When does Pastner feel heat

iopjacket

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
812
I'm lstening - who are the guys that you believe suggest recruiting is on the upswing. Trying to learn.
I believe it is on an upswing. Kyle Sturdivant, Deebo Coleman, Deivon Smith, and Miles Kelly were rated 4* out of high school. Tristan Maxwell and Jalon Moore are talented players. Cyril Martynov appears to have a lot of potential. Blue Cain is a 4* recruit.
 

MtnWasp

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,060
I for one look forward to seeing some basketball so the results can replace all the debate.

Pastner's teams have shown the ability to play really well and then others have played not so well. Some fans point at the bad results and say he not any good. Other fans look at the good teams and say he can coach.

The fine point of the debate is whether it is the good teams that define the coach or whether it is the not so good teams that better represent the prospects of future teams?

We will get the answer to that question over time. Fan optimism or pessimism is not relevant. Pastner will get the opportunity to show what he's got under the hood regardless of whether some fans don't think he deserves that chance.

The previous three Tech coaches in the ACC era have shown smoother arcs of performance over their careers than has Pastner. I think many if not most fans here were imprinted on Bobby Cremins and his meteoric rise in the ACC in the early to mid eighties.

In his first three seasons Cremins was 13-29 (.309) in the ACC but was rapidly increasing talent on the roster.

In his next 6 seasons ('85-'90) Cremins was 51-33 in the ACC (.607). The average seed in the ACC over those years was 3.3 out of 8. This period represents GT basketball's best run and what many fans consider GT's real position in the basketball world.

In the following six seasons, results were more uneven. From '91-'96 GT was 50-44 (.532). Still really good, overall.

But in his last 4 seasons Cremins was 20-47 in the ACC (.298). The emergence of early departures, recruits skipping college altogether (Al Harrington) completely killed Cremins' paradigm for winning. The loss of key assistants, the changing landscape of the AAU and the means of talent acquisition (Shareef Abdur Rahim) also chipped away at the program in those years. The injury of Glover may have been the final nail in his coffin.

But there was a clear arc of program trajectory: Rapid rise, a period of consistent success followed by a period of success with glitches and then a rapid fall.

Hewitt's tenure also showed a clear arc. In his first 5 seasons, Hewitt was 39-41 (.489) in the ACC. He recruited modestly and his regime culminated in a get-old, stay-old team that went to the Championship game team based on amazingly sticky defense and the ability to make tough shots. But then Keener and Warren left the staff and the recruiting pattern changed with Hewitt landing the 5* players (Clinch, Critt, Thaddeus, Favors, Udofia, Shumpert) but the rosters were unbalanced and were not able to play good team ball. Putting his recruiting eggs on the 5-tool baseball player Austin Jackson as well as the injury to Jeremis Smith really hurt Hewitt.

In his last six years, Hewitt's teams were 42-74 (.362) in the ACC. In his first 5 seasons, our ACC seed was 4.6 in a nine team ACC (51st percentile) in his last six seasons his average ACC seed was 9.0 in a 12 team ACC (75th percentile).

Again a clear arc: a promising start culminating with the big run, then a rapid fall.

Gregory never got off the mat. He was 21-62 (.303) in the ACC. He pretty much neglected coaching offense. He put a decent team together with a slew of transfers in year five (8-10 in the ACC), but the fan-base had been completely decimated by that time.

Pastners record sits currently at 49-68 (.419) in the ACC, which ranks him ahead of Hewitt (.413) and behind Cremins (.467). (No Gt coach has achieved a ACC winning percentage of .500 or above). After surprisingly taking his first team to an 8-10 ACC record and to the NIT finals, Pastner's 2nd and third year teams were 6 win team disappointments. Year two was marred by the early ankle injury to Lammers, Okogie missed the first 7 games and a late elbow fracture to Avarado. And then year three was low-lighted by the great shooting slump and the horrific, epic off-season Fall recruiting whiff under the dark clouds of the NCAA hammer.

However, The staff developed the no-name recruits and got some key transfers and put together two winning ACC teams (finishing in the top 5 each year) and hung the program's 4th ACCT banner in year 5.

The trajectory was not as steep as Cremins, but the trajectory was there. By the end of year five, Pastner was 44-52 (.458) in the ACC. He was knocking at the door of Cremins .467 in the ACC.

But then last year happened. That season surprised me. While the team had moments of playing good basketball and often led in games for large fractions of games against good teams, they couldn't win worth crap. They established a propensity for the pivotal scoring drought and giving up easy baskets in the paint. And last year disrupted the favorable program trajectory and has a segment of fans howling in pain. Pastner's ACC winning percentage dipped from .458 to .419 from '21-'22.

Fans point to recruiting. But it doesn't follow. Cremins' rapid initial ascent was built on the stardom of Mark Price and John Sally and they were three star recruits. Hewitt's best team was based on good but not great recruits. Hewitt's teams with all the five star recruits were pretty meh by comparison to 2004. Pastner's winning teams were based on players that were not highly rated recruits but became stars anyway. Meanwhile, Martynov and Blue Cain are good recruits. That can't be ignored. Ultimately, win-loss record trumps recruit ratings when evaluating recruiting.

One echo from the Cremins era that fans need to let go of as a standard by which to judge coaches is the NCAAT bid. GT has seen 4 automatic bids to the NCAAT in 42 years since joining the ACC. GT's other 11 NCAAT appearances were via at-large bids (73%). The statistical probability of gaining an at large bid today versus the mid-eighties is significantly less. There are at least 50 more NCAA eligible teams now than then, there are more conferences that get an automatic bid (that is not fully compensated by the additional play-in games), Power-5 conference expansion means a smaller percentage of Power-5 programs get in and the NCAAT selection committee criteria favors Mid-major programs with greater winning percentages over Power-5 programs with mediocre winning percentages and, finally, the emerging financial comittment by mid-major programs to win in basketball all make the odds of making the Tournament significantly less than it used to be.

During Cremins 9 consecutive seasons with an NCAA bid, the '87 team got in with a 16-13 (7-7) 5th place finish (out of 8 ACC teams), the '89 team got in with 20-12 (8-6) 5th place (out of 8), the '91 team got in with a 17-13 (6-8) 5th place finish, the '93 team got in with a 19-11 (8-8) 6th place (out of 9) finish. By today's standards at least three of those four teams don't sniff the NCAAT, and probably the 4th. Even the '88 team which finished 22-10 (8-6) and finished 4th in an 8 team ACC might have found itself on the bubble in some years today. That means at least three of those nine teams and possibly as many as 5 or Cremins' 9 consecutive NCAAT teams would not have made the NCAAT by today's standards.

Hewitt's '07 team 20-12 (8-8) with a 6th place finish probably would have been outside the bubble today.

Less than 19% of NCAAT eligible teams make it in and there are WAY more competitive programs than there used to be. Even good Power 5 teams that finish mid-tier in their conferences are bubble teams at best. Being good is not good enough anymore. Making the NCAAT is now a cherry on top and not a reasonable criteria on which to keep or not keep a coach.

Fans need to wrap their heads around this. Getting into the NCAAT is currently way more difficult than it used to be. Find another measuring stick.

One Criticism that is legit is the slow-out-of-the-gates criticism. Because it is so hard to get into the tournament, early season flops are crippling. I would guess that our schemes are complicated, especially the amoeba zone defense that we rely on. We need a different formula. But the coach has acknowledged this so it is something to keep an eye on moving forward.
 

Connell62

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
3,114
I for one look forward to seeing some basketball so the results can replace all the debate.

Pastner's teams have shown the ability to play really well and then others have played not so well. Some fans point at the bad results and say he not any good. Other fans look at the good teams and say he can coach.

The fine point of the debate is whether it is the good teams that define the coach or whether it is the not so good teams that better represent the prospects of future teams?

We will get the answer to that question over time. Fan optimism or pessimism is not relevant. Pastner will get the opportunity to show what he's got under the hood regardless of whether some fans don't think he deserves that chance.

The previous three Tech coaches in the ACC era have shown smoother arcs of performance over their careers than has Pastner. I think many if not most fans here were imprinted on Bobby Cremins and his meteoric rise in the ACC in the early to mid eighties.

In his first three seasons Cremins was 13-29 (.309) in the ACC but was rapidly increasing talent on the roster.

In his next 6 seasons ('85-'90) Cremins was 51-33 in the ACC (.607). The average seed in the ACC over those years was 3.3 out of 8. This period represents GT basketball's best run and what many fans consider GT's real position in the basketball world.

In the following six seasons, results were more uneven. From '91-'96 GT was 50-44 (.532). Still really good, overall.

But in his last 4 seasons Cremins was 20-47 in the ACC (.298). The emergence of early departures, recruits skipping college altogether (Al Harrington) completely killed Cremins' paradigm for winning. The loss of key assistants, the changing landscape of the AAU and the means of talent acquisition (Shareef Abdur Rahim) also chipped away at the program in those years. The injury of Glover may have been the final nail in his coffin.

But there was a clear arc of program trajectory: Rapid rise, a period of consistent success followed by a period of success with glitches and then a rapid fall.

Hewitt's tenure also showed a clear arc. In his first 5 seasons, Hewitt was 39-41 (.489) in the ACC. He recruited modestly and his regime culminated in a get-old, stay-old team that went to the Championship game team based on amazingly sticky defense and the ability to make tough shots. But then Keener and Warren left the staff and the recruiting pattern changed with Hewitt landing the 5* players (Clinch, Critt, Thaddeus, Favors, Udofia, Shumpert) but the rosters were unbalanced and were not able to play good team ball. Putting his recruiting eggs on the 5-tool baseball player Austin Jackson as well as the injury to Jeremis Smith really hurt Hewitt.

In his last six years, Hewitt's teams were 42-74 (.362) in the ACC. In his first 5 seasons, our ACC seed was 4.6 in a nine team ACC (51st percentile) in his last six seasons his average ACC seed was 9.0 in a 12 team ACC (75th percentile).

Again a clear arc: a promising start culminating with the big run, then a rapid fall.

Gregory never got off the mat. He was 21-62 (.303) in the ACC. He pretty much neglected coaching offense. He put a decent team together with a slew of transfers in year five (8-10 in the ACC), but the fan-base had been completely decimated by that time.

Pastners record sits currently at 49-68 (.419) in the ACC, which ranks him ahead of Hewitt (.413) and behind Cremins (.467). (No Gt coach has achieved a ACC winning percentage of .500 or above). After surprisingly taking his first team to an 8-10 ACC record and to the NIT finals, Pastner's 2nd and third year teams were 6 win team disappointments. Year two was marred by the early ankle injury to Lammers, Okogie missed the first 7 games and a late elbow fracture to Avarado. And then year three was low-lighted by the great shooting slump and the horrific, epic off-season Fall recruiting whiff under the dark clouds of the NCAA hammer.

However, The staff developed the no-name recruits and got some key transfers and put together two winning ACC teams (finishing in the top 5 each year) and hung the program's 4th ACCT banner in year 5.

The trajectory was not as steep as Cremins, but the trajectory was there. By the end of year five, Pastner was 44-52 (.458) in the ACC. He was knocking at the door of Cremins .467 in the ACC.

But then last year happened. That season surprised me. While the team had moments of playing good basketball and often led in games for large fractions of games against good teams, they couldn't win worth crap. They established a propensity for the pivotal scoring drought and giving up easy baskets in the paint. And last year disrupted the favorable program trajectory and has a segment of fans howling in pain. Pastner's ACC winning percentage dipped from .458 to .419 from '21-'22.

Fans point to recruiting. But it doesn't follow. Cremins' rapid initial ascent was built on the stardom of Mark Price and John Sally and they were three star recruits. Hewitt's best team was based on good but not great recruits. Hewitt's teams with all the five star recruits were pretty meh by comparison to 2004. Pastner's winning teams were based on players that were not highly rated recruits but became stars anyway. Meanwhile, Martynov and Blue Cain are good recruits. That can't be ignored. Ultimately, win-loss record trumps recruit ratings when evaluating recruiting.

One echo from the Cremins era that fans need to let go of as a standard by which to judge coaches is the NCAAT bid. GT has seen 4 automatic bids to the NCAAT in 42 years since joining the ACC. GT's other 11 NCAAT appearances were via at-large bids (73%). The statistical probability of gaining an at large bid today versus the mid-eighties is significantly less. There are at least 50 more NCAA eligible teams now than then, there are more conferences that get an automatic bid (that is not fully compensated by the additional play-in games), Power-5 conference expansion means a smaller percentage of Power-5 programs get in and the NCAAT selection committee criteria favors Mid-major programs with greater winning percentages over Power-5 programs with mediocre winning percentages and, finally, the emerging financial comittment by mid-major programs to win in basketball all make the odds of making the Tournament significantly less than it used to be.

During Cremins 9 consecutive seasons with an NCAA bid, the '87 team got in with a 16-13 (7-7) 5th place finish (out of 8 ACC teams), the '89 team got in with 20-12 (8-6) 5th place (out of 8), the '91 team got in with a 17-13 (6-8) 5th place finish, the '93 team got in with a 19-11 (8-8) 6th place (out of 9) finish. By today's standards at least three of those four teams don't sniff the NCAAT, and probably the 4th. Even the '88 team which finished 22-10 (8-6) and finished 4th in an 8 team ACC might have found itself on the bubble in some years today. That means at least three of those nine teams and possibly as many as 5 or Cremins' 9 consecutive NCAAT teams would not have made the NCAAT by today's standards.

Hewitt's '07 team 20-12 (8-8) with a 6th place finish probably would have been outside the bubble today.

Less than 19% of NCAAT eligible teams make it in and there are WAY more competitive programs than there used to be. Even good Power 5 teams that finish mid-tier in their conferences are bubble teams at best. Being good is not good enough anymore. Making the NCAAT is now a cherry on top and not a reasonable criteria on which to keep or not keep a coach.

Fans need to wrap their heads around this. Getting into the NCAAT is currently way more difficult than it used to be. Find another measuring stick.

One Criticism that is legit is the slow-out-of-the-gates criticism. Because it is so hard to get into the tournament, early season flops are crippling. I would guess that our schemes are complicated, especially the amoeba zone defense that we rely on. We need a different formula. But the coach has acknowledged this so it is something to keep an eye on moving forward.
Excellent Post… Bravo! 👏👏👏
 

GTNavyNuke

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
10,075
Location
Williamsburg Virginia
I for one look forward to seeing some basketball so the results can replace all the debate.

Pastner's teams have shown the ability to play really well and then others have played not so well. Some fans point at the bad results and say he not any good. Other fans look at the good teams and say he can coach.

The fine point of the debate is whether it is the good teams that define the coach or whether it is the not so good teams that better represent the prospects of future teams?

We will get the answer to that question over time. Fan optimism or pessimism is not relevant. Pastner will get the opportunity to show what he's got under the hood regardless of whether some fans don't think he deserves that chance.

The previous three Tech coaches in the ACC era have shown smoother arcs of performance over their careers than has Pastner. I think many if not most fans here were imprinted on Bobby Cremins and his meteoric rise in the ACC in the early to mid eighties.

In his first three seasons Cremins was 13-29 (.309) in the ACC but was rapidly increasing talent on the roster.

In his next 6 seasons ('85-'90) Cremins was 51-33 in the ACC (.607). The average seed in the ACC over those years was 3.3 out of 8. This period represents GT basketball's best run and what many fans consider GT's real position in the basketball world.

In the following six seasons, results were more uneven. From '91-'96 GT was 50-44 (.532). Still really good, overall.

But in his last 4 seasons Cremins was 20-47 in the ACC (.298). The emergence of early departures, recruits skipping college altogether (Al Harrington) completely killed Cremins' paradigm for winning. The loss of key assistants, the changing landscape of the AAU and the means of talent acquisition (Shareef Abdur Rahim) also chipped away at the program in those years. The injury of Glover may have been the final nail in his coffin.

But there was a clear arc of program trajectory: Rapid rise, a period of consistent success followed by a period of success with glitches and then a rapid fall.

Hewitt's tenure also showed a clear arc. In his first 5 seasons, Hewitt was 39-41 (.489) in the ACC. He recruited modestly and his regime culminated in a get-old, stay-old team that went to the Championship game team based on amazingly sticky defense and the ability to make tough shots. But then Keener and Warren left the staff and the recruiting pattern changed with Hewitt landing the 5* players (Clinch, Critt, Thaddeus, Favors, Udofia, Shumpert) but the rosters were unbalanced and were not able to play good team ball. Putting his recruiting eggs on the 5-tool baseball player Austin Jackson as well as the injury to Jeremis Smith really hurt Hewitt.

In his last six years, Hewitt's teams were 42-74 (.362) in the ACC. In his first 5 seasons, our ACC seed was 4.6 in a nine team ACC (51st percentile) in his last six seasons his average ACC seed was 9.0 in a 12 team ACC (75th percentile).

Again a clear arc: a promising start culminating with the big run, then a rapid fall.

Gregory never got off the mat. He was 21-62 (.303) in the ACC. He pretty much neglected coaching offense. He put a decent team together with a slew of transfers in year five (8-10 in the ACC), but the fan-base had been completely decimated by that time.

Pastners record sits currently at 49-68 (.419) in the ACC, which ranks him ahead of Hewitt (.413) and behind Cremins (.467). (No Gt coach has achieved a ACC winning percentage of .500 or above). After surprisingly taking his first team to an 8-10 ACC record and to the NIT finals, Pastner's 2nd and third year teams were 6 win team disappointments. Year two was marred by the early ankle injury to Lammers, Okogie missed the first 7 games and a late elbow fracture to Avarado. And then year three was low-lighted by the great shooting slump and the horrific, epic off-season Fall recruiting whiff under the dark clouds of the NCAA hammer.

However, The staff developed the no-name recruits and got some key transfers and put together two winning ACC teams (finishing in the top 5 each year) and hung the program's 4th ACCT banner in year 5.

The trajectory was not as steep as Cremins, but the trajectory was there. By the end of year five, Pastner was 44-52 (.458) in the ACC. He was knocking at the door of Cremins .467 in the ACC.

But then last year happened. That season surprised me. While the team had moments of playing good basketball and often led in games for large fractions of games against good teams, they couldn't win worth crap. They established a propensity for the pivotal scoring drought and giving up easy baskets in the paint. And last year disrupted the favorable program trajectory and has a segment of fans howling in pain. Pastner's ACC winning percentage dipped from .458 to .419 from '21-'22.

Fans point to recruiting. But it doesn't follow. Cremins' rapid initial ascent was built on the stardom of Mark Price and John Sally and they were three star recruits. Hewitt's best team was based on good but not great recruits. Hewitt's teams with all the five star recruits were pretty meh by comparison to 2004. Pastner's winning teams were based on players that were not highly rated recruits but became stars anyway. Meanwhile, Martynov and Blue Cain are good recruits. That can't be ignored. Ultimately, win-loss record trumps recruit ratings when evaluating recruiting.

One echo from the Cremins era that fans need to let go of as a standard by which to judge coaches is the NCAAT bid. GT has seen 4 automatic bids to the NCAAT in 42 years since joining the ACC. GT's other 11 NCAAT appearances were via at-large bids (73%). The statistical probability of gaining an at large bid today versus the mid-eighties is significantly less. There are at least 50 more NCAA eligible teams now than then, there are more conferences that get an automatic bid (that is not fully compensated by the additional play-in games), Power-5 conference expansion means a smaller percentage of Power-5 programs get in and the NCAAT selection committee criteria favors Mid-major programs with greater winning percentages over Power-5 programs with mediocre winning percentages and, finally, the emerging financial comittment by mid-major programs to win in basketball all make the odds of making the Tournament significantly less than it used to be.

During Cremins 9 consecutive seasons with an NCAA bid, the '87 team got in with a 16-13 (7-7) 5th place finish (out of 8 ACC teams), the '89 team got in with 20-12 (8-6) 5th place (out of 8), the '91 team got in with a 17-13 (6-8) 5th place finish, the '93 team got in with a 19-11 (8-8) 6th place (out of 9) finish. By today's standards at least three of those four teams don't sniff the NCAAT, and probably the 4th. Even the '88 team which finished 22-10 (8-6) and finished 4th in an 8 team ACC might have found itself on the bubble in some years today. That means at least three of those nine teams and possibly as many as 5 or Cremins' 9 consecutive NCAAT teams would not have made the NCAAT by today's standards.

Hewitt's '07 team 20-12 (8-8) with a 6th place finish probably would have been outside the bubble today.

Less than 19% of NCAAT eligible teams make it in and there are WAY more competitive programs than there used to be. Even good Power 5 teams that finish mid-tier in their conferences are bubble teams at best. Being good is not good enough anymore. Making the NCAAT is now a cherry on top and not a reasonable criteria on which to keep or not keep a coach.

Fans need to wrap their heads around this. Getting into the NCAAT is currently way more difficult than it used to be. Find another measuring stick.

One Criticism that is legit is the slow-out-of-the-gates criticism. Because it is so hard to get into the tournament, early season flops are crippling. I would guess that our schemes are complicated, especially the amoeba zone defense that we rely on. We need a different formula. But the coach has acknowledged this so it is something to keep an eye on moving forward.

Thank you.
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,726
I won’t go as deep as MtnWasp did, and I’ll use an awful measuring stick for NCAA Men’s Basketball recruiting—ESPN—but it should do.

2018: 3 4* recruits. Devoe, Sjolund, Khalid Moore
2019: Unranked year. Didenko and Asanti Price. 4* Jordan Usher transfer, plus Bubba Parham.
2020: 1 4*, 2 3* -> Saba Gigiberia (4*), Meka and Maxwell (3*). 3* transfers of Sturdivant and Howard.
2021: 2 4*, 1 3* -> Dallan Coleman (ESPN 100), Miles Kelly (4*), Jalon Moore. Deivon Smith 4* transfer. 17th ranked class, highest since Hewitt.
2022: ESPN didn’t cover this year. -> Bagatskis, Martinov, + transfers of Terry and Franklin (3*)

2023 has Blue Cain as a 4* already.

This is really a superficial analysis. Even in 2019, we got Usher and Parham. Overall, this looks like solid recruiting. Generally 3* and 4* recruiting for 5 years in a row.

Edit: if the argument turns to “Duke recruits Zion Williamson and we recruit 4*’s”, then I’d have to mention that somehow Duke players’ families keep ending up living in mansions when players start attending Duke. It’s somehow an unsolved mystery how that happens. However, it seems like that happens a lot with those one-and-done lottery picks lately, and it’s not happening here.
That’s not an AA activity, either. That’s not what athletic department fundraising goes for anywhere
 
Last edited:

Steverc

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
336
I for one look forward to seeing some basketball so the results can replace all the debate.

Pastner's teams have shown the ability to play really well and then others have played not so well. Some fans point at the bad results and say he not any good. Other fans look at the good teams and say he can coach.

The fine point of the debate is whether it is the good teams that define the coach or whether it is the not so good teams that better represent the prospects of future teams?

We will get the answer to that question over time. Fan optimism or pessimism is not relevant. Pastner will get the opportunity to show what he's got under the hood regardless of whether some fans don't think he deserves that chance.

The previous three Tech coaches in the ACC era have shown smoother arcs of performance over their careers than has Pastner. I think many if not most fans here were imprinted on Bobby Cremins and his meteoric rise in the ACC in the early to mid eighties.

In his first three seasons Cremins was 13-29 (.309) in the ACC but was rapidly increasing talent on the roster.

In his next 6 seasons ('85-'90) Cremins was 51-33 in the ACC (.607). The average seed in the ACC over those years was 3.3 out of 8. This period represents GT basketball's best run and what many fans consider GT's real position in the basketball world.

In the following six seasons, results were more uneven. From '91-'96 GT was 50-44 (.532). Still really good, overall.

But in his last 4 seasons Cremins was 20-47 in the ACC (.298). The emergence of early departures, recruits skipping college altogether (Al Harrington) completely killed Cremins' paradigm for winning. The loss of key assistants, the changing landscape of the AAU and the means of talent acquisition (Shareef Abdur Rahim) also chipped away at the program in those years. The injury of Glover may have been the final nail in his coffin.

But there was a clear arc of program trajectory: Rapid rise, a period of consistent success followed by a period of success with glitches and then a rapid fall.

Hewitt's tenure also showed a clear arc. In his first 5 seasons, Hewitt was 39-41 (.489) in the ACC. He recruited modestly and his regime culminated in a get-old, stay-old team that went to the Championship game team based on amazingly sticky defense and the ability to make tough shots. But then Keener and Warren left the staff and the recruiting pattern changed with Hewitt landing the 5* players (Clinch, Critt, Thaddeus, Favors, Udofia, Shumpert) but the rosters were unbalanced and were not able to play good team ball. Putting his recruiting eggs on the 5-tool baseball player Austin Jackson as well as the injury to Jeremis Smith really hurt Hewitt.

In his last six years, Hewitt's teams were 42-74 (.362) in the ACC. In his first 5 seasons, our ACC seed was 4.6 in a nine team ACC (51st percentile) in his last six seasons his average ACC seed was 9.0 in a 12 team ACC (75th percentile).

Again a clear arc: a promising start culminating with the big run, then a rapid fall.

Gregory never got off the mat. He was 21-62 (.303) in the ACC. He pretty much neglected coaching offense. He put a decent team together with a slew of transfers in year five (8-10 in the ACC), but the fan-base had been completely decimated by that time.

Pastners record sits currently at 49-68 (.419) in the ACC, which ranks him ahead of Hewitt (.413) and behind Cremins (.467). (No Gt coach has achieved a ACC winning percentage of .500 or above). After surprisingly taking his first team to an 8-10 ACC record and to the NIT finals, Pastner's 2nd and third year teams were 6 win team disappointments. Year two was marred by the early ankle injury to Lammers, Okogie missed the first 7 games and a late elbow fracture to Avarado. And then year three was low-lighted by the great shooting slump and the horrific, epic off-season Fall recruiting whiff under the dark clouds of the NCAA hammer.

However, The staff developed the no-name recruits and got some key transfers and put together two winning ACC teams (finishing in the top 5 each year) and hung the program's 4th ACCT banner in year 5.

The trajectory was not as steep as Cremins, but the trajectory was there. By the end of year five, Pastner was 44-52 (.458) in the ACC. He was knocking at the door of Cremins .467 in the ACC.

But then last year happened. That season surprised me. While the team had moments of playing good basketball and often led in games for large fractions of games against good teams, they couldn't win worth crap. They established a propensity for the pivotal scoring drought and giving up easy baskets in the paint. And last year disrupted the favorable program trajectory and has a segment of fans howling in pain. Pastner's ACC winning percentage dipped from .458 to .419 from '21-'22.

Fans point to recruiting. But it doesn't follow. Cremins' rapid initial ascent was built on the stardom of Mark Price and John Sally and they were three star recruits. Hewitt's best team was based on good but not great recruits. Hewitt's teams with all the five star recruits were pretty meh by comparison to 2004. Pastner's winning teams were based on players that were not highly rated recruits but became stars anyway. Meanwhile, Martynov and Blue Cain are good recruits. That can't be ignored. Ultimately, win-loss record trumps recruit ratings when evaluating recruiting.

One echo from the Cremins era that fans need to let go of as a standard by which to judge coaches is the NCAAT bid. GT has seen 4 automatic bids to the NCAAT in 42 years since joining the ACC. GT's other 11 NCAAT appearances were via at-large bids (73%). The statistical probability of gaining an at large bid today versus the mid-eighties is significantly less. There are at least 50 more NCAA eligible teams now than then, there are more conferences that get an automatic bid (that is not fully compensated by the additional play-in games), Power-5 conference expansion means a smaller percentage of Power-5 programs get in and the NCAAT selection committee criteria favors Mid-major programs with greater winning percentages over Power-5 programs with mediocre winning percentages and, finally, the emerging financial comittment by mid-major programs to win in basketball all make the odds of making the Tournament significantly less than it used to be.

During Cremins 9 consecutive seasons with an NCAA bid, the '87 team got in with a 16-13 (7-7) 5th place finish (out of 8 ACC teams), the '89 team got in with 20-12 (8-6) 5th place (out of 8), the '91 team got in with a 17-13 (6-8) 5th place finish, the '93 team got in with a 19-11 (8-8) 6th place (out of 9) finish. By today's standards at least three of those four teams don't sniff the NCAAT, and probably the 4th. Even the '88 team which finished 22-10 (8-6) and finished 4th in an 8 team ACC might have found itself on the bubble in some years today. That means at least three of those nine teams and possibly as many as 5 or Cremins' 9 consecutive NCAAT teams would not have made the NCAAT by today's standards.

Hewitt's '07 team 20-12 (8-8) with a 6th place finish probably would have been outside the bubble today.

Less than 19% of NCAAT eligible teams make it in and there are WAY more competitive programs than there used to be. Even good Power 5 teams that finish mid-tier in their conferences are bubble teams at best. Being good is not good enough anymore. Making the NCAAT is now a cherry on top and not a reasonable criteria on which to keep or not keep a coach.

Fans need to wrap their heads around this. Getting into the NCAAT is currently way more difficult than it used to be. Find another measuring stick.

One Criticism that is legit is the slow-out-of-the-gates criticism. Because it is so hard to get into the tournament, early season flops are crippling. I would guess that our schemes are complicated, especially the amoeba zone defense that we rely on. We need a different formula. But the coach has acknowledged this so it is something to keep an eye on moving forward.
I like the information. My only objection is including Cremins in the comparison. He competed in an 8-team league with not a single weak conference opponent. The present 15-team league typically has 3 - 4 good teams, a couple of mediocre teams, and 8 - 9 very weak opponents.
 

alagold

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,794
Location
Huntsville,Al
Pastner shot himself in the foot back when he got in trouble.he lost his momentum in recruiting and has nobody to blame but himself. If he can win this yr (top half of conference ) without a good D1 front-court then he deserves to stay.If not I hope we could do better.
 

Root4GT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,369
I for one look forward to seeing some basketball so the results can replace all the debate.

Pastner's teams have shown the ability to play really well and then others have played not so well. Some fans point at the bad results and say he not any good. Other fans look at the good teams and say he can coach.

The fine point of the debate is whether it is the good teams that define the coach or whether it is the not so good teams that better represent the prospects of future teams?

We will get the answer to that question over time. Fan optimism or pessimism is not relevant. Pastner will get the opportunity to show what he's got under the hood regardless of whether some fans don't think he deserves that chance.

The previous three Tech coaches in the ACC era have shown smoother arcs of performance over their careers than has Pastner. I think many if not most fans here were imprinted on Bobby Cremins and his meteoric rise in the ACC in the early to mid eighties.

In his first three seasons Cremins was 13-29 (.309) in the ACC but was rapidly increasing talent on the roster.

In his next 6 seasons ('85-'90) Cremins was 51-33 in the ACC (.607). The average seed in the ACC over those years was 3.3 out of 8. This period represents GT basketball's best run and what many fans consider GT's real position in the basketball world.

In the following six seasons, results were more uneven. From '91-'96 GT was 50-44 (.532). Still really good, overall.

But in his last 4 seasons Cremins was 20-47 in the ACC (.298). The emergence of early departures, recruits skipping college altogether (Al Harrington) completely killed Cremins' paradigm for winning. The loss of key assistants, the changing landscape of the AAU and the means of talent acquisition (Shareef Abdur Rahim) also chipped away at the program in those years. The injury of Glover may have been the final nail in his coffin.

But there was a clear arc of program trajectory: Rapid rise, a period of consistent success followed by a period of success with glitches and then a rapid fall.

Hewitt's tenure also showed a clear arc. In his first 5 seasons, Hewitt was 39-41 (.489) in the ACC. He recruited modestly and his regime culminated in a get-old, stay-old team that went to the Championship game team based on amazingly sticky defense and the ability to make tough shots. But then Keener and Warren left the staff and the recruiting pattern changed with Hewitt landing the 5* players (Clinch, Critt, Thaddeus, Favors, Udofia, Shumpert) but the rosters were unbalanced and were not able to play good team ball. Putting his recruiting eggs on the 5-tool baseball player Austin Jackson as well as the injury to Jeremis Smith really hurt Hewitt.

In his last six years, Hewitt's teams were 42-74 (.362) in the ACC. In his first 5 seasons, our ACC seed was 4.6 in a nine team ACC (51st percentile) in his last six seasons his average ACC seed was 9.0 in a 12 team ACC (75th percentile).

Again a clear arc: a promising start culminating with the big run, then a rapid fall.

Gregory never got off the mat. He was 21-62 (.303) in the ACC. He pretty much neglected coaching offense. He put a decent team together with a slew of transfers in year five (8-10 in the ACC), but the fan-base had been completely decimated by that time.

Pastners record sits currently at 49-68 (.419) in the ACC, which ranks him ahead of Hewitt (.413) and behind Cremins (.467). (No Gt coach has achieved a ACC winning percentage of .500 or above). After surprisingly taking his first team to an 8-10 ACC record and to the NIT finals, Pastner's 2nd and third year teams were 6 win team disappointments. Year two was marred by the early ankle injury to Lammers, Okogie missed the first 7 games and a late elbow fracture to Avarado. And then year three was low-lighted by the great shooting slump and the horrific, epic off-season Fall recruiting whiff under the dark clouds of the NCAA hammer.

However, The staff developed the no-name recruits and got some key transfers and put together two winning ACC teams (finishing in the top 5 each year) and hung the program's 4th ACCT banner in year 5.

The trajectory was not as steep as Cremins, but the trajectory was there. By the end of year five, Pastner was 44-52 (.458) in the ACC. He was knocking at the door of Cremins .467 in the ACC.

But then last year happened. That season surprised me. While the team had moments of playing good basketball and often led in games for large fractions of games against good teams, they couldn't win worth crap. They established a propensity for the pivotal scoring drought and giving up easy baskets in the paint. And last year disrupted the favorable program trajectory and has a segment of fans howling in pain. Pastner's ACC winning percentage dipped from .458 to .419 from '21-'22.

Fans point to recruiting. But it doesn't follow. Cremins' rapid initial ascent was built on the stardom of Mark Price and John Sally and they were three star recruits. Hewitt's best team was based on good but not great recruits. Hewitt's teams with all the five star recruits were pretty meh by comparison to 2004. Pastner's winning teams were based on players that were not highly rated recruits but became stars anyway. Meanwhile, Martynov and Blue Cain are good recruits. That can't be ignored. Ultimately, win-loss record trumps recruit ratings when evaluating recruiting.

One echo from the Cremins era that fans need to let go of as a standard by which to judge coaches is the NCAAT bid. GT has seen 4 automatic bids to the NCAAT in 42 years since joining the ACC. GT's other 11 NCAAT appearances were via at-large bids (73%). The statistical probability of gaining an at large bid today versus the mid-eighties is significantly less. There are at least 50 more NCAA eligible teams now than then, there are more conferences that get an automatic bid (that is not fully compensated by the additional play-in games), Power-5 conference expansion means a smaller percentage of Power-5 programs get in and the NCAAT selection committee criteria favors Mid-major programs with greater winning percentages over Power-5 programs with mediocre winning percentages and, finally, the emerging financial comittment by mid-major programs to win in basketball all make the odds of making the Tournament significantly less than it used to be.

During Cremins 9 consecutive seasons with an NCAA bid, the '87 team got in with a 16-13 (7-7) 5th place finish (out of 8 ACC teams), the '89 team got in with 20-12 (8-6) 5th place (out of 8), the '91 team got in with a 17-13 (6-8) 5th place finish, the '93 team got in with a 19-11 (8-8) 6th place (out of 9) finish. By today's standards at least three of those four teams don't sniff the NCAAT, and probably the 4th. Even the '88 team which finished 22-10 (8-6) and finished 4th in an 8 team ACC might have found itself on the bubble in some years today. That means at least three of those nine teams and possibly as many as 5 or Cremins' 9 consecutive NCAAT teams would not have made the NCAAT by today's standards.

Hewitt's '07 team 20-12 (8-8) with a 6th place finish probably would have been outside the bubble today.

Less than 19% of NCAAT eligible teams make it in and there are WAY more competitive programs than there used to be. Even good Power 5 teams that finish mid-tier in their conferences are bubble teams at best. Being good is not good enough anymore. Making the NCAAT is now a cherry on top and not a reasonable criteria on which to keep or not keep a coach.

Fans need to wrap their heads around this. Getting into the NCAAT is currently way more difficult than it used to be. Find another measuring stick.

One Criticism that is legit is the slow-out-of-the-gates criticism. Because it is so hard to get into the tournament, early season flops are crippling. I would guess that our schemes are complicated, especially the amoeba zone defense that we rely on. We need a different formula. But the coach has acknowledged this so it is something to keep an eye on moving forward.
Good thoughts. How we get out of the gate this year is critical. You are correct as it is nearly impossible to make the NCAAT when you lose several OOC games against teams ranked in the 150-300 range in whatever flavor metric the NCAAT Committee is using.

The talent debate is fair game as he has been more miss from HS recruting than hit. He has gotten some nice transfers, however only Banks and Usher were real difference makers to date.

Fans should always expect to GT to be an NCAAT team or at least a last 4 out. Without expectations there is no interest in GT BB which can be seen by the very weak attendance. The GTAA seems to have given CGC more support this year as far as staff and recruting go. That was very necessary.

This is a BIG YEAR for Josh. With a strong season he can solidify his support. Another one like last year the pitchforks will come out.
 

YlJacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,273
He is likeable, engaging, a bit goofy and plays well with the GT fanbase overall
Nothing is going to happen with Pastner until the football situation declares itself
Despite the likeability, GT was second lowest in home attendance with 4700 per game. That is an issue.
One trip to the NCAAs in 6 years is an issue.

We have young talent but are close to starting over with that young talent. This is not get old stay old. It is 4-5 year cycles.
IMHO if football were cruising he would already be on a hot seat. As is, he has a couple of years to get the talent in the program to dancing level.
Whatever heat CJP was or was not feeling disappeared with yesterday’s game and expected actions on the football side. And possibly/probably AD. Minimum 2 year runway.

Time to see if the young uns we have pan out and whether any of the high end recruits checking GT out actually commit.

IMHO any question about CJP has been answered for a while
 

alagold

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,794
Location
Huntsville,Al
Whatever heat CJP was or was not feeling disappeared with yesterday’s game and expected actions on the football side. And possibly/probably AD. Minimum 2 year runway.

Time to see if the young uns we have pan out and whether any of the high end recruits checking GT out actually commit.

IMHO any question about CJP has been answered for a while
you may be right--the fball is a much bigger fire right now than bball--but wait til next April and see whatshappening
 

mstranahan

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,561
Football / CGC is an embarrassment. Needs to be fixed ASAP. Likely TStan, too

CJP has not delivered consistently, but the hoop program is miles ahead of football. Need to fix the dumpster fire and that will be expensive. GTAA will be in the hole again for several years and I wouldn't expect them to make a change in hoops until they pay for the Collins debacle.
 

orientalnc

Helluva Engineer
Retired Staff
Messages
10,050
Location
Oriental, NC
Football / CGC is an embarrassment. Needs to be fixed ASAP. Likely TStan, too

CJP has not delivered consistently, but the hoop program is miles ahead of football. Need to fix the dumpster fire and that will be expensive. GTAA will be in the hole again for several years and I wouldn't expect them to make a change in hoops until they pay for the Collins debacle.
This implies the basketball program needs to be fixed, which is a premise at odds with the facts as I see them. 2021-22 was a disappointment for two reasons, neither of them Pastner's fault. First, Moses and Jose would not confirm their decision to stay in the NBA draft until it was too late for Tech to backfill their roster spots. Second, Usher and Devoe, as good as they were, neither were the team players we needed to give the young guys a chance. Both had assist/turnover rations at about 1/1. Seniors who have NBA ideas need to be better than that.
 

78pike

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
901
This implies the basketball program needs to be fixed, which is a premise at odds with the facts as I see them. 2021-22 was a disappointment for two reasons, neither of them Pastner's fault. First, Moses and Jose would not confirm their decision to stay in the NBA draft until it was too late for Tech to backfill their roster spots. Second, Usher and Devoe, as good as they were, neither were the team players we needed to give the young guys a chance. Both had assist/turnover rations at about 1/1. Seniors who have NBA ideas need to be better than that.
Agreed. At least in basketball we have 4 and 5 star players visiting the program and giving us a look and occasionally signing with us. While the only 4 and 5 star players we get in football and ones that flamed out at other programs.
 

mstranahan

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,561
@orientalnc I don't disagree. Should clarify that I was trying to say any discussion of changes in hoops (which seem to pop up on this board non-stop) would need to wait until the disaster in football is rectified. Didn't mean to imply I thought it was broken and in need of immediate repair.

IMO, CJP has done ok but not great. He's had some years where they played better than I expected and others where they underperformed my expectation. Will be interesting to see if he can stabilize the trend the next couple years, especially with the radical changes in the CBB landscape
 

Steverc

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
336
This implies the basketball program needs to be fixed, which is a premise at odds with the facts as I see them. 2021-22 was a disappointment for two reasons, neither of them Pastner's fault. First, Moses and Jose would not confirm their decision to stay in the NBA draft until it was too late for Tech to backfill their roster spots. Second, Usher and Devoe, as good as they were, neither were the team players we needed to give the young guys a chance. Both had assist/turnover rations at about 1/1. Seniors who have NBA ideas need to be better than that.
Moses and Jose were not early draft entries. They finished 4 years of play and were not going to grad school. Pastner was out pounding the pavement and came up empty. Furthermore, I suspect any losing team can claim that they thought they had better players than they really had. Both of the reasons you give are clearly Pastner's fault.
 

Connell62

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
3,114
Moses and Jose were not early draft entries. They finished 4 years of play and were not going to grad school. Pastner was out pounding the pavement and came up empty. Furthermore, I suspect any losing team can claim that they thought they had better players than they really had. Both of the reasons you give are clearly Pastner's fault.
LOL...Professor, as usual, you are dead wrong. They weren't early draft entries but they both had the COVID year left.

Most thought Jose was coming back, and it was unclear on Moses. Understandably so, they waited as long as they could to make an informed decision.

It's easy for you to sit here and say he should have forced their hand on a decision, but most level headed people would give those two as much time as they needed.

That doesn't fit your narrative about Josh "pounding the pavement" and coming up empty though.
 

MidtownJacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
4,873
LOL...Professor, as usual, you are dead wrong. They weren't early draft entries but they both had the COVID year left.

Most thought Jose was coming back, and it was unclear on Moses. Understandably so, they waited as long as they could to make an informed decision.

It's easy for you to sit here and say he should have forced their hand on a decision, but most level headed people would give those two as much time as they needed.

That doesn't fit your narrative about Josh "pounding the pavement" and coming up empty though.
agreed on waiting for Jose and Moses to decide what they were doing. Forcing them out (if there was a shot they came back) would go over like a lead balloon. It was unfortunate timing for us, but IIWII, IWWIW I guess past tense.
 
Top