He said on his blog that "they didn't do as much in the regular season" as the men did, because the men finished in a tie with Western Kentucky, and the Ladies didn't. For sure a cheap shot.

(03-16-2009 03:04 PM)LRTrojan Wrote:  He said on his blog that "they didn't do as much in the regular season" as the men did, because the men finished in a tie with Western Kentucky, and the Ladies didn't. For sure a cheap shot.

Did you bother to read the entire post? I don't see a cheap shot here anywhere- and by the way, the women's program has a good fan in Jeffrey Slatton. Here's Jeffrey's entire post:

"Here's what's the worst part about the NIT and the WNIT.
The UALR women didn't do as much as the UALR men in the regular season and they get an automatic to the WNIT. But, you might argue that they did more. The women won one more conference game and one more tournament game. This is true. But the women finished one game back of Middle Tennessee in the overall standings. The UALR men tied for first place overall in the standings. If Western Kentucky had blown that lead at Middle Tennessee in the last game of the season (and they nearly did), the UALR men would have gained the automatic bid.
If the WNIT had 32 teams (like the NIT) instead of 48, and only took one team per conference, the UALR women would likely be sitting home again this year. And they would have definitely sat home last year.
But the rules are the rules. UALR had its chance to lock up the NIT by beating South Alabama in the semifinals. I can't blame the NIT for not taking UALR based on its current rules. I just don't like the current rules."

(03-16-2009 03:14 PM)PTJR Wrote:  

(03-16-2009 03:04 PM)LRTrojan Wrote:  He said on his blog that "they didn't do as much in the regular season" as the men did, because the men finished in a tie with Western Kentucky, and the Ladies didn't. For sure a cheap shot.

Did you bother to read the entire post? I don't see a cheap shot here anywhere- and by the way, the women's program has a good fan in Jeffrey Slatton. Here's Jeffrey's entire post:

"Here's what's the worst part about the NIT and the WNIT.
The UALR women didn't do as much as the UALR men in the regular season and they get an automatic to the WNIT. But, you might argue that they did more. The women won one more conference game and one more tournament game. This is true. But the women finished one game back of Middle Tennessee in the overall standings. The UALR men tied for first place overall in the standings. If Western Kentucky had blown that lead at Middle Tennessee in the last game of the season (and they nearly did), the UALR men would have gained the automatic bid.
If the WNIT had 32 teams (like the NIT) instead of 48, and only took one team per conference, the UALR women would likely be sitting home again this year. And they would have definitely sat home last year.
But the rules are the rules. UALR had its chance to lock up the NIT by beating South Alabama in the semifinals. I can't blame the NIT for not taking UALR based on its current rules. I just don't like the current rules."

Yes I read the whole post. He shouldn't have even made the statement. The men didn't have a better year. I'm glad he's a fan of the women(although that job was added to his men's coverage), but to make a statement that wasn't true was a cheap shot in my opinion, and I thought this message board was for anyone to have an opinion.

If he wants to make an accurate statement, he should have said that the women have made the post season the past two years under Foley in his six years, and that the men haven't been in six years years under Shields. Personally, I don't think he should have made any comparison of our teams, just state the facts.

(03-16-2009 03:43 PM)LRTrojan Wrote:  

(03-16-2009 03:14 PM)PTJR Wrote:  

(03-16-2009 03:04 PM)LRTrojan Wrote:  He said on his blog that "they didn't do as much in the regular season" as the men did, because the men finished in a tie with Western Kentucky, and the Ladies didn't. For sure a cheap shot.

Did you bother to read the entire post? I don't see a cheap shot here anywhere- and by the way, the women's program has a good fan in Jeffrey Slatton. Here's Jeffrey's entire post:

"Here's what's the worst part about the NIT and the WNIT.
The UALR women didn't do as much as the UALR men in the regular season and they get an automatic to the WNIT. But, you might argue that they did more. The women won one more conference game and one more tournament game. This is true. But the women finished one game back of Middle Tennessee in the overall standings. The UALR men tied for first place overall in the standings. If Western Kentucky had blown that lead at Middle Tennessee in the last game of the season (and they nearly did), the UALR men would have gained the automatic bid.
If the WNIT had 32 teams (like the NIT) instead of 48, and only took one team per conference, the UALR women would likely be sitting home again this year. And they would have definitely sat home last year.
But the rules are the rules. UALR had its chance to lock up the NIT by beating South Alabama in the semifinals. I can't blame the NIT for not taking UALR based on its current rules. I just don't like the current rules."

Yes I read the whole post. He shouldn't have even made the statement. The men didn't have a better year. I'm glad he's a fan of the women(although that job was added to his men's coverage), but to make a statement that wasn't true was a cheap shot in my opinion, and I thought this message board was for anyone to have an opinion.

If he wants to make an accurate statement, he should have said that the women have made the post season the past two years under Foley in his six years, and that the men haven't been in six years years under Shields. Personally, I don't think he should have made any comparison of our teams, just state the facts.

I can't remember back to last year, but there's no doubt the women would have made the WNIT this year, even if they didn't have the rules for automatic bids, since they finished with an RPI of 70. Men finished with an RPI of 91. I think both teams had great seasons. I've said before that I believe the possibility of making a splash nationally is simply more likely for the women. They will be better next year, and I will honestly be surprised if they don't make the NCAA tournament next season. The men will obviously have a rebuilding year, losing the 4 players who started most of the season.

With regard to Jeff's comments, I don't think he was trying to compare the programs. I think he is obviously frustrated and upset by the men's not making the NIT. Unlike most reporters he truly cares about the athletic teams he is currently covering. Probably as much or more than anyone of us.

(03-16-2009 05:50 PM)mjs Wrote:  

(03-16-2009 03:43 PM)LRTrojan Wrote:  

(03-16-2009 03:14 PM)PTJR Wrote:  

(03-16-2009 03:04 PM)LRTrojan Wrote:  He said on his blog that "they didn't do as much in the regular season" as the men did, because the men finished in a tie with Western Kentucky, and the Ladies didn't. For sure a cheap shot.

Did you bother to read the entire post? I don't see a cheap shot here anywhere- and by the way, the women's program has a good fan in Jeffrey Slatton. Here's Jeffrey's entire post:

"Here's what's the worst part about the NIT and the WNIT.
The UALR women didn't do as much as the UALR men in the regular season and they get an automatic to the WNIT. But, you might argue that they did more. The women won one more conference game and one more tournament game. This is true. But the women finished one game back of Middle Tennessee in the overall standings. The UALR men tied for first place overall in the standings. If Western Kentucky had blown that lead at Middle Tennessee in the last game of the season (and they nearly did), the UALR men would have gained the automatic bid.
If the WNIT had 32 teams (like the NIT) instead of 48, and only took one team per conference, the UALR women would likely be sitting home again this year. And they would have definitely sat home last year.
But the rules are the rules. UALR had its chance to lock up the NIT by beating South Alabama in the semifinals. I can't blame the NIT for not taking UALR based on its current rules. I just don't like the current rules."

Yes I read the whole post. He shouldn't have even made the statement. The men didn't have a better year. I'm glad he's a fan of the women(although that job was added to his men's coverage), but to make a statement that wasn't true was a cheap shot in my opinion, and I thought this message board was for anyone to have an opinion.

If he wants to make an accurate statement, he should have said that the women have made the post season the past two years under Foley in his six years, and that the men haven't been in six years years under Shields. Personally, I don't think he should have made any comparison of our teams, just state the facts.

I can't remember back to last year, but there's no doubt the women would have made the WNIT this year, even if they didn't have the rules for automatic bids, since they finished with an RPI of 70. Men finished with an RPI of 91. I think both teams had great seasons. I've said before that I believe the possibility of making a splash nationally is simply more likely for the women. They will be better next year, and I will honestly be surprised if they don't make the NCAA tournament next season. The men will obviously have a rebuilding year, losing the 4 players who started most of the season.

With regard to Jeff's comments, I don't think he was trying to compare the programs. I think he is obviously frustrated and upset by the men's not making the NIT. Unlike most reporters he truly cares about the athletic teams he is currently covering. Probably as much or more than anyone of us.

Not trying to, he did compare them, and if I'm one of the Lady Trojan's parents, or one of our players, it would piss me off for him to make a statement like that, that obviously had no merit. They win 3 more than the guys did and lose two less, they finish runner-up in the tournament, and qualify for post season, and to say they didn't have as good a year as the men had, ridiculous.

(03-16-2009 03:43 PM)LRTrojan Wrote:  

(03-16-2009 03:14 PM)PTJR Wrote:  

(03-16-2009 03:04 PM)LRTrojan Wrote:  He said on his blog that "they didn't do as much in the regular season" as the men did, because the men finished in a tie with Western Kentucky, and the Ladies didn't. For sure a cheap shot.

Did you bother to read the entire post? I don't see a cheap shot here anywhere- and by the way, the women's program has a good fan in Jeffrey Slatton. Here's Jeffrey's entire post:

"Here's what's the worst part about the NIT and the WNIT.
The UALR women didn't do as much as the UALR men in the regular season and they get an automatic to the WNIT. But, you might argue that they did more. The women won one more conference game and one more tournament game. This is true. But the women finished one game back of Middle Tennessee in the overall standings. The UALR men tied for first place overall in the standings. If Western Kentucky had blown that lead at Middle Tennessee in the last game of the season (and they nearly did), the UALR men would have gained the automatic bid.
If the WNIT had 32 teams (like the NIT) instead of 48, and only took one team per conference, the UALR women would likely be sitting home again this year. And they would have definitely sat home last year.
But the rules are the rules. UALR had its chance to lock up the NIT by beating South Alabama in the semifinals. I can't blame the NIT for not taking UALR based on its current rules. I just don't like the current rules."

Yes I read the whole post. He shouldn't have even made the statement. The men didn't have a better year. I'm glad he's a fan of the women(although that job was added to his men's coverage), but to make a statement that wasn't true was a cheap shot in my opinion, and I thought this message board was for anyone to have an opinion.

If he wants to make an accurate statement, he should have said that the women have made the post season the past two years under Foley in his six years, and that the men haven't been in six years years under Shields. Personally, I don't think he should have made any comparison of our teams, just state the facts.

That was an interesting post coming from our reporter. I wonder how Foley would feel about that comment. As for comparison:
Records are comparable except:
-The ladies beat 2 BCS teams one on the road, one at home that was ranked #19 at the time;
-The only blowout loss the ladies had was against MTSU in the championship game which the ladies were clearly out of gas in the 2nd half;
-The ladies were getting national recognition receiving votes in the national poll;
-Overall, the Sun Belt is stronger in women's basketball than men's;
-Until the ASU loss, the ladies were getting consideration for an at large bid to the NCAA tournament.

And I'm thinking the ladies would have received an at large bid to the NIT because of the body of their work.

Congratulations ladies on a good season.

but to make a statement that wasn't true was a cheap shot in my opinion, and I thought this message board was for anyone to have an opinion.

Slatton stated facts. So did you. Read into them what you want. Here is what I read into your statement, LRTrojan: It is ok for YOU to have an opinion, but not Jeff? Get off Jeff's frickin back.

(03-16-2009 08:06 PM)ez272 Wrote:  but to make a statement that wasn't true was a cheap shot in my opinion, and I thought this message board was for anyone to have an opinion.

Slatton stated facts. So did you. Read into them what you want. Here is what I read into your statement, LRTrojan: It is ok for YOU to have an opinion, but not Jeff? Get off Jeff's frickin back.

It looks like Jeff has responded.

(03-16-2009 08:06 PM)ez272 Wrote:  but to make a statement that wasn't true was a cheap shot in my opinion, and I thought this message board was for anyone to have an opinion.

Slatton stated facts. So did you. Read into them what you want. Here is what I read into your statement, LRTrojan: It is ok for YOU to have an opinion, but not Jeff? Get off Jeff's frickin back.

and

You've got your opinion and I've got mine. Slatton's entitled to a opinion, but it was still a cheap shot. Who the **** are you to tell me who I can criticize and who I can't? If you don't like my opinions, don't read the ******* posts.

And if you don't like Jeff's opinion don't read his blog. Take the plank out of your eye.

(03-16-2009 08:31 PM)ez272 Wrote:  And if you don't like Jeff's opinion don't read his blog. Take the plank out of your eye.

Are you Slatton's keeper? I'll read what the hell I want to, and I'll disagree with his opinion when I want. You've got two choices if you don't like mine, don't read it or disagree with it.

(03-16-2009 08:46 PM)LRTrojan Wrote:  

(03-16-2009 08:31 PM)ez272 Wrote:  And if you don't like Jeff's opinion don't read his blog. Take the plank out of your eye.

Are you Slatton's keeper? I'll read what the hell I want to, and I'll disagree with his opinion when I want. You've got two choices if you don't like mine, don't read it or disagree with it.

I think a great fund raiser would be to lock LR Trojan and Chris Peterson in a padded room with outside viewing and give them some topic they disagree on. I guarantee you I would pay to see it.

(03-16-2009 08:53 PM)PTJR Wrote:  

(03-16-2009 08:46 PM)LRTrojan Wrote:  

(03-16-2009 08:31 PM)ez272 Wrote:  And if you don't like Jeff's opinion don't read his blog. Take the plank out of your eye.

Are you Slatton's keeper? I'll read what the hell I want to, and I'll disagree with his opinion when I want. You've got two choices if you don't like mine, don't read it or disagree with it.

I think a great fund raiser would be to lock LR Trojan and Chris Peterson in a padded room with outside viewing and give them some topic they disagree on. I guarantee you I would pay to see it.

You'll have to explain that one Peter. That didn't sink in. I'll give you a comment, and Chris didn't.

(03-16-2009 08:57 PM)LRTrojan Wrote:  

(03-16-2009 08:53 PM)PTJR Wrote:  

(03-16-2009 08:46 PM)LRTrojan Wrote:  

(03-16-2009 08:31 PM)ez272 Wrote:  And if you don't like Jeff's opinion don't read his blog. Take the plank out of your eye.

Are you Slatton's keeper? I'll read what the hell I want to, and I'll disagree with his opinion when I want. You've got two choices if you don't like mine, don't read it or disagree with it.

I think a great fund raiser would be to lock LR Trojan and Chris Peterson in a padded room with outside viewing and give them some topic they disagree on. I guarantee you I would pay to see it.

You'll have to explain that one Peter. That didn't sink in. I'll give you a comment, and Chris didn't.

Neither one of you guys take someone disagreeing with your point of view very well. I think it would be a "Clash of the Titans" kind of deal. But don't take it too seriously Bob, only a joke.

(03-16-2009 08:57 PM)LRTrojan Wrote:  

(03-16-2009 08:53 PM)PTJR Wrote:  

(03-16-2009 08:46 PM)LRTrojan Wrote:  

(03-16-2009 08:31 PM)ez272 Wrote:  And if you don't like Jeff's opinion don't read his blog. Take the plank out of your eye.

Are you Slatton's keeper? I'll read what the hell I want to, and I'll disagree with his opinion when I want. You've got two choices if you don't like mine, don't read it or disagree with it.

I think a great fund raiser would be to lock LR Trojan and Chris Peterson in a padded room with outside viewing and give them some topic they disagree on. I guarantee you I would pay to see it.

You'll have to explain that one Peter. That didn't sink in. I'll give you a comment, and Chris didn't.

I think he was just saying you are both guys with very strong opinions about things- sort of a backhanded compliment.

And Slatton is a Cards fan.

Burn him.

Go Cubbies

:)

(03-16-2009 09:20 PM)hotpancakes Wrote:  And Slatton is a Cards fan.

Burn him.

Go Cubbies

:)

+1

(03-16-2009 09:22 PM)Scotto Wrote:  

(03-16-2009 09:20 PM)hotpancakes Wrote:  And Slatton is a Cards fan.

Burn him.

Go Cubbies

:)

+1

Screw that. I'll go with the Red Birds everyday!

Redbirds are in Memphis, chuckle nuts.

Go Cubbies.

:)

(03-16-2009 09:28 PM)hotpancakes Wrote:  Redbirds are in Memphis, chuckle nuts.

Go Cubbies.

:)

+2
Dude. Welcome aboard.