Major isnât bothered.
Major isnât bothered.[/quote]
I disagree. I donât think he is a great coach, but he is definitely 100% all in. He might not show it the way you like, but I think he is literally destroying his brain and body trying to figure out how to win. I just donât think he has the answers and it is driving him insane. He knows he is blowing his one chance.
Answering âI donât knowâ to one of the biggest problems we have irks me more than any coachspeak ever could. Maybe âweâll continue to evaluateâ or âgetting better as the year progresses and into conference play has to be the main focus.â Hell, anything but idkmybffjill
Then he would have been accused of coach speak.
I think this interview was mostly devoid of coach speak. Thatâs what made it a good interview for me. He was honest.
If he knew what the solution to the problem was, we wouldnât be having the problem.
Major isnât bothered.[/quote]
Neither is JUDY DOUBLETALK ROSE or CHP ⌠Thats why Charlotte in my opinion has one of the most amazing fan bases is college sports. Keep coming back, supporting, after the BOSS flat out tells you WINNING is low on the priority list. Major is in the right place. The passionate and loyal charlotte fans are the oddballs.
Major isnât bothered.[/quote]
Neither is JUDY DOUBLETALK ROSE or CHP ⌠Thats why Charlotte in my opinion has one of the most amazing fan bases is college sports. Keep coming back, supporting, after the BOSS flat out tells you WINNING is low on the priority list. Major is in the right place. The passionate and loyal charlotte fans are the oddballs.[/quote]
Oh câmon. With all your wit you can only call us oddballs?? With your dazzling repertoire you can do better.
I mean with Size King and Doubletalk, we should expect better. Oh waitâŚ
[quote=âPowerbait, post:25, topic:28731â]I think this interview was mostly devoid of coach speak. Thatâs what made it a good interview for me. He was honest.
If he knew what the solution to the problem was, we wouldnât be having the problem.[/quote] Pretty shrewd observation from a youngster.
[quote=âPowerbait, post:25, topic:28731â]I think this interview was mostly devoid of coach speak. Thatâs what made it a good interview for me. He was honest.
If he knew what the solution to the problem was, we wouldnât be having the problem.[/quote]
If Major doesnât know how to fix it, why is he still the coach?
Why do you ask leading questions?
I thought that was one of the only really telling answers in the article. The rest were basically admitting we had problems and that we should fix them, but there was actually some insight on the scheduling thing. The A10 made a big push towards scheduling tougher after that season GW had two losses and only got an 8 or 9 seed. Iâd be interested in knowing if they had a âwin XX% of your OOC gamesâ or if it was more of a âplay a SOS less than XXX.â
CUSA telling teams in a one-bid conference to try to load up on wins is the wrong approach, I think. You donât want to become the Big South, but if you actually want to be an at-large bid conference it is all about tough OOC schedules. âPlay 8 or 9 teams you should beat and 2 or 3 that will be a big RPI boost win or loseâ seems to be the wrong approach.[/quote]Itâs about raising the conference-wide rpi, so that teams are playing teams with high winning percentages (raising their rpi significantly due to that being 50% of the formula) and can get top 100 and top 50 wins in conference play. As long as the selection committee wants to rig the game by focusing on SOS, including conference play in their rpi measures comparing conference strength and strength of opponents, and not any measure that includes whether the game was played on the road or not, it will be extremely difficult for CUSA teams to achieve the resume building wins they need while playing a tough schedule (because none of the higher profile teams will come play a true road game if the opponent is a tough team from a lower profile conference). CUSA may be a âone-bidâ conference most years, but theyâre not as far from it as the Big South, so in many years a little help from the conference could push a team or two into the at-large discussion.
It requires smart expectations for how good your team will be, but if the top teams play tougher OOC schedules and the bottom teams play much easier schedules, the conference as a whole benefits by playing teams with higher win percentages on average after OOC play. The A10 may have emphasized strength before, but they went right back to encouraging scheduling based on expectations in recent years. I wonder if Tulsa scheduled the way they did in part because they knew they were leaving soon, as they really hurt the rest of the conference this year by losing so many games OOC despite being a decent team. It probably helped them later in the season, but hurt chances for at-larges by the bubble teams.[/quote]
I agree with you. You basically need your top 5-6 teams to play tough OOC schedules, if two or three of them make it out alive you hope they also finish at the top of the league and thatâs how you get at-large bids. You have the rest of your league play winnable games to keep the conference RPI respectable.
My problem is the âwin 70% of you gamesâ mandate is outdated. Itâs a good RPI gaming scheme but the selection committee showed a preference to tough SOS over RPI. You really need to play a good schedule so you can beat some good teams and then back it up with a good conference finish.
[quote=âCMack124, post:31, topic:28731â]My problem is the âwin 70% of you gamesâ mandate is outdated. Itâs a good RPI gaming scheme but the selection committee showed a preference to tough SOS over RPI. You really need to play a good schedule so you can beat some good teams and then back it up with a good conference finish.[/quote] I could see tweaking the 70% goal to include your top teams playing some tough games OOC (but they better be able to win them on the road for the most part). That was Southern Missâ problem, they just hadnât beaten any good teams OOC (they claim no one would agree to schedule them, which is another fairness issue the NCAA should address but wonât). However, I think you could argue they wouldâve gotten an at-large bid if they had played and beaten more top 100 and top 50 teams in conference play, even without the OOC big wins. Obviously, a big drag on everyone is just how bad the bottom of the conference was (UTSA played an easy schedule and still lost most of their OOC games), but what end up being top teams shouldnât be going 5-9 OOC (Tulsa).
Iâm also not convinced that the OOC is all that important to the committee for teams in higher rated conferences, and so they tend to primarily use it as an excuse to keep less attractive teams out. NC state got in with an OOC SOS of 107 with only one good win (Tennessee) and zero good road wins in OOC or conference play. Thatâs ridiculous. Providence had an OOC SoS of 194, their best OOC win was probably La Salle (!), but they got to play some better teams at home in conference play so they got big wins there. But then Iâm pretty cynical and think the committee cherry picks data to include the teams they want to have in the tournament, and sometimes theyâre not even consistent in a given year. It can be overcome, just look at the A10 getting 6 teams in.
[quote=â9erken, post:32, topic:28731â][quote=âCMack124, post:31, topic:28731â]My problem is the âwin 70% of you gamesâ mandate is outdated. Itâs a good RPI gaming scheme but the selection committee showed a preference to tough SOS over RPI. You really need to play a good schedule so you can beat some good teams and then back it up with a good conference finish.[/quote] I could see tweaking the 70% goal to include your top teams playing some tough games OOC (but they better be able to win them on the road for the most part). That was Southern Missâ problem, they just hadnât beaten any good teams OOC (they claim no one would agree to schedule them, which is another fairness issue the NCAA should address but wonât). However, I think you could argue they wouldâve gotten an at-large bid if they had played and beaten more top 100 and top 50 teams in conference play, even without the OOC big wins. Obviously, a big drag on everyone is just how bad the bottom of the conference was (UTSA played an easy schedule and still lost most of their OOC games), but what end up being top teams shouldnât be going 5-9 OOC (Tulsa).
Iâm also not convinced that the OOC is all that important to the committee for teams in higher rated conferences, and so they tend to primarily use it as an excuse to keep less attractive teams out. NC state got in with an OOC SOS of 107 with only one good win (Tennessee) and zero good road wins in OOC or conference play. Thatâs ridiculous. Providence had an OOC SoS of 194, their best OOC win was probably La Salle (!), but they got to play some better teams at home in conference play so they got big wins there. But then Iâm pretty cynical and think the committee cherry picks data to include the teams they want to have in the tournament, and sometimes theyâre not even consistent in a given year. It can be overcome, just look at the A10 getting 6 teams in.[/quote]
Right, power conference teams, especially those who arenât necessarily expecting to be NCAA locks (NCSU and Providence are good examples) have no reason to schedule the best teams from lower conferences. They need to rack up Ws and then hope to hold their own in conference play, it is strong enough to carry the weak OOC. Scheduling is an issue, but get creative with it, canât play a projected middle of the pack ACC school? Call a projected top 5 A10 school.
In conferences like CUSA if you donât play anybody OOC that kills the whole conference. We need the bad teams to find awful teams to beat, but we also need to have a few top 40 or 50 teams heading into conference play. That way good conference wins are viewed as good wins on the resume. Nobody said âSouthern Miss beat La. Tech, that was a good winâ and that, in the end, was what killed their chances. Youâve got to carry some weight at the end of OOC to make those conference games potentially resume-boosting instead of what happened this year where you could only hurt your chances playing the CUSA, trying to avoid horrible losses.
Was encouraging to hear him talk about playing more up tempo next year, and it sounds like weâll have the pieces to do it. The big question is how to cut down on the turnovers. Even if we make no strides in defense or free throw shooting, cutting down our TO avg by 5 or 6 a game would probably result in 5-6 more wins.
Here is how you address mistakes and the future. God Im jealous
[quote=âmetro, post:35, topic:28731â]Here is how you address mistakes and the future. God Im jealous
Letâs not compare a ford fusion to a Telsa⌠K makes like 4 million a year, we are on here complaining about wasting 2 million over 4 years and what is is 59 k a month.
[quote=âmetro, post:35, topic:28731â]Here is how you address mistakes and the future. God Im jealous
He didnât say much different. Both acknowledged short comings through questions and said they needed to work at bettering them by whatever means.
[quote=âEE9er, post:36, topic:28731â][quote=âmetro, post:35, topic:28731â]Here is how you address mistakes and the future. God Im jealous
Letâs not compare a ford fusion to a Telsa⌠K makes like 4 million a year, we are on here complaining about wasting 2 million over 4 years and what is is 59 k a month.[/quote]
Lol yup. I thought same. But 490k year you should be able to address past, current, future in this manner.
Loved his quote on motivation
And of course he wasnt pressured to do this-
[quote=âEE9er, post:36, topic:28731â][quote=âmetro, post:35, topic:28731â]Here is how you address mistakes and the future. God Im jealous
Letâs not compare a ford fusion to a Telsa⌠K makes like 4 million a year, we are on here complaining about wasting 2 million over 4 years and what is is 59 k a month.[/quote]
$2,000,000/48 months is 41k/month, right?
[quote=âEE9er, post:36, topic:28731â][quote=âmetro, post:35, topic:28731â]Here is how you address mistakes and the future. God Im jealous
Letâs not compare a ford fusion to a Telsa⌠K makes like 4 million a year, we are on here complaining about wasting 2 million over 4 years and what is is 59 k a month.[/quote]
Itâs a measuring stick. Itâs the same sport. Fair comparison.
Coach K led Army to one NIT berth in 5 seasons. Maybe theyâre the same after all!