(02-04-2015 09:52 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 08:25 AM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 08:15 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 08:11 AM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 02:41 AM)Stammers Wrote:  With gaps of 8, 6 and 10 years.

I certainly hope our leaders think more progressively than this... I sure hope the University President does not look at our historical academic ranking and feel okay with just staying par for the course, and I hope our alumni expect more out of the President than just getting by with always using the past as a justification for the present and future...

I'm sure that our leaders are able to think more progressively than the simple addition of numbers between two years. Hopefully, you will be able to understand simple concepts. I'm not holding my breath.

Ya, and again, hopefully they are not willing to justify hindering the future based on adding some numbers from the past... Some people look forward toward progress while others look backwards for justification. I simply hope our leaders are looking forward toward progress. It is clear which you have chosen.

Nothing is clear to you at all, especially the reading comprehension part.

Ya ya, and as usual, you are faced with a differing opinion and you simply retort with personal comments and nothing of substance. Par for the course I suppose...

(02-03-2015 02:15 PM)TigerSeth Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 02:12 PM)Mtyler Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 02:05 PM)Mtyler Wrote:  

(02-01-2015 06:23 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(02-01-2015 04:59 PM)dgold38 Wrote:  Getting to sweet sixteen is winning but you tell yourself what you need to.

No, Pastner has a solid winning record and only a small percentage of schools (less than 8%) have made the NCAA Tourney the past four years. The issue - IMO - is he has not gone deep into the Tourney.

I think he has a good winning percentage. The problem most fans have is that his winning percentage is boosted by a lot of wins against mediocre to bad teams. Except for last year. I think people are upset with how we play against teams that we would consider on the level of memphis as far as resources are concerned. It seems like I'm these games we get stomped more often than not.

3-16 vs top 25. That is what gets people angry. Not the overall win percentage.

His winning percentage is padded by crap buy home games and beating up on crappy CUSa teams....anyone with open eyes can see this.

I think this is true for every major program. The issue is that against equal or better talent we rarely win or are even in the game. Way too many blowout losses.

The way he builds a roster is almost just go get a bunch of guys with numbers by their names so the recruiting class ranking looks good rather than building a balanced roster that won't be guard heavy / post light one year and then too many wings and no experience at guard the next. He's just all over the place.....(kind of like this 'sentence')

He'd also be better off just sending an assistant coach to handle the press conferences rather than hammering the same catch phrases every single game for every single opponent. It's mind numbing at best and insulting at worst.

(02-04-2015 11:17 AM)bluebacker Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 02:15 PM)TigerSeth Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 02:12 PM)Mtyler Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 02:05 PM)Mtyler Wrote:  

(02-01-2015 06:23 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  No, Pastner has a solid winning record and only a small percentage of schools (less than 8%) have made the NCAA Tourney the past four years. The issue - IMO - is he has not gone deep into the Tourney.

I think he has a good winning percentage. The problem most fans have is that his winning percentage is boosted by a lot of wins against mediocre to bad teams. Except for last year. I think people are upset with how we play against teams that we would consider on the level of memphis as far as resources are concerned. It seems like I'm these games we get stomped more often than not.

3-16 vs top 25. That is what gets people angry. Not the overall win percentage.

His winning percentage is padded by crap buy home games and beating up on crappy CUSa teams....anyone with open eyes can see this.

I think this is true for every major program. The issue is that against equal or better talent we rarely win or are even in the game. Way too many blowout losses.

The way he builds a roster is almost just go get a bunch of guys with numbers by their names so the recruiting class ranking looks good rather than building a balanced roster that won't be guard heavy / post light one year and then too many wings and no experience at guard the next. He's just all over the place.....(kind of like this 'sentence')

He'd also be better off just sending an assistant coach to handle the press conferences rather than hammering the same catch phrases every single game for every single opponent. It's mind numbing at best and insulting at worst.

I think it's obvious to anyone with a brain.

Those top ranked rosters than ran through an under-talented CUSA for two years finished 5th in a better league (AAC) - that was when most of that talent were seniors and Pastner had 4 years of DI head coaching experience under his belt. The team also lost 10 games.

That was the beginning of the end.

The AAC Had the defending NC and the eventual NC. I wouldn't say it sucked. Pastner just needs to hire the right help and let them do their jobs. And things could get headed in a better direction. If he can't do that then, we need to find someone (Marshall) while the gettin is good.

(02-04-2015 10:51 AM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 09:52 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 08:25 AM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 08:15 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 08:11 AM)Tygrys Wrote:  I certainly hope our leaders think more progressively than this... I sure hope the University President does not look at our historical academic ranking and feel okay with just staying par for the course, and I hope our alumni expect more out of the President than just getting by with always using the past as a justification for the present and future...

I'm sure that our leaders are able to think more progressively than the simple addition of numbers between two years. Hopefully, you will be able to understand simple concepts. I'm not holding my breath.

Ya, and again, hopefully they are not willing to justify hindering the future based on adding some numbers from the past... Some people look forward toward progress while others look backwards for justification. I simply hope our leaders are looking forward toward progress. It is clear which you have chosen.

Nothing is clear to you at all, especially the reading comprehension part.

Ya ya, and as usual, you are faced with a differing opinion and you simply retort with personal comments and nothing of substance. Par for the course I suppose...

You commented on what my opinion was. I'm very confident I know what my opinion was, and very confident that based on your response; you don't. It's not my problem, I can't help you. Sorry your feelings are hurt.

(02-04-2015 03:37 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 10:51 AM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 09:52 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 08:25 AM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 08:15 AM)Stammers Wrote:  I'm sure that our leaders are able to think more progressively than the simple addition of numbers between two years. Hopefully, you will be able to understand simple concepts. I'm not holding my breath.

Ya, and again, hopefully they are not willing to justify hindering the future based on adding some numbers from the past... Some people look forward toward progress while others look backwards for justification. I simply hope our leaders are looking forward toward progress. It is clear which you have chosen.

Nothing is clear to you at all, especially the reading comprehension part.

Ya ya, and as usual, you are faced with a differing opinion and you simply retort with personal comments and nothing of substance. Par for the course I suppose...

You commented on what my opinion was. I'm very confident I know what my opinion was, and very confident that based on your response; you don't. It's not my problem, I can't help you. Sorry your feelings are hurt.

I really have no idea what you are rambling about in regards to hurting my feelings and trying to help me?

So, about your opinion. I constantly see you bringing up the past Sweet 16 totals and the periods the program has gone without reaching a Sweet 16. It certainly seems that you are often using this as a justification when discussing with people who say Pastner is not meeting expectations. Is this correct? Is it your opinion that based on our past that Pastner is meeting expectations thus far?

People realize complainers are not just complaining due to this season, but due to good but still not great results in the last several years. Everyone gets that...and even those who avoid using mocking tones towards our own recognize teams have fallen a wee bit short.

With that...the level of complaining is disproportionately high.

And, remarkably nasty in tone.

And incessant. As though the purpose of a fan site is to basically attract as many nasty incendiary comments as there are simply fan comments.

The bullying aimed at anyone who even makes an effort at a different subject has been allowed to get out of hand, and all that is unfortunate.

It masks a better discussion more suitable for a discussion board...and it is lazy.

But to make you feel better...again..since the never ending complainers also never seem to end their whining either, yes, fans understand that all of you are not so petty as to act like this big if a ******* over a singular down season in between what will be overall very good years.

We all want the team to get over the hump...and the five very nice wins over ranked teams last year certainly seemed like a great step in the right direction, although the late big loss to UConn and then the big loss to UVA sullied that, permanently for some.

Sorry.

He's got 10 games and the conference tournament to show enough to keep his job.

He might keep it anyway but at some point he'll just be stealing.

(02-04-2015 05:52 PM)bluebacker Wrote:  He's got 10 games and the conference tournament to show enough to keep his job.

He might keep it anyway but at some point he'll just be stealing.

Waking Burrell and Shaq up would help his cause.

Burrell has been in a semi-funk since Iverson suspension/Tulane game. Edmiston and Jason Smith ran over his numbers pre and post this morning.

And Shaq - no one knows. Dude was a Mickey D's.

Teams are really starting to focus on stopping Nichols, so others are going to have to step up in the stretch.

(02-04-2015 04:52 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 03:37 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 10:51 AM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 09:52 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 08:25 AM)Tygrys Wrote:  Ya, and again, hopefully they are not willing to justify hindering the future based on adding some numbers from the past... Some people look forward toward progress while others look backwards for justification. I simply hope our leaders are looking forward toward progress. It is clear which you have chosen.

Nothing is clear to you at all, especially the reading comprehension part.

Ya ya, and as usual, you are faced with a differing opinion and you simply retort with personal comments and nothing of substance. Par for the course I suppose...

You commented on what my opinion was. I'm very confident I know what my opinion was, and very confident that based on your response; you don't. It's not my problem, I can't help you. Sorry your feelings are hurt.

I really have no idea what you are rambling about in regards to hurting my feelings and trying to help me?

So, about your opinion. I constantly see you bringing up the past Sweet 16 totals and the periods the program has gone without reaching a Sweet 16. It certainly seems that you are often using this as a justification when discussing with people who say Pastner is not meeting expectations. Is this correct? Is it your opinion that based on our past that Pastner is meeting expectations thus far?

Quote: I constantly see you bringing up the past Sweet 16 totals

You exist on this board to bash Pastner, yapping about how he has ruined the program. Fully 99% of your posts do that. The FACT is that we have gone through periods that are 100 times worse than what we are going through now, for periods that literally have lasted 10 times longer than 3/4 of a single season.

You still can't seem to wrap your head around that.

As far as meeting expectations go; I would rank Pastner as follows...

2010-2013: 9.5/10
2014: 6/10
2015: 5/10

(02-04-2015 09:52 AM)Stammers Wrote:  The FACT is that we have gone through periods that are 100 times worse than what we are going through now

MARTY MCLIAR NAME 1 PERIOD THAT HAS BEEN 100 TIMES WORSE THAN PASTNER

ILL HANG UP AND LISTEN

(02-04-2015 08:11 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 04:52 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 03:37 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 10:51 AM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 09:52 AM)Stammers Wrote:  Nothing is clear to you at all, especially the reading comprehension part.

Ya ya, and as usual, you are faced with a differing opinion and you simply retort with personal comments and nothing of substance. Par for the course I suppose...

You commented on what my opinion was. I'm very confident I know what my opinion was, and very confident that based on your response; you don't. It's not my problem, I can't help you. Sorry your feelings are hurt.

I really have no idea what you are rambling about in regards to hurting my feelings and trying to help me?

So, about your opinion. I constantly see you bringing up the past Sweet 16 totals and the periods the program has gone without reaching a Sweet 16. It certainly seems that you are often using this as a justification when discussing with people who say Pastner is not meeting expectations. Is this correct? Is it your opinion that based on our past that Pastner is meeting expectations thus far?

Quote: I constantly see you bringing up the past Sweet 16 totals

You exist on this board to bash Pastner, yapping about how he has ruined the program. Fully 99% of your posts do that. The FACT is that we have gone through periods that are 100 times worse than what we are going through now, for periods that literally have lasted 10 times longer than 3/4 of a single season.

You still can't seem to wrap your head around that.

As far as meeting expectations go; I would rank Pastner as follows...

2010-2013: 9.5/10
2014: 6/10
2015: 5/10

Well, your first two sentences are just false. I get that the whole idea that we have had worse periods in the history of the program. I just do not get why that is relevant to the current situation. Or why I should not expect more out of our coaches and our program now? Do we have to hit rock bottom before we decide it is time to fire a coach? Again, some people want to look forward toward progress and others want to look back to justify the present.

And some of us take no sides in the ongoing match.

Sheeple gather on both sides of an imaginary fence and Ba in each other's faces.

(02-04-2015 10:39 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  And some of us take no sides in the ongoing match.

Sheeple gather on both sides of an imaginary fence and Ba in each other's faces.

Careful lest the rats realize they're in the skinner box!

(02-04-2015 10:56 PM)tiger2000 Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 10:39 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  And some of us take no sides in the ongoing match.

Sheeple gather on both sides of an imaginary fence and Ba in each other's faces.

Careful lest the rats realize they're in the skinner box!

Skinner never had a box like this. lol. Are you sure we're not the ones in the box?

(02-04-2015 11:18 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 10:56 PM)tiger2000 Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 10:39 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  And some of us take no sides in the ongoing match.

Sheeple gather on both sides of an imaginary fence and Ba in each other's faces.

Careful lest the rats realize they're in the skinner box!

Skinner never had a box like this. lol. Are you sure we're not the ones in the box?

all we can hope for now is to minimize the hawthorne effect...

(02-04-2015 11:23 PM)tiger2000 Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 11:18 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 10:56 PM)tiger2000 Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 10:39 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  And some of us take no sides in the ongoing match.

Sheeple gather on both sides of an imaginary fence and Ba in each other's faces.

Careful lest the rats realize they're in the skinner box!

Skinner never had a box like this. lol. Are you sure we're not the ones in the box?

all we can hope for now is to minimize the hawthorne effect...

Sincere Apologies for corruption of the data. I suddenly found myself sliding down the 'screw-you' slope of the demand effect.

Edit: the 'you' being the overall observer...of course, provided we are not in that position.