Tweet
Since we are now in February, let's look at a very popular take among the anti-Enfield crew about his USC record in February.
In particular, Enfield's 6-23 February road record has been trotted out to justify why USC's prospects at this year's Pac-12 title are "very dim", despite USC being a strong second in the league at the moment, just a shade behind UCLA.
So, let's address this February record issue for Enfield. There are a couple issues with the whole narrative.
A. It presupposes that a record created in part with different players years ago has any tangible bearing on games played this year, with different players, against different sets of teams with different players and (in some cases) different coaches. Some who pride themselves on applying relevant data to analyze basketball performance nonetheless subscribe to a type of magical thinking whereby Enfield's 6-23 February road record is "proof" for why USC can't compete for the conference title this year. One might as well say that USC has a certain record when wearing a certain color uniform.
B. This narrative is at best agnostic and at worst silent in comparing Enfield's record with other coaches based on the same criteria.
C. It assumes that a certain level of success on the road in February is the norm for a quality coach and program in this conference. What that record must be to compete for a conference crown, we are never told.
So let's dig a little deeper, shall we?
1. USC's overall February record under Enfield is 18-36. But, as we know, Enfield inherited a dumpster fire of a program and, like almost any new coach, needed a couple years to rebuild. Hence, his overall record in February his first two seasons, when the team finished in last place, was 2-14. Which means since those first two seasons, Enfield is 16-22 in February. Not good by any means, but not as bad as the overall record looks. Further, in the last four years, USC is 14-17. Still not good, but clearly headed in the right direction after a 4-19 record in the first three years.
2. Not counting those first two seasons, USC is 6-17 on the road in February in conference. How does that compare to the record of the coach who is the consensus "best coach in the Pac-12", Dana Altman of Oregon?
You read that right: In these last four years, Andy Enfield has more conference road wins in February than does Dana Altman, and this was during a period where Oregon won or tied two regular-season conference titles and went to a Final Four.
Altman's record is slightly better percentage wise, in part because USC played more games in February and had more exposure. But even taken at face value, this is not enough of a difference to be able to say that this is a weakness unique to Enfield and USC.
What about Sean Miller, the other "premier" coach in the conference? He's 9-7 the last four years on the road in February, 11-9 the last five years. Above .500, to be sure, but not gangbusters. And Arizona has been less successful than Oregon during the same stretch. Would you rather be Miller, with the better February road record, or Altman, with a worse February road record and a Final Four and two titles under your belt?
Larry Krystowiak of Utah is 6-11 these last four years on the road in the conference.
The most sensible takeaway from looking deeper at these numbers:
1. It's hard to win on the road in this conference in February. Most teams, not just USC, struggle. No doubt this has a lot to do with it being the home stretch of the schedule, players getting mentally and physically fatigued, and I wouldn't doubt that sometimes circumstances beyond coaches' controls contribute to dictating these final records.
2. Road records in February show little to no correlation to overall success as a coach in this conference in a given year. Altman went 3-1 on the road in the league the same year his squad made the Final Four, but he went 2-2 on the road in February a few years earlier when he won the league. Mick Cronin went 3-1 in February last year and finished 19-12 and 12-6 and second in the league. USC went 0-4 on the road in February last year and finished 22-9, 11-7 and two games out of first. The previous year, USC did better in February road games (2-3) and finished 16-17, 8-10 and five games out of first. The point is, there's no magic bullet number of wins you have to get on the road in February to win the league. Do you want to win as many as possible? Sure. But USC could've won or tied for the regular season league crown going 0-4 last year on the road in February if it had beaten Colorado at home in February and Oregon on the road in January.
3. There's nothing unique about Enfield's record in this league on the road in February. As we can see, the best coach in the conference also struggles on the road in February. There's also nothing more magical or more important about a game in February than there is a game in January or March. It's all part of the same schedule.
I have no idea what's going to happen this February. That's what makes watching the games so much fun. It's possible USC can win the conference title. Maybe the Trojans will go on a roll. It's also possible they might collapse, given that competition for a conference title makes things tougher down the stretch and it's a hump we have to get over. Or it could be a total mixed bag.
If I had to make an educated guess on how things will turn out, I would not rely on magical thinking, but on concrete measures that typically determine a conference champ: Things like depth (which we have a lot of for really the first time under Enfield), point guard play (mixed bag right now), shooting (trending mixed bag but potential is there) and free throws (a mess). If we get good point guard play and shoot like we did in the early part of the schedule, I think we'll be in the mix down to the end. We'll need a bit of luck and for a couple guys to step up.
More important, I think we will easily make the NCAA tournament. That would mean, taking into account that last year we were a legit NCAA team before March Madness was canceled, Enfield teams would have qualified for the NCAA tournament four times in the last six years (and with one of those non-tourney years arguably being a screw job).
Four NCAA tournament appearances in six years is something that has never been done in this program's history. Further, keep in mind that after this year, USC will have just 18 NCAA qualified teams in its history, which means that 22% of this 106-year-old program's NCAA tournament bids have come in the last six years.
A couple years ago, some of you thought things were only going to get worse, that Enfield was going to get fired, that the program was a dumpster fire.
You were wrong. And nothing that happens in February is going to make you right.
In particular, Enfield's 6-23 February road record has been trotted out to justify why USC's prospects at this year's Pac-12 title are "very dim", despite USC being a strong second in the league at the moment, just a shade behind UCLA.
So, let's address this February record issue for Enfield. There are a couple issues with the whole narrative.
A. It presupposes that a record created in part with different players years ago has any tangible bearing on games played this year, with different players, against different sets of teams with different players and (in some cases) different coaches. Some who pride themselves on applying relevant data to analyze basketball performance nonetheless subscribe to a type of magical thinking whereby Enfield's 6-23 February road record is "proof" for why USC can't compete for the conference title this year. One might as well say that USC has a certain record when wearing a certain color uniform.
B. This narrative is at best agnostic and at worst silent in comparing Enfield's record with other coaches based on the same criteria.
C. It assumes that a certain level of success on the road in February is the norm for a quality coach and program in this conference. What that record must be to compete for a conference crown, we are never told.
So let's dig a little deeper, shall we?
1. USC's overall February record under Enfield is 18-36. But, as we know, Enfield inherited a dumpster fire of a program and, like almost any new coach, needed a couple years to rebuild. Hence, his overall record in February his first two seasons, when the team finished in last place, was 2-14. Which means since those first two seasons, Enfield is 16-22 in February. Not good by any means, but not as bad as the overall record looks. Further, in the last four years, USC is 14-17. Still not good, but clearly headed in the right direction after a 4-19 record in the first three years.
2. Not counting those first two seasons, USC is 6-17 on the road in February in conference. How does that compare to the record of the coach who is the consensus "best coach in the Pac-12", Dana Altman of Oregon?
| Coach | Feb road record last 5 years | Feb road record last 4 years |
| Dana Altman | 6-13 | 5-11 |
| Andy Enfield | 6-17 | 6-13 |
You read that right: In these last four years, Andy Enfield has more conference road wins in February than does Dana Altman, and this was during a period where Oregon won or tied two regular-season conference titles and went to a Final Four.
Altman's record is slightly better percentage wise, in part because USC played more games in February and had more exposure. But even taken at face value, this is not enough of a difference to be able to say that this is a weakness unique to Enfield and USC.
What about Sean Miller, the other "premier" coach in the conference? He's 9-7 the last four years on the road in February, 11-9 the last five years. Above .500, to be sure, but not gangbusters. And Arizona has been less successful than Oregon during the same stretch. Would you rather be Miller, with the better February road record, or Altman, with a worse February road record and a Final Four and two titles under your belt?
Larry Krystowiak of Utah is 6-11 these last four years on the road in the conference.
The most sensible takeaway from looking deeper at these numbers:
1. It's hard to win on the road in this conference in February. Most teams, not just USC, struggle. No doubt this has a lot to do with it being the home stretch of the schedule, players getting mentally and physically fatigued, and I wouldn't doubt that sometimes circumstances beyond coaches' controls contribute to dictating these final records.
2. Road records in February show little to no correlation to overall success as a coach in this conference in a given year. Altman went 3-1 on the road in the league the same year his squad made the Final Four, but he went 2-2 on the road in February a few years earlier when he won the league. Mick Cronin went 3-1 in February last year and finished 19-12 and 12-6 and second in the league. USC went 0-4 on the road in February last year and finished 22-9, 11-7 and two games out of first. The previous year, USC did better in February road games (2-3) and finished 16-17, 8-10 and five games out of first. The point is, there's no magic bullet number of wins you have to get on the road in February to win the league. Do you want to win as many as possible? Sure. But USC could've won or tied for the regular season league crown going 0-4 last year on the road in February if it had beaten Colorado at home in February and Oregon on the road in January.
3. There's nothing unique about Enfield's record in this league on the road in February. As we can see, the best coach in the conference also struggles on the road in February. There's also nothing more magical or more important about a game in February than there is a game in January or March. It's all part of the same schedule.
I have no idea what's going to happen this February. That's what makes watching the games so much fun. It's possible USC can win the conference title. Maybe the Trojans will go on a roll. It's also possible they might collapse, given that competition for a conference title makes things tougher down the stretch and it's a hump we have to get over. Or it could be a total mixed bag.
If I had to make an educated guess on how things will turn out, I would not rely on magical thinking, but on concrete measures that typically determine a conference champ: Things like depth (which we have a lot of for really the first time under Enfield), point guard play (mixed bag right now), shooting (trending mixed bag but potential is there) and free throws (a mess). If we get good point guard play and shoot like we did in the early part of the schedule, I think we'll be in the mix down to the end. We'll need a bit of luck and for a couple guys to step up.
More important, I think we will easily make the NCAA tournament. That would mean, taking into account that last year we were a legit NCAA team before March Madness was canceled, Enfield teams would have qualified for the NCAA tournament four times in the last six years (and with one of those non-tourney years arguably being a screw job).
Four NCAA tournament appearances in six years is something that has never been done in this program's history. Further, keep in mind that after this year, USC will have just 18 NCAA qualified teams in its history, which means that 22% of this 106-year-old program's NCAA tournament bids have come in the last six years.
A couple years ago, some of you thought things were only going to get worse, that Enfield was going to get fired, that the program was a dumpster fire.
You were wrong. And nothing that happens in February is going to make you right.
Comment