RALEIGH (AP) - The end of the season didn't go exactly the way Virginia Tech's Seth Greenberg wanted, but he got quite a consolation prize.
Greenberg was named Atlantic Coast Conference Coach of the Year by The Associated Press on Tuesday after leading the Hokies to a fourth-place finish during the regular season. In a preseason media poll, they were picked 10th in the 11-team league.
"It's obviously is an honor," Greenberg said. "It's a reflection of the team and the staff, and the things were able to accomplish this season. It's nice to be recognized by the people that evaluated your season."
Greenberg received 58 of 121 votes by the Atlantic Coast Sports Media Association, easily beating North Carolina's Roy Williams for the award. Mike Krzyzewski was third, but the ballots had to be returned before Coach K led Duke to its sixth ACC tournament title in seven years.
In their first season in the conference, the Hokies swept the major coaching awards - football coach Frank Beamer also won after leading Virginia Tech to the title.
The basketball team secured an opening-round bye in the tournament by finishing 8-8 during the regular season, a mark that included a victory over Duke. But a quarterfinal loss to Georgia Tech ended the Hokies' first appearance and left Greenberg disappointed with his team's play.
"I just didn't think we had the energy and the focus we needed," he said.
Snubbed by the NCAA selection committee, Greenberg and Virginia Tech got a bid to the NIT, and they hosted Temple later Tuesday in the first round. Getting another home game also was a bit of a coup for the Hokies, who surprisingly sold out every ACC game.
The attendance and persistent effort of his players were two highlights of the season for Greenberg.
"This team was resilient," he said. "If we didn't do anything, we got them to understand how hard they needed to play."
With a successful season behind him, Greenberg understands that expectations likely will be much higher next year.
"I look at it like it's a sign of progress," he said. "If you're not going forward, you're going backward. If we've raised the bar a little bit, it's part of the process in rebuilding."
CoolHandDuke tbdm wrote:> Va. Tech's Greenberg named ACC Coach of the Year>
What a joke. Va. Tech goes from 15-14, 7-9 to 16-14, 8-8 (against a soft unbalanced conference schedule and a laughable non-conference sked), and this is somehow supposed to be the coaching job of the year?
Ramar Wright wrote:> CoolHandDuke tbdm wrote:> > Va. Tech's Greenberg named ACC Coach of the Year> >
What a joke. Va. Tech goes from 15-14, 7-9 to 16-14, 8-8 (against a> soft unbalanced conference schedule and a laughable non-conference> sked), and this is somehow supposed to be the coaching job of the
year?> Actually, that's 15-13 this year. Unbelievable. The ACC Coach of the Year should not be one buzzer-beater away from missing the NIT.
Geoffrey F. Green 16 March 2005 03:19:15 [ permanent link ]
In article <1110927915.853110.216480@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Ramar Wright" <ramarwright@hotmail.com> wrote:
Actually, that's 15-13 this year. Unbelievable. The ACC Coach of the> Year should not be one buzzer-beater away from missing the NIT.
In the writer's defense, it's a really hard year to pick a winner. Nothing really exceptional occurred. Look at the second place finisher -- Roy returned all his starters and a couple of bench players and added a hyped freshman and improved several games in the ACC, winning the conference while playing the weakest schedule. That's nice, but in most years wouldn't seem to be COY material. Wake did about what was expected; Duke did better than expected given their injuries, etc., but still, 11-5 doesn't knock your socks off.
So, hell, why not Greenberg indeed? He's not that much worse than any other option.
Va. Tech's Greenberg named ACC Coach of the Year>>
What a joke. Va. Tech goes from 15-14, 7-9 to 16-14, 8-8 (against a> soft unbalanced conference schedule and a laughable non-conference> sked), and this is somehow supposed to be the coaching job of the year?>
Hey he went from 7-9 in a weak confrence to 8-8 in the premier conference!
Harry Everhart 16 March 2005 03:38:35 [ permanent link ]
"Geoffrey F. Green" <geoff-usenet2@stuebegreen.com> wrote:> So, hell, why not Greenberg indeed? He's not that much worse than any > other option. Agreed. Welcome VT to the league. You did way better than anybody thought. Pat Kennedy brought FSU into the ACC with a second place - and after that it was downhill. I hope you have a better fate. You did a good job.
George W . Harris 16 March 2005 05:19:05 [ permanent link ]
"Geoffrey F. Green" <geoff-usenet2@stuebegreen.com> wrote:
:In article <1110927915.853110.216480@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, : "Ramar Wright" <ramarwright@hotmail.com> wrote: : :> Actually, that's 15-13 this year. Unbelievable. The ACC Coach of the :> Year should not be one buzzer-beater away from missing the NIT. : :In the writer's defense, it's a really hard year to pick a winner. :Nothing really exceptional occurred. Look at the second place :finisher -- Roy returned all his starters and a couple of bench layers and added a hyped freshman and improved several games in the :ACC, winning the conference while playing the weakest schedule. :That's nice, but in most years wouldn't seem to be COY material. Wake :did about what was expected; Duke did better than expected given their :injuries, etc., but still, 11-5 doesn't knock your socks off. : :So, hell, why not Greenberg indeed? He's not that much worse than any :other option.
Did everybody suddenly forget Frank Haith? Sure, Miami finsihed below Va Tech, but they started much further down. They went from 14-16, 4-12 in the Big East to 16-12, 7-9 in the ACC, and they had a tougher schedule than Va Tech both in conference and out Not bad for your first year as a head coach. : : - geoff
-- e^(i*pi)+1=0
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
Geoffrey F. Green 16 March 2005 05:24:21 [ permanent link ]
In article <u12f31pq0lnar68aocjbk7tv8u1bcriafe@4ax.com>, George W. Harris <gharrus@mundsprung.com> wrote:
Did everybody suddenly forget Frank Haith? > Sure, Miami finsihed below Va Tech, but they started > much further down. They went from 14-16, 4-12 in the > Big East to 16-12, 7-9 in the ACC, and they had a > tougher schedule than Va Tech both in conference > and out Not bad for your first year as a head coach.
Yea, but consider that the 4-12 record was achieved in the highly superior Big East. A record of 4-12 in the Big East is probably equivalent to 13-3 in the ACC. By that token, Miami had a terrible season, and Haith should probably be fired (if he hasn't been already).
On Tue, 15 Mar, Geoffrey F. Green wrote:> In the writer's defense, it's a really hard year to pick a winner. > Nothing really exceptional occurred. Look at the second place > finisher -- Roy returned all his starters and a couple of bench > players and added a hyped freshman and improved several games in the > ACC, winning the conference while playing the weakest schedule.
Weakest? Was it? I know it was probably "weak" by Duke standards, but it wasn't the weakest, I don't think. Weakest of the top three finishers, sure.
That's nice, but in most years wouldn't seem to be COY material. Wake > did about what was expected; Duke did better than expected given their > injuries, etc., but still, 11-5 doesn't knock your socks off.>
So, hell, why not Greenberg indeed? He's not that much worse than any > other option.
I would have probably voted for K this year with Roy a close second, being perfectly honest. Greenberg a close third. Everyone else way down, but far above Gillen.
Donnie Barnes wrote:> On Tue, 15 Mar, Geoffrey F. Green wrote:>
In the writer's defense, it's a really hard year to pick a winner. >>Nothing really exceptional occurred. Look at the second place >>finisher -- Roy returned all his starters and a couple of bench >>players and added a hyped freshman and improved several games in the >>ACC, winning the conference while playing the weakest schedule. >
Weakest? Was it? I know it was probably "weak" by Duke standards, but it> wasn't the weakest, I don't think. Weakest of the top three finishers,> sure.
According to George: Relative Schedules
Duke24-4413-23@Clemson, FSU, NCState, @UVa NC State28-3918-19Clemson, @Duke, @FSU, Miami Maryland32-3418-18@FSU, @Ga Tech, Miami, Wake Georgia Tech32-3418-17Maryland, UNC, @UVa, @Va Tech Virginia34-3515-19@Clemson, Duke, Ga Tech, @Miami Miami35-3317-19@Maryland, @NC State, UNC, UVa Florida St36-3222-15@Duke, Maryland, NCState, @Va Tech Clemson37-3218-17Duke, @NC State, UVa, @Wake Wake Forest36-3018-17Clemson, @Maryland, @UNC, Va Tech UNC37-2918-18@Ga Tech, @Miami, Va Tech, Wake Va Tech39-2821-14FSU, Ga Tech, @UNC, @Wake
So not THE weakest, but down there. I'm actually surprised, I didn't remember it being so weak earlier.
:On Tue, 15 Mar, Geoffrey F. Green wrote: :> In the writer's defense, it's a really hard year to pick a winner. :> Nothing really exceptional occurred. Look at the second place :> finisher -- Roy returned all his starters and a couple of bench :> players and added a hyped freshman and improved several games in the :> ACC, winning the conference while playing the weakest schedule. : :Weakest? Was it? I know it was probably "weak" by Duke standards, but it :wasn't the weakest, I don't think. Weakest of the top three finishers, :sure.
It was just *barely* more difficult than Virginia Tech's schedule, but it was 10th out of 11 schedules in difficulty.
-- Want to help fund terrorism? Drive an SUV.
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
