Bear Down Wildcats

PHXCATS wrote:

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

Really? Maybe we should give some of these guys that are in their first couple years in the league and barely 20 years old a chance before we declare that they're "below" Jud Buechler. I mean, I know his career averages of 3 points and 2 rebounds are eye-popping, but maybe slow your roll a little...

PHXCATS wrote:

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

You said "really big star". I love those guys...but..really big stars I do not see.

You forgot Terry PHXCATS. I guess I would consider a star a multiyear All-Star. I don't follow the NBA closely enough to know who fits this criteria but I don't think it's many.

Either way, it's a huge reach to suggest that the 1 or 2 years these guys may play for CSM (or any coach for that matter) before going pro are SO critical that they define how that player will perform in an entire NBA career. If there are 2 All-Star teams out of 30 NBA teams, then it stands to reason that 1/15th of players in the NBA make this squad on active rosters. Much less than that if you count the flame-outs. CSM has put, what 5 people in the League so far counting Nick? I'm probably off but it hasn't been 15 yet. I bet you see a similarly low NBA All-Star percentage from any program not named Kentucky, and that's because they always get the most top 5 HS talent (i.e. highest assumed likelihood of hitting that top NBA echelon).

I think the more accurate measure of talent development would be how many 3-4 year college guys - 3* & 4* guys - have long careers in the NBA.

Josh Pastner is about to beat Sean Miller to a title.

Gilbert Arenas was the only Arizona player you could call a superstar and it was for a small window of a couple of years. He was one of the most dangerous scorers in the league at that point. Rondae, AG and Stanley are 22, 21 and 20, respectively. These guys were all considered "raw" and drafted on long-term potential. AG is the one out of that bunch who has that all star potential, and Rondae and Stanley still have the potential to be glue pieces on very good teams. Stanley's shooting woes and confidence issues are holding him back, sadly, but again, hes only 20. TJ may be considered a guy who is already playing at his ceiling, but right now he is one of the biggest steals in the league in terms of contract. I don't think he is at his ceiling, he can greatly improve his outside shooting which would bump him up to a low teens scorer and open everything else up even more. A 12-13 ppg, 8 assist, 2 TO, 2 SPG point guard isnt an all star obviously, but thats still a very good point guard.

Lauri's the next guy who can be the star for Arizona, with the safe bet seeing him at that Jason Terry, Iguodala tier. At the end of the day, Ayton is probably a safe bet to be the star.

Here's how I'd class Miller's pros:

Overachievers:

TJ and Solomon. TJ is obvious, and Solomon has had a decent length career, is starting and has a long term deal, which is more than most guys in his draft spot get.

Slight overachievers:

Rondae. He was picked at a point where people may or may not stick in the league. He's stuck and is a starter. Yes, it's on a really talent poor team, but he still starts.

About what was expected:

Nick and Aaron. Nick was always limited by height, and his unexceptional shooting caught up to him. Aaron was a raw athlete with potential to develop into something special. He is developing and still has that sky high potential.

Slight underachievers:

Stanley. His rookie year was solid, but he has struggled a lot this year.

Underachievers:

Derrick. His pro career just is not what his college career or draft position would lead you to think it would be.

There's a separate class for guys that you could say were disappointing in not making the NBA or guys who won't play in the NBA, but you can still argue are credits to Miller's developmental skills (i.e., Kyle Fogg).

rgdeuce wrote:

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.

Oh. Yup, you're right. Missed that excellent point. Admit my analogy was a bit melodramatic. IMO if Miller just stays the course he'll break through, and it'll be sooner rather than later. Nice thing is, I see him doing better than staying the course. I see him adapting and evolving.

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.

Fascinating question unless your name is Newport Cat.

Before I answer it though, answer me this: which do you prefer, 1997 or 1998?

Puerco 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.

Fascinating question unless your name is Newport Cat.

Before I answer it though, answer me this: which do you prefer, 1997 or 1998?

That's not how I took his question. I took it as a question about which matters more in the long term:

The positive perception for a good season and high tourney seed or the negative perception about the disappointing exit.

Puerco 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.

Fascinating question unless your name is Newport Cat.

Before I answer it though, answer me this: which do you prefer, 1997 or 1998?

The Ride: 1997
The Season: 1998

1997 was a frustrating season to watch. 1998 was one of the best. I loved them both for different reasons, but in regards to ending obviously it's not even close.

Yeah, 1998 season was awesome. Blow out city. Many fun games. Few grinders.

Loved 1998. That season was amazing in so many ways.

This will placate nobody, but what the hell.

Just talked with Wazzu prez about non-athletics. Afterward, we talked sports. He's formerly the K-State prez, so I asked him about Frank Martin. Says he wishes him well, and has been teased for "running him off." (Not how it went down).

Said the current K-State coach is catching heat after their NCAA exit, and noted that a 20-win season and tournament berth would be heavenly in Pullman.

He knew about the Sean Miller guff, and just rolled his eyes. "Three Elite Eights. Come on."

He also mentioned how the SEC Network brings in so much more money for each school, and that the Pac-12 set-up is being discussed vigorously at his level. They budgeted with the thought that TV revenue would be a lot more.

Anyway, there is pressure being put on the conference to deliver more revenue.

gumby wrote:e also mentioned how the SEC Network brings in so much more money for each school, and that the Pac-12 set-up is being discussed vigorously at his level. They budgeted with the thought that TV revenue would be a lot more.

Why was Larry Scott extended after the failure of his disastrous PAC-12 Network?

That would have been my first question.

Maybe not in those words.

Merkin wrote:

gumby wrote:e also mentioned how the SEC Network brings in so much more money for each school, and that the Pac-12 set-up is being discussed vigorously at his level. They budgeted with the thought that TV revenue would be a lot more.

Why was Larry Scott extended after the failure of his disastrous PAC-12 Network?

That would have been my first question.

And that's why you'll never be president of the PAC-12 conference.

Merkin wrote:

gumby wrote:e also mentioned how the SEC Network brings in so much more money for each school, and that the Pac-12 set-up is being discussed vigorously at his level. They budgeted with the thought that TV revenue would be a lot more.

Why was Larry Scott extended after the failure of his disastrous PAC-12 Network?

That would have been my first question.

Maybe not in those words.

It was on the tip of my tongue, but the elevator door was closing.

Miller should be higher on that list.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:Miller should be higher on that list.

I think he is due for his annual $100k raise in April. This would put him at #10, and with the bonus most of which he hits pretty regularly, puts him above Scott Drew at #9 with $0 bonuses. I would love to see him at the top of the list, but #9 ain't bad, especially for Tucson and a public university.

Now if we can get more $ out of the Pac-12 Network....

jajoyce wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:Miller should be higher on that list.

I think he is due for his annual $100k raise in April. This would put him at #10, and with the bonus most of which he hits pretty regularly, puts him above Scott Drew at #9 with $0 bonuses. I would love to see him at the top of the list, but #9 ain't bad, especially for Tucson and a public university.

Now if we can get more $ out of the Pac-12 Network....

For me, the level I'd like to see is whatever level guarantees he will coach at Arizona until he retires.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

jajoyce wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:Miller should be higher on that list.

I think he is due for his annual $100k raise in April. This would put him at #10, and with the bonus most of which he hits pretty regularly, puts him above Scott Drew at #9 with $0 bonuses. I would love to see him at the top of the list, but #9 ain't bad, especially for Tucson and a public university.

Now if we can get more $ out of the Pac-12 Network....

For me, the level I'd like to see is whatever level guarantees he will coach at Arizona until he retires.

When he reaches the final four he will be. He has out performed some coaches higher than him and been out performed by coaches lower than him. Completely fair and reasonable until he gets to the final four.

I'm starting a gofundmillerpage.

It's not all about the money.

Remember when Livengood brought in Mike Stoops? A co-defensive coordinator who had never held a HC position.

Livengood brought him in making more than Lute did, with a NC on his resume.

Miller is a good example for the University when he is up there for these press conferences. Very good coach most of the time and you can tell he cares about the University, Team and his players.

You know that thing when they say they're joking but there's a little truth to it

All out of love though. Lauri is a much more rounded (defense!!!) and smarter player now than he was in October. Only a few coaches in NCAA basketball who would have him where he is right now and Pekka knows that.

I've always figured that Miller's constant commitment to man is a selling point to recruits. Lord knows if I were Miller, I'd be using it as a recruiting tool.

You can come here and received an advanced class in man to man, which will be required of you in the NBA, or go to UCLA so Alford can hide you in a 2-3 and when you hit the league, you will have a built in disadvantage.

NYCat wrote:You know that thing when they say they're joking but there's a little truth to it

Zing!

Spaceman Spiff wrote:I've always figured that Miller's constant commitment to man is a selling point to recruits. Lord knows if I were Miller, I'd be using it as a recruiting tool.

You can come here and received an advanced class in man to man, which will be required of you in the NBA, or go to UCLA so Alford can hide you in a 2-3 and when you hit the league, you will have a built in disadvantage.

If coach is getting grief from a player's dad (jokingly) and can't seem to figure out how to break it, maybe the trash talk about it should be put on hold?

PHXCATS wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:I've always figured that Miller's constant commitment to man is a selling point to recruits. Lord knows if I were Miller, I'd be using it as a recruiting tool.

You can come here and received an advanced class in man to man, which will be required of you in the NBA, or go to UCLA so Alford can hide you in a 2-3 and when you hit the league, you will have a built in disadvantage.

If coach is getting grief from a player's dad (jokingly) and can't seem to figure out how to break it, maybe the trash talk about it should be put on hold?

I still feel free to talk trash about UCLA playing zone D and us playing man D because our D was light years better than theirs.

Zone offense, yeah, they were probably this year, but I doubt that's a recruiting tool. Plus, UCLA's entire offense was largely based in how awesome Lonzo Ball was. Remove him, and we'll see how next year goes.

Looks like an opening to fill:

I'd say raphael chillious to replace him but he just got a job at UConn.

I'm stoked Pasternack is coming to IV.

Tony Bland, Justin Hutson, Adam Cohen, Luke Murray.

Longhorned wrote:I'm stoked Pasternack is coming to IV.

The Thunderdome!

Local news on it, nothing new: http://www.keyt.com/sports/ucsb-on-verg ... /425475805" target="_blank

Always meant to go down and watch the UNLV games with Tark, but never got around to it. Maybe I can if UCSB becomes competitive again.

As you know, an absolutely beautiful campus. Dorms overlooking the bluffs by the Pacific Ocean.

I said it a page or two and I'll say it again. The first offer to replace Pasternak should go to Joseph Blair. Promote Phelps to associate head coach and give Blaire the big men

ChooChooCat wrote:Tony Bland, Justin Hutson, Adam Cohen, Luke Murray.

RiseandFire.

baconus66 wrote:I said it a page or two and I'll say it again. The first offer to replace Pasternak should go to Joseph Blair. Promote Phelps to associate head coach and give Blaire the big men

I like the idea but I think the Cats need a bigger name especially with recruiting

PHXCATS wrote:

baconus66 wrote:I said it a page or two and I'll say it again. The first offer to replace Pasternak should go to Joseph Blair. Promote Phelps to associate head coach and give Blaire the big men

I like the idea but I think the Cats need a bigger name especially with recruiting

I agree that they need to replace Pasternack in recruiting and X's and O's more than player development. Whether Blair can do that is the big thing I'd care about.

PHXCATS wrote:

baconus66 wrote:I said it a page or two and I'll say it again. The first offer to replace Pasternak should go to Joseph Blair. Promote Phelps to associate head coach and give Blaire the big men

I like the idea but I think the Cats need a bigger name especially with recruiting

He might not have all the connections he needs out of the gate, but he strikes me as the kind of guy that could be a master recruiter. I can't imagine talking to him for 5 minutes and not loving him. Plus he payed in Greece, Italy, Turkey and Russia which I would assume would give him a leg up on European recruiting which was a big thing Pasternak brought to the table

Blair isn't a candidate.

Why aren't we talking about Romar?

prh wrote:Why aren't we talking about Romar?

I'd love Romar, but I have no idea if he's interested in going from HC to assistant. That has to be an ego blow, and you don't know how he'd respond or if Miller would want to deal with those potential issues.

Romar has zero interest. He's heading for the NBA.

Would Miles Simon get another chance? I think he coached for USA basketball recently...under 17s.

zonagrad wrote:Would Miles Simon get another chance? I think he coached for USA basketball recently...under 17s.

I think he's very happy in his current situation i.e. ESPN personality and coach/mentor to HS players.

ChooChooCat wrote:

zonagrad wrote:Would Miles Simon get another chance? I think he coached for USA basketball recently...under 17s.

I think he's very happy in his current situation i.e. ESPN personality and coach/mentor to HS players.

He also did nothing his first time around. By his own admission he was a lazy recruiter and didn't have the X's & O's knowledge necessary. That's not to say he hasn't learned a lot since then and would be more active/proactive, but there are guys out there we could get that have coached and recruited at a consistently high level that should be getting a call way before Miles.

KO was brutal on how poorly he treated Pastner and Simon. It's no wonder.

prh wrote:Why aren't we talking about Romar?

Scheer said it's an option and just a matter of if he'd take it. I'd love this

Open the Seattle pipeline again, good Lord.