(12-05-2014 10:38 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  Tennessee had 6. Made a Sweet 16.

Yeah, but they had an "easy" road and blah, blah, blah.

(12-05-2014 10:36 AM)Tiger46 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:32 AM)MemphisCanes 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

He's not counting the Lawsons (not here yet), Chris Crawford or Dom Woodson as they weren't RSCI top 100 guys.

I can't wait until one day, magically, that I see Iverson display the talent to match all the street cred he has. I haven't seen anything from him yet.

(12-05-2014 10:25 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:23 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  The numbers refute themselves...He included a team with 1 top 100 recruit...UCLA has at least 12. Why would he not include a full list unless it is to spin the story.

good point

According to Rivals, UCLA had 10 top 100's.

That's 2 less than us.

And they were in the sweet 16 last year.

(12-05-2014 10:42 AM)Chirs Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:25 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:23 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  The numbers refute themselves...He included a team with 1 top 100 recruit...UCLA has at least 12. Why would he not include a full list unless it is to spin the story.

good point

According to Rivals, UCLA had 10 top 100's.

That's 2 less than us.

And they were in the sweet 16 last year.

Cohen and Edmiston should be fired for their obviously anti Josh agenda

There are so many things that point to Pastner simply underacheiving at best and being just plain bad in reality.

The flaw I see with the article is that he counts THIS recruiting class (2014) but counts the last five tourney performances, which would include recruits (presumably) from the 2007-2010 recruiting classes and have no bearing on the 2014 recruiting.

(12-05-2014 10:31 AM)Malachi Wrote:  Is anyone refuting the fact Pastner has vastly underachieved with the level of players he's brought in?

Pastner's teams were ranked in the preseason top 20 four times. Only once did we end the year ranked in the top 25.

That's another indictment on his abilities as a coach, but I'm sure it's become clear to practically everyone he's not the man for the job.

A better data set would be check if there was any team anywhere during those five years who also failed to make it beyond the round of 32 with the same number or more of top 100 recruits.

Another way to look at this is that while yes on the surface it appears that coach has underachieved, how much experience do the other coaches have compared to Pastner. Coach lacks the experience, or whatever else is needed, I'll call it the intangibles, but that is for now. If he can continue to recruit, and his coaching catches up to it, you have a great coach on your hands then. It hasn't shown on the court yet, but it's going to come together one year I believe. I personally hope that it's here, but it some of you have your way, it'll be elsewhere. But I know, I know, ok Brucie, Shaka, or G. Marshall are just waiting for this job to open up.

(12-05-2014 10:29 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:23 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:19 AM)MemphisCanes 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. But they are not included because he is spinning this story and people are eating it up.

Don't care enough to do the research though.

Well, then why post this? Either refute the numbers with numbers, or don't.

The numbers refute themselves...He included a team with 1 top 100 recruit...UCLA has at least 12. Why would he not include a full list unless it is to spin the story.

No, they don't refute themselves simply because you want them to. Leaving a team off doesn't change the finding concerning Memphis.

But UCLA has had between 11 and 14 top 100 recruits over the past 5 years and has been to the Sweet 16. They also fired a coach in that span, which is definitely doesn't make Pastner's performance look any better.

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.

(12-05-2014 10:42 AM)Chirs Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:25 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:23 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  The numbers refute themselves...He included a team with 1 top 100 recruit...UCLA has at least 12. Why would he not include a full list unless it is to spin the story.

good point

According to Rivals, UCLA had 10 top 100's.

That's 2 less than us.

And they were in the sweet 16 last year.

According to ESPN they had 12 (14 if you count the Wear twins)

So one more win tells the story...Gotcha.

Don't get me wrong I agree with the sentiment, but don't fall for garbage reporting.

(12-05-2014 09:40 AM)BinghamptonNed Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 09:39 AM)thewood3 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 09:35 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  Telling

I can't afford CA Premium. Will you recap?

If you cannot afford $5 per month, you need to take another job....

I live out of town. I'm not paying $5 a month for the sports coverage they have.

(12-05-2014 10:51 AM)truest blue tiger Wrote:  Another way to look at this is that while yes on the surface it appears that coach has underachieved, how much experience do the other coaches have compared to Pastner. Coach lacks the experience, or whatever else is needed, I'll call it the intangibles, but that is for now. If he can continue to recruit, and his coaching catches up to it, you have a great coach on your hands then. It hasn't shown on the court yet, but it's going to come together one year I believe. I personally hope that it's here, but it some of you have your way, it'll be elsewhere. But I know, I know, ok Brucie, Shaka, or G. Marshall are just waiting for this job to open up.

Still holding out hope that magically he turns into a great coach one day.

Good lord man, it's time to pull your head out of the sand and take a look around.

(12-05-2014 10:54 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:42 AM)Chirs Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:25 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:23 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  The numbers refute themselves...He included a team with 1 top 100 recruit...UCLA has at least 12. Why would he not include a full list unless it is to spin the story.

good point

According to Rivals, UCLA had 10 top 100's.

That's 2 less than us.

And they were in the sweet 16 last year.

According to ESPN they had 12 (14 if you count the Wear twins)

So one more win tells the story...Gotcha.

Don't get me wrong I agree with the sentiment, but don't fall for garbage reporting.

Good lord he mentioned 13 other teams. Let me see if you can understand this


HOWLAND GOT FIRED!!!!


Smh

(12-05-2014 10:58 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:54 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:42 AM)Chirs Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:25 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:23 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  The numbers refute themselves...He included a team with 1 top 100 recruit...UCLA has at least 12. Why would he not include a full list unless it is to spin the story.

good point

According to Rivals, UCLA had 10 top 100's.

That's 2 less than us.

And they were in the sweet 16 last year.

According to ESPN they had 12 (14 if you count the Wear twins)

So one more win tells the story...Gotcha.

Don't get me wrong I agree with the sentiment, but don't fall for garbage reporting.

Good lord he mentioned 13 other teams. Let me see if you can understand this


HOWLAND GOT FIRED!!!!


Smh

Not much on Howland.

(12-05-2014 10:58 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:54 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:42 AM)Chirs Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:25 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:23 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  The numbers refute themselves...He included a team with 1 top 100 recruit...UCLA has at least 12. Why would he not include a full list unless it is to spin the story.

good point

According to Rivals, UCLA had 10 top 100's.

That's 2 less than us.

And they were in the sweet 16 last year.

According to ESPN they had 12 (14 if you count the Wear twins)

So one more win tells the story...Gotcha.

Don't get me wrong I agree with the sentiment, but don't fall for garbage reporting.

Good lord he mentioned 13 other teams. Let me see if you can understand this


HOWLAND GOT FIRED!!!!


Smh

Yes...But if you cherry pick stats it makes them essentially meaningless...

I will include this team because it fits my story but exclude that one because it does not...Very dishonest reporting from the CA.

(12-05-2014 11:01 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:58 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:54 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:42 AM)Chirs Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:25 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  good point

According to Rivals, UCLA had 10 top 100's.

That's 2 less than us.

And they were in the sweet 16 last year.

According to ESPN they had 12 (14 if you count the Wear twins)

So one more win tells the story...Gotcha.

Don't get me wrong I agree with the sentiment, but don't fall for garbage reporting.

Good lord he mentioned 13 other teams. Let me see if you can understand this


HOWLAND GOT FIRED!!!!


Smh

Yes...But if you cherry pick stats it makes them essentially meaningless...

I will include this team because it fits my story but exclude that one because it does not...Very dishonest reporting from the CA.

That fact remains that all those schools listed except Memphis made an elite 8


Drops mic

(12-05-2014 10:29 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 09:54 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  Here the main tidbit :

Top 100 players signed over the past 5 years

23 Kentucky
16 Duke
15 Ohio St., Arizone
14 North Carolina
13 Kansas
12 Syracuse , Louisville, MEMPHIS
10 Florida
9. UConn
6. Michigan St
1 Wisconsin

Of those 13 schools 10 have made the final four in the last 5 years

All but ONE have made an elite eight

As broken down by Advancement:

National champs:
23 Kentucky
13 Louisville
9. UConn

National Runner Up:
13 Kansas

Final Four:
15 Ohio St.
10 Florida
1 Wisconsin
6. Michigan St
12 Syracuse

Elite Eight:
12 Arizona
14 North Carolina

Round of 32:
12. MEMPHIS

Edit...It was written by Michael Cohen, not Edmiston

As broken down by Years Of Coaching Experience:

National champs:
23 Kentucky
30 Louisville
1 UConn

National Runner Up:
21 Kansas

Final Four:
14 Ohio St.
20 Florida
31 Wisconsin
20 Michigan St
40 Syracuse

Elite Eight:
10 Arizona
26 North Carolina

Round of 32:
5 MEMPHIS

So, it is clearly obvious that if we want to have deep tourney runs, the program needs a confluence of two things:

10+ top 100 recruits

and

a coach with at least 10+ years experience. Preferably 20.

Josh, at 6 years, (as Stammers points out) statistically CAN'T get the job done. Do we, as a fan base, wait another 8-14 years for the "experience" part of this to kick in, or look elsewhere?

Good info.

(12-05-2014 11:08 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  So, it is clearly obvious that if we want to have deep tourney runs, the program needs a confluence of two things:

10+ top 100 recruits

and

a coach with at least 10+ years experience. Preferably 20.

Josh, at 6 years, (as Stammers points out) statistically CAN'T get the job done. Do we, as a fan base, wait another 8-14 years for the "experience" part of this to kick in, or look elsewhere?

Good info.

Quote:Josh, at 6 years, (as Stammers points out) statistically CAN'T get the job done. Do we, as a fan base, wait another 1-2 years for the "experience" part of this to kick in, or look elsewhere?

FIFY

(12-05-2014 11:03 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 11:01 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:58 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:54 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-05-2014 10:42 AM)Chirs Wrote:  According to Rivals, UCLA had 10 top 100's.

That's 2 less than us.

And they were in the sweet 16 last year.

According to ESPN they had 12 (14 if you count the Wear twins)

So one more win tells the story...Gotcha.

Don't get me wrong I agree with the sentiment, but don't fall for garbage reporting.

Good lord he mentioned 13 other teams. Let me see if you can understand this


HOWLAND GOT FIRED!!!!


Smh

Yes...But if you cherry pick stats it makes them essentially meaningless...

I will include this team because it fits my story but exclude that one because it does not...Very dishonest reporting from the CA.

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, That Damn UK coach must suck with all that talent fire his ass...Anyone can cherry pick stats to tell a story.

Again I am not defending Pastners performance I am very critical of the piss poor agenda driven article in a "NEWS"paper. Pastner has underachieved without a doubt.

That is the type of post I would expect on here, not from a news organization. Heaven forbid I hold them to a higher standard.