Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Basketball
What does Michael Cunningham have against
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="lv20gt" data-source="post: 861412" data-attributes="member: 2299"><p>The article doesn't really lie about amuch but the slant is certainly not favorable. </p><p></p><p>It starts with the title. After one good season.... </p><p></p><p>Two years ago we finished 11-9 in conference good for fifth place. He says we were outside the bubble which was true, but we were also winners of 7 of our previous 9 playing real well. Had we played in the ACCT it is possible we'd have played our way in. Regardless, I think the first winning ACC record since 03-04 qualifies as a good season. Yes, there was the black cloud of the OOC that hurt that year, but that was in large part due to the loss of Jose for the majority of it, along with the absence of Ush who had to sit out a year. </p><p></p><p>Second, he talks about how a one and done NCAAT appearance in five years isn't aiming high, which is again true, but it also ignores the situation he took over. Pastner was the easy winner of the ACC CoY in year one despite having a losing conference record and missing the NCAAT. So no, just making one NCAAT isn't aiming high, but it is certainly constitutes a successful hire. </p><p></p><p>Third, he points to no underclassman having played more than half the available minutes as support for "few indications of something better [than this year] being built. However, here are the stats. </p><p></p><p>We've played 16 games and 2 OTs. That means we have had a total of 3250 minutes available I believe. For an individual player they could have played at most 650 minutes. </p><p></p><p>First off, Coleman has played 339 minutes, which is over half available. </p><p></p><p>Second off, Sturdivant has played 365 minutes which is over half available. By eligibility he is a sophomore. Of course the writer is counting him as a junior. Same with Howard who has 2 years remaining after this. </p><p></p><p>Third, Smith has played 292 minutes, just under the half of available minutes mark. The problem is Smith didn't play in two games. He was sick for the GSU game, and I don't know if he was available for the Duke game. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Either way, he's averaging over 20 which is probably why the writer chose it as half the available minutes instead. </p><p></p><p>Fourth, We have played underclassmen 1083 total minutes not including Howard or Sturdivant which is right at a third of our minutes. Including Howard and Sturdivant (so using eligibility) that is 1744 or nearly 54% of our minutes going to players who should be (barring transfers). </p><p></p><p>For comparison, in 18-19 we had 6425 total minutes played according to NCAAT. Of those, 3160 were played by players who would go on to be on last year's team. That is 49%. Now, that does go up to 65.5% if we include guys who would eventually transfer out but the main point is, barring transfers, we are getting minutes for young guys similar to what we were doing two years prior to our championship year. The main difference is we have multiple guys splitting the minutes like Kyle+Deivon and Coleman + Kelly instead of just one guy. But that's a good thing as depth was a major issue for us last year.</p><p></p><p>So again, overall the piece is accurate in most ways, but the interpretation certainly leaves something to be desired.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="lv20gt, post: 861412, member: 2299"] The article doesn't really lie about amuch but the slant is certainly not favorable. It starts with the title. After one good season.... Two years ago we finished 11-9 in conference good for fifth place. He says we were outside the bubble which was true, but we were also winners of 7 of our previous 9 playing real well. Had we played in the ACCT it is possible we'd have played our way in. Regardless, I think the first winning ACC record since 03-04 qualifies as a good season. Yes, there was the black cloud of the OOC that hurt that year, but that was in large part due to the loss of Jose for the majority of it, along with the absence of Ush who had to sit out a year. Second, he talks about how a one and done NCAAT appearance in five years isn't aiming high, which is again true, but it also ignores the situation he took over. Pastner was the easy winner of the ACC CoY in year one despite having a losing conference record and missing the NCAAT. So no, just making one NCAAT isn't aiming high, but it is certainly constitutes a successful hire. Third, he points to no underclassman having played more than half the available minutes as support for "few indications of something better [than this year] being built. However, here are the stats. We've played 16 games and 2 OTs. That means we have had a total of 3250 minutes available I believe. For an individual player they could have played at most 650 minutes. First off, Coleman has played 339 minutes, which is over half available. Second off, Sturdivant has played 365 minutes which is over half available. By eligibility he is a sophomore. Of course the writer is counting him as a junior. Same with Howard who has 2 years remaining after this. Third, Smith has played 292 minutes, just under the half of available minutes mark. The problem is Smith didn't play in two games. He was sick for the GSU game, and I don't know if he was available for the Duke game. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Either way, he's averaging over 20 which is probably why the writer chose it as half the available minutes instead. Fourth, We have played underclassmen 1083 total minutes not including Howard or Sturdivant which is right at a third of our minutes. Including Howard and Sturdivant (so using eligibility) that is 1744 or nearly 54% of our minutes going to players who should be (barring transfers). For comparison, in 18-19 we had 6425 total minutes played according to NCAAT. Of those, 3160 were played by players who would go on to be on last year's team. That is 49%. Now, that does go up to 65.5% if we include guys who would eventually transfer out but the main point is, barring transfers, we are getting minutes for young guys similar to what we were doing two years prior to our championship year. The main difference is we have multiple guys splitting the minutes like Kyle+Deivon and Coleman + Kelly instead of just one guy. But that's a good thing as depth was a major issue for us last year. So again, overall the piece is accurate in most ways, but the interpretation certainly leaves something to be desired. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who won the ACC Coach of the Year Award in 2014?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Basketball
What does Michael Cunningham have against
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top