I think the standard of "making the tournament" is the wrong standard. It's wrong because it allows a team that wasn't even .500 in conference play to sneak in. I also don't think the standard should be getting to the round of 32, or the Sweet Sixteen. I think the standard should be that we are regularly at or above .500 in conference. If we do that, getting to the tournament will take care of itself. Playing at or above .500 in conference every year indicates that we are at least as good as, and in most cases better than, our primary competition. That doesn't mean that one year of below .500 would get someone fired, but two years might (depending on the totality of the circumstances). Three almost certainly would (Weber should be gone.) If we were 10-8 every year, we would be in the tournament almost every year, and frankly we'd probably be good enough to get past the first round most years. The tournament is such a crap shoot that it doesn't make sense to hire and fire a coach solely based on that. How you do over an 18-game schedule, against your "peers", is a much better indicator of the standing of the program.
By the way, this is NOT to say that I would prefer doing well in conference over doing well in the tourney.
By the way, this is NOT to say that I would prefer doing well in conference over doing well in the tourney.
