We want a coach who recruits talented players and gives the program the opportunity to win games that matter, but I'm not convinced that it's the right expectation that we insist on an NCAA tournament appearance every few years. There's just too much variability and luck that goes into that.

But it is unreasonable given certain circumstances.

Let's say Saul had lost by a point in a MAC Championship game and lost another by 3 points in overtime. Or let's say we lost in the MAC Championship without Antonio Campbell.

Would you deem Saul's tenure a failure then? I think setting such a stringent metric's silly given all the variables.

Easy answer. Yes.

Well, in that case, coaches are definitely going to be banging down the door to get this job. A full rebuild AND a delusional fanbase with crazy expectations? Great combination.

If it's delusional to expect a winning conference record given what the school puts into the program, could you tell us what rational expectations look like? Not losing every game by 20?

If we interview a coach and his expectations are anything less than a MAC championship in five years, they should cut the interview short and move on to the next candidate. We will be in a rebuild with one of the best big’s in the conference and one of the best defender’s (Cowart). The coach will have tremendous support from the fan base and the institution (spending). We shouldn’t be governed by fear. Saul didn’t fail or succeed, he touched a lot of hearts as we can see from the message board, while presiding over a middle tier/bottom tier program. We pay over 500k to play to win. If our academics fell into the bottom tier, we would fire the president. Every school has standards and we have to decide where we set our standards.

It is easy to discern your thought and intentions, that is why you come up with crazy hypotheticals and moral victories. It is is also why you called people with reasonable expectations delusional. We all hope that Saul can pull a rabbit out of his hat. Don’t be ashamed to be a Saul advocate, it is nothing wrong with that, but is wrong to lie about how you feel on a message board. Be strong and of a good courage and tell us really how you feel and we can have a debate or a meeting of the minds.
[/QUOTE]Okay, dude. Whatever you say. You know you can tell you're definitely doing a really good job in an argument? When you have to completely disregard what the other person is actually saying and pretend they're saying the exact opposite for your reaction to make any sense.

Also: bonus points for accusing me of making up hypotheticals because I need a moral victory in the very same post where you've decided I'm saying the opposite of what I actually mean in order to convince yourself that you're winning this argument.

I believe that's called "projecting."

But I guess when I say things like this:

[QUOTE=Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame]
I agree completely that Saul didn't put the talent on the floor. Don't dispute that at all.

My take is basically that the late rounds of the MAC tournament and early rounds of the NCAA tournament should be thought of similarly to how the Moneyball crew thought of playoff baseball. Essentially, the sample-size is too small to really count on anything, and the best you can do is build a team that gets you to that point in the season and gives you the opportunity for the chips to fall in your favor.

And I think that's the basic point most folks are making about Groce. We won some really exciting games and went on some great runs, but did so with some uneven if very talented teams. That we went to the Sweet 16 shouldn't alter how we benchmark success for our basketball program. We want a coach who recruits talented players and gives the program the opportunity to win games that matter, but I'm not convinced that it's the right expectation that we insist on an NCAA tournament appearance every few years. There's just too much variability and luck that goes into that.

You're crusading against a completely imagined opposition.

Exactly.

I know it was a hypothetical with Saul losing three close MAC championship games ... but if he went 12-17 each year and made runs to the MAC title game and lost ... it would be viewed much differently than him going, say, 20-9 each year and losing in the title game.

Keith Dambrot went 3-6 in his tenure at Akron in MAC title games ... and in those 6 seasons he lost the title game, these were his records

26-7
24-11
24-11
21-12
26-9
24-7

There is a happy medium between March success and non-March success. Dambrot was able to accomplish a good amount of non-March success at Akron .... but also was able to cobble up three MAC tourney titles and 10 post-season berths into NCAA, NIT, CBI, CIT

Saul sniffed one CBI ... and has three losing seasons in five years.

Dambrot failed to win 20 games once in his tenure ... his first year they won 19. The worst MAC season they had was 9-9.

Saul's best MAC record was 11-7.

It just didn't work out for him. Injuries didn't help ... but bottom line, there's no excuse that can justify where this program is in 2019 considering this is the 5th year of the Saul Era.

Yeah, I think this is a good point. My hypothetical didn't mention anything about regular season success, but it's obviously important. You want a coach who puts a competitive team on the floor year in and year out, and given our standing in the MAC historically, I think we should consistently be in the top 4 or 5 teams in the league. Which is to say, in a down year, we should be something like the 5 seed.

I think an interesting case to imagine is what would have happened had Tim O'Shea not gone on that run in '05. His teams in his first three years at Ohio went:

17-11
14-16
10-20

and then he had a 21-10 team that won the MAC tournament.

Which all in all, are pretty underwhelming results with a pretty talented team (Hunter, Flomo, Sonny Johnson) though guard play was lacking.

But he also had wins against UNC and UVA, and played a very good Kent State team close consistently. Let's say Leon Williams' tip-in doesn't go in. When's O'Shea let go?

Yeah, I think this is a good point. My hypothetical didn't mention anything about regular season success, but it's obviously important. You want a coach who puts a competitive team on the floor year in and year out, and given our standing in the MAC historically, I think we should consistently be in the top 4 or 5 teams in the league. Which is to say, in a down year, we should be something like the 5 seed.

I think an interesting case to imagine is what would have happened had Tim O'Shea not gone on that run in '05. His teams in his first three years at Ohio went:

17-11
14-16
10-20

and then he had a 21-10 team that won the MAC tournament.

Which all in all, are pretty underwhelming results with a pretty talented team (Hunter, Flomo, Sonny Johnson) though guard play was lacking.

But he also had wins against UNC and UVA, and played a very good Kent State team close consistently. Let's say Leon Williams' tip-in doesn't go in. When's O'Shea let go?

We also have some "completely crazy" folks on the football forum by that standard. I would agree that they are not thinking straight. In this or another like thread, some folks were actually arguing that if OHIO got red hot at tournament time and won the MAC tournament that Saul should still be fired. That's complete lunacy, and would never happen.

I'm beginning to think that FearLeon and his fellow travelers have taken lessons on "making friends and influencing people" from some of the chronic malcontents over on the football side of BA. However, none of them have quite the flare or the witty style of the most notorious of the chronic football complainers.