Bear Down Wildcats

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

rgdeuce wrote:

PieceOfMeat wrote:Did anyone expect Altman at oregon, or Few at gonzaga, to beat Miller at Arizona to a FF?

Altman has been coaching for 29 years and is a great coach. Few is a very good coach and has had it made playing the system for 18 years at a school that still brings in a lot of talent that sticks around. Kevin Ollie has a national title for crying out loud. Nothing should surprise anyone when it comes to the NCAA tournament.

Few may never leave Gonzaga. It is the gravy train. Virtually no pressure there compared to the brand named majors. The formula is simple: bring in the guys you have been bringing in, get your guy (or two or three) that wants to transfer and win and will be guaranteed big minutes (vs going to a Kansas, Kentucky, AZ, etc), schedule a few tough out of conference games where you will have a distinct advantage early because you will likely have a very experienced team and others will likely be ran by young guys. If you do well in nonconference, you are guaranteed a 1 or 2 seed because you are likely going to only lose one more game the rest of the year. You cant beat that.

I don't know why Few is a shock. In fact, I'd venture he was essentially known as the biggest coach not to make a FF. The talent's been there for a while, and he's really built past the midmajor stigma. Collins was a big time recruit and Few has really cornered the market on decent major recruits who get recruited over.

Altman, they were in the Elite Eight last year and returned basically everyone. Again, not really a stunner. Altman is a legit coach and has Oregon humming along. I would stick by Miller as the best coach in the Pac, but Altman is easily pushing him and definitely #2.

Prior to the tourney there was a twitter poll on the best coach to never make the FF. Few came in first, Miller second. I guess Miller moves to the top of the list.*






*But maybe not if you were to ask certain Arizona fans

rgdeuce wrote:

PieceOfMeat wrote:

Chicat wrote:

az91 wrote:The tournament sure is cruel. Two weeks ago, everyone was praising Miller for his coaching in the face of great adversity. He even won the PAC-12 award for a job well done. Flash forward to today and most of the fan base thinks his coaching sucks.

I find that interesting too. Had Trier's 3 gone down, would Miller suddenly be such a monumentally better coach?

For me, at least, that 3 missing has nothing to do with it. What does have to do with it is needing that shot in the first place, to win. We should have not been in that position.

"oh, but it's the tourney and ..."

yeah, I get it. but after 8 years I feel it's safe to wonder a little about certain things.

::::

Oh look, Frank Martin just took south carolina to the final four, in his 5th year there (10th overall coaching year). Yet another guy I don't think anyone would have picked to get to a FF, at south freakin carolina, before Miller would at Arizona.

South Carolina caught lightning in a bottle. They have two guards who are NBA-level talents (a senior and sophomore), another very good senior and sophomore also start. It took Martin 5 years to take South Carolina to the NCAA tournament. This is year five. At Kansas State he got knocked out in the round of 32 three times and the sweet 16 once. The one year he made it to the elite 8, he got there by beating three mid-majors and he eventually lost to a mid-major.

This is the problem. You cant have your cake and eat it too. The NCAA tournament is a motherf-cker. Bill Self is 2-7 in the elite 8 and he has been a 1 seed seven times. His title run has saved his ass, but take that away for the purpose of this argument, is Kansas still not without a doubt one of the four best programs in the country had they lost in the elite 8 that year instead of winning it all? Every single NCAA team in the country sans Duke, Kentucky and UNC envy Self and Kansas right now to a degree. Even then, Kentucky, Duke and UNC may still have a bit of envy because of their consistent dominance. We are hyperfocused on the final four and putting on blinders to everything else. A single elimination tournament has us talking reckless. Final fours and titles are great and yes, I want one as bad as the next man. Eventually we will get what we want. But I'll be damned if we do it at the cost of bringing in a guy who took 5 years to take a team to the NCAA tournament (and now they are in a final four). Or a Kevin Ollie, who won a championship but in the four other years has failed to make the tournament 3x and lost in the round of 32 the other year. NCAA basketball is bigger than just final fours.

Yes. I'm not sure we wouldn't have fired Sean Miller if he was 4 years in and hadn't made the NCAA tourney.

I'm sorry to keep going back to program health, but we are in a vastly better place overall than UConn and USCeast. A single team can make a huge run, but Miller is at the point where we are making deeper runs year in and year out. The argument about him having a ceiling short of the FF is as valid as it was about Mark Few. Everyone has a ceiling...until they don't. Lately, Kevin Ollie's ceiling has been making the NCAA tourney.

Chicat wrote: I'm reading your posts about who has made the FF. Maybe you're trying to make some point about CSM in relation to some of those coaches and maybe you're not. But if you are, that seems silly.

My posts here about who has made the FF are more in surprise (with a little exasperation perhaps) that certain coaches made it before Miller did. Coaches that I never would ahve guessed would do so before him, and coaches whom I'd wager most wouldn't have guessed would make it before Miller. Thus why I asked if anyone thought they'd make it at the respective schools before Miller did here.

Couldn't take the abuse?

To piggy back off my 2nd to last post.

Think about this: three of the last four years we have had a chance to say, this is the year we cut the nets down. Three out of four years, a good number of experts and analysts said the same. Think about the amount of talent we have lost in those years, nearly all of them early, and the bad luck/injuries. Lets break down each season under Miller, excluding the first because it was clearly a rebuilding year, but still remembering what Miller took over. A program in shambles, cupboard nearly empty, and in year two he was doing what Arizona was doing in the glory days.

2011: The magic elite 8 run, pac 10 title, 30 wins
2012: A "disaster" season after D Will's early departure. Didnt make the NCAA tournament, but still went 23-12 and were ranked as high as 15th. See pretty much anyone else's disaster seasons.
2013: Ranked in top 10 almost the whole season (4 weeks in top 5). 27-8, 2nd in conference, lost a heartbreaker to Ohio State in sweet 16 w a chance to tie it at buzzer.
2014: Only spent 1 week outside the top 5, eight straight weeks as #1. 33-5, conference champions. **Ashley Injury** was probably the ONLY reason that team did not finish the season (and tournament) undefeated. Despite the injury, this was a year WE and many experts still picked us to win it all. Elite 8
2015: Lost Nick Johnson and Aaron Gordon, two guys who would have been All Americans. 10 weeks in the top 5 and didn't spend a single week outside of the top 10. 34-4, conference champions. Elite 8. Again picked by many to cut down the nets.
2016: Considered a "bad year." Lost Ashley, Rondae, Stanley, and TJ (3 NBA guys). Trier and Zeus missed significant time with injuries and Smith goes down for the season. Pitts misses most of season and a transfer we banked on being good was garbage. Still finished 25-9, 3rd in the conference, ranked in top 25 all year (12 weeks top 15, four in top 10) and lost to an underseeded Wichita State team in the round of 64.
2017: Lost Zeus, York, Anderson (3 of our top 4 players), plus Pitts, Simon and Tollefsen. We lose Smith to career-ending injury. Our best player misses first 19 games. Our starting point guard misses a month and Kadeem misses 3 games. We play an extended stretch with 7 scholarship players, four of whom are in their first season at Arizona. Disaster, right? No. 32-5, pac-12 co-champs in a season that had Oregon and UCLA in the top 5. Top 25 all year, 11 weeks in top 10 (four in top 5), conference tournament title run for the ages, Sweet 16. Again, a popular pick to win it all.

Our disasters/bad seasons are great seasons for most NCAA teams. And they were caused by losing major pieces to the NBA early and/or injuries, things entirely out of Miller's hands. Sean Miller still has the 8th best NCAA winning percentage among active D1 coaches with the minimum qualified number of games played, and like I said before, all seven ahead of him (Larry Brown, Coach K, Roy Williams, Self, Calipari, Pitino, and Izzo) are all hall of famers or headed that way by the end of 2017. I'm sorry, I'm not trading the above and Sean Miller for anybody, especially knowing Self, Calipari and Izzo are the only ones on that list who will be coaching in a decade. We are spoiled effing rotten here at Arizona and are kicking and screaming because 1 single win has eluded us three times and we laid an egg in the Sweet 16 (somewhere Coach K, Izzo, Larry Brown, and Pitino didnt even get this year) and didn't get our final four (somewhere Calipari and Self didnt get this year). That leaves Roy Williams and his starting lineup that is loaded with McDonalds All Americans, two seniors and two juniors starting, the remainder of the key contributors being a senior, a junior, three sophomores and only one freshman.

Welcome aboard Zonagrad. Excellent debut post.

Deuce, all of what you said is true, but I'm going to hazard a guess that you're not actually satisfied with this season, and if I told you that Arizona would never reach the Final Four under Miller that you'd be even less so. The lack of a Final Four, hell, the lack of a national championship, is a gigantic millstone around Miller's neck, and I don't believe it's one that will go away until he breaks through that wall, regardless of regular season success. The plain and simple fact is that our past success has set the bar for our expectations as a fan base very high, and whether the majority of other fan bases would happily trade places with us means absolutely nothing. Are we spoiled? Hell yes. We're Arizona.

But... Arizona hasn't been the the Final Four in 16 years. We regularly have conversations and debates around here about whether UA is an elite program or whether we're bluebloods. The truth is that this program is on the verge of entering Indiana territory, and we're in danger of becoming an afterthought.

Miller and the Arizona program NEED a Final Four at the least to regain some of that swagger. We should acknowledge this and expect that kind of result from the coaching staff.

So the remaining question is whether there's another coach out there who would be better for the program. While I personally believe Miller is holding too tight to some of his ideas, I also believe he's beginning to show that he's willing to adapt and learn. His ability to recruit is unquestioned. Unless Calipari comes knocking on the door, I'm not changing coaches. Even then I'd have to give it some long, hard thought... Miller is simply one of the best young coaches out there. Think about it, we could have this guy for two more decades if he really settles in. That's a hell of a long time to learn, adapt and succeed to all of our delight.

Puerco wrote:Deuce, all of what you said is true, but I'm going to hazard a guess that you're not actually satisfied with this season, and if I told you that Arizona would never reach the Final Four under Miller that you'd be even less so. The lack of a Final Four, hell, the lack of a national championship, is a gigantic millstone around Miller's neck, and I don't believe it's one that will go away until he breaks through that wall, regardless of regular season success. The plain and simple fact is that our past success has set the bar for our expectations as a fan base very high, and whether the majority of other fan bases would happily trade places with us means absolutely nothing. Are we spoiled? Hell yes. We're Arizona.

But... Arizona hasn't been the the Final Four in 16 years. We regularly have conversations and debates around here about whether UA is an elite program or whether we're bluebloods. The truth is that this program is on the verge of entering Indiana territory, and we're in danger of becoming an afterthought.

Miller and the Arizona program NEED a Final Four at the least to regain some of that swagger. We should acknowledge this and expect that kind of result from the coaching staff.

So the remaining question is whether there's another coach out there who would be better for the program. While I personally believe Miller is holding too tight to some of his ideas, I also believe he's beginning to show that he's willing to adapt and learn. His ability to recruit is unquestioned. Unless Calipari comes knocking on the door, I'm not changing coaches. Even then I'd have to give it some long, hard thought... Miller is simply one of the best young coaches out there. Think about it, we could have this guy for two more decades if he really settles in. That's a hell of a long time to learn, adapt and succeed to all of our delight.

I'm not satisfied, but at the end of the day, I'm an Arizona fan and I have it better than any other NCAA fan out there outside of at most, 7 other schools. Even if we never made the final four I get to enjoy the fact that for 12 months out of the year, minus some time to get over the pain, I am a fan of one of the five best programs in the country if we rule out final fours/titles having such weighted importance. I get to enjoy putting on an NBA game and it being a good chance that someone we rooted on is playing significant minutes in that game. I get to enjoy the fact that the top players in the world consider us a Duke, Kentucky, a UNC, and a Kansas, evidenced by our monster recruiting classes every year. I get to enjoy my season tickets in a top-notch arena that was only possible because Miller continued Lute's level of greatness. I get to enjoy the fact that I will never see an Arizona team below 500 in the regular season or in the conference season, and that we may never see a sub-20 win season again while Miller is here.

The pain of coming up short kills me. I was telling my wife the other day how much it completely drains me. I can only guess it only compares to watching your kids lose in the championship game in little league, or losing in the state tournament in basketball. It abso-f*cking-lutely destroys my soul. But then I get over it, because there is always hope when you have an m-16 loaded with gold rounds, and after those are spent, you get to load it right back up. You may miss the target with every round, but it is fun as hell to shoot it and you get to load it right back up. And being honest, you know what makes me want a final four more than anything? Its for Sean Miller. I want it for him more than me, any Arizona player, and any other Arizona fan. I want his pain eased more than anything.

As for becoming another Indiana, no freaking way we are even close to that or in danger. When we start missing tournaments, stop bringing in top 5 classes (who keep coming, because they know final fours are not the end-all), and stop putting 1,2 and 3 guys into the NBA on pretty much a yearly basis, then we can start to worry about becoming and Indiana. 16 years without a final four, but Aaron Gordon, Stanley Johnson, Rondae Hollis-Jefferson, Allonzo Trier, Deandre Ayton, Lauri Markkanen, Kobi Simmons, Rawle Alkins, Brandon Ashley, Zeus, Grant Jerrett, etc. dont seem to mind.

There's only so long we can keep knocking on the door without breaking through, right? Right?

Merkin wrote:

All hell, why is that? Panic time? Or did some "fans" do something stupid like flame him after the loss?

I'm a lifelong Dodgers fan. We haven't been to a World Series since 1988. But the last 6-7 years we've contended, reached the playoffs, only to come up short. It's a helluva lot more to be in the conversation than having zero hope. Part of the joy of Arizona basketball is the anticipation. We'll get there. And the waiting will make it that much sweeter.

CalStateTempe wrote:

Merkin wrote:

All hell, why is that? Panic time? Or did some "fans" do something stupid like flame him after the loss?

Possibly due to new rules regarding social media:

http://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal ... edia-rules" target="_blank

PieceOfMeat wrote:

Chicat wrote: I'm reading your posts about who has made the FF. Maybe you're trying to make some point about CSM in relation to some of those coaches and maybe you're not. But if you are, that seems silly.

My posts here about who has made the FF are more in surprise (with a little exasperation perhaps) that certain coaches made it before Miller did. Coaches that I never would ahve guessed would do so before him, and coaches whom I'd wager most wouldn't have guessed would make it before Miller. Thus why I asked if anyone thought they'd make it at the respective schools before Miller did here.

I feel like the tourney is such a crapshoot that a coach making a FF is almost irrelevant as far as their worth and potential for future success. For example, Shaka Smart makes a FF, never makes the second weekend again, still gets a big program job, and now Texas fans are for the most part ok with the prospect that he might take the Georgetown job. Is Shaka Smart a Final Four caliber coach? Would anyone say they'd prefer him to CSM? I wouldn't...

Chicat wrote:

PieceOfMeat wrote:

Chicat wrote: I'm reading your posts about who has made the FF. Maybe you're trying to make some point about CSM in relation to some of those coaches and maybe you're not. But if you are, that seems silly.

My posts here about who has made the FF are more in surprise (with a little exasperation perhaps) that certain coaches made it before Miller did. Coaches that I never would ahve guessed would do so before him, and coaches whom I'd wager most wouldn't have guessed would make it before Miller. Thus why I asked if anyone thought they'd make it at the respective schools before Miller did here.

I feel like the tourney is such a crapshoot that a coach making a FF is almost irrelevant as far as their worth and potential for future success. For example, Shaka Smart makes a FF, never makes the second weekend again, still gets a big program job, and now Texas fans are for the most part ok with the prospect that he might take the Georgetown job. Is Shaka Smart a Final Four caliber coach? Would anyone say they'd prefer him to CSM? I wouldn't...

I'm old enough to remember when Kevin Ollie was the hottest name in the coaching world. Mike Davis was up there too once upon a time.

Shaka Smart is one perfect example of many. What is ironic in all of this - it seems that these coaches are given a bit too much credit for their random final four runs. Like the Shaka Smarts of the coaching world controlled a bunch of nobodies with a Nintendo controller to the final four; however, Miller is too micromanaging and needs to put the controller down. I mean, Texas started the season ranked 21st. Texas finished 11 and 22. I think Georgetown is on crack if they want Shaka and I think Shaka is on crack for leaving Texas for Georgetown.

John Thompson III made the Final Four in year 3. Does it mean you're great if you reach it? If you reach it faster?

Probably no, but there's a difference in being a great regular season coach and being meh in tournament play.

I think there's a lot of gray area, and as much as people don't like the separate regular season and tournament, there is a huge difference. It's two completely different seasons. Two completely different styles of play. What works in the regular season might not work in the tournament.

Miller has to adjust to tournament play.

NYCat wrote:John Thompson III made the Final Four in year 3. Does it mean you're great if you reach it? If you reach it faster?

Probably no, but there's a difference in being a great regular season coach and being meh in tournament play.

I think there's a lot of gray area, and as much as people don't like the separate regular season and tournament, there is a huge difference. It's two completely different seasons. Two completely different styles of play. What works in the regular season might not work in the tournament.

Miller has to adjust to tournament play.

There was a time when CSM was considered a great tourney coach.

Chicat wrote:

NYCat wrote:John Thompson III made the Final Four in year 3. Does it mean you're great if you reach it? If you reach it faster?

Probably no, but there's a difference in being a great regular season coach and being meh in tournament play.

I think there's a lot of gray area, and as much as people don't like the separate regular season and tournament, there is a huge difference. It's two completely different seasons. Two completely different styles of play. What works in the regular season might not work in the tournament.

Miller has to adjust to tournament play.

There was a time when CSM was considered a great tourney coach.

That was when people were impressed by Sweet 16's and Elite Eights. Now that he's been there a lot, they've become disappointing.

Chicat wrote:

NYCat wrote:John Thompson III made the Final Four in year 3. Does it mean you're great if you reach it? If you reach it faster?

Probably no, but there's a difference in being a great regular season coach and being meh in tournament play.

I think there's a lot of gray area, and as much as people don't like the separate regular season and tournament, there is a huge difference. It's two completely different seasons. Two completely different styles of play. What works in the regular season might not work in the tournament.

Miller has to adjust to tournament play.

There was a time when CSM was considered a great tourney coach.

Never lost to a lower seeded until until 4 years ago, but Wisky was ranked close. WIchita State and Xavier was just embarrassing, losing to 11 seeds.

He still probably is just put up a huge stinker Thursday

Merkin wrote:

Chicat wrote:

NYCat wrote:John Thompson III made the Final Four in year 3. Does it mean you're great if you reach it? If you reach it faster?

Probably no, but there's a difference in being a great regular season coach and being meh in tournament play.

I think there's a lot of gray area, and as much as people don't like the separate regular season and tournament, there is a huge difference. It's two completely different seasons. Two completely different styles of play. What works in the regular season might not work in the tournament.

Miller has to adjust to tournament play.

There was a time when CSM was considered a great tourney coach.

Never lost to a lower seeded until until 4 years ago, but Wisky was ranked close. WIchita State and Xavier was just embarrassing, losing to 11 seeds.

That Wichita State team was better than us last year. So not embarrassing at all. Xavier, we should have beat, so yeah I guess we can be embarrassed or we can understand that, unfortunately, stinkers happen in the tournament no matter who you are

I think if his offense was better suited for the tournament, Arizona beats Wisconsin in 2014 - with or without Ashley. That team struggled on offense and it finally caught up with them.

Chicat wrote:
There was a time when CSM was considered a great tourney coach.

Funny - when the CBS was slobbering all over Xavier and Coach Mack right after they beat us, they kept referring to the fact "...this is the best they have done in the Tourney since 2008 when they went to the Elite 8..."

Of Coarse.......Sean Miller was the coach at that time.

Somehow they failed to mention that....Ha, Ha!

With Twitter and Coaches, do coaches use twitter a lot? I get there was probably tons of douches tweeting bad and dumb stuff to him but if coaches use it a lot he probably should just change settings and ignore things but still use it to the benefit of Arizona Basketball. I guess the Arizona Basketball @APlayersProgram will be used for that going forward though.

CalStateTempe wrote:

Merkin wrote:

All hell, why is that? Panic time? Or did some "fans" do something stupid like flame him after the loss?

I'd guess it's something much more mundane. I always got the impression that Byrne strongly encouraged all his coaches to have twitter accounts. Miller was one of the last coaches to get one and he seemed to use it the least. Now with Byrne gone I doubt Heeke cares as much/isn't in the position to encourage Miller to keep tweeting.

Aren't there new NCAA social media rules?

The NCAA rules says you can now retweet/share/repost, like/favorite posts from recruits, but not reply. Before you could only DM and follow a recruit. Ncaa actually got more lenient.

So it doesn't really make sense

NYCat wrote:The NCAA rules says you can now retweet/share/repost, like/favorite posts from recruits, but not reply. Before you could only DM and follow a recruit. Ncaa actually got more lenient.

So it doesn't really make sense

Unless Sean didn't want to be in a competition with other coaches on how many times they like/retweet a 17-year-old's incomprehensible twitter babble.

Pretty sure Miller is moving everything over to Myspace.


https://new.berecruited.com/resources/p ... recruiting" target="_blank


As a Division I or II coach/institution, you can:


Market and promote your school/program by setting up social networking pages like Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and/or YouTube

Send messages to recruits through a "social networking program’s email function." [This prevents coach's from posting on someone's wall, but allows them to send a Facebook message.]


Coach's cannot use the school’s social networking pages to:

Feature photos of prospective student-athletes

Contact individual prospects publicly

Discuss specific recruits on any wall, public forum or chat rooom

Contact prospects when it is impermissible as per NCAA recruiting laws

Miller is leaving Twitter out of respect for ACE.

RIP

There was never much to read. Happy birthdays to particular players.

He hated twitter. I'm sure the shit he received after the Xavier loss made this a real easy decision for him.

Merkin wrote:Pretty sure Miller is moving everything over to Myspace.


https://new.berecruited.com/resources/p ... recruiting" target="_blank


As a Division I or II coach/institution, you can:


Market and promote your school/program by setting up social networking pages like Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and/or YouTube

Send messages to recruits through a "social networking program’s email function." [This prevents coach's from posting on someone's wall, but allows them to send a Facebook message.]


Coach's cannot use the school’s social networking pages to:

Feature photos of prospective student-athletes

Contact individual prospects publicly

Discuss specific recruits on any wall, public forum or chat rooom

Contact prospects when it is impermissible as per NCAA recruiting laws

Send messages through an email function, eh?

head coaches don't run their twitter accounts...its usually the SID.

rgdeuce wrote: As for becoming another Indiana, no freaking way we are even close to that or in danger. When we start missing tournaments, stop bringing in top 5 classes (who keep coming, because they know final fours are not the end-all), and stop putting 1,2 and 3 guys into the NBA on pretty much a yearly basis, then we can start to worry about becoming and Indiana. 16 years without a final four, but Aaron Gordon, Stanley Johnson, Rondae Hollis-Jefferson, Allonzo Trier, Deandre Ayton, Lauri Markkanen, Kobi Simmons, Rawle Alkins, Brandon Ashley, Zeus, Grant Jerrett, etc. dont seem to mind.

I can agree with all you said above (and below, particularly about coaches getting too much credit for a single, lucky Final Four appearance), except what I've quoted. We don't hang recruiting banners, and while our players going on to NBA success is nice, it hardly defines a great program. That in particular defines an underacheiving program as so many of us have pointed out to enfuego over the years.

Here's a question I've been pondering: Which has more value? The hype during the ride or the end result?

I'd be willing to bet that for recruit and fan interest, there is far more value in how the season unfolded (only losing to a few top-20ish teams, winning without Trier, the @ UCLA beat down, pulling in the #1 recruit for next year, regular season conference champs, UCLA/Oregon conference tourney revenge games, talk of whether the team could pull a #1 seed) than in how it ended.

Beyond the "Sean Miller can't make a Final Four" talk, the aura surrounding the season was far far more positive than negative, and both the team and Miller were talked about a lot heading into the tourney. That I think far outweighs what the final result was as far as public perception. And, in fact, it was only because we had such a great season and were such a solid pick to come out of the West that the loss to Xavier was so disappointing. That's a credit to Sean Miller in my book.

I truly believe he took a flawed team with the same point guard issues from last year, and a litany of roster issues, and raised expectation to the point where we could be disappointed with the outcome.

So, in a way, he out-coached his ceiling. His team won so consistently, never dropping a game to a lesser team, and that convinced us, the fanbase, that this same flawed team with no strong point play and missing some extras (Smith, Trier for half the season, Ferguson) that could have covered the wound better, was a Final Four team. Very few, if any, of us at preseason said "this is a Final Four type team". It was a S16 team with the possibility to go on a run. BY the end of the year, 75% of the pundits were picking us to go to the Final Four.

I really believe this team outplayed their ability for much of the season. By never stumbling to a lesser opponent (everyone slips up once or twice), we amassed a huge record. Then, we beat some top teams at the end when it appeared we were coming together. But, perhaps...those were just days that we got a bit lucky in Vegas.

Doesn't mean we should have lost to Xavier. We were better than them. Play that game 10 times, we win 9. They come out straight, we go up 10-2. They zone but extend, we get every offensive rebound and Ristic starts playing layup drill. So they did the only thing they could...they packed the zone so fkn tight we HAD to shoot 3s. It was their only chance. And given our work on the O boards, really, 30% shooting would have won. Hell...ONE MORE would have won. They threw all their chips in on drawing inside, and they did. Our defense helped. But even with our porous defense, if they played anything like straight up on D, we scored. We got to all the O boards when they were extended. So they said "fuck it....we will all stand in here. Go ahead and shoot" and we couldn't make shit. It is one thing to shoot 20% against contested defense...but we didn't even get that. This was practice shooting and we couldn't hit. They had one chance and in a one game series, that one chance might pay off. And it did. And yes, Mack deserves credit for making that coaching move, but what choice did he have? And what could we have done different? I love the "we needed to go down low more" talk...you can't just decide to get the ball in the block against a collapsed zone defense. They all but capitulated that they could not play us straight, took away everything in the paint, and gave us the perimeter. And still we missed, or overdribbled/penetrated. Like something in our heads said "uh, oh...we have shot too many threes...better not take any more open ones".

So, all season, we played, IMO, above ability. It was a masterful coaching job. That's why one game doesn't make me say "oh...the coach sucks". They took a chance in letting us have the perimeter and we failed. We failed to stop penetration off the dribble, but we knew that was an issue in November. Hell, we knew that was an issue in August. This team simply won every game they were supposed to until this last game.

Chicat wrote:Here's a question I've been pondering: Which has more value? The hype during the ride or the end result?

I'd be willing to bet that for recruit and fan interest, there is far more value in how the season unfolded (only losing to a few top-20ish teams, winning without Trier, the @ UCLA beat down, pulling in the #1 recruit for next year, regular season conference champs, UCLA/Oregon conference tourney revenge games, talk of whether the team could pull a #1 seed) than in how it ended.

Beyond the "Sean Miller can't make a Final Four" talk, the aura surrounding the season was far far more positive than negative, and both the team and Miller were talked about a lot heading into the tourney. That I think far outweighs what the final result was as far as public perception. And, in fact, it was only because we had such a great season and were such a solid pick to come out of the West that the loss to Xavier was so disappointing. That's a credit to Sean Miller in my book.

The hype during the ride. Upsets suck, but they happen to a ton of teams every single year. Nova, Duke Kansas, etc. In the long term view, does it really matter what round we got upset in? The publicity about the good season we had sticks around longer. Heck, even the "best coach not to make a FF" tag is a compliment, if a backhanded compliment.

This year wound up being short of the tourney result we wanted. Everything else was a big boost for the program (beyond Ray's injury obviously).

It sounds like there is a decent chance we will have some coaching shakeups again this season. I've said it before and I'll say it again I would like to see a real big man coaching the big men. Zeus improved most when he was working under Joseph Blair. If Pasternak goes I think Miller should offer the spot to Blaire and if he turns it down try to find another big man.

Chicat wrote:Here's a question I've been pondering: Which has more value? The hype during the ride or the end result?

I'd be willing to bet that for recruit and fan interest, there is far more value in how the season unfolded (only losing to a few top-20ish teams, winning without Trier, the @ UCLA beat down, pulling in the #1 recruit for next year, regular season conference champs, UCLA/Oregon conference tourney revenge games, talk of whether the team could pull a #1 seed) than in how it ended.

Beyond the "Sean Miller can't make a Final Four" talk, the aura surrounding the season was far far more positive than negative, and both the team and Miller were talked about a lot heading into the tourney. That I think far outweighs what the final result was as far as public perception. And, in fact, it was only because we had such a great season and were such a solid pick to come out of the West that the loss to Xavier was so disappointing. That's a credit to Sean Miller in my book.

Agree with you up until a point. This season yes and on a season by season basis yes. But at some point you need to get to the final four.

As great as this year was, I would turn it in and all of the successes and fun and memories of all the other sweet 16 elite 8 years for one title even if it was a UCONN type title

PHXCATS wrote:

Chicat wrote:Here's a question I've been pondering: Which has more value? The hype during the ride or the end result?

I'd be willing to bet that for recruit and fan interest, there is far more value in how the season unfolded (only losing to a few top-20ish teams, winning without Trier, the @ UCLA beat down, pulling in the #1 recruit for next year, regular season conference champs, UCLA/Oregon conference tourney revenge games, talk of whether the team could pull a #1 seed) than in how it ended.

Beyond the "Sean Miller can't make a Final Four" talk, the aura surrounding the season was far far more positive than negative, and both the team and Miller were talked about a lot heading into the tourney. That I think far outweighs what the final result was as far as public perception. And, in fact, it was only because we had such a great season and were such a solid pick to come out of the West that the loss to Xavier was so disappointing. That's a credit to Sean Miller in my book.

Agree with you up until a point. This season yes and on a season by season basis yes. But at some point you need to get to the final four.

As great as this year was, I would turn it in and all of the successes and fun and memories of all the other sweet 16 elite 8 years for one title even if it was a UCONN type title

See, I don't think I would. Arizona is set up to be a constant top ten team under Miller. I have faith that will convert into a FF or NC before long.

UConn is occasionally a tourney team right now. The long term health of the program is what makes success repeatable. The lightning in a bottle doesn't do that. I wouldn't want a consistency of success to be traded out for one run. I believe we can have multiple runs.

I'd rather have a legit chance every year and have a day of disappointment and pissyness than be UCONN.

for me its about the ride and the hype.

Puerco wrote:

rgdeuce wrote: As for becoming another Indiana, no freaking way we are even close to that or in danger. When we start missing tournaments, stop bringing in top 5 classes (who keep coming, because they know final fours are not the end-all), and stop putting 1,2 and 3 guys into the NBA on pretty much a yearly basis, then we can start to worry about becoming and Indiana. 16 years without a final four, but Aaron Gordon, Stanley Johnson, Rondae Hollis-Jefferson, Allonzo Trier, Deandre Ayton, Lauri Markkanen, Kobi Simmons, Rawle Alkins, Brandon Ashley, Zeus, Grant Jerrett, etc. dont seem to mind.

I can agree with all you said above (and below, particularly about coaches getting too much credit for a single, lucky Final Four appearance), except what I've quoted. We don't hang recruiting banners, and while our players going on to NBA success is nice, it hardly defines a great program. That in particular defines an underacheiving program as so many of us have pointed out to enfuego over the years.

Think you misread my point from that quote. What I said had nothing to do with recruiting banners or recruits defining us as a great program, it was merely: when you continue to bring in those types of players on a regular basis and continue to pump 1-3 guys into the NBA a year, you will never become another Indiana. Crean whiffed quite a bit with recruiting and his quality of players/recruiting classes greatly pale in comparison to what Miller has done and continues to do, and Indiana was already in a downward trend before he got on board. Arizona really never trended downward, just had a rough patch due to Lute's final days/transition.

As far as the NBA, can that be used against Miller? He has put a good amount of Wildcats into the NBA but none of really become big star. I am not bashing him in any way, I just worry that that could eventually be used against him if someone doesn't really blossom at some point.

PHXCATS wrote:As far as the NBA, can that be used against Miller? He has put a good amount of Wildcats into the NBA but none of really become big star. I am not bashing him in any way, I just worry that that could eventually be used against him if someone doesn't really blossom at some point.

I don't think so. Aaron, Rondae, TJ and Solo are all starters. Aaron has star potential and Lauri will join that list soon.

How many of Lute's NBAers were 'really big stars'? Gil had a short period as a real 'star'...

UAdevil wrote:How many of Lute's NBAers were 'really big stars'? Gil had a short period as a real 'star'...

Elliott, Kerr, Stoudamire, Jefferson, Bibby, Dickerson, Iguodala, Buechler, Arenas and Frye are all above anyone Miller had at Arizona although Aaron Gordon is quickly approaching

UAdevil wrote:How many of Lute's NBAers were 'really big stars'? Gil had a short period as a real 'star'...

Agreed. For awhile, Lute had a record number of guys playing in the NBA. These kids want to get to the league and have a shot. There are no guarantees that anyone is going to be a star, but if the perception is that the program develops NBA talent and creates a path to the NBA, the kids will notice.