History Lessons

coolhandgopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
5,268
Reaction score
1,983
Points
113
1. In the 1999-2000 season Michigan State was defeated in late December by Wright State, 53-49. No bones about this game-it was a bad, ugly loss for the Spartans. Michigan State went on to win a national title that season.

2. In 2007-08, the Indiana Hoosiers looked to have the talent to contend not just for the Big Ten title, but a Final Four run. Senior D.J. White, who if memory serves went on to win the Big Ten POY was joined by stellar freshman Eric Gordon and those two were surrounded by a bunch of solid role players. The season began falling apart early, when allegations of drug use during a tournament or a game (hazy memory again) surfaced from the road. Suspensions followed. Kelvin Sampson was dismissed, Dan Dakich replaced him and a revolt ensued. The promising season was derailed, with the miracle loss to Minnesota in the BT Tourney and a first round dismissal in the NCAA tournament.

3. Just last year, the following teams defeated squads that made the Sweet Sixteen: Arkansas (Oklahoma); Western Kentucky (Louisville); UMass, Texas Tech (Kansas); Nebraska (Missouri); Portland State (Gonzaga); Cleveland State (Syracuse); UAB, Stanford, Oregon (Arizona). Virtually every team in the Final Four lost to teams who did not make the NCAA tournament, including 3 of the 4 Final Four teams.

4. More history? Google Tony Cole; Lester Earl; Ricky Clemons; Eddie Griffin; Derrick Caracter; Kenny Brunner; Sam Okey. The list could go on and on and on of talented basketball players who never touched their potential while simultaneously torching the basketball programs they associated themselves with.

5. Let's turn to coaches, sleazeball. John Calipari's name, whether fair or not, seems to always be the lightning rod for these conversations. Once again, try googling Quin Snyder; Dave Bliss; Todd Bozeman; Kelvin Sampson; Steve Fisher; Jim O'Brien; Jim Harrick; Clem Haskins. These coaches (many with a saintly image) either left or were forced out at their schools after major trangressions were discovered. For many of those programs, they are still trying to re-establish their previous success and for the coaches who have resurfaced in D-1 basketball, they're at the low or mid-major level.

Summary:
1. You can overcome a bad loss during the season to achieve great heights as a basketball team.

2. Talented players running a muck do not necessarily morph into the 1989-90 UNLV Runnin' Rebels. Often times, when warning signs are ignored and allowed to fester you have teams that disintegrate due to bad chemistry, ineffective leadership, and/or off the court distractions.

3. Recent events show us that teams can have losses that look bad early (Western Kentucky, Cleveland State) but don't look as bad once the season progresses. We also see that virtually every successful team has at least one unexpected bump in the road during the season.

4. Ignoring divisive, troubled characters on your basketball team purely for talent's sake can have disastrous implications for a team both short-term and long-term.

5. Many of the "shady" coaches aren't believed to be shady until caught; when things fall apart it can take years to recover and the wins and history are tainted under a cloud of suspicion. Fine academic institutions such as Cal, Baylor, Indiana, Minnesota, etc. become associated with renegade athletic departments and damage the institution's reputation.

Final point: While college basketball is fraught with hucksters and con men, Minnesota has one of the more honorable men in the business. Shortcuts taken in the belief of advancing the team on the basketball court often backfire, both short-term and long-term. Cries to ignore the transgressions of Royce White or to soft pedal the problems with Al Nolen and Lawrence Westbrook with the idea that it would benefit the team on the court could actually be detrimental. Hysteria over early season losses is often overreaction, as teams prove their worth and mettle during conference play.
 

CHG

Excellent post. I concur.

You aren't an attorney are you? :) :) :)

:clap: :clap: :clap:
 

Excellent points and research, that was great.

However, the losses to Texas A&M and Portland, while frustrating, aren't horrible losses. Both Portland and A&M are currently ranked in the top 25.

Wednesday's game against Miami is absolutely pivotal. A road victory against a decent ACC team would go a long way in restoring confidence in the players and the fans while acting as the ignition to the remaining nonconference games.
I'm not even going to expand on what a loss would do. It certainly would not be the end of the world, but it would be tough.

Remember, the Gophers still have to play St. Joe's and Cornell at the Barn. Those are going to be close games no doubt. Also, South Dakota State is going to be tougher than many people think. I believe the Gophers will win, but it will not be by 20-30 points. The Jacks are veteran-heavy and can shoot.
 


Great post Coolhand! I agreed with Tubby about Westbrook and Nolen, just disappointed that they didn't seem to get the message based on play. Hopefully they will as time goes by.
 


Excellent points and research, that was great.

However, the losses to Texas A&M and Portland, while frustrating, aren't horrible losses. Both Portland and A&M are currently ranked in the top 25.

Wednesday's game against Miami is absolutely pivotal. A road victory against a decent ACC team would go a long way in restoring confidence in the players and the fans while acting as the ignition to the remaining nonconference games.
I'm not even going to expand on what a loss would do. It certainly would not be the end of the world, but it would be tough.

Remember, the Gophers still have to play St. Joe's and Cornell at the Barn. Those are going to be close games no doubt. Also, South Dakota State is going to be tougher than many people think. I believe the Gophers will win, but it will not be by 20-30 points. The Jacks are veteran-heavy and can shoot.

So that confirms that the Cornell game will be an NIT home game. Thanks!
 



No, not a lawyer and really not that smart (but thanks anyway, GL :)). Most of the time I'm rational though, I will agree with you on that one.
 



"coolhand"...excellent post, just remember that in most of the pessimism posted on GopherHole is a result of: "What we have here is a failure to communicate."
 

I know I'm an unpopular and divisive figure at times on this board and I'm prepared to be under fire for the following comments but I disagree with most of Coolhand's post as much as I do with some of the harsh criticism leveled against the Gophers due to the performance in the 76 Classic. I think you're really cherry picking situations to support a predetermined conclusion..
 

Have at it, The Truth. You don't have to agree with me, but I will say this:
* Whenever I see a highly ranked college basketball team lose early in the season, I'm reminded of that Michigan St.-Wright St. game. I use it as a reminder not to get too worked up about games before the calendar turns to the new year.
* I think the Indiana situation (and the subsequent examples of coaches behaving badly) is pretty representative of what I described-ignoring or soft-pedaling issues whether regarding discipline, attitude, team chemistry, etc. often does more harm than good. Are there teams that survive/thrive despite those issues? Of course there are, I'm not close enough to any program to give examples, but I'm sure there are. I would also wager that there are many teams that struggle each year due to some type of team chemistry/distraction issues that we never hear about also.
* I really don't see an argument for point #3. Even Final Four teams experience bad/unexpected losses during the season. I don't think the Gophers are at that level yet, I still am not sure they're beyond first game of NCAA tournament level yet, but except for the very upper crust of college BB almost all teams have games that get away from them during the season.
* Once again, don't see an argument here. I didn't say every headcase/troubled soul will cause teams to implode, but I'm saying plenty of times talented players have caused more trouble than good for a program. These are players off the top of my head. Again, I'm sure you can give examples of players whose personal issues/proclivities were reigned in and contributed to the greater good of a team (being a Kentucky fan, I would imagine Antoine Walker might fit that bill for you), but I'm just stating there's times when looking the other way has had awful effects for a team.
* This point was largely directed towards a discussion in another thread about some fans being fine with a shady coach as long as the wins came. My point here is that making your peace with a shady coach doesn't guarantee a world of milk and honey. It's a slippery slope and if/when a program gets exposed because of that coach's relative ethics, the damage can be long-lasting and detrimental (how long did it take MN, Michigan, Baylor, Cal, Mizzou, etc. to get back into relevant status in the college basketball world after the scandals broke?) Again, I realize there's several coaches out there who are operating on the wrong side of the rulebook and thriving; I'm just saying it's a dangerous game to play, especially with a program that's had the rocky history with the NCAA that Minnesota has had.

I am a bit put off by your assertion that I cooked up my arguments to support my preconceived notions; however, I guess it's a chicken and an egg thing-when I've read some of the reaction on this board to the losses in the 76 Classic or the criticism leveled at the "U" for the handling of the Royce White situation, or the Nolen/Westbrook first half sitdown, I thought of previous incidents in college basketball where things went askew for basketball programs. I would say my preconceived notions were indeed preconceived, but based off of what I've seen/read of college basketball through the years.
 

I know I'm an unpopular and divisive figure at times on this board and I'm prepared to be under fire for the following comments but I disagree with most of Coolhand's post as much as I do with some of the harsh criticism leveled against the Gophers due to the performance in the 76 Classic. I think you're really cherry picking situations to support a predetermined conclusion..

I think he is in the clear. If he would have said something like, "These bad losses from previous teams show that every team struggles, but the Gophers are right on schedule to go to the final four," then I might agree with you. But when the predetermined conclusion is that it is possible to overcome poor play early in the season to have success in March, he isn't really saying anything controversial. The situations Coolhand gave as examples were just to quiet the predictable arguments some of the lesser posters would use.
 



Have at it, The Truth. You don't have to agree with me, but I will say this:
* Whenever I see a highly ranked college basketball team lose early in the season, I'm reminded of that Michigan St.-Wright St. game. I use it as a reminder not to get too worked up about games before the calendar turns to the new year.
* I think the Indiana situation (and the subsequent examples of coaches behaving badly) is pretty representative of what I described-ignoring or soft-pedaling issues whether regarding discipline, attitude, team chemistry, etc. often does more harm than good. Are there teams that survive/thrive despite those issues? Of course there are, I'm not close enough to any program to give examples, but I'm sure there are. I would also wager that there are many teams that struggle each year due to some type of team chemistry/distraction issues that we never hear about also.
* I really don't see an argument for point #3. Even Final Four teams experience bad/unexpected losses during the season. I don't think the Gophers are at that level yet, I still am not sure they're beyond first game of NCAA tournament level yet, but except for the very upper crust of college BB almost all teams have games that get away from them during the season.
* Once again, don't see an argument here. I didn't say every headcase/troubled soul will cause teams to implode, but I'm saying plenty of times talented players have caused more trouble than good for a program. These are players off the top of my head. Again, I'm sure you can give examples of players whose personal issues/proclivities were reigned in and contributed to the greater good of a team (being a Kentucky fan, I would imagine Antoine Walker might fit that bill for you), but I'm just stating there's times when looking the other way has had awful effects for a team.
* This point was largely directed towards a discussion in another thread about some fans being fine with a shady coach as long as the wins came. My point here is that making your peace with a shady coach doesn't guarantee a world of milk and honey. It's a slippery slope and if/when a program gets exposed because of that coach's relative ethics, the damage can be long-lasting and detrimental (how long did it take MN, Michigan, Baylor, Cal, Mizzou, etc. to get back into relevant status in the college basketball world after the scandals broke?) Again, I realize there's several coaches out there who are operating on the wrong side of the rulebook and thriving; I'm just saying it's a dangerous game to play, especially with a program that's had the rocky history with the NCAA that Minnesota has had.

I am a bit put off by your assertion that I cooked up my arguments to support my preconceived notions; however, I guess it's a chicken and an egg thing-when I've read some of the reaction on this board to the losses in the 76 Classic or the criticism leveled at the "U" for the handling of the Royce White situation, or the Nolen/Westbrook first half sitdown, I thought of previous incidents in college basketball where things went askew for basketball programs. I would say my preconceived notions were indeed preconceived, but based off of what I've seen/read of college basketball through the years.

Before one of my favorite teams (Cincinnati Bearcats) won its first NC in 1961, they had a terrible December 1960. They lost 3 games, including 2 key conference games. In those days, you had to win your conference to even get INTO the NCAA tourney.

UC caught fire, grew stronger down the stretch, and ultimately beat powerhouse #1 team Ohio State in the NCAA final game.
 

Coolhand, you've outdone yourself here. You've hit a lot of things right on the head. I'm especially in line with your thinking on the potential impact of team cancers (no matter how great their talent), as well as the impulse of people to go into a tizzy over a loss or two they didn't expect. As you pointed out, it happens, even to the best teams and programs.
 

Hysteria over early season losses is often overreaction, as teams prove their worth and mettle during conference play.
Sure teams have bad games, but, unfortunately, the Gopher short-comings in the last two loses were mostly a continuation of issues that cost the Gophers so dearly in conference play last year. Big Ten opponents figured out how to defend the Gophers in the half court last year and I see no indications that the same strategies won't continue to work against this team unless those perimeter shots start falling.
 




Top Bottom