No one's mentioned basketball.

[hokiemtc]

As I always say. anything less than 29-1, and winning ACC tournament, it will be hard for VT to get in NCAA tournament. Committee simply doesn't like VT.

I'd say VT would still be a bubble team even if they did have 29 wins and an ACC title. The committee would find some way for the one of the losses to be a disqualifier.

There's some awfully optimistic people on this board, given our long, disasterous selection committee history.

 

[Hoos19NC]

I'd say VT would still be a bubble team even if they did have 29 wins and an ACC title. The committee would find some way for the one of the losses to be a disqualifier.

There's some awfully optimistic people on this board, given our long, disasterous selection committee history.

Well you are a football school in a basketball conference.....but I believe 29 wins gets you in.

 

[HeaksManley]

I'd say VT would still be a bubble team even if they did have 29 wins and an ACC title. The committee would find some way for the one of the losses to be a disqualifier.

There's some awfully optimistic people on this board, given our long, disasterous selection committee history.

Our disastrous history with the selection committee was more the result of a disastrous mediocrity wrought by Greenberg. As much as I'd like to defend those so-called snubs of the Delaney-Allen years, it was as much losses at home to 10-win teams like Boston College, or out of conference to teams like VMI, Richmond and Bowling Green.

That's not to say there wasn't a case for us in any of those years, because there was. But the fact remains that much of our status as a bubble team, and the precariousness of that position, was as much something we played ourselves into as it was a snub by the committee. In any of those years where we got left out, you can find a handful of bad losses, or note an absence of real, quality wins. And even at best, there were other bubble teams with comparable resumes that you could easily have made a better or equal case for.

 

[Hampton Roads 6]

Most every team in the nation loses a game they should have won. Committee should not hold a loss against anyone.

heck over the years, almost every VT football loss was a game we should have won.

 

[swmrappell]

Hey Hoos. I just appreciate that we are having this kind of conversation. Shows where Buzz has us headed in basketball. We are not there and I won't claim we are but at least we have the chance to get into the tourney perhaps on a regular basis with Buzz.

 

[HeaksManley]

Most every team in the nation loses a game they should have won. Committee should not hold a loss against anyone.

heck over the years, almost every VT football loss was a game we should have won.

I don't disagree. There are upsets, and the metrics the committee use seem to be haphazardly applied some years, but teams under Greenberg played with the kind of erratic inconsistency that ranged from beating Duke one day to losing to Western Michigan the next. And they weren't just isolated losses on off-years -- we had a handful of them every year and often in the absence of good, quality wins. Even in 2006-2007 we had them, but we had 5-6 top 50 wins to offset them. Other years, not so much.

Greenberg was disastrous in close-game situations because he could not draw up an offensive play to save his life. He was a lousy x's and o's coach, a lousy developer and evaluator of frontcourt talent, and our halfcourt offensive strategy was streetball level dribble-drive. We scrapped for wins against the lowliest of teams the same way we scrapped for wins against the best. When you don't have sound, fundamental basketball strategy, you're going to lose most of those "50/50" situations. That's as much a reason, if not more of a reason, why we were left out so often as it was our lack of basketball brand or a conspiratorial committee.

 

[Hoos19NC]

Hey Hoos. I just appreciate that we are having this kind of conversation. Shows where Buzz has us headed in basketball. We are not there and I won't claim we are but at least we have the chance to get into the tourney perhaps on a regular basis with Buzz.

I agree....Buzz is doing a good job for VT.

 

[mrjolly01]

[QUOTE="HeaksManley, post: 103495, member: 1074"...]teams under Greenberg played with the kind of erratic inconsistency that ranged from beating Duke one day to losing to Western Michigan the next...

Greenberg was disastrous in close-game situations because he could not draw up an offensive play to save his life. He was a lousy x's and o's coach, a lousy developer and evaluator of frontcourt talent, and our halfcourt offensive strategy was streetball level dribble-drive. [/QUOTE]

Totally agree with these comments. We got what we paid for - a head coach who arrived at VT fresh off of an 8 year stint of no NCAA appearances and an overall losing conference record. Ultimately it was the same result I expected when he was hired.

I used to be amazed when I would read fans saying things like it was our "location" or "lack of basketball tradition". I always argued against those comments, saying I would only believe that once we actually tried paying for a quality coach and still didn't have success. We were making poor coaching hires. Even when we "elevated" our basketball spending on assistant coaches we were benchmarking our basketball spending with "Clemson", the worst traditional basketball program in the ACC. Now I feel vindicated as Buzz Williams is putting all those false paradigms to rest. Its pretty evident in this business if you want to compete and win you have to pay for the top coaches, period. Its the price of admission. UVA wouldn't have won the ACC with Ricky Stokes or Seth Greenberg as their coach. The commitment must be there.

 

[Hoos19NC]

[QUOTE="HeaksManley, post: 103495, member: 1074"...]teams under Greenberg played with the kind of erratic inconsistency that ranged from beating Duke one day to losing to Western Michigan the next...

Greenberg was disastrous in close-game situations because he could not draw up an offensive play to save his life. He was a lousy x's and o's coach, a lousy developer and evaluator of frontcourt talent, and our halfcourt offensive strategy was streetball level dribble-drive.

Totally agree with these comments. We got what we paid for - a head coach who arrived at VT fresh off of an 8 year stint of no NCAA appearances and an overall losing conference record. Ultimately it was the same result I expected when he was hired.

I used to be amazed when I would read fans saying things like it was our "location" or "lack of basketball tradition". I always argued against those comments, saying I would only believe that once we actually tried paying for a quality coach and still didn't have success. We were making poor coaching hires. Even when we "elevated" our basketball spending on assistant coaches we were benchmarking our basketball spending with "Clemson", the worst traditional basketball program in the ACC. Now I feel vindicated as Buzz Williams is putting all those false paradigms to rest. Its pretty evident in this business if you want to compete and win you have to pay for the top coaches, period. Its the price of admission. UVA wouldn't have won the ACC with Ricky Stokes or Seth Greenberg as their coach. The commitment must be there.[/QUOTE]
Well said....

 

[Hampton Roads 6]

HR6 plans to make his Cassell Coliseum debut tomorrow.

 

[Hoos19NC]

HR6 plans to make his Cassell Coliseum debut tomorrow.

See if you can get the lights turned on....darkest place I've ever watched a game.

 

[1bburgfan]

its the new eco friendly bulbs