The average number of wins of our top 10 seasons ever is 22.7. Only two seasons in school history with more wins.

(03-27-2009 09:39 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  The average number of wins of our top 10 seasons ever is 22.7. Only two seasons in school history with more wins.

Certainly our best season in 13 years. Had a better conference record this year than in 95-96, but that team went to postseason and this one didn't. If we had gone to the CBI or CIT and won some more games I think most would remember this as a great season. The fact that it ended without going to postseason is like when you go to a movie and it suddenly ends with a blank screen instead of a normal ending. Just left an empty feeling for me. Looking at our history, it may be awhile before we win 23 games again- I hope my wife's prediction that it will be 10 years before we have another season like this is not correct- She was a lot more pissed than me about what happened to Stevee and us consequently blowing our best chance for the NCAA/NIT in 13 years.

If, if, if our recruiting has turned the corner, maybe it won't be that long.

(03-27-2009 11:33 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  If, if, if our recruiting has turned the corner, maybe it won't be that long.

I was extremely excited about our recruiting class. LRTrojan always cautions against being over optimistic and I think he has a good point- So far our highest rated signee (McBride) is likely gone. Before I get too excited about Cicic I want to see him back in the States. Neighbour looks to be one of our most exciting prospects in years, but he has not even signed yet- if he is as good as we hope, you know some big schools will still try to "steal" him before all is said and done. Even without McBride our recruiting looks quite good, but I'll withhold judgment until I see them. In addition, if we are talking about what signing classes look like on paper we are not rated nearly as high as WKU, ASU, MTSU or even ULM.

Have we ever had two 3-stars before?

(03-27-2009 12:06 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  Have we ever had two 3-stars before?

No we haven't. Are you suggesting we have two 3 stars this year? I just checked Rivals and none of our signees have any stars. Neighbours is a 3 star on Rivals and would likely be our highest rated high school signee since I have had the ability to access player ratings.

I thought someone had found Cicic listed as a 3-star someplace?

I know what it was: someone had calculated that ESPN's 84 rating was equivalent to a 3-star.

(03-27-2009 12:13 PM)mjs Wrote:  

(03-27-2009 12:06 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  Have we ever had two 3-stars before?

No we haven't. Are you suggesting we have two 3 stars this year? I just checked Rivals and none of our signees have any stars. Neighbours is a 3 star on Rivals and would likely be our highest rated high school signee since I have had the ability to access player ratings.

I'm really holding out an opinion on these kids like Neighbours, who play in a parochial league. What kind of opposition are they playing against?
Same with Cicic. How will they stack up against good D1 competition?
I'm withholding judgement until they show me they can play at this level.

Cicic was at a prep school, wasn't he? Sometimes the level there is pretty high.

(03-27-2009 12:31 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  Cicic was at a prep school, wasn't he? Sometimes the level there is pretty high.

Neighbours competition was clearly suspect much of the year. I assume when they went to the national tournament in Springfield, Mo. he probably played against some good players. How many were in the 6-8 to 6-10 range is the question.

(03-27-2009 12:22 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  I know what it was: someone had calculated that ESPN's 84 rating was equivalent to a 3-star.

ESPN has apparently changed the meaning of their rating system. In the past an 84 was a really highly rated player. Now I think it just means he's a midmajor talent. Probably not quite a "3 star". Doesn't mean he won't be great. We'll just have to wait and see.

(03-27-2009 10:26 AM)mjs Wrote:  

(03-27-2009 09:39 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  The average number of wins of our top 10 seasons ever is 22.7. Only two seasons in school history with more wins.

Certainly our best season in 13 years. Had a better conference record this year than in 95-96, but that team went to postseason and this one didn't. If we had gone to the CBI or CIT and won some more games I think most would remember this as a great season. The fact that it ended without going to postseason is like when you go to a movie and it suddenly ends with a blank screen instead of a normal ending. Just left an empty feeling for me. Looking at our history, it may be awhile before we win 23 games again- I hope my wife's prediction that it will be 10 years before we have another season like this is not correct- She was a lot more pissed than me about what happened to Stevee and us consequently blowing our best chance for the NCAA/NIT in 13 years.

I suspect it will. This is the weakest the Sun Belt has been since we have been in the league. Western was down, but we couldn't take advantage of it.

Middle was picked the best in the East, and were a disappointment to their fans. The West was weak as a dog. Two teams that have always been pretty good, and ones we've had trouble beating for years, Lafayette and New Orleans very weak.

When you win as many road games as we did, you know it has to have been weak. The good teams usually don't win anything near as many.

(03-27-2009 10:26 AM)mjs Wrote:  

(03-27-2009 09:39 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  The average number of wins of our top 10 seasons ever is 22.7. Only two seasons in school history with more wins.

Certainly our best season in 13 years. Had a better conference record this year than in 95-96, but that team went to postseason and this one didn't. If we had gone to the CBI or CIT and won some more games I think most would remember this as a great season. The fact that it ended without going to postseason is like when you go to a movie and it suddenly ends with a blank screen instead of a normal ending. Just left an empty feeling for me. Looking at our history, it may be awhile before we win 23 games again- I hope my wife's prediction that it will be 10 years before we have another season like this is not correct- She was a lot more pissed than me about what happened to Stevee and us consequently blowing our best chance for the NCAA/NIT in 13 years.

Am I the only one who believes that Stevie's departure had nothing to do with our losing in the tournament? Does anyone really think that if he had played we would have won the tournament? We had two chances at Western. They killed us once, and won the other time. This was a team that missed by two points going to the Sweet Sixteen. We had two chances to win that tournament. Slim and none, and Slim was out of town.

Personally, I think we were better as a team without Stevie. Whatever he contributed personally, he would have substracted in other areas, IMO. We didn't blow our chances. We got beat by teams with better talent. We overachieved, and I give credit to the coaches and players for that. We had a great season. It's not our players fault that they're in a league where 23 wins and 11 road wins don't get you into the postseason. They accomplished far more than, IMO, they should have, facing the talent they did.

(03-28-2009 10:21 AM)Dr. J. Wrote:  Personally, I think we were better as a team without Stevie.

Without Mr. Moore, we may have been better "as a team", but I don't think we were a better team.

(03-28-2009 10:33 AM)Scotto Wrote:  

(03-28-2009 10:21 AM)Dr. J. Wrote:  Personally, I think we were better as a team without Stevie.

Without Mr. Moore, we may have been better "as a team", but I don't think we were a better team.

One of those things we'll never really know.

(03-28-2009 10:47 AM)Dr. J. Wrote:  

(03-28-2009 10:33 AM)Scotto Wrote:  

(03-28-2009 10:21 AM)Dr. J. Wrote:  Personally, I think we were better as a team without Stevie.

Without Mr. Moore, we may have been better "as a team", but I don't think we were a better team.

One of those things we'll never really know.

(03-28-2009 10:51 AM)mjs Wrote:  

(03-28-2009 10:47 AM)Dr. J. Wrote:  

(03-28-2009 10:33 AM)Scotto Wrote:  

(03-28-2009 10:21 AM)Dr. J. Wrote:  Personally, I think we were better as a team without Stevie.

Without Mr. Moore, we may have been better "as a team", but I don't think we were a better team.

One of those things we'll never really know.

If the "incident" never happened we would have won the Western game. Stevee had 7 points, in the first 5 minutes, and was on his way to his best game. But, not only did we lose his scoring and athletic ability, there is no doubt that the "incident" had to be a major distraction for the team as a whole. No way can the players just procede "as if nothing happened" when their leading scorer is suddenly AWOL. We had a nice lead going into half time and I think we would have kept it with Stevee in the game. Then putting him back in was a double whammo, as he hadn't played in 25 minutes and was totally ineffective when he returned. Who knows about the tournament, but I believe we would have won that game and, at least, gone to the NIT.

I agree, Right or wrong aside, losing our top scorer and then having him in the stands watching was not good for the psyche of the team or for the people picking the NIT. We already have the reputation of having a very bland, limited offense team and then we lose Stevie and look pathetic offensively in the tournament. I think outsiders felt we were done.

(03-28-2009 11:05 AM)Karl B Wrote:  I think outsiders felt we were done.

Many of the insiders thought the same.