How many teams have ever made it to the NCAA Tournament with zero returning scholarship backcourt players? I don't recall any but maybe there are some. This of course is the case with us this year as we do not have one single returning backcourt player.

Note: This is not necessarily a defense for Pastner, but more of a gauge to what reality of expectations we as fans should have had this year.

Kentucky?

(02-10-2015 08:42 AM)MemphisTiger15 Wrote:  Kentucky?

Different animal

Agreed...That is tough to overcome...

If you posted this a defense of Pastner cool...But my feeling about Pastner is not based on his win loss record, it is based on watching games and being discouraged with how the team performs in many cases. If you blindly look at his resume it sounds crazy to want Pastner gone...But if you have essentially watched every game over his tenure you understand were the teeth gnashing comes from.

you are right...they ought to fire guy that's in charge of making sure we have backcourt players.

(02-10-2015 08:45 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  Agreed...That is tough to overcome...

If you posted this a defense of Pastner cool...But my feeling about Pastner is not based on his win loss record, it is based on watching games and being discouraged with how the team performs in many cases. If you blindly look at his resume it sounds crazy to want Pastner gone...But if you have essentially watched every game over his tenure you understand were the teeth gnashing comes from.

It wasn't in defense of Pastner, but more of a gauge to what reality of expectations most of us should have had this year.

(02-10-2015 08:42 AM)MemphisTiger15 Wrote:  Kentucky?

No

(02-10-2015 08:49 AM)memphis mania Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 08:45 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  Agreed...That is tough to overcome...

If you posted this a defense of Pastner cool...But my feeling about Pastner is not based on his win loss record, it is based on watching games and being discouraged with how the team performs in many cases. If you blindly look at his resume it sounds crazy to want Pastner gone...But if you have essentially watched every game over his tenure you understand were the teeth gnashing comes from.

It wasn't in defense of Pastner, but more of a gauge to what reality of expectations most of us should have had this year.

I didn't expect the team to be great, but I did expect an organized team with a plan.

And your initial statement is flawed...Probably not many teams have done well with no returning backcourt players...But many teams probably have been successful with new backcourt players playing the majority of the minutes (Returning players who ride the bench means nothing).

(02-10-2015 08:52 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 08:49 AM)memphis mania Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 08:45 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  Agreed...That is tough to overcome...

If you posted this a defense of Pastner cool...But my feeling about Pastner is not based on his win loss record, it is based on watching games and being discouraged with how the team performs in many cases. If you blindly look at his resume it sounds crazy to want Pastner gone...But if you have essentially watched every game over his tenure you understand were the teeth gnashing comes from.

It wasn't in defense of Pastner, but more of a gauge to what reality of expectations most of us should have had this year.

I didn't expect the team to be great, but I did expect an organized team with a plan.

And your initial statement is flawed...Probably not many teams have done well with no returning backcourt players...But many teams probably have been successful with new backcourt players playing the majority of the minutes (Returning players who ride the bench means nothing).

I don't understand how it's flawed. I simply asked has there ever been a team to make the Tournament that had zero back court players returning from previous year.

(02-10-2015 09:07 AM)memphis mania Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 08:52 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 08:49 AM)memphis mania Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 08:45 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  Agreed...That is tough to overcome...

If you posted this a defense of Pastner cool...But my feeling about Pastner is not based on his win loss record, it is based on watching games and being discouraged with how the team performs in many cases. If you blindly look at his resume it sounds crazy to want Pastner gone...But if you have essentially watched every game over his tenure you understand were the teeth gnashing comes from.

It wasn't in defense of Pastner, but more of a gauge to what reality of expectations most of us should have had this year.

I didn't expect the team to be great, but I did expect an organized team with a plan.

And your initial statement is flawed...Probably not many teams have done well with no returning backcourt players...But many teams probably have been successful with new backcourt players playing the majority of the minutes (Returning players who ride the bench means nothing).

I don't understand how it's flawed. I simply asked has there ever been a team to make the Tournament that had zero back court players returning from previous year.

Not sure. But since coach blamed those four guards for most of the losses last year, does it matter?

"If I had known our four guards would shoot...." That was his mantra for losses.

(02-10-2015 09:11 AM)mrhappi06 Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 09:07 AM)memphis mania Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 08:52 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 08:49 AM)memphis mania Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 08:45 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  Agreed...That is tough to overcome...

If you posted this a defense of Pastner cool...But my feeling about Pastner is not based on his win loss record, it is based on watching games and being discouraged with how the team performs in many cases. If you blindly look at his resume it sounds crazy to want Pastner gone...But if you have essentially watched every game over his tenure you understand were the teeth gnashing comes from.

It wasn't in defense of Pastner, but more of a gauge to what reality of expectations most of us should have had this year.

I didn't expect the team to be great, but I did expect an organized team with a plan.

And your initial statement is flawed...Probably not many teams have done well with no returning backcourt players...But many teams probably have been successful with new backcourt players playing the majority of the minutes (Returning players who ride the bench means nothing).

I don't understand how it's flawed. I simply asked has there ever been a team to make the Tournament that had zero back court players returning from previous year.

Not sure. But since coach blamed those four guards for most of the losses last year, does it matter?

"If I had known our four guards would shoot...." That was his mantra for losses.

Some of you can be really defensive. It's was a simple question not intended to rile up anyone.

(02-10-2015 09:07 AM)memphis mania Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 08:52 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 08:49 AM)memphis mania Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 08:45 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  Agreed...That is tough to overcome...

If you posted this a defense of Pastner cool...But my feeling about Pastner is not based on his win loss record, it is based on watching games and being discouraged with how the team performs in many cases. If you blindly look at his resume it sounds crazy to want Pastner gone...But if you have essentially watched every game over his tenure you understand were the teeth gnashing comes from.

It wasn't in defense of Pastner, but more of a gauge to what reality of expectations most of us should have had this year.

I didn't expect the team to be great, but I did expect an organized team with a plan.

And your initial statement is flawed...Probably not many teams have done well with no returning backcourt players...But many teams probably have been successful with new backcourt players playing the majority of the minutes (Returning players who ride the bench means nothing).

I don't understand how it's flawed. I simply asked has there ever been a team to make the Tournament that had zero back court players returning from previous year.

Because just because a backcourt player returns does not mean he contributes...So I am sure there are teams that succeed with a NEW backcourt.

You statement included players who do not contribute, why would non-contributing players matter.

(02-10-2015 09:15 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 09:07 AM)memphis mania Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 08:52 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 08:49 AM)memphis mania Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 08:45 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  Agreed...That is tough to overcome...

If you posted this a defense of Pastner cool...But my feeling about Pastner is not based on his win loss record, it is based on watching games and being discouraged with how the team performs in many cases. If you blindly look at his resume it sounds crazy to want Pastner gone...But if you have essentially watched every game over his tenure you understand were the teeth gnashing comes from.

It wasn't in defense of Pastner, but more of a gauge to what reality of expectations most of us should have had this year.

I didn't expect the team to be great, but I did expect an organized team with a plan.

And your initial statement is flawed...Probably not many teams have done well with no returning backcourt players...But many teams probably have been successful with new backcourt players playing the majority of the minutes (Returning players who ride the bench means nothing).

I don't understand how it's flawed. I simply asked has there ever been a team to make the Tournament that had zero back court players returning from previous year.

Because just because a backcourt player returns does not mean he contributes...So I am sure there are teams that succeed with a NEW backcourt.

You statement included players who do not contribute, why would non-contributing players matter.

Ok. To clarify. Contributing backcourt players. Returning scholarship backcourt players is what I mean.

(02-10-2015 09:13 AM)memphis mania Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 09:11 AM)mrhappi06 Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 09:07 AM)memphis mania Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 08:52 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 08:49 AM)memphis mania Wrote:  It wasn't in defense of Pastner, but more of a gauge to what reality of expectations most of us should have had this year.

I didn't expect the team to be great, but I did expect an organized team with a plan.

And your initial statement is flawed...Probably not many teams have done well with no returning backcourt players...But many teams probably have been successful with new backcourt players playing the majority of the minutes (Returning players who ride the bench means nothing).

I don't understand how it's flawed. I simply asked has there ever been a team to make the Tournament that had zero back court players returning from previous year.

Not sure. But since coach blamed those four guards for most of the losses last year, does it matter?

"If I had known our four guards would shoot...." That was his mantra for losses.

Some of you can be really defensive. It's was a simple question not intended to rile up anyone.

You dont like my answer, thats on you. . Just my take. Sorry your feelers dont like it.

(02-10-2015 09:17 AM)memphis mania Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 09:15 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 09:07 AM)memphis mania Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 08:52 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 08:49 AM)memphis mania Wrote:  It wasn't in defense of Pastner, but more of a gauge to what reality of expectations most of us should have had this year.

I didn't expect the team to be great, but I did expect an organized team with a plan.

And your initial statement is flawed...Probably not many teams have done well with no returning backcourt players...But many teams probably have been successful with new backcourt players playing the majority of the minutes (Returning players who ride the bench means nothing).

I don't understand how it's flawed. I simply asked has there ever been a team to make the Tournament that had zero back court players returning from previous year.

Because just because a backcourt player returns does not mean he contributes...So I am sure there are teams that succeed with a NEW backcourt.

You statement included players who do not contribute, why would non-contributing players matter.

Ok. To clarify. Contributing backcourt players. Returning scholarship backcourt players is what I mean.

A valid, unbiased statement would be...How many teams have made the tourney with 90% of their backcourt minutes coming from new players.

UK went to the final game with that situation...With only 8 minutes, 1point and .5 assists coming from another player (Is that really a contributor)

(02-10-2015 09:22 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 09:17 AM)memphis mania Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 09:15 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 09:07 AM)memphis mania Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 08:52 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  I didn't expect the team to be great, but I did expect an organized team with a plan.

And your initial statement is flawed...Probably not many teams have done well with no returning backcourt players...But many teams probably have been successful with new backcourt players playing the majority of the minutes (Returning players who ride the bench means nothing).

I don't understand how it's flawed. I simply asked has there ever been a team to make the Tournament that had zero back court players returning from previous year.

Because just because a backcourt player returns does not mean he contributes...So I am sure there are teams that succeed with a NEW backcourt.

You statement included players who do not contribute, why would non-contributing players matter.

Ok. To clarify. Contributing backcourt players. Returning scholarship backcourt players is what I mean.

A valid, unbiased statement would be...How many teams have made the tourney with 90% of their backcourt minutes coming from new players.

UK went to the final game with that situation...With only 8 minutes, 1point and .5 assists coming from another player (Is that really a contributor)

That wasn't the question, and how is my question biased? It's like asking how hot is the surface of the sun. How is that biased? It's a simple question.

(02-10-2015 08:41 AM)memphis mania Wrote:  How many teams have ever made it to the NCAA Tournament with zero returning scholarship backcourt players? I don't recall any but maybe there are some. This of course is the case with us this year as we do not have one single returning backcourt player.

Note: This is not necessarily a defense for Pastner, but more of a gauge to what reality of expectations we as fans should have had this year.

Weren't Markel and Pookie returning scholarship back court players?

(02-10-2015 09:31 AM)memphis mania Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 09:22 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 09:17 AM)memphis mania Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 09:15 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 09:07 AM)memphis mania Wrote:  I don't understand how it's flawed. I simply asked has there ever been a team to make the Tournament that had zero back court players returning from previous year.

Because just because a backcourt player returns does not mean he contributes...So I am sure there are teams that succeed with a NEW backcourt.

You statement included players who do not contribute, why would non-contributing players matter.

Ok. To clarify. Contributing backcourt players. Returning scholarship backcourt players is what I mean.

A valid, unbiased statement would be...How many teams have made the tourney with 90% of their backcourt minutes coming from new players.

UK went to the final game with that situation...With only 8 minutes, 1point and .5 assists coming from another player (Is that really a contributor)

That wasn't the question, and how is my question biased? It's like asking how hot is the surface of the sun. How is that biased? It's a simple question.

Why does it matter if you had a returning backcourt player if he doesn't play...

You are saying our expectations should have been lower because we had 0 returning backcourt players.

Now I just showed you that a team playing for the championship essentially did it with 0 contributions from a returning backcourt player. Yes they had a returning player, but DID IT MATTER.

So why should our expectations have been driven down by your original point.

My expectations were lower because we appeared to have less talent.

(02-10-2015 08:46 AM)Dylan Wrote:  you are right...they ought to fire guy that's in charge of making sure we have backcourt players.

/thread

(02-10-2015 09:39 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 09:31 AM)memphis mania Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 09:22 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 09:17 AM)memphis mania Wrote:  

(02-10-2015 09:15 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  Because just because a backcourt player returns does not mean he contributes...So I am sure there are teams that succeed with a NEW backcourt.

You statement included players who do not contribute, why would non-contributing players matter.

Ok. To clarify. Contributing backcourt players. Returning scholarship backcourt players is what I mean.

A valid, unbiased statement would be...How many teams have made the tourney with 90% of their backcourt minutes coming from new players.

UK went to the final game with that situation...With only 8 minutes, 1point and .5 assists coming from another player (Is that really a contributor)

That wasn't the question, and how is my question biased? It's like asking how hot is the surface of the sun. How is that biased? It's a simple question.

Why does it matter if you had a returning backcourt player if he doesn't play...

You are saying our expectations should have been lower because we had 0 returning backcourt players.

Now I just showed you that a team playing for the championship essentially did it with 0 contributions from a returning backcourt player. Yes they had a returning player, but DID IT MATTER.

So why should our expectations have been driven down by your original point.

My expectations were lower because we appeared to have less talent.

Having experienced players coming back helps. It obviously matters because we can only really come up with one team that has done it (KY).