goemaw.com
TITLETOWN - A Decade Long Celebration Of The Greatest Achievement In College Athletics History => Kansas State Basketball is hard => Topic started by: CHONGS on January 30, 2012, 02:56:26 PM
-
A proposed system for determining when a coach should be fired.
A new coach shall start with 8 points. When the coach reaches 0 (or less than 0) they should be fired.
Every year they do not make the NIT tournament they lose 3 points.
Every year they do not make the NCAA tournament they lose 2 points.
Every year they do not make it past the first weekend they lose 1 point.
Making the second weekend is no loss or gain of points (this is the baseline expectation).
Making the Elite 8 is a gain of 1 point
Making the Final Four is a gain of 2 points
Making the champ game is a gain of 4 points
Winning the nat'l champ is worth 8 points
Winning the conference is a gain of 1 point
Winning the conference tournament is a gain of 1 point
Frank Marin
Starting : 8 points
after 2007-2008 7 points
after 2008-2009 5 points
after 2009-2010 6 points
after 2010-2011 5 points
tweaks that should be added? point adjustments?
-
A proposed system for determining when a coach should be fired.
A new coach shall start with 8 points. When the coach reaches 0 (or less than 0) they should be fired.
Every year they do not make the NIT tournament they lose 3 points.
Every year they do not make the NCAA tournament they lose 2 points.
Every year they do not make it past the first weekend they lose 1 point.
Making the second weekend is no loss or gain of points (this is the baseline expectation).
Making the Elite 8 is a gain of 1 point
Making the Final Four is a gain of 2 points
Making the champ game is a gain of 4 points
Winning the nat'l champ is worth 8 points
Winning the conference is a gain of 1 point
Winning the conference tournament is a gain of 1 point
Frank Marin
Starting : 8 points
after 2007-2008 7 points
after 2008-2009 5 points
after 2009-2010 6 points
after 2010-2011 5 points
tweaks that should be added? point adjustments?
DO DOC NOW
-
A proposed system for determining when a coach should be fired.
A new coach shall start with 8 points. When the coach reaches 0 (or less than 0) they should be fired.
Every year they do not make the NIT tournament they lose 3 points.
Every year they do not make the NCAA tournament they lose 2 points.
Every year they do not make it past the first weekend they lose 1 point.
Making the second weekend is no loss or gain of points (this is the baseline expectation).
Making the Elite 8 is a gain of 1 point
Making the Final Four is a gain of 2 points
Making the champ game is a gain of 4 points
Winning the nat'l champ is worth 8 points
Winning the conference is a gain of 1 point
Winning the conference tournament is a gain of 1 point
Frank Marin
Starting : 8 points
after 2007-2008 7 points
after 2008-2009 5 points
after 2009-2010 6 points
after 2010-2011 5 points
tweaks that should be added? point adjustments?
maybe add a pt for conference reg season and sweet 16 and beyond.
round of 32 should be expectation :dunno:
good system though. :thumbs:
-
A proposed system for determining when a coach should be fired.
A new coach shall start with 8 points. When the coach reaches 0 (or less than 0) they should be fired.
Every year they do not make the NIT tournament they lose 3 points.
Every year they do not make the NCAA tournament they lose 2 points.
Every year they do not make it past the first weekend they lose 1 point.
Making the second weekend is no loss or gain of points (this is the baseline expectation).
Making the Elite 8 is a gain of 1 point
Making the Final Four is a gain of 2 points
Making the champ game is a gain of 4 points
Winning the nat'l champ is worth 8 points
Winning the conference is a gain of 1 point
Winning the conference tournament is a gain of 1 point
Frank Marin
Starting : 8 points
after 2007-2008 7 points
after 2008-2009 5 points
after 2009-2010 6 points
after 2010-2011 5 points
tweaks that should be added? point adjustments?
DO DOC NOW
How many points do you get for a first round NIT win?
-
A proposed system for determining when a coach should be fired.
A new coach shall start with 8 points. When the coach reaches 0 (or less than 0) they should be fired.
Every year they do not make the NIT tournament they lose 3 points.
Every year they do not make the NCAA tournament they lose 2 points.
Every year they do not make it past the first weekend they lose 1 point.
Making the second weekend is no loss or gain of points (this is the baseline expectation).
Making the Elite 8 is a gain of 1 point
Making the Final Four is a gain of 2 points
Making the champ game is a gain of 4 points
Winning the nat'l champ is worth 8 points
Winning the conference is a gain of 1 point
Winning the conference tournament is a gain of 1 point
Frank Marin
Starting : 8 points
after 2007-2008 7 points
after 2008-2009 5 points
after 2009-2010 6 points
after 2010-2011 5 points
tweaks that should be added? point adjustments?
DO DOC NOW
How many points do you get for a first round NIT win?
-2
-
Eddie Sutton would have been canned after 13 seasons at OSU, missing his last 3 seasons which included a final four, a sweet 16, 2 P66ers and a B12 title.
Roy Williams (not counting probation year) finished at KU with 16 pts. Never got below 10 after first final four.
Norm Stewart would have been fired after three seasons at MU
Johnny Orr would have been fired after three seasons at ISU
Rick Barnes would have 4 pts left.
Lute Olson would have had a precarious ride. Feeling immense pressure even after winning an ass load of conference titles before going to his second final four in 1993, then being down to one point before winning it all in 1997
Bill Self with 16 pts, never had to worry even with the 1st round chokes.
Dean Smith would have been fired after three years at UNC
Gary Williams would have been fired after three years at MAryland
K would have been fired after three seasons at Duke
Jim Calhoun would have been fired after 6 seasons. His last 4 seasons? E8, S16, 32, NIT with two BE titles and a BE tourney title.
Jim Boeheim would have been fired at Syracuse after 10 years. His run would have included 2 BE titles, 1 BE tourney title, 8 of 10 years in the NCAAs, 4 S16. He would have been fired in a season where he went 26-6, won and won the BE title.
Gene Keady would have been fired after 6 seasons. The last four of which were NCAA bids, and included a conference title.
It is also interesting to look at how the coaches did immediately following a Chingon firing, but I'll let you wiki that yourself.
It is a decent Idea, but Conference titles, and high seeds are more indicative of a solid coach than NCAA runs. I could list most any coach who comes to mind and only the greatest of the great can pass this test, and as you've seen many of them struggle with it as well.
Also, S16 as a baseline to happiness leads to a miserable life as a BBall fan.
-
Fun! Do Wooly!
-
Fun system.
-
Eddie Sutton would have been canned after 13 seasons at OSU, missing his last 3 seasons which included a final four, a sweet 16, 2 P66ers and a B12 title.
Roy Williams (not counting probation year) finished at KU with 16 pts. Never got below 10 after first final four.
Norm Stewart would have been fired after three seasons at MU
Johnny Orr would have been fired after three seasons at ISU
Rick Barnes would have 4 pts left.
Lute Olson would have had a precarious ride. Feeling immense pressure even after winning an ass load of conference titles before going to his second final four in 1993, then being down to one point before winning it all in 1997
Bill Self with 16 pts, never had to worry even with the 1st round chokes.
Dean Smith would have been fired after three years at UNC
Gary Williams would have been fired after three years at MAryland
K would have been fired after three seasons at Duke
Jim Calhoun would have been fired after 6 seasons. His last 4 seasons? E8, S16, 32, NIT with two BE titles and a BE tourney title.
Jim Boeheim would have been fired at Syracuse after 10 years. His run would have included 2 BE titles, 1 BE tourney title, 8 of 10 years in the NCAAs, 4 S16. He would have been fired in a season where he went 26-6, won and won the BE title.
Gene Keady would have been fired after 6 seasons. The last four of which were NCAA bids, and included a conference title.
It is also interesting to look at how the coaches did immediately following a Chingon firing, but I'll let you wiki that yourself.
It is a decent Idea, but Conference titles, and high seeds are more indicative of a solid coach than NCAA runs. I could list most any coach who comes to mind and only the greatest of the great can pass this test, and as you've seen many of them struggle with it as well.
Also, S16 as a baseline to happiness leads to a miserable life as a BBall fan.
i think your math is horribly wrong.
-
Wooly would of been fired after year 2, would of been what, -22 when he finally was Weisered
Asbury would of been -12
I may be doing it wrong, but you basically get a -5 every year there is no post season, correct?
-
Top 4 conference finish :dunno:
-
Eddie Sutton would have been canned after 13 seasons at OSU, missing his last 3 seasons which included a final four, a sweet 16, 2 P66ers and a B12 title.
Roy Williams (not counting probation year) finished at KU with 16 pts. Never got below 10 after first final four.
Norm Stewart would have been fired after three seasons at MU
Johnny Orr would have been fired after three seasons at ISU
Rick Barnes would have 4 pts left.
Lute Olson would have had a precarious ride. Feeling immense pressure even after winning an ass load of conference titles before going to his second final four in 1993, then being down to one point before winning it all in 1997
Bill Self with 16 pts, never had to worry even with the 1st round chokes.
Dean Smith would have been fired after three years at UNC
Gary Williams would have been fired after three years at MAryland
K would have been fired after three seasons at Duke
Jim Calhoun would have been fired after 6 seasons. His last 4 seasons? E8, S16, 32, NIT with two BE titles and a BE tourney title.
Jim Boeheim would have been fired at Syracuse after 10 years. His run would have included 2 BE titles, 1 BE tourney title, 8 of 10 years in the NCAAs, 4 S16. He would have been fired in a season where he went 26-6, won and won the BE title.
Gene Keady would have been fired after 6 seasons. The last four of which were NCAA bids, and included a conference title.
It is also interesting to look at how the coaches did immediately following a Chingon firing, but I'll let you wiki that yourself.
It is a decent Idea, but Conference titles, and high seeds are more indicative of a solid coach than NCAA runs. I could list most any coach who comes to mind and only the greatest of the great can pass this test, and as you've seen many of them struggle with it as well.
Also, S16 as a baseline to happiness leads to a miserable life as a BBall fan.
i think your math is horribly wrong.
Yes, I have Self at 38 :dunno:
-
Bill Self:
Starts with 8
after 2003-2004: 9
after 2004-2005: 9
after 2005-2006: 10
after 2006-2007: 13
after 2007-2008: 23
after 2008-2009: 23
after 2009-2010: 24
after 2010-2011: 27
-
Doing coaches before tournament expansion would be dumb IMO. Making the tournament back in the 60s and 70s would have been worth 5 points
-
Tex Winter would have been fired at K-State after four seasons keeping KSU out of a couple of Final Fours, a couple of Elite Eights and a Sweet Sixteen that followed.
Jack Hartman would have been fired after his 9th season and KSU would have missed the three straight NCAA appearances that followed including a Sweet Sixteen and an Elite Eight.
Dumb system. :flush:
-
Wooly would of been fired after year 2, would of been what, -22 when he finally was Weisered
Asbury would of been -12
I may be doing it wrong, but you basically get a -5 every year there is no post season, correct?
no he would lose -3 every year
-
This is a system for present day college basketball (espn era).
-
I think your system undervalues Elite 8's and def Final Fours. Also, substitute "second round" for "second weekend".
Winning conf season should def be more than winning the tourney.
Otherwise, I agree it is a fun system.
-
I see the confusion about the point system. It's not cumulative penalties. Not making the NIT is -3 (you don't get double penalized). If you don't make the NIT its obvious you missed the NCAA so the penalty has already been included. The most points you can lose in a season is 3, and the most you can gain is 10 (Nat'l Champ + win conference and win conference title)
-
Lon Kruger would have been fired from every job he's ever had outside of KSU. It could be argued he would have been fired at FLA had he not bolted for ILL.
Kelvin Sampson's career at OU nearly matches his points as he left OU with one point remaining.
Larry Eustachy is a perfect match for the system at ISU
Billy Tubbs would have been fired after 91-92 season. He took OU to the NIT in the following two years before leaving town anyway.
Quin Snyder is a perfect match.
John Calipari would have been fired before ever making an NCAA at both Umass and Memp.
Tom Izzo would currently have 24 pts at MSU. The king of this system.
After more thought the system works well for coaches that didn't have to turn a program around from sucking previously. Interesting.
I still think the NCAA tourney is a crapshoot confy titles and high seeds are a better inticator. But perhaps the two just go hand in hand. If you get enough high seed you will score in on some. Some coaches exceed the mean on this (izzo), while others (Keady) fall short.
For SD: Jay Wright, currenty sitting at 2 pts. Better make the dance this year Dapper Dan.
-
Wooly would of been fired after year 2, would of been what, -22 when he finally was Weisered
Asbury would of been -12
I may be doing it wrong, but you basically get a -5 every year there is no post season, correct?
no he would lose -3 every year
OK
Wooly should of been fired after year 3 and would of been -10
Asbury should of been fired after year 4 and was -3
-
Lon Kruger would have been fired from every job he's ever had outside of KSU. It could be argued he would have been fired at FLA had he not bolted for ILL.
Kelvin Sampson's career at OU nearly matches his points as he left OU with one point remaining.
Larry Eustachy is a perfect match for the system at ISU
Billy Tubbs would have been fired after 91-92 season. He took OU to the NIT in the following two years before leaving town anyway.
Quin Snyder is a perfect match.
John Calipari would have been fired before ever making an NCAA at both Umass and Memp.
Tom Izzo would currently have 24 pts at MSU. The king of this system.
After more thought the system works well for coaches that didn't have to turn a program around from sucking previously. Interesting.
I still think the NCAA tourney is a crapshoot confy titles and high seeds are a better inticator. But perhaps the two just go hand in hand. If you get enough high seed you will score in on some. Some coaches exceed the mean on this (izzo), while others (Keady) fall short.
For SD: Jay Wright, currenty sitting at 2 pts. Better make the dance this year Dapper Dan.
you need to redo your math. I clarified the points above.
-
Wooly would of been fired after year 2, would of been what, -22 when he finally was Weisered
Asbury would of been -12
I may be doing it wrong, but you basically get a -5 every year there is no post season, correct?
no he would lose -3 every year
OK
Wooly should of been fired after year 3 and would of been -10
Asbury should of been fired after year 4 and was -3
wooly would have been fired after year three with -1.
three years with no NIT = -9
-
Oh crap didn't see you added points for confy titles and P66 titles.
Great system then. Works well
Still need to put in a clause for coaches turning around horrid programs.
-
The coaches should have to negotiate the amount of points they start with
-
[/quote]
DO DOC NOW
[/quote]
I have Doc currently sitting at -4, went past zero after year 4 (09-10)
For coaches taking over good programs where the last guy moved up (like Self at KU) this is a pretty good system. For guys like Wooly and Doc maybe the clock should start after a year or two
-
Oh crap didn't see you added points for confy titles and P66 titles.
Great system then. Works well
Still need to put in a clause for coaches turning around horrid programs.
well this is mainly for kstate coaches and other programs where making the 2nd weekend is the expectation.
-
Original formula with no confy stuff added.
Bill Self: 8
03-04 8+1=9
04-05 9-1= 8
05-06 8-1= 7
06-07 7+1 = 8
07-08 8+8 = 16
08-09 16+0 = 16
09-10 16-1 = 15
10-11 15+1 = 16
Math is right unless I am supposed to ad positive points together say 1+2+4+8 for a natty title.
-
Original formula with no confy stuff added.
Bill Self: 8
03-04 8+1=9
04-05 9-1= 8
05-06 8-1= 7
06-07 7+1 = 8
07-08 8+8 = 16
08-09 16+0 = 16
09-10 16-1 = 15
10-11 15+1 = 16
Math is right unless I am supposed to ad positive points together say 1+2+4+8 for a natty title.
The original formula had confy stuff in it.
-
Okay. Then, like I said, works pretty well. Makes me kind of want to compare coaches with the non-confy stuff in one column and without in another. great system.
What do you think about adding a clause for turning crappy teams around. How would you work that.
-
Okay. Then, like I said, works pretty well. Makes me kind of want to compare coaches with the non-confy stuff in one column and without in another. great system.
What do you think about adding a clause for turning crappy teams around. How would you work that.
you add half the negative the previous coach left. For instance if the last coach left a -6 you get 11. (round up so -7 gets you +4)
-
Okay. Then, like I said, works pretty well. Makes me kind of want to compare coaches with the non-confy stuff in one column and without in another. great system.
What do you think about adding a clause for turning crappy teams around. How would you work that.
you add half the negative the previous coach left. For instance if the last coach left a -6 you get 11. (round up so -7 gets you +4)
oh that is awesome
-
someone do every big 12 coach and put it in a fancy color coded chart. tia
-
A coach should not lose points for making the NCAA tournament at Kansas State. Sweet 16 being the annual "expectation" is far too steep IMO. Make NCAA tournament a +1 and add a point or 2 for each weekend
I agree something like top 4 (or bottom 4) conference finish should count for something as well.
Nice concept, though.
-
Ok, so if Asbury was a -3 when fired, then Wooly starts at +11. He then fails to go to post season every year and should be fired after year 4 instead of year 3 if he starts at +8.
Basically, Asbury's horrible last two years gives Wooly an extra season. Tim Weiser would agree with this method.
-
A coach should not lose points for making the NCAA tournament at Kansas State. Sweet 16 being the annual "expectation" is far too steep IMO. Make NCAA tournament a +1 and add a point or 2 for each weekend
I agree something like top 4 (or bottom 4) conference finish should count for something as well.
Nice concept, though.
I agree its far too steep, but I think many would disagree with us and say our expectations are too low.
-
My preferred system:
Not making the NIT : -3
Not making the NCAA: -2
Losing first round : -1 (I flip flop between this being a -1 and a 0)
First round win: 0 (I flip flop between this being a 0 and 1)
Making sweet sixteen: 2
Making Elite 8: 4
Making Final Four : 6
Making Champ Game: 8
Winning Champ: 10
Win Conference: 2
Win Conference Tourny: 1
I don't think top 4 or bottom 4 are necessary (will be reflected in making tournaments).
-
My current expectation with frank is to make it to the round of 32 every year. I don't think it's unreasonable for him to have at least an 8 seed every year, which would put him in position to win the opening round game of the NCAA's.
-
My preferred system:
Not making the NIT : -3
Not making the NCAA: -2
Losing first round : -1 (I flip flop between this being a -1 and a 0)
First round win: 0 (I flip flop between this being a 0 and 1)
Making sweet sixteen: 2
Making Elite 8: 4
Making Final Four : 6
Making Champ Game: 8
Winning Champ: 10
Win Conference: 2
Win Conference Tourny: 1
I don't think top 4 or bottom 4 are necessary (will be reflected in making tournaments).
I think winning conference regular season should equal a final four.
-
Miss the ncaa's two years in a row......you're fired! simple, concise and to the point. :dunno:
-
My preferred system:
Not making the NIT : -3
Not making the NCAA: -2
Losing first round : -1 (I flip flop between this being a -1 and a 0)
First round win: 0 (I flip flop between this being a 0 and 1)
Making sweet sixteen: 2
Making Elite 8: 4
Making Final Four : 6
Making Champ Game: 8
Winning Champ: 10
Win Conference: 2
Win Conference Tourny: 1
I don't think top 4 or bottom 4 are necessary (will be reflected in making tournaments).
I think winning conference regular season should equal a final four.
I respectfully disagree. Making the Final Four is much harder than winning your conference. Apparently even more so in the Big 12.
-
.
My preferred system:
Not making the NIT : -3
Not making the NCAA: -2
Losing first round : -1 (I flip flop between this being a -1 and a 0)
First round win: 0 (I flip flop between this being a 0 and 1)
Making sweet sixteen: 2
Making Elite 8: 4
Making Final Four : 6
Making Champ Game: 8
Winning Champ: 10
Win Conference: 2
Win Conference Tourny: 1
I don't think top 4 or bottom 4 are necessary (will be reflected in making tournaments).
I think winning conference regular season should equal a final four.
I respectfully disagree. Making the Final Four is much harder than winning your conference. Apparently even more so in the Big 12.
It's harder in some ways, easier in others. A conference title is a more accurate indicator of the long-term strength of a program IMO. You can make it to a Final Four without beating a top 10 seed or by having several very favorable matchups, but there's no way you can win the Big 12 without some outstanding wins (and great talent).
-
I think going undefeated at home in conference should get 1+
-
Wooly would of been fired after year 2, would of been what, -22 when he finally was Weisered
Asbury would of been -12
I may be doing it wrong, but you basically get a -5 every year there is no post season, correct?
no he would lose -3 every year
OK
Wooly should of been fired after year 3 and would of been -10
Asbury should of been fired after year 4 and was -3
goddammit, skipper, i can't let 5 in a row slide. it's WOULD/SHOULD HAVE. :facepalm:
sorry everyone, carry on
-
chingon, your system is a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
-
Ok, so if Asbury was a -3 when fired, then Wooly starts at +11. He then fails to go to post season every year and should be fired after year 4 instead of year 3 if he starts at +8.
Basically, Asbury's horrible last two years gives Wooly an extra season. Tim Weiser would agree with this method.
No, Skipper. It was clearly stipulated that an incoming coach gets to add half of the negative points the previous coach left with. So if Asbury left at -3, then Wooly starts at 9.5.
-
chingon, your system is a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
maybe so, maybe so
-
.My preferred system:
Not making the NIT : -3
Not making the NCAA: -2
Losing first round : -1 (I flip flop between this being a -1 and a 0)
First round win: 0 (I flip flop between this being a 0 and 1)
Making sweet sixteen: 2
Making Elite 8: 4
Making Final Four : 6
Making Champ Game: 8
Winning Champ: 10
Win Conference: 2
Win Conference Tourny: 1
I don't think top 4 or bottom 4 are necessary (will be reflected in making tournaments).
I think winning conference regular season should equal a final four.
I respectfully disagree. Making the Final Four is much harder than winning your conference. Apparently even more so in the Big 12.
It's harder in some ways, easier in others. A conference title is a more accurate indicator of the long-term strength of a program IMO. You can make it to a Final Four without beating a top 10 seed or by having several very favorable matchups, but there's no way you can win the Big 12 without some outstanding wins (and great talent).
Although I tarded up the beginning of this thread (sorry chingon), I'll add something. At first I was against using the tournament as such a high barometer, as we know it has pretty high variance. After some deliberation and going through the numbers with a lot of coaches (I mistakenly did this without even giving points to confy and confy tourney titles), and it seemed like over the years the teams that were winning conference titles were at a reasonable pace getting additional points in the NCAA's. Of course there were outliers. Gene Keady was one at Purdue as they never did too well in the NCAAs, thus negating there fairly high number of conference titles. Izzo is a kind of an outlier as well from there great success in the tournament.
This is fun though.
-
This point system should be built into the contract of every new coach hired at every school in the nation, and Chingon should collect the royalties off of it. No more lawsuits for a firing without just cause.
-
Is it necessary to account for public choking or slapping of players in this system? What about DUIs?
-
.My preferred system:
Not making the NIT : -3
Not making the NCAA: -2
Losing first round : -1 (I flip flop between this being a -1 and a 0)
First round win: 0 (I flip flop between this being a 0 and 1)
Making sweet sixteen: 2
Making Elite 8: 4
Making Final Four : 6
Making Champ Game: 8
Winning Champ: 10
Win Conference: 2
Win Conference Tourny: 1
I don't think top 4 or bottom 4 are necessary (will be reflected in making tournaments).
I think winning conference regular season should equal a final four.
I respectfully disagree. Making the Final Four is much harder than winning your conference. Apparently even more so in the Big 12.
It's harder in some ways, easier in others. A conference title is a more accurate indicator of the long-term strength of a program IMO. You can make it to a Final Four without beating a top 10 seed or by having several very favorable matchups, but there's no way you can win the Big 12 without some outstanding wins (and great talent).
Agree w/ this.
-
Here is my system for scoring basketball coaches:
Beat KU: +10,000 points
Lose to KU: Negative eleventy-billion points
-
Here is my system for scoring basketball coaches:
Beat KU: +10,000 points
Lose to KU: Negative eleventy-billion points
I hope this is a joke.
-
Here is my system for scoring basketball coaches:
Beat KU: +10,000 points
Lose to KU: Negative eleventy-billion points
I hope this is a joke.
That was not a joke. This is a joke:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fknockknockjoke.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F04%2Fmiami-csi-knock-knock-joke.png&hash=f63ab25d8d065c630a59140641d44135ec6505dc)
-
A proposed system for determining when a coach should be fired.
A new coach shall start with 8 points. When the coach reaches 0 (or less than 0) they should be fired.
Every year they do not make the NIT tournament they lose 3 points.
Every year they do not make the NCAA tournament they lose 2 points.
Every year they do not make it past the first weekend they lose 1 point.
Making the second weekend is no loss or gain of points (this is the baseline expectation).
Making the Elite 8 is a gain of 1 point
Making the Final Four is a gain of 2 points
Making the champ game is a gain of 4 points
Winning the nat'l champ is worth 8 points
Winning the conference is a gain of 1 point
Winning the conference tournament is a gain of 1 point
Frank Marin
Starting : 8 points
after 2007-2008 7 points
after 2008-2009 5 points
after 2009-2010 6 points
after 2010-2011 5 points
tweaks that should be added? point adjustments?
I propose that teams who suck and hire a new coach get 12-14 points to start out depending on how bad the program they're taking over is..
For instance John Beilein our coach took over pure crap who hadn't been to the NCAA's in over a decade, he had us there in his 2nd season and winning our first round game.. He had us going again in year 4 and we are poised to go again this year with our highest seed yet, not to mention we have our first top 10 recruiting class in over a decade coming in for next season..
Yet, according to your system he'd have been fired last year.. :dubious:
-
Totally agree on the conference regular season/high NCAA seed thing. Again, proximity to KU has warped our perceptions of both how difficult it is to win a conference and the connection between winning a conference and having success in the tourney. As was said, the NCAA is a crapshoot, so the more often you get your team a seat at the table with higher odds, the better.
-
I
My preferred system:
Not making the NIT : -3
Not making the NCAA: -2
Losing first round : -1 (I flip flop between this being a -1 and a 0)
First round win: 0 (I flip flop between this being a 0 and 1)
Making sweet sixteen: 2
Making Elite 8: 4
Making Final Four : 6
Making Champ Game: 8
Winning Champ: 10
Win Conference: 2
Win Conference Tourny: 1
I don't think top 4 or bottom 4 are necessary (will be reflected in making tournaments).
I like this one Chings. My feedback:
I think reasonable expectations for our program is somewhere between the round of 64 and 32. As such I think making the round of 32 should be worth 1point, and losing in the first round should be worth 0 points.
I think the point value for winning the conference should be comparable to an elite eight, and winning the conference tournament should be comparable to the sweet sixteen.
-
For michigancat...
-
This rough ridin' loser had no net loss. eff
-
.My preferred system:
Not making the NIT : -3
Not making the NCAA: -2
Losing first round : -1 (I flip flop between this being a -1 and a 0)
First round win: 0 (I flip flop between this being a 0 and 1)
Making sweet sixteen: 2
Making Elite 8: 4
Making Final Four : 6
Making Champ Game: 8
Winning Champ: 10
Win Conference: 2
Win Conference Tourny: 1
I don't think top 4 or bottom 4 are necessary (will be reflected in making tournaments).
I think winning conference regular season should equal a final four.
I respectfully disagree. Making the Final Four is much harder than winning your conference. Apparently even more so in the Big 12.
It's harder in some ways, easier in others. A conference title is a more accurate indicator of the long-term strength of a program IMO. You can make it to a Final Four without beating a top 10 seed or by having several very favorable matchups, but there's no way you can win the Big 12 without some outstanding wins (and great talent).
welp, I guess I was proven wrong in a big fat way. But I still think a conference title is worth an Elite Eight, at bare minimum.
-
Well if you "agree" with my "system" than oscar is standing at 1 right now.
-
Well if you "agree" with my "system" than oscar is standing at 1 right now.
and should be fired if we don't make the tournament next year (or lose in the first round again without winning the conference)
-
Well if you "agree" with my "system" than oscar is standing at 1 right now.
He's not at 8? (zero net this year)
I would have started oscar w/ zero, though based on his history before he got here. And I'd make making the NCAA tourney the baseline and give him +4 for winning the conference.
-
Well if you "agree" with my "system" than oscar is standing at 1 right now.
He's not at 8? (zero net this year)
I would have started oscar w/ zero, though based on his history before he got here. And I'd make making the NCAA tourney the baseline and give him +4 for winning the conference.
he only gets a cushion if Frank left him with a negative (which he did not).
He started at zero. (+2 for winning reg season conf -1 for losing first round)
-
My preferred system:
The starting number for a coach is: half the negative points the previous coach left. For instance if the last coach left a -6 you start at 11. (round up so -7 gets you +4). If the previous coach left positive points, let's say you start at 6. When your coach reaches negative he should be fired. Penalties are NOT cumulative, so if you miss the NIT you only lose 5 points (not 8 [for also missing the NCAA]). Bonuses are only cumulative when adding tournament success plus regular season success. In other words, making the Elite 8 gets you 4 points (not 7), but making the Elite 8 and winning the conference title will get you 7 (4 points for Elite 8 + 3 points for conference title). The most points you can earn is 14 and the most you can lose is 5.
Not making the NIT : -5
Not making the NCAA: -3
Win Conference: 3
Win Conference Tourny: 1
Losing first round : 0 (I flip flop between this being a -1 and a 0)
First round win: 1 (I flip flop between this being a 0 and 1)
Making sweet sixteen: 2
Making Elite 8: 4
Making Final Four : 6
Making Champ Game: 8
Winning Champ: 10
I don't think top 4 or bottom 4 are necessary (will be reflected in making tournaments).
If oscar started at 6.
6 + (3) + (0) + (?)
If he misses the NIT this year then he will be sitting at 4.
I suspect under this system he would still be at Illinois...
-
you forgot to factor in losing to TCU and Tech in the same year, which should be -500
-
I'd put not making a post season tourney -6 and losing first round of NCAA as a higher seed at -1, lower seed 0, win +1.
-
there should be an adjustment factor on all points based on the % of recruiting classes that are yours or you had influence on. so oscar's first year he would have 25% of the points gained or lost, then 50% and this year 75%. next year he will be fully vested.
6 + (.25*3) + (.5*0) + (.75*-5) = 3.
Miss the post-season next year and oscar should be gone.
-
come one guys, don't tweak the system to get the results you want. they are what they are.
-
you tweaked your system :confused:
-
also the result i want is for oscar to be at 0, not 3.
-
In my system you start with 10 unless you are a loser like oscar Weber
-
Do you start with less points if you inherit a really good team? Or is that too unfair?
According to my math...I think it looks like we fired oscar in the appropriate year. He would have been sitting at -1 in 2012. Though I think he should have started with a shorter rope since he inherited a top 10 team.
-
you tweaked your system :confused:
some are above the law
-
come one guys, don't tweak the system to get the results you want. they are what they are.
you even said you flip flop on first round tourney games. winning a tourney game should get a point, that kind of means you're somewhat basically a top 30 team. Losing as a lower seed should be meh and get 0, but being upset as the higher seeded team should be -1 for sure, maybe more if you're seeded like way really a lot higher.
-
Do you start with less points if you inherit a really good team? Or is that too unfair?
According to my math...I think it looks like we fired oscar in the appropriate year. He would have been sitting at -1 in 2012. Though I think he should have started with a shorter rope since he inherited a top 10 team.
no I don't think that's fair (or realistic), I mean whoever follows Coach K will be reasonable at 6 (if he misses the NCAA three years in a row I bet they can him).
-
come one guys, don't tweak the system to get the results you want. they are what they are.
trim 3:16 :don'tcare:
-
Should there be a value in there for the margin of victory or margin of losses over the course of a season? There's probably a better metric, but something that says you're truly dominating, but if you're losing (like @TCU by 27), you get penalized for just being awful while losing?
-
Do you start with less points if you inherit a really good team? Or is that too unfair?
According to my math...I think it looks like we fired oscar in the appropriate year. He would have been sitting at -1 in 2012. Though I think he should have started with a shorter rope since he inherited a top 10 team.
no I don't think that's fair (or realistic), I mean whoever follows Coach K will be reasonable at 6 (if he misses the NCAA three years in a row I bet they can him).
depends on the circumstances of K leaving. if he retires on top, it should probably be a 5. if he missed the NCAA two years and retires, it should probably be a 7 or 8.
either way, you have to factor in the players the coach inherited to some extent.
-
My preferred system:
The starting number for a coach is: half the negative points the previous coach left. For instance if the last coach left a -6 you start at 11. (round up so -7 gets you +4). If the previous coach left positive points, let's say you start at 6. When your coach reaches negative he should be fired. Penalties are NOT cumulative, so if you miss the NIT you only lose 5 points (not 8 [for also missing the NCAA]). Bonuses are only cumulative when adding tournament success plus regular season success. In other words, making the Elite 8 gets you 4 points (not 7), but making the Elite 8 and winning the conference title will get you 7 (4 points for Elite 8 + 3 points for conference title). The most points you can earn is 14 and the most you can lose is 5.
Not making the NIT : -5
Not making the NCAA: -3
Win Conference: 3
Win Conference Tourny: 1
Losing first round : 0 (I flip flop between this being a -1 and a 0)
First round win: 1 (I flip flop between this being a 0 and 1)
Making sweet sixteen: 2
Making Elite 8: 4
Making Final Four : 6
Making Champ Game: 8
Winning Champ: 10
I don't think top 4 or bottom 4 are necessary (will be reflected in making tournaments).
If oscar started at 6.
6 + (3) + (0) + (?)
If he misses the NIT this year then he will be sitting at 4.
I suspect under this system he would still be at Illinois...
6 + (3) + (0) + (-5) + (?)
an NIT bid should save his job and oscar will be sitting at a 1.
Science
-
Chings, what does being an NIT champion get you points wise? :bball:
(-3)