This team is also 12-5 with zero quality wins

WGAS if they're winning stats?

Stats are for LOSERS

EAB

Interesting

Problem?

(01-17-2016 06:00 PM)E A Bond Wrote:  This team is also 12-5 with zero quality wins

WGAS if they're winning stats?

Stats are for LOSERS

Our RPI is 124

(01-17-2016 06:37 PM)Bluebeard Wrote:  

(01-17-2016 06:00 PM)E A Bond Wrote:  This team is also 12-5 with zero quality wins

WGAS if they're winning stats?

Stats are for LOSERS

Our RPI is 124

Yay

I know right

(01-17-2016 01:10 AM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(01-16-2016 11:54 PM)Bluebeard Wrote:  

(01-16-2016 10:41 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  Is it so painful for some of you to acknowledge any type of success?

I count success as deep tourney runs.

You count success as winning regular season home games against bad/mediocre teams.

I want our program to do great things.

You obviously want our program to be mediocre.

I guess that's the difference between you and me.

No you want the program to reach an unrealistic level which it has never been before except for a short 4 years period with questionable behavior by the staff and a bag man. The program has NEVER sustained such a level for any period of time that it had those four years. And unless you are willing to risk being placed on probation again it will not ever be at that level for any sustainable period of time. History has told us that. We are NOT in the top 50 programs in the country based on wins.

Your unrealistic expectation is why no one wanted this job after Cal left. And will be hard to get anyone to take it if CJP leaves.

And you want the program to just be good enough?

Pastner is not the answer

(01-16-2016 08:59 PM)hsvtiger Wrote:  

(01-16-2016 08:53 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  Going into today's game the Tigers lead the AAC in the following

Blocked Shots Per Game
Defensive Rebounds per Game
Field-Goal Percentage Defense
Free Throw Attempts
Free Throws Made
Total Rebounds Per Game
Turnovers Forced

And top 10 nationally in all but turnovers forced

These cannot be right. We play a walk-on at PF for 2-4 minutes a game.

(01-17-2016 10:41 PM)tigerex Wrote:  

(01-16-2016 08:59 PM)hsvtiger Wrote:  

(01-16-2016 08:53 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  Going into today's game the Tigers lead the AAC in the following

Blocked Shots Per Game
Defensive Rebounds per Game
Field-Goal Percentage Defense
Free Throw Attempts
Free Throws Made
Total Rebounds Per Game
Turnovers Forced

And top 10 nationally in all but turnovers forced

These cannot be right. We play a walk-on at PF for 2-4 minutes a game.

We play a Memphis kid that amount of time

(01-17-2016 10:42 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(01-17-2016 10:41 PM)tigerex Wrote:  

(01-16-2016 08:59 PM)hsvtiger Wrote:  

(01-16-2016 08:53 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  Going into today's game the Tigers lead the AAC in the following

Blocked Shots Per Game
Defensive Rebounds per Game
Field-Goal Percentage Defense
Free Throw Attempts
Free Throws Made
Total Rebounds Per Game
Turnovers Forced

And top 10 nationally in all but turnovers forced

These cannot be right. We play a walk-on at PF for 2-4 minutes a game.

We play a Memphis kid that amount of time

Gonna be enough to get you in the tourney?

1495 867

(01-17-2016 09:50 PM)springcat Wrote:  

(01-17-2016 01:10 AM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(01-16-2016 11:54 PM)Bluebeard Wrote:  

(01-16-2016 10:41 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  Is it so painful for some of you to acknowledge any type of success?

I count success as deep tourney runs.

You count success as winning regular season home games against bad/mediocre teams.

I want our program to do great things.

You obviously want our program to be mediocre.

I guess that's the difference between you and me.

No you want the program to reach an unrealistic level which it has never been before except for a short 4 years period with questionable behavior by the staff and a bag man. The program has NEVER sustained such a level for any period of time that it had those four years. And unless you are willing to risk being placed on probation again it will not ever be at that level for any sustainable period of time. History has told us that. We are NOT in the top 50 programs in the country based on wins.

Your unrealistic expectation is why no one wanted this job after Cal left. And will be hard to get anyone to take it if CJP leaves.

And you want the program to just be good enough?

Pastner is not the answer

I want to be realistic. While you want something which has NEVER happened in the entire history of the program. We have ALWAYS been a school which has a few great years and then back down to above average years. What part of we are not in the top 50 in number of wins is beyond you. Historically we are not a top 50 program. But we have period of great ball. And unlike years past we have not fallen into years of poor ball. We have 1495-867 record at a .632 winning percentage.





1 Kentucky 2178 673 .764
2 Kansas 2153 831 .722
3 North Carolina 2140 767 .736
4 Duke 2062 853 .707
5 Syracuse 1920 851 .693
6 Temple 1849 1025 .643
7 UCLA 1803 802 .692
8 St. John's 1795 956 .652
9 Notre Dame 1795 972 .649
10 Indiana 1756 995 .638
11 Louisville 1755 884 .665
12 Brigham Young 1738 1048 .624
13 Utah 1732 957 .644
14 Illinois 1729 939 .648
15 Pennsylvania 1723 1059 .619
16 Texas 1719 1019 .628
17 Washington 1716 1125 .604
18 Western Kentucky 1715 868 .664
19 Arizona 1712 909 .653
20 Cincinnati 1705 986 .634
21 Purdue 1694 1002 .628
22 Oregon State 1687 1281 .568
23 West Virginia 1676 1050 .615
24 Princeton 1673 1048 .615
25 North Carolina State 1661 1008 .622
26 Villanova 1646 911 .644
27 Connecticut 1641 911 .643
28 Bradley 1611 1127 .588
29 Georgetown 1609 988 .620
30 Michigan State 1608 1057 .603
31 Ohio State 1607 1030 .609
32 Missouri State 1606 925 .635
33 Arkansas 1605 901 .640
34 Alabama 1600 984 .619
35 Oklahoma State 1597 1107 .591
36 Oklahoma 1596 1025 .609
37 Missouri 1585 1089 .593
38 Saint Joseph's 1574 1064 .597
39 Kansas State 1572 1105 .587
39 Iowa 1572 1103 .588
41 Tennessee 1568 985 .612
42 Dayton 1561 1073 .593
43 Oregon 1557 1323 .541
44 Illinois State 1557 1125 .581
45 Pittsburgh 1556 1099 .586
46 Murray State 1553 852 .646
47 Marquette 1550 956 .619
48 Washington State 1550 1445 .518
49 Vanderbilt 1547 1093 .586
50 Minnesota 1541 1168 .569

(01-17-2016 06:00 PM)E A Bond Wrote:  This team is also 12-5 with zero quality wins

WGAS if they're winning stats?

Stats are for LOSERS

You really need to check the facts before posting. You would be wrong less often that way.

(01-17-2016 10:58 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(01-17-2016 06:00 PM)E A Bond Wrote:  This team is also 12-5 with zero quality wins

WGAS if they're winning stats?

Stats are for LOSERS

You really need to check the facts before posting. You would be wrong less often that way.

if the NCAA started today would we be in? if so, will it be the losses to 5 "good" teams or the "quality wins" that will help us make it in?

(01-17-2016 11:06 PM)tigersroll Wrote:  

(01-17-2016 10:58 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(01-17-2016 06:00 PM)E A Bond Wrote:  This team is also 12-5 with zero quality wins

WGAS if they're winning stats?

Stats are for LOSERS

You really need to check the facts before posting. You would be wrong less often that way.

if the NCAA started today would we be in? if so, will it be the losses to 5 "good" teams or the "quality wins" that will help us make it in?

No one in AAC would be in as an at large at this time. So it will come down to eligible regular season champs. Since we are currently the #1 seed. Then we would be in. If they take anyone from AAC at all.

(01-17-2016 10:56 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  1495 867

(01-17-2016 09:50 PM)springcat Wrote:  

(01-17-2016 01:10 AM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(01-16-2016 11:54 PM)Bluebeard Wrote:  

(01-16-2016 10:41 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  Is it so painful for some of you to acknowledge any type of success?

I count success as deep tourney runs.

You count success as winning regular season home games against bad/mediocre teams.

I want our program to do great things.

You obviously want our program to be mediocre.

I guess that's the difference between you and me.

No you want the program to reach an unrealistic level which it has never been before except for a short 4 years period with questionable behavior by the staff and a bag man. The program has NEVER sustained such a level for any period of time that it had those four years. And unless you are willing to risk being placed on probation again it will not ever be at that level for any sustainable period of time. History has told us that. We are NOT in the top 50 programs in the country based on wins.

Your unrealistic expectation is why no one wanted this job after Cal left. And will be hard to get anyone to take it if CJP leaves.

And you want the program to just be good enough?

Pastner is not the answer

I want to be realistic. While you want something which has NEVER happened in the entire history of the program. We have ALWAYS been a school which has a few great years and then back down to above average years. What part of we are not in the top 50 in number of wins is beyond you. Historically we are not a top 50 program. But we have period of great ball. And unlike years past we have not fallen into years of poor ball. We have 1495-867 record at a .632 winning percentage.





1 Kentucky 2178 673 .764
2 Kansas 2153 831 .722
3 North Carolina 2140 767 .736
4 Duke 2062 853 .707
5 Syracuse 1920 851 .693
6 Temple 1849 1025 .643
7 UCLA 1803 802 .692
8 St. John's 1795 956 .652
9 Notre Dame 1795 972 .649
10 Indiana 1756 995 .638
11 Louisville 1755 884 .665
12 Brigham Young 1738 1048 .624
13 Utah 1732 957 .644
14 Illinois 1729 939 .648
15 Pennsylvania 1723 1059 .619
16 Texas 1719 1019 .628
17 Washington 1716 1125 .604
18 Western Kentucky 1715 868 .664
19 Arizona 1712 909 .653
20 Cincinnati 1705 986 .634
21 Purdue 1694 1002 .628
22 Oregon State 1687 1281 .568
23 West Virginia 1676 1050 .615
24 Princeton 1673 1048 .615
25 North Carolina State 1661 1008 .622
26 Villanova 1646 911 .644
27 Connecticut 1641 911 .643
28 Bradley 1611 1127 .588
29 Georgetown 1609 988 .620
30 Michigan State 1608 1057 .603
31 Ohio State 1607 1030 .609
32 Missouri State 1606 925 .635
33 Arkansas 1605 901 .640
34 Alabama 1600 984 .619
35 Oklahoma State 1597 1107 .591
36 Oklahoma 1596 1025 .609
37 Missouri 1585 1089 .593
38 Saint Joseph's 1574 1064 .597
39 Kansas State 1572 1105 .587
39 Iowa 1572 1103 .588
41 Tennessee 1568 985 .612
42 Dayton 1561 1073 .593
43 Oregon 1557 1323 .541
44 Illinois State 1557 1125 .581
45 Pittsburgh 1556 1099 .586
46 Murray State 1553 852 .646
47 Marquette 1550 956 .619
48 Washington State 1550 1445 .518
49 Vanderbilt 1547 1093 .586
50 Minnesota 1541 1168 .569

The number of all-time wins is not a very good indicator of where a program currently stands in the world of college basketball. Our winning pct is better than probably half of thise teams that you listed. Just because a school started playing before Memphis and had their best years 50-100 years ago doesnt mean they are currently a better basketball program.

(01-17-2016 11:19 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(01-17-2016 11:06 PM)tigersroll Wrote:  

(01-17-2016 10:58 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(01-17-2016 06:00 PM)E A Bond Wrote:  This team is also 12-5 with zero quality wins

WGAS if they're winning stats?

Stats are for LOSERS

You really need to check the facts before posting. You would be wrong less often that way.

if the NCAA started today would we be in? if so, will it be the losses to 5 "good" teams or the "quality wins" that will help us make it in?

No one in AAC would be in as an at large at this time. So it will come down to eligible regular season champs. Since we are currently the #1 seed. Then we would be in. If they take anyone from AAC at all.

Who is our best win? 12-7 OSU?

Quality

(01-17-2016 11:19 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(01-17-2016 11:06 PM)tigersroll Wrote:  

(01-17-2016 10:58 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(01-17-2016 06:00 PM)E A Bond Wrote:  This team is also 12-5 with zero quality wins

WGAS if they're winning stats?

Stats are for LOSERS

You really need to check the facts before posting. You would be wrong less often that way.

if the NCAA started today would we be in? if so, will it be the losses to 5 "good" teams or the "quality wins" that will help us make it in?

No one in AAC would be in as an at large at this time. So it will come down to eligible regular season champs. Since we are currently the #1 seed. Then we would be in. If they take anyone from AAC at all.

Last week's ESPN Bracketology had 3 AAC teams in - Houston, UConn and Cincy. So two At Larges are currently projected.

(01-18-2016 01:36 AM)hsvtiger Wrote:  

(01-17-2016 10:56 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  1495 867

(01-17-2016 09:50 PM)springcat Wrote:  

(01-17-2016 01:10 AM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(01-16-2016 11:54 PM)Bluebeard Wrote:  I count success as deep tourney runs.

You count success as winning regular season home games against bad/mediocre teams.

I want our program to do great things.

You obviously want our program to be mediocre.

I guess that's the difference between you and me.

No you want the program to reach an unrealistic level which it has never been before except for a short 4 years period with questionable behavior by the staff and a bag man. The program has NEVER sustained such a level for any period of time that it had those four years. And unless you are willing to risk being placed on probation again it will not ever be at that level for any sustainable period of time. History has told us that. We are NOT in the top 50 programs in the country based on wins.

Your unrealistic expectation is why no one wanted this job after Cal left. And will be hard to get anyone to take it if CJP leaves.

And you want the program to just be good enough?

Pastner is not the answer

I want to be realistic. While you want something which has NEVER happened in the entire history of the program. We have ALWAYS been a school which has a few great years and then back down to above average years. What part of we are not in the top 50 in number of wins is beyond you. Historically we are not a top 50 program. But we have period of great ball. And unlike years past we have not fallen into years of poor ball. We have 1495-867 record at a .632 winning percentage.





1 Kentucky 2178 673 .764
2 Kansas 2153 831 .722
3 North Carolina 2140 767 .736
4 Duke 2062 853 .707
5 Syracuse 1920 851 .693
6 Temple 1849 1025 .643
7 UCLA 1803 802 .692
8 St. John's 1795 956 .652
9 Notre Dame 1795 972 .649
10 Indiana 1756 995 .638
11 Louisville 1755 884 .665
12 Brigham Young 1738 1048 .624
13 Utah 1732 957 .644
14 Illinois 1729 939 .648
15 Pennsylvania 1723 1059 .619
16 Texas 1719 1019 .628
17 Washington 1716 1125 .604
18 Western Kentucky 1715 868 .664
19 Arizona 1712 909 .653
20 Cincinnati 1705 986 .634
21 Purdue 1694 1002 .628
22 Oregon State 1687 1281 .568
23 West Virginia 1676 1050 .615
24 Princeton 1673 1048 .615
25 North Carolina State 1661 1008 .622
26 Villanova 1646 911 .644
27 Connecticut 1641 911 .643
28 Bradley 1611 1127 .588
29 Georgetown 1609 988 .620
30 Michigan State 1608 1057 .603
31 Ohio State 1607 1030 .609
32 Missouri State 1606 925 .635
33 Arkansas 1605 901 .640
34 Alabama 1600 984 .619
35 Oklahoma State 1597 1107 .591
36 Oklahoma 1596 1025 .609
37 Missouri 1585 1089 .593
38 Saint Joseph's 1574 1064 .597
39 Kansas State 1572 1105 .587
39 Iowa 1572 1103 .588
41 Tennessee 1568 985 .612
42 Dayton 1561 1073 .593
43 Oregon 1557 1323 .541
44 Illinois State 1557 1125 .581
45 Pittsburgh 1556 1099 .586
46 Murray State 1553 852 .646
47 Marquette 1550 956 .619
48 Washington State 1550 1445 .518
49 Vanderbilt 1547 1093 .586
50 Minnesota 1541 1168 .569

The number of all-time wins is not a very good indicator of where a program currently stands in the world of college basketball. Our winning pct is better than probably half of thise teams that you listed. Just because a school started playing before Memphis and had their best years 50-100 years ago doesnt mean they are currently a better basketball program.

Hey Racecar guy, does this list include our "vacated" wins?? if not, where would that place us?

Anither NASCAR guy "facts" thread smashed to "Smitherenes"

(01-18-2016 10:05 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  Anither NASCAR guy "facts" thread smashed to "Smitherenes"

My personal favorite is Missouri State at #32.