Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 180 of 320

Thread: The Larry Krystkowiak Thread

  1. #151
    Quote Originally Posted by UTEopia View Post
    I have not listened to the interview but reports are that LK and Harlan and in a defensive posture. I think they both know the natives are restless. I am ready for him to leave, but he probably knows there needs to be clear progress this year. What that means I can't say. Top tier NIT seed probably does
    it, but to me that is too little too late.
    What will save Larry's job?

    1) An NCAA tournament bid for sure.
    2) Anything else that has fans very excited. That could be a clear indication of something special or an unprecedented recruiting year or some unanticipated thing. If, by the end of 2019-20, we are not an energized fan base, I think he's gone (and should be).

  2. #152
    Quote Originally Posted by sancho View Post
    What will save Larry's job?

    1) An NCAA tournament bid for sure.
    2) Anything else that has fans very excited. That could be a clear indication of something special or an unprecedented recruiting year or some unanticipated thing. If, by the end of 2019-20, we are not an energized fan base, I think he's gone (and should be).
    I think you are right.

  3. #153
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,726
    Quote Originally Posted by UTEopia View Post
    I think you are right.
    I do too.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  4. #154
    Senior Member Scorcho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    right here, right now
    Posts
    1,448
    Quote Originally Posted by sancho View Post
    What will save Larry's job?

    1) An NCAA tournament bid for sure.
    2) Anything else that has fans very excited. That could be a clear indication of something special or an unprecedented recruiting year or some unanticipated thing. If, by the end of 2019-20, we are not an energized fan base, I think he's gone (and should be).
    I think the program needs a philosophy change, whether that’s with Krysko or not I don’t really care. In hindsight, one of Larry’s mistakes was that he recruited hard for kids that we had little chance landing. For every success like Poetl, it seem to backfire with Markannen, Mannion, etc. For whatever reason we seem to be still trying to find ourselves in the PAC-12. We're not at a level where we can land 1 and done's and unfortunately, we’re in a conference where half the schools have a sexier hoops profile than we do. That wasn’t the case in the MWC/WAC.

  5. #155
    Quote Originally Posted by sancho View Post
    What will save Larry's job?

    1) An NCAA tournament bid for sure.
    2) Anything else that has fans very excited. That could be a clear indication of something special or an unprecedented recruiting year or some unanticipated thing. If, by the end of 2019-20, we are not an energized fan base, I think he's gone (and should be).
    What would excite the fans though? A home win vs. Minnesota? Beating BYU again? (That'll do it for some). Winning the Myrtle invitational? Beating Kentucky on a neutral court? All I've heard so far this offseason is how finishing in the top four of the league is immaterial...so we know that won't do it. I'm genuinely curious to know what would make Larry an attractive coach for the majority of the fan base who has already bailed on him/the program until he's gone. Winning doesn't even seem to move the needle there.
    “It only ends once. Anything that happens before that is just progress.”

    Well, because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.

  6. #156
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorcho View Post
    I think the program needs a philosophy change, whether that’s with Krysko or not I don’t really care. In hindsight, one of Larry’s mistakes was that he recruited hard for kids that we had little chance landing. For every success like Poetl, it seem to backfire with Markannen, Mannion, etc. For whatever reason we seem to be still trying to find ourselves in the PAC-12. We're not at a level where we can land 1 and done's and unfortunately, we’re in a conference where half the schools have a sexier hoops profile than we do. That wasn’t the case in the MWC/WAC.
    It's hard to fault LK for pursuing these guys with ties to the program. A lot of these guys got paid and that swayed them to other schools. That's the crappy part of college hoops that is killing it for me. Kids play now for the highest bidder.

  7. #157
    Drum,
    My answer to your question is NCAA Tournament play.

    Scorcho's "the program needs a philosophy change" really hits on it for me. I am one of those unrealistic fans who can't let go of the Majerus years who thinks we should be in the NCAA tournament every year. While I'm realizing tempering that expectation is a reality how low should I go? One out of every four years seems like too low of an expectation.

    I say this because I think it relates to Scorcho's comment on a philosophy change. What is our philosophy? What is our style of play under Larry? We've commented on this a few times now here on the board. Larry talks about togetherness and toughness. I think we've seen good examples of the former in the last two teams but we see no toughness. This team has no calling card. We don't have near the talent coming in year after year to just go where the talent takes you.

    Without a strong philosophy and style of play our NCAA Tournament expectations may need to be lower than one in every four years. I can't believe I'm even writing that.

  8. #158
    Quote Originally Posted by Utebiquitous View Post
    Drum,
    My answer to your question is NCAA Tournament play.

    Scorcho's "the program needs a philosophy change" really hits on it for me. I am one of those unrealistic fans who can't let go of the Majerus years who thinks we should be in the NCAA tournament every year. While I'm realizing tempering that expectation is a reality how low should I go? One out of every four years seems like too low of an expectation.

    I say this because I think it relates to Scorcho's comment on a philosophy change. What is our philosophy? What is our style of play under Larry? We've commented on this a few times now here on the board. Larry talks about togetherness and toughness. I think we've seen good examples of the former in the last two teams but we see no toughness. This team has no calling card. We don't have near the talent coming in year after year to just go where the talent takes you.

    Without a strong philosophy and style of play our NCAA Tournament expectations may need to be lower than one in every four years. I can't believe I'm even writing that.

    I think that's fair.

    I feel like there have been a few moments the last few years where the team has pretty clearly not been physical enough to play with some of the big boys (see the NIT final vs. PSU). I think that has stuck with Larry, and as such he's tried to create a more physical team. Problem is, he's trying to do it with a bunch of freshmen. We finally started seeing some of that physicality from Jayce, but he's got a fairly limited offensive skill set. Tillman and Allen have that ability and I think Battin has the potential to be a lunchpail/garbage man type player for us. But, to your point, I'm not sure we've fully committed to that style of play. Perhaps that improves with a guy who can better distribute the ball, but that is putting a lot on the shoulders of Rylan Jones. We are in desperate need of an experienced grad transfer (ala Bibbins) who can help in that area.
    “It only ends once. Anything that happens before that is just progress.”

    Well, because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.

  9. #159
    Quote Originally Posted by Utebiquitous View Post
    Drum,
    My answer to your question is NCAA Tournament play.

    Scorcho's "the program needs a philosophy change" really hits on it for me. I am one of those unrealistic fans who can't let go of the Majerus years who thinks we should be in the NCAA tournament every year. While I'm realizing tempering that expectation is a reality how low should I go? One out of every four years seems like too low of an expectation.

    I say this because I think it relates to Scorcho's comment on a philosophy change. What is our philosophy? What is our style of play under Larry? We've commented on this a few times now here on the board. Larry talks about togetherness and toughness. I think we've seen good examples of the former in the last two teams but we see no toughness. This team has no calling card. We don't have near the talent coming in year after year to just go where the talent takes you.

    Without a strong philosophy and style of play our NCAA Tournament expectations may need to be lower than one in every four years. I can't believe I'm even writing that.
    Like.
    One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike -- and yet it is the most precious thing we have.

    --Albert Einstein

    The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice.

    --Richard Dawkins

    Be kind to all, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle.

    --Philo

  10. #160
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,726
    Donnie Daniels is coming to Utah:

    http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...mpression=true

    This should help, but enough?

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  11. #161
    Quote Originally Posted by DrumNFeather View Post
    What would excite the fans though? A home win vs. Minnesota? Beating BYU again? (That'll do it for some). Winning the Myrtle invitational? Beating Kentucky on a neutral court? All I've heard so far this offseason is how finishing in the top four of the league is immaterial...so we know that won't do it. I'm genuinely curious to know what would make Larry an attractive coach for the majority of the fan base who has already bailed on him/the program until he's gone. Winning doesn't even seem to move the needle there.
    I'm not sure anything he does will change the way the fans feel. Did it seem like we were winning this year? It didn't seem that way to me. The fans have mostly bailed. Another "winning" season with a 4th place PAC finish and no NCAA will not cut it. However, it is hard for a school like Utah to fire a coach who takes them to the NCAA's.

  12. #162
    Quote Originally Posted by UTEopia View Post
    I'm not sure anything he does will change the way the fans feel. Did it seem like we were winning this year? It didn't seem that way to me. The fans have mostly bailed. Another "winning" season with a 4th place PAC finish and no NCAA will not cut it. However, it is hard for a school like Utah to fire a coach who takes them to the NCAA's.
    I feel the same way you do. I think having players like Delon and Poeltl would excite interest.

  13. #163
    Quote Originally Posted by DrumNFeather View Post
    What would excite the fans though? A home win vs. Minnesota? Beating BYU again? (That'll do it for some). Winning the Myrtle invitational? Beating Kentucky on a neutral court? All I've heard so far this offseason is how finishing in the top four of the league is immaterial...so we know that won't do it. I'm genuinely curious to know what would make Larry an attractive coach for the majority of the fan base who has already bailed on him/the program until he's gone. Winning doesn't even seem to move the needle there.
    Are you effing serious? You can't be this clueless. You've wracked your brain and just can't imagine what more the fans could want than what they got last season? What has gotten into you? What the fans want is to go back to the NCAA playoffs and compete. PERIOD! Good grief. Y don't eve list is as possibility. See concern's post. No, fourth place in the Pac 12 with no postseason (or an NIT) is not good enough.

    You know, too bad they scheduled the preseason the way they did in Kuzma's last season or they may have gotten an NCAA bid.
    One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike -- and yet it is the most precious thing we have.

    --Albert Einstein

    The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice.

    --Richard Dawkins

    Be kind to all, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle.

    --Philo

  14. #164
    Quote Originally Posted by SeattleUte View Post
    Are you effing serious? You can't be this clueless. You've wracked your brain and just can't imagine what more the fans could want than what they got last season? What has gotten into you? What the fans want is to go back to the NCAA playoffs and compete. PERIOD! Good grief. Y don't eve list is as possibility. See concern's post. No, fourth place in the Pac 12 with no postseason (or an NIT) is not good enough.

    You know, too bad they scheduled the preseason the way they did in Kuzma's last season or they may have gotten an NCAA bid.
    I shouldn't respond because I think you just troll intentionally, but you did take his comment completely out of context. Of course an NCAA bid would excite fans - he already accepted that fact and was wondering if there is anything short of an NCAA bid that would excite fans. He is concluding that there probably is not.

  15. #165
    Quote Originally Posted by SeattleUte View Post
    Are you effing serious? You can't be this clueless. You've wracked your brain and just can't imagine what more the fans could want than what they got last season? What has gotten into you? What the fans want is to go back to the NCAA playoffs and compete. PERIOD! Good grief. Y don't eve list is as possibility. See concern's post. No, fourth place in the Pac 12 with no postseason (or an NIT) is not good enough.

    You know, too bad they scheduled the preseason the way they did in Kuzma's last season or they may have gotten an NCAA bid.
    This is the exact thing I would expect to hear, and have heard, from folks who don't really pay attention to the program or watch games, but run out after every loss to make sure we all know he wants Larry fired when they lose a game and are dead silent when he wins games. Mission accomplished.

    You can't just say "make the NCAA tournament" as a metric without putting context to what that means. Typically that means a 20 win season for most P5 teams and in leagues that are really strong, you can probably get away with 18 wins. Right now, the Pac 12 doesn't have that luxury, as I'm sure you know.

    So what does that mean?

    First of all, it means that no other league is dealing with what ours is dealing with right now. The Pac 12 had two teams that were sub 200 NET ranking teams (Cal and WSU) and in Cal's case, they were over 300 most of the year. The closest any other league came to that? The ACC with Wake Forest at 184. So everyone goes into Pac 12 play with a 2-3 game hole playing against teams that are ranked around the same level as a couple of SWAC schools. Knowing this, you've got to adjust your non-conference schedule accordingly, and Utah actually did a decent job with this, but some of the teams they lost to who looked good at the time (BYU, NW) ended up not being very good. If you really want to know where their season turned as far as the tournament goes, it was that loss to Hawaii in the John Wooden Classic. A win over Hawaii puts them against Seton Hall (Q1) and against Fresno/Miami (which both ended up in the same general area s Grand Canyon, so that may end up being a wash).

    The point is, because Utah has very little margin for error, they've got to make the most of their opportunities in the non-conference schedule. They didn't do that well enough this year. Part of that has to do with Larry's system (whatever that may be). His teams get better as the season goes on, but it hurts them in non-conference play because it is hard to get contributions from newcomers...and when you have several newcomers in a year it becomes a problem. Larry recently said in an interview with Kragthorpe that he and his staff need to figure out a way to accelerate the learning process so that they can have more success earlier in the season - so he is aware that this is a problem and is working with his staff to fix it.

    So what does this all mean for next year's demand of "make the tournament, or else!"

    Let's assume that they once again go 11-7 in league play. They've done that now three years in a row. That means they would need to go 9-3 in non-conference play to get to 20 wins...or win in the first round of the Pac 12 tournament...whatever combination gets you to 20.

    We know they play the following teams so far:

    vs. Minnesota (finished 61 in the NET)
    vs. BYU (finished 85 in the NET)
    @ Nevada (finished 23 in the NET, but have been absolutely gutted)
    @ Missouri (finished 77 in the NET - this one is not for sure, but last year Andy Hill said they 'kicked this one a year down the road')
    N - Weber St. (finished 182 in the NET)
    N - Kentucky (finished 6 in the NET)
    N - Myrtle Beach Invite (Miss St., Baylor, Villanova, Ohio, Coastal Carolina, Middle Tennessee, Tulane) - If I had to guess, I would say their opening opponent is either Coastal Carolina (163) or Ohio (175). Either way, a win there probably puts them in a position to play two of the three big boys in either the championship or third place game). They MUST win their first game in this tournament. Period.

    So that leaves 3 more games to schedule, assuming these are all actually going to be played. There are several ways they could go here, but the bottom line is that because Cal will be historically bad and WSU will be close behind, they cannot afford to schedule NW Nazarine.

    So when we talk about what the team needs to do to make the tourney next year, it begins with what they do in the non-conference schedule. I would contend that they must win those home games against MIN and BYU, beat a down Nevada on the road, beat Weber, beat their first round MBI opponent. Doing that would get them to 5 wins...and that is a metric we can start to work with from an informed position. If Missouri ends up on the schedule, they should be improved, but beatable. Kentucky will reload, but it will be a young team. Baylor, MSU and Nova will all be tough, for sure, but having them on the schedule will help.

    It will be interesting to see what they do with those remaining 3 or 4 games. One thing we know for sure is that they can't be dogs. Krags suggested in his conversation with Larry that they've got some "interesting" things in the works, so we'll see.

    The problem that Utah has right now relative to fan interest is a chicken/egg problem. Would winning help bring some fans back to the Huntsman Center? Of course (the students should go anyway...no excuses there). Would it help for people like you who've turned on Larry and decided that he needs to go no matter what? Probably not...because no matter what he does, he'll fall short (See LA Ute and Kyle). That's a fine position to take, but just be honest about it.

    One more thing - you mentioned Kuzma's last year. We scheduled Xavier and Butler in the non-conference, and also played UVU that year. The single biggest thing that prevented us from making the tourney that year? Kuzma twisting his ankle and not playing vs. USF in the Diamond Head Classic. A win there puts us against Illinois St. (finished with a top 50 RPI) and then SDSU, verses playing Hawaii (RPI in the 300s) and Stephen F. Austin.

    So the bottom line here is, if you want to make the NCAA Tournament, you need to understand what that entails, particularly in the current state of the Pac 12 and who Utah is playing next year. Not knowing these things means you're arguing from a position of ignorance.
    “It only ends once. Anything that happens before that is just progress.”

    Well, because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.

  16. #166
    That was a Scottie Pippen over Patrick Ewing, balls to the face/mixed with Tom Chambers over Mark Jackson type facial that DNF just served up. Take the L on this one, Seattle.

  17. #167
    Quote Originally Posted by DrumNFeather View Post
    First of all, it means that no other league is dealing with what ours is dealing with right now. The Pac 12 had two teams that were sub 200 NET ranking teams (Cal and WSU) and in Cal's case, they were over 300 most of the year. The closest any other league came to that? The ACC with Wake Forest at 184. So everyone goes into Pac 12 play with a 2-3 game hole playing against teams that are ranked around the same level as a couple of SWAC schools. Knowing this, you've got to adjust your non-conference schedule accordingly, and Utah actually did a decent job with this, but some of the teams they lost to who looked good at the time (BYU, NW) ended up not being very good. If you really want to know where their season turned as far as the tournament goes, it was that loss to Hawaii in the John Wooden Classic. A win over Hawaii puts them against Seton Hall (Q1) and against Fresno/Miami (which both ended up in the same general area s Grand Canyon, so that may end up being a wash).
    All the talk on scheduling I think distracts from the main issues - we are perpetually rebuilding and seem to have no clear system from season to season. Scheduling is important, but it's 5% of the NCAA bid picture. The other 95% is being good. Good teams get in regardless of schedule. Mediocre bubble teams pray their schedule sets them apart from other bubble teams.

    So what does this all mean for next year's demand of "make the tournament, or else!"
    Ultimatums make no strategic sense when it comes to coaching decisions (I know it's not your ultimatum).

    Would winning help bring some fans back to the Huntsman Center?
    Of course, the fans never really left. Our attendance puts us at #2 in the conference. The fans may start leaving, but it hasn't happened yet.

    One more thing - you mentioned Kuzma's last year. We scheduled Xavier and Butler in the non-conference, and also played UVU that year. The single biggest thing that prevented us from making the tourney that year? Kuzma twisting his ankle and not playing vs. USF in the Diamond Head Classic. A win there puts us against Illinois St. (finished with a top 50 RPI) and then SDSU, verses playing Hawaii (RPI in the 300s) and Stephen F. Austin.
    I doubt that gets us into the NCAA. We needed to close out one of the games against Zona or Oregon that year. That's what we needed. Illinois State would not have been enough.

    Not knowing these things means you're arguing from a position of ignorance.
    Seattle would never do that!

  18. #168
    Quote Originally Posted by sancho View Post
    All the talk on scheduling I think distracts from the main issues - we are perpetually rebuilding and seem to have no clear system from season to season. Scheduling is important, but it's 5% of the NCAA bid picture. The other 95% is being good. Good teams get in regardless of schedule. Mediocre bubble teams pray their schedule sets them apart from other bubble teams.
    I'm not sure that is entirely true. I think both Colorado and Oregon St. are tournament teams with better non-conference schedules. Colorado finished 66 in the NET and Oregon St. 87. Saint Johns and ASU were in at 63 and 73, respectively. I don't think there's any question that Colorado was one of the better teams in the league towards the end of the year. Not surprisingly, both schools have coaches similar to Larry, where their teams get better as the year progresses. Colorado literally played nobody in the non-conference and had 3 bad losses (@USD, @Hawaii and N vs Indiana St.) If they put together a halfway decent non-conf schedule, I think they are at least in the discussion. And again, having Cal and WSU on the schedule just killed our league.
    “It only ends once. Anything that happens before that is just progress.”

    Well, because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.

  19. #169
    Quote Originally Posted by DrumNFeather View Post
    I'm not sure that is entirely true. I think both Colorado and Oregon St. are tournament teams with better non-conference schedules. Colorado finished 66 in the NET and Oregon St. 87. Saint Johns and ASU were in at 63 and 73, respectively. I don't think there's any question that Colorado was one of the better teams in the league towards the end of the year. Not surprisingly, both schools have coaches similar to Larry, where their teams get better as the year progresses. Colorado literally played nobody in the non-conference and had 3 bad losses (@USD, @Hawaii and N vs Indiana St.) If they put together a halfway decent non-conf schedule, I think they are at least in the discussion. And again, having Cal and WSU on the schedule just killed our league.
    I'm not as familiar with St John's case this year, but ASU once again relied on one big win to get them in (Kansas). Scheduling teams like Kentucky, Kansas, etc, gives you that kind of lottery ticket and is just great in general. You can't always land that fish on your schedule, though. I don't think CU or OSU were anywhere close to the bubble; I doubt that a different OOC schedule would have mattered much for either.

    Let me put it this way - there's only so much you can do to game the NCAA bid system. You should do as much of that as you can, of course. In the end though, you still have to be good. There are the locks for bids, there's the bubble, and there are those on the outside looking in. The OOC schedule matters for those on the bubble. In our NIT years, we weren't even on the bubble. Removing our 300+ NET opponents would not have changed that. Winning vs good teams would have changed that, but we weren't good enough to win vs good teams.

  20. #170
    Quote Originally Posted by sancho View Post
    I'm not as familiar with St John's case this year, but ASU once again relied on one big win to get them in (Kansas). Scheduling teams like Kentucky, Kansas, etc, gives you that kind of lottery ticket and is just great in general. You can't always land that fish on your schedule, though. I don't think CU or OSU were anywhere close to the bubble; I doubt that a different OOC schedule would have mattered much for either.

    Let me put it this way - there's only so much you can do to game the NCAA bid system. You should do as much of that as you can, of course. In the end though, you still have to be good. There are the locks for bids, there's the bubble, and there are those on the outside looking in. The OOC schedule matters for those on the bubble. In our NIT years, we weren't even on the bubble. Removing our 300+ NET opponents would not have changed that. Winning vs good teams would have changed that, but we weren't good enough to win vs good teams.
    Oh, I get what you're saying totally. At the end of the day, you still have to beat good teams or good ish teams. My point is just that, for a team like Colorado who finishes with a NET of 66, if they had played our schedule, I think they are at least in that bubble conversation. Scheduling good teams, even teams that go from NET 50-150 allows you a little more leeway in terms of wins and losses. That's why we saw 18 win teams from the SEC, Big 12, and ACC in the conversation. Unfortunately, Pac 12 teams don't have that luxury, so if you are a Utah or Colorado, you've got to go find yourself games you can win that aren't going to hurt you (Tulsa) to beef up the bottom of your schedule. Obviously the ideal is being a 25 win team and having there be no doubt.
    “It only ends once. Anything that happens before that is just progress.”

    Well, because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.

  21. #171
    Quote Originally Posted by DrumNFeather View Post
    My point is just that, for a team like Colorado who finishes with a NET of 66, if they had played our schedule, I think they are at least in that bubble conversation.
    I think if CU plays our schedule and wins some of the good games, they are in the bubble conversation. Otherwise, I don't think the schedule alone does anything for them. That's one of the good things about NET over RPI. Remember the days of wild RPI increases after losing to good teams? Yikes.

    But we agree - we should schedule strategically. If we are on the bubble, it will matter.

  22. #172
    Quote Originally Posted by sancho View Post

    Of course, the fans never really left. Our attendance puts us at #2 in the conference. The fans may start leaving, but it hasn't happened yet.
    Announced attendance and actual attendance are two different things. I don't know how many student seats they count, but they count way more than are actually there. The lower bowl seats about 8,000 people. It was never close to full and the upper bowl never had more than 1,000. My guess is that actual butts in the seats averaged about 7,500 or so.

  23. #173
    Quote Originally Posted by UTEopia View Post
    Announced attendance and actual attendance are two different things. I don't know how many student seats they count, but they count way more than are actually there. The lower bowl seats about 8,000 people. It was never close to full and the upper bowl never had more than 1,000. My guess is that actual butts in the seats averaged about 7,500 or so.
    My brother and I were talking today about the overall state of college basketball, and that it wasn't really until the sweet-16 that the games were much fun to watch. It finally got pared down to the good teams. Sadly CBB is on the decline and I think that unless things get REALLY special up on the hill again, we'll never see attendance like we once had.

  24. #174
    DrumNFeather, that was an excellent analysis of the importance of scheduling. Someone, maybe you tweeted something with reference to Utah's OOC this past year. Apparently we played 4 level 5 teams and 1 level 4 team (these are all bad, bad teams) OOC. You can afford 1 of those, but not almost half of your OOC. Improving OOC will also improve attendance, and I am not talking about scheduling big boys. If you are going to play NW Nazarene, play Westminster instead. Why play Idaho St. when you can play Weber, SUU or UVU. Play USU H/H every year for hell sakes - Nobody is coming to watch you play Tulsa.

  25. #175
    Senior Member Scorcho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    right here, right now
    Posts
    1,448
    I don’t know if DrumNFeather is Mrs. Krysko, Demarlo Slocum or the ghost of Walt Misaka, but that was eloquently laid out. Nice job Arnie


    From my vantage point, Utah basketball has a couple of other problems that it just has to wade through and wait out. The first is the collegiate basketball scandal. Next to nothing has been done about the black cloud hanging over college hoops. Its nauseating that Miller is still at AZ, Wilson is reinstated at LSU, and Enfield is still at USC. My enthusiasm for the sport took a big hit last year, and the scandal is why.


    Additionally, the success of Utah football and the Utah Jazz hurts Ute hoops. It just does. Money and time that I would normally spend on Ute basketball went to the Holiday Bowl instead. For whatever reason we don’t seem like we’ve matured enough as a university sports program to be able to invest in hoops and football simultaneously. The season tickets base for basketball was less than 7,000, and yet there is a 3,000 waiting list for seats for football. There were basketball conference games this season where the upper bowl at the Huntsman Center was closed and draped. How sad is that? And yet across town all 41 Jazz home games were sellouts. Entertainment dollars that typically went to U hoops went elsewhere. Current fan interest seems to be as low as ever, some of that is due to Larry K. but there are a host of other problems that can’t be fixed by a new head man.

    (this space reserved for accusations of me of being related to Larry's staff )

  26. #176
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocker Ute View Post
    My brother and I were talking today about the overall state of college basketball, and that it wasn't really until the sweet-16 that the games were much fun to watch. It finally got pared down to the good teams. Sadly CBB is on the decline and I think that unless things get REALLY special up on the hill again, we'll never see attendance like we once had.
    True, but the lack of program identity and the refusal to play local teams doesn't fuel fan interest.

  27. #177
    Quote Originally Posted by UTEopia View Post
    True, but the lack of program identity and the refusal to play local teams doesn't fuel fan interest.
    I also think Larry's system is hard to watch. It is so slow and so deliberate. So much passing around the perimeter until the shot clock winds down. A lot of scores in the 60's. Relatively few offensive possessions. Laborious.

  28. #178
    Quote Originally Posted by UTEopia View Post
    DrumNFeather, that was an excellent analysis of the importance of scheduling. Someone, maybe you tweeted something with reference to Utah's OOC this past year. Apparently we played 4 level 5 teams and 1 level 4 team (these are all bad, bad teams) OOC. You can afford 1 of those, but not almost half of your OOC. Improving OOC will also improve attendance, and I am not talking about scheduling big boys. If you are going to play NW Nazarene, play Westminster instead. Why play Idaho St. when you can play Weber, SUU or UVU. Play USU H/H every year for hell sakes - Nobody is coming to watch you play Tulsa.
    Totally agree. I think scheduling regionally relevant games in the non-conference makes sense, and that includes road games. Every bit helps.
    “It only ends once. Anything that happens before that is just progress.”

    Well, because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.

  29. #179
    Quote Originally Posted by UTEopia View Post
    True, but the lack of program identity and the refusal to play local teams doesn't fuel fan interest.
    I agree with everything everyone has said about the schedule, but I think the schedule talk is a bit of a distraction. The program has bigger problems than a lackluster November schedule. If we lose fans, it will be because of those bigger problems - the constant rebuilding, the lack of a system, and the poor performance in general.

    Of course, the scheduling problem is probably easier to fix than the bigger issues.

  30. #180
    Quote Originally Posted by DrumNFeather View Post
    This is the exact thing I would expect to hear, and have heard, from folks who don't really pay attention to the program or watch games, but run out after every loss to make sure we all know he wants Larry fired when they lose a game and are dead silent when he wins games. Mission accomplished.

    You can't just say "make the NCAA tournament" as a metric without putting context to what that means. Typically that means a 20 win season for most P5 teams and in leagues that are really strong, you can probably get away with 18 wins. Right now, the Pac 12 doesn't have that luxury, as I'm sure you know.

    So what does that mean?

    First of all, it means that no other league is dealing with what ours is dealing with right now. The Pac 12 had two teams that were sub 200 NET ranking teams (Cal and WSU) and in Cal's case, they were over 300 most of the year. The closest any other league came to that? The ACC with Wake Forest at 184. So everyone goes into Pac 12 play with a 2-3 game hole playing against teams that are ranked around the same level as a couple of SWAC schools. Knowing this, you've got to adjust your non-conference schedule accordingly, and Utah actually did a decent job with this, but some of the teams they lost to who looked good at the time (BYU, NW) ended up not being very good. If you really want to know where their season turned as far as the tournament goes, it was that loss to Hawaii in the John Wooden Classic. A win over Hawaii puts them against Seton Hall (Q1) and against Fresno/Miami (which both ended up in the same general area s Grand Canyon, so that may end up being a wash).

    The point is, because Utah has very little margin for error, they've got to make the most of their opportunities in the non-conference schedule. They didn't do that well enough this year. Part of that has to do with Larry's system (whatever that may be). His teams get better as the season goes on, but it hurts them in non-conference play because it is hard to get contributions from newcomers...and when you have several newcomers in a year it becomes a problem. Larry recently said in an interview with Kragthorpe that he and his staff need to figure out a way to accelerate the learning process so that they can have more success earlier in the season - so he is aware that this is a problem and is working with his staff to fix it.

    So what does this all mean for next year's demand of "make the tournament, or else!"

    Let's assume that they once again go 11-7 in league play. They've done that now three years in a row. That means they would need to go 9-3 in non-conference play to get to 20 wins...or win in the first round of the Pac 12 tournament...whatever combination gets you to 20.

    We know they play the following teams so far:

    vs. Minnesota (finished 61 in the NET)
    vs. BYU (finished 85 in the NET)
    @ Nevada (finished 23 in the NET, but have been absolutely gutted)
    @ Missouri (finished 77 in the NET - this one is not for sure, but last year Andy Hill said they 'kicked this one a year down the road')
    N - Weber St. (finished 182 in the NET)
    N - Kentucky (finished 6 in the NET)
    N - Myrtle Beach Invite (Miss St., Baylor, Villanova, Ohio, Coastal Carolina, Middle Tennessee, Tulane) - If I had to guess, I would say their opening opponent is either Coastal Carolina (163) or Ohio (175). Either way, a win there probably puts them in a position to play two of the three big boys in either the championship or third place game). They MUST win their first game in this tournament. Period.

    So that leaves 3 more games to schedule, assuming these are all actually going to be played. There are several ways they could go here, but the bottom line is that because Cal will be historically bad and WSU will be close behind, they cannot afford to schedule NW Nazarine.

    So when we talk about what the team needs to do to make the tourney next year, it begins with what they do in the non-conference schedule. I would contend that they must win those home games against MIN and BYU, beat a down Nevada on the road, beat Weber, beat their first round MBI opponent. Doing that would get them to 5 wins...and that is a metric we can start to work with from an informed position. If Missouri ends up on the schedule, they should be improved, but beatable. Kentucky will reload, but it will be a young team. Baylor, MSU and Nova will all be tough, for sure, but having them on the schedule will help.

    It will be interesting to see what they do with those remaining 3 or 4 games. One thing we know for sure is that they can't be dogs. Krags suggested in his conversation with Larry that they've got some "interesting" things in the works, so we'll see.

    The problem that Utah has right now relative to fan interest is a chicken/egg problem. Would winning help bring some fans back to the Huntsman Center? Of course (the students should go anyway...no excuses there). Would it help for people like you who've turned on Larry and decided that he needs to go no matter what? Probably not...because no matter what he does, he'll fall short (See LA Ute and Kyle). That's a fine position to take, but just be honest about it.

    One more thing - you mentioned Kuzma's last year. We scheduled Xavier and Butler in the non-conference, and also played UVU that year. The single biggest thing that prevented us from making the tourney that year? Kuzma twisting his ankle and not playing vs. USF in the Diamond Head Classic. A win there puts us against Illinois St. (finished with a top 50 RPI) and then SDSU, verses playing Hawaii (RPI in the 300s) and Stephen F. Austin.

    So the bottom line here is, if you want to make the NCAA Tournament, you need to understand what that entails, particularly in the current state of the Pac 12 and who Utah is playing next year. Not knowing these things means you're arguing from a position of ignorance.
    Too many words. We're not talking about trade with China. This is a lot simpler.

    It seems the crux of what you're saying is that Utah is in an elite league with sub-elite talent (as an aside, this will change for sure; the Pac 12 has a lot going for it, glamorous schools, superb venues, and it will recover with a vengeance, just like the SEC did when it was similarly moribund not so long ago while Kentucky was down). Utah's challenge is not as daunting as Nevada's or Iowa State's. I reject that we can't be, or it's too much to expect us to be Nevada or Iowa State. Every year we get the same excuses from the program's defenders about this glacial progress. But we seem to be on a treadmill.

    The solution to all this is simple. The coaches need to win more. They have had good enough players. Krystkowiak's detractors aren't complaining about recruiting. It is what it is. A glass of water will recruit no better or no worse than we're getting. It's a matter of retaining talent, and developing a system, which is what a program that is challenged in recruiting, as Utah has always been since the 1960s and the end of Jim Crow. There are coaches out there that with all the challenges could get this team back to being ranked and in the tournament.
    One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike -- and yet it is the most precious thing we have.

    --Albert Einstein

    The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice.

    --Richard Dawkins

    Be kind to all, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle.

    --Philo

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •