What grade would you give the 2023-24 Gophers basketball season?

What grade would you give the 2023-24 Gophers basketball season?

  • A

    Votes: 2 1.2%

  • B

    Votes: 51 31.5%

  • C

    Votes: 86 53.1%

  • D

    Votes: 22 13.6%

  • F

    Votes: 1 0.6%
  • Total voters
    162
Donate To GopherHole
Gophers7633 said:
They only had one Q1 win. MSU was a top 25 NET team, but that was the only one. They were 33rd on the "S" curve according to the committee. None of the wins were ranked wins though, much like the first 2 years.
Click to expand...
So, are you defining “good teams” as Q1 wins? There is a rationale for that but the Quad system has a win against the same team rank differently depending on where you play them but is still the same team. “Good” in one place and not another seems inconsistent to me.

The reaction to the post was a comment that the low grade was based in part over not beating any “good” teams. I’m going out on a limb and suggesting that any win against an at large team should be considered beating a “good” team, since by definition they are in the top 15 % of D1 teams.

For the most part, we are quibbling but some of this seems like dumping on the players and coaches because they faded at the end of the season and not appreciating the progress this year. Not enough but some. It’s a pet peeve of mine to not give credit where credit is due.
 

UpAndUnder43 said:
So if someone fails two exams, then barely passes the exam, do you give an F, F and a B? Or is it still an F, F and a D because they barely passed the third one?
Click to expand...

The comparison to school is not even relevant. Students do not have perform in an environment where opponents are trying their hardest to make them fail. It's very easy to fail as a basketball coach. That's why they are paid so much and why their tenures usually are not very long. At most educational institutions these days, all students have to do to succeed at a reasonable level is show up, pay reasonably close attention, and do the tasks they're told to do.
 

TwistingMyMelon said:
The comparison to school is not even relevant. Students do not have perform in an environment where opponents are trying their hardest to make them fail. It's very easy to fail as a basketball coach. That's why they are paid so much and why their tenures usually are not very long. At most educational institutions these days, all students have to do to succeed at a reasonable level is show up, pay reasonably close attention, and do the tasks they're told to do.
Click to expand...
You mean half of students don’t fail? What’s the matter with the system?
 

Holy Man said:
You mean half of students don’t fail? What’s the matter with the system?
Click to expand...

Funny! I'd say two things:

1) The overwhelming majority of teachers don't like to see their students fail; and

2) Administrators really, really, really hate to see many students fail! That leads to lower retention and that comes back to bite the teachers which is part of the reason for #1 above.
 

stocker08 said:
Only 34 of the 80 P6 teams made the tournament. So where exactly does the bottom tier start for P5? Anything outside of the top two teams in every conference? Because Nebraska and Northwestern finished third and fourth in the Big Ten this year.
Click to expand...

And we’re 8 and 9 seeds, I believe. So mid-seeded. That is middle seed. Exactly what 8 and 9 are out of 16 🤷🏼‍♂️
 


TwistingMyMelon said:
The comparison to school is not even relevant. Students do not have perform in an environment where opponents are trying their hardest to make them fail. It's very easy to fail as a basketball coach. That's why they are paid so much and why their tenures usually are not very long. At most educational institutions these days, all students have to do to succeed at a reasonable level is show up, pay reasonably close attention, and do the tasks they're told to do.
Click to expand...

You brought up grading standards. Not sure why you introduced something irrelevant.

Y’all want to give Ben an A or B—go for it. This thread does not matter.
 

Holy Man said:
So, are you defining “good teams” as Q1 wins? There is a rationale for that but the Quad system has a win against the same team rank differently depending on where you play them but is still the same team. “Good” in one place and not another seems inconsistent to me.

The reaction to the post was a comment that the low grade was based in part over not beating any “good” teams. I’m going out on a limb and suggesting that any win against an at large team should be considered beating a “good” team, since by definition they are in the top 15 % of D1 teams.

For the most part, we are quibbling but some of this seems like dumping on the players and coaches because they faded at the end of the season and not appreciating the progress this year. Not enough but some. It’s a pet peeve of mine to not give credit where credit is due.
Click to expand...

Beating MSU, NW and Nebraska were good wins IMO. Would I consider any of them top 25 teams? No, I wouldn't. They weren't beating a "ranked" team because none of them were ranked. I don't think Nebraska was ranked all season, NW was for about a week, and I don't think MSU was after Thanksgiving. Had we been able to beat one of them on the road, that would have been a great win IMO, or a neutral court.

The reason for the low grade for me is because of the sweep of Iowa and Indiana, the loss to Missouri and in general not being in a better position than where we were when Pitino got fired.
 

UpAndUnder43 said:
And we’re 8 and 9 seeds, I believe. So mid-seeded. That is middle seed. Exactly what 8 and 9 are out of 16 🤷🏼‍♂️
Click to expand...

Let me refresh you on what you posted.

UpAndUnder43 said:
They beat some mid-seeded NCAA tourney teams. Aka bottom tier P6 ncaa teams.

And if you get a 30% on a test, then you get a 60%…you got an F and D. You dont reward progress. What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Since only 42.5% of P6 teams even made the tournament.....are 80% of P6 teams in the "bottom tier"? Or are you saying that they are the bottom tier of the teams making the NCAA Tournament?

Gophers beat two of the final 32 teams, btw.
 




Gophers7633 said:
Beating MSU, NW and Nebraska were good wins IMO. Would I consider any of them top 25 teams? No, I wouldn't. They weren't beating a "ranked" team because none of them were ranked. I don't think Nebraska was ranked all season, NW was for about a week, and I don't think MSU was after Thanksgiving. Had we been able to beat one of them on the road, that would have been a great win IMO, or a neutral court.

The reason for the low grade for me is because of the sweep of Iowa and Indiana, the loss to Missouri and in general not being in a better position than where we were when Pitino got fired.
Click to expand...
This is a fair assessment. I understand your points even if I don’t agree with them all. I think more progress has been made than you do, but we can all agree we are not where we want or need to be.

I think many posters don’t appreciate the gravity of the challenges in getting and staying competitive in the ugly new world of college basketball. And we’re not close yet but much closer than where we have been.
 


TwistingMyMelon said:
The comparison to school is not even relevant. Students do not have perform in an environment where opponents are trying their hardest to make them fail. It's very easy to fail as a basketball coach. That's why they are paid so much and why their tenures usually are not very long. At most educational institutions these days, all students have to do to succeed at a reasonable level is show up, pay reasonably close attention, and do the tasks they're told to do.
Click to expand...
You brought up grading on a curve, which is an academic comparison. You used the term incorrectly, because grading on a curve is specifically creating a competition amongst the students. Your grade is dependent upon how well the people around you did.

The bolded isn't true with highly competitive academic programs that grade on a curve. There are very few As and Fs (but they areequal). Just as many people fail as the number of people who got a 4.0. If someone gets an A, that it made it more difficult for you (there are only so many As to give out). The grades could be plotted out to a bell curve. Grading systems where everyone gets As and Bs do not plot out to a curve.

You're right that the job of a basketball coach is much more difficult and much more competitive than anything in academia.
 

Holy Man said:
This is a fair assessment. I understand your points even if I don’t agree with them all. I think more progress has been made than you do, but we can all agree we are not where we want or need to be.

I think many posters don’t appreciate the gravity of the challenges in getting and staying competitive in the ugly new world of college basketball. And we’re not close yet but much closer than where we have been.
Click to expand...
The problem is that I keep hearing that from people but then I keep seeing what would have been similarily situated programs navigate it much better than we have done. I get there is another element to building a program but that element also brough us our best players during Johnson's tenure (Hawkins, Garcia, Battle, Willis).

This year we are watching Iowa State make a run, Nebraska had a good season, Rutgers had a good year last year and they are bringing in a stacked class next year, Marquette is making a run, Wiscosin continues to be Wisconsin, etc.
 



I give them a C. They definitely exceeded what I was expected before the season, but losing 6 of 8 to end the season with several in quite ugly fashion, and losing two games after leading by 20 was horrid. We made a post season appearance for the first time in 5 years...I'll take it, but my expectations for next year will be much higher than a 2nd round NIT appearance.
 

Holy Man said:
I think many posters don’t appreciate the gravity of the challenges in getting and staying competitive in the ugly new world of college basketball. And we’re not close yet but much closer than where we have been.
Click to expand...
I think maybe we DO understand the challenges.
That's why we want someone else. Someone capable of conquering all those challenges.
We don't HAVE to be also-rans.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
The bolded isn't true with highly competitive academic programs that grade on a curve. There are very few As and Fs (but they areequal). Just as many people fail as the number of people who got a 4.0. If someone gets an A, that it made it more difficult for you (there are only so many As to give out). The grades could be plotted out to a bell curve. Grading systems where everyone gets As and Bs do not plot out to a curve.
Click to expand...

There really aren't many academic programs grading that way anymore. Law schools were famous for grading that way and many of them probably still do but that system mostly is a relic of the past. Regardless, that system didn't prevent law schools from turning out far more lawyers than the available openings for them for a good part of this century.
 

Holy Man said:
This is a fair assessment. I understand your points even if I don’t agree with them all. I think more progress has been made than you do, but we can all agree we are not where we want or need to be.

I think many posters don’t appreciate the gravity of the challenges in getting and staying competitive in the ugly new world of college basketball. And we’re not close yet but much closer than where we have been.
Click to expand...

It's just frustrating because the league was down compared to what it typically is. Not only in terms of the number of quality teams, but just from an overall talent perspective. IU lost 2 NBA guys, PSU did too, Michigan did(along w/Dickinson), Iowa lost a 1st rounder, OSU lost a 1st rounder, Rutgers lost a guy who signed a 2-way. I don't think it's a surprise why NW and Nebraska finished in the top 4. Outside of Purdue and Illinois, there's just not much talent overall. Heck, if Christie declares, we might be the only team in the league to have a 1st round selection outside of Purdue and Illinois.
 

USAF said:
I think maybe we DO understand the challenges.
That's why we want someone else. Someone capable of conquering all those challenges.
We don't HAVE to be also-rans.
Click to expand...
How much money are you giving to Dinkeytown Athletics? In this age, you get what you pay for.

Speaking only for myself, my limited excess cash goes to non-profit organizations that I believe provide an international difference. That's my choice. While I would love to see the Gophers win national championships in multiple major sports, it is still not my priority to spend my money on sports.

Therefore, if we are "also-rans" I will cheer for an "also-ran" just as I would cheer for a champion.

But, you can go ahead and keep complaining if it makes you feel better.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Nebraska had a good season,
Click to expand...

Yes, they did and it took Hoiberg 5 years to have a winning season there (7 wins each in the first and second years, 10 in the third year, 16-16 in the fourth year). It took Pikiell 4 years to have a winning season at Rutgers. It's odd that you would use them as examples when they took longer than Ben Johnson to win at their programs. Once again, it seems that you didn't do your homework, Bob.
 

C for me!

1) Improvement from last year so moved from F to D
2) Showed some signs of competing through out the year even with top team in Purdue D to C
3) Stayed on C because
1) Weak non conference schedule
2) Got worse as the Big ten season went on...ugly finish to the year.
3) Not showing much progress with development of key scholarship players. Betts, Keiny's, Wilson, JOJ

C - could have been worse, but was sure hoping for a lot better. With that being said, hopefully I am wrong and all back and this is a very developed deep team willing to be a top 25 team and make the NCAA tourney like many are saying.

Be interesting to see what happens over next few days or more.
 

USAF said:
I think maybe we DO understand the challenges.
That's why we want someone else. Someone capable of conquering all those challenges.
We don't HAVE to be also-rans.
Click to expand...
Repeat after me:
Mn can't.
Mn can't.
Mn can't.
 

TwistingMyMelon said:
There really aren't many academic programs grading that way anymore. Law schools were famous for grading that way and many of them probably still do but that system mostly is a relic of the past. Regardless, that system didn't prevent law schools from turning out far more lawyers than the available openings for them for a good part of this century.
Click to expand...
It’s a relic of the past for much of academia for political reasons, nonetheless, it’s the definition of grading on a curve.

That said “class rank” is still an important factor in academia and post graduate opportunities. It’s a competitive landscape. You’re right though that the competitive aspect is diminishing as higher education circles the drain.
 


TwistingMyMelon said:
Yes, they did and it took Hoiberg 5 years to have a winning season there (7 wins each in the first and second years, 10 in the third year, 16-16 in the fourth year). It took Pikiell 4 years to have a winning season at Rutgers. It's odd that you would use them as examples when they took longer than Ben Johnson to win at their programs. Once again, it seems that you didn't do your homework, Bob.
Click to expand...
LOL. I'm sorry I hurt your feelings in pointing out that you clearly used the phrase "grading on a curve" wrong.

As to your point, what does that have to do with anything? Now try to follow along, we are talking about whether or not it's more difficult to win in the NIL/transfer portal world.

This started during Ben Johnson's first season. Fred Hoiberg at Nebraska and Pikiell at Rutgers have been way more successful POST NIL and the transfer portal. Even when you're cherry picking, you're making my point for me. Both of these programs have been able to navigate NIL and the transfer portal to improve since 2021. The fact that they struggled prior to NIL is precisely the point.

The point was that post-2021 (when we were told things got so hard for us), many similar programs to ours have found success, so you pointing out their failures prior to 2021 is completely beside the point.

Now, I know you're tendency is to now pivot your argument to a discussion on how long it takes someone to build a program at all. That's a different question. There are multiple things at play, including (1) how long it takes to rebuild a program, and (2) if that rebuild is easier or harder post 2021. The post you replied to is about (2), so Pikiell's struggles in 2016 are not only irrelevant, they kind of make my point (it was harder before).
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
This started during Ben Johnson's first season. Fred Hoiberg at Nebraska and Pikiell at Rutgers have been way more successful POST NIL and the transfer portal.
Click to expand...
Pikell started at Rutgers in 2016. Hoiberg started at Nebraska in 2019. Not quite an even comparison. Where was Pikell in 2019? Where was Hoibrg in 2022? Both under 0.500.
 

Ski-U-Ham said:
Pikell started at Rutgers in 2016. Hoiberg started at Nebraska in 2019. Not quite an even comparison. Where was Pikell in 2019? Where was Hoibrg in 2022? Both under 0.500.
Click to expand...
You didn't read the post. The post I was responding to was about whether or not it's more difficult to recruit and win post NIL/portal (2021). Why would I discuss what happened at Rutgers two years prior to NIL? While a relevant discussion, it has absolutely nothing to do with the basis of my initial post and the post you're replying to.

The point I was making really didn't have that much to do with Johnson and whether or not his seat should be hot. The question is whether or not it is more difficult to find success at programs similar to the U in the post portal world. There are a lot of people who make the claim it is, but I'm not so sure that's true.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
You didn't read the post. The post I was responding to was about whether or not it's more difficult to recruit and win post NIL/portal (2021). Why would I discuss what happened at Rutgers two years prior to NIL? While a relevant discussion, it has absolutely nothing to do with the basis of my initial post and the post you're replying to.

The point I was making really didn't have that much to do with Johnson and whether or not his seat should be hot. The question is whether or not it is more difficult to find success at programs similar to the U in the post portal world. There are a lot of people who make the claim it is, but I'm not so sure that's true.
Click to expand...
You don't think what happened before 2021 would have any impact on what might happen after it? You said recruit AND WIN, not just recruit, right?
 

Kinda depends how you look at it. If it's in comparison to where we were last year, I'd give it a C+. Probably a bit better than I expected and some potential excitement going into next year but nothing to brag about by any means.

If we're grading where the program is after year 3 of Ben Johnson, I'd put it at a D+. I expect the program to be in a better place at this point.
 

How’d we do on high fives and smiles? I believe those were the coaches original metrics to lead the country in.
 

TNGophfan said:
Simple. We need more talent and depth. Watching the tournament, the difference in talent and athleticism between us and the contenders is significant.
Click to expand...
After the Butler game, there was no noticeable difference in talent & athleticism.

Like when an SEC team wins a football game, guys say it's that SEC speed. But when they lose, nobody says anything.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom