There will be two defining stories for which this season will likely be remembered (or not)--the challenges this team often has scoring points, and the close losses.  

Vandy is now 1-7 in games decided by 5 points or less, or in overtime.  Six of those eight games have been in conference play.  Had we won those games at the same clip we were winning close games in CKS' VU tenure prior to this season, VU would be 15-10 overall, and 8-5 in the conference.  That would be good for 4th in the SEC at this juncture.  How much better would you feel?

Yeah, the conference is lousy this year.  No, not all of the losses have been buzzer beaters, and some were not as close as the final score appears.  But to paraphrase the legendary tattoo of the great Bobby Maze, let's hope that "stuggles have made us" a better team over the next two years.

You are what your record says you are.

Type38 wrote: You are what your record says you are.

This is true.  However, too many posters on this board would amend that statement to: You will be what your record says you are today.

Another historical true stat you will find the last 14 years!

To date, CKS is 107 - 114 in regular season conference play.

AuricGoldfinger wrote: There will be two defining stories for which this season will likely be remembered (or not)--the challenges this team often has scoring points, and the close losses.  

Vandy is now 1-7 in games decided by 5 points or less, or in overtime.  Six of those eight games have been in conference play.  Had we won those games at the same clip we were winning close games in CKS' VU tenure prior to this season, VU would be 15-10 overall, and 8-5 in the conference.  That would be good for 4th in the SEC at this juncture.  How much better would you feel?

Yeah, the conference is lousy this year.  No, not all of the losses have been buzzer beaters, and some were not as close as the final score appears.  But to paraphrase the legendary tattoo of the great Bobby Maze, let's hope that "stuggles have made us" a better team over the next two years.

struggling so much to score-- even when it's this bad, is a cause for alarm, imo.

There better be some guys living in the gym or on playground courts (which is probably where they need to be) this offseason.

We don't have many talented shooters, so they need to get out there this summer and turn themselves into talented shooters.

headcheerleader wrote: To date, CKS is 107 - 114 in regular season conference play.

Past results are indicative of future performance.

This program has the capability to recruit at the same level as Kentucky or Florida should the right leadership be in place.  We have a lot to sell to a top level recruit - great basketball fanbase, great city, great education, iconic home court, good facilities, good rivalry games, nearly every game on tv, etc.

Type38 wrote:

headcheerleader wrote: To date, CKS is 107 - 114 in regular season conference play.

Past results are indicative of future performance.

This program has the capability to recruit at the same level as Kentucky or Florida should the right leadership be in place.  We have a lot to sell to a top level recruit - great basketball fanbase, great city, great education, iconic home court, good facilities, good rivalry games, nearly every game on tv, etc.

And, plus, you have to work your tail off in the classroom!  That's a big drawing card for the guys who have eyes only for the NBA.

Type38 wrote: You are what your record says you are.

Tell that to Villanova in 1985.  Or Kemba Walker's UConn team a couple of years back.  Or the selection committee when they give a 29-2 team a 12 seed because they are in a small conference.  Or the New York Giants when they go from an 8-8 regular season to Super Bowl champs.

I could mostly agree with the statement, "You were what your record says you were."  Your record describes the past.  People change and teams can improve.  We all like to think we can distill complex sitautions down into nice little quotes, but it is not really that easy. 
I like the improvement I see in this team.  I love their attitude and work ethic.  I understand the discontent with the season and agree that VU basketball should be more successful.  However, I really like this group of guys, and I want to see them continue to develop and reap the rewards.  I am optimistic about next season and will continue to be a proud fan of this team!

mathknapp wrote:

Type38 wrote: You are what your record says you are.

Tell that to Villanova in 1985.  Or Kemba Walker's UConn team a couple of years back.  Or the selection committee when they give a 29-2 team a 12 seed because they are in a small conference.  Or the New York Giants when they go from an 8-8 regular season to Super Bowl champs.

1985 Villanova and 2011 UConn were average major conference teams that happened to win the final tournament.  They are properly labeled as Cinderella teams because they won at the right time and aren't considered great teams because they didn't do it over an entire season.  So their record is an accurate reflection of who those teams were.  Unlike college football, the college basketball champion is often not the best overall team.

College football also does a better job selecting a champion than the NFL (I do not support a playoff in college football).  College football rewards excellence over an entire season while the NFL rewards excellence in January.

Holy crap to some of you!!!  We dont need 1 and dones to be great.  We need good ballplayers and a system they can win in!  Same is true for the women and the 5000 offensive play book is stupid. Run 15 to 20 plays great and recruit good players and ypu will attract the best to the best University.  I feel many dont believe the Franklin theory Vandy is the best.  You should hear the outgoing seniors praise the football changes and the unlimited ceiling!  Stop putting a limit on Basketball folks and wake up!

College football rewards those who lose early in the season versus those who lose late, or those from major conferences (see not Boise State or Houston).

NCAA tournament may not crown the BEST team but it crowns a team for certain.  I, personally, like it as it is part of what makes the tournament the most exciting sporting event.

And you can't tell me that the Georgetown fans are happy with their 85 season result b/c they had a great record (thusly were a great team) but the Nova fans aren't b/c they are only remembered as a "mediocre" champion.

It all depends on what you call "the best".  If James Franklin were in fact actually attracting "the best", seven schools in the SEC wouldn't have recruiting classes that are ranked more highly than ours. 

vusportsfan wrote: Holy crap to some of you!!!  We dont need 1 and dones to be great.  We need good ballplayers and a system they can win in!  Same is true for the women and the 5000 offensive play book is stupid. Run 15 to 20 plays great and recruit good players and ypu will attract the best to the best University.  I feel many dont believe the Franklin theory Vandy is the best.  You should hear the outgoing seniors praise the football changes and the unlimited ceiling!  Stop putting a limit on Basketball folks and wake up!

Doreboy wrote: College football rewards those who lose early in the season versus those who lose late, or those from major conferences (see not Boise State or Houston).

NCAA tournament may not crown the BEST team but it crowns a team for certain.  I, personally, like it as it is part of what makes the tournament the most exciting sporting event.

And you can't tell me that the Georgetown fans are happy with their 85 season result b/c they had a great record (thusly were a great team) but the Nova fans aren't b/c they are only remembered as a "mediocre" champion.

I understand your logic, but I reach a different conclusion.  College football, more than any other major American sport, has a direct correlation between its champion and its best team.  While I agree that the NCAA Tournament is the most exciting sporting event, I prefer the college football season to the college basketball season because the games "matter" more.  Different strokes I guess...

I would love for an 8-seed Vanderbilt team to pull of what that Nova team pulled off.  There is no way that Villanova wins that game in the shot clock era.

I agree that college football generally gets close to being right. But remember, we were awfully close to a Notre Dame-Oregon/K-State national champion.  Only people that would've been happy there would've been the champion.

The EPL is the real model.  Long season, points awarded for win/tie, and the winner is the team that accumulates the most points.  And people go CRAZY when they win.  I think American culture wants a "moment" where a champion is clearly identified - there is no fun in Man U clinching the title with 5 games to play with a 4-0 beatdown of QPR. 

You maybe could say the same thing w/ old baseball playoffs, but even they have changed to the point where teams that barely make it end up winning the world series.  We are a nation of underdogs and we like our underdogs to have a chance to be the champion every once in a while.

Type38 wrote:

headcheerleader wrote: To date, CKS is 107 - 114 in regular season conference play.

Past results are indicative of future performance.

This program has the capability to recruit at the same level as Kentucky or Florida should the right leadership be in place.  We have a lot to sell to a top level recruit - great basketball fanbase, great city, great education, iconic home court, good facilities, good rivalry games, nearly every game on tv, etc.

I think Vanderbilt can get great basketball players, but to suggest that we can recruit at the same level as Kentucky might be stretching it just a bit.  A few years ago Kentucky had five guys drafted in the first round, including the first and fifth picks.  Probably could have been the first and second pick if Cousins wasn't such a knucklehead.  Last year they had six guys drafted including the top two picks overall.

If we had a coaching staff that included the most charasmatic, best recruiters in the universe, do you think we'd ever spit out the kinds of numbers that Kentucky does in the draft?  First off, how many of these guys that Kentucky gets, or most first round draft picks in general would be admitted to Vanderbilt, even if they did want to come?

Remember, Kentucky is undoubtedly one of the most tradition rich programs in the history of college hoops.  Also have one of the most passionate, loyal fan bases in all of sport.  We could be a perennial top 20 team, perhaps even better.  Recruit on the same level as Kentucky, I'm afraid not.

Dore2004 wrote:
There is no way that Villanova wins that game in the shot clock era.

The only reason this is true though is because of the opponent.  Georgetown was not merely the #1 ranked team in the country, but probably one of the 4 or 5 best teams since the end of the UCLA era.

In an "average" year (like this year for example), while it is certainly unlikely for a low seeded team to run 6 straight wins, once they get into the final four I can see a mediocre team pulling the upsets.

mathknapp wrote:

Dore2004 wrote:
There is no way that Villanova wins that game in the shot clock era.

The only reason this is true though is because of the opponent.  Georgetown was not merely the #1 ranked team in the country, but probably one of the 4 or 5 best teams since the end of the UCLA era.

In an "average" year (like this year for example), while it is certainly unlikely for a low seeded team to run 6 straight wins, once they get into the final four I can see a mediocre team pulling the upsets.

True.  It was also a similar dynamic to what we faced last year with Kentucky.  Villanova took Georgetown to overtime earlier in the year in Philly and played them close in DC too.  Georgetown was the best team in the country, but Villanova knew how to play against them.  Of course, shooting 80% didn't hurt either.

Doreboy wrote: I agree that college football generally gets close to being right. But remember, we were awfully close to a Notre Dame-Oregon/K-State national champion.  Only people that would've been happy there would've been the champion.

The EPL is the real model.  Long season, points awarded for win/tie, and the winner is the team that accumulates the most points.  And people go CRAZY when they win.  I think American culture wants a "moment" where a champion is clearly identified - there is no fun in Man U clinching the title with 5 games to play with a 4-0 beatdown of QPR. 

You maybe could say the same thing w/ old baseball playoffs, but even they have changed to the point where teams that barely make it end up winning the world series.  We are a nation of underdogs and we like our underdogs to have a chance to be the champion every once in a while.

I couldn't agree more.  It would be awesome to see a major American sport somehow implement a relegation model too.