Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="HRE Otto IV, post: 4101331, member: 5685"]
Just in general there are a lot of things about these numbers that IMO should be dismissed.

For example any HC that left before 1990 probably shouldn't be included. It is a different era of basketball. The 1980s brought TV and more $ to the game. The NCAAT didn't go to 64 until 1985.

I would also leave out mid major HCs. Those schools do not have the prestige nor money to entice quality HCs. So naturally they will be worse than the predecessor.

What constitutes a "legend"? The criteria used seems random. How is Tubby Smith a Kentucky legend? How is Jud Heathcote not a legend? Can someone be a legend if they were fired?

Since schools are 4 year institutions, IMO it is better to look at the 4 years prior compared to the 4 years after. The immediate replacement shouldn't really matter. Going back to Tubby, Kentucky was absolutely better off the 4 years after compared to the 4 years prior.

For Arizona, Sean Miller should be used not Kevin O'Neill. Lute Olson retired the season after O'Neill left. How can one be a successor to someone who hasn't left yet?

When you take all of the above into account, it lessens the numbers provided by a significant margin.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?