2013 F Austin Nichols (Memphis Briarcrest)

#3,001
#3,001
cncchris33 said:
Martin's teams were not grossly more talented than every other team in their conference. Face it, Memphis is, and should be heads and tails more talented than any other CUSA team. Big fish, small pond. Not true for Martin at MSU.

You know that and to pretend otherwise and insinuate that I'm trying to create a double standard is disingenuous.
Click to expand...

You're just trying to shift parameters to fit your argument. Why wasn't Martin able to be "heads and tails" (or head and shoulders) more talented than any other team in his conference? He had a phone just like Pastner did. Pastner has been one of the best recruiters since he was an assistant coach, an important attribute that makes a good head coach. He has put more players in the NBA, he has a better overall record, he has a better postseason record, he has a 3-0 head to head record. Until Martin does to prove otherwise, everything supports Pastner being a better head coach. Which is why whenever there are openings for other jobs, Pastner's name is likely on the list. Don't hear Martin's name on that list.
 
#3,002
#3,002
MemphisCanes said:
Possibly, I guess, if you ignore NCAA appearances and performance, which is the stipulation you put on the Pastner/Martin comparison.

That's why ignoring NCAA appearances/performance (probably THE most important aspect of a coach's resume) is ridiculous.

You may as well decide the better coach based on games played on Tuesdays, or some other meaningless criteria.
Click to expand...

If we were comparison were between two coaches like Donovan and Martin, who play in major conferences against similar competition, I'd agree.

In this case, Pastner faces a much easier road to success and has only done marginally better with exponentially superior talent.

If Tennessee played in Memphis' conference, or a similar one, I'd feel more comfortable comparing them on the same playing field.

We are obviously not going to agree, so I'll agree to quit arguing in circles if you will. Probably best if we just agree to disagree on the issue.
 
#3,003
#3,003
TigerFan386 said:
You're just trying to shift parameters to fit your argument. Why wasn't Martin able to be "heads and tails" (or head and shoulders) more talented than any other team in his conference? He had a phone just like Pastner did. Pastner has been one of the best recruiters since he was an assistant coach, an important attribute that makes a good head coach. He has put more players in the NBA, he has a better overall record, he has a better postseason record, he has a 3-0 head to head record. Until Martin does to prove otherwise, everything supports Pastner being a better head coach. Which is why whenever there are openings for other jobs, Pastner's name is likely on the list. Don't hear Martin's name on that list.
Click to expand...

You're a little late to the party. I'm not arguing who's the better recruiter. The argument is who has done more with they have? Pastner has been marginally better with far better talent, situation, and a hotbed of recruiting out his backdoor.

Lol if you think Pastner is anyone's first call when a job comes open. He's about as far down any worthy opening's list as Cuonzo Martin was down Tennessee's when Pearl was fired. What would he possibly have to sell himself on, other than recruiting? He's never won anything of importance. It took him four seasons to beat a ranked opponent.
 
#3,004
#3,004
cncchris33 said:
If we were comparison were between two coaches like Donovan and Martin, who play in major conferences against similar competition, I'd agree.

In this case, Pastner faces a much easier road to success and has only done marginally better with exponentially superior talent.

If Tennessee played in Memphis' conference, or a similar one, I'd feel more comfortable comparing them on the same playing field.

We are obviously not going to agree, so I'll agree to quit arguing in circles if you will. Probably best if we just agree to disagree on the issue.
Click to expand...

Fine, we can run with this argument too. Since you refuse to compare CUSA to SEC, let's compare Martin's three years in the Missouri Valley Conference to Pastner's first three years in CUSA. In two out of the three years, CUSA had a higher RPI ranking than Missouri Valley. So even though Martin had an easier road to a conference title in 2 or those 3 years, he won zero titles. Paster had a more difficult road to the conference title 2 of those 3 years and he won the title, twice. Your argument is busted.
 
#3,006
#3,006
TigerFan386 said:
Fine, we can run with this argument too. Since you refuse to compare CUSA to SEC, let's compare Martin's three years in the Missouri Valley Conference to Pastner's first three years in CUSA. In two out of the three years, CUSA had a higher RPI ranking than Missouri Valley. So even though Martin had an easier road to a conference title in 2 or those 3 years, he won zero titles. Paster had a more difficult road to the conference title 2 of those 3 years and he won the title, twice. Your argument is busted.
Click to expand...

Any comparison between Missouri State and Memphis is laughable. A potato could coach and recruit well enough at Memphis to win the CUSA.
 
#3,007
#3,007
TigerFan386 said:
Fine, we can run with this argument too. Since you refuse to compare CUSA to SEC, let's compare Martin's three years in the Missouri Valley Conference to Pastner's first three years in CUSA. In two out of the three years, CUSA had a higher RPI ranking than Missouri Valley. So even though Martin had an easier road to a conference title in 2 or those 3 years, he won zero titles. Paster had a more difficult road to the conference title 2 of those 3 years and he won the title, twice. Your argument is busted.
Click to expand...

Pastner took over a 33-4 team coming off of a Sweet 16 performance. Oh, and he is recruiting inside the Memphis city limits.

Martin took over a .500 team in middle-of-nowhere, MO.

Surely you see the difference?
 
#3,009
#3,009
TigerFan386 said:
He was contacted for the NC State job, LSU, and was USC's first choice. More contact than Martin has gotten.
Click to expand...

He wasn't USC's first choice. You're nuts if you believe that. Dixon turned it down before Pastner and other coaches who were of more interest were busy coacing their teams in the tournament (Shaka Smart) to ackowledge they had been contacted.

In the grand scheme of things, anyone can "turn down" a job as a means of trying to secure a raise and extension. Doesn't mean they were ever a serious candidate or had an opportunity to take the job. Pearl's "flirtation" with Arizona and Memphis come to mind.
 
#3,010
#3,010
cncchris33 said:
Pastner took over a 33-4 team coming off of a Sweet 16 performance. Oh, and he is recruiting inside the Memphis city limits.

Martin took over a .500 team in middle-of-nowhere, MO.

Surely you see the difference?
Click to expand...

Yea, he took over a team that lost the entire roster. Oh, and then he signed a top 5 recruiting class before he even coached a game. Yes he gets good recruits from Memphis, but he also pulled a top 10 kid from Baltimore, a couple of McDonalds All-Americans from Georgia, a top 30 recruit from Conneticut, a 4 star point gaurd from Florida. Martin has signed two 5 stars yes, but we can argue that Stokes fell into his lap because of the work Pearl put in on him and the fact that he had an open spot mid-season. Also Hubbs is an in-state recruit. So even though you don't want to talk about recruiting, I, nor you, should consider Martin a good recruiter until he pulls in 4 and 5 stars from outside of Tennessee. Fact is Pastner is 3-0 head to head with Martin. He has performed better in the postseason, the only thing that matters in college basketball. Until he proves otherwise, he is not a better coach than Pastner. He has a chance this year to do something special, so we will see.
 
#3,011
#3,011
TigerFan386 said:
Yea, he took over a team that lost the entire roster. Oh, and then he signed a top 5 recruiting class before he even played a game. Yes he gets good recruits from Memphis, but he also pulled a top 10 kid from Baltimore, a couple of McDonalds All-Americans from Georgia, a top 30 recruit from Conneticut, a 4 star point gaurd from Florida. Martin has signed two 5 stars yes, but we can argue that Stokes fell into his lap because of the work Pearl put in on him and the fact that he had an open spot mid-season. Also Hubbs is an in-state recruit. So even though you don't want to talk about recruiting, I, nor you, should consider Martin a good recruiter until he pulls in 4 and 5 stars from outside of Tennessee. Fact is Pastner is 3-0 head to head with Martin. He has performed better in the postseason, the only thing that matters in college basketball. Until he proves otherwise, he is not a better coach than Pastner. He has a chance this year to do something special, so we will see.
Click to expand...

So, first we were comparing Memphis and Missouri State, and now we are moving to Memphis and Tennessee?

And I'm shifting parameters? Ok, boss.
 
#3,012
#3,012
cncchris33 said:
So, first we were comparing Memphis and Missouri State, and now we are moving to Memphis and Tennessee?

And I'm shifting parameters? Ok, boss.
Click to expand...

Compare whatever you want, so far all the numbers support Pastner. Better recruiter, better overall record, better head to head record, more conference championships, more conference tournament championships, more postseason success, more ranked teams.
 
#3,013
#3,013
MemphisCanes said:
I'm not going to argue with you. If you want to put the narrowest of parameters on something to try to support your point, have at it. I hope it makes you feel better about what's going on here.
Click to expand...

It's not narrow to say that other than Elliot Williams, a top-15 Duke recruit that fell into Pastner's lap as a transfer, he's had 3 five-star players yet zero first-round picks. Can you give me an example of a player whose draft stock has risen while at Memphis?
 
#3,014
#3,014
TigerFan386 said:
Compare whatever you want, so far all the numbers support Pastner. Better recruiter, better overall record, better head to head record, more conference championships, more conference tournament championships, more postseason success, more ranked teams.
Click to expand...

Yep. You're right. When comparing apples and oranges, Pastner wins everytime. Nice job avoiding the parameter-shifting accusation too. A+

So far, you're argument is akin to championing Pastner as a better white guy than Cuonzo Martin.
 
#3,015
#3,015
VKAman said:
It's not narrow to say that other than Elliot Williams, a top-15 Duke recruit that fell into Pastner's lap as a transfer, he's had 3 five-star players yet zero first-round picks. Can you give me an example of a player whose draft stock has risen while at Memphis?
Click to expand...

DJ Stephens?
 
#3,016
#3,016
cncchris33 said:
Yep. You're right. When comparing apples and oranges, Pastner wins everytime. Nice job avoiding the parameter-shifting accusation too. A+

So far, you're argument is akin to championing Pastner as a better white guy than Cuonzo Martin.
Click to expand...

Right. I don't understand how you keep saying recruiting doesn't count. Recruiting is a huge part being a head coach. That's like saying its not an NBA player's job to workout and practice. What other parameters do you want to talk about? Martin does "more with less"? Well, besides the fact that Golden, McRae, Hall, and Maymon were all 4 stars, and Stokes was a 5 star, what "more" has he done? Most people don't consider missing the tournament "doing more".
 
#3,017
#3,017
TigerFan386 said:
Right. I don't understand how you keep saying recruiting doesn't count. Recruiting is a huge part being a head coach. That's like saying its not an NBA player's job to workout and practice. What other parameters do you want to talk about? Martin does "more with less"? Well, besides the fact that Golden, McRae, Hall, and Maymon were all 4 stars, and Stokes was a 5 star, what "more" has he done? Most people don't consider missing the tournament "doing more".
Click to expand...

I never said recruiting doesn't count. I just think it's a futile battle for me to argue that Martin is a better recruiter than Pastner. I have conceded that point from the get-go. I am saying that despite Pastner's obvious ability to recruit, he has only been marginally better with his on-court product, and a lot of that can be attributed to padding wins in a lousy conference and having an overall wealth of talent relative to 85-90% of the teams he faces. In his four years as head coach, his team has only had a resume worthy of an automatic bid, which was this season. Every other year, he had to rely on winning his conference tournament (no great feat considering the competition) to get in the NCAA's.

Until this year he had never beaten a ranked team with all that talent. That is an indictment in and of itself of his coaching. He should have lucked into one in four years time.
 
#3,018
#3,018
TigerFan386 said:
Right. I don't understand how you keep saying recruiting doesn't count. Recruiting is a huge part being a head coach. That's like saying its not an NBA player's job to workout and practice. What other parameters do you want to talk about? Martin does "more with less"? Well, besides the fact that Golden, McRae, Hall, and Maymon were all 4 stars, and Stokes was a 5 star, what "more" has he done? Most people don't consider missing the tournament "doing more".
Click to expand...

Kobe-Reaction1.gif
 
#3,019
#3,019
cncchris33 said:
I never said recruiting doesn't count. I just think it's a futile battle for me to argue that Martin is a better recruiter than Pastner. I have conceded that point from the get-go. I am saying that despite Pastner's obvious ability to recruit, he has only been marginally better with his on-court product, and a lot of that can be attributed to padding wins in a lousy conference and having an overall wealth of talent relative to 85-90% of the teams he faces. In his four years as head coach, his team has only had a resume worthy of an automatic bid, which was this season. Every other year, he had to rely on winning his conference tournament (no great feat considering the competition) to get in the NCAA's.

Until this year he had never beaten a ranked team with all that talent. That is an indictment in and of itself of his coaching. He should have lucked into one in four years time.
Click to expand...

Well, last season was projected by almost all the brackets to be an auto bid if we didn't win the conference. The first year he had no shot because he didnt have a team. The second year was disappointing, but the entire team was freshmen so while not necessarily excusable, its understandable. His third and fourth years he would have gotten an auto bid if he didnt win the counference tourney. So getting in twice when you were expected to make it three times aint exactly bad. Cuonzo didn't make the tournament his first year, when he had half a season of a 5 star(Stokes), and six 4 stars(Golden, Tatum, McRae, Hall, Woolridge, Maymon). Then he didn't make the tournament in his second year when he had a 5 star and three 4 stars. That is exactly why I hate this "less is more" argument. Ya'll keep talking about how he develops his players, but he had all this talent and didn't make the tournament either year.
 
#3,021
#3,021
TigerFan386 said:
Well, last season was projected by almost all the brackets to be an auto bid if we didn't win the conference. The first year he had no shot because he didnt have a team. The second year was disappointing, but the entire team was freshmen so while not necessarily excusable, its understandable. His third and fourth years he would have gotten an auto bid if he didnt win the counference tourney. So getting in twice when you were expected to make it three times aint exactly bad. Cuonzo didn't make the tournament his first year, when he had half a season of a 5 star(Stokes), and six 4 stars(Golden, Tatum, McRae, Hall, Woolridge, Maymon). Then he didn't make the tournament in his second year when he had a 5 star and three 4 stars. That is exactly why I hate this "less is more" argument. Ya'll keep talking about how he develops his players, but he had all this talent and didn't make the tournament either year.
Click to expand...

You really believe Hall and Woolridge were 4* players? Tatum had the talent, but was killed by knee injuries that sapped any explosion on his drive and jumpshot. He was never a 4* player after his freshman season.

Stokes, McRae, and Golden are the only three guys who could get PT on top 25 teams from this year's team.

I hesitate to assume Memphis makes the tourney as an at-large in Pastner's third season. Nine losses with no significant win over a ranked team. It matters not since they won the conference tourney.
 
#3,022
#3,022
cncchris33 said:
You really believe Hall and Woolridge were 4* players? Tatum had the talent, but was killed by knee injuries that sapped any explosion on his drive and jumpshot. He was never a 4* player after his freshman season.

Stokes, McRae, and Golden are the only three guys who could get PT on top 25 teams from this year's team.

I hesitate to assume Memphis makes the tourney as an at-large in Pastner's third season. Nine losses with no significant win over a ranked team. It matters not since they won the conference tourney.
Click to expand...

Well, most of the bracketologists disagreed with you. If they would have lost the first game in the conference tourney it would be different, but they didn't need to win the last. I remember Joe Lunardi projected Memphis as a 6 seed. You really think that one last win over Marshall pushed Memphis from the bubble to a six seed? They were in. And yea, I do believe Woolridge and Hall were 4 stars, maybe because every major recruiting site ranked them that high. If you are gonna argue that the talent on the Memphis team underachieved, then you have to admit the talent on the UT team underachieved as well.
 
#3,023
#3,023
TigerFan386 said:
Well, most of the bracketologists disagreed with you. If they would have lost the first game in the conference tourney it would be different, but they didn't need to win the last. I remember Joe Lunardi projected Memphis as a 6 seed. You really think that one last win over Marshall pushed Memphis from the bubble to a six seed? They were in. And yea, I do believe Woolridge and Hall were 4 stars, maybe because every major recruiting site ranked them that high. If you are gonna argue that the talent on the Memphis team underachieved, then you have to admit the talent on the UT team underachieved as well.
Click to expand...

Well saying those two underachieved is my point. They were never as talented as the services said they were. Call them busts if you want, because that's what they were. Just because so and so recruiting service says a player is a 4* athlete doesn't make it so.
 
#3,025
#3,025
cncchris33 said:
Well saying those two underachieved is my point. They were never as talented as the services said they were. Call them busts if you want, because that's what they were. Just because so and so recruiting service says a player is a 4* athlete doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...

My point is you can't call Martin the "do more with less" guy when he can't get the talent out of these players. Hall and Woolridge had the tools to be successful, didn't happen. Golden and Stokes have also struggled mightily in long stretches this season. McRae is the only player in the last two years that has exceeded expectations.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top