(05-31-2014 10:20 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 08:15 PM)HoopDreams Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 07:39 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 07:15 PM)OneShiningMoment Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 07:13 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  How many games in the Canada exhibition tour?

4

My understanding is Pastner is looking to play quality opponents. It will help prepare our inexperienced squad for the rigors of the regular season.

Great...the "inexperienced" talk has already started.

Great...the negative sniping for no reason has already started.

We are returning 2 starters + the #8 rotation player (King, who got 10 minutes) from last season, plus 3 sparingly used bench players (Dom, KI, Wilson), who each had 7-9 MPG.

Then we have 6 scholarship players who have never seen one second of D-1 playing time, including ALL of our SGs and PGs, and 2 of those will likely start.

Yeah, shame on somebody for saying we'll be inexperienced.

Facts suck.

Pastner couldve avoided the inexperience talk but chose not to.

It won't play next season.

No slippage.

(06-01-2014 11:45 AM)HoopDreams Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 10:20 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 08:15 PM)HoopDreams Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 07:39 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 07:15 PM)OneShiningMoment Wrote:  4

My understanding is Pastner is looking to play quality opponents. It will help prepare our inexperienced squad for the rigors of the regular season.

Great...the "inexperienced" talk has already started.

Great...the negative sniping for no reason has already started.

We are returning 2 starters + the #8 rotation player (King, who got 10 minutes) from last season, plus 3 sparingly used bench players (Dom, KI, Wilson), who each had 7-9 MPG.

Then we have 6 scholarship players who have never seen one second of D-1 playing time, including ALL of our SGs and PGs, and 2 of those will likely start.

Yeah, shame on somebody for saying we'll be inexperienced.

Facts suck.

Pastner couldve avoided the inexperience talk but chose not to.

It won't play next season.

No slippage.

You may support the team in word or deed or not - it is your choice. You may troll to agitate Tiger fans. Again, it is your choice. However, regardless of the reasons conjued in your mind, the inescapable reality is our team is inexperienced which was the point of my post.

(06-01-2014 11:45 AM)HoopDreams Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 10:20 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 08:15 PM)HoopDreams Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 07:39 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 07:15 PM)OneShiningMoment Wrote:  4

My understanding is Pastner is looking to play quality opponents. It will help prepare our inexperienced squad for the rigors of the regular season.

Great...the "inexperienced" talk has already started.

Great...the negative sniping for no reason has already started.

We are returning 2 starters + the #8 rotation player (King, who got 10 minutes) from last season, plus 3 sparingly used bench players (Dom, KI, Wilson), who each had 7-9 MPG.

Then we have 6 scholarship players who have never seen one second of D-1 playing time, including ALL of our SGs and PGs, and 2 of those will likely start.

Yeah, shame on somebody for saying we'll be inexperienced.

Facts suck.

Pastner couldve avoided the inexperience talk but chose not to.

It won't play next season.

No slippage.

What does what coach said has anything to do with it? I though you guys don't pay attention to what the coach say anyway . The fact remains that we are going to have mostly sophomores and freshmen starting for the team with the bench made of guys who never played Div 1 ball or barely saw minutes last year

No slippage

The eight teams mentioned does not include SMU - the team picked to win the AAC. It will be a challenging schedule.

(06-01-2014 01:01 PM)HoopDreams Wrote:  No slippage

so, what is your hope and dream, HoopDreams?

(06-01-2014 01:28 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  The eight teams mentioned does not include SMU - the team picked to win the AAC. It will be a challenging schedule.

We had that schedule last year plus UL twice & it still cost us in tourney seeding. We had a middle of the pack SOS. With UL gone, the AAC will likely get less respect, notwithstanding the reigning nat'l champ because the AAC is not a P5 conference - and the P5 conferences want to make sure they are automatically conidred the better programs. We need to be playing P5 schools OOC rather than the like of AP, Nichols St, NW St, UALR, SEMO, Jackson St & LO. The SF Austin's & the like don't make the grade as a non-P5 school to help our SOS in most years. We can rationalize all we want as to why we don't play a tougher OOC home schedule but then we won't get the tourney seed we deserve...and there will be no end to the complaining about it, while we rationalize our home OOC schedule that could be & should be much tougher.

So tiger fans are being rewarded with 1 marquee non conference home game? It doesn't really matter to me anymore that I live in Texas. Even if I was in Memphis I wouldn't pay to watch the tigers beat up on the lemon Owen & cbu's of the world. As one of the best fan bases out there, tiger fans in Memphis deserve better.

(06-01-2014 03:22 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(06-01-2014 01:28 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  The eight teams mentioned does not include SMU - the team picked to win the AAC. It will be a challenging schedule.

We had that schedule last year plus UL twice & it still cost us in tourney seeding. We had a middle of the pack SOS. With UL gone, the AAC will likely get less respect, notwithstanding the reigning nat'l champ because the AAC is not a P5 conference - and the P5 conferences want to make sure they are automatically conidred the better programs. We need to be playing P5 schools OOC rather than the like of AP, Nichols St, NW St, UALR, SEMO, Jackson St & LO. The SF Austin's & the like don't make the grade as a non-P5 school to help our SOS in most years. We can rationalize all we want as to why we don't play a tougher OOC home schedule but then we won't get the tourney seed we deserve...and there will be no end to the complaining about it, while we rationalize our home OOC schedule that could be & should be much tougher.

I'd like playing a top tier OOC P5 school home and home, but realistically it is it probably will not occur due to the reasons enumerated previously in this thread. The key to a strong OOC RPI rating is playing buy games with teams we can beat who turn out to win their league.

(06-01-2014 01:37 PM)tigeriron Wrote:  

(06-01-2014 01:01 PM)HoopDreams Wrote:  No slippage

so, what is your hope and dream, HoopDreams?

I have zero expectation of an "off" year. Other than that I don't harbor FF dreams.

My one wish is they play much better defensively.

(06-01-2014 03:22 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(06-01-2014 01:28 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  The eight teams mentioned does not include SMU - the team picked to win the AAC. It will be a challenging schedule.

We had that schedule last year plus UL twice & it still cost us in tourney seeding. We had a middle of the pack SOS. With UL gone, the AAC will likely get less respect, notwithstanding the reigning nat'l champ because the AAC is not a P5 conference - and the P5 conferences want to make sure they are automatically conidred the better programs. We need to be playing P5 schools OOC rather than the like of AP, Nichols St, NW St, UALR, SEMO, Jackson St & LO. The SF Austin's & the like don't make the grade as a non-P5 school to help our SOS in most years. We can rationalize all we want as to why we don't play a tougher OOC home schedule but then we won't get the tourney seed we deserve...and there will be no end to the complaining about it, while we rationalize our home OOC schedule that could be & should be much tougher.

Look, most marquee OOC games now and days are directed by the prerogatives of the national networks. The days of a coach or AD of a very good program calling up a top tier team coach or AD about getting a game schedule is fading away and only is considered, even rivalries, if the networks want it. Period.

(06-01-2014 04:17 PM)HoopDreams Wrote:  

(06-01-2014 01:37 PM)tigeriron Wrote:  

(06-01-2014 01:01 PM)HoopDreams Wrote:  No slippage

so, what is your hope and dream, HoopDreams?

I have zero expectation of an "off" year. Other than that I don't harbor FF dreams.

My one wish is they play much better defensively.

you forgot to add

(06-01-2014 01:01 PM)HoopDreams Wrote:  No slippage

(06-01-2014 11:17 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(06-01-2014 10:10 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-01-2014 09:35 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(06-01-2014 08:35 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(06-01-2014 07:43 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  While JP mentioned that "you have to go play good teams", I'm afraid it will be more of the same at home. When the complete schedule comes out, I'll be surprised to find any schedule strength other than OK St on the home OOC schedule. Yea I know SF Austin has been announced but most of the BB world doesn't acknowledge SF Austin as a strong program (& they likely won't be this year). But rather than focus on SF Austin, who else will JP schedule OOC at home? It needs to be better than the 7-8 cupcakes we played last season. Let's get another B12 team in here or ACC or B1G rather than the like of Austin Peay, Nichols St, NW St, UALR, SEMO, Jackson St & LO. If we want to get our "inexperienced squad" some experience, no better than place than in front of the home fans to play strong OOC opposition.

For entertainment value, replacing a "cupcake" game with certain teams from the conferences you mentioned (e.g., Wake Forest) is scarcely an improvement, IMO. I'd like to see a home and home with Duke or UNC or similar team. I surmise that we have reached out to those types of teams (I have no evidence), but have been rejected. Also, building confidence is important for an inexperienced team. Finally, it is not unusual for successful programs (e.g., Syracuse) to possess a weak home OOC schedule.

Regardless of the home schedule, I will be in my season tickets seats as much as possible and cheer for our team.

Most top teams for the most part don't play home and home with very good OOC teams. They typically play good OOC games with these preseason tournaments, conference vs conference matchups or something set up by ESPN and other networks

Duke only good OOC game at home was Michigan in the B10 vs ACC challenge. Now Kentucky did go to UNC this past season but I think that was setup by ESPN.

Correct. It's also difficult to get more top teams OOC at home, b/c we have to play a minimum of 17 games (I think) at FEF. Right now we play 9 road games conference, 2-3 games in an early tourney, and 1-2 games against good teams at a neutral site. That's up to 14 games on the road, leaving only the minimum 17 at home.

We play 9 home conference games, and usually 1 associated with an early tourney. We can't line up any more decent home and homes, b/c in the road years, we would fall short of the minimum 17 games at home. Therefore, the remainder all have to be buy games.

Given that situation, I don't understand why peeps are complaining about the OOC home schedule. We will play Okie State, plus home conference games of UConn, SMU, Cincy, Temple, Houston and Tulsa, among others. Not a bad home schedule, and overall, it is very tough, with the road and neutral games.

It's always something, I guess.

Is the minimum number of home games a requirement of the FedEx Forum deal with the Griz?

I don't believe so. The home games play a big part in the amount of revenue generated by the BB program. I don't know about the most recent years at the FEF or how Much TV revenue is generated but in the Pyramid and MSC years, 17 or 18 home games was necessary in order to pay the bills in the athletic department. I expect it is still that way.

(06-01-2014 12:42 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(06-01-2014 11:45 AM)HoopDreams Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 10:20 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 08:15 PM)HoopDreams Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 07:39 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  My understanding is Pastner is looking to play quality opponents. It will help prepare our inexperienced squad for the rigors of the regular season.

Great...the "inexperienced" talk has already started.

Great...the negative sniping for no reason has already started.

We are returning 2 starters + the #8 rotation player (King, who got 10 minutes) from last season, plus 3 sparingly used bench players (Dom, KI, Wilson), who each had 7-9 MPG.

Then we have 6 scholarship players who have never seen one second of D-1 playing time, including ALL of our SGs and PGs, and 2 of those will likely start.

Yeah, shame on somebody for saying we'll be inexperienced.

Facts suck.

Pastner couldve avoided the inexperience talk but chose not to.

It won't play next season.

No slippage.

What does what coach said has anything to do with it? I though you guys don't pay attention to what the coach say anyway . The fact remains that we are going to have mostly sophomores and freshmen starting for the team with the bench made of guys who never played Div 1 ball or barely saw minutes last year

His posts have really slipped lately.

(06-01-2014 06:39 PM)JhanJo Wrote:  

(06-01-2014 11:17 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(06-01-2014 10:10 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-01-2014 09:35 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(06-01-2014 08:35 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  For entertainment value, replacing a "cupcake" game with certain teams from the conferences you mentioned (e.g., Wake Forest) is scarcely an improvement, IMO. I'd like to see a home and home with Duke or UNC or similar team. I surmise that we have reached out to those types of teams (I have no evidence), but have been rejected. Also, building confidence is important for an inexperienced team. Finally, it is not unusual for successful programs (e.g., Syracuse) to possess a weak home OOC schedule.

Regardless of the home schedule, I will be in my season tickets seats as much as possible and cheer for our team.

Most top teams for the most part don't play home and home with very good OOC teams. They typically play good OOC games with these preseason tournaments, conference vs conference matchups or something set up by ESPN and other networks

Duke only good OOC game at home was Michigan in the B10 vs ACC challenge. Now Kentucky did go to UNC this past season but I think that was setup by ESPN.

Correct. It's also difficult to get more top teams OOC at home, b/c we have to play a minimum of 17 games (I think) at FEF. Right now we play 9 road games conference, 2-3 games in an early tourney, and 1-2 games against good teams at a neutral site. That's up to 14 games on the road, leaving only the minimum 17 at home.

We play 9 home conference games, and usually 1 associated with an early tourney. We can't line up any more decent home and homes, b/c in the road years, we would fall short of the minimum 17 games at home. Therefore, the remainder all have to be buy games.

Given that situation, I don't understand why peeps are complaining about the OOC home schedule. We will play Okie State, plus home conference games of UConn, SMU, Cincy, Temple, Houston and Tulsa, among others. Not a bad home schedule, and overall, it is very tough, with the road and neutral games.

It's always something, I guess.

Is the minimum number of home games a requirement of the FedEx Forum deal with the Griz?

I don't believe so. The home games play a big part in the amount of revenue generated by the BB program. I don't know about the most recent years at the FEF or how Much TV revenue is generated but in the Pyramid and MSC years, 17 or 18 home games was necessary in order to pay the bills in the athletic department. I expect it is still that way.

I don't know for sure, but several people have posted it's in the contract. I think I saw a link to it once, also, but not 100%.

(06-01-2014 11:45 AM)HoopDreams Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 10:20 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 08:15 PM)HoopDreams Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 07:39 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 07:15 PM)OneShiningMoment Wrote:  4

My understanding is Pastner is looking to play quality opponents. It will help prepare our inexperienced squad for the rigors of the regular season.

Great...the "inexperienced" talk has already started.

Great...the negative sniping for no reason has already started.

We are returning 2 starters + the #8 rotation player (King, who got 10 minutes) from last season, plus 3 sparingly used bench players (Dom, KI, Wilson), who each had 7-9 MPG.

Then we have 6 scholarship players who have never seen one second of D-1 playing time, including ALL of our SGs and PGs, and 2 of those will likely start.

Yeah, shame on somebody for saying we'll be inexperienced.

Facts suck.

Pastner couldve avoided the inexperience talk but chose not to.

It won't play next season.

No slippage.

It doesn't matter what silly standard or fault-finding you make up in your own mind. Fact is, the team is inexperienced.

Even if the bottom 3 returnees had played more minutes, we still have 6 guys coming in (half the roster), two of whom will likely start, and none of them have played a second of D-1 ball.

No way to avoid it with 5 rotation seniors, Archimedes.

Oh, and if Pastner had played KI, Dom and Wilson more meaningful minutes, and we lost more games, you would be on the front row bashing Pastner for that, too, as usual.

Oh, and to be clear, I'm not necessarily saying the inexperience will cause us to lose more games.

I'm just pointing out that the team actually is inexperienced, whether you like it, or not. It's a fact.

(06-01-2014 06:57 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-01-2014 11:45 AM)HoopDreams Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 10:20 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 08:15 PM)HoopDreams Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 07:39 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  My understanding is Pastner is looking to play quality opponents. It will help prepare our inexperienced squad for the rigors of the regular season.

Great...the "inexperienced" talk has already started.

Great...the negative sniping for no reason has already started.

We are returning 2 starters + the #8 rotation player (King, who got 10 minutes) from last season, plus 3 sparingly used bench players (Dom, KI, Wilson), who each had 7-9 MPG.

Then we have 6 scholarship players who have never seen one second of D-1 playing time, including ALL of our SGs and PGs, and 2 of those will likely start.

Yeah, shame on somebody for saying we'll be inexperienced.

Facts suck.

Pastner couldve avoided the inexperience talk but chose not to.

It won't play next season.

No slippage.

It doesn't matter what silly standard or fault-finding you make up in your own mind. Fact is, the team is inexperienced.

Even if the bottom 3 returnees had played more minutes, we still have 6 guys coming in (half the roster), two of whom will likely start, and none of them have played a second of D-1 ball.

No way to avoid it with 5 rotation seniors, Archimedes.

Oh, and if Pastner had played KI, Dom and Wilson more meaningful minutes, and we lost more games, you would be on the front row bashing Pastner for that, too, as usual.

Oh, and to be clear, I'm not necessarily saying the inexperience will cause us to lose more games.

I'm just pointing out that the team actually is inexperienced, whether you like it, or not. It's a fact.

Inexperienced based on Pastner's choices. It's not just about playing time for those three guys either. He didn't have to redshirt Markel. He could've had a transfer sit out last year. He still can take grad transfers so THIS year.

It is what it is.

Some fans just don't want to hear it used as an excuse.

So tell me, if he hadn't redshirted Markel, whose minutes would he have gotten? Joe's? Geron's? Chris'? Mike's?

So, Markel should've gotten minutes at the expense of one of our senior guards?

Which transfer should have sat out last year?

(06-01-2014 08:09 PM)Merrick Wrote:  So tell me, if he hadn't redshirted Markel, whose minutes would he have gotten? Joe's? Geron's? Chris'? Mike's?

So, Markel should've gotten minutes at the expense of one of our senior guards?

Which transfer should have sat out last year?

Those are Pastner's calls to make. He made them, he lives with them. Simple.

As long as he doesn't use "inexperienced" as an excuse then it doesn't matter anyway.

I'm only saying no one wants to hear it.

It may be true...too bad. Win big or go home.

#noexcuses

(06-01-2014 04:23 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(06-01-2014 03:22 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(06-01-2014 01:28 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  The eight teams mentioned does not include SMU - the team picked to win the AAC. It will be a challenging schedule.

We had that schedule last year plus UL twice & it still cost us in tourney seeding. We had a middle of the pack SOS. With UL gone, the AAC will likely get less respect, notwithstanding the reigning nat'l champ because the AAC is not a P5 conference - and the P5 conferences want to make sure they are automatically conidred the better programs. We need to be playing P5 schools OOC rather than the like of AP, Nichols St, NW St, UALR, SEMO, Jackson St & LO. The SF Austin's & the like don't make the grade as a non-P5 school to help our SOS in most years. We can rationalize all we want as to why we don't play a tougher OOC home schedule but then we won't get the tourney seed we deserve...and there will be no end to the complaining about it, while we rationalize our home OOC schedule that could be & should be much tougher.

Look, most marquee OOC games now and days are directed by the prerogatives of the national networks. The days of a coach or AD of a very good program calling up a top tier team coach or AD about getting a game schedule is fading away and only is considered, even rivalries, if the networks want it. Period.

Marquee teams get TV offers all the time which sometimes don't materialize. Other marquee match-ups are agreed by the schools involved & then sold to TV. But the most consistent element among marquee teams is that they play conference games in a P5 conference - we don't so we need to be playing the P5 schools to continually prove our worth otherwise we will get the seeding shaft every year.