In February, the Tennessee faithful and several writers who cover college basketball were discussing the job security of Cuonzo Martin.
After a few wins in March, he's due for a raise and extension possibly. This is the college basketball world we live in. Mediocrity over a 30-game sample size will be ignored as long as you can win two, maybe three games in a row in March.
I watched it happen with Mizzou basketball under Quin Snyder and Mike Anderson. Snyder would waffle in mediocrity during the regular season despite assembling fairly impressive talent who, collectively, felt like it should be competing for Big 12 titles. Instead, the sixth seed in the Big 12 tournament was informally reserved for Snyder's teams, who came in firmly on the bubble needing one win, maybe two, to feel safe about making the NCAA Tournament. Once in the tournament, Synder's teams would suddenly transform into a talented and cohesive unit that made a run to the Elite Eight and/or were bounced in epic second round games by Final Four teams — namely, a double-overtime loss to Dwyane Wade's Marquette squad.
So was Snyder a good coach? Absolutely not, but he always seemed to find a way to win two or three games in March.
Mike Anderson was much the same way as his predecessor. And his frantic, "40 Minutes of Hell" brand of basketball usually lent itself to postseason success due to the unfamiliarity of it from equal, or slightly-better talented opponents from different conferences. But save 2008-09, when Mizzou went 28-6 and won the Big 12 Tournament, Anderson's teams were all bubbly. But, with the exception of his last season before bolting for Arkansas, he won at least one game in his three tournament appearances at Mizzou, including an Elite Eight run in that special 2009 season. (Which he cashed in on with raises due to supposed interest from other programs, despite producing declining results in his following seasons.)
This is the landscape of college basketball. If you can win in March, seemingly all is forgiven. Ultimately, though, that can catch up to you. Snyder was eventually fired and left the program in shambles due to horrid results, on and off the court. Anderson left for Arkansas where he has yet to make an NCAA Tournament — meaning his last tourney win came nearly five years ago in 2010. He was one of the more sought after coaches in the country at that point. Did he suddenly forget how to coach, or was he mediocre to begin with?
The opposite of this March infatuation is true also. Tom Crean is feeling some heat at Indiana after missing postseason play entirely this year. He'd probably be more than all right had his team simply played to seed in the NCAA Tournament last season. He put together a fantastic year in Bloomington and got the Hoosiers the No. 1 seed in the Dance. They were widely considered a title favorite, but were upset in the Sweet 16 by fourth-seeded Syracuse. Does that erase the successful 35-game sample size of of 29-6 that preceded that loss? In college basketball, apparently yes.
I've already exhausted similar points on Frank Haith at Mizzou. That 30-4 2011-12 regular season did happen. It was the most impressive Missouri team I've ever seen. But it might as well have never happened because all that team is remembered for is losing to 15-seed Norfolk State. One slightly off game against an opponent playing out of its mind and suddenly all Haith is remembered for is somehow screwing up the loaded roster he was given. Had that team played Norfolk in December and lost, it would've been a big deal, but it wouldn't have mattered. I suspect had that Missouri team played 50 or 60 games it would have lost 10. It was still an impressive coaching job and a wonderful season, but it ultimately meant nothing. And it's put Haith under intense scrutiny for the average results he's produced the following two seasons — which probably would have been considered rebuilding years had he only won a game or two in the tournament in that first year.
Look, this isn't to say winning in March is meaningless. Final Fours and National Titles are what it's all about in the sport. And those are usually reserved for the elite programs, with a few under-the-radar squads crashing the party every so often. Winning four, five, or six games in a row in March is special. Because it requires great talent, good coaching and cohesiveness. But there is some luck that's involved as well. There are favorable match ups. That said, usually you don't luck your way into a Final Four. But you most certainly can luck your way into a Sweet 16.
Tennessee had more impressive two-game stretches this year than beating UMass and Mercer. (Fully aware they beat Iowa in the "First Four," which frankly was a better win than UMass and Mercer, but there's a reason Iowa was in that game as well.) Had those same two wins come back-to-back in the non-conference in December, no one would bat an eye or regard Martin as some coach on the rise. But they happen in March, and it supposedly matters more. If Tennessee is bounced in the Sweet 16 by Michigan, the perception of Martin will have already changed. He won in March. He can coach. Now if he wins against Michigan, his stock will soar. And if he, gulp, wins against the winner of Louisville/Kentucky in the Elite 8, well then he just might be a very good coach.
(Wouldn't it be crazy to see him go from "on the hot seat" to, "how much money is it going to take to keep this guy around!?" )
But that's not to say Tennessee wasn't a solid team capable of winning a few games in a row in March all year. The sample size is so small in college hoops, that a team might not really hit its stride until 30 games into the season, and by then it could be too late.
And in a single-game elimination format, anything can happen. Hence, why it's called March Madness.
I mean, Kansas had two top-five picks and at least three first-rounders on its roster this season and the Jayhawks lost 10 games and were sent home by Stanford in the second round. You don't think that team would be significantly more impressive had it played 50 or 60 games together this season? The same goes for Kentucky, who appears to finally be hitting its stride the past couple weeks and is a couple wins from a Final Four.
It's hard to put together 25 or 30-win seasons in college basketball. Really hard. And it's unfortunate how losing in March can tear down those accomplishments. But it's absurd how winning just a little bit in March can make up for the previous 30 games of mediocrity.
