(01-25-2014 11:54 AM)TiminMem23 Wrote:  A deep run to me is Sweet 16/Elite 8.

To me, this team looks like a Sweet 16 team. We all know they could lose before that based on any number of factors out of their control, but if everything works out just right then Sweet 16 is possible.

(01-25-2014 11:54 AM)TiminMem23 Wrote:  A deep run to me is Sweet 16/Elite 8.

Okay. But since you said you would be happy and enjoy the wins after he got "a few deep runs," that means you're going to constantly complain for at least this year and all of next, minimum? Just using your words.

I'd have to go back and look, but not sure how many other coaches (beyond Kirk and Cal) even did that (at least one S16 and one E8, back to back, or in close succession). Finch, maybe? I'll check.

(01-25-2014 12:13 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(01-24-2014 02:06 PM)TiminMem23 Wrote:  I don't necessarily agree with that. A lot of ppl think Pastner has had underachieving teams and so some of us are going to be critical (even when they blow out Houston). If he starts going balls out in the tournament and they make a few deep runs, most will lay off and enjoy.

I believe that most everyone here wants the Tigers to win. But some of us see more than what's right in front of us. What's in front of us is a 20 pt win over Houston. What's down the road could be another early exit from the dance if we don't correct problems that are correctable.

We definitely disagree. In fact, your post embodies exactly the point I'm trying to make.

What you're expecting from Pastner, before you will be happy with him, is ludicrous. Do you even understand what you're really saying? Please allow me to help, quoting directly, word for word, from your post above:

You: "A lot of ppl think Pastner has had underachieving teams... "

Me: Underachieving teams? Pastner walked in with no HC experience, 1 recruit, 6 D-1 subs on scholly, a season just vacated, and on probation. He proceeded to win the most games in history of any Memphis coach his first 4 seasons.

And don't say, "Anybody could win like that in CUSA, blah blah blah..." Really? Then why didn't anybody else do it? Or do it in any other conference even worse than CUSA? There were usually about 20 of them every year, at least.

We carried solid OOC RPIs most of that time, and UConn just found out it can be hard to win on the road, against some of those same CUSA teams.

And don't say, "He underachieved with the players he had here. Anybody else could take these same players, and..." Who do you think got those players here? Oh yeah, Pastner. Tubby Smith couldn't get those players at UK, much less anywhere else. Tim Floyd couldn't get those players in all the years he's been coaching. Neither could Leonard Hamilton. I could go on and on...so, those guys would NEVER have a chance to coach the players Pastner has, b/c they have never proven they can successfully recruit them. Not even at Kentucky.

You: "...and so some of us are going to be critical (even when they blow out Houston)."

Me: Exactly my point. You and your like-minded peeps are going to trash Josh, no matter how well we play, through much of his first 4 years, this season, and more seasons to come, until when? Oh yeah, until...

You: "If he starts going balls out in the tournament and they make a few deep runs, most will lay off and enjoy."

Me: Are you serious? Do you realize how many coaches in Memphis history have EVER had "a few deep runs" here? TWO. Dana Kirk in the '80s, and John Calipari his last 4 years here. THAT'S IT. The only two "few deep runs" IN 100 YEARS.

Oh yeah, and Kirk had all his tourney runs vacated, and Calipari had his best one vacated (and most likely cheated on the other 3), and lost the entire season, not just his tourney run.

You: "I believe that most everyone here wants the Tigers to win."

Me: Uh oh. I actually agree with this one, lol.

You: "But some of us see more than what's right in front of us. What's in front of us is a 20 pt win over Houston. What's down the road could be another early exit from the dance..."

Me: "Could be" an early exit? Well, it also "could be" S16 or E8, or better. THERE IS NO WAY TO TELL YET, unless you read Tarot cards, perhaps. Great reason not to celebrate ANY WIN THIS ENTIRE SEASON, before it even happens.

You: "...if we don't correct problems that are correctable."

Me: You could say that about almost any team in the Top 25. Do you ever watch any other teams play? No perfect ones, in terms of potential problems. All have SOME flaws, any one of which could cost them a game in the NCAA tourney.

And your definition of "correctable problems" might differ from real problems. Example: Several people posted after the Houston game that we need to correct the problem of not getting back in transition defense. Well, we certainly didn't do that well, but Houston was one game. Has that been a consistent issue for us that Pastner really needs to fix? NO.

You just did a PERFECT JOB of showing what is in the minds of perhaps most/all of those who trash Pastner and/or the staff and players, and even other fans, no matter how Pastner and the team performs.

I rest my case. You are not objective, and therefore pound the negative, before and after every game, b/c you have set an IMPOSSIBLE STANDARD for Pastner, that no other coach has ever met (and kept the tourney games from being vacated).

Summed up pretty well.

Although you have tweaked others for basically responding with exactly what you are here.

This is correct...and a syndrome of this Memphis Tiger fan board being treated as a Memphis area anyone sports board- which engenders constant antagonism.

(01-25-2014 09:49 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Hey MadTiger, look at the thread title and read the transcript in the OP, or watch the video in Post #36. And read Paragraphs #3 and #4 in the OP.

My point was, reasonable analysis contains BOTH praising AND critical comments. Not just all one or all the other, and nothing wildly extreme.

BTW, my comments about the negative peeps apply EQUALLY to the eternally positive ones, who complain if a reasonable poster says even one thing critical, or disagrees with them. I went after Jedi for the same issues I went after BlueBeard, just on the other end of the spectrum.

You shouldn't have brought my name into this, but I'm can't say I'm surprised you did.

You always seem to get really defensive when I disagree with you. When I try and diffuse the situation, it just makes it worst and you start playing the victim card or accusing me of not having a civil conversation, which is the height of hypocrisy. I am NEVER being uncivil with you.

Its not just me, I've noticed a pattern of you getting a bit defensive when others quote your posts and disagree.

Now there just seems to be regular tension from you towards me. This post was a perfect example. This is not to suggest you are a bad poster, because you are not. You are actually one of the better posters here overall.

But the idea that I don't criticize the players or coach is just wrong.

Just the other day after a 20 point win (in a game we led wire to wire) I started a thread attacking Crawford's defense and Josh's weak defensive coaching. I think my frustrations came across pretty blatantly there.

Not to mention my criticisms of his poor job at Cinncy, the Ok St loss, and the over emphasis on the press early.

I can take criticism, but I won't be falsely stereotyped as you are trying to do and not respond to it. But notice how civil I will still be.

(01-25-2014 03:31 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

(01-25-2014 09:49 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Hey MadTiger, look at the thread title and read the transcript in the OP, or watch the video in Post #36. And read Paragraphs #3 and #4 in the OP.

My point was, reasonable analysis contains BOTH praising AND critical comments. Not just all one or all the other, and nothing wildly extreme.

BTW, my comments about the negative peeps apply EQUALLY to the eternally positive ones, who complain if a reasonable poster says even one thing critical, or disagrees with them. I went after Jedi for the same issues I went after BlueBeard, just on the other end of the spectrum.

You shouldn't have brought my name into this, but I'm can't say I'm surprised you did.

You always seem to get really defensive when I disagree with you. When I try and diffuse the situation, it just makes it worst and you start playing the victim card or accusing me of not having a civil conversation, which is the height of hypocrisy. I am NEVER being uncivil with you.

Its not just me, I've noticed a pattern of you getting a bit defensive when others quote your posts and disagree.

Now there just seems to be regular tension from you towards me. This post was a perfect example. This is not to suggest you are a bad poster, because you are not. You are actually one of the better posters here overall.

But the idea that I don't criticize the players or coach is just wrong.

Just the other day after a 20 point win (in a game we led wire to wire) I started a thread attacking Crawford's defense and Josh's weak defensive coaching.

Not to mention my criticisms of his poor job at Cinncy, the Ok St loss, and the over emphasis on the press early.

Relax. I have nothing against you. I was conducting an experiment. Nothing more or less. All within the AUP. And I'm done. :)

I poked you a few times. You are almost always positive, so close enough for my research (see my other thread I just posted on research). The real reason I picked you is that you spend a LOT of time not adding to the debate, but going after the negative guys, and then whining and moaning when they (or me) poke back. And saying the same old stuff over and over, regardless of the specific argument at hand. JMO.

You can be mad at me. I wasn't trying to make you mad, just trying to point out your sometimes tired arguments that take up a lot of space here. I'm pointing out that even positive posters engage in this stuff. The same principle as those who constantly complain about Pastner.

You just complain b/c people disagree with you, and you call it picking on you. But I'm done now with my campaign to bring attention to why this board gets so jumbled up with posts that don't move any debate forward.

Carry on.

(01-25-2014 03:51 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Relax. I have nothing against you. I was conducting an experiment. Nothing more or less. All within the AUP. And I'm done. :)

I poked you a few times. You are almost always positive, so close enough for my research (see my other thread I just posted on research). The real reason I picked you is that you spend a LOT of time not adding to the debate, but going after the negative guys, and then whining and moaning when they (or me) poke back. And saying the same old stuff over and over, regardless of the specific argument at hand. JMO.

You can be mad at me. I wasn't trying to make you mad, just trying to point out your sometimes tired arguments that take up a lot of space here. I'm pointing out that even positive posters engage in this stuff. The same principle as those who constantly complain about Pastner.

You just complain b/c people disagree with you, and you call it picking on you. But I'm done now with my campaign to bring attention to why this board gets so jumbled up with posts that don't move any debate forward.

Carry on.

I think this is what I was referring to.

I don't "go after people", I have civil disagreements. Just as I have with you EVERY SINGLE TIME we have disagreed. You cannot point to a single instance when I have been uncivil with you. You just can't do it, AAA. It just doesn't happen. So lets move on and stop pretending I have or trying to campaign/convince others I have.

I also don't complain about anyone "picking" on me to the board or to the mods (ask them), I rather enjoy that part of the board way too much, which is one of my faults.

I also don't make threads like this stereotyping and judging the entire board, or campaigning for myself as the justice keeper or the voice of reason.

I don't need to self promote myself to strengthen any opinions I make here. My opinions are my own and its fine if people disagree with them. I think that is consistently obvious in all my posts.

Hopefully, we are good after this. Just allow me to disagree with you without it becoming personal on your end and we will never have a problem. You will notice I always do the same, even when you don't do it.

Jedi, you know many people on message boards are never going to agree. I just poked you a little, w/in the rules, to get a reaction, relevant to eventually making my point. Some people who are positive can still argue the same things endlessly, just like the negative ones. And both tend to complain when pushed back on.

I just don't think you realize how defensive you are, or how you argue your opinions as if they were facts.

Fwiw, I create threads that are on subjects that are of interest to me.

Also, you might want to re-read my recent comments. I already said I was intentionally poking BlueBeard, too, so I said some over the top things to get a reaction. After he asked why I was picking on him (just like you did), I explained. At the end, he reacted by laughing it off. You might consider the same. But I promise to be polite to you now.

(01-25-2014 04:59 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Jedi, you know many people on message boards are never going to agree. I just poked you a little, w/in the rules, to get a reaction relevant to eventually making my point. People who are positive can be as annoying as those who are negative, including me, lol.

I just don't think you realize how defensive you are, or how you argue your opinions as if they were facts.

Fwiw, I create threads that are on subjects that are of interest to me.

Also, you might want to re-read my recent comments. I already said I was intentionally poking BlueBeard, too, so I said some over the top things to get a reaction. After he asked why I was picking on him (just like you did), I explained. At the end, he reacted by laughing it off. You might consider the same. But I promise to be polite to you now.

Come on now, AAA. You are spinning this like a top.

No reasonable person can read my responses and think I was angry with you. My responses were totally civil and respectful of you.

You posted false things about me and so I responded by pointing out that they are not true. That is not "getting defensive", it is called disagreeing. And a very civil disagreement, too.

Furthermore, unless I am using the word "fact", you should never assume or accuse me of giving anything but MY personal opinion. If you do, that is your fault, not mine. I am not required to put "IMO" in every single opinion or thought I post. No one else does that either. You should be mature enough to know the difference. I already know you are, so just do it.

Again, just allow me to disagree with you without it becoming personal on your end and we will never have a problem. You will notice I always do the same, even when you don't do it.

(01-24-2014 01:13 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I ran across the show, CBS' Inside College Basketball, tonight, as they did an analysis of the Memphis-Houston game, and of Memphis' team, in general. It was interesting enough that I taped it, and created a transcript of the segment.

Though not exactly a surprise, we have a never-ending debate on this board between those who are overly positive, and those who are overly negative, to the point that little rational debate ever exists. The middle ground is pummeled into oblivion.

It struck me (again) that if you really want to analyze a team, you have to look objectively at the strengths and weaknesses, and use both to come to some rational conclusion about the team. No team is perfect, and no team only has bad features.

If you listen to the true sunshine pumpers, you would think that every fault can be explained away. If you listen to the so-called miserables, all you hear is "Pastner sucks, the team sucks, Calipari was better, Pearl could do better, etc."

It's like political debates between hard-core Democrats and hard-core Republicans. Both sides say the same things ad nauseum, talk over each other, never change their minds or their talking points, and drive people who want to have a reasonable discussion absolutely crazy.

I have no delusions about changing this place. I just want to make a point, and that is: IF YOU TAKE ONE SIDE ALL THE TIME, YOU ARE NOT BEING INTELLECTUALLY HONEST. You either have an agenda, or you have a personality that makes you so blind that you cannot contribute anything productive in a community setting, such as this.

Both sides NEVER change, and make this place much less enjoyable than it could be. I try to be objective, and say both good and bad, as I see it. But every time I do (and others like-minded), we are attacked by whichever side is offended, or wants to argue.

I have recently intentionally gone after a couple of posters, one on either side of this extreme, simply to make a point, which is that most arguments on either extreme can easily be shot full of holes, b/c both sides repeat their droning mantra in the face of ever changing facts and events. Just like politicians.

I promise to cease the back and forth with both now. They were offended, so I apologize a bit, but I don't think they realize how they affect many in this place.

Every legit analysis contains both good and bad. Anyone who ONLY sees the positive, or ONLY sees the negative, is not adding anything, b/c they are so predictable, no matter the situation.

Watching this segment on Memphis tonight, it reminded me that REAL ANALYSIS sounds a lot more like this:

EDIT: Video now posted below in Post #36, linked just below, if you don't want to read the transcript. Thanks to ATF!

http://csnbbs.com/thread-673726-post-103...id10336333

Four regulars on the rotating panel tonight (Seth Davis, Dana Jacobson, Wally Szczerbiak, and Steve Lappas) on CBSSN did a long segment on the Memphis-Houston game, but mostly on Memphis as a team.

SD: "This was a Memphis highlight show, led by Shaq Goodwin with 20 points."

SD: "When they get out in transition like this, they are impossible to stop."

SD: "Their swarming defense led to highlight plays like this..."

SD: "Houston, remember, they beat UConn...so they can be a formidable team, but Memphis starting to hit their stride..."

DJ: "It seemed like they were putting on a clinic at times."

SD: "What I like about Memphis is that they understand they're not a great 3-point shooting team. You would think a team with 4 senior guards...they were one of the best 3-point shooting teams last year, and all they did was add Michael Dixon, Jr. from Missouri, who himself has historically been a good 3-point shooter. I've talked to Josh Pastner all season long about this, and believe me, he's befuddled. But look, they only took 11 3-point shots tonight..." (Went on to highlight the good guard play tonight)... "They do have their flaws, Steve, but they know who they are, they play to their strengths, they mask their weaknesses...but Memphis has been on a roll, and I think they're gonna stay on this roll for awhile."

SL: They have a lot of very good upperclassmen, and as you said, they know who they are, they like to force turnovers, they like to get out in transition. The problem comes for Memphis, what happens in an NCAA tournament game, when the game gets slow, and you still have to grind it out in the half court. THAT is where they need to improve. In a game like you just saw, they're getting up and down, they force turnovers, but you really don't force many turnovers in the NCAA tourney. Every team is a good team, and they really don't beat themselves...That is where Memphis really needs to make strides, in the half court, if they're gonna advance in the tournament."

WS: To me, with Memphis, it's all about their focus. I think at times, they lose focus, b/c they have talent on this team, and, I know everyone talks about their shooting, but they have guys that can shoot. Crawford can shoot. Joe Jackson shot 45% from 3 last year. Michael Dixon, Jr. is a great outside shooter. Sometimes, I think they get a little too caught up in what people are saying about them. If they put the blinders on and focus, this team has the ability to go to the Final 4.

SD: I agree. I agree.

AAA, I totally agree with you with the analysis of this board. I was one of the few guys who initially said that Cal may leave for UK..., as i had heard that rumor from a reliable
source...but some of our fans were so delusional...the don't wanna even hear the possibility of that...and we all what happened at the end.

(01-24-2014 01:13 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I ran across the show, CBS' Inside College Basketball, tonight, as they did an analysis of the Memphis-Houston game, and of Memphis' team, in general. It was interesting enough that I taped it, and created a transcript of the segment.

Though not exactly a surprise, we have a never-ending debate on this board between those who are overly positive, and those who are overly negative, to the point that little rational debate ever exists. The middle ground is pummeled into oblivion.

It struck me (again) that if you really want to analyze a team, you have to look objectively at the strengths and weaknesses, and use both to come to some rational conclusion about the team. No team is perfect, and no team only has bad features.

If you listen to the true sunshine pumpers, you would think that every fault can be explained away. If you listen to the so-called miserables, all you hear is "Pastner sucks, the team sucks, Calipari was better, Pearl could do better, etc."

It's like political debates between hard-core Democrats and hard-core Republicans. Both sides say the same things ad nauseum, talk over each other, never change their minds or their talking points, and drive people who want to have a reasonable discussion absolutely crazy.

I have no delusions about changing this place. I just want to make a point, and that is: IF YOU TAKE ONE SIDE ALL THE TIME, YOU ARE NOT BEING INTELLECTUALLY HONEST. You either have an agenda, or you have a personality that makes you so blind that you cannot contribute anything productive in a community setting, such as this.

Both sides NEVER change, and make this place much less enjoyable than it could be. I try to be objective, and say both good and bad, as I see it. But every time I do (and others like-minded), we are attacked by whichever side is offended, or wants to argue.

I have recently intentionally gone after a couple of posters, one on either side of this extreme, simply to make a point, which is that most arguments on either extreme can easily be shot full of holes, b/c both sides repeat their droning mantra in the face of ever changing facts and events. Just like politicians.

I promise to cease the back and forth with both now. They were offended, so I apologize a bit, but I don't think they realize how they affect many in this place.

Every legit analysis contains both good and bad. Anyone who ONLY sees the positive, or ONLY sees the negative, is not adding anything, b/c they are so predictable, no matter the situation.

Watching this segment on Memphis tonight, it reminded me that REAL ANALYSIS sounds a lot more like this:

EDIT: Video now posted below in Post #36, linked just below, if you don't want to read the transcript. Thanks to ATF!

http://csnbbs.com/thread-673726-post-103...id10336333

Four regulars on the rotating panel tonight (Seth Davis, Dana Jacobson, Wally Szczerbiak, and Steve Lappas) on CBSSN did a long segment on the Memphis-Houston game, but mostly on Memphis as a team.

SD: "This was a Memphis highlight show, led by Shaq Goodwin with 20 points."

SD: "When they get out in transition like this, they are impossible to stop."

SD: "Their swarming defense led to highlight plays like this..."

SD: "Houston, remember, they beat UConn...so they can be a formidable team, but Memphis starting to hit their stride..."

DJ: "It seemed like they were putting on a clinic at times."

SD: "What I like about Memphis is that they understand they're not a great 3-point shooting team. You would think a team with 4 senior guards...they were one of the best 3-point shooting teams last year, and all they did was add Michael Dixon, Jr. from Missouri, who himself has historically been a good 3-point shooter. I've talked to Josh Pastner all season long about this, and believe me, he's befuddled. But look, they only took 11 3-point shots tonight..." (Went on to highlight the good guard play tonight)... "They do have their flaws, Steve, but they know who they are, they play to their strengths, they mask their weaknesses...but Memphis has been on a roll, and I think they're gonna stay on this roll for awhile."

SL: They have a lot of very good upperclassmen, and as you said, they know who they are, they like to force turnovers, they like to get out in transition. The problem comes for Memphis, what happens in an NCAA tournament game, when the game gets slow, and you still have to grind it out in the half court. THAT is where they need to improve. In a game like you just saw, they're getting up and down, they force turnovers, but you really don't force many turnovers in the NCAA tourney. Every team is a good team, and they really don't beat themselves...That is where Memphis really needs to make strides, in the half court, if they're gonna advance in the tournament."

WS: To me, with Memphis, it's all about their focus. I think at times, they lose focus, b/c they have talent on this team, and, I know everyone talks about their shooting, but they have guys that can shoot. Crawford can shoot. Joe Jackson shot 45% from 3 last year. Michael Dixon, Jr. is a great outside shooter. Sometimes, I think they get a little too caught up in what people are saying about them. If they put the blinders on and focus, this team has the ability to go to the Final 4.

SD: I agree. I agree.

AAA, I totally agree with you with the analysis of this board. I was one of the few guys who initially said that Cal may leave for UK..., as i had heard that rumor from a reliable
source...but some of our fans were so delusional...the don't wanna even hear the possibility of that...and we all what happened at the end.

(01-24-2014 01:13 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I ran across the show, CBS' Inside College Basketball, tonight, as they did an analysis of the Memphis-Houston game, and of Memphis' team, in general. It was interesting enough that I taped it, and created a transcript of the segment.

Though not exactly a surprise, we have a never-ending debate on this board between those who are overly positive, and those who are overly negative, to the point that little rational debate ever exists. The middle ground is pummeled into oblivion.

It struck me (again) that if you really want to analyze a team, you have to look objectively at the strengths and weaknesses, and use both to come to some rational conclusion about the team. No team is perfect, and no team only has bad features.

If you listen to the true sunshine pumpers, you would think that every fault can be explained away. If you listen to the so-called miserables, all you hear is "Pastner sucks, the team sucks, Calipari was better, Pearl could do better, etc."

It's like political debates between hard-core Democrats and hard-core Republicans. Both sides say the same things ad nauseum, talk over each other, never change their minds or their talking points, and drive people who want to have a reasonable discussion absolutely crazy.

I have no delusions about changing this place. I just want to make a point, and that is: IF YOU TAKE ONE SIDE ALL THE TIME, YOU ARE NOT BEING INTELLECTUALLY HONEST. You either have an agenda, or you have a personality that makes you so blind that you cannot contribute anything productive in a community setting, such as this.

Both sides NEVER change, and make this place much less enjoyable than it could be. I try to be objective, and say both good and bad, as I see it. But every time I do (and others like-minded), we are attacked by whichever side is offended, or wants to argue.

I have recently intentionally gone after a couple of posters, one on either side of this extreme, simply to make a point, which is that most arguments on either extreme can easily be shot full of holes, b/c both sides repeat their droning mantra in the face of ever changing facts and events. Just like politicians.

I promise to cease the back and forth with both now. They were offended, so I apologize a bit, but I don't think they realize how they affect many in this place.

Every legit analysis contains both good and bad. Anyone who ONLY sees the positive, or ONLY sees the negative, is not adding anything, b/c they are so predictable, no matter the situation.

Watching this segment on Memphis tonight, it reminded me that REAL ANALYSIS sounds a lot more like this:

EDIT: Video now posted below in Post #36, linked just below, if you don't want to read the transcript. Thanks to ATF!

http://csnbbs.com/thread-673726-post-103...id10336333

Four regulars on the rotating panel tonight (Seth Davis, Dana Jacobson, Wally Szczerbiak, and Steve Lappas) on CBSSN did a long segment on the Memphis-Houston game, but mostly on Memphis as a team.

SD: "This was a Memphis highlight show, led by Shaq Goodwin with 20 points."

SD: "When they get out in transition like this, they are impossible to stop."

SD: "Their swarming defense led to highlight plays like this..."

SD: "Houston, remember, they beat UConn...so they can be a formidable team, but Memphis starting to hit their stride..."

DJ: "It seemed like they were putting on a clinic at times."

SD: "What I like about Memphis is that they understand they're not a great 3-point shooting team. You would think a team with 4 senior guards...they were one of the best 3-point shooting teams last year, and all they did was add Michael Dixon, Jr. from Missouri, who himself has historically been a good 3-point shooter. I've talked to Josh Pastner all season long about this, and believe me, he's befuddled. But look, they only took 11 3-point shots tonight..." (Went on to highlight the good guard play tonight)... "They do have their flaws, Steve, but they know who they are, they play to their strengths, they mask their weaknesses...but Memphis has been on a roll, and I think they're gonna stay on this roll for awhile."

SL: They have a lot of very good upperclassmen, and as you said, they know who they are, they like to force turnovers, they like to get out in transition. The problem comes for Memphis, what happens in an NCAA tournament game, when the game gets slow, and you still have to grind it out in the half court. THAT is where they need to improve. In a game like you just saw, they're getting up and down, they force turnovers, but you really don't force many turnovers in the NCAA tourney. Every team is a good team, and they really don't beat themselves...That is where Memphis really needs to make strides, in the half court, if they're gonna advance in the tournament."

WS: To me, with Memphis, it's all about their focus. I think at times, they lose focus, b/c they have talent on this team, and, I know everyone talks about their shooting, but they have guys that can shoot. Crawford can shoot. Joe Jackson shot 45% from 3 last year. Michael Dixon, Jr. is a great outside shooter. Sometimes, I think they get a little too caught up in what people are saying about them. If they put the blinders on and focus, this team has the ability to go to the Final 4.

SD: I agree. I agree.

AAA, I totally agree with you with the analysis of this board. I was one of the few guys who initially said that Cal may leave for UK..., as i had heard that rumor from a reliable
source...but some of our fans were so delusional...the don't wanna even hear the possibility of that...and we all what happened at the end.

Different game.... same song.

Course correction has yet to take effect,eh?

(01-24-2014 09:04 AM)CUSA_NEWS Wrote:  Btw, why not writeup the comments from the analysts who actuall called the game?

That woman analysts dissected the tigers a la me. She routinely pointed out how teams will take note they can simply push the ball after Memphis made baskets given they do not hustle back.

She also pointed out CC lack of detail on defense. She stated how players like Jordan went to practice not to practice but to beat and push others to excel while striving to reach greatness. The defensive lapses she saw from the guys were highly unacceptable to her given great teams don't play based on the score but based on a standard (standards which simply become a custom to the great teams).

All this goes in line with what the "miserables" have been pointing out. Against inferior teams, the guys can fart around and still get their way but when the comp improves and they try and up their level of play, the outcome becomes sporadic as they do not play which such standards consistently to be able to pull it off (then the team simply panics).

(01-24-2014 01:13 AM)TripleA Wrote:  SD: "What I like about Memphis is that they understand they're not a great 3-point shooting team. You would think a team with 4 senior guards...they were one of the best 3-point shooting teams last year, and all they did was add Michael Dixon, Jr. from Missouri, who himself has historically been a good 3-point shooter. I've talked to Josh Pastner all season long about this, and believe me, he's befuddled. But look, they only took 11 3-point shots tonight..." (Went on to highlight the good guard play tonight)... "They do have their flaws, Steve, but they know who they are, they play to their strengths, they mask their weaknesses...but Memphis has been on a roll, and I think they're gonna stay on this roll for awhile."

Seth Davis obviously hasn't watched many Memphis games of late...because anyone who had...certainly wouldn't make a comment like that.

Beating a 9th team at home (UCF) by just 6?

Needing OT at home to beat the last place team (Temple)?

Barely beating lowly Rutgers on the road?

Losing by 9 at Houston?

What kind of roll is that?

(02-01-2014 03:53 PM)CUSA_NEWS Wrote:  Different game.... same song.

Course correction has yet to take effect,eh?

(01-24-2014 09:04 AM)CUSA_NEWS Wrote:  Btw, why not writeup the comments from the analysts who actuall called the game?

That woman analysts dissected the tigers a la me. She routinely pointed out how teams will take note they can simply push the ball after Memphis made baskets given they do not hustle back.

She also pointed out CC lack of detail on defense. She stated how players like Jordan went to practice not to practice but to beat and push others to excel while striving to reach greatness. The defensive lapses she saw from the guys were highly unacceptable to her given great teams don't play based on the score but based on a standard (standards which simply become a custom to the great teams).

All this goes in line with what the "miserables" have been pointing out. Against inferior teams, the guys can fart around and still get their way but when the comp improves and they try and up their level of play, the outcome becomes sporadic as they do not play which such standards consistently to be able to pull it off (then the team simply panics).

Good point.

Its pretty obvious to anyone that watched/read the so called studio analyst like Seth Davis haven't watched many Memphis games this year and/or even the game last night (they probably spent more time watching St Louis lose, Arkansas upset UK, Indiana beating Iowa, etc...)

You came over here to dig up an old thread, point out we're not playing well, and show that Seth Davis was wrong back then? Way to gloat, and talk smack, being a fan of a team that can't beat anybody. Thanks. It's not like we don't have enough fans of our own to do so.

(01-24-2014 09:04 AM)CUSA_NEWS Wrote:  All this goes in line with what the "miserables" have been pointing out. Against inferior teams, the guys can fart around and still get their way but when the comp improves and they try and up their level of play, the outcome becomes sporadic as they do not play which such standards consistently to be able to pull it off (then the team simply panics).

I think this is probably the most frustrating thing for me as if late - which comes back to focus. It's what bothered me after reading that players were joking around with one another in an away gym after the SMU loss.

"We'll get em' next time" doesn't apply this late in the season and anyone who knows anything about college basketball knows it's important to peak before tourney time. We don't seem to be peaking, we seem to be on the other side of the bell curve.

Hopefully we pull it together for L-ville.

(02-28-2014 09:50 AM)TripleA Wrote:  You came over here to dig up an old thread, point out we're not playing well, and show that Seth Davis was wrong back then? Way to gloat, and talk smack, being a fan of a team that can't beat anybody. Thanks. It's not like we don't have enough fans of our own to do so.

If you're a UCF fan during basketball season, what else are you gonna do? Gloat about your teams achievements?

(01-24-2014 01:48 AM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  I still say the team that scores the most points wins, I don't care what anyone says to the contrary!

There is now way to argue with that.