ESPN sharticle on Cuonzo Martin

That's an idiotic standard for what constitutes furthest. Is a sweet sixteen better than an elite eight?

 

When you essentially get a first round buy because you don't suck, 3-1 does not equal 3-1. Depth in the tournament is by any impartial standard measured by rounds.

Furthermore you said further not as far as, which further says your 3-1 argument (which by the way is just a poor attempt at trying to be right about something you were wrong about) nonsense.

 

It's less about saying it than seeing it. If you saw it, you wouldn't be equating both going 3-1 as a corollary to how far each went.

 

Elite 8 > Sweet 16, period.

 

For the sake of argument, should wildcard playoff wins in the NFL not count towards total playoff wins?

 

They should, but Andrew Luck did not get as far as Russell Wilson last year.

 

Teams that go 1-1 and lose in the divisional round will always be viewed lesser than teams who went 1-1 and lost in conference championship.

 

Also, I wouldn't be so quick to assume any difference in treatment from Butch to Cuonzo is race-related. Cuonzo was no brown-noser. Butch's nose is probably red all the time from some rash he contracted from a booster's anus.

 

My favorite three things from the article:

1. The arbitrary use of 2008 as the reference for "only once since 2008 had UT gone to the second weekend". Why not use the two years before 2008? Oh, yeah, because those were Sweet 16 years.

2. Using Bernard King as an example of Tennessee racism because 40 years ago is relevant to the situation for Martin.

3. On the other hand, the UT booster denying the racism angle by saying that Martin was brought to stop "streetball". Awesome.

Bonus - Almost as bad was the idea that Martin wasn't wanted as a coach because he didn't promote the program like Pearl did, which, if a booster is saying this, explains a lot about our current coaching predicament in all sports if they think that shit is important.

The article is full of fail.

 

A lot of Tennessee basketball fans, especially, feel this way. Lots of heat on Barnes already from some because he isn't standing out on street corners. I don't know why anything other than coaching and winning basketball games matters.

 

It semi-mattered for Pearl's first year, because apathy was rampant after decades of irrelevance. We should no longer require any excessive promotion. Just win games so people want to watch.

 

No. The elite 8 is the furthest we've been.

 

By your reasoning, a wild card team getting to the conference championship is the same thing as a bye week team getting to the Super Bowl.

 

And there isn't a debate. Having to win a play in with that team was pathetic coaching.

 

Yup. That team should have been a 4 seed at worst.

 

But mean nothing relative to making conf champ game.

 

They count as wins but it doesn't mean you make it as far in the playoffs. Otherwise you could say you made it as far as the team that beat you and then lost their next game.

 

So one can say Martin had as many tournament wins in a season as Pearl?

 

One can. It's intellectually dishonest to say that it means anything though.

 

Somebody bring in the faildozer.