West column: Lamar foolish if it lets Knight finish season

[Cardinalrule]

All of the above comments I agree with, but lets get real. There's a lot of frustration from all ends - coach, team and fans. True, the football program started from scratch and had a bigger mountain to climb. I believe after last year's debacle, the BB team was in a bigger mess than we ever could imagine. If it wasn't Osas would still be here and there would be no problem in the post. I also believe that when Price left for Grambling and Paulino left for Fresno State, we didn't get as high level of assistants as those two. Price kept Osas motivated and after Price left, Osas went south in a hurry. Maybe it is a combination of poor recruits and inadequate coaching. I think a case can be made for both.

 

Whose fault was it that the bb team was in a mess last year? PAT KNIGHT!

[Cardinalrule]

If you replace Knight, at least get a coach who can recruit and has D1 experience. Maybe off the staff of Tom Izzo, Coach K, or John Thompson III. Yeah I know I'm aiming high, but why shouldn't we get the best from the best?

 

That isn't aiming high at all. And, I disagree. Find someone with head coaching experience who has proven they could win. Like at Junior College level or NAIA or Division II or III.

[Cardinalrule]

Good points Geezer.

What about a JUCO success?

or

Someone in DII or NAIA?

or

Do they just pay dearly for a prooven winner at a low DI competitor?

 

I'm with you. Get someone who has proven they could win. Hell, I'll take an undefeated little dribblers coach over what we have right now.

[badndn]

Knight came in and won the conference the first season he was here with Roc's talented recruits.

 

Actually PK did not win the conference. LU finished third in the Conference behind UTA and SFA. Which to me is the biggest bunch of BS in college basketball today. Why play 16 games to decide in one weekend who represents your conference in the big dance?

Roc actually won the Conference in 2008.

 

Roc wins the conference with his players but doesn't get a raise or extension, while Knight comes in third but wins the SLC tourney (and NCAA bid) with Roc's players so he gets a 2 year extension and raise. Where is the logic in that? And now we're stuck with a even worse coach than Roc who gets paid more!!

 

To me it looks like the athletic department screwed up really bad.

 

Roc never won the conference?

Yes. LU shared the title with SFA in 2008. Both finished conference at 13-3.

[TBonesLU]

Knight came in and won the conference the first season he was here with Roc's talented recruits.

 

Actually PK did not win the conference. LU finished third in the Conference behind UTA and SFA. Which to me is the biggest bunch of BS in college basketball today. Why play 16 games to decide in one weekend who represents your conference in the big dance?

Roc actually won the Conference in 2008.

 

I've always agreed with this sentiment. However, in reality, the winner of the conference tournament wins the conference. It's garbage, but that's the way it is. Roc's team in '08 got a ring for being co-conference champions with SFA. That team was a better team than the one which won the tourney Knight's first year. I agree with you that the conference tournament is a horrible way to finish a season. Playing a conference schedule to give an 8-seed a chance to get hot for 3 games is terrible.

[badndn]

Especially in the Mid and Low Major Conferences, where you really only have one shot at getting A higher seed and maybe pulling off an upset. No reason that anyone other than SFA should represent this conference this year. There is not another team in the SLC that could get a 10, 11 or 12 seed and a first round W, but watch someone else will get hot in Katy, then get trounced in the play in game and SFA will be sitting at home. How is that good for the SLC?

[geezer]

Depends, as since the NCAA took over the NIT they made a rule that if a conference regular season winner did not get a bid to the NCAA tourney either via winning the post season tourney and the automatic bid or as an at large selection they would get a bid to the NIT. Now I don't know which would be better for the SLC. SFA in the NCAA as say a 14 seed which is about as high as I can remember any SLC team getting or going to the NIT and possibly going more rounds in the tourney. Even assuming SFA as a 13 seed and possibly winning the first game in the NCAA they would probably not get past the second round. In the NIT they might go to the third or even fourth round. Also if SFA wins noth the regular season and the conference tourney then the NIT doesn't have to invite a team from the SLC. Final thought is winning two or three games in either is the only way the SLC gains respect from the outside.

[LUSportsFan]

Depends, as since the NCAA took over the NIT they made a rule that if a conference regular season winner did not get a bid to the NCAA tourney either via winning the post season tourney and the automatic bid or as an at large selection they would get a bid to the NIT. Now I don't know which would be better for the SLC. SFA in the NCAA as say a 14 seed which is about as high as I can remember any SLC team getting or going to the NIT and possibly going more rounds in the tourney. Even assuming SFA as a 13 seed and possibly winning the first game in the NCAA they would probably not get past the second round. In the NIT they might go to the third or even fourth round. Also if SFA wins noth the regular season and the conference tourney then the NIT doesn't have to invite a team from the SLC. Final thought is winning two or three games in either is the only way the SLC gains respect from the outside.

 

It's not a direct comparison since it was a 48 team field, but Lamar was a #8 seed in the 1981 tournament. The lowest seed was #11 with the #1 through #4 seeds getting byes to the 2nd round.

 

The bad one for us was a couple of years later with us having a #19 RPI, with a couple of 1 point losses, and losing late in the conference tournament. On top of that, we didn't get an NCAA at large bid. He stayed on a couple of more years, but I think what happened that season may have been one of several things that influenced Pat Foster to take the University of Houston job.

 

[badndn]

Without looking it up...Who won the NIT last year?

You don't know. No one knows unless it was their team, but I remember Florida Gulf Coast last year and they where a 14 or 15 seed. They won a couple big games. And Harvard won its first ever game in the tourny. Remember all the pub when NWSt upset Iowa!

[geezer]

You may know the answer to the questions you posed but for the most part if it wasn't someone from your conference people don't know any of those answers. Unless one is a real bb junkie how far back do you think someone can go telling who the NCAA champion was. A good bet would be no more than two years and even less could tell you who the looser in the championship game was last year.

[LUSportsFan]

You may know the answer to the questions you posed but for the most part if it wasn't someone from your conference people don't know any of those answers. Unless one is a real bb junkie how far back do you think someone can go telling who the NCAA champion was. A good bet would be no more than two years and even less could tell you who the looser in the championship game was last year.

 

Totally agree about the memory part. I'm doing good to remember what happened two minutes ago except for my teams and a lot of times I have to refresh my memory about that. :)

 

That's the great thing about the internet. I can look it up.

 

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[badndn]

Point is Florida GC was all over ESPN last year and the NIT champ was mentioned on ESPN. NIT is nice to keep playing, but it gets the SLC no real advertisement or recognition.

 

Sure it's short term, but its still good publicity to win in the NCAA, therefore sending anyone other than SFA to the big dance would be rediculous for the SLC this year.

[geezer]

I knew where you were coming from. The tourney is supposedly about two things one is to make some money for the conference, they other is to hope that another team gets to the post season somewhere, kind of like all the addon football bowl games that most people can't even tell you the names of unless it is December and the listing is out.

[Cardinalrule]

Point is Florida GC was all over ESPN last year and the NIT champ was mentioned on ESPN. NIT is nice to keep playing, but it gets the SLC no real advertisement or recognition.

 

Sure it's short term, but its still good publicity to win in the NCAA, therefore sending anyone other than SFA to the big dance would be rediculous for the SLC this year.

 

I agree. I'd take an NCAA bid any day over the NIT.

[geezer]

Don't believe anyone said they would want an NIT bid over an NCAA bid, but would you rather have only one team in the post season period? Also if you didn't get an NCAA bid would you rather pack up the bags for the year or play an extra week or two?

[badndn]

Don't believe anyone said they would want an NIT bid over an NCAA bid, but would you rather have only one team in the post season period? Also if you didn't get an NCAA bid would you rather pack up the bags for the year or play an extra week or two?

I said nothing about having only 1 team in the post season. I said best team all year should get the NCAA bid, not the luckiest team at the end of the year.

[geezer]

Don't misunderstand, I would prefer the NCAA tourney was reduced to conference champions only, however the conference wants to choose their champion. While there is a huge difference between the old Big East and the SLC, there have been several years when the fourth, fifth or sixth place team would not have gotten into the NCAA tourney on their own, but got lucky and won the conference tourney and bumped a school out that had been a regular season conference champ.

[LUSportsFan]

In reference to a low seed winning the conference tournament, a prime example is Mike Deane's NCAA tournament team. The team made the tournament with an 8-10 conference record, 15-16 overall, and tied for 6th in conference regular season (according to Mike Deane Wikipedia article).

[geezer]

I was thinking of Syracuse a few years back among others. The conferences that get five, six or seven teams into the NCAA and their conference tourney winner is like the Mike Deane LU team that didn't even have a winning record in conference during the regular season. The only reason some of those teams had winning records were from playing the Nicholls and Lamar's of the lower tier conferences. Without the conference tourney the SLC will never get an at large bid.

[badndn]

Don't misunderstand, I would prefer the NCAA tourney was reduced to conference champions only, however the conference wants to choose their champion. While there is a huge difference between the old Big East and the SLC, there have been several years when the fourth, fifth or sixth place team would not have gotten into the NCAA tourney on their own, but got lucky and won the conference tourney and bumped a school out that had been a regular season conference champ.

Not the same...I am not saying just conference regular season champ should get in in the bigger power conferences...In Low Major Conferences you really only have one shot a winning a 1st round game and thats typically with the team that had the best conference record and overalll record. That team could get a 13 or 14 seed and pull an upset.

[geezer]

If they are really good enough to get a 13 or 14 seed then they should be worthy of an at large bid versus the #7 team from a power conference. I understand that is not reality. Just three or four years ago the Missouri Valley only got their conference champion in and last year the runner up made it to the final four.