forums

1/15: @ NCST 7:00PM (ACC Network)

Advertisement
hotshot said:
It isn't because of the post-season record so much as -- with the exception of a couple good Leonard Hamilton teams back around the Millenium, and the VERY good Larkin-Kadji-McKinney teams earler in the 2010s decade -- for the rest of the 35 years since 1985, we HAVE been mediocre, mid-pack, or worse.

At the same time, you can look at programs like Gonzaga, St. Mary's, Butler, Wichita State, and many others who are perennial NCAAT participants and rightly ask, "If they can do it, why can't we?"
Click to expand...


Again, this ignores WHAT the team has had to go through in the past 35 years.

Coming back from NOT EVEN HAVING A TEAM.

Being an INDEPENDENT in a league-driven sport.

Joining a LOADED Big East (I was in school for both the 1-17 and 0-18 Big East years).

You can pretty much wipe out the first 10 or 12 years back, OF COURSE we were "mediocre" at that time. And Perry Clark was a huge mistake (Haith wasn't much better).

But we've had 2 pretty solid coaches in Hamilton and Larranaga who have really built a good program, a program that could/should be an annual Top 25 program, assuming the scholarships are used (not limited). Hamilton is now running a strong program at F$U.

We've had a good run with Hamilton-Larranaga (wrapped around about 10 bad years of Clark-Haith). Not a mediocre program. Not as good as it could be, but successful nonetheless.
 
TOC, wouldn't you say 35 years is long enough to have reestablished a consistently winning program?

I admire your positivity but I doubt many keen observers of college hoops would share your view. I mean, you said it yourself -- UM could/should be an annual Top 25 program." After 35 years, I just can't blame our falling short on the excuses you put forward.

Another measure is fan and student support! Or, should I say lack thereof. What is it gonna take to consistently (occasionally?) fill our small facility with actual people? So far, no coach has been able to solve that one.
 
We are running into them at the right time. Markell has been god awful and without him they can’t beat anybody with a pulse. If Bryce is back it will be a close game, but if he isn’t we should pull away and win by a couple possessions.
 
On regular cable channel in DC area -- NBC Sports Washington. Prolly coz of all the Wolfpack alumni here. Whatever, good news as we still don't have a Comcast deal with the ACCNet in the area.
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
Again, this ignores WHAT the team has had to go through in the past 35 years.

Coming back from NOT EVEN HAVING A TEAM.

Being an INDEPENDENT in a league-driven sport.

Joining a LOADED Big East (I was in school for both the 1-17 and 0-18 Big East years).

You can pretty much wipe out the first 10 or 12 years back, OF COURSE we were "mediocre" at that time. And Perry Clark was a huge mistake (Haith wasn't much better).

But we've had 2 pretty solid coaches in Hamilton and Larranaga who have really built a good program, a program that could/should be an annual Top 25 program, assuming the scholarships are used (not limited). Hamilton is now running a strong program at F$U.

We've had a good run with Hamilton-Larranaga (wrapped around about 10 bad years of Clark-Haith). Not a mediocre program. Not as good as it could be, but successful nonetheless.
Click to expand...

5 good years, 10 subpar years, 10 good years = mediocre program. You can't just throw out a bad decade.

And, despite those 15 good years, we have fewer all-time NCAA tournament wins than NYU (seriously, Google it). That good run has really not been that good, compared to other programs. We made the tournament 4 times in the past decade. Only a mediocre program would think that is "good".

For the record - I do think that represents a good decade, since we ARE a mediocre (or worse) program.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Perhaps you missed the thread where I was standing up for both the men's and women's basketball teams, while idiots called them "mediocre" and "mid-pack" and every other moronic term simply because neither team has advanced very far in the NCAA tournament.
Click to expand...

Find a single piece of evidence that suggests we are better than a "mid-pack" program.

Tournament appearances (10), tournament wins (8), conference titles (2+1), NBA draft picks, anything.

Even our "dream season", while very fun and a good team, wasn't that great: not a #1 seed; never ranked #1 in the polls; won 2 tournament games and got blown out by a lower seed.

Mid-pack is generous. There are maybe two programs in the ACC (Clemson, VT) that we could argue we have a better program then over the past 25 years. The last 10 years have been pretty good. But if that is the golden era of Miami basketball, then yes, the program is "mid-pack" (or worse).

[Note: I am a big supporter of the team. I watch almost every game and go to a few a year, when possible. But one can be both a supporter and realistic.]
 
Would definitely like to see quality minutes from the freshmen.

Was thinking after the first half of the Pitt game, Bev would be banished to the same doghouse as Walker.

Freshmen need to play to get better, hopefully this is an ongoing process
 
ALLoverCANE said:
5 good years, 10 subpar years, 10 good years = mediocre program. You can't just throw out a bad decade.

And, despite those 15 good years, we have fewer all-time NCAA tournament wins than NYU (seriously, Google it). That good run has really not been that good, compared to other programs. We made the tournament 4 times in the past decade. Only a mediocre program would think that is "good".

For the record - I do think that represents a good decade, since we ARE a mediocre (or worse) program.
Click to expand...
When I was growing up, NYU was a college basketball power. The Violets, in the early 60s, had two consensus NCAA All Americans, Happy Hairston (later, a Lakers star in the NBA for years) and Barry Kramer. They dropped their program (which had a NC team plus many top 5 ranked teams in the first half of the 20th century) about when we did, in the early 1970s. NYU and St Johns in the 50s and 60s owned MSG and NYC college hoops.
 
Advertisement
hotshot said:
TOC, wouldn't you say 35 years is long enough to have reestablished a consistently winning program?

I admire your positivity but I doubt many keen observers of college hoops would share your view. I mean, you said it yourself -- UM could/should be an annual Top 25 program." After 35 years, I just can't blame our falling short on the excuses you put forward.

Another measure is fan and student support! Or, should I say lack thereof. What is it gonna take to consistently (occasionally?) fill our small facility with actual people? So far, no coach has been able to solve that one.
Click to expand...


Prior to the FBI investigation killing our recruiting class, we were a consistently winning program.

Last year was bad.

Is 35 years "long enough to have reestablished a consistently winning program"? Why don't you ask schools that have had 100 years to do so.

Unlike football, SoFla hoopsters do not grow up dreaming of playing for UM. We have had decades of any SoFla talent going everywhere but UM. Florida didn't even have pro basketball until about 30 years ago.

People are whining about "not making it past the Sweet 16 on a regular basis". But that doesn't make our program "mediocre". Again, look up the definition of "mediocre".

Miami has won national championships in football and baseball, and I desperately wanted us to be the first Florida Big 3 school to win national championships in the big 3 sports.

Larranaga is a **** good coach, and we have a pretty good (not mediocre) program.
 
Not sure this is a good matchup for us. NC St presses all over the court and we have problems getting the ball up the court unless it is Lykes. Hopefully we utilize Rodney and Sam at the half court line to break the press.
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Back
Top