I don't think it was luck with Staley. She was a proven winner as a coach.
If Tanner had succeeded as AD, that would have been luck.
Is it fair to judge Frank by the tournament standard?
- Thread starter JDishnell
- Start date
I don't think it was luck with Staley. She was a proven winner as a coach.
If Tanner had succeeded as AD, that would have been luck.
Don't forget it was Tanner that kept her here, ohio state came after her hard.
If making the NCAA tournament is not your primary performance goal, what are your measures?
Winning the SEC regular season title, winning the SEC tournament, finishing in the AP top 25, finishing with a winning conference record, finishing with a winning record overall, winning 20 games, beating Clemson, etc., etc.
Maybe the AD’s office can just tell me when I’m supposed to be happy every season.
Winning the SEC regular season title, winning the SEC tournament, finishing in the AP top 25, finishing with a winning conference record, finishing with a winning record overall, winning 20 games, beating Clemson, etc., etc.
Maybe the AD’s office can just tell me when I’m supposed to be happy every season.
Uhhhhhh, prior to Martin taking K-State to the tournament in the 2007-2008 season, they hadn't been since 1996. So your statement is brilliantly false.
Prior to Fogler, Wichita State had made the tournament a grand total of 5 times, so they were hardly a mainstay. He took them 2 out of 3 seasons. After he left in 1989, they didn't make it back until 2006. So you can hardly say he didn't have anything to with them making the tournament. He did take over a good program from Newton at Vandy and went to 2 NCATT in 4 seasons. However, when he left, they only went to 1 NCAAT in the next 10 seasons. The "he was only successful b/c they were already good" excuse simply does not work. Other coaches went to those programs and were not successful. So your statement is, again, false.
Regarding Odom, the barometer for success that is being argued is not 20 win seasons. It is NCAAT appearances.
The simple fact is that we have had 3 coaches with very successful records and strong track records of making the NCAAT. Not a one of them was able to duplicate their success here.
Again I ask: what's the common denominator?
Huggins set him up, took them to the NIT gave him Beasley and Walker, it's just a simple fact. Huggins set Martin up to succeed. Huggins did more in 1 year at that program than anyone. He brought in his brand and brought in players. Showed with the right coach was there players would come. Martin did a good job of keeping the success going. Credit to him for that. But Martin isn't a program builder.
As for Fogler at Wichita State, Smithson was 155-81 from 78-86, after taking over a program hovering around .500. Fogler kept it going. It's not a knock on Fogler, but again it's not like he built a program.
Odom didn't get to the NCAAs but once, no arguing that. He did have four 20 win season, second only to McGuire. He was also 59 when he came and was at the end of his career for the most part. He also took us to the post season and brought some hardware, just did nothing with it to advance the program.
So as for your comment, I guess we should just be happy with mediocrity because it cant be done here. After all, Carolina is the reason we cant succeed, right? Never mind other programs with similar history have done it.
Last edited:
I'm just asking a simple question: we've had 3 coaches come here (from 3 different conferences) with a strong track record of success and making the NCAAT and failed to replicate their success here, so what's the common denominator?
This reminds me of an analogy and comparison Bill Simmons made in his "The Big Book of Basketball."
He was reflecting on the long-term success of the Utah Jazz under John Stockton and Karl Malone...which of course, included zero NBA championships. He was wondering whether fans would prefer a 15 year stretch of always contending for the NBA Western Division Championship, winning 50+ games, with zero NBA championships...OR...having a wildly inconsistent franchise that produced one transcendent year (an NBA championship)
I'll leave out the funny part about where he compared these two scenarios to sex...you'll have to check that one for yourself.
I'd be interested in seeing a list of all the programs with a history like ours (9 tournament appearances all-time) who have "done it." You must consider all factors, including geographical proximity to powerhouse programs.
Again look at what Baylor did, with arguably a worse history than ours.
So to clarify your stance. Because we have been so bad in the past, we should just accept we can never move past it and just be happy with a poor post season ratio moving forward?
So to clarify your stance. Because we have been so bad in the past, we should just accept we can never move past it and just be happy with a poor post season ratio moving forward?
Geographically, what is the closest powerhouse program to Baylor?
For point of reference, we live within 3 1/2 hours of 2 programs who are in the top 5 for number of tournament appearances and both are top 4 for number of titles won.
Last edited:
I'm not regurgitating anything. I'm also making the statement without regard for our history.
These are the mile markers for success in college basketball. How successful do you want to be? I would accept making the tournament over 50% of the time as an indicator of a successful (not "elite") program.
These are the mile markers for success in college basketball. How successful do you want to be? I would accept making the tournament over 50% of the time as an indicator of a successful (not "elite") program.
That is a different sport... so the question he asked has still not been addressed.
Guess pretty much everyone on the east coast should also accept being mediocre? Texas/Oklahoma both have pretty solid programs. Kansas would be your closest power house, but is a haul from Waco, most everything west of the Mississippi is a haul.
Nothing about your Huggins comment “ it is a simple fact. Huggins set Martin up to succeed” is actually a “fact”. It is true that some of the kids Martin coached after Huggins left were recruited while Huggins was there. Applying any additional success had after Huggins left to him and detracting from the success Martin had is totally your subjective OPINION and not fact. The FACT is that Jdish was right- they had not been to the dance since the 90s until Martin took over then he did have sustained success there for most of his tenure. The FACTS are not subjective... Applying credit where it may or may not be due to suit your argument is OPINION. I am not going to take a side on who is right or wrong, just like to clear up the difference because in these discussions people so often misrepresent something as fact when it is not to add import to their opinions.
I'm still looking for a reasonable explanation as to how we could bring in 3 successful coaches from 3 different conferences (SEC, ACC, Big 12), each with a track record of taking their teams to the tournament, with each one of them failing to replicate their success here. If it were one coach, you'd write that off as a fluke. But 3? All of whom had been to multiple NCAATs?
Each of these hires, at the time they were made, were considered good hires (though I personally was adamantly against Odom since Bob Knight was available, he was still a very good coach at Wake).
Each of these hires, at the time they were made, were considered good hires (though I personally was adamantly against Odom since Bob Knight was available, he was still a very good coach at Wake).
Yes after giving Huggins credit for the success initially. Again- right or wrong, inferring that it is a “fact” Martin was successful because he was set up for it by a coach who was not part of the staff during his tenure is not correct. Is it likely that having Huggins there for a year prior to him taking over helped him? Sure it is likely... but there is no quantifiable way to say whether or not his success was in any way tied to Huggins “setting him up”. That is my point... Just saying to be careful what you call a fact when arguing with someone as miss-identifying a fact can leave an easy opening to dispute and dismiss a great deal of what you are saying.
What's your point as it relates to being fairly close geographically to UNC and Duke? USC doesn't compete with them for players and doesn't need to in order to get the level of players necessary for more than 1 tourney in 8 years.
I get that history can play a role in how good a job can be - more positive history, more to sell to recruits. However, history is no match for a great coach. Saw something the other night that Wichita State had eleven 20-win seasons in the 100 years of basketball prior to Marshall, and this season is now the 11th 20-win season in a row under Marshall.
I think it was earlier in this same thread I posted a linger version of this but the reasons are multiple why we do not have sustained success and a vast majority of it revolves around recruiting. 1. You have to pay to play in this league. If you aren’t cheating to get recruits all you get is the leftovers after the blue bloods buy all the good players. 2. Your coach has to be amenable to playing an exciting brand of ball kids today will want to play for (IOW not a defense first scheme) and he has to be willing to put up with a certain amount of ego fueled Bs from those players. 3. You have to spend as much as the competition is spending on recruiting. We do not. We spend “a lot” but MBB and FB both lag behind what successful programs spend... Beyond that- we have a TON of competition for recruits from ACC schools- 5 within North and South Carolina alone and another ACC school in Atl... not to mention UGA, UF, UT... Who are in our conference and as good or much better than us historically who will happily reach into SC to recruit... that puts us around the 8th or 9th best option to go play for within a 2-3 state radius. Ouch...
How many schools of that group “cheat”. All of them do on some level... Every school does... we know FOR A FACT that UNC is the poster child of NCAA violations locally, and yet they have had zero impact from those actions... Plenty of smoke around clemzun (more for FB than BB) and Duke too... Anybody think another SEC team pretty clise to us- AUBURN with Bruce Pearl- is playing above board? I mean I can go on... the disadvantages here are many and the advantages over our rivals in MBB especially are few is they exist at all.
That is why we cannot sustain success here... i am not endorsing that we cheat but simply answering the question of why we do not have more success. If the NCAA was bot some worthless, feckless enforcement agency and addressed the rampant cheating in a meaningful way that slowed it down, we could maybe at least be on the same page as our competition... Until then, we can run a clean program and lose or... Consider the alternatives.
All of the Power 5 coaches are overpaid in the major sports as are many executives across the land. I know - market driven! Tired of hearing that.
What will the feeling here be if Darrin Horn's team makes the tournament?
What will the feeling here be if Darrin Horn's team makes the tournament?
Well, it is certainly accurate to say we don't compete with Duke and UNC for players. Frank's recruiting is another issue entirely as we've begun losing in-state players to comparable or worse SEC programs. However, just about any elite player in the region is going to go somewhere other than USC, quite often that ends up being Duke or UNC. That absolutely impacts or program's success.
Absolutely incorrect to say that we do not compete with UNC and Duke for players. Seventh Woods AND ZION were both SC boys who considered staying home seriously but followed the more “sure thing”- cheating fueled success- available at the schools you said we are not competing for players with. Seventh has since transferred back here, we all know what Zion did... Had those two players been HERE last year you don’t think it would have changed the course of the season? If we had made the tourney last year, had just sent the top draft pick to the NBA and had the exact same season going right now do we even have this conversation happening about Martin? No way to know but I suspect things may have been a bit different....
Lifer, you think Virginia is an exception? Their style of ball doesn't fit in with the highlight reel type of ball most kids and fans like (but this an old high school coach here loves that style of team play) and I don't believe they cheat. They do not go after the OADs or at least they don't get them.
I don't think there was any indication Zion seriously considered us.
I think his bigger point is this: when is the last time we went head-to-head with either Duke or UNC for a recruit and actually won?
Duke wasn't near the top of the list until late in Zion's recruitment. Maybe Duke waited to up the ante. $$$.
And they never get caught.
And they never get caught.
Odom was old and not a great hire for what was basically a rebuild. Good coach - past his prime. Needed someone with more energy.
Fogler got to two tourneys in his first five years (2 and 3 seeds), but clearly didn't have any interest in continuing to coach after those trips. He mailed it in like Spurrier at the end. I think climbing out of the hole that Steven Newton left took it out of Fogler and he burned out after the two great seasons. He showed it could be done though.
Frank has done some really nice things - nothing like K-State, but K-state never had Darrin Horn run the program into the ground. His problems are his own though, and have nothing to do with USC. When he has players, he wins games. He needs to go get more players.
The coaches are paid very well for the product they put on the court. Is the annual return we are seeing under Martin equal to his salary? Martin had a great two week stretch, those two weeks put us on the same level as Marquette, Duke, and Florida. It was fun! BUT... Since then, show me a bump in recruiting that should have been reflected from the Final Four. Show me contending for an SEC title as a standard, not finishing in the top four of the league (only to not get a tournament invite). Show me that the games in December mean as much as the games in February and March. The fact is had we won the two games against Stetson and Boston, we'd be in the tournament right now most likely 9/10 seed. History has nothing to do with why we aren't winning under Martin. His coaching style can beat teams any given night, but consistently, you're going to be outmatched by talent that he can't recruit. His teams play very undisciplined basketball, hence why teams are doubling up how many foul shots they shoot against us. How about our team with FOUL SHOTS... we rank 345 out of 350 teams! How many games have we lost by less than 10?
Maybe you are right. History is relevant. Martin can't get it done.
I'll answer that question based on something we can all understand - T-shirts.
My final four T-shirts (and hat) rock! I love wearing them to games and everywhere else. A t-shirt that said We Are 0-5 in the NCAAT for the last 7 years would ...ummmm..... suck.
There was actually plenty of smoke with Zion... Maybe he did not ever take us as serious as Duke obviously but he played the recruiting game with us, entertained Martin, had us near the top of his list enough that we were still somewhat holding our breath when he committed. I recall that day on this very forum being monitored closely... Wishful thinking? Perhaps... I felt- all thing being equal- he would have preferred to come here. But as indicated in my previous posts all things are NOT equal and he went where the money took him- sneaker money, or “bag” money?? and more exposure....
The most recent time we won that battle was against UNC for Thornwell. He was not a “top” priority for them but he was being recruited by them and their coach talked with him one day about his goals and the kind of instruction/ coaching he wanted and the UNC coach all but told him to come here to play for Martin (according to recruiting lore...).
Dish, let's be honest. You are:
A)Friends with Frank Martin.
B)Friends with Ray Tanner.
C)A University employee.
D) Frank or Ray played golf with you or said hi on Gibbes Green and you got their autograph.
No one wastes this much of their life being an apologist for past and future failure of our athletic programs. Just tell us the truth.
A)Friends with Frank Martin.
B)Friends with Ray Tanner.
C)A University employee.
D) Frank or Ray played golf with you or said hi on Gibbes Green and you got their autograph.
No one wastes this much of their life being an apologist for past and future failure of our athletic programs. Just tell us the truth.
The tournament is the only thing that matters. But if it makes you comfortable, his teams also fail the eye test. I see a team that is inconsistent every year. They always start slow and always go on a short run and then the run falls apart and they miss the tournament. The Final Four runs was great and we'll always remember it, but I certainly don't see it happening again.
I would not expect anyone on here to follow anyone else's post history, but mine would show extensive criticism of Frank for a variety of reasons. I'm just capable of having a discussion to consider other points of view.
well said. People are so combative here when we disagree. I enjoy getting in the fray a bit and arguing different points of view... It is nice to see both sides of things when trying to make your mind up and it leads to a more fruitful, informative conversation when people are not just spraying identical ideas into an echo chamber.
I suppose my frustration with this discussion is that fun arguments aside, so many gamecocks, some I know, believe we cannot compete in football/basketball....ever again.
Similar threads
