(02-03-2015 11:10 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 03:56 PM)CKMcDan Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 02:49 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 01:25 PM)DallasTiger Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 01:22 PM)CKMcDan Wrote:  The Tigers had finesse teams long before Pastner took over. With the exception of his first two seasons, Larry's teams always struggled with physical teams. Huggin's Cincinnati teams always give Larry's teams fits.
Calipari's early teams got man-handled inside as well. Kansas's bigs gave us all kinds of problems in the finals, and Cal's early teams regularly got pushed around.

Right on the money. Here are the Tiger basketball records to prove it.

1999-2000 17-16
1998-99 13-15
1996-97 16-15
1993-94 13-16
1990-91 17-15
1980-81 13-14
1979-80 13-14
1978-79 13-15

Not sure what those records have to do with the topic. Sounds like just a bunch of .500 or so years to say we've been bad before. Problem with your theory is that those teams were bad because they had no good players, but when they got a good player or two, they got better (3 losing seasons before the Lee era, the last year of Finch/Tic/Johnny/first year of Cal before picking up steam under Cal.) You think that's the problem now?

Players on those teams:
Elliot Perry, Anthony Douglas, Billy Smith, Chris Garner, Cedric Henderson, David Vaughn, Omar Sneed, Hank McDowell, Dennis Isbell, Otis Jackson, Sunday Adebayo, Cheyenne Gibson, Ernest Smith.... Most of those teams had 2 or 3 good players.

I like all those players and remember every one of them, but Socks is the anomaly in that group -- a good player who didn't get a lot of wins (because he and Cheyenne had no frontcourt.) Ced and Hank played a few years in the league because they had big NBA bodies, but none of the rest were really good individual players. Omar looked like he was because he had NO help. Six, Billy Smith and Vaughn were good role players behind Penny. And tell me you didn't really bring up Sunday Adebayo as an example of a good player. Great smile and I loved the attitude, but . . .

Honestly, had Larry not had Sunday Adebayo on his last team, they would have lost many more games.

No, I was just rebutting the arguement that there were no good players on those teams with mediocre records. Each one of those teams had good players on it. Several McDonald's AA's on those teams - Paris London, Anthony Douglas, Elliot Perry, David Vaughn, Cedric Henderson....

(02-04-2015 03:35 PM)CKMcDan Wrote:  Honestly, had Larry not had Sunday Adebayo on his last team, they would have lost many more games.

Just think if Lorenzen would've come back for another year.

Wright
Adebayo
Henderson
Allen
Garner

(02-04-2015 03:35 PM)CKMcDan Wrote:  Honestly, had Larry not had Sunday Adebayo on his last team, they would have lost many more games.

No, I was just rebutting the arguement that there were no good players on those teams with mediocre records. Each one of those teams had good players on it. Several McDonald's AA's on those teams - Paris London, Anthony Douglas, Elliot Perry, David Vaughn, Cedric Henderson....

You're right, of course, to call them good players. They were. They weren't Keith Lee's or Penny Hardaway's or Lorenzen Wright's, but good is relative.

It's the latter three I was referring to who came in and changed those bad years you listed into NCAA tournament runs. Three bad years in a row to 1981, then Lee arrived. Same coach, but everything changed. Same with Penny and Wren -- they arrived, same coach, but much better results than the year before.

My question is, do you think if any one of those players arrived today, we'd immediately be a tournament team with good prospects compared to the nation's best teams like we were then, with the same coach?

(02-04-2015 06:10 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 03:35 PM)CKMcDan Wrote:  Honestly, had Larry not had Sunday Adebayo on his last team, they would have lost many more games.

No, I was just rebutting the arguement that there were no good players on those teams with mediocre records. Each one of those teams had good players on it. Several McDonald's AA's on those teams - Paris London, Anthony Douglas, Elliot Perry, David Vaughn, Cedric Henderson....

You're right, of course, to call them good players. They were. They weren't Keith Lee's or Penny Hardaway's or Lorenzen Wright's, but good is relative.

It's the latter three I was referring to who came in and changed those bad years you listed into NCAA tournament runs. Three bad years in a row to 1981, then Lee arrived. Same coach, but everything changed. Same with Penny and Wren -- they arrived, same coach, but much better results than the year before.

My question is, do you think if any one of those players arrived today, we'd immediately be a tournament team with good prospects compared to the nation's best teams like we were then, with the same coach?

No doubt. Top ten with any of those three with existing team.

(02-04-2015 03:09 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 06:02 AM)3rdgenerationtiger Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 02:25 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  Half life never expires..that's the beauty of it.

Actually, the half life of a radioactive isotope does expire (or becomes irrelevant). Let's say you have 8 nuclei of a radioactive isotope with a half life of 1 minute. After 1 minute you have 4 nuclei. After 2 minutes you have 2 nuclei. After 3 minutes you have 1 nuclei. Since a nuclei cannot decay into half of a nuclei, after 4 minutes there are no remaining nuclei of the radioactive isotope, hence not more isotope.

(I guarantee someone that reads this finds it interesting).

Just a matter of terminology, I'm thinking. Expiration means gone/dead/kaput in my lingo. In yours, seems like it means what's left after the affects on it's surroundings are immeasurable.

See, it's relevant to those of us who talk about those things. We expend our own energetic particles in the contemplation.

Dude, I still feel it out there on some level, though terminology has declared it to be irrelevant. Who knows what relevance something has that is no longer measurable?

If it has mass or energy on any level...would it not still be relevant within some framework of some universe somewhere......lol. ?

Physics for poets stuck with me longer than astrophysics...my first major...lol.

Now look how interesting this thread has gotten.