So unranked preseason and finished Top 25 with a Sweet 16.
You realize you are still making my point. He over achieved.
If he failed so did Barnes.
Tougher SOS with less talent. 4 more losses. Only two less wins. Got further in the tourney which is the part that actually counts to anyone who knows anything about college bball.
Tyndall made what Barnes inherited. You can flip a bball roster in one year.
Zo did inherit a similar situation. That is why they were picked last or next to last. No returning scorer over 3.3 ppg.
Barnes and Zo had the same expectations their first year. Zo just like Barnes beat them each year.
By year three both had developed the young players. But for some strange reason people think Zo should have went to the tourney every year while they developed but not Barnes.
Barnes has more good players. If Martin should have went to more tourneys Barnes should have.
Neither are true though.
And let's not even start with the posters that kept on about Tyndall being a better coach.
He was garbage on offense and defense.
You are right about one thing. He isn't well liked. It wasn't because of results though.
If so people would hate Barnes too. Pretty comparable first three years. Except for Martin winning more the first two years. Got snubbed for a bid in his second year.
19-15 NIT 2nd SEC picked bottom two
20-13 NIT 5th SEC without best player
24-13 Sweet 16 not ranked preseason 4TH SEC
15-19 12th SEC
16-16 9th SEC
26-9 Round of 32 1st SEC
The results definitely aren't the reason for the hate.