(01-27-2014 09:16 AM)mairving Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 04:07 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Winning is hard. Especially against good players and great coaches.

Winning is hard. Whining on the other hand is quite easy.

You keep downplaying my strengths.

(01-27-2014 08:53 AM)cmt Wrote:  Ranking 1, 2, 3, 4
1 seed
Ranking 5, 6, 7, 8
2 seed
Rankings 9, 10, 11, 12
3 seed

We're 16, that would be the last 4 seed, how does that equate to, "legit shot at 3 seed?"

We have a legit shot, should we continue winning and quit losing, to move up to a 3 seed. But Seth Davis said we are barely hanging on to a 4 seed at best.

In real life, there are a pile of mid majors ahead of us in the RPI (Wichita State, UMass, Creighton, SDSU, Xavier, Gonzaga, New Mexico, St. Louis) that will be punished by the committee for being a mid major. Injuries should affect Colorado and Oklahoma State's positions as well.

Also, I would think that if we can manage 2 more wins out of Gonzaga, UConn, and Louisville, and in the AAC tournament; we will be looking good for a 3/4 seed.

(01-27-2014 10:20 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 10:17 AM)bluebacker Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 04:07 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Winning is hard. Especially against good players and great coaches.

It's even harder against great players with good coaches.

And even harder against great players with great coaches.

I actually thought of the variations before posting, lol.

lol, yeah, I figured you did....

(01-27-2014 11:16 AM)Joe1 Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 10:08 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 09:16 AM)mairving Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 04:07 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Winning is hard. Especially against good players and great coaches.

Winning is hard. Whining on the other hand is quite easy.

Apparently so. What's even funnier is that if the facts or logic don't support the chosen stance, that doesn't seem to affect the choice.

Are you speaking about what some here expect from Josh?

Yes, but not the stuff you're talking about, unless you're in the, "I'll be 100% critical of Pastner until he makes a few deep runs" category.

And I'm also referring to talking points, in general, not just on this subject, that continue on, long after they have been absolutely refuted by facts.

I have said over and over that most people tend to say good and bad about Josh, which seems reasonable. He's not perfect, and he is not 100% flawed. I'm in that category.

Even constant criticism seems reasonable, if it is backed up by reasoned opinion, or facts, like "Our transition D last night was bad, We gave up 4 uncontested layups."

What I'm referring to is the extreme stuff, w/o facts, logic, or reason, that is a constant drumbeat, regardless of results, game to game. Mostly, these are folks who ONLY show up when things go bad, and never show up to say anything positive, when things go well.

I don't think you qualify, unless you can't think of one thing positive to ever say about Pastner. I don't know. I don't keep individual score, post to post. I usually react to a general tone repeated over and over, not to a specific poster, That comment I cited above is the exception.

The only other thing I usually react to is derogatory personal comments to me, like "You're naive," for example. I take offense to that.

Also, I'm not just talking about Pastner, but anybody who came before or after him not named Kirk or Calipari, lol, b/c nobody else ever did what those two did here. Wind-aided in both cases, unfortunately.

I hope that is clear now.