I find it interesting that some here talk about other programās post season success as the barometer but the same guys for the Hoos itās - well we do well in the regular season which is what really determines how good a season you had.
Which is it?
People can value both and both are measures of success. A lot of folks are not just talking about post season but also regular season conference titles and conference tournament championships as useful measure of success for any coaching prospects. Itās not just one or another.
Iād like my ideal candidate to have showed some success in both areas. So having shown an ability to win a conference or ant least finish near the top and an ability to win an NCAA tournament game.
Because Dave wouldnāt get to take weird potshots at CTB
I also think UVa kinda became an outlier in the sense that the two werenāt more or less correlated.
Our postseason success came a bit unmoored from regular season success
Yeah I just find it funny people talking about Duke didnāt get to Final 4 this or that but they consistently win a ton in the regular season. Talent wins a lot of gamesā¦ and yes the madness is madnessā¦ but consistently having at least a .500 or better record in the madness is pretty good too.
Agree, but people like to take potshots at Duke/Scheyer and Iām in favor of that.
For me, itās a two things are true situation:
Iād be just fine with having so much talent that itās underachieving by getting to the 2nd round and the Elite 8 the last 2 yearsā¦ itās just nonsense why anyone would value in game coaching over recruitingā¦ talent winsā¦. A lot.
And if anyone wonders about whatās more important I think 2013-2019 vs 2020-2025 in Hooville answers the question.
2020-2025 has multiple NBA players. Murphy Hauser Huff Dunn.
2013-2019 Id argue Tony was a better coach.
lol - howād they produce as college players??!
Who cares if they were meh in college and made it
To the NBAā¦ Murphy was meh at UVA - yes yes I know his percentages were great - he would have been so much better had he sat out like he was supposed to. Dunn was terrible on offense when thatās what we needed most. The talent earlier was better for the college game and actually fit together waaaaaaaay better. And how many times was Huff forced to high hedge??? I mean he was elite being the best shot blocker in the Acc while here and 2nd all time at UVA.
So during that period Hauser was used most effectively and was only here a year. Murphy was wasted and only here a year. Huff probably most productive but really only utilized weāll for 2 yearsā¦ and Dunn barely played his first year and forgot ho low to shoot.
Hey man, I get it. Itās the holidays. Sometimes you just want to sit back and play the classics. I respect managing to take the new coach hire thread and within three posts get to good old āTB sucked in the post season and Huff should have played more.ā Like putting back on an old familiar comfy sweater.
I agree with this - lots also easier to coach better and older players. It can be very tiring to coach when thatās not the case.
Daveās greatest hits!
LOL heās a mess.
Letās go Bucky!!!
I agree but also think that in single game elimination tournaments thereās a lot of randomness. In general, I think regular season success is much more important than tournament success (although in a non-power conference, the conference tourney is your super bowl, so that carries more weight in my opinion).
Keatts saving his job because a banked in buzzer beating three is a great example. Think about how different coaching resume is because of a series of mistakes by UVA.
Have we considered Jeff Monken for basketball? If we wonāt hire him for football, I think the triple option could work well on the court.
My contribution: sing it with me kids! āThe program went sideways after Tony refused to stream the Blue/White gameā¦ā
Man, I just got here and I already find it exhausting.
Obviously, success is measured by both.
When youāre evaluating coaching, you should be able to look at the whole picture ā recruiting the right players (which isnāt always the most talented) for your system, coaching them up to play your preferred style, and managing programmatic strategy and in-game decisions.
I make fun of Scheyer (and K) because they do (did) very well in the recruiting phase, which means that they regularly had the most talent, which Dave tells us means they should win most of the games - since in-game coaching doesnāt matter ā and they didnāt. So, according to Daveās premise, the fact that they had more talent means they should have beaten less talented teams ā like all of Tony Bennettās teams and just about everyone else.
They didnāt. Which tells me that Daveās premise is flawed -that in-game and programmatic coaching does matter. And that Dook sucks.
