it was all said and done.
 
#98
#98
papatomany said:
Agreed. And Coach K came to Duke from a 9 win season at Army. I'm pretty sure Duke fans weren't rubbing their hands together after year 3 (you know, Johnny Dawkins, Jay Bilas and Mark Alarie with 11 wins...) raving about his coaching prowess, and claiming he'd be the all-time leader in wins before it was all said and done.
Click to expand...

Coach K had also won 20 and 19 games at Army. Two of the best seasons in school history. There are no scholarships for basketball at Army and it's nearly impossible to win at that level there.

The fact that he signed David Henderson, Johnny Dawkins, Jay Bilas and Mark Alarie was one of the big reasons for them not wringing their hands.

People can put this same list together 100 times, but these coaches are the exception and not the rule. Especially those starting in the modern era. The group of coaches who started slow and generally failed is much much larger than those who succeeded.
 
#99
#99
VolArmy74 said:
Coach K had also won 20 and 19 games at Army. Two of the best seasons in school history. There are no scholarships for basketball at Army and it's nearly impossible to win at that level there.

The fact that he signed David Henderson, Johnny Dawkins, Jay Bilas and Mark Alarie was one of the big reasons for them not wringing their hands.

People can put this same list together 100 times, but these coaches are the exception and not the rule. Especially those starting in the modern era. The group of coaches who started slow and generally failed is much much larger than those who succeeded.
Click to expand...

The point of the list isn't to show Cuonzo is an automatic success, but to show that to trash him as "mediocre" is, at best, a bit premature.
 
#100
#100
papatomany said:
The point of the list isn't to show Cuonzo is an automatic success, but to show that to trash him as "mediocre" is, at best, a bit premature.
Click to expand...

History is far more heavily weighted on the side of him not being Coach K or Donovan. But if he's going to be here, I hope he joins that group. To do so, we need a top 10 class in 2015.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top