(12-05-2014 11:26 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  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.

Wha? If he tells the "entire story" according to you he's got to write a 9,000 page novel and include every basketball stat in history. He said enough for his argument to stand on it's own two feet. All you've been able to refute is that UCLA may belong on that list somewhere, but even they've done better than Memphis in the short time they've had a new coach.

(12-05-2014 11:26 AM)Brother Bluto 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.

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

Read the whole post then get back to me.

(12-05-2014 11:34 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  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.

Propaganda? He's telling the truth.

(12-05-2014 11:40 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:34 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  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.

Propaganda? He's telling the truth.

So was I when I said that only UK had not made it to the tourney in the last 4 years, It's a BS stance but it is true.

When you present an incomplete set of facts without explanation why the set is incomplete the stats mean nothing.

I have no problem with what Cotton suggested above...That is a full set of stats and it would have still indicted Pastner but he chose not to do that.

(12-05-2014 11:41 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:40 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:34 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  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.

Propaganda? He's telling the truth.

So was I when I said that only UK had not made it. Is that not true.

EXACTLY. The stats are the stats. You are upset because he uses them to show something that you do not like. You can only say "but wait, UCLA" and then use that as a means to dismiss his entire idea out of hand.

If I don't like what you use the stats to say about Kentucky, I can point to elite 8's, Final Fours and Championships to discredit you. I don't simply pick one irrelevant thing that you leave out of your analysis and then dismiss the entire argument on something other than the merits.

(12-05-2014 11:43 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:41 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:40 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:34 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  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.

Propaganda? He's telling the truth.

So was I when I said that only UK had not made it. Is that not true.

EXACTLY. The stats are the stats. You are upset because he uses them to show something that you do not like. You can only say "but wait, UCLA" and then use that as a means to dismiss his entire idea out of hand.

If I don't like what you use the stats to say about Kentucky, I can point to elite 8's, Final Fours and Championships to discredit you. I don't simply pick one irrelevant thing that you leave out of your analysis and then dismiss the entire argument on something other than the merits.

Look at my post history...I have been very critical of Pastner even to point of saying he should be gone, so it is not that I don't like the story. I dislike a reputable agency reporting incomplete sets of stats to people who will not know any better as something that is complete. That is the point they should not be trying to set public opinion. They should tell the entire story, this is a cherry picked set of facts to drive people to his opinion.

If you would have said only Memphis has had 12 or more recruits and has not made it past the round of 32 that is true. But to present a list of 13 like it is complete is just not honest. UCLA should have been on that list but it is not because it doesn't tell his story. I am not trying to refute the fact that Pastner has underperformed just that his article is not honest especially for a newspaper.

(12-05-2014 11:47 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:43 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:41 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:40 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:34 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  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.

Propaganda? He's telling the truth.

So was I when I said that only UK had not made it. Is that not true.

EXACTLY. The stats are the stats. You are upset because he uses them to show something that you do not like. You can only say "but wait, UCLA" and then use that as a means to dismiss his entire idea out of hand.

If I don't like what you use the stats to say about Kentucky, I can point to elite 8's, Final Fours and Championships to discredit you. I don't simply pick one irrelevant thing that you leave out of your analysis and then dismiss the entire argument on something other than the merits.

Look at my post history...I have been very critical of Pastner even to point of saying he should be gone, so it is not that I don't like the story. I dislike a reputable agency reporting incomplete sets of stats to people who will not know any better as something that is complete.

Have you read the story?

Good lord

(12-05-2014 11:39 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:26 AM)Brother Bluto 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:  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

Read the whole post then get back to me.

UK was coming off a national title and their best recruit had a gruesome knee injury midway through the season. Here's a newsflash for you... They recovered. Like I said earlier we can play this game all day.

(12-05-2014 11:43 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:41 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:40 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:34 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  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.

Propaganda? He's telling the truth.

So was I when I said that only UK had not made it. Is that not true.

EXACTLY. The stats are the stats. You are upset because he uses them to show something that you do not like. You can only say "but wait, UCLA" and then use that as a means to dismiss his entire idea out of hand.

If I don't like what you use the stats to say about Kentucky, I can point to elite 8's, Final Fours and Championships to discredit you. I don't simply pick one irrelevant thing that you leave out of your analysis and then dismiss the entire argument on something other than the merits.

Apparently he just don't get the point of the article

(12-05-2014 11:41 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:40 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:34 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  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.

Propaganda? He's telling the truth.

So was I when I said that only UK had not made it to the tourney in the last 4 years, It's a BS stance but it is true.

When you present an incomplete set of facts without explanation why the set is incomplete the stats mean nothing.

I have no problem with what Cotton suggested above...That is a full set of stats and it would have still indicted Pastner but he chose not to do that.

The point of the article is to show Pastner has greatly underachieved compared to other coaches who have recrutited comparably and they backed the opinion up with facts. And I would say that 90% of people who read the article would agree with the conclusion.

The fact you keep bringing up about UK missing the tourney one year doesn't prove anything. They have won huge overall and have not underachieved.

And just because something is in the newspaper, doesn't mean it can't have opinion. Is Michael Cohen a columnist? If so, they are paid to give their opinion....ie Caulkins.

(12-05-2014 12:25 PM)Chirs Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:41 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:40 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:34 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  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.

Propaganda? He's telling the truth.

So was I when I said that only UK had not made it to the tourney in the last 4 years, It's a BS stance but it is true.

When you present an incomplete set of facts without explanation why the set is incomplete the stats mean nothing.

I have no problem with what Cotton suggested above...That is a full set of stats and it would have still indicted Pastner but he chose not to do that.

The point of the article is to show Pastner has greatly underachieved compared to other coaches who have recrutited comparably and they backed the opinion up with facts. And I would say that 90% of people who read the article would agree with the conclusion.

The fact you keep bringing up about UK missing the tourney one year doesn't prove anything. They have won huge overall and have not underachieved.

And just because something is in the newspaper, doesn't mean it can't have opinion. Is Michael Cohen a columnist? If so, they are paid to give their opinion....ie Caulkins.

Caulkins makes stuff up all them time. Remember the fake interview he wrote about one of our players right before the tournament that year. Yet he claims he's not a carpetbagger no mo.

The data was gathered using the composite rankings of 247Sports, the recruiting website owned by CBS. The composite rankings, according to the website, are “a proprietary algorithm that compiles prospect ‘rankings’ and ‘ratings’ listed in the public domain by the major media recruiting services.” In other words, it’s something of an average ranking based on things like ESPN, Scout, Rivals and 247’s own ratings.

(12-05-2014 11:35 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(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:  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.

"As you can see, Pastner signed a total of 12 players ranked in the top 100 during their high school careers. Of those 12, eight of them were ranked in the top 50. Five were ranked in the top 25.

Here’s a look at how that compares to other elite programs:"

He's simply comparing us to other elite programs. Memphis is an elite program no? I like to think so.

(12-05-2014 12:44 PM)poppaslaw Wrote:  The data was gathered using the composite rankings of 247Sports, the recruiting website owned by CBS. The composite rankings, according to the website, are “a proprietary algorithm that compiles prospect ‘rankings’ and ‘ratings’ listed in the public domain by the major media recruiting services.” In other words, it’s something of an average ranking based on things like ESPN, Scout, Rivals and 247’s own ratings.

Wonder why we haven't seen this article from 24/7?

(12-05-2014 12:47 PM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 12:44 PM)poppaslaw Wrote:  The data was gathered using the composite rankings of 247Sports, the recruiting website owned by CBS. The composite rankings, according to the website, are “a proprietary algorithm that compiles prospect ‘rankings’ and ‘ratings’ listed in the public domain by the major media recruiting services.” In other words, it’s something of an average ranking based on things like ESPN, Scout, Rivals and 247’s own ratings.

Wonder why we haven't seen this article from 24/7?

I was just trying to clear up where he got the rankings from. This guy over here quotes Scout. This guy Rivals. According to that, it's a composite and one best to use for this type of data.

(12-05-2014 10:26 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:10 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:05 AM)gotigers1 Wrote:  Edmiston has his nose so far up UNC;'s butt that anything he says is worthless

I am sure what he states is 100% factual...But I am also sure he includes Jalen in those numbers and also doesn't factor in how many top 100 players returned from the year before.

I am also sure that is not a complete list of schools and their top 100 recruits. Should add up to 500 to be a complete list but you list Wisconsin with 1 top 100 player I am sure there are more schools with more than 1. That also leads me to believe there are other schools that have close to the number we do but have not had success either...Say like UCLA (12 top 100s). But they are not included because he is spinning this story and people are eating it up. Sometimes you have to use your mind and weed through the BS.

Don't care enough to do the research though.

It's more than 12...

Barton
Crawford
Black
JJ
Kendrick
Adonis
Shaq
Markel
Iverson
King
Austin
Pookie
Woodson
Magee

Lawson
Lawson

Not going to pick kids out but if you think some of those names actually played like Top 100 recruits (which Edmiston did not address) you need to pay closer attention.

(12-05-2014 12:55 PM)tigers1125 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:26 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:10 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:05 AM)gotigers1 Wrote:  Edmiston has his nose so far up UNC;'s butt that anything he says is worthless

I am sure what he states is 100% factual...But I am also sure he includes Jalen in those numbers and also doesn't factor in how many top 100 players returned from the year before.

I am also sure that is not a complete list of schools and their top 100 recruits. Should add up to 500 to be a complete list but you list Wisconsin with 1 top 100 player I am sure there are more schools with more than 1. That also leads me to believe there are other schools that have close to the number we do but have not had success either...Say like UCLA (12 top 100s). But they are not included because he is spinning this story and people are eating it up. Sometimes you have to use your mind and weed through the BS.

Don't care enough to do the research though.

It's more than 12...

Barton
Crawford
Black
JJ
Kendrick
Adonis
Shaq
Markel
Iverson
King
Austin
Pookie
Woodson
Magee

Lawson
Lawson

Not going to pick kids out but if you think some of those names actually played like Top 100 recruits (which Edmiston did not address) you need to pay closer attention.

And that goes on the HC.

Either you can talent evaluate properly or you can develop players properly.

There is no way else the spin it.

The HC is responsible for the product on the court. Simple as that.

(12-05-2014 12:47 PM)poppaslaw Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:35 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(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:  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.

"As you can see, Pastner signed a total of 12 players ranked in the top 100 during their high school careers. Of those 12, eight of them were ranked in the top 50. Five were ranked in the top 25.

Here’s a look at how that compares to other elite programs:"

He's simply comparing us to other elite programs. Memphis is an elite program no? I like to think so.

This is the whole point to me. Some of is here think we are a program that should be happy with losses in the first weekend of the NCAA. I and others think differently.

I guess Mac rightfully questions why "elite" schools like UCLA and Texas were not considered in this article.

That is fair, I think. The caveat to UCLA is that they had high level success from 2005-2008 and the coach was fired a few years later. He even won the Pac 12 the same year he was fired.