ADVERTISEMENT

Regular Season Vs. Post Season Success

shadow force

Moderator
Moderator
Jun 8, 2010
10,926
5,279
26
Looking back at Virginia's season, I don't think any of us would want or be happy with that type of year even though for 99% of the season, I'm sure their fans were ecstatic. Sure, it must have been great almost sweeping the ACC, winning the ACC Tourney, and only have a couple losses, but losing in the first round of the NCAAT the way they did, pretty much throws all those accomplishments in the crapper to most people.

I think most fans would rather have a season like UofL 2012 where they had many bumps in the road in the regular season, not beating a ranked team, losing at home on senior night, frustrated for much of the year, but then winning the Big East Tourney and making the Final Four.

How do you view it?

Does good/great NCAAT success wipe away all the warts of a so-so regular season in your eyes? Would you be happy with a 2010 UCONN like ride of having a mediocre regular season but going on a crazy post season run? How heavy do you weight NCAAT success against the entire regular season?
 
For me, postseason success wipes away all the "bad memories" of a poor regular season, and vica versa. The UK '11, '14 and this year's teams frustrated me to no end during the regular season, but now I remember them fondly because of their magical post season runs. This year's team will likely not win the title, but winning the SEC tourney and advancing to the S16 is far more success than I ever imagined for this group midway through the season. Likewise, the '15 team is almost an afterthought (or sore spot) for me because they didn't win the title after their great regular season. It's a shame that great regular seasons by most teams are generally "poo-poo'ed" by their respective fan bases if that team doesn't meet postseason expectations, but that's the nature of the beast.
 
I guess it would depend on how an individual fan looks at it, and what that fans expectations were.
The NCAA Tourney title is a six game winning streak. No more, no less.
UCONN rode one of those streaks after a mediocre season. That run certainly made that season a success.
Kentucky had a team with Knight and Harrelson that made an improbable run after a poor season...but that team exceeded expectation.
Kentucky lost a total of one game in a great season. It happened to be in the tournament against Wisconsin. Fair or not, that season isn't looked on well.
The best answer I can give is if the fan expects his team to finish in the final four and it fails, the season is a failure.
If you're a fan of a fifteen or sixteen seed that wasn't expected to be in the tournament, it's party time.
 
Most of us got used to slow starting teams that finished strong under Denny. What he did was purposeful. He slowly built and developed the team so it peaked at the end of the season. It all started with the tough OOC schedules. Even with the slow start against a brutal schedule, I really thought we would be the best team in the country by the NCAA tournament in 1986. The regular season means nothing compared to the post season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wilkie01
Every single win that Virginia won was trumped by losing to a 16 seed in the NCAA tourney. IDC if they had won every single game by 30 points all regular season long. Losing to a 16 seed as a 1 seed in the NCAA tourney makes the season a complete failure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoldCard and Deeva
I've said it before this year, and I'll say it again...

You don't make hire and fire decisions based on a crapshoot called the "NCAA tourney". You don't hire a guy because he makes a deep run, and you don't fire a guy because he can't. It's fine to use that as your measure of success IN THE JOB. But as a reason to hire or fire someone, you do not use it. It's a crapshoot, and you don't make an important decision based on a crapshoot.

At best, NCAA results are a CONFIRMATION form of evidence. I'm not enthusiastic about Chris Mack, and last nite just confirmed that. I like Tony Bennett despite his tourney flameouts...
 
Regular season success would be looked upon more favorably if the NCAA selection committee had specific criteria for getting invited, such as finishing above .500 in conference play. They tried to make the regular season more important with seeding and game site, but they didn't go far enough. 1 seeds should be limited to 4 teams that win the regular season conference championship. And location should benefit the top 2 seeds in each region (top 4 at most) not lower seeds. The way it is now, the committee usually tries to place as many teams as possible as close to their campus as possible. That de-emphasizes the regular season.

Put a priority on conference finish vis a vis seeding and location. Then the regular season will matter more.
 
I've said it before this year, and I'll say it again...

You don't make hire and fire decisions based on a crapshoot called the "NCAA tourney". You don't hire a guy because he makes a deep run, and you don't fire a guy because he can't. It's fine to use that as your measure of success IN THE JOB. But as a reason to hire or fire someone, you do not use it. It's a crapshoot, and you don't make an important decision based on a crapshoot.

At best, NCAA results are a CONFIRMATION form of evidence. I'm not enthusiastic about Chris Mack, and last nite just confirmed that. I like Tony Bennett despite his tourney flameouts...

If it was 1 tourney then fine, but how do you ignore Bennett's constant early flameouts? Could he last long at UofL if the entire fanbase knows there is no point of watching tourney games cause we would choke early?
 
I've said it before this year, and I'll say it again...

You don't make hire and fire decisions based on a crapshoot called the "NCAA tourney". You don't hire a guy because he makes a deep run, and you don't fire a guy because he can't. It's fine to use that as your measure of success IN THE JOB. But as a reason to hire or fire someone, you do not use it. It's a crapshoot, and you don't make an important decision based on a crapshoot.

At best, NCAA results are a CONFIRMATION form of evidence. I'm not enthusiastic about Chris Mack, and last nite just confirmed that. I like Tony Bennett despite his tourney flameouts...
Bennett has been in the tournament enough times to show that he will never win a national title. Mack is more likely to grab one at this point IMO. Bennett and his team choked in the biggest way possible. There is no washing the stink of that loss off of him until he gets to a FF or wins a title. This last example shows his coaching style is simply a gimmick that can be exposed on any given day. The ONLY thing that has to happen to beat him is a hot shooting night from the opposition. That WILL happen 1 our of 6 times. Guaranteed. His offense is not suited for the college game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shadow force
At best, NCAA results are a CONFIRMATION form of evidence. I'm not enthusiastic about Chris Mack, and last nite just confirmed that. I like Tony Bennett despite his tourney flameouts...

I'm not sure if Mack is the guy either but how could you possibly use Macks loss to FSU against him and not do the same for Bennet?

Especially since Bennet had one of the most all time epic terrible losses, not just in NCAA terms, but in all of sports history. That makes zero sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cue Card
Bennett has been in the tournament enough times to show that he will never win a national title. Mack is more likely to grab one at this point IMO. Bennett and his team choked in the biggest way possible. There is no washing the stink of that loss off of him until he gets to a FF or wins a title. This last example shows his coaching style is simply a gimmick that can be exposed on any given day. The ONLY thing that has to happen to beat him is a hot shooting night from the opposition. That WILL happen 1 our of 6 times. Guaranteed. His offense is not suited for the college game.
I'd look at the UVA and Xavier results just the opposite... There was no choke job by UVA. UMBC was simply the better team that night. There was no victory in their control to choke away.

Xavier should have had that win and choked it away just like Cincy did yesterday and just like we did against UVA a few weeks ago.

Bennett consistently beats good teams and coaches each year with inferior talent. That's how I judge coaching ability, not a couple games in March...
 
If it was 1 tourney then fine, but how do you ignore Bennett's constant early flameouts? Could he last long at UofL if the entire fanbase knows there is no point of watching tourney games cause we would choke early?
I'd like to see him get that chance at U of L with the talent he can attract and the other advantages he would have here. Denny Crum couldn't win the "big one" either until he did...
 
I'm not sure if Mack is the guy either but how could you possibly use Macks loss to FSU against him and not do the same for Bennet?

Especially since Bennet had one of the most all time epic terrible losses, not just in NCAA terms, but in all of sports history. That makes zero sense.
It makes perfect sense because, as I said, the NCAA tourney is only a confirmation form of evidence.

Mack doesn't have a great resume, and losing to Leonard Hamilton's FSU team is just confirmation of that. Bennett coaches his a$$ off every year against good teams and coaches with better talent. He has a great resume EXCEPT FOR the NCAA tourney...
 
I'd look at the UVA and Xavier results just the opposite... There was no choke job by UVA. UMBC was simply the better team that night. There was no victory in their control to choke away.

Xavier should have had that win and choked it away just like Cincy did yesterday and just like we did against UVA a few weeks ago.

Bennett consistently beats good teams and coaches each year with inferior talent. That's how I judge coaching ability, not a couple games in March...
Bennett wins with inferior talent but I’d argue the same could be said for Mack. UVA and Xavier have comparable personnel based off of the amount of players in the NBA over the past few years and UVA may have more.
My knock on Bennett is just that the goal for U of L should be to win Championships. Bennett has given us a large enough sample size to show he can’t do it. Mack it remains to be seen. And I’d take a close loss over a blowout at the hands of the worst team in the field.
I would hope we’d be in agreement that Jay Wright would be ahead of both of these guys, but it will be too hard to pull him out of philly.
 
Bennett wins with inferior talent but I’d argue the same could be said for Mack. UVA and Xavier have comparable personnel based off of the amount of players in the NBA over the past few years and UVA may have more...
Fine. I don't think there's any chance that Mack could take his Xavier teams and perform as well in the ACC as Bennett has. That's each guy matched up with the teams they coach...
 
Calipari has coached 900+/- games.

Same for Bill Self.

They each have one (1) National Champ and they’re at Two of the PREMIERE BB schools in the country.

Tony Bennett has coached 400+

To say he’ll never win a title is a bit premature.
 
Fine. I don't think there's any chance that Mack could take his Xavier teams and perform as well in the ACC as Bennett has. That's each guy matched up with the teams they coach...

Keep in mind the ACC has been complicit with Bennett's team's hacking style since he arrived.

It's allowed because of an agenda the ACC has to attempt to create a school that achieves academic prowess such as UVA to join the Carolinas as an elite basketball school. The problem with this plan is the rest of the country and unbiased officials from other conferences do not share the same goals the ACC has for UVA.

That result in the 1st Rd for UVA was humiliating to the ACC as well as the Cavs. It will be interesting to see if the ACC walks back the complicity moving forward.

He wouldn't be the beneficiary of the same lean from officials if he were coaching at Louisville, the sudden black sheep of the college basketball world, either.

Also, more talent in his *chuckles* "system" would probably bring the system down a notch. Most guys that can play may not buy into his concepts of hacking, grabbing, hugging, misdirecting, etc.

It's a true poor form of basketball that took awhile to be exposed to it's fullest. Scoring 39 pts in a SS game a few years ago, or whatever round it was, that was hilarious - but not as eye catching as getting dragged in the 1st rd by a 16 seed.

You don't want this guy here Zipp. Trust me. It's not something we'd have to worry about. He's not making any move to a place like here anyway.
 
Mack doesn't have a great resume, and losing to Leonard Hamilton's FSU team is just confirmation of that. Bennett coaches his a$$ off every year against good teams and coaches with better talent. He has a great resume EXCEPT FOR the NCAA tourney...

I think we have seen that NCAA Tourney success is very important, so that is a big "except." Bennett losing the way he did effectively throws all the wins from the regular season in the trash.

It should tell you something that UVA wasn't even in position to choke the game away against UMBC. That's because they weren't even close. They were blown out by 20 points by the worst team in the tourney.

That's much more alarming to me than losing a late lead because at least you had a chance to win. Before this season one could always count on a one seed, especially the overall one seed, to win the first game against a 16 seed. Always.

With Bennett at the helm you don't even have that anymore as he proved this season.
 
This was a good chance for Mack to prove himself with a deep run into the Final Four. Have to admit I am a little disappointed in how they flamed out. But, I still think he could come here and duplicate what Pitino did in a 16 year period with one Final Four.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wilkie01
Keep in mind the ACC has been complicit with Bennett's team's hacking style since he arrived...
Wouldn't that be supported statistically? From the box score, UVA had three more personal fouls in the game than UMBC did. I recall hearing that same thing about another school and coach pretty close to here. It seems to be a label put on pretty good defensive teams.

I'd look forward to seeing how well Bennett could do with the basketball resources at Louisville. He's a guy that people know, he has a very professional persona, he's probably clean, and he can compete with any other good coach and roster of players.

Too many people are concerned about style points and the look test. I want a coach who knows how to coach. When high school kids get to jump directly to the NBA and pay-for-play is reined in, THAT will become an even greater priority...

tony-bennett-charlottesville-statement.jpg
 
Wouldn't that be supported statistically?

tony-bennett-charlottesville-statement.jpg


Zipp - UVA was called for the 2nd LEAST fouls in ACC play this year. There is no way a team that plays that physical brand only committed the 2nd least fouls in league play. The announcers scream they don't foul. It's laughable. They don't get called for fouls.

Yet against UMBC, a team that took half their shots beyond the 3 pt line, they still got whistled for more fouls.

https://www.scacchoops.com/acc-foul-differential
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoldCard
Think about it Z - 16 fouls called on UVA in the game where UMBC shot 24 2 pt shots and 24 3pt shots. UMBC only shot 14 FTs. The refs simply cleaned up the BS mugging on drives and away from the ball, and UVA didn't know how to respond.

In the ACC, if UVA faced a team that took that many 3s, they are probably whistled for roughly half the fouls they got put on them in the NCAAs. They would still have been able to muscle the drivers and do their little tricks off the ball.

The mirage is the league play results. The results are aided by a gift whistle and they are really a program that is more of mid-level ACC team, and their post season results back that up.

I don't want a guy producing a mirage fool's gold product reliant on preferential treatment from referees.

It's not that he's a bad coach. He's just an okay coach with ZERO final fours despite a # of high seeds.

Considering the home cooking ND gets, I am not surprised they are the ONLY team called for less fouls in league play than UVA.

It's all a sham my man.
 
Wouldn't that be supported statistically? From the box score, UVA had three more personal fouls in the game than UMBC did.

Considering how Virginia was playing from behind it seems amazing that they only had 3 more personal fouls.
 
FT differential in league play, an amazing +4 only. UVA got to the FT line less than every team in the ACC. By a wide margin.

Think about that. Of course less possessions, but then again they were in the lead many games and teams burnt fouls late to extend games I'm sure.

My point? Their coach is a horrible offensive coach. And that's part of the job. It's not a matter of analysis based on what looks good - it's an analysis based on what's conducive to post season success. Stalling the ball does not work, it negates easy points and those are needed in the post season.

The entire thing is a fraud. And that's why the balloon keeps popping early. And this year, it was just glorious to see them make the worst kind of history, and not even be able to stay in the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoldCard
FT differential in league play, an amazing +4 only. UVA got to the FT line less than every team in the ACC. By a wide margin...
Good analysis... UVA was the best conference team to minimize the number of ACC opponent FTs, but one of the worst to attempt them. That doesn't tell me much more than the slower pace they created led to fewer FTs for both teams. I don't really see anything else to conclude from that.

They averaged 7.4 fewer PPG this year than our 2013 national champ team. Hard for me to grasp that's the difference between a champ and a "horrible" offense...
 
FT differential in league play, an amazing +4 only. UVA got to the FT line less than every team in the ACC. By a wide margin.

Think about that. Of course less possessions, but then again they were in the lead many games and teams burnt fouls late to extend games I'm sure.

My point? Their coach is a horrible offensive coach. And that's part of the job. It's not a matter of analysis based on what looks good - it's an analysis based on what's conducive to post season success. Stalling the ball does not work, it negates easy points and those are needed in the post season.

The entire thing is a fraud. And that's why the balloon keeps popping early. And this year, it was just glorious to see them make the worst kind of history, and not even be able to stay in the game.
Ironic how they used to say the same thing about Dean Smith and how he couldn’t win championships with the 4 corners offense. This is like the modern day 4 corners with a shot clock
 
Good analysis... UVA was the best conference team to minimize the number of ACC opponent FTs, but one of the worst to attempt them. That doesn't tell me much more than the slower pace they created led to fewer FTs for both teams. I don't really see anything else to conclude from that.

They averaged 7.4 fewer PPG this year than our 2013 national champ team. Hard for me to grasp that's the difference between a champ and a "horrible" offense...


7.4 PPG is a lot of points.

Zipp here is an article from 2013 - Not outdated. It lists the prior 10 champs between 2003-2013.

You will notice a whopping 7 out of the 10 champs had the #1 or #2 offense. UCONN was the outlier @ #16.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1567816-blueprint-of-an-ncaa-basketball-champion


In 2014, UofL was #7.
In 2015, Duke was #3.
In 2016, Nova was #3.
In 2017, UNC was #9



For me it's not about being fancy, or a style that's favorable to the eye. It's about what it takes to win at the highest level - and the premium is on a top offense most years.

UVA's O rating, I'm going to admit - not as "horrible" as I thought under Bennett. It's just average at best, and below average for a title contender.

UVA's highest rating was an anomaly @ #8., and the last two years they were #30 and #50. In the #20s a few other years, also 83rd another year - these aren't horrible, but they aren't the profile of a championship team either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoldCard
...
In 2014, UofL was #7.
In 2015, Duke was #3.
In 2016, Nova was #3.
In 2017, UNC was #9...
Metrics on offense are completely relevant. Great basketball teams are usually rated high both offensively and defensively. But this ain't as it good as it gets.

The four teams you mention were coached by the best coaches in the business and each with a lot of experience. Coach K was 68 years of age when he won in 2015. Roy was 66, and Pitino was 60. The young gun was Wright at 54. Bennett is 48 years old and still has plenty of time to refine that part of his coaching system.

Gimme the guy who can compete with great coaches and talent. As I've said several times recently, Crum was a guy who couldn't win the "big one" before 1980. Those things don't change until they do.

The time may be perfect to pluck Bennett from UVA too. That loss Friday may have him thinking...
 
Bennett is 48 years old and still has plenty of time to refine that part of his coaching system.

Gimme the guy who can compete with great coaches and talent. As I've said several times recently, Crum was a guy who couldn't win the "big one" before 1980. Those things don't change until they do.

The time may be perfect to pluck Bennett from UVA too. That loss Friday may have him thinking...

That is a fair argument. Let's hope we're alive long enough to see if Bennett will have a HOF career like the guy you're comparing him too, or guys like Lute or Boeheim.

All those coaches were capable offensive coaches though - and Bennett has yet to show he understands the importance of having a prolific offense.

What you are suggesting is he may be willing to have a complete makeover with his personal philosophy on how to coach college basketball- and I'm not sure any coach will ever do something like that - maybe you can point me to an example of such a thing.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT