Frank Martin has never impressed me at all. He is not getting it done at usc.....they could do better imo. He simply is one of these guys who has just been lucky to get jobs. Huggins left k state and he had just help land beasely so he got the job...then had couple avg seasons and bolted...sub par at usc and no fan interest.
USC getting drilled in nit
- Thread starter tank2009
- Start date
Well he did have K-State in the Elite Eight in 2010. They hadn't been there since 1988 when they had Mitch Richmond in their program at the time. And Bruce Weber has gotten them quite a ways away from that level after taking over for Martin. As far as South Carolina goes, he did take over a team that went 10-21 the year before he took over and lost Anthony Gill as a transfer to Virginia. Gill has become a solid jack of all trades, master of none type player at UVA. It generally takes three, four years to build a program back up. He's in year four and got them 24 wins, although the collapse down the stretch and disappointing NIT finish certainly dampens what was otherwise a nice year for him and South Carolina.
They won 25 games this year, pretty darn good. They need more offensive minded players, they play hard nosed defense.
If this SC team was in the BIG12, they'd have been a 4 or 5 seed. Don't let it fool you, the media slant has a lot to do with it.
Media bias had a lot to do with them getting spanked at home by 14-loss Georgia Tech?
I'm not talking game to game, just the way it starts every year.
How about the big12 underperforming yearly, I mean, yearly, when it really matters, but the media starts the hype as soon as the year starts the next season.
Im not saying the SEC is the best, but its nowhere near as bad as the media makes it out, and I'd honestly say the SEC road games are as tough or tougher than anywhere in some cases.
It's not a **** league as the perception would have you think. Ask Cal, he went undefeated for FOUR YEARS in the CUSA, cannot buy road wins in the SEC, and the media would have you think we aren't any better than the AAC. It's BS. I don't care who's brainwash by it.
Not surprised we lost bad. After not getting an ncaa bid I expected them to pack it in. We were good enough to just show up and win the first game, but going through the motions against a middle of the pack acc school would get us beat. It did. Regarding fan support at basketball, fair or not it's only going to be good when we are winning. Look at the womens team. Averaging 15,000 a game, best in country. 6 years ago lucky to have 1000 people for a game. I don't know about Frank Martin. Ultimately,the best move we could have made or could make us to hire one of our own, Greg Marshall.
Lol.
Easy to rack up a ton of wins playing nobody.
This team was never as good as people made them out to be.
Glad the committee picked Vandy over them. One thing they got right
Wait a minute here. Look at his record since he got to SC. He has gotten better every year, and made a huge improvement this year. His teams play hard. I think the guys s good coach, and I disagree with your opinion.
So they struggled in league play in the SEC, but somehow they would go to a more competitive league and be better? I get it, you think the big 12 gets to much attention--and you can point to tourney success as your rallying point.....but what those teams did was schedule a tough non-con and rack up some really solid wins. Then they grind against a league that has 70% tourney teams. Your regular season resume gets you in the tourney---it certainly doesn't predict tourney success, but it validates them being in there. The big12 has a multitude of teams that have wildly different playing styles which is helpful come tourney time. Hype only goes so far and then you have to earn it.
The SEC was not that good which again is why I say that Kentucky's problems in the interior were masked for much of the season.
I was curious about this, so decided to look at the past 5 tournaments and see how Big12 teams fared based on their seed:
2012
Kansas (2 Seed) - made it further than expected
Missouri (2 Seed) - did not make it as far as expected
Baylor (3 Seed) - made it further than seed line
Iowa State (8 Seed) - made it as far as expected
Kansas State (8 Seed) - made it as far as expected
Texas (11 seed) - made it as far as expected
2013
Kansas (1 Seed) - did not make it as far as expected
Kansas State (4 Seed) - did not make it as far as expected
Oklahoma State (5 Seed) - did not make it as far as expected
Iowa State (10 Seed) - made it further than expected
Oklahoma (10 Seed) - did not make it as far as expected
2014
Kansas (2 Seed) - did not make it as far as expected
Iowa State (3 Seed) - made it as far as expected
Oklahoma (5 Seed) - did not make it as far as expected
Baylor (6 Seed) - made it further than expected
Texas (7 Seed) - made it as far as expected
Oklahoma State (9 Seed) - made it as far as expected
Kansas State (9 Seed) - made it as far as expected
2015
Kansas (2 Seed) - did not make it as far as expected
Oklahoma (3 Seed) - made it as far as expected
Baylor (3 Seed) - did not make it as far as expected
Iowa State (3 Seed) - did not make it as far as expected
West Virginia (5 Seed) - made it as far as expected
Oklahoma State (9 Seed) - made it as far as expected
Texas (11 Seed) - made it as far as expected
2016
Kansas (1 Seed) - made it as far as expected
Oklahoma (2 Seed) - made it as far as expected
West Virginia (3 Seed) - did not make it as far as expected
Iowa State (4 Seed) - made it as far as expected
Baylor (5 Seed) - did not make it as far as expected
Texas (6 Seed) - did not make it as far as expected
Texas Tech (8 Seed) - did not make it as far as expected
So, based on 32 Big12 teams making the tournament over the past 5 years, here is how they have done (I based this years tournament on where we are now, but if Oklahoma and Kansas don't perform up to their seed line, then the numbers could change)
4 teams made it further than expected based on seed line
15 teams made is as far as expected based on their seed line
13 teams did not make it as far as expected based on their seed line
So, 19 of their 32 teams made it as far as what their seed line predicted or further than their seed line predicted. There are probably a lot of different ways to look at how successful conferences were, this was the quickest and easiest way for me to do it. I might take a look at the other conferences over the same time period and see how they fared.
No offense, but I'm not buying your list. When you claimed Duke doesn't get easy roads, you kind of lost cred. You brought up teams like Purdue, and conveniently left out Purdue had lost its best player. You added teams like gonzaga, and conveniently left out that gonzaga is the poster child for underperforming and racking mid major wins. I'll cut it there.
The big12 super underachieves. If you don't get it, it's not my problem.
Not sure why you're not buying my list. It was an easy thing to look up. You simply look up what seed the team is and how far they made it in the tournament. For example, a 4 seed should make it to the Sweet 16, a 2 seed to the Elite Eight...this is all based on seed. The fact that at times I use facts instead of opinion is what people don't like.
It's a fact of evidence that Duke has had tough roads because they played Purdue, even though Purdue didn't have its best player? It was just conveniently decided they'd play Duke, but no problem?
Ok.
I'm not even sure what post you're referring to right now to be honest. I would comment on it if I knew. If I referred to a post about Purdue when Hummel (I aim assuming that is who you are talking about) was hurt, then yes, I would have taken it into consideration if I knew that)
As for this post, I was addressing the opinion that the Big12 underperforms every year. Going by seed line, they don't. As i said in my original post in here, there are probably a million ways to look at a conferences performance in the tournament. I quickly looked at what seed the team was and how far they advanced in the tournament. 19 of those 32 teams advanced to the point they should have or past the point they should have.
lol why am I not shocked by this.
People remember the massive fails more than the actual successes.
Good work.
EEEEERRRRRRR BT, you made a long winded post about Duke getting fair roads and cited seeding, putting no real thought into it, not realizing listing teams like Purdue, Villanova, and Gonzaga, not to mention Oregon, weren't a good case to make. I don't even think you reserched it enough to realize Purdue had just lost Robbie Hummel, and somehow, just out of nowhere, gets paired with Duke. SHOCKER.
gonzaga? Hilarious.
Oregon - even funnier
Villanova - please.
The problem with a few of you and your "facts" are college basketball is extremely subjective. Facts can be skewed any number of ways. You can't just point to a seed and say HA! it doesn't work like that.
Tho if we are really looking at conference strength I still think you have to look at the entire conference.
Which teams perform better than expected in the tourny is alot different that what conference is the strongest. One is just about a subset of teams.
Which teams perform better than expected in the tourny is alot different that what conference is the strongest. One is just about a subset of teams.
I don't remember making a post about Duke getting fair roads across the board (not saying I didn't make a long rambling post on the topic, i do that sometimes). I am sure I have commented that Duke doesn't always get the easy road as many post, but at times, yes, they get a higher seed than they should and an easier bracket. This year is the perfect example.
I agree 100% that facts can be skewed in a number of ways. It's like the good ol' "they took more free throws than us, so we must be getting screwed by the officials" argument.
I will admit that I am not one to think the world is out to get us and the world is out to protect every other program. And at times, those are the posts I disagree with and if I just said, "No, the Big 12 doesn't under-perform as much as you say they do", as you says, it's subjective. So, I usually do a few minutes of research before posting to see what the info says. If the poster I am debating with has info to the contrary, i have no problem changing my tune. But if the poster I am debating with just says, "That's wrong" based on opinion, then i will continue to disagree with them. This is the case with the Big12. I actually thought you were right when you said that and was going to look at how bad it really was and post that info. Something tells me if I would have found that 19 of the 32 teams under-performed, then you might have agreed with my information.
I've always enjoyed bringing a perspective that is different than 90% of this board. I love my Wildcats, don't wear the blue-tinted glasses, and have no problem posting in such a manner. But I also love debating in a civil manner with a poster like you, who has the exact opposite outlook than I do...that is what makes this board fun.
I think Martin has done a good job at SC. They were a decent team this year, but got fat off of cupcakes. After we went to their house and stomped them, they were never the same team. Had they not gone on that late losing streak they probably wouldve made the tournament.
I can't even knock Martin and SC, at least they had some excitement to their team. I seem to recall them having a few sellouts, or close to full, even when UK wasn't there. So at least they had some fan interest going. Martin is not an elite coach, and SC is not an elite school. But if he can keep fan interest up and win some 20 games, most seasons, then I'd consider that solid. If only some other schools would put some effort into hoops.
I can't even knock Martin and SC, at least they had some excitement to their team. I seem to recall them having a few sellouts, or close to full, even when UK wasn't there. So at least they had some fan interest going. Martin is not an elite coach, and SC is not an elite school. But if he can keep fan interest up and win some 20 games, most seasons, then I'd consider that solid. If only some other schools would put some effort into hoops.