(12-05-2014 11:14 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:08 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  So, it is clearly obvious that if we want to have deep tourney runs, the program needs a confluence of two things:

10+ top 100 recruits

and

a coach with at least 10+ years experience. Preferably 20.

Josh, at 6 years, (as Stammers points out) statistically CAN'T get the job done. Do we, as a fan base, wait another 8-14 years for the "experience" part of this to kick in, or look elsewhere?

Good info.

Quote:Josh, at 6 years, (as Stammers points out) statistically CAN'T get the job done. Do we, as a fan base, wait another 1-2 years for the "experience" part of this to kick in, or look elsewhere?

FIFY

Canadian exchange rate on experience, doe? 5.2 years + 1-2 more years is >10 years experience?

(12-05-2014 11:14 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:03 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:01 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:58 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:54 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  According to ESPN they had 12 (14 if you count the Wear twins)

So one more win tells the story...Gotcha.

Don't get me wrong I agree with the sentiment, but don't fall for garbage reporting.

Good lord he mentioned 13 other teams. Let me see if you can understand this


HOWLAND GOT FIRED!!!!


Smh

Yes...But if you cherry pick stats it makes them essentially meaningless...

I will include this team because it fits my story but exclude that one because it does not...Very dishonest reporting from the CA.

That fact remains that all those schools listed except Memphis made an elite 8


Drops mic

Ok lets cherry pick

23 Kentucky
16 Duke
15 Ohio St., Arizone
14 North Carolina
13 Kansas
12 Syracuse , Louisville, MEMPHIS

Of the teams listed above all have made the tourney the previous 4 years except 1.

Thats right folks Kentucky...Anyone can cherry pick stats to tell a story.

How many of those teams played in CUSA for 3 of the previous 4 years? We can play this game all day there buddy.

(12-05-2014 09:40 AM)BinghamptonNed Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 09:39 AM)thewood3 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 09:35 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  Telling

I can't afford CA Premium. Will you recap?

If you cannot afford $5 per month, you need to take another job....

As some others have said. It has nothing to do with being able to afford something or not. It has everything to do with the fact that disiminating content should be free. If you can't make enough money by advertising or from marketing directly to your user base then you have no business being in business. I've been around long enough to know there's probably a lot of bloat and unnecessary spending or the execs are taking too much of the profits.

(12-05-2014 10:52 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  Why exclude them...Because if you include a team with more top 100 recruits your story is not as clean. You cant say all but 1...And I am sure there other examples...The story is not the full story plain and simple...Anyone can cherry pick facts to tell a story...You have two news stations that tell completely different stories based on facts because they cherry pick.

Well go find them. Until then, it's merely supposition on your part which is worth nada (no offense). Throwing UCLA on this list doesn't make it look any better because they A) have been to a Sweet 16 in the last 2 years and B) got rid of the coach that was underperforming with such great talent.

(12-05-2014 11:14 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  Of the teams listed above all have made the tourney the previous 4 years except 1.

Thats right folks Kentucky, That Damn UK coach must suck with all that talent fire his ass...Anyone can cherry pick stats to tell a story.

Again I am not defending Pastners performance I am very critical of the piss poor agenda driven article in a "NEWS"paper. Pastner has underachieved without a doubt.

Will you take a missed tourney after E8, FF and National Title? I will.

That's what "rebuilding" is about. In order to REbuild, something first must be BUILT. One can't argue that going E8, FF and NC is building.

Williams at UNC and Donovan at UF both went to the NIT the year after their NC. tOSU went to the NIT after going to the title game (losing Cook, Conley and Oden).

I'm ok with rebuilding after that.

It rings hollow when you are claiming a rebuild after consecutive round of 32's.

(12-05-2014 11:17 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:14 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:03 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:01 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:58 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  Good lord he mentioned 13 other teams. Let me see if you can understand this


HOWLAND GOT FIRED!!!!


Smh

Yes...But if you cherry pick stats it makes them essentially meaningless...

I will include this team because it fits my story but exclude that one because it does not...Very dishonest reporting from the CA.

That fact remains that all those schools listed except Memphis made an elite 8


Drops mic

Ok lets cherry pick

23 Kentucky
16 Duke
15 Ohio St., Arizone
14 North Carolina
13 Kansas
12 Syracuse , Louisville, MEMPHIS

Of the teams listed above all have made the tourney the previous 4 years except 1.

Thats right folks Kentucky...Anyone can cherry pick stats to tell a story.

How many of those teams played in CUSA for 3 of the previous 4 years? We can play this game all day there buddy.

Wait are you trying to tell the full story...I thought we were only cherry picking Stats...The stats I posted are TRUE remember. The facts remain that evey school on that list made it except UK Maybe you should pic that mic back up.

Again Pastner has under performed that is not my point. My point is the newspaper should not be reporting BS like this.

Speechless

(12-05-2014 11:21 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:52 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  Why exclude them...Because if you include a team with more top 100 recruits your story is not as clean. You cant say all but 1...And I am sure there other examples...The story is not the full story plain and simple...Anyone can cherry pick facts to tell a story...You have two news stations that tell completely different stories based on facts because they cherry pick.

Well go find them. Until then, it's merely supposition on your part which is worth nada (no offense). Throwing UCLA on this list doesn't make it look any better because they A) have been to a Sweet 16 in teh last 2 years and B) got rid of the coach that was underperforming with such great talent.

...who had very recently taken them to back to back Final Fours and NC game.

(12-05-2014 11:21 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:14 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  Of the teams listed above all have made the tourney the previous 4 years except 1.

Thats right folks Kentucky, That Damn UK coach must suck with all that talent fire his ass...Anyone can cherry pick stats to tell a story.

Again I am not defending Pastners performance I am very critical of the piss poor agenda driven article in a "NEWS"paper. Pastner has underachieved without a doubt.

Will you take a missed tourney after E8, FF and National Title? I will.

That's what "rebuilding" is about. In order to REbuild, something first must be BUILT. One can't argue that going E8, FF and NC is building.

Williams at UNC and Donovan at UF both went to the NIT the year after their NC. tOSU went to the NIT after going to the title game (losing Cook, Conley and Oden).

I'm ok with rebuilding after that.

It rings hollow when you are claiming a rebuild after consecutive round of 32's.

I agree with you my point is the article is BS based on the facts that he presented.

That crap should not be published by a newspaper. Yes Pastner has underperformed but tell the entire story, don't report biased cherry picked stats.

(12-05-2014 11:23 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:17 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:14 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:03 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:01 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  Yes...But if you cherry pick stats it makes them essentially meaningless...

I will include this team because it fits my story but exclude that one because it does not...Very dishonest reporting from the CA.

That fact remains that all those schools listed except Memphis made an elite 8


Drops mic

Ok lets cherry pick

23 Kentucky
16 Duke
15 Ohio St., Arizone
14 North Carolina
13 Kansas
12 Syracuse , Louisville, MEMPHIS

Of the teams listed above all have made the tourney the previous 4 years except 1.

Thats right folks Kentucky...Anyone can cherry pick stats to tell a story.

How many of those teams played in CUSA for 3 of the previous 4 years? We can play this game all day there buddy.

Wait are you trying to tell the full story...I thought we were only cherry picking Stats...The stats I posted are TRUE remember. The facts remain that evey school on that list made it except UK Maybe you should pic that mic back up.

Again Pastner has under performed that is not my point. My point is the newspaper should not be reporting BS like this.

I get it. Making the tournament is all that matters to you. Some of us think this program can do better than getting curbstomped in the round of 32

h

(12-05-2014 11:21 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:52 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  Why exclude them...Because if you include a team with more top 100 recruits your story is not as clean. You cant say all but 1...And I am sure there other examples...The story is not the full story plain and simple...Anyone can cherry pick facts to tell a story...You have two news stations that tell completely different stories based on facts because they cherry pick.

Well go find them. Until then, it's merely supposition on your part which is worth nada (no offense). Throwing UCLA on this list doesn't make it look any better because they A) have been to a Sweet 16 in the last 2 years and B) got rid of the coach that was underperforming with such great talent.

See you are including additional information in your post...Either tell the entire story or at least explain how you chose your list to present in your article. Otherwise your article is just BS. You cant just randomly pick stats without any explanation and expect acceptance.

As I did above I showed stats stating that UK under performed based on incomplete information.

(12-05-2014 10:48 AM)cotton1991 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:31 AM)Malachi Wrote:  Is anyone refuting the fact Pastner has vastly underachieved with the level of players he's brought in?

Pastner's teams were ranked in the preseason top 20 four times. Only once did we end the year ranked in the top 25.

That's another indictment on his abilities as a coach, but I'm sure it's become clear to practically everyone he's not the man for the job.

A better data set would be check if there was any team anywhere during those five years who also failed to make it beyond the round of 32 with the same number or more of top 100 recruits.

(12-05-2014 11:24 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:21 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:14 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  Of the teams listed above all have made the tourney the previous 4 years except 1.

Thats right folks Kentucky, That Damn UK coach must suck with all that talent fire his ass...Anyone can cherry pick stats to tell a story.

Again I am not defending Pastners performance I am very critical of the piss poor agenda driven article in a "NEWS"paper. Pastner has underachieved without a doubt.

Will you take a missed tourney after E8, FF and National Title? I will.

That's what "rebuilding" is about. In order to REbuild, something first must be BUILT. One can't argue that going E8, FF and NC is building.

Williams at UNC and Donovan at UF both went to the NIT the year after their NC. tOSU went to the NIT after going to the title game (losing Cook, Conley and Oden).

I'm ok with rebuilding after that.

It rings hollow when you are claiming a rebuild after consecutive round of 32's.

I agree with you my point is the article is BS based on the facts that he presented.

That crap should not be published by a newspaper. Yes Pastner has underperformed but tell the entire story, don't report biased cherry picked stats.

How is it BS? He makes his point with the stats. Anyone knows that the numbers can tell several stories, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about them. Get outta here, his article stands on its own merit.

(12-05-2014 11:27 AM)450bench Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:48 AM)cotton1991 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:31 AM)Malachi Wrote:  Is anyone refuting the fact Pastner has vastly underachieved with the level of players he's brought in?

Pastner's teams were ranked in the preseason top 20 four times. Only once did we end the year ranked in the top 25.

That's another indictment on his abilities as a coach, but I'm sure it's become clear to practically everyone he's not the man for the job.

A better data set would be check if there was any team anywhere during those five years who also failed to make it beyond the round of 32 with the same number or more of top 100 recruits.

I'll give you that answer ... There isnt

(12-05-2014 11:23 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:17 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:14 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:03 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:01 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  Yes...But if you cherry pick stats it makes them essentially meaningless...

I will include this team because it fits my story but exclude that one because it does not...Very dishonest reporting from the CA.

That fact remains that all those schools listed except Memphis made an elite 8


Drops mic

Ok lets cherry pick

23 Kentucky
16 Duke
15 Ohio St., Arizone
14 North Carolina
13 Kansas
12 Syracuse , Louisville, MEMPHIS

Of the teams listed above all have made the tourney the previous 4 years except 1.

Thats right folks Kentucky...Anyone can cherry pick stats to tell a story.

How many of those teams played in CUSA for 3 of the previous 4 years? We can play this game all day there buddy.

Wait are you trying to tell the full story...I thought we were only cherry picking Stats...The stats I posted are TRUE remember. The facts remain that evey school on that list made it except UK Maybe you should pic that mic back up.

Again Pastner has under performed that is not my point. My point is the newspaper should not be reporting BS like this.

That is the point of the article and they back it up with facts UNLIKE YOU.

What about that don't you get?

Jesus.

Can we arrange the order of these schools in another way?

Schools that use the defensive set in the picture in post #47 and then wonder what's wrong with the defensive set.

1. MEMPHIS

2. No one else. ever.

(12-05-2014 11:27 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:24 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:21 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:14 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  Of the teams listed above all have made the tourney the previous 4 years except 1.

Thats right folks Kentucky, That Damn UK coach must suck with all that talent fire his ass...Anyone can cherry pick stats to tell a story.

Again I am not defending Pastners performance I am very critical of the piss poor agenda driven article in a "NEWS"paper. Pastner has underachieved without a doubt.

Will you take a missed tourney after E8, FF and National Title? I will.

That's what "rebuilding" is about. In order to REbuild, something first must be BUILT. One can't argue that going E8, FF and NC is building.

Williams at UNC and Donovan at UF both went to the NIT the year after their NC. tOSU went to the NIT after going to the title game (losing Cook, Conley and Oden).

I'm ok with rebuilding after that.

It rings hollow when you are claiming a rebuild after consecutive round of 32's.

I agree with you my point is the article is BS based on the facts that he presented.

That crap should not be published by a newspaper. Yes Pastner has underperformed but tell the entire story, don't report biased cherry picked stats.

How is it BS? He makes his point with the stats. Anyone knows that the numbers can tell several stories, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about them. Get outta here, his article stands on its own merit.

His article is propaganda based on facts to lead the end user to his conclusion...It is not a true representation of the facts. That is what a news organization should strive to do...Truly represent the facts not spin them to tell their story. If you exclude or completely ignore facts that fit your agenda your facts are meaningless.

(12-05-2014 11:24 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  I agree with you my point is the article is BS based on the facts that he presented.

That crap should not be published by a newspaper. Yes Pastner has underperformed but tell the entire story, don't report biased cherry picked stats.

Ok.

What other stats would you like to be presented? Serious question.

I already stated I think it is flawed because it takes performance based upon players from 2007-2013 and cites recruiting from 2010-14. Obviously, the '14 class is only 5-10 games into their 1st season, so it is impossible to gauge their effect.

(12-05-2014 11:29 AM)Chirs Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:23 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:17 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:14 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:03 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  That fact remains that all those schools listed except Memphis made an elite 8


Drops mic

Ok lets cherry pick

23 Kentucky
16 Duke
15 Ohio St., Arizone
14 North Carolina
13 Kansas
12 Syracuse , Louisville, MEMPHIS

Of the teams listed above all have made the tourney the previous 4 years except 1.

Thats right folks Kentucky...Anyone can cherry pick stats to tell a story.

How many of those teams played in CUSA for 3 of the previous 4 years? We can play this game all day there buddy.

Wait are you trying to tell the full story...I thought we were only cherry picking Stats...The stats I posted are TRUE remember. The facts remain that evey school on that list made it except UK Maybe you should pic that mic back up.

Again Pastner has under performed that is not my point. My point is the newspaper should not be reporting BS like this.

That is the point of the article and they back it up with facts UNLIKE YOU.

What about that don't you get?

Jesus.

They are cherry picked...That is a BS way to report. An incomplete sets of facts are useless unless you qualify why the list is incomplete.

(12-05-2014 11:23 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:17 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:14 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:03 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:01 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  Yes...But if you cherry pick stats it makes them essentially meaningless...

I will include this team because it fits my story but exclude that one because it does not...Very dishonest reporting from the CA.

That fact remains that all those schools listed except Memphis made an elite 8


Drops mic

Ok lets cherry pick

23 Kentucky
16 Duke
15 Ohio St., Arizone
14 North Carolina
13 Kansas
12 Syracuse , Louisville, MEMPHIS

Of the teams listed above all have made the tourney the previous 4 years except 1.

Thats right folks Kentucky...Anyone can cherry pick stats to tell a story.

How many of those teams played in CUSA for 3 of the previous 4 years? We can play this game all day there buddy.

Wait are you trying to tell the full story...I thought we were only cherry picking Stats...The stats I posted are TRUE remember. The facts remain that evey school on that list made it except UK Maybe you should pic that mic back up.

Again Pastner has under performed that is not my point. My point is the newspaper should not be reporting BS like this.

But aren't they trying to sell papers and premium subscriptions?