How would you define success at UMass in basketball

[Steve81]

A long time has past since people posted comments on how they would define success at UMass for the basketball team. At one point it was making the NCAA frequently and making a run every 4-6 years and being at the top of the A10. So how would you define it today. I feel like a pre world series Red Sox fan always being disappointed and coming close. Heck we made it 2014 only to lose in the opening round.

My definition is to make the NCAA or NIT half the time and always be in the top third of the A10, except a few down years but still over .500 in league play. It's basically saying the period of 2007-2014 was a success. Now we are starting our 8th session since then. Perhaps it has given you time to reflect on what success should look like.

[Roadtrip]

For this season, 20 wins; with any post season success being gravy.

[uz2b-len]

I wouldn't agree that 2007-2014 met that criteria. The Travis Ford years met the criteria. The nine years of Kellogg did not, except for the three years with Chaz. McCall obviously hasn't, but I think he had bad luck with his Kellogg-type plan to bring in a great player. If Tre Mitchell stuck around for three years as originally planned, and we didn't have to throw away one of those years due to a pandemic, I think just like with Kellogg, we would have seen two years of 20+ wins and post-season play. Then Tre would have moved on. Whether McCall could have planned ahead for continued success is debatable.

[Steve81]

We did well in the NIT with good runs in 2007 and 2008 as well as 2012. We made the NIT in 2013 and NCAA 2014 with opening round losses, That is 5 NIT or NCAA appearances in 8 years. What would your definition be? Would it be a NCAA appearance every 4 years or the sweet sixteen every 10 years? Or just more sustained good teams and regularly making the NIT with deep runs more often than not? It seems very good to me those 8 years in the rearview mirror and hoping for the same sooner than later.

[TheInsider]

Not competing for the 8 through 10 spot every year?

[harbo]

Success is regularly finishing in the top half of the conference, never playing in a play-in conference tournament game, never losing their first game in the conference tournament, and regularly in consideration for some sort of post-season tournament bid. I'm not worried about style (although I am a fan of defense and rebounding).

[Floyd]

Win, win, and win some more

[rayers]

20 wins 4/5 years, top 25 1/5 years, league and/or tourney champs 2/5 years and NCAA Tourney 2/5 years.Yeah I have wicked high expectations but I know it’s absolutely 100% without a doubt possible because we’ve been a helluva lot better than that with much less resources. Right AD and right Coach and it’s totally reasonable.

[PreecherJenkins]

Playing meaningful basketball in February.

[Upstate10]

Every recruiting class should be playing in at least one tournament. NIT some years that we aren’t in the NCAAs. But .500 should be the floor and even that should happen rarely. Facilities and resources are there, and can support will be if we start to look consistently competent.

[eldonabe]

Y'all are being too generic and way too obvious.

Every season should be successful, but the specific definition will change every year based on some common sense pre-season expectations . There are a few seasons where simply not coming in last is a success. Conversely, making the tourney is not always good enough and I would argue that some teams had a much more successful season with far worse "accomplishments".

For example:

McCall's 1st season was far more successful than DK's Tournament season IMO... my disdain for DK's overall performance here aside:

- McCall far exceeded most people's expectations with a depleted and very young roster. Just getting to a double digit win total was huge let alone 13 wins.
- If I remember correctly - the "Tourney team" started out 16-1, then proceeded to go 7-7 the rest of the way including that abysmal showing in the Tournament. Exciting to be in the tourney - sure; but you were wearing thick maroon colored glasses if you were really [honestly] excited about how that team was playing the second half of the season.


I think someone said 20 win this season? Where does that number come from? Have you seen this roster? Is it better or at least comparable to the last two years?


18 wins and 5th in the conference is probably a stretch goal for this team. If they get 20 wins this year - McCall gets a 3 year extension.

[McKinney]

Every season should be successful, but the specific definition will change every year based on some common sense pre-season expectations . There are a few seasons where simply not coming in last is a success. Conversely, making the tourney is not always good enough and I would argue that some teams had a much more successful season with far worse "accomplishments".

I agree relative performance is important. But ultimately when you're talking about hiring/firing it comes down to absolute performance over anything else.

I think someone said 20 win this season? Where does that number come from? Have you seen this roster? Is it better or at least comparable to the last two years?

I think 20 regular-season wins is just a general rule of thumb that ADs look for in their searches. If UMass is to be a successful stepping stone you have to have 20 win seasons within the coach's term.

To circle back to your point about relative performance. 20 wins would be out of the norm and above expectation for UMass. But it still has to be the expectation over a 5-year contract if you want to even sniff the NIT or NCAA.

[MikeUMA]

If I remember correctly - the "Tourney team" started out 16-1, then proceeded to go 7-7 the rest of the way

This site exists so you don't have to remember
https://umasshoops.com/wiki/doku.php?id=season_2013-14

[eldonabe]

^
Thank you and yes it corroborated my memory of that season.

[bobolink]

20 wins most seasons, with exceptions made for seasons with tougher schedules (say, 3-4 P6 opponents or top teams from lesser conferences like the Ivy; then ~18 wins is still success; this coming season comes close as Yale + Harvard share top spot in Ivy predictions). top 100 ranking >85% of the time. In contention for post season (most often NIT) most of the time. I hate to go only by wins, since the A10 level of play, as well as each team's in conference schedule varies. So perhaps I can say what was most famously said by Justice Potter Stewart to describe his test for obscenity, i.e., I know success when I see it