MVC Flagships (1997-2013)

[ShockTalk]

I would like to see how each teams winning percentage compares to the expected winning percentage. I just need to find the time to do the research.

I also wouldn't count making the NCAA Tourney as success in the NCAA Tourney. That is more conference success. Liberty at 15-20 will most likely lose their first round game. Do we count that as NCAA Tournament success or Big South Tournament success.

I understand what your saying, however, the NCAA Tournament Banner a team gets doesn't come with an * on it based on how you may have gotten there. Teams can win conference season titles, but if they don't Dance..........

Illinois or Minnesota have losing records in conference, but if they go Dancing it's not exactly conference success. It may be due somewhat to "what" conference they're in, but the non-con plays in it as well. So, if a team finishes second in their league, lose in the conference tourney final, but gets a Dance card, that's not worth anything if they lose the first game?

[SubGod22]

Personally, I've never seen getting to the Dance a sign of success. It's only an opportunity. Getting there is not the goal. Doing something with the opportunity is.

[ShockTalk]

Personally, I've never seen getting to the Dance a sign of success. It's only an opportunity. Getting there is not the goal. Doing something with the opportunity is.

I guess we have a vast difference in what success is. Playing the game is the opportunity and for a team, that opportunity allows for many levels of success. Not losing to mediocre teams facilitates in that opportunity for success. Beating quality teams, winning 20 games, and staying in the hunt for a league title are basic levels of success. Winning that title is a higher level of success. Doing these things well enough to get that Dance card is the next level. Taking advantage of the conference tourney to leave no doubt about Dancing is added success just as winning the tourney is a second chance for success (and more success) if you didn't reach the earlier goals.

I look at your view as something that would apply to a Duke, KU, Kentucky where it is simply expected that you make the NCAA tourney.

I thought that WSU winning the NIT was being successful. We may not have reach our higher aspirations, but that in it self doesn't mean we had an unsuccessful season.

[jdmee]

I guess we have a vast difference in what success is. Playing the game is the opportunity and for a team, that opportunity allows for many levels of success. Not losing to mediocre teams facilitates in that opportunity for success. Beating quality teams, winning 20 games, and staying in the hunt for a league title are basic levels of success. Winning that title is a higher level of success. Doing these things well enough to get that Dance card is the next level. Taking advantage of the conference tourney to leave no doubt about Dancing is added success just as winning the tourney is a second chance for success (and more success) if you didn't reach the earlier goals.

I agree those are qualities of a successful season. They don't equal a successful run in the NCAA Tournament. The only thing that counts toward NCAA Tournament success is NCAA Tournament success. One and done means you had no NCAA Tournament success.

I look at your view as something that would apply to a Duke, KU, Kentucky where it is simply expected that you make the NCAA tourney.

I thought that WSU winning the NIT was being successful. We may not have reach our higher aspirations, but that in it self doesn't mean we had an unsuccessful season.

The last thing you wrote is probably the difference between what we are talking about. A successful season is more than the NCAA Tournament. I have been talking about just NCAA tournament success. In order to have that type of success it is a given that you made the Dance. I was separating the seasons results and just talking about the tournament results.

[SubGod22]

If you're happy just getting there, fine. That's not success. It's not going to move this program forward. It's not gonna keep 3G long term. Success is making noise when you get there. It's playing past the first weekend. KU and Duke types only count successful as a Final Four. We should have higher expectations than just getting there. If we believe that we belong in a better conference, just getting there isn't enough. Winning when there is what proves that. Better scheduling will require actual success in March. But by all means, if you're thrilled to just be there and the results are irrelevant to what's successful, be happy. Personally, I want and expect more from this program.

[jrschh]

If you're happy just getting there, fine. That's not success. It's not going to move this program forward. It's not gonna keep 3G long term. Success is making noise when you get there. It's playing past the first weekend. KU and Duke types only count successful as a Final Four. We should have higher expectations than just getting there. If we believe that we belong in a better conference, just getting there isn't enough. Winning when there is what proves that. Better scheduling will require actual success in March. But by all means, if you're thrilled to just be there and the results are irrelevant to what's successful, be happy. Personally, I want and expect more from this program.

So, by your definition you're saying HCGM hasn't been successful here. After all, he's only made it to the Tourney one season w/ WSU and lost in the first round. It seems a little narrow minded w/ your definition of success. Especially for the program that only actually made it to the tourney 9 times in our entire history.

Personally, especially for a "non-BCS" school, I do think it's very much a success that you make it to the tournament as an at-large. It shows that the work the team did during the season was successful and didn't need to win the conf tourney title to get the auto bid (though, of course, we would much prefer it).

Now, this is not to say that I'm satisfied that we just make it in. I want us to win as many games in the tourney as we can, but I'm not going to say just making it into the tourney is "not success".

[SubGod22]

So, by your definition you're saying HCGM hasn't been successful here. After all, he's only made it to the Tourney one season w/ WSU and lost in the first round. It seems a little narrow minded w/ your definition of success. Especially for the program that only actually made it to the tourney 9 times in our entire history.

Personally, especially for a "non-BCS" school, I do think it's very much a success that you make it to the tournament as an at-large. It shows that the work the team did during the season was successful and didn't need to win the conf tourney title to get the auto bid (though, of course, we would much prefer it).

Now, this is not to say that I'm satisfied that we just make it in. I want us to win as many games in the tourney as we can, but I'm not going to say just making it into the tourney is "not success".

You're twisting the hell out of this conversation. We're talking about March are we not? I've praised 3G from the start and have been very supportive and complimentary of our progress. But if you'd ask 3G, I'm pretty sure he'd say he's not happy if this is the definition of success. Most on here have mocked Creighton for not being able to win and some have even said fewer appearances but winning when there is better. Maybe you're not one of those, but people can't have it both ways. College basketball is all about March. Yes, setting yourself up for a good seed is important and it takes some success to do it. But in the big picture, we have to win. We should expect to win. Were you satisfied with last years one and done? If so, bless you for thinking small. We can be lumped in with Creighton, Indiana State, Winthrop and others who get there and then do nothing. We can tell ourselves that getting there is the goal and anything past that is gravy. I don't think that small and don't think that's the target of 3G or the administration. Sure, one and done is better than not making it, but if that's all we want and will settle for, I'm disappointed.

Success in March is not just getting there unless you're a small school with no hopes of ever being more. We talk about being like Gonzaga, Butler or Memphis. If that's what you want, and one and done is not success

[jdmee]

And that is why I am trying to separate the two. The goal of the "regular season" is to make the tourney. Last year we were successful at that goal. The goal after that is to win games in the Tournament. We were not successful at that.

[jrschh]

You're twisting the hell out of this conversation. We're talking about March are we not? I've praised 3G from the start and have been very supportive and complimentary of our progress. But if you'd ask 3G, I'm pretty sure he'd say he's not happy if this is the definition of success. Most on here have mocked Creighton for not being able to win and some have even said fewer appearances but winning when there is better. Maybe you're not one of those, but people can't have it both ways. College basketball is all about March. Yes, setting yourself up for a good seed is important and it takes some success to do it. But in the big picture, we have to win. We should expect to win. Were you satisfied with last years one and done? If so, bless you for thinking small. We can be lumped in with Creighton, Indiana State, Winthrop and others who get there and then do nothing. We can tell ourselves that getting there is the goal and anything past that is gravy. I don't think that small and don't think that's the target of 3G or the administration. Sure, one and done is better than not making it, but if that's all we want and will settle for, I'm disappointed.

Success in March is not just getting there unless you're a small school with no hopes of ever being more. We talk about being like Gonzaga, Butler or Memphis. If that's what you want, and one and done is not success

Twisting the conversation? How am I doing that by quoting exactly what you said?

Even in your reply back to me you state, "College basketball is all about March". In your words, if CB is all about March (and I'm assuming your talking about the tournament) and just getting in the tourney is not success, then how is my question on how you regard HCGM's "success" inaccurate or twisting the conversation?

Lastly, it would be nice if you read my words. In my original post I stated, "Now, this is not to say that I'm satisfied that we just make it in." So, I don't know how you can infer that I was satisfied w/ the one-and-done last year. However, even w/ that one-and-done I will say that last season was still a success no matter how YOU want to define success.

[jrschh]

And that is why I am trying to separate the two. The goal of the "regular season" is to make the tourney. Last year we were successful at that goal. The goal after that is to win games in the Tournament. We were not successful at that.

Agreed! However, some on here chose not to differentiate that.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

Success is difficult to define, it's very subjective and perceptions of it are unequal. Creighton has had very little success in the Dance but has been very successful getting there, and the perception (albeit flawed) is that they are more successful than we are and could soon be punching their ticket to a major conference because of it. On the flip side, Marshall led Winthrop to something like 9 straight NCAA tournaments (and pulled a Creighton each year but one), but that school was never able to capitalize on their success and move up to a better conference.

Butler came out of absolutely nowhere in the past 10 or so years and suddenly had some success getting into the tournament, and then put together two astounding runs to the championship game very recently. In one of those games, they were a last second missed 3 pointer away from being National Champions. Gonzaga has been to 14 straight (14!!) Dances and on the most part has done well each year, but unless this year is the year, they have never gotten farther than the Elite 8. Who is more successful between those two teams?

Defining success is subjective and pointless to argue.

[SubGod22]

Twisting the conversation? How am I doing that by quoting exactly what you said?

Even in your reply back to me you state, "College basketball is all about March". In your words, if CB is all about March (and I'm assuming your talking about the tournament) and just getting in the tourney is not success, then how is my question on how you regard HCGM's "success" inaccurate or twisting the conversation?

Lastly, it would be nice if you read my words. In my original post I stated, "Now, this is not to say that I'm satisfied that we just make it in." So, I don't know how you can infer that I was satisfied w/ the one-and-done last year. However, even w/ that one-and-done I will say that last season was still a success no matter how YOU want to define success.

Reading comprehension fail.

[jrschh]

Reading comprehension fail.

Thank you for your self critique.

[SubGod22]

Thank you for your self critique.

Yawn

[ShockTalk]

Personally, I've never seen getting to the Dance a sign of success. It's only an opportunity. Getting there is not the goal. Doing something with the opportunity is.

Reading comprehension fail.

It takes the whole season to get to the Dance. Where in this statement did you mean March only? "I've never seen getting to the Dance a sign of success".

Of course, once you've reach that level of success, you want to strive to do more and make "being in the tournament" also successful.

This whole conversation goes back to me giving a point system to the value of Dance Cards. I felt that getting a Dance card over not getting one was worth a point. Additional points were then given for performance. Pretty simple really.