It’s not in this video, but the very next caller (after Painter gives this question way more air and respect than he should) starts “Coach, I’m not sure if you noticed it, but Nebraska started to press us in the second half…”
I wasn’t able to follow things that closely…they went 0-3 in that stretch after the big win over Illinois. Wow. Just shows how much we can’t over-react to early season results in a sport where roster turnover is at an all-time high. Illinois was lighting the world on fire and now their coach is driving the bus over his own players in press conferences. Maryland is on an 0-fer streak. Wisconsin looks pretty in the standings but then you realize they’ve played 7-straight games decided by 5 points or less so who really knows?
It’s just how college hoops works and there are usually massive overreactions to offseason results and early season results in the national media and the way the sport is covered.
The natural regression to the mean doesn’t mean that teams aren’t good it just means they are somewhere in the middle.
Kind of like Michigan when it won the B4A and the narrative spiraled out of control and then it quickly flipped to “oh well actually they are terrible because they scored 8 points at Louisville”.
In the end, that was a top 20 KenPom team so right there in the middle.
College hoops seasons are long and college basketball games are pretty random. A lot of noise to filter through.
There’s so little separation in the Big Ten that there are going to be a lot of overreactions this year, I think.
I’m liking this slightly more assertive Dylan here, especially when it comes to how we evaluate coaches. Seems like this is hard-earned wisdom and really useful criteria for deciding which coaches are effective over time, which not. Might even be worth an article for some outlet like The Athletic.
Also might just ward off some of the hysteria every time the team hits a few bumps.
To these measures, I wonder whether you could add something more banal like top-4 conferences finishes. Seems like winning the conference in any given year can be somewhat a matter of luck and vagaries of scheduling, as when one team doesn’t have to play one of the tougher teams away. . . But finishing in the top four year in, year out probably says something. I’d imagine that Painter is right there most of the time. I’d probably be forced to give Izzo his props, too.
Going off of KenPom finish is the best all-in-one way to evaluate how good a team was. So looking at a coach’s KenPom history is way better than trying to parse out conference finish (top 4 vs top 3 vs whatever, there are usually ties, etc.)
The thing about finishing near the top of the conference is that it might capture some of those coaching skills that are less susceptible to measurement: Keeping the kids on an even keel, getting them to games rested and confident repeatedly. . .
What’s great about Painter is that he’s doing it at a relatively unsung program, too. Steadily, over a long period. I’ll bet he matches up pretty damned well with Izzo, and with far fewer fireworks/a lot more grace.
It’s just impossible to measure. Last year, there were six teams that finished T4. Add in the inexact schedule and the actual W/L doesn’t tell you all that much.