During the postgame presser, a reporter asked Greenberg about the Hokies reaching only one NCAA tournament (2007) in his nine seasons. Greenberg fired back rapidly.
"I'm proud of what we accomplished," he said. "Prior to this season, we won 20 games four of the last five years. We won nine games twice in the ACC, 10 games twice, got to the semifinals of the ACC tournament (three times). If you don't think that's good, that's your problem."
A few moments later, without prompting, Greenberg returned to the subject.
"What we've done the last four years? It's pretty remarkable," he said of 2008-11. "Pretty remarkable. Just as remarkable as we weren't in the tournament any of those years. ... If you want to define those kids' careers and say it's a failure, that's your problem, because what those kids accomplished, what they built in a basketball program where there was no basketball program was pretty special. Forget about me. Don't take anything away from those kids."
via Teel, one of the best.
I guess it's my problem then.
We all know the story, but to recap... Back in the day we were habitual losers. That's just not a summary of the games either. No one at Tech gave a shit about basketball. Blinders were on during winter, spring and summer. Pretty girls, TOTS and pong were all better looking than ugly round ball. When fall came around, "OH HAY, WE PLAY SPORT." Then we hired Seth. He brought attention to hoops, he got fans interested. He won games. He packed the Cassell He raised expectations. Thank you Seth, seriously.
For better or worse this season turned into a referendum on Seth's tenure at Tech. Is that fair? I don't know. These Hokies were a young team that no one expected to make the tournament; I'm talking about the NCAA not NIT. However, the last two seasons we had veteran teams primed to receive a bid to the dance. Injuries, screwed by the selection committee, <insert excuse here>, ... The fact is we made just one NCAA tournament in nine seasons. And I'll speculate that if we handled business against a piss-poor BC team in '10, or against a 4-12 (ACC) Miami in '09 we're in. Or really you can just name your favorite (SIC) game that slipped through our fingers. My favorite is '10 UNC. I got cocked drinking $2.50 pints at happy hour and went mad watching us scuttle a 9 point lead over 15 minutes in a game we dominated for the first 25. If it meant anything more than a chapped ass, FSU '11 would've taken the cake. Here then let me slow it down for you. -- Eminem
Banners don't get raised for winning 20 games, 10 games in the ACC, or chalking through a couple rounds of the ACC Tournament. That's just a fucking fact. If I'm an asshole for thinking I have a problem for thinking that's crap, then I have a problem. It's on me, and I apologize. I just want this team galloping over the bar Seth raised.
And I don't want to confuse issues. I am not taking anything away from the kids. I think the kids played their hearts out this year. They play tough and that's a reflection of their coach. Tough really is what we do best and I'm proud of that. However, tough sputtering in the half-court isn't easy to digest.
In the early aughts Mack Brown would always bitch about Texas not being a BCS at-large team. He'd win 10 or so games, but lose to Oklahoma and be left out. He'd politick while knowing, like everyone else, all he had do to get in was beat the Sooners. I didn't respect his media campaign. Talk on the field.
In 1999 the Gaels went 9-1. Nine blowouts, one pisser that came down to the wire. Having a future NFL quarterback doesn't guarantee you state. No bones about it, Cheshire beat us up. We knew it, accepted it, went back to work. We were 12-0 the following season.
I don't want Seth fired because I don't think he deserves to be. (If anything he should have gotten the axe for not going dancing with the Delaney-Allen teams.) This team was young and inexperienced. It is what it is. More than anything I just want accountability. Justifying mediocrity is a bad look, guilt tripping the fans into feeling bad over it is even worse. We are what we are, a one bid NCAA tournament team that's been on the cusp the last nine years. Let's own up to that, and improve to 2 of 10 for next year.
Comments
Well said...
I'd like to see him get one more year. Let these young guys grow up a little. If he can't take this core to the tourney next year, I think the dream is over.
Tech coaches
Beamer and Greenburg don't like getting asked about topics a lot of fans get frustrated with. The question obviously frustrated Seth that he returned to it. No matter how you slice it one tourney birth is not good. Same with Beamer being questioned about offensive play calling. You would think they would be more prepared for the obvious questions. Of course they do not expect there chums in the media or their AD to pop those questions and they don't have to answer directly to the fans. So, when the subject arises they are caught off guard and get defensive about it.
Greenberg's Problem in 2012
was he didn't have a guard to run his offense. Greenberg's offense is pretty much based on one guard being dominant, having he defense focus on him to set up the rest of the team with open looks. This guard has to be a triple threat that can shoot the outside shot, drive in the lane with ease, or dish off to the open player. In the past that was Delaney and Dowdell. As good as Erick Green is, he is not as good as Delaney or Dowdell, and this is why VT struggled all year, especially late in games.
While people can complain about past years, in all honesty, Greenberg did much better than what most VT fans expected in those years. Getting sniffs at the tournament was way better than before. And it isn't his fault his team was snubbed 3 times in a row (unless you believe his personality and behavior accounted for the reason the selection committee didn't select VT...) However, now the bar has been raised, and deservedly so. His success next year hinges on Green (or maybe Brown or Rankin) taking that next step, and becoming that triple threat. Will it happen, I don't know? I kinda doubt Green will be good enough (needs to improve on outside shot, finishing in the lane, and learn how to set up others) and I have no idea of what Brown or Rankin can provide on a consistent basis.
I don't claim to know basketball all that well, but it strikes me as an inherent problem with the system (or an indication of a lack of one) if it is dependent on a phenomenal player in all respects for the team to have any offense. Your offense shouldn't require a single player to put the team on his back all season long (we seem to have a similar problem in football). In addition, it doesn't look to me (again, not a basketball person) like the guard, whoever it is, gets much help in terms of plays. I get so frustrated watching our "offense" consist of Green dribbling in place while everyone else stands around. There is so little off the ball movement.
i know nothing about basketball and, truth be told, i don't get anywhere near as invested in it as i do with football. however, i remember the ricky stokes years and greenberg has brought a spark to the program that we all have to acknowledge.
i almost think that my good feelings and appreciation towards greenberg may be the same general feeling that a lot of older alumni have towards the 10 win, no mnc championship seasons that keeps us at the "a step past mediocrity, a step away from eliteness" status.
Next year
There were a lot of close games where we lost in the last minute. With more experience next year we should have better outcomes (more and better wins).
Did some number crunching
Blowout Wins (11+)- 6
Moderate (6-10) - 4
Close Wins (1-5) - 5
Close Losses (1-5) - 10
Moderate Losses (6-10)- 3
Blowout Losses (11+)- 4
HOME
Close Wins (1-5) - 3
Close Losses (1-5) - 3
AWAY
Close Wins (1-5) - 2
Close Losses (1-5) - 7
Causes of close losses: youth, depth, poor offensive/defensive game plan
Causes of close wins: FT shooting, good defensive game plan, prayers to Jesus
Seth's initial comment really chapped my behind because he took a question intended for him to answer for his lack of production as a professional coach and instead, shifted the focus onto the kids. Beamer does that shit all of the time. We've gone through 2 full cycles of players (one exclusively with "Seth's Kids") and the end result is still the same: tough defense, awful offense, steal a couple wins we shouldn't, get no further than ACCT Quarters, borderline NCAAT.
I'm not satisfied with that anymore.
Random question: How many of those close losses would we have won if Garland were still on the team? 0?
Seth gets one more year if it's up to me, unless a high profile candidate expresses interest in the job (why would that happen?). Marked improvement required next year to keep from changing HCs.
He's not going anywhere this offseason. He'll get at least one more year with this group. I'd like to think its NCAA or bust, however, I don't think Weaver would ever pull the trigger. He doesn't seem to care about basketball that much and is happy with the improvement during Seth's tenure.
Seth's current contract runs through the 2015-16 season. If he's fired "without good cause", aka losing too many games, we'll have to pay him 300K for each remaining year on his contract. That would be a 900K buyout after next season.
contract details:
http://www.mytimesdispatch.com/index.php/sports/comments/the_details_of_...
My frustration with Greenberg is his inability to make even basic adjustments to his system if a team is shutting him down defensively (example, running some baseline screens and a post flash to the foul line against a basic 2-3 zone.) That isn't brain surgery, yet I watched many a big lead vanish against zones without any adjustment.
Second, Greenberg always manages to have some kind of a hole in his lineup, be it a true point guard, a pure spot-up zone busting wing, or an extra banger down low. For being a guy with a reputation as a stellar recruiter, he has not snagged the big star player or addressed the above depth concerns.
While we know he will be back, his successes have been surpassed in the mindsight of Virginia basketball by the tremendous runs of George Mason and VCU, coupled with the success of ODU and Richmond. That has to be a tough pill to swallow.
I read that first paragraph and am pretty sure you can replace Greenberg with Stinespring and the argument still holds a lot of water.
One thing that I have never
been able to wrap my mind around is the fact that we recruit and bring in "athletic" (great word for undersized) bigs and wing players that are meant to be in a up tempo game yet we putz around with the ball in the back court and never get out and run. Now I know this year we were down bodies so running does not make as much sense but in the years past its been the same old bs. It also seems like every-time I hear him talk in a post-game press conference he says we need to push the ball more yet its the same old swan song once the game starts.
went from
really damn bad to mediocre. the next step is above avg, needs to happen soon for seth.
i am glad he brought the program this far, but expectations were raised by him and us. time to start meeting them.