Wrangor
Go Deacs
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2011
- Messages
- 12,413
- Reaction score
- 1,376
There is a difference between being able to win championships as a player, and being able to win championships as a HC.
Last edited:
There is a difference between being able to win championships as a player, and being able to win championships as a HC.
You're such a miserable piece of shit.Still better than watching people play kickball and flop more than fish being caught.
You're such a miserable piece of shit.
However, Josh Howard was a freshman on the 2000 team and both Dawson and Songaila were sophomores. One could argue that the experience they received by winning the NIT in 99-00 season help rebuild after the Duncan-Era. Granted, they got destroyed by Butler the following season, but in 01-02 they beat Pepperidine in the 1st Rd of the NCAAs, and won the regular season ACC Title outright in 02-03 (we can all theorize as what happened in the 02-03 NCAA Tourney, but I think almost all of us would agree that Howard was not the same player starting during the ACC Tourney). Also, we began to get better recruits during this time period too, and would we have still gotten CP3 if we were only playing in the NITs every season, or would he have gone to Duke or UNC?
My point is no one on this team knows how to win, including the head coach (excluding Childress). That experience of learning how to close out games is passed down from one class to the next, and it has to begin somewhere.
Just curious, why NCAA Tourney over NIT? Also, I have a follow up question. If we went to the NCAA Tourney and lost in the 1st Rd but went to the NIT and reached only the Final Four, then would you change your mind? If not, could you please explain why. I'm just trying to understand why some people value a one and done in the NCAA Tourney over the ability to make a deep run in the NIT.
I was only referring to Randolph in case someone brought him up. However, Manning is the HC, and Randolph is only an assistant. There is a difference between being able to win championships as a player, but fail as a HC.
"Danny Manning doesn't know how to win" is on the same level of stupid as "John Lewis is all talk." Just stop.
i agree, Manning has a trophy case of winning as a player. maybe you could have said he doesn't know how to teach winning.
I would take the worst case NCAAT scenario - first four game in Dayton and get completely blown out, over winning the NIT by pounding every opponent - every single time. Making the NCAAT is a recruiting tool, is a great experience for the players, and is what every single college basketball player wants to do in March (go dancing).
Just curious - is there anyone who can make a case for NOT taking this scenario?
I could see the argument for Final Four NIT over initial play-in game. Get more experience, get ticket sales, more practice, and also exposure of MSG.
I would still take the NCAA-T.
The NIT plays for #69.
That would still be pretty stupid.
you are only as good as your record.
I could see the argument for Final Four NIT over initial play-in game. Get more experience, get ticket sales, more practice, and also exposure of MSG.
I would still take the NCAA-T.
Stanford parlayed their 2015 NIT Championship into a 15-15 record and no postseason berth in 2016. Villanova turned their second round (R32) loss into a national championship