New #1 Team

Home ▸ Archive ▸ College Sports ▸ New #1 Team
P

Prescott

Senior Member

2,569 posts
Jan 17, 2011 2:56 PM
Would his success at OSU be more attributable to getting the one and dones or overall coaching ability?
80% of college coaching success is dependent on recruiting. If you don't have the horses, you can't run the race.
Jan 17, 2011 2:56pm
wildcats20's avatar

wildcats20

In ROY I Trust!!

27,794 posts
Jan 17, 2011 3:00 PM
Would his success at OSU be more attributable to getting the one and dones or overall coaching ability?
80% of college coaching success is dependent on recruiting. If you don't have the horses, you can't run the race.
Exactly. You can't separate recruiting and coaching.
Jan 17, 2011 3:00pm
ytownfootball's avatar

ytownfootball

Bold faced liar...

6,978 posts
Jan 17, 2011 3:05 PM
I don't disagree at all, but I would venture a guess that his surrounding in C'bus have a little bit to do with his "ability".

He's good, no doubt, but he has the benefit of some pretty good facilities to sell. Recent success doesn't hurt either. I'm happy no matter how you look at it.
Jan 17, 2011 3:05pm
C

centralbucksfan

Senior Member

5,111 posts
Jan 17, 2011 3:43 PM
ytownfootball;641619 wrote:Would his success at OSU be more attributable to getting the one and dones or overall coaching ability?

I think it's hard to separate the two because recruiting is part of coaching but he has had some of the better recruiting classes. But then again he has been able to maximize his components. I've discussed this with friends and haven't come to a real good answer.

I think some people forget his first couple of years at OSU he has zero NBA talent. His first year, he won 20 games, the next when OSU was picked in the preseason bottom half of the Big Ten, he won a Big Ten title and went 26-6 with that team. He was won without NBA talent, and won with NBA talent.
Jan 17, 2011 3:43pm
ytownfootball's avatar

ytownfootball

Bold faced liar...

6,978 posts
Jan 17, 2011 4:02 PM
centralbucksfan;641684 wrote:I think some people forget his first couple of years at OSU he has zero NBA talent. His first year, he won 20 games, the next when OSU was picked in the preseason bottom half of the Big Ten, he won a Big Ten title and went 26-6 with that team. He was won without NBA talent, and won with NBA talent.

I guess the point of the question was to see what weight people give to his ability rather than the talent he has. I don't see there being a separation of the two. But come later in the year, there'll be the annual "Top 5-10 Coaches" thread and I'll guarantee someone will discredit his tenure based on the talent he's had. Happens every year.
Jan 17, 2011 4:02pm
P

Prescott

Senior Member

2,569 posts
Jan 17, 2011 5:25 PM
I think some people forget his first couple of years at OSU he has zero NBA talent. His first year, he won 20 games, the next when OSU was picked in the preseason bottom half of the Big Ten, he won a Big Ten title and went 26-6 with that team. He was won without NBA talent, and won with NBA talent.
Unfortunately, success is measured by tournament performance. Winning 20 games is not a good measuring stick.

Didn't the 26-6 team lose to NBA talent in the tournament??

I'm not knocking Matta, just stating an opini9on and a fact. I think Matta is perfect for OSU.
Jan 17, 2011 5:25pm
S

slingshot4ever

Senior Member

4,085 posts
Jan 17, 2011 10:18 PM
I think KU is just a little bit better as a team. I say that primarily based on how deep benches are and the fact that KU. Has a pure PG in Selby.
Jan 17, 2011 10:18pm
Laley23's avatar

Laley23

GOAT

29,506 posts
Jan 17, 2011 11:12 PM
ytownfootball;641698 wrote:I guess the point of the question was to see what weight people give to his ability rather than the talent he has. I don't see there being a separation of the two. But come later in the year, there'll be the annual "Top 5-10 Coaches" thread and I'll guarantee someone will discredit his tenure based on the talent he's had. Happens every year.

It could also be because people dont think he is a top 5 coach. I would have him in the top 10 though, so I cant say that lol.
Jan 17, 2011 11:12pm
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
Jan 18, 2011 1:14 AM
Being #1 in January doesn't mean that much in college b-ball. Don't get me wrong, I am glad that the Bucks are and will enjoy it for now, but come March, that is when OSU needs to be playing their best, obviously.
Jan 18, 2011 1:14am
hoops23's avatar

hoops23

Senior Member

15,696 posts
Jan 18, 2011 2:21 AM
slingshot4ever;642066 wrote:I think KU is just a little bit better as a team. I say that primarily based on how deep benches are and the fact that KU. Has a pure PG in Selby.

0_o

OSU doesn't have a pure PG? Or am I watching games from the future?
Jan 18, 2011 2:21am
B

Big Gain

Senior Member

2,073 posts
Jan 18, 2011 2:31 AM
slingshot4ever;642066 wrote:I think KU is just a little bit better as a team. I say that primarily based on how deep benches are and the fact that KU. Has a pure PG in Selby.

Craft isn't a "pure PG"???
Jan 18, 2011 2:31am
SportsAndLady's avatar

SportsAndLady

Senior Member

35,632 posts
Jan 18, 2011 11:33 AM
I'm not even sure Selby is KU's pure PG...Tyshawn Taylor plays the 1 whenever both of those players are in.
Jan 18, 2011 11:33am
C

centralbucksfan

Senior Member

5,111 posts
Jan 18, 2011 11:53 AM
slingshot4ever;642066 wrote:I think KU is just a little bit better as a team. I say that primarily based on how deep benches are and the fact that KU. Has a pure PG in Selby.

Selby isn't a true PG IMO. And prior to last nite, he had been struggling big time the past handful of games. Except for last nite (Baylor btw was 5-5 since mid Dec), I thought Kansas was playing better ball without Selby early in the season.
As for depth...Kansas obviously has it. But I am not sure that is that big of an advantage. I'd rather have 2/3 guys off the bench then trying to rotate 9/10 as Kansas does. You can only play with 5 at a time. And I think many times, those teams that stick with 7/8 have better chemistry. Fatigue is a non issue in this day and age of TV timeouts or unless you a constantly pressing.
Obviously Kansas is right there with a few other teams, no question. And I don't believe any of those teams are head and shoulders above the rest. I think we will see a rotation of #1 rankings as the season goes on through conference games.
Jan 18, 2011 11:53am
thedynasty1998's avatar

thedynasty1998

Senior Member

6,844 posts
Jan 18, 2011 12:07 PM
If your team has depth, you say it's a asset. When your team doesn't, it's overrated. I do like Kansas' depth, because if one guy isn't performing, it's up to the next guy to perform. Plus, there is more of an urgency when you get in the game to earn your minutes. At OSU, if Lighty is playing like crap, you just have to wait for him to pick it up.
Jan 18, 2011 12:07pm
C

centralbucksfan

Senior Member

5,111 posts
Jan 18, 2011 12:27 PM
thedynasty1998;642637 wrote:If your team has depth, you say it's a asset. When your team doesn't, it's overrated. I do like Kansas' depth, because if one guy isn't performing, it's up to the next guy to perform. Plus, there is more of an urgency when you get in the game to earn your minutes. At OSU, if Lighty is playing like crap, you just have to wait for him to pick it up.

Well, it CAN be an asset, for the above reason I guess. But it only takes one guy. And depth can be looked at number of ways on a team, not just with their bench. In terms of a number of guys being able to do multiple things, or when you never know who is going to be your high scorer, that can be considered depth as well. With OSU, they have had 7 guys be the high game scorer. If Lighty isn't doing his thing...there are other guys fully capable of taking up that slack. On top of that, if Lighty isn't playing well...why would you need 5 guys on the bench to take up one guy? its more options obviously. But there is no magic formula for picking that right guy to replace the one not playing well.
And as I mentioned, much can depend on your style of play as well. My preference..give me 7/8..with one of this being backup PG and the other a versitle wing able to play multiple positions...and that would be perfect.
Jan 18, 2011 12:27pm
thedynasty1998's avatar

thedynasty1998

Senior Member

6,844 posts
Jan 18, 2011 12:34 PM
The other advantage would be that the opposing team has to guard different types of players. A guy guarding Diebler could actually get into a flow and play him the same way for 40 minutes. If you bring someone in off the bench who is more of a threat to drive, it keeps defenses off balance.

And I'm not complaining about OSU's depth, just stating an alternate opinion.
Jan 18, 2011 12:34pm
C

centralbucksfan

Senior Member

5,111 posts
Jan 18, 2011 12:38 PM
thedynasty1998;642677 wrote:The other advantage would be that the opposing team has to guard different types of players. A guy guarding Diebler could actually get into a flow and play him the same way for 40 minutes. If you bring someone in off the bench who is more of a threat to drive, it keeps defenses off balance.

And I'm not complaining about OSU's depth, just stating an alternate opinion.

I don't disagree with you. But as a former player...how did you, or would you like to be shuffled in and out of a game? A former player myself (many years ago), I didn't have to worry about that...but I didn't like coming off the floor. I prefered to stay in, get in the flow of the game. I think its tough for players when they are constantly shuffled in and out. Its bad enough with the TV timeout disruptions.
Jan 18, 2011 12:38pm
thedynasty1998's avatar

thedynasty1998

Senior Member

6,844 posts
Jan 18, 2011 12:47 PM
centralbucksfan;642684 wrote:I don't disagree with you. But as a former player...how did you, or would you like to be shuffled in and out of a game? A former player myself (many years ago), I didn't have to worry about that...but I didn't like coming off the floor. I prefered to stay in, get in the flow of the game. I think its tough for players when they are constantly shuffled in and out. Its bad enough with the TV timeout disruptions.

Completely agree with you. But I'm just saying from a defenders perspective, I would much rather go against the same guy the whole game than having guys shuffled at me. There are benefits both ways.
Jan 18, 2011 12:47pm
SportsAndLady's avatar

SportsAndLady

Senior Member

35,632 posts
Jan 18, 2011 1:25 PM
centralbucksfan;642614 wrote:I thought Kansas was playing better ball without Selby early in the season.
Not saying this is right or wrong, but look at Kansas' schedule without Selby...their only tough game was against Memphis.
centralbucksfan;642614 wrote:As for depth...Kansas obviously has it. But I am not sure that is that big of an advantage. I'd rather have 2/3 guys off the bench then trying to rotate 9/10 as Kansas does. You can only play with 5 at a time. And I think many times, those teams that stick with 7/8 have better chemistry.
Bill Self has been quoted as saying he has only coached one team with better chemistry than this team, and that is his national championship team. If you look at last year's team, you can really tell they had absolutely no chemistry at times. There has not been a game this season where there was a KU player who didn't understand his role on the team and try to go above and beyond his limitations.

Obviously, all teams are different; and OSU's rotation with 7-8 guys is definitely advantageous to their team. However, I do not believe KU's starting 5 is as good as OSU's starting 5, so I think the extra 2-3 guys off the bench for KU is a very good thing. With OSU, like someone already pointed out, even if Lighty or Sullinger or whoever aren't playing well, they are experienced enough where Matta can leave them in and trust that they will pick it up. With KU, is Selby isn't shooting well (and he hasn't been lately, hence his diminishing minutes), Self has the advantage of putting in Releford, Reed, Morningstar, Johnson, or even Taylor if he isn't in the game already. One of those guys will be playing well and will get the minutes. If you look at KU's box scores throughout their season, you will see that a player like Johnson will get 5 minutes in one game, then 20 in the next...and the team won't lose a beat (good chemistry).
centralbucksfan;642614 wrote:Obviously Kansas is right there with a few other teams, no question. And I don't believe any of those teams are head and shoulders above the rest. I think we will see a rotation of #1 rankings as the season goes on through conference games.

Definitely agree with this. I fully expect the #1 seeds to be OSU, KU, Duke, and one of the Big East teams (pitt, cuse, uconn?), however I see all these teams tripping up along the way in conference giving us a rotation of #1's throughout the season.
Jan 18, 2011 1:25pm
C

centralbucksfan

Senior Member

5,111 posts
Jan 18, 2011 7:51 PM
SportsAndLady;642756 wrote:.



Bill Self has been quoted as saying he has only coached one team with better chemistry than this team, and that is his national championship team..

Interesting you say this as a recent article last week, Self was not all too happy with his team overall. And this was prior to close games vs Michigan and Nebraska. I can only imagine how his mood was after those two nail biters.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/seth_davis/01/10/hoop.thoughts.kansas/index.html
Jan 18, 2011 7:51pm
SportsAndLady's avatar

SportsAndLady

Senior Member

35,632 posts
Jan 18, 2011 7:54 PM
centralbucksfan;643155 wrote:Interesting you say this as a recent article last week, Self was not all too happy with his team overall. And this was prior to close games vs Michigan and Nebraska. I can only imagine how his mood was after those two nail biters.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/seth_davis/01/10/hoop.thoughts.kansas/index.html

That article has nothing to do with team chemistry. It has to do with a KU player telling a member of the media something Self did not want out, and a KU player demoted from the starting lineup 2 games for a thrown elbow.

It was also about KU's "lack of a killer instinct" which I actually agree they have not had yet....until the Baylor game.
Jan 18, 2011 7:54pm
C

centralbucksfan

Senior Member

5,111 posts
Jan 18, 2011 8:18 PM
SportsAndLady;643158 wrote:That article has nothing to do with team chemistry. It has to do with a KU player telling a member of the media something Self did not want out, and a KU player demoted from the starting lineup 2 games for a thrown elbow.

It was also about KU's "lack of a killer instinct" which I actually agree they have not had yet....until the Baylor game.

Self:

"Most of Self's concerns were directed at the players he described as the keys to his team -- Marcus Morris and his twin brother, Markieff. He was especially perturbed at the elbow that Marcus threw in the Cal game. "How can that happen? To me that's a selfish play, a premeditated act, and he deserved to be tossed." Self also told me that his players have been complaining too much to referees. On several occasions the refs have come over to Self to warn him to tell his guys to knock it off. "As many big games as these guys have played in, they shouldn't let little things bother them."



Sorry, but when I see a coach use the word selfish, demoted, complaining and no killer instinct...that doesn't equate to great team chemistry no matter how you twist it.

Not going to get into a pissing match with you, but not sure I agree about the chemistry thing. Watched the game vs Michigan and it was ugly, both teams. Nebraska game didn't sound much better. I am not saying there is a chemistry problem, just not sure they have as great of chemistry as you think they do at this point in the season. Maybe the Baylor game will get them going though. Certainly as talented as any team in the country.
Jan 18, 2011 8:18pm
SportsAndLady's avatar

SportsAndLady

Senior Member

35,632 posts
Jan 18, 2011 8:37 PM
So you're going to use one game that you watched to formulate your judgment that KU's chemistry is not strong?

Or you're going to use a quote in which a coach was not happy that his best player was charged with a flagrant foul for throwing an elbow?


Sorry I just fail to see the connection here.
Jan 18, 2011 8:37pm
thedynasty1998's avatar

thedynasty1998

Senior Member

6,844 posts
Jan 19, 2011 9:12 AM
Nothing in those quotes leads me to think Self is questioning the team chemistry.
Jan 19, 2011 9:12am
V

vball10set

paying it forward

24,795 posts
Jan 19, 2011 9:58 AM
thedynasty1998;643636 wrote:Nothing in those quotes leads me to think Self is questioning the team chemistry.

he's not, and it's amazing to me how some people can read things into articles that just aren't there...crazy
Jan 19, 2011 9:58am