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.
