Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 59101112131415
Results 141 to 147 of 147
  1. #141

    Join Date
    July 11, 2001
    Posts
    18,411
    Quote Originally Posted by RapmasterAC View Post
    Oklahoma has 27 bids, 19th all-time. At our rate you're looking at about 170 years to reach that level. We're not on their level.
    I never suggested that we are on the same level as Oklahoma. I suggested that Oklahoma is not a "Traditional Power" in NCAA Men's BB.

    I agree with you that it technically shouldn't be that hard...but the point of my random stats is that for those of us at the bottom, it often is that hard.

    You don't just fall into the tournament with the natural ebb and flow of players. Life happens, as we're all too aware here. I mean how many upperclassmen-laden teams have we had in the last decade? We have a single bid to show for it. Do you think Rutgers hasn't had any senior-laden teams since 1991?
    My point was that a lot of that poor fortune is self-inflicted.

    I also think it depends on your conference strength. From 2005-2013, the ACC accounted for 6 of the 22 at-larges awarded to the bottom 25% of high-majors. I don't think it was a coincidence considering the ACC was pretty wide open after Duke and UNC.

    By the same token, the bottom 1/3 of the Big East juggernaut earned 2 bids in 9 years. We get to operate with the same conditions as those schools starting next year.
    I can't tell if you're saying that the ACC is too tough as a conference to get at-large bids or too easy as conference to earn at-large bids. It feels like you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

    It's not as hard as you make it out to be to get into the tournament. You'll see.
    There's a difference between a "fact" and an "opinion that you agree with."

  2. #142

    Join Date
    September 23, 2002
    Posts
    17,570
    Quote Originally Posted by RapmasterAC View Post
    You don't just fall into the tournament with the natural ebb and flow of players.
    I don't know. It seems to me that, with the exception of a handful of power conference schools (VT, Penn St, Nebraska, DePaul, Northwestern and maybe a couple others)...you kind of DO just fall into the tournament with the natural ebb and flow of players (or time or luck or whatever). Heck, even Penn St was just in the tournament a couple of years ago. USF was in it last year.

    The major conference schools that are routinely missing the tournament for entire recruiting classes are really sort of defying the odds. You have to almost want to fail that consistently. Or at least very aggressively not care if you're succeeding.

  3. #143
    RapmasterAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 09, 2003
    Location
    Topic View
    Posts
    10,412
    What I've learned from researching the bottom of high-major conferences is you need a truly legit head coach (or in Baylor's case, cheat). Here are the coaches from the bottom 25% who made the dance more than once:

    Bobby Knight
    Tubby Smith
    Tony Bennett
    Oliver Purnell
    Scott Drew
    Tad Boyle

  4. #144

    Join Date
    July 11, 2001
    Posts
    18,411
    Quote Originally Posted by Gobbler-100 View Post
    I don't know. It seems to me that, with the exception of a handful of power conference schools (VT, Penn St, Nebraska, DePaul, Northwestern and maybe a couple others)...you kind of DO just fall into the tournament with the natural ebb and flow of players (or time or luck or whatever). Heck, even Penn St was just in the tournament a couple of years ago. USF was in it last year.

    The major conference schools that are routinely missing the tournament for entire recruiting classes are really sort of defying the odds. You have to almost want to fail that consistently. Or at least very aggressively not care if you're succeeding.
    This is exactly what I was trying to say, only much more poorly.

    That's why I don't think it's going to take a gigantic overhaul at the department level to start making the tournament. I think caring *at all* at the department level will be enough to get us in the natural ebb and flow tournament-wise that 95% of non "traditional power" high-major teams enjoy. Any commitment to the sport beyond that would be gravy, IMHO.

    Rev. Zeke had a really good position the Sub board when solicited for his opinion on CC's also excellent article. The climb might be uphill and challenging, but to suggest that the odds are overwhelmingly long or that the effort is futile is an exaggeration and only creates a self-reinforcing bias (Well, it's impossible, so why try?), again IMHO.
    There's a difference between a "fact" and an "opinion that you agree with."

  5. #145
    RapmasterAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 09, 2003
    Location
    Topic View
    Posts
    10,412
    Quote Originally Posted by Groff View Post
    I never suggested that we are on the same level as Oklahoma. I suggested that Oklahoma is not a "Traditional Power" in NCAA Men's BB.

    My point was that a lot of that poor fortune is self-inflicted.

    I can't tell if you're saying that the ACC is too tough as a conference to get at-large bids or too easy as conference to earn at-large bids. It feels like you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

    It's not as hard as you make it out to be to get into the tournament. You'll see.
    Oklahoma isn't a blue-blood, but yeah they're light-years ahead of us. They actually care about hoops.

    The ACC WAS easy to get bids out of from 2005 to about 2011 or so if you were so inclined. The quality of coaches was down and opportunity was there. Unfortunately we blew our shot, and now not only have the ACC schools hired better coaches, we're about to experience the Big East Part 2: Tranghese's Revenge. Like I said before, the bottom five schools in the Big East earned 2 bids in 9 years.

  6. #146
    RapmasterAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 09, 2003
    Location
    Topic View
    Posts
    10,412
    Quote Originally Posted by Gobbler-100 View Post
    I don't know. It seems to me that, with the exception of a handful of power conference schools (VT, Penn St, Nebraska, DePaul, Northwestern and maybe a couple others)...you kind of DO just fall into the tournament with the natural ebb and flow of players (or time or luck or whatever). Heck, even Penn St was just in the tournament a couple of years ago. USF was in it last year.

    The major conference schools that are routinely missing the tournament for entire recruiting classes are really sort of defying the odds. You have to almost want to fail that consistently. Or at least very aggressively not care if you're succeeding.
    For the most part, I don't think the VT faithful care.

    For the most part, I don't think the VT faithful have the deep pockets to afford top-level coaches in both revenue sports.

    We know the athletic department, as currently constituted, doesn't care enough to reverse our history in hoops.

    Quote Originally Posted by Groff View Post
    The climb might be uphill and challenging, but to suggest that the odds are overwhelmingly long or that the effort is futile is an exaggeration and only creates a self-reinforcing bias (Well, it's impossible, so why try?), again IMHO.
    Fortunately I don't occupy any position of power to change things at VT so I can be as negative as I want without any repercussions . Obviously I hope anybody who does is approaching things in a positive, forward-thinking manner.

  7. #147

    Join Date
    July 11, 2001
    Posts
    18,411
    Quote Originally Posted by RapmasterAC View Post
    For the most part, I don't think the VT faithful care.
    They've scarce had a reason to care, that said.

    For the most part, I don't think the VT faithful have the deep pockets to afford top-level coaches in both revenue sports.
    No, but the VT faithful have numbers. To me, this is one of the biggest failures of the Hokie Club. They are so focused on squeezing money out of such a small percentage of total alumni, the "deep pockets" - who honestly don't even have that deep of pockets compared to peer institution.

    We have an undergraduate student body in the area of 27,000 students. We're graduating as many as 7,000 new Hokie alumni every single year, and it seems like no effort is being made to get these people into the fold. We can make up for in "quality" (for lack of a better word) through what we have in quantity. I argue it's easier to get $20 out of 50 people than it is $1000 out of one.

    Also, raising the student athletic fee by just $37 would bring in an extra $1,000,000 in revenue - combined with JJs current salary would be more than enough to hire an ACC-level coach.

    Again, I swear this isn't as hard as we're making it.
    There's a difference between a "fact" and an "opinion that you agree with."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •