When does Pastner feel heat

[GTRX7]

This is incorrect. The ACC champion is defined as the winner of the tournament by the ACC bylaws.

And it would be weird to use the regular season anyways with the disparity in schedules especially during that year where games were not played due to covid.

Fine. But you are effectively just arguing semantics and missing the entire point. Yes, winning two whole games to win the ACC tournament title was great. But if you actually believe that is more of an accomplishment than the team that wins the regular season ACC title, I don’t know what to say

 

[GTRX7]

I think this is very true. Pastner has on multiple occasions shown the ability to make in-season adjustments to maximize the talents and capabilities of his players. I don't think the staff has been great at figuring that out before the season which is a definite weakness.



This is a very naive statement, because much of the last 40 years is irrelevant to what GT basketball is today and its place in the overall college basketball system. MtnWasp noted the rise of the SEC, but the academic situation is very different and the influence of AAU basketball has changed the landscape as well. While it is certainly possible that a different coach could recruit better than Pastner, I am not at all convinced that anything like Cremins or Hewitt's recruiting is realistic today.

Here's a post I made in 2017 noting some changes I saw from the Hewitt era to then:

https://gtswarm.com/threads/2018-gt-hoops-hot-list.9614/page-24#post-321375

Yeah, we are just going to have to disagree here. And I mean by a lot. Tech absolutely can and should recruit much better.

 

[gtphd]

My argument is that because Pastner is doing the things that need to be done to be successful, that we will see more seasons like 20 and 21 than we will see seasons like last year.

How many seasons do we need before we can determine a coach’s performance level? I think 6 is a good sample size.

 

[MtnWasp]

Fine. But you are effectively just arguing semantics and missing the entire point. Yes, winning two whole games to win the ACC tournament title was great. But if you actually believe that is more of an accomplishment than the team that wins the regular season ACC title, I don’t know what to say

1.) Our pre-torunament ACC record that year was 11-6 (.647). You have to go back to 1996 (Marbury year) to find a higher winning percentage in the ACC. And Cremins only had two regular season ACC teams that had a winning percentage above .647 (1996 and 1986) in 19 years. Hewitt never got above .562

2.) Because of COVID cancellations, the ACC schedule were highly uneven among teams. GT had, by a considerable margin, the toughest strength of schedule within the ACC that year, so their 11 wins were well earned.

3. FSU also had their first round ACCT game cancelled due to COVID. Funny, no one mentions that.

4. Gt was playing really good ball by the end of the year. You wouldn't need to be a sophisticated fan to see that our team was playing really good ball and I wouldn't have dismissed our chances against anyone.

 

[MtnWasp]

How many seasons do we need before we can determine a coach’s performance level? I think 6 is a good sample size.

Six is a good sample size, as I have said. Two of the last three seasons have been good, so, in my mind, the trend line is okay. But it doesn't matter because we are going to get a 7th data point.

 

[Jacketman99]

Again, I'm not arguing to fire him. I would have let his contract expire then made a call. There's two parts to my argument:

1. Is the current situation acceptable? To me it's not. I don't agree that the ceiling for GT basketball is making the NCAAT once in 6 years and 0 NCAAT wins in 6 years is acceptable.
2. Can someone else do better? Sure. I don't believe that the current performance is the ceiling at GT.

If I'm the AD, I'm not willing to fire Pastner and subject us to a CBG-cost-savings-debacle, but I'm not extending Pastner with the current performance. It's not that there's a magic bullet, but you can do better and should keep searching if you can do so without financial distress.

It's like dating: You don't marry someone because they're OK. And you don't stay with someone because the next date you have might go poorly. You keep looking until you find someone that you like then you lock that person down.






Is your argument that any coach would be as unsuccessful as Pastner because of exogenous factors and, therefore, we should continue with Pastner since he's the best we'll do? If that's your opinion, I respect the logic, but I disagree.

Academics are less applicable to basketball because of immediate NBA eligibility. A one-and-done can come on campus, take a minimum course load of electives, fail a bunch of them, and stay eligible for that season. Other southeast schools are improving, but they're in places like Starkville and Tuscaloosa, not Atlanta. I believe a good coach can use Geoff Collins logic to attract players to Atlanta. And unlike Geoff Collins who needs like ten 4* and 5* recruits per year to be competitive, an MBB coach only needs 1-2 studs per year. I think that's possible.

We can disagree on that point - it's fine - but that doesn't mean that one of us is irrational, doesn't understand how sports works, is an idiot, or hates GT.

You keep talking about letting the coach's contract expire. Please show me one instance where that has happened.

 

[ESPNjacket]

Again, I'm not arguing to fire him. I would have let his contract expire then made a call. There's two parts to my argument:

1. Is the current situation acceptable? To me it's not. I don't agree that the ceiling for GT basketball is making the NCAAT once in 6 years and 0 NCAAT wins in 6 years is acceptable.
2. Can someone else do better? Sure. I don't believe that the current performance is the ceiling at GT.

If I'm the AD, I'm not willing to fire Pastner and subject us to a CBG-cost-savings-debacle, but I'm not extending Pastner with the current performance. It's not that there's a magic bullet, but you can do better and should keep searching if you can do so without financial distress.

It's like dating: You don't marry someone because they're OK. And you don't stay with someone because the next date you have might go poorly. You keep looking until you find someone that you like then you lock that person down.






Is your argument that any coach would be as unsuccessful as Pastner because of exogenous factors and, therefore, we should continue with Pastner since he's the best we'll do? If that's your opinion, I respect the logic, but I disagree.

Academics are less applicable to basketball because of immediate NBA eligibility. A one-and-done can come on campus, take a minimum course load of electives, fail a bunch of them, and stay eligible for that season. Other southeast schools are improving, but they're in places like Starkville and Tuscaloosa, not Atlanta. I believe a good coach can use Geoff Collins logic to attract players to Atlanta. And unlike Geoff Collins who needs like ten 4* and 5* recruits per year to be competitive, an MBB coach only needs 1-2 studs per year. I think that's possible.

We can disagree on that point - it's fine - but that doesn't mean that one of us is irrational, doesn't understand how sports works, is an idiot, or hates GT.

There have been 5 NCAATs during Pastner's tenure, not 6.

 

[gtphd]

There have been 5 NCAATs during Pastner's tenure, not 6.

We weren’t going to 2020 with or without the ban / cancellation.

We also had a less than 50% chance to go in 2021 without COVID (likelihood is that uva beats us and we were not going without an autobid).

 

[orientalnc]

We weren’t going to 2020 with or without the ban / cancellation.

We also had a less than 50% chance to go in 2021 without COVID (likelihood is that uva beats us and we were not going without an autobid).

I agree with you re 2020, but your speculation about 2021 is irrelevant since we actually were ACC Champions and went to the NCAAT.

Furthermore, Pastner has two really nice recruiting classes on campus right now and things are looking good for basketball. Based on recent performance, Pastner is looking better than some faculty members.

 

[slugboy]

We weren’t going to 2020 with or without the ban / cancellation.

We also had a less than 50% chance to go in 2021 without COVID (likelihood is that uva beats us and we were not going without an autobid).

In 2019-20, we were 17-14 pre-tourney, 11-9 in ACC play, 5th in the ACC, and were a bubble team. A good run in the ACC tourney and we're in the NCAAs

In 20-21, same story. Also, it makes no sense to hold COVID against us but not against any of the other teams that got forfeits or advantages because of it. We had teams that we were much better than during the regular season cancel because of COVID. We were playing great.

 

[ESPNjacket]

We weren’t going to 2020 with or without the ban / cancellation.

We also had a less than 50% chance to go in 2021 without COVID (likelihood is that uva beats us and we were not going without an autobid).

One can play games with if and buts but it is pretty much useless to do so. There was no tournament in 2020.

 

[gtphd]

In 2019-20, we were 17-14 pre-tourney, 11-9 in ACC play, 5th in the ACC, and were a bubble team. A good run in the ACC tourney and we're in the NCAAs

In 20-21, same story. Also, it makes no sense to hold COVID against us but not against any of the other teams that got forfeits or advantages because of it. We had teams that we were much better than during the regular season cancel because of COVID. We were playing great.

Go back and read this: https://www.espn.com/mens-college-b...ubble-watch-updated-look-wildest-bubble-years We weren't even a bubble team in 2019-2020. It would have been an improbably deep (maybe even winning) run needed.

The same for 2020-2021. I agree with you that we were playing great, especially when Moses took it to the next level starting in December. It was a fun team to watch, and I agree that it's a team that deserved an NCAA bid without the autobid. But, that's not how outsiders viewed it. We won the ACC and got a #9 seed, which shows we needed the autobid. Also, as excited as I was for that team, we would have been underdogs to UVA.

My entire thesis is this: should we fire Josh? No, I don't think so. Should we have extended Josh? No, I don't think we should have. Why? The current performance is below what I expect for GT Basketball. The one time it met expectation might have been a once-in-a-career lucky scenario (two under-recruited guys developing into NBA talent at the same time), which makes me skeptical that it can be repeated. I don't want to bankrupt the program over that, so let him run a few more seasons, but if he's not back in the NCAAT, more frequently, he needs to go.

 

[78pike]

Go back and read this: https://www.espn.com/mens-college-b...ubble-watch-updated-look-wildest-bubble-years We weren't even a bubble team in 2019-2020. It would have been an improbably deep (maybe even winning) run needed.

The same for 2020-2021. I agree with you that we were playing great, especially when Moses took it to the next level starting in December. It was a fun team to watch, and I agree that it's a team that deserved an NCAA bid without the autobid. But, that's not how outsiders viewed it. We won the ACC and got a #9 seed, which shows we needed the autobid. Also, as excited as I was for that team, we would have been underdogs to UVA.

My entire thesis is this: should we fire Josh? No, I don't think so. Should we have extended Josh? No, I don't think we should have. Why? The current performance is below what I expect for GT Basketball. The one time it met expectation might have been a once-in-a-career lucky scenario (two under-recruited guys developing into NBA talent at the same time), which makes me skeptical that it can be repeated. I don't want to bankrupt the program over that, so let him run a few more seasons, but if he's not back in the NCAAT, more frequently, he needs to go.

Now you have me confused. You say you don't think we should have extended his contract but then you say we should let him run a few more seasons and see what happens. Since his extension was only for a few more seasons (through '25-'26) then aren't you arguing a moot point?

 

[orientalnc]

Go back and read this: https://www.espn.com/mens-college-b...ubble-watch-updated-look-wildest-bubble-years We weren't even a bubble team in 2019-2020. It would have been an improbably deep (maybe even winning) run needed.

The same for 2020-2021. I agree with you that we were playing great, especially when Moses took it to the next level starting in December. It was a fun team to watch, and I agree that it's a team that deserved an NCAA bid without the autobid. But, that's not how outsiders viewed it. We won the ACC and got a #9 seed, which shows we needed the autobid. Also, as excited as I was for that team, we would have been underdogs to UVA.

My entire thesis is this: should we fire Josh? No, I don't think so. Should we have extended Josh? No, I don't think we should have. Why? The current performance is below what I expect for GT Basketball. The one time it met expectation might have been a once-in-a-career lucky scenario (two under-recruited guys developing into NBA talent at the same time), which makes me skeptical that it can be repeated. I don't want to bankrupt the program over that, so let him run a few more seasons, but if he's not back in the NCAAT, more frequently, he needs to go.

Letting Partner's contract expire is absolutely the worst choice. Certainly you don't mean that!?!

 

[slugboy]

Go back and read this: https://www.espn.com/mens-college-b...ubble-watch-updated-look-wildest-bubble-years We weren't even a bubble team in 2019-2020. It would have been an improbably deep (maybe even winning) run needed.

The same for 2020-2021. I agree with you that we were playing great, especially when Moses took it to the next level starting in December. It was a fun team to watch, and I agree that it's a team that deserved an NCAA bid without the autobid. But, that's not how outsiders viewed it. We won the ACC and got a #9 seed, which shows we needed the autobid. Also, as excited as I was for that team, we would have been underdogs to UVA.

My entire thesis is this: should we fire Josh? No, I don't think so. Should we have extended Josh? No, I don't think we should have. Why? The current performance is below what I expect for GT Basketball. The one time it met expectation might have been a once-in-a-career lucky scenario (two under-recruited guys developing into NBA talent at the same time), which makes me skeptical that it can be repeated. I don't want to bankrupt the program over that, so let him run a few more seasons, but if he's not back in the NCAAT, more frequently, he needs to go.

I'll answer with this: https://www.cbssports.com/college-b...-penalty-and-will-not-play-in-acc-tournament/.

We withdrew our appeal on March 2nd. The article you're using to say we weren't a bubble team was written on March 11th, after we voluntarily accepted a postseason ban. Of course we're not on a bubble watch after we withdrew from consideration.

If you don't think it gave Pastner and probably Stansbury heartburn to accept that postseason ban in a year that we had a shot, then I don't think you remember that season correctly.

We would have likely lost the appeal and lost out on two post-seasons, but we absolutely had a shot. That's what hurts the most--it's easy to accept a post-season sanction when you're not going to the tournament anyway.

Going into the ACC tourney in 2021, we were the #4 seed. We were probably in the tournament after we beat Miami in game 1. Being a top 4 team in the ACC and a tournament semi-finalist should get you to the NCAAs.

And the general buzz at our 2021 first round seed was "boy, GT got a terrible seed. They deserved better" AND "boy, Loyola-Chicago got a terrible seed and they deserved better".

 

[Connell62]

As I mentioned before, for someone that touts critical thinking, this cat has done very little. It’s like arguing with the wall.

He’s been proven wrong over and over in this thread and keeps coming back for more.

 

[gtphd]

As I mentioned before, for someone that touts critical thinking, this cat has done very little. It’s like arguing with the wall.

He’s been proven wrong over and over in this thread and keeps coming back for more.

First off, “critical thinking” doesn’t mean “super deep thinking” which is what you appear to think it means. The concept is to look at a situation without bias. Unfortunately it appears you cannot do that - anything that’s opposed to the current coach is inherently wrong.

Also, I don’t think you know what the verb “to prove” means. Going “nuh uh” over and and over isn’t proof.

For example, stating that you think we’d make the NCAAT in 2020 with 17 wins and not on the bubble isn’t proof. Articles I find from that season on bubble teams ignore us. See here . The NET ranking has us well outside the tournament. We had a bad OOC record against a weak OOC SOS.

I think the difference here is you want to “win” a “debate” with an anonymous person on the internet. I’m not. I don’t care about you. I’m just trying to have a discussion.

 

[gtphd]

I'll answer with this: https://www.cbssports.com/college-b...-penalty-and-will-not-play-in-acc-tournament/.

We withdrew our appeal on March 2nd. The article you're using to say we weren't a bubble team was written on March 11th, after we voluntarily accepted a postseason ban. Of course we're not on a bubble watch after we withdrew from consideration.

If you don't think it gave Pastner and probably Stansbury heartburn to accept that postseason ban in a year that we had a shot, then I don't think you remember that season correctly.

We would have likely lost the appeal and lost out on two post-seasons, but we absolutely had a shot. That's what hurts the most--it's easy to accept a post-season sanction when you're not going to the tournament anyway.

Going into the ACC tourney in 2021, we were the #4 seed. We were probably in the tournament after we beat Miami in game 1. Being a top 4 team in the ACC and a tournament semi-finalist should get you to the NCAAs.

And the general buzz at our 2021 first round seed was "boy, GT got a terrible seed. They deserved better" AND "boy, Loyola-Chicago got a terrible seed and they deserved better".

Then pull articles from before that show us as a legitimate bubble team. And not AJC homer articles but national articles.

You can make up quotes about what you think non-Tech people said about our seed but it’s a fact that we had a very low seed despite winning the NCAAT. Not winning the NCAAT would have likely resulted in a worse seed, like the NIT.

 

[ESPNjacket]

First off, “critical thinking” doesn’t mean “super deep thinking” which is what you appear to think it means. The concept is to look at a situation without bias. Unfortunately it appears you cannot do that - anything that’s opposed to the current coach is inherently wrong.

Also, I don’t think you know what the verb “to prove” means. Going “nuh uh” over and and over isn’t proof.

For example, stating that you think we’d make the NCAAT in 2020 with 17 wins and not on the bubble isn’t proof. Articles I find from that season on bubble teams ignore us. See here . The NET ranking has us well outside the tournament. We had a bad OOC record against a weak OOC SOS.

I think the difference here is you want to “win” a “debate” with an anonymous person on the internet. I’m not. I don’t care about you. I’m just trying to have a discussion.

You think national sportswriter's opinions are a part of critical thinking? I don't think you know any national sportswriters or what their jobs are.

Guessing what may have happened and opining on it are the opposite of critical thinking and a worthless exercise.

 

[gtphd]

You think national sportswriter's opinions are a part of critical thinking? I don't think you know any national sportswriters or what their jobs are.

Guessing what may have happened and opining on it are the opposite of critical thinking and a worthless exercise.

That phrase doesn’t mean what you think it means. Let me try to explain in a different way.

A critical analysis is like having a Brazilian referee the USA vs. Mexico match. What people in here are doing is the equivalent of having that guy who paints uga on his head referee the Florida - Georgia game. The concerning portion is that you’re completely biased and can’t see it.

Is a national sportswriter who went to Ohio State biased for / against Tech? Probably not. Are you? Yes.

Is the NET/RPI I posted biased? Nope. Is your, “well shucks I watched games and we got hosed” biased? Yes.