TCU Game Preview and Game Thread

[wild@nite]

I think this is missing several years and wins at Southern Illinois, but regardless, the win total is misleading as heck. #1 Hartman didn't have "yearly" padded non cons AND, more importantly, for a good portion of his career, they were playing 5-6 less games per season. I realize I'm never going to convince you, but just watching a full season of both of them coaching, preparation, then listening to other coaches and players, and I'm betting you would have a different take on this.

But.... Based on your posts about players and this debate here, you are a "here and now" and seem to dismiss previous eras. I can tell you this. The coaches and players were far more disciplined, team oriented, and the fundamentals aren't comparable. As I said before, Hartman was one tough SOB and his teams took on that trait. He won a lot of games with inferior talent because of discipline and toughness he instilled in his players.

Bruce has won a lot of games too, no doubt, but without seeing Jack's teams play, sorry, you cannot possibly have a clue who was the better coach.

I didn’t watch much KSU back in the Hartman days. I didn’t live in the region then and only the top teams made the television before ESPN. So, I’ll grant you that I don’t have the eye test to fall back on. I only recall seeing them play once.

But, the career records and your eye test don’t seem to match. Hartman’s record is good, but Weber’s appears better in all categories.

Now for the eye test. Things were more fundamental and there was more attention to detail back then ... absolutely! The game has evolved, the officiating has evolved, the style of play is a little different, and probably not for the better in my opinion. But, the good coaches have to evolve to fit the personnel, officiating, etc. I’m sure Hartman’s teams would play a little different today than they did in the 70’s and I’m sure Weber’s current teams play a little different from his early teams.

Regardless, it sounds like you view the past years with purple glasses. Hartman’s record is good. Is it legendary? Not at all. Is it better than Weber’s, no.

This reminds me of the discussion about best player on the other thread. Is the measure of basketball not wins and losses? Championships? Etc. If not, we should just have the players warm up for games and we can vote on the best team after watching the warmup.

The best thing about opinions is everyone has one. The best thing about records is they are real.

Here we go again. Who said he was legendary? He was a great coach. And.... I addressed the record stuff. It's apples and oranges. Far more patsies on schedules nowadays, plus 5,6, even 7 more games in a season. That adds up if you are a good coach with a good program, you should be winning 90% of you noncons with the way we schedule (which is about 4 more wins a year), plus 2-3 more games per regular season on average, not to mention if you have heartbeat you get more chances in postseason wins. As far as adjusting styles, that's where Hartman was a master and Bruce is not. Bruce plays 1 style. Hartman's teams played some damn tough M2M and a 3-2 zone that baffled people and could finesse as well as physically beat the hell out of you.

To me, as a coach, no, the measure of a great coach is not championships. It's nice, but some of the best coaches I've ever known at the H.S. level and even college level have zero championships and some of the most average coaches I've known were fortunate to be in communities where the Jimmy's and Joe's just keep coming. My High School basketball coach was a former D2 coach who decided he was sick of recruiting. He came back to the HS ranks and could coach circles around most HS coaches, yet never won a HS title. At the college level, recruiting is part of coaching and often makes average x's and o's guys look pretty smart. Calipari comes to mind.

Here is how I judge coaches. Just my personal criteria so you can see how I arrive at my opinion on this. It's not because of nostalgia. Do their teams play hard? Do they make good in game adjustments? Do their teams improve throughout the course of a season? Do their peers respect their teams? Are they consistent winners? Hartman check off all of these boxes until he started having health issues. Bruce checks most of these boxes as well, but there is one where I see a huge discrepancy. In game.

Look, I don't know what else to say other than I don't even know how you can continue to argue this. You are entitled to your opinion, but continuing the argument with ever having observed Hartman or his teams would be like me saying Westbrook is better than Oscar Robertson. I didn't get to watch Oscar play. Both have similar stats, but I couldn't possibly argue Oscar was better or worse without having seen him play other than a few highlights. You have zero knowledge of 1 coach other than googling record. The other thing that Hartman didn't have that Bruce walked into was the best 5 year winning span and national brand in Kstate history prior to his arrival. The ball was rolling.

I'm out on this one. I rest my case. Ok if you or others don't agree, but based on x's and o's, eye test, players I know, peer coaches, etc, I'll go to my grave thinking Jack Hartman > Bruce Weber.

Now, please, don't all of you get all sensitive and turn this into "He wants Bruce fired" thread simply because I think Jack was a better coach. Bruce has earned the right to be called a good coach too.

[tmcats]

players and coaches have to be taken in the context of their times. both hartman and weber were/are fine coaches. that's all we are trying to agree on here. in the end, weber will have accomplished more than jack.

as for an all-time k-state team, it would be solid, wouldn't it.

lon kruger, two-time conference poy
mitch richmond, highest-scoring two-year player
rolando blackman, three-time all-conference
michael beasley, all-time b12 season scoring (26) and rebounding (12) leader
bob boozer, only two-time consensus all-american in k-state history
coach: tex winter: 261-118 (.689), 8 conference championships, 2 final fours

[xtrawildcat]

Nice work. Pretty hard to leave Pullen and Mike Evans off of that group.

[wild@nite]

players and coaches have to be taken in the context of their times. both hartman and weber were/are fine coaches. that's all we are trying to agree on here. in the end, weber will have accomplished more than jack.

as for an all-time k-state team, it would be solid, wouldn't it.

lon kruger, two-time conference poy
mitch richmond, highest-scoring two-year player
rolando blackman, three-time all-conference
michael beasley, all-time b12 season scoring (26) and rebounding (12) leader
bob boozer, only two-time consensus all-american in k-state history
coach: tex winter: 261-118 (.689), 8 conference championships, 2 final fours

Some common ground here, and yes, Bruce will win more games than Jack. He's dang near coached as long as Jack already, and will have far more games, etc... However, Jack did win 3 conference titles and 2 conference tourneys while at KSU, not to mention jumping from D2 to D1 at Southern Illinois and win the NIT championship. Quite a feat. " Will have accomplished more"? I'm not so sure, but if he does, great.

I know I'm outnumbered here by the Bruce fan club, and that's ok, but guys, truly, Jack Hartman was one of a kind and I'm so lucky to have gotten to attend games in Ahearn when he was coaching. It was special.

This is from 2011 and 3 former KSU coaches are in the top 100. Hartman, Winter, and Gardner. Hartman is one of the most underrated coaches in the last 40 years, imo. Bruce, is underrated too. No doubt, especially because he is clean.

[tmcats]

when i put tex's picture and data together above, i thought of ernie barrett taking his hand walking down the aisle behind the scorer's table and introducing tex to bob knight who was doing espn color for one of our games that day. they were directly below me just a few rows. knight looked into winter's eyes knowing what an incredible legacy he had as coach, and that he'd soon die from alzheimers. knight always expressed great admiration for guys like tex, henry iba, pete newell and other legends not named john wooden. as they walked away, bobby looked back over his shoulder with a forlorn gaze as tex shuffled down the aisle knowing tex's days were numbered. today, i understand knight himself is slipping away to alzheimers.

[wild@nite]

What a crappy disease. R.I.P. Tex.

[learnin]

I think this is missing several years and wins at Southern Illinois, but regardless, the win total is misleading as heck. #1 Hartman didn't have "yearly" padded non cons AND, more importantly, for a good portion of his career, they were playing 5-6 less games per season. I realize I'm never going to convince you, but just watching a full season of both of them coaching, preparation, then listening to other coaches and players, and I'm betting you would have a different take on this.

But.... Based on your posts about players and this debate here, you are a "here and now" and seem to dismiss previous eras. I can tell you this. The coaches and players were far more disciplined, team oriented, and the fundamentals aren't comparable. As I said before, Hartman was one tough SOB and his teams took on that trait. He won a lot of games with inferior talent because of discipline and toughness he instilled in his players.

Bruce has won a lot of games too, no doubt, but without seeing Jack's teams play, sorry, you cannot possibly have a clue who was the better coach.

I didn’t watch much KSU back in the Hartman days. I didn’t live in the region then and only the top teams made the television before ESPN. So, I’ll grant you that I don’t have the eye test to fall back on. I only recall seeing them play once.

But, the career records and your eye test don’t seem to match. Hartman’s record is good, but Weber’s appears better in all categories.

Now for the eye test. Things were more fundamental and there was more attention to detail back then ... absolutely! The game has evolved, the officiating has evolved, the style of play is a little different, and probably not for the better in my opinion. But, the good coaches have to evolve to fit the personnel, officiating, etc. I’m sure Hartman’s teams would play a little different today than they did in the 70’s and I’m sure Weber’s current teams play a little different from his early teams.

Regardless, it sounds like you view the past years with purple glasses. Hartman’s record is good. Is it legendary? Not at all. Is it better than Weber’s, no.

This reminds me of the discussion about best player on the other thread. Is the measure of basketball not wins and losses? Championships? Etc. If not, we should just have the players warm up for games and we can vote on the best team after watching the warmup.

The best thing about opinions is everyone has one. The best thing about records is they are real.

Excellent reasoning. The game is too different to make comparisons. Basketball can be a lot more fundamental when you can hold the ball for a minute or more. That strategy is gone.

[Hypeman]

I didn’t watch much KSU back in the Hartman days. I didn’t live in the region then and only the top teams made the television before ESPN. So, I’ll grant you that I don’t have the eye test to fall back on. I only recall seeing them play once.

But, the career records and your eye test don’t seem to match. Hartman’s record is good, but Weber’s appears better in all categories.

Now for the eye test. Things were more fundamental and there was more attention to detail back then ... absolutely! The game has evolved, the officiating has evolved, the style of play is a little different, and probably not for the better in my opinion. But, the good coaches have to evolve to fit the personnel, officiating, etc. I’m sure Hartman’s teams would play a little different today than they did in the 70’s and I’m sure Weber’s current teams play a little different from his early teams.

Regardless, it sounds like you view the past years with purple glasses. Hartman’s record is good. Is it legendary? Not at all. Is it better than Weber’s, no.

This reminds me of the discussion about best player on the other thread. Is the measure of basketball not wins and losses? Championships? Etc. If not, we should just have the players warm up for games and we can vote on the best team after watching the warmup.

The best thing about opinions is everyone has one. The best thing about records is they are real.

Excellent reasoning. The game is too different to make comparisons. Basketball can be a lot more fundamental when you can hold the ball for a minute or more. That strategy is gone.

It certainly takes away the advantage of disciplined offense. But of course grandma likes it when the shoot and run a lot.