Collinr01 Wrote:

kevster Wrote:

kr983 Wrote:non-the-less...

Is that anything like nonetheless or nevertheless?

Resort to finding typos to avoid an argument? Good one.

Nevertheless, I felt like he should know.

Once again thanks Kevster. Also, lets not question a schools educational value when your school requires a 2.3 GPA to be accepted as a freshmen...

Goldfinger Wrote:First a bit of reference...

Buccaneerlover Wrote:we had Dillion Sneed and Ben Rhoda, whom we've established Ronnell Wooten still wets his pants at the very mention of those two names.

KennesawBasketball Wrote:Wooten looked really intimidated being at ETSU last year when he made Sportcenter's top 10 plays dunking on your entire team

KennesawBasketball Wrote:Rhoda was dirty. I saw him play in two games and both games he made numerous dirty plays...the dunk I am referring to of Wooten was in 2007...Rhoda and Wooten were tangled up in 2006. Therefore the dunk occured the year AFTER he was ejected (wrongfully).

If you are referring to a dunk that occurred in 2007 then what in Satans Unholy Hell does that have to do with Ben Rhoda? Context my boy, context.

I'm going to have to check your Andre Morgan/Dillion Sneed technical foul.

But there is one thing I know for sure, because it happened literally just ten feet in front of me, Rhoda's technical was purely retaliation. Wooten lost his proverbial cool. To further illustrate this, Wooten was thrown out immediately no questions asked, though there was debate amongst the officials on what to do with Rhoda. Rhoda was dismissed from the game because he retaliated.

Your claim that Wooten never laid a hand on Rhoda is purely false at best and an outright lie at the worst. Either way, it's pure Kennesaw propaganda. Next subject.

-------------------------

And now for an edit after reviewing the facts

There were a total of six technical fouls handed out in that game.

The Andre Morgan technical foul was a double tech between Andre and Andrew Reed. 2 tech's

Isreal Ingle and Ben Rhoda each received one at the 11 minute mark. (I didn't personally wittiness that skirmish) That's four technical fouls.

The last two technical fouls came just six seconds later and were handed out to Wooten and Rhoda. Now this is what proves your accusations wrong. Wooten was ejected b/c he started a fight with Rhoda. Wooten only received the one technical. Rhoda retaliated and was awarded a technical foul after great debate amongst the officials. Rhoda was therefor evicted due to receiving his second technical foul. Wooten and Rhoda were both suspended one game for being ejected. But Wooten, unlike Rhoda, only received one technical foul that game and was suspended for fighting.

I was there. I saw it right in front of my eyes. Wooten started it. Wooten both shoved and held back Rhoda. Rhoda shoved back in an effort to get away. Wooten was ejected immediately. A good five to ten minutes then went by as the officials were deciding what to do with Rhoda. So there you have it.

http://www.etsubucs.com/uploads/files/et...m#GAME.PLA
http://www.etsubucs.com/sports/mbball/re...SE_ID=8669
http://ksuowls.cstv.com/sports/m-baskbl/...06aaa.html

You need to go to an eye doctor because your vision is impaired. It is interesting that the Refs would be using the 10 minutes to "Decide" what to do with Rhoda. You must be a mind reader...oh wait, I know the answer...Rhoda had already been given his 2nd technical foul...ooops. Tough to "decide" what to do with a player that is an automatic ejection. What they were deciding on is whether Wooten should be ejected for a fight that he didnt start. They made the wrong decision since Wooten didnt lay a hand on Rhoda after the whistle was blown.

This is my last post on this, so you can have the last word, but our versions of the same story are vastly different, and I doubt there is anyway that we would ever come to a consensus. This pointless argument was spurred by the ridiculous comment that Wooten was somehow afraid of Rhoda. According to your version of the story (which is false) Wooten attacked Rhoda. That doesnt sound like a person who is terrified of Rhoda.

You are very much looking through some serious ETSU tinted sunglasses...I guess that isnt all that much different from just about EVERY ETSU poster on this board.

Where to begin?

I'll start with KennesawBasketball,

You are indeed incorrect as per usual, Wooten was ejected immediately. The gap in time for debate was to determine if Rhoda was to be awarded a technical foul for retaliation. Wooten was thrown out first. Now as it was Rhoda's second technical foul of the game, an automatic ejection, had he of received that second technical immediately there wouldn't have been a debate on what to do with him. Though that's not what happened. Wooten was ejected immediately. There was debate on whether or not to give Rhoda a second technical foul for retaliation. It was given to him which led to his automatic ejection. IT WAS WOOTEN who was played the part of the THUG on that night. I was there.


For the record it was not I who claimed Wooten was afraid of Rhoda...I got involved when the facts became distorted.

And now for Kr,

Before I begin, you must learn to maximize your words with sharpened efficiency so that one doesn't have to go through the tiresome effort to read a junior novel on a bulletin board.

I'm not going to give you the satisfaction of taking you out line by line, mainly because I don't have the energy.

So let's just do the number crunching...

2-6 vs 3-4....that's 8 games played the first year...seven the second.
5-13 vs 12-8...that makes for 18 games played the first year and twenty on the second.
If you were to go back to grade school and put in greater or less than signs...which way do they lean?

As for your non-point about ETSU scoring more points the second year than they did on the first...SO WHAT? A win is a win and a loss is a loss. Some teams, Lipscomb for example, win when fewer points are scored. Its a non-point.

Let us also compare the non conference competition between the two years.
04-05 saw: Fresno State, Alabama, Old Dominion, and Memphis.
05-06 saw: Tennessee and Clemson

And for the final nail in your dark and dismal coffin...when matched up against Southern Conference teams during the 05-06 season...

The mighty A-sun went 2-9

p.s....one of those losses was handed to Kennesaw by Furman.

Believe what you will! I am done with it! Although, I must point out that many ETSU fans dismissed my original argument that suggested that perhaps ETSU's team improvement may have been a factor in the better results.

"The argument that your team has succeeded in the A-Sun due to the fact that the conference is less talented then the Southern Conference is not entirely true." KR983

Notice the key word "entirely." This suggests that a weaker conference is a possibility but may have been accompanied by other variables such as team improvement. However, I guess ETSU fans see the glass as half empty.... maybe this is because of the programs recent decline. Anyways I am done!

The bottom line is this...in 04-05 ETSU was down to about a seven man rotation. In 05-06 ETSU had lots of talent, very good depth, and they still finished with just about the same non-conference record as they did the year prior. Their conference record however was radically different. There's no question we had more depth in that first A-sun season, but that team underachieved in a profound way. If the second team played so much better than the first, how come they only earned one more non-conference win than from the previous season? That's not even taking into account that their foes were much more reputable in the 04-05.

I am on record in saying the A-sun team had more talent, but I do not agree that they played harder. They just had a few more scorers.

We will just have to agree to disagree... However, we will see how ETSU matches up this year as the team plays many Southern Conference teams... It will be interesting.

We'll lose to UT-C simply because ETSU has a TERRIBLE record at the roundhouse. App State will take an L.

AWESOME! Insanely over the top and completely unnecessary. I give it an 8/10. Style is too basic, I'm thinking three color alternating. If you're gonna do it, then do it.

Who, pray tell, is that man we wish we had? Is that the Lewis Wexler guy in the Free Service tire commercials?