Counzo Martin new Tennessee Vols coach

[MSUDuo]

I get what you are saying but if they Valley as a whole is down, then that means MSU is down as well. So how is it easier to win the Valley this year? We will had to play 18 games and win 15 of them to win the conference. ISUb still had to win 3 games in STL to go Dancing. Nothing has changed.

[TheTimeIsNow]

You're right, Barry did have more talent, because he recruited better.

MoValley is right on in his assessment of the situation; Barry won, just not enough. Zo failed to win the big game as well.

Zo did a good job getting us to lose a scholarship as well.

You obviously haven't been around very long...That's ok though


Barry caught lighting in a bottle in 2003 with the 4 freshmen from within the state. His other recruiting endeavorer support this very much so.

Cuonzo had nothing to do with the lost scholarship. It was an crappy result of the coaching change from which the great recruiting that Barry did left us in...

So just because I have a different point of view on something you assume that I "haven't been around very long"? That's very ignorant of you.

Some of the hate that our fans show towards Barry is quite embarrassing to be honest about it. And yes he did get lucky with that class, but it's not his fault there was so much talent in MO that year. He still had to recruit for those guys against BCS teams.

Cuonzo failed miserably at recruiting and keeping those players in the program his 3 years coaching for us. And please don't tell me who all we were in on, because it doesn't matter unless you actually land them. The only Cuonzo recruit still in the program that I think has much potential is Pickens. (I'm not counting the kids who have committed for next year)

Fact: Barry had a better winning percentage in his final 3 seasons coaching for us than Cuonzo did in his 3 years.

[Ace Dad]

I get what you are saying but if they Valley as a whole is down, then that means MSU is down as well. So how is it easier to win the Valley this year? We will had to play 18 games and win 15 of them to win the conference. ISUb still had to win 3 games in STL to go Dancing. Nothing has changed.

Agree. It is a zero sum situation. The blathering about the Valley being up and the Valley being down is all subjective, qualitative, and difficult to measure. RPI, standing among other conferences, OOC wins are factors, but now facts.

Better players a couple of years ago sweated when they played and the so-called realtively less talented players of today sweat when they play.

The good ole days always seemed to be better.

[MoValley John]

[quote="MSUDuo"]I get what you are saying but if they Valley as a whole is down, then that means MSU is down as well. So how is it easier to win the Valley this year? We will had to play 18 games and win 15 of them to win the conference. ISUb still had to win 3 games in STL to go Dancing. Nothing has changed.[/quote]

It is cyclical, though, too. Missouri State was trending up, Indiana State was trending up big, UNI fell off the tracks when O'Rear went down and Wichita State was peeing down their legs. Illinois State was a mess ths year, as was Southern Illinois. Drake was, well Drake, good enough to scare, not good enough to win consistently. Creighton had a new coach and a new system and really was Jeckyl and Hyde, while Evansville was just enough of a thorn in people's side to be irritating, all the while, Bradley collapsed with too many injuries. Itwas a year for a team trending upward to grab the brass ring, that was Missouri State and Indiana State.

That is a completely dofferent story from when you had Creighton and SIU as perrenial powers, Wichita State getting better every year with Turgeon and Northern Iowa on the top of there game with Mcdermott at the helm. It was a four and five team battle evry year and the Bears were in the mix every year. This year, Wichita State blew a couple of home games they should have won and opened the door for whomever. It really was a two team race, not five and the favorite choked. Looking back on WSU success in the NIT and all of the close losses they had against quality opponents, they really, really choked the season away. There is no comparison between the road this year and the roads hinson had to navigate. None of that means that I'm saying Hinson was better than Martin, I think Martin is the better coach. But at the same time, if you distance yourself from the program, you really have to see that Barry didn't do that bad of a job, he was just a win or two away almost every year. And those were tough years to compete.

I do appreciate you keeping this respectful, we both have different opinions, but probably not that far apart. I thought it was time for Barry to go simply because he didn't win that game or two when he had the chance, all the while Missouri State was in the process of opening a nice arena and trying to upgrade the athletic department. An upgrade shouldn't include a guy that is close but no cigar. What I will never agree with Bears fans is how they treated him and that is exactly where I made my stand on VT and angered so many Bear fans. Barry won, just not enough, it certainly didn't warrant the way he was treated, nor the fact that to this day, some Bear fans can only type Barry Hinson XXXXX XXXXXX. The fact that it happens should be embarrassing to the entire Bear fanbase.

[MoValley John]

[quote="Ace Dad"]
Agree. It is a zero sum situation. The blathering about the Valley being up and the Valley being down is all subjective, qualitative, and difficult to measure. RPI, standing among other conferences, OOC wins are factors, but now facts.

Better players a couple of years ago sweated when they played and the so-called realtively less talented players of today sweat when they play.

The good ole days always seemed to be better.[/quote]

You are half correct. You cannot take away Cuonzo's regular season title this year, it was a major accomplishment and for as long as the Valley played basketball, there has only been one regular season champion each year, it is a zero sum game. But you can objectively look at a league, good or bad, and judge the competitiness by how every team faired, top to bottom. "In the good old days" when it was Creighton and SIU, there was also Missouri State, UNI and then Wichita State competing for the title. One of those years, I think then bottomfeeder Indiana State won all of their non-cons. This year, it was a three team race between MSU, UNI and WSU. When O'Rear got hurt, it was two horses to the finish and Indiana State was happy to somehow be relevant. In the old days, you always had to sweat the Evansville's, indiana State's and everybody. Sure, the frontrunners won the vast majority of those games, but even those games were dogfights. You can't say that this year. With the exception of WSU losing at home to SIU,and you looked at the bottomfeeders just as that, bottomfeeders. So while it is a zero sum game and the title is just as relevant today as it was a decade ago, this year there were only two teams for the brass ring, not five. Not only was the overall talent lacking this year, but the competitiveness as well. It was two teams wire to wire, not five. In years past, fans complained that the lack of separation hurt the Valley with capturing multiple bids, this year there was separation of two teams and no multiple bids. And the teams that separated stayed home.

[Sycamore_DevilDog]

http://www.govolsxtra.com/news/2011/mar ... ng-over-t/

[MSUDuo]

MVJ, did you say the same things about Drake and UNI the 3 previous seasons? ValleyTalk was a crap shoot by then but I sure don't remember anyone bagging on DU and UNI for winning a conference that was supposedly down and UNI was "trending upward" more than MSU ever was...

To say that more teams competed for the title back in the early to middle part of the last decade is kind of a slap to the face of the teams now. 1st to 5th place this year was separated by 5 games. Only one year, 05-06, was better than that and that year, the perfect storm, 1st-6th was separated by 3 games. The rest of the years were equal or worse. We have no clue who will compete for the title each year. It could be the same teams again like it was with CU and SIU or it could be someone new each year. That hardly makes it worth less or easier to win

[valleychamp]

MVJ, did you say the same things about Drake and UNI the 3 previous seasons? ValleyTalk was a crap shoot by then but I sure don't remember anyone bagging on DU and UNI for winning a conference that was supposedly down and UNI was "trending upward" more than MSU ever was...

Right, but the only difference (and it is a HUGE difference) is that Drake and UNI both made it to the NCAA tournament.

In fact, Drake in '08 and UNI in '10 would have both been rock solid at-large teams if they hadn't won the conference tournament.

[valleychamp]

To say that more teams competed for the title back in the early to middle part of the last decade is kind of a slap to the face of the teams now. 1st to 5th place this year was separated by 5 games. Only one year, 05-06, was better than that and that year, the perfect storm, 1st-6th was separated by 3 games. The rest of the years were equal or worse. We have no clue who will compete for the title each year. It could be the same teams again like it was with CU and SIU or it could be someone new each year. That hardly makes it worth less or easier to win

Its not that "more" teams were challenging for the title, its the "quality" of the teams challenging for the title. Teams back then that finished mid-pack of the MVC were competing for AND getting NCAA at-large bids. This year, our conference champion could not get a bid.

[MSUDuo]

To say that more teams competed for the title back in the early to middle part of the last decade is kind of a slap to the face of the teams now. 1st to 5th place this year was separated by 5 games. Only one year, 05-06, was better than that and that year, the perfect storm, 1st-6th was separated by 3 games. The rest of the years were equal or worse. We have no clue who will compete for the title each year. It could be the same teams again like it was with CU and SIU or it could be someone new each year. That hardly makes it worth less or easier to win

Its not that "more" teams were challenging for the title, its the "quality" of the teams challenging for the title. Teams back then that finished mid-pack of the MVC were competing AND getting NCAA at-large bids. This year, our conference champion could not get a bid.

That's my point, thank you! So we have one team getting a bid and that wast the STL winner. So if ALL the teams are down, how was it any easier? I'm not disagreeing that the Valley as a whole or teams in 05-06 weren't better, they were by a ton. But it isn't like we had one of those CU teams competing in today's Valley.

It is just something we will never know the answer to and that is fine, just trying to figure things out with what people said. No worries