(03-01-2015 11:17 AM)tigers0830 Wrote:  Those of you that want Josh gone and think Memphis can get a good coach who the heck do you think that is?

Pearl haha he isn't leaving auburn. Marshall I don't know if Memphis is even a better job right now. Smart he's already turned down better jobs.

Seriously who do you think would leave their job right now and come take this one. There is a reason nobody wanted it after Cal.

Archie Miller makes 300K. You give him 2.6 and he will walk here from Dayton

(03-01-2015 01:03 PM)450bench Wrote:  

Post of the year

(03-01-2015 08:11 PM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 11:17 AM)tigers0830 Wrote:  Those of you that want Josh gone and think Memphis can get a good coach who the heck do you think that is?

Pearl haha he isn't leaving auburn. Marshall I don't know if Memphis is even a better job right now. Smart he's already turned down better jobs.

Seriously who do you think would leave their job right now and come take this one. There is a reason nobody wanted it after Cal.

Archie Miller makes 300K. You give him 2.6 and he will walk here from Dayton

Geez.....shades of Stan Simpson.

Someone could legally give him a ride, couldn't they?

(03-01-2015 04:23 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  I thought Josh did OK to begin with, but when it comes to crunch time it's always the same -- mass confusion.

Why, when you're down 3 with 63 seconds left in OT, you stand there and let the other team run off 33 seconds and then waltz in for a layup is beyond me. Now, we're down 5 with 30 seconds left. Fouling their best freethrow shooter when he crossed the line would've made more sense.

Then, we run off 12 more seconds ourselves before luck finally gives us two breaks in a row -- Kedron hits a three, then we get a 5-second call on the inbounds. Home free, right?

Down only 2 with 18 seconds and the ball? Give it to Burrell, King, or even Shaq to drive the lane for a layup and/or freethrows? Give it to Woodson (39%) or Kedron (33%) for the win? No, we run off the rest of the clock and give it to a 26% 3-point shooter (who was already 0-2 from three) for a 22-footer.

Even with all the aces falling into our lap, we still can't score a point on a play to end the game. And, by the way, Shaq was open under the basket when Nick took the shot.

You guys are all armchair F'in quarterbacks. Seems to me the reason you do it is why he did it. We made a 3 and forced a turnover and got the ball back and had a chance to tie or win. Most of the people on this board have no freakin' clue what they are talking about. I am not a Pastner backer, in fact, I am on the record as saying he needs to go. That said, everyone needs to shut the F up about playing defense vs. fouling vs. what YOU think is the right strategy. What he did last night worked just fine. What didn't work is King hitting the game winning shot.

(03-01-2015 04:23 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  I thought Josh did OK to begin with, but when it comes to crunch time it's always the same -- mass confusion.

Why, when you're down 3 with 63 seconds left in OT, you stand there and let the other team run off 33 seconds and then waltz in for a layup is beyond me. Now, we're down 5 with 30 seconds left. Fouling their best freethrow shooter when he crossed the line would've made more sense.

Then, we run off 12 more seconds ourselves before luck finally gives us two breaks in a row -- Kedron hits a three, then we get a 5-second call on the inbounds. Home free, right?

Down only 2 with 18 seconds and the ball? Give it to Burrell, King, or even Shaq to drive the lane for a layup and/or freethrows? Give it to Woodson (39%) or Kedron (33%) for the win? No, we run off the rest of the clock and give it to a 26% 3-point shooter (who was already 0-2 from three) for a 22-footer.

Even with all the aces falling into our lap, we still can't score a point on a play to end the game. And, by the way, Shaq was open under the basket when Nick took the shot.

Why is hitting a 3 luck? Why is getting a 5 second call luck? Maybe if you want to point fingers at the bad things that happen you could give a little credit to a guy making a clutch shot and the team for causing a 5 second call. Nah. That would make too much sense. Let's just demean everyone on our way to trying to make the point that coach needs to go. I am sure if King had made his shot it would have been luck too.

(03-01-2015 08:34 PM)dannyb73 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 04:23 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  I thought Josh did OK to begin with, but when it comes to crunch time it's always the same -- mass confusion.

Why, when you're down 3 with 63 seconds left in OT, you stand there and let the other team run off 33 seconds and then waltz in for a layup is beyond me. Now, we're down 5 with 30 seconds left. Fouling their best freethrow shooter when he crossed the line would've made more sense.

Then, we run off 12 more seconds ourselves before luck finally gives us two breaks in a row -- Kedron hits a three, then we get a 5-second call on the inbounds. Home free, right?

Down only 2 with 18 seconds and the ball? Give it to Burrell, King, or even Shaq to drive the lane for a layup and/or freethrows? Give it to Woodson (39%) or Kedron (33%) for the win? No, we run off the rest of the clock and give it to a 26% 3-point shooter (who was already 0-2 from three) for a 22-footer.

Even with all the aces falling into our lap, we still can't score a point on a play to end the game. And, by the way, Shaq was open under the basket when Nick took the shot.

Why is hitting a 3 luck? Why is getting a 5 second call luck? Maybe if you want to point fingers at the bad things that happen you could give a little credit to a guy making a clutch shot and the team for causing a 5 second call. Nah. That would make too much sense. Let's just demean everyone on our way to trying to make the point that coach needs to go. I am sure if King had made his shot it would have been luck too.

Dayum....I came off the couch when Kedren hit that three, and then we got the five second call. so close.

(03-01-2015 08:29 PM)dannyb73 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 04:23 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  I thought Josh did OK to begin with, but when it comes to crunch time it's always the same -- mass confusion.

Why, when you're down 3 with 63 seconds left in OT, you stand there and let the other team run off 33 seconds and then waltz in for a layup is beyond me. Now, we're down 5 with 30 seconds left. Fouling their best freethrow shooter when he crossed the line would've made more sense.

Then, we run off 12 more seconds ourselves before luck finally gives us two breaks in a row -- Kedron hits a three, then we get a 5-second call on the inbounds. Home free, right?

Down only 2 with 18 seconds and the ball? Give it to Burrell, King, or even Shaq to drive the lane for a layup and/or freethrows? Give it to Woodson (39%) or Kedron (33%) for the win? No, we run off the rest of the clock and give it to a 26% 3-point shooter (who was already 0-2 from three) for a 22-footer.

Even with all the aces falling into our lap, we still can't score a point on a play to end the game. And, by the way, Shaq was open under the basket when Nick took the shot.

You guys are all armchair F'in quarterbacks. Seems to me the reason you do it is why he did it. We made a 3 and forced a turnover and got the ball back and had a chance to tie or win. Most of the people on this board have no freakin' clue what they are talking about. I am not a Pastner backer, in fact, I am on the record as saying he needs to go. That said, everyone needs to shut the F up about playing defense vs. fouling vs. what YOU think is the right strategy. What he did last night worked just fine. What didn't work is King hitting the game winning shot.

If you foul early, you don't have to depend on luck -- which is exactly what hoping for a five-second violation or a steal on the final inbounds play of a game is (for the other poster.) That's why so many NCAA and NBA coaches foul in the final minute (or even the final two minutes) of a game when they're down.

What he did was run us completely out of time so that, even though we were lucky enough to get a five-second call, we ended up with only a one-in-four chance of success on the final shot (26% shooter) because we were out of time outs.

In the law of averages, we would've lost by five two out of three times (Kedron @ 33% from three) and by two about nine out of ten times (probability of forcing a turnover on the final inbounds.) We had two strokes of luck and still lost. And you think it was well played because of how it turned out? Don't ever go to Vegas.

(03-01-2015 09:24 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 08:29 PM)dannyb73 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 04:23 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  I thought Josh did OK to begin with, but when it comes to crunch time it's always the same -- mass confusion.

Why, when you're down 3 with 63 seconds left in OT, you stand there and let the other team run off 33 seconds and then waltz in for a layup is beyond me. Now, we're down 5 with 30 seconds left. Fouling their best freethrow shooter when he crossed the line would've made more sense.

Then, we run off 12 more seconds ourselves before luck finally gives us two breaks in a row -- Kedron hits a three, then we get a 5-second call on the inbounds. Home free, right?

Down only 2 with 18 seconds and the ball? Give it to Burrell, King, or even Shaq to drive the lane for a layup and/or freethrows? Give it to Woodson (39%) or Kedron (33%) for the win? No, we run off the rest of the clock and give it to a 26% 3-point shooter (who was already 0-2 from three) for a 22-footer.

Even with all the aces falling into our lap, we still can't score a point on a play to end the game. And, by the way, Shaq was open under the basket when Nick took the shot.

You guys are all armchair F'in quarterbacks. Seems to me the reason you do it is why he did it. We made a 3 and forced a turnover and got the ball back and had a chance to tie or win. Most of the people on this board have no freakin' clue what they are talking about. I am not a Pastner backer, in fact, I am on the record as saying he needs to go. That said, everyone needs to shut the F up about playing defense vs. fouling vs. what YOU think is the right strategy. What he did last night worked just fine. What didn't work is King hitting the game winning shot.

If you foul early, you don't have to depend on luck -- which is exactly what hoping for a five-second violation or a steal on the final inbounds play of a game is (for the other poster.) That's why so many NCAA and NBA coaches foul in the final minute (or even the final two minutes) of a game when they're down.

What he did was run us completely out of time so that, even though we were lucky enough to get a five-second call, we ended up with only a one-in-four chance of success on the final shot (26% shooter) because we were out of time outs.

In the law of averages, we would've lost by five two out of three times (Kedron @ 33% from three) and by two about nine out of ten times (probability of forcing a turnover on the final inbounds.) We had two strokes of luck and still lost. And you think it was well played because of how it turned out? Don't ever go to Vegas.

I will pose my question in a more direct manner so you can comprehend what I am saying by making you answer. How is forcing a turnover (5 second call) luck?

(03-01-2015 09:26 PM)dannyb73 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 09:24 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 08:29 PM)dannyb73 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 04:23 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  I thought Josh did OK to begin with, but when it comes to crunch time it's always the same -- mass confusion.

Why, when you're down 3 with 63 seconds left in OT, you stand there and let the other team run off 33 seconds and then waltz in for a layup is beyond me. Now, we're down 5 with 30 seconds left. Fouling their best freethrow shooter when he crossed the line would've made more sense.

Then, we run off 12 more seconds ourselves before luck finally gives us two breaks in a row -- Kedron hits a three, then we get a 5-second call on the inbounds. Home free, right?

Down only 2 with 18 seconds and the ball? Give it to Burrell, King, or even Shaq to drive the lane for a layup and/or freethrows? Give it to Woodson (39%) or Kedron (33%) for the win? No, we run off the rest of the clock and give it to a 26% 3-point shooter (who was already 0-2 from three) for a 22-footer.

Even with all the aces falling into our lap, we still can't score a point on a play to end the game. And, by the way, Shaq was open under the basket when Nick took the shot.

You guys are all armchair F'in quarterbacks. Seems to me the reason you do it is why he did it. We made a 3 and forced a turnover and got the ball back and had a chance to tie or win. Most of the people on this board have no freakin' clue what they are talking about. I am not a Pastner backer, in fact, I am on the record as saying he needs to go. That said, everyone needs to shut the F up about playing defense vs. fouling vs. what YOU think is the right strategy. What he did last night worked just fine. What didn't work is King hitting the game winning shot.

If you foul early, you don't have to depend on luck -- which is exactly what hoping for a five-second violation or a steal on the final inbounds play of a game is (for the other poster.) That's why so many NCAA and NBA coaches foul in the final minute (or even the final two minutes) of a game when they're down.

What he did was run us completely out of time so that, even though we were lucky enough to get a five-second call, we ended up with only a one-in-four chance of success on the final shot (26% shooter) because we were out of time outs.

In the law of averages, we would've lost by five two out of three times (Kedron @ 33% from three) and by two about nine out of ten times (probability of forcing a turnover on the final inbounds.) We had two strokes of luck and still lost. And you think it was well played because of how it turned out? Don't ever go to Vegas.

I will pose my question in a more direct manner so you can comprehend what I am saying by making you answer. How is forcing a turnover (5 second call) luck?

Oh I think I comprehend what you're saying. You're saying something is attributable to effort alone when clearly it isn't.

It's luck in the same way hitting a half-court shot is luck. They both have roughly the same probability. Just because you have to exert effort to heave the ball that far does not make it simply a matter of effort.

The same is true on forcing a five-second violation or a steal on an inbounds play. If it were merely a matter of effort, we would go for it on EVERY inbounds play, and we don't. There's a reason for that. Pretty obvious reason. It's easier to get beat than it is to get a turnover.

(03-01-2015 10:03 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 09:26 PM)dannyb73 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 09:24 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 08:29 PM)dannyb73 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 04:23 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  I thought Josh did OK to begin with, but when it comes to crunch time it's always the same -- mass confusion.

Why, when you're down 3 with 63 seconds left in OT, you stand there and let the other team run off 33 seconds and then waltz in for a layup is beyond me. Now, we're down 5 with 30 seconds left. Fouling their best freethrow shooter when he crossed the line would've made more sense.

Then, we run off 12 more seconds ourselves before luck finally gives us two breaks in a row -- Kedron hits a three, then we get a 5-second call on the inbounds. Home free, right?

Down only 2 with 18 seconds and the ball? Give it to Burrell, King, or even Shaq to drive the lane for a layup and/or freethrows? Give it to Woodson (39%) or Kedron (33%) for the win? No, we run off the rest of the clock and give it to a 26% 3-point shooter (who was already 0-2 from three) for a 22-footer.

Even with all the aces falling into our lap, we still can't score a point on a play to end the game. And, by the way, Shaq was open under the basket when Nick took the shot.

You guys are all armchair F'in quarterbacks. Seems to me the reason you do it is why he did it. We made a 3 and forced a turnover and got the ball back and had a chance to tie or win. Most of the people on this board have no freakin' clue what they are talking about. I am not a Pastner backer, in fact, I am on the record as saying he needs to go. That said, everyone needs to shut the F up about playing defense vs. fouling vs. what YOU think is the right strategy. What he did last night worked just fine. What didn't work is King hitting the game winning shot.

If you foul early, you don't have to depend on luck -- which is exactly what hoping for a five-second violation or a steal on the final inbounds play of a game is (for the other poster.) That's why so many NCAA and NBA coaches foul in the final minute (or even the final two minutes) of a game when they're down.

What he did was run us completely out of time so that, even though we were lucky enough to get a five-second call, we ended up with only a one-in-four chance of success on the final shot (26% shooter) because we were out of time outs.

In the law of averages, we would've lost by five two out of three times (Kedron @ 33% from three) and by two about nine out of ten times (probability of forcing a turnover on the final inbounds.) We had two strokes of luck and still lost. And you think it was well played because of how it turned out? Don't ever go to Vegas.

I will pose my question in a more direct manner so you can comprehend what I am saying by making you answer. How is forcing a turnover (5 second call) luck?

Oh I think I comprehend what you're saying. You're saying something is attributable to effort alone when clearly it isn't.

It's luck in the same way hitting a half-court shot is luck. They both have roughly the same probability. Just because you have to exert effort to heave the ball that far does not make it simply a matter of effort.

The same is true on forcing a five-second violation or a steal on an inbounds play. If it were merely a matter of effort, we would go for it on EVERY inbounds play, and we don't. There's a reason for that. Pretty obvious reason. It's easier to get beat than it is to get a turnover.

(03-01-2015 10:15 PM)dannyb73 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 10:03 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 09:26 PM)dannyb73 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 09:24 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 08:29 PM)dannyb73 Wrote:  You guys are all armchair F'in quarterbacks. Seems to me the reason you do it is why he did it. We made a 3 and forced a turnover and got the ball back and had a chance to tie or win. Most of the people on this board have no freakin' clue what they are talking about. I am not a Pastner backer, in fact, I am on the record as saying he needs to go. That said, everyone needs to shut the F up about playing defense vs. fouling vs. what YOU think is the right strategy. What he did last night worked just fine. What didn't work is King hitting the game winning shot.

If you foul early, you don't have to depend on luck -- which is exactly what hoping for a five-second violation or a steal on the final inbounds play of a game is (for the other poster.) That's why so many NCAA and NBA coaches foul in the final minute (or even the final two minutes) of a game when they're down.

What he did was run us completely out of time so that, even though we were lucky enough to get a five-second call, we ended up with only a one-in-four chance of success on the final shot (26% shooter) because we were out of time outs.

In the law of averages, we would've lost by five two out of three times (Kedron @ 33% from three) and by two about nine out of ten times (probability of forcing a turnover on the final inbounds.) We had two strokes of luck and still lost. And you think it was well played because of how it turned out? Don't ever go to Vegas.

I will pose my question in a more direct manner so you can comprehend what I am saying by making you answer. How is forcing a turnover (5 second call) luck?

Oh I think I comprehend what you're saying. You're saying something is attributable to effort alone when clearly it isn't.

It's luck in the same way hitting a half-court shot is luck. They both have roughly the same probability. Just because you have to exert effort to heave the ball that far does not make it simply a matter of effort.

The same is true on forcing a five-second violation or a steal on an inbounds play. If it were merely a matter of effort, we would go for it on EVERY inbounds play, and we don't. There's a reason for that. Pretty obvious reason. It's easier to get beat than it is to get a turnover.

Let me pose a direct question to you. What do you do if you don't get the turnover?

At that point you foul down 2 and hope for at least one miss. And getting a miss, while again, wouldn't be lucky, does rely on the other team not executing. There is a reason in the NBA teams choose to play defense down by that amount and roughly the same amount of time. Certainly the rules of the NBA (24 second shot clock and timeout ball advancement) lend to greater opportunities, but it still comes down to your guys making plays versus counting on the other team to make mistakes (aka - missing FT's).

(03-01-2015 11:15 PM)dannyb73 Wrote:  At that point you foul down 2 and hope for at least one miss. And getting a miss, while again, wouldn't be lucky, does rely on the other team not executing. There is a reason in the NBA teams choose to play defense down by that amount and roughly the same amount of time. Certainly the rules of the NBA (24 second shot clock and timeout ball advancement) lend to greater opportunities, but it still comes down to your guys making plays versus counting on the other team to make mistakes (aka - missing FT's).

So, in your estimation, fouling down two with less than 18 seconds left is preferable to fouling down 2 with 60 seconds left? Makes sense to me. Nice chatting with you.

(03-01-2015 11:35 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 11:15 PM)dannyb73 Wrote:  At that point you foul down 2 and hope for at least one miss. And getting a miss, while again, wouldn't be lucky, does rely on the other team not executing. There is a reason in the NBA teams choose to play defense down by that amount and roughly the same amount of time. Certainly the rules of the NBA (24 second shot clock and timeout ball advancement) lend to greater opportunities, but it still comes down to your guys making plays versus counting on the other team to make mistakes (aka - missing FT's).

So, in your estimation, fouling down two with less than 18 seconds left is preferable to fouling down 2 with 60 seconds left? Makes sense to me. Nice chatting with you.

Yes. Would anyone else weigh in here and tell this guy you don't foul down 2 with a minute left in the game?

(03-01-2015 11:58 AM)jgardne Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 11:48 AM)NJ1 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 11:45 AM)jgardne Wrote:  Then let's just say our opinions differ. When you sling about the term confirmation bias it implies one side is wrong.

Couldn't be further from the truth. What it implies (or more accurately, states outright) is that NOBODY has an unbiased view. I know what I expect to see, so I interpret the evidence through that lens. You know what you expect to see, and you interpret the evidence through that lens.

Neither of us are infallible, and neither of us are immune to confirmation bias. Nobody is. It's part of human nature. Citing confirmation bias isn't some sort of ad-hominem. I'm not "slinging it around" as a means to impugn the credibility of another person. I bring it up as a reminder that NONE of us are capable of seeing this truly objectively. It's actually beyond our mental capacities as humans.

Rather than denying that, I think it's sane to be as aware of it as possible at all times. It's a complicating factor in ANY subjective evaluation by humans. It's a built-in error to which nobody is immune.

Keeping that in mind (and part of the discussion) can actually help us step back, I feel, and find common ground (as opposed to just thinking one another are idiots)

Quote:Two reasonable people can witness the same set of events and come to dramatically different conclusions without anchoring or confirmation bias.

I'd disagree. I'd say that each person's confirmation bias is precisely WHY two people can witness the same evidence and come to dramatically different conclusions. In fact, that's built right into the definition of "confirmation bias."

To use the term confirmation bias, you are stating a predetermined conclusion was used to interpret events and filter them in such a way to make the results fit the pre-existing belief

I am saying that people are interpreting these events with an open mind and coming to the conclusion from an unbiased starting point, which was the beginning of the Pastner era. Do you see the difference?

People filter experience through their own unique worldview, that is why they come to different conclusions. It's not "confirmation bias."

Exhibit A of confirmation bias.

(03-01-2015 07:25 PM)dannyb73 Wrote:  

(02-28-2015 10:55 PM)M_Tiger Wrote:  First sweep by Tulsa since 1970-71. To go with first home loss to SMU since '53, and first home loss to Tulane since '92.

On top of that, the announcers couldn't even believe Shaq made a silly offensive call into double coverage, then the team immediately had no clue what to do on defense and allowed an open 3. Josh must have grabbed the wrong number card to hold up. Pure coaching; enough said.

Feel like you're getting $3m worth of coaching each year? Still don't agree, Pastner-ettes? I have 2 things to put on your mind about our coach:

1. Memphis fans think Pastner isn't the right man for the job? He's taken Memphis to 4 straight NCAA tourneys and having a down year. In 2015. So what?
- Lost to Christian Bros - never happened before...ever!
- Partner's wins vs good teams are far and few between...why his team's go out early in NCAA tourney. His teams are overwhelmed by decent teams in postseason play.
- Lost to ECU was worst lost "RPI wise" since 1990.
- He gets his wins against crap teams. He is 6-24 against top 25 teams as of 2-26-14 - we don't have a chance when we play a good team and get smoked when we lose.
- After home loss against SMU, Memphis is 0-8 against Top 50 RPI this year.
- Half the players on the Memphis roster don’t belong at Memphis if Memphis is the program it purports to be. Bottom line.
- Swept by SMU.....Twice this year?
- Atmosphere is dead inside the Forum. Worst in years. FANS DONT CARE.
- First sweep by Tulsa since 1970-71. To go with first home loss to SMU since '53, and first home loss to Tulane since '92.
- Most home losses in 1 season since 2004.
- Worst avg home attendance in 15 years.

2. But wait...Memphis fans expect too much. I mean...you're Memphis. What makes you think this is an elite basketball program?
- Memphis plays in one of the best arenas in the country.
- Memphis can easily pay top dollar for the right coach. Pastner makes as much as top performers...Caliapri, Pitino, etc.
- Ranked 10th in total wins over last 25 years of ALL Division 1 basketball programs.
- Ranked in top 5 nationally in both total attendance and avg per game.

So if you say Memphis isn't an ideal job and deserves better than Pastner, your reasoning is what?

Did you have any thoughts of your own after lifting Wolken's tweet?

Does it matter where the heck I got it from if facts are facts? It's not plagiarism, pal, when they're facts.

(03-02-2015 01:56 AM)M_Tiger Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 07:25 PM)dannyb73 Wrote:  

(02-28-2015 10:55 PM)M_Tiger Wrote:  First sweep by Tulsa since 1970-71. To go with first home loss to SMU since '53, and first home loss to Tulane since '92.

On top of that, the announcers couldn't even believe Shaq made a silly offensive call into double coverage, then the team immediately had no clue what to do on defense and allowed an open 3. Josh must have grabbed the wrong number card to hold up. Pure coaching; enough said.

Feel like you're getting $3m worth of coaching each year? Still don't agree, Pastner-ettes? I have 2 things to put on your mind about our coach:

1. Memphis fans think Pastner isn't the right man for the job? He's taken Memphis to 4 straight NCAA tourneys and having a down year. In 2015. So what?
- Lost to Christian Bros - never happened before...ever!
- Partner's wins vs good teams are far and few between...why his team's go out early in NCAA tourney. His teams are overwhelmed by decent teams in postseason play.
- Lost to ECU was worst lost "RPI wise" since 1990.
- He gets his wins against crap teams. He is 6-24 against top 25 teams as of 2-26-14 - we don't have a chance when we play a good team and get smoked when we lose.
- After home loss against SMU, Memphis is 0-8 against Top 50 RPI this year.
- Half the players on the Memphis roster don’t belong at Memphis if Memphis is the program it purports to be. Bottom line.
- Swept by SMU.....Twice this year?
- Atmosphere is dead inside the Forum. Worst in years. FANS DONT CARE.
- First sweep by Tulsa since 1970-71. To go with first home loss to SMU since '53, and first home loss to Tulane since '92.
- Most home losses in 1 season since 2004.
- Worst avg home attendance in 15 years.

2. But wait...Memphis fans expect too much. I mean...you're Memphis. What makes you think this is an elite basketball program?
- Memphis plays in one of the best arenas in the country.
- Memphis can easily pay top dollar for the right coach. Pastner makes as much as top performers...Caliapri, Pitino, etc.
- Ranked 10th in total wins over last 25 years of ALL Division 1 basketball programs.
- Ranked in top 5 nationally in both total attendance and avg per game.

So if you say Memphis isn't an ideal job and deserves better than Pastner, your reasoning is what?

Did you have any thoughts of your own after lifting Wolken's tweet?

Does it matter where the heck I got it from if facts are facts? It's not plagiarism, pal, when they're facts.

Hey guy, I ain't your pal.

(03-01-2015 11:36 PM)dannyb73 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 11:35 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 11:15 PM)dannyb73 Wrote:  At that point you foul down 2 and hope for at least one miss. And getting a miss, while again, wouldn't be lucky, does rely on the other team not executing. There is a reason in the NBA teams choose to play defense down by that amount and roughly the same amount of time. Certainly the rules of the NBA (24 second shot clock and timeout ball advancement) lend to greater opportunities, but it still comes down to your guys making plays versus counting on the other team to make mistakes (aka - missing FT's).

So, in your estimation, fouling down two with less than 18 seconds left is preferable to fouling down 2 with 60 seconds left? Makes sense to me. Nice chatting with you.

Yes. Would anyone else weigh in here and tell this guy you don't foul down 2 with a minute left in the game?

Fouling in that instance would not really make sense given that you are almost guaranteed at least one more possession. The only time you might see that is if the other team had a really really bad free throw shooter (like DeAndre Jordan bad). If he got the ball then you might consider fouling him, but in general you will almost never see an intentional foul down two with a minute left.

(03-01-2015 11:36 PM)dannyb73 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 11:35 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 11:15 PM)dannyb73 Wrote:  At that point you foul down 2 and hope for at least one miss. And getting a miss, while again, wouldn't be lucky, does rely on the other team not executing. There is a reason in the NBA teams choose to play defense down by that amount and roughly the same amount of time. Certainly the rules of the NBA (24 second shot clock and timeout ball advancement) lend to greater opportunities, but it still comes down to your guys making plays versus counting on the other team to make mistakes (aka - missing FT's).

So, in your estimation, fouling down two with less than 18 seconds left is preferable to fouling down 2 with 60 seconds left? Makes sense to me. Nice chatting with you.

Yes. Would anyone else weigh in here and tell this guy you don't foul down 2 with a minute left in the game?

I want Pastner gone yesterday but you do not foul down 2 with a minute left, play good defense and get the ball back and not allow the other team a chance to extend it to 4 at the line, why would you foul? To me you only foul when the shot clock is off down two or maybe if there is aonly a few seconds difference

(03-02-2015 08:25 AM)ZachMan Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 11:36 PM)dannyb73 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 11:35 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 11:15 PM)dannyb73 Wrote:  At that point you foul down 2 and hope for at least one miss. And getting a miss, while again, wouldn't be lucky, does rely on the other team not executing. There is a reason in the NBA teams choose to play defense down by that amount and roughly the same amount of time. Certainly the rules of the NBA (24 second shot clock and timeout ball advancement) lend to greater opportunities, but it still comes down to your guys making plays versus counting on the other team to make mistakes (aka - missing FT's).

So, in your estimation, fouling down two with less than 18 seconds left is preferable to fouling down 2 with 60 seconds left? Makes sense to me. Nice chatting with you.

Yes. Would anyone else weigh in here and tell this guy you don't foul down 2 with a minute left in the game?

I want Pastner gone yesterday but you do not foul down 2 with a minute left, play good defense and get the ball back and not allow the other team a chance to extend it to 4 at the line, why would you foul? To me you only foul when the shot clock is off down two or maybe if there is aonly a few seconds difference

You don't foul but you at least pressure. We went passive.