Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 345678910111213 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 122
  1. #81

    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Posts
    2,604
    Quote Originally Posted by Guy LeDouche View Post
    I don't know the exact details, but there was some family issues. (IIRC, momma wasn't happy)
    Correct...momma wasn't happy and threatened to go public with some not so flattering bahavior of Seth.

  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by HokieJamie View Post
    And Seth's track record at his 2 previous stops was he didn't make the tourney. He was consistent


    And Raines just tweeted he misses Seth
    I believe you are mistaken about Seth's track record. He took Long Beach State to the NCAA Tournament twice (1992-93 season and 1994-95 season).

  3. #83

    Join Date
    October 08, 1999
    Location
    Elkridge MD
    Posts
    21,003
    Quote Originally Posted by VTHokie2000 View Post
    I believe you are mistaken about Seth's track record. He took Long Beach State to the NCAA Tournament twice (1992-93 season and 1994-95 season).
    I see his track record as doing pretty well in bad situations, at least in terms of winning games, but not so good at making the tournament.

    He was head coach at Long Beach State for 6 years. He had 5 winning seasons (83% of the years he was there) and 2 NCAA tournaments.
    In the 10 years before he got there, LBS had 2 winning seasons (20%) and no NCAA tournaments (0%).
    In the 10 years after he was there LBS had 2 winning seasons (20%) and no NCAA tournaments (0%).

    He was head coach at USF for 7 years. In those years he had 5 winning seasons (71%) [along with a .500 season] and 0 NCAA tournaments (0%).
    In the 10 years before he got there USF had 4 winning seasons (40%) and 1 NCAA tournament (10%).
    In the 10 years since he was there USF has 2 winning seasons (20%) and 1 NCAA tournament (10%).

    He was head coach at VT for 9 years. In those years he had 7 winning seasons (78%) and 1 NCAA tournament (11%).
    In the 10 years before he got there VT had 3 winning seasons (30%) and 1 NCAA tournament (10%).

    Overall: he took over 3 programs that had a combined 9 winning seasons in 30 years (30%) in the decade preceding his arrival at each school. And he put up winning seasons in 17 of his 25 seasons at those schools (68%). In the decade after leaving those schools (with our decade obviously far from complete) the teams put up 4 winning seasons out of 21 (18%).

    So if you are going to evaluate his track record it is that each team he has coached has done significantly better under him than preceeding coaches, and so far the programs he left have not done well after his departure. He has generally brought a winning record to programs that lacked that for a significant time period before he was there, and the programs thus far have been unable to duplicate it after he left either. But his track record at qualifying for the NCAA tournament is not very good.
    SteveA

  4. #84

    Join Date
    December 22, 2002
    Posts
    4,351
    All of this "program had negative momentum" stuff is ridiculous. Yes, we were a .500 ball club in 11-12, but we played nearly everybody tough that year. The years before that, we had won 22, 25, 21, 19, and 22 games respectively. Anyhow, we were winning 25 games in up year and 15 games in down years, which is pretty dang good in the ACC by any objective standards. Additionally, the last two classes SG signed were two of the top three ever at VT. Furthermore, I honest to goodness have NEVER seen a program suffer so many injuries, illnesses, deaths, heart problems, family member deaths, as what VT experienced SG's last 5 or 6 seasons. Imagine a healthy Chaney, or that Gillchrist idiot that left because of 4/16, on any of those Delaney and Allen squads. We would have made at least one or two runs at the Sweet 16 IMO.

    And with regard to transfers, they are simply becoming a part of the game everywhere, other than UNC, Duke, or Kentucky. I don't know what to make of that phenomena, but it isn't something that was exclusive to VT or SG. Heck, we've got a guy on the team now who simply won't play. Even though he's a scholarship player.

    There's no doubt in my mind that VT with Harrell last season and coached by SG would have faired better than 13-19.

  5. #85
    Pylons's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 25, 2005
    Posts
    7,003
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckd4vt View Post
    All of this "program had negative momentum" stuff is ridiculous. Yes, we were a .500 ball club in 11-12, but we played nearly everybody tough that year. The years before that, we had won 22, 25, 21, 19, and 22 games respectively. Anyhow, we were winning 25 games in up year and 15 games in down years, which is pretty dang good in the ACC by any objective standards. Additionally, the last two classes SG signed were two of the top three ever at VT. Furthermore, I honest to goodness have NEVER seen a program suffer so many injuries, illnesses, deaths, heart problems, family member deaths, as what VT experienced SG's last 5 or 6 seasons. Imagine a healthy Chaney, or that Gillchrist idiot that left because of 4/16, on any of those Delaney and Allen squads. We would have made at least one or two runs at the Sweet 16 IMO.

    And with regard to transfers, they are simply becoming a part of the game everywhere, other than UNC, Duke, or Kentucky. I don't know what to make of that phenomena, but it isn't something that was exclusive to VT or SG. Heck, we've got a guy on the team now who simply won't play. Even though he's a scholarship player.

    There's no doubt in my mind that VT with Harrell last season and coached by SG would have faired better than 13-19.
    We were a just below 0.500 overall ballclub that finished tied for last in the ACC. I'm not sure how you paint last in the league as positive.

    Did we have close games and injuries? We did.

    We finished last. We weren't hopeless or anything, but I don't think it's ridiculous to think there was a fair amount of negative floating around.

    Before that season, we watched the previous "best class ever" fail to make the tournament. Wanna cry "snub!"?? ok. We still failed to make the tournament.

    There was a lot of discontent at that point. You're free to argue that it wasn't justified, but we had lost a lot of fans and a lot of the ones still around were getting fairly disgruntled.

    There was "Seth is a turnaround guy and he's done what he can do, it's time to move on" and there was "Seth is a really good coach who finally is in a place where he can have real success...we've just been held back by injuries, snubs, etc." Neither was definitively right...I was more in the former camp, but I certainly get the latter sentiment.

  6. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveInBaltimore View Post
    I see his track record as doing pretty well in bad situations, at least in terms of winning games, but not so good at making the tournament.

    He was head coach at Long Beach State for 6 years. He had 5 winning seasons (83% of the years he was there) and 2 NCAA tournaments.
    In the 10 years before he got there, LBS had 2 winning seasons (20%) and no NCAA tournaments (0%).
    In the 10 years after he was there LBS had 2 winning seasons (20%) and no NCAA tournaments (0%).

    He was head coach at USF for 7 years. In those years he had 5 winning seasons (71%) [along with a .500 season] and 0 NCAA tournaments (0%).
    In the 10 years before he got there USF had 4 winning seasons (40%) and 1 NCAA tournament (10%).
    In the 10 years since he was there USF has 2 winning seasons (20%) and 1 NCAA tournament (10%).

    He was head coach at VT for 9 years. In those years he had 7 winning seasons (78%) and 1 NCAA tournament (11%).
    In the 10 years before he got there VT had 3 winning seasons (30%) and 1 NCAA tournament (10%).

    Overall: he took over 3 programs that had a combined 9 winning seasons in 30 years (30%) in the decade preceding his arrival at each school. And he put up winning seasons in 17 of his 25 seasons at those schools (68%). In the decade after leaving those schools (with our decade obviously far from complete) the teams put up 4 winning seasons out of 21 (18%).

    So if you are going to evaluate his track record it is that each team he has coached has done significantly better under him than preceeding coaches, and so far the programs he left have not done well after his departure. He has generally brought a winning record to programs that lacked that for a significant time period before he was there, and the programs thus far have been unable to duplicate it after he left either. But his track record at qualifying for the NCAA tournament is not very good.
    3 tournament trips in 18 seasons of coaching. I stick by my point.

    Seth was good at improving teams, but not able to consistently get over the hump.

  7. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by HokieJamie View Post
    3 tournament trips in 18 seasons of coaching. I stick by my point.

    Seth was good at improving teams, but not able to consistently get over the hump.
    But in all fairness there is no science to picking teams for the tourney so, IMO, that's a really bad standard to go by. We all know that qualified teams get bumped every year for teams with "historic" backgrounds.

    It's much, much easier to get a mediocre ACC team into the tourney than a good mid-major. Probably couldn't count the times a team like Maryland, UNC, Kentucky, or Arizona got in on a bad year just because they were who they were.

    I understand that it's a double-standard to say it's easier to get a middle pack ACC team in and VT got snubbed finishing near the top, but VT doesn't exactly carry the clout that a Maryland does. You put SG on a team with a history, finish with the records he did, and see if the teams get snubbed as often. LBS, USF, and VT aren't household BBall teams.

  8. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by StealYourFaceVT View Post
    But in all fairness there is no science to picking teams for the tourney so, IMO, that's a really bad standard to go by. We all know that qualified teams get bumped every year for teams with "historic" backgrounds.

    It's much, much easier to get a mediocre ACC team into the tourney than a good mid-major. Probably couldn't count the times a team like Maryland, UNC, Kentucky, or Arizona got in on a bad year just because they were who they were.

    I understand that it's a double-standard to say it's easier to get a middle pack ACC team in and VT got snubbed finishing near the top, but VT doesn't exactly carry the clout that a Maryland does. You put SG on a team with a history, finish with the records he did, and see if the teams get snubbed as often. LBS, USF, and VT aren't household BBall teams.
    Historically speaking, there are not that many schools from the Big West that are really known (outside of the experts that cover the game) for their basketball. Pacific (when it was a member), Long Beach St, New Mexico St (when it was a member), and Utah St (when it was a member) are probably the only names you will see consistantly show up on any expert's list. Most years the Big West was a 1 bid league, but there were a few years that 2 or even 3 teams got into the field. If Greenberg had remained at Long Beach St and had the patience, then there is a good possibility that he could have built the program to where it was consistantly going to the Big West tournament finals and even winning the tournament a few times. If he had done that enough times, then it isn't unreasonable to assume that Long Beach St wouldn't have a similar reputation to Gonzaga, Butler, St. Mary's, or Wichita St has now. A good way for a mid-major conference to gain exposure is for 1 school (the face of the conference) to dominate its conference and show the rest of the world it can compete against the big boys. Right now no one from the Big West has stepped up and shown it is willing to become the face of the conference similar to what Gonzaga and Butler have done with their respective conferences. Pacific, New Mexico St, and Utah St looked like they were going to become that team, but they eventually moved on to other conferences.

  9. #89
    Pylons's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 25, 2005
    Posts
    7,003
    Quote Originally Posted by StealYourFaceVT View Post
    But in all fairness there is no science to picking teams for the tourney so, IMO, that's a really bad standard to go by. We all know that qualified teams get bumped every year for teams with "historic" backgrounds.
    so what exactly is the "scientific" standard that we should go by?

    Quote Originally Posted by StealYourFaceVT View Post
    It's much, much easier to get a mediocre ACC team into the tourney than a good mid-major. Probably couldn't count the times a team like Maryland, UNC, Kentucky, or Arizona got in on a bad year just because they were who they were.

    I understand that it's a double-standard to say it's easier to get a middle pack ACC team in and VT got snubbed finishing near the top, but VT doesn't exactly carry the clout that a Maryland does. You put SG on a team with a history, finish with the records he did, and see if the teams get snubbed as often. LBS, USF, and VT aren't household BBall teams.
    actually I'd say that in recent years the exact opposite seems to have become true (well, not the "much, much" part...I wouldn't necessarily buy that with the argument in either direction)

  10. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Pylons View Post
    so what exactly is the "scientific" standard that we should go by?
    [TIC AD response] Since the players are "students" first and "athletes" second, then I would think the "scientfic" standard would be the team' graduation rate. Not the number of wins, number of tourament appearences, or the number of big wins.

Posting Permissions

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