Duke would still be at the top of the freakin' AAC without Csrey and Stanley. They would be better.than Cincy and close to Houston. Get real

(03-03-2020 01:31 PM)dwash Wrote:  Duke would still be at the top of the freakin' AAC without Csrey and Stanley. They would be better.than Cincy and close to Houston. Get real

Based on what?

how / why is West Virginia ranked? because the beat Ohio State early in the season?

(03-01-2020 05:58 PM)Mimi Wrote:  Over reaction to the mouth breathers on this site

We do have a few real nasty ones in our section at the forum. Just bitter people that cuss out Lomax and Harris especially

It is disgraceful

We must sit in the same section, guy in front of me routinely calls Harris an idiot as loud as he can and same with Alo, he and I almost got into it last year. He yelled and said Jeremiah sucked so I lost my cool and went off on him.

(03-03-2020 01:31 PM)dwash Wrote:  Duke would still be at the top of the freakin' AAC without Csrey and Stanley. They would be better.than Cincy and close to Houston. Get real

Any history to back that up? Last year they were #1 in the country. Then Zion went out for a month, and they went 3-3 in his absence.

There is really nothing to backup your claim. While there are plenty of cases where top teams struggled after losing just one player.

(03-03-2020 02:37 PM)Oman Wrote:  how / why is West Virginia ranked? because the beat Ohio State early in the season?

Good question. Biggest wins are:
- Ohio St (as you pointed out)
- Wichita St - Bubble Team
- Richmond - Bubble Team
- Texas Tech
- Texas - Bubble Team

3-5 in Feb. Not like they're hot and moving up.

Great question.

(03-03-2020 03:14 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 01:31 PM)dwash Wrote:  Duke would still be at the top of the freakin' AAC without Csrey and Stanley. They would be better.than Cincy and close to Houston. Get real

Any history to back that up? Last year they were #1 in the country. Then Zion went out for a month, and they went 3-3 in his absence.

There is really nothing to backup your claim. While there are plenty of cases where top teams struggled after losing just one player.

In general, I agree, logic suggests that a team's level of play declines (and expected number of losses increases) when they are without some of their best players. That was the case with Duke last year and Memphis this year.

But, I don't think that was really his point regarding Duke. He's arguing that Duke would be deep enough and talented enough relative to AAC competition (assuming with a depleted Memphis team), to remain on top of the conference without Carey and Stanley. Obviously that is debatable, but the 3-3 record last year after Zion's injury doesn't prove this to be wrong.

The three losses without Zion were against North Carolina (ranked #8 in country), Virginia Tech (ranked #20 in country) and North Carolina (ranked #3 in the country).

Not all 3-3 stretches are created equal.

(03-03-2020 03:40 PM)tiger tiger Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 03:14 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 01:31 PM)dwash Wrote:  Duke would still be at the top of the freakin' AAC without Csrey and Stanley. They would be better.than Cincy and close to Houston. Get real

Any history to back that up? Last year they were #1 in the country. Then Zion went out for a month, and they went 3-3 in his absence.

There is really nothing to backup your claim. While there are plenty of cases where top teams struggled after losing just one player.

In general, I agree, logic suggests that a team's level of play declines (and expected number of losses increases) when they are without some of their best players. That was the case with Duke last year and Memphis this year.

But, I don't think that was really his point regarding Duke. He's arguing that Duke would be deep enough and talented enough relative to AAC competition (assuming with a depleted Memphis team), to remain on top of the conference without Carey and Stanley. Obviously that is debatable, but the 3-3 record last year after Zion's injury doesn't prove this to be wrong.

The three losses without Zion were against North Carolina (ranked #8 in country), Virginia Tech (ranked #20 in country) and North Carolina (ranked #3 in the country).

Not all 3-3 stretches are created equal.

I mean geez thank you.

That before you get into the fact that Duke is just reloading again next year...and we currently have no recruits signed.

(03-03-2020 03:47 PM)dwash Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 03:40 PM)tiger tiger Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 03:14 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 01:31 PM)dwash Wrote:  Duke would still be at the top of the freakin' AAC without Csrey and Stanley. They would be better.than Cincy and close to Houston. Get real

Any history to back that up? Last year they were #1 in the country. Then Zion went out for a month, and they went 3-3 in his absence.

There is really nothing to backup your claim. While there are plenty of cases where top teams struggled after losing just one player.

In general, I agree, logic suggests that a team's level of play declines (and expected number of losses increases) when they are without some of their best players. That was the case with Duke last year and Memphis this year.

But, I don't think that was really his point regarding Duke. He's arguing that Duke would be deep enough and talented enough relative to AAC competition (assuming with a depleted Memphis team), to remain on top of the conference without Carey and Stanley. Obviously that is debatable, but the 3-3 record last year after Zion's injury doesn't prove this to be wrong.

The three losses without Zion were against North Carolina (ranked #8 in country), Virginia Tech (ranked #20 in country) and North Carolina (ranked #3 in the country).

Not all 3-3 stretches are created equal.

I mean geez thank you.

That before you get into the fact that Duke is just reloading again next year...and we currently have no recruits signed.

So what exactly is your point? That Duke has a great program? I think everyone would agree to that.

They've had a recruiting class like what we just had (w/Wiseman) each of the last 10 years. Yeah, they're good.

How does it relate to our Tigers?

(03-03-2020 03:40 PM)tiger tiger Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 03:14 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 01:31 PM)dwash Wrote:  Duke would still be at the top of the freakin' AAC without Csrey and Stanley. They would be better.than Cincy and close to Houston. Get real

Any history to back that up? Last year they were #1 in the country. Then Zion went out for a month, and they went 3-3 in his absence.

There is really nothing to backup your claim. While there are plenty of cases where top teams struggled after losing just one player.

In general, I agree, logic suggests that a team's level of play declines (and expected number of losses increases) when they are without some of their best players. That was the case with Duke last year and Memphis this year.

But, I don't think that was really his point regarding Duke. He's arguing that Duke would be deep enough and talented enough relative to AAC competition (assuming with a depleted Memphis team), to remain on top of the conference without Carey and Stanley. Obviously that is debatable, but the 3-3 record last year after Zion's injury doesn't prove this to be wrong.

The three losses without Zion were against North Carolina (ranked #8 in country), Virginia Tech (ranked #20 in country) and North Carolina (ranked #3 in the country).

Not all 3-3 stretches are created equal.

Yeah...I would have to disagree here.

The ACC aint world beaters this year either. It has 3-4 good teams. Duke has lost to Wake, NC. State, SF Austin and Clemson. If they are losing to NC. State in the ACC they could definitely lose to USF Missing two of their top 3 players.

Pastner is 9-9 in that with only 1 top 100 player on his roster. Duke is only 4 wins better than G. Tech. So are you saying G. Tech would be top of the AAC as well. Because I doubt Duke is 9-9 in the ACC without those two players.

I would bet if Coach K had those injuries he likely would have had to have surgery again and sit out the remainder of the season so he didn't have to endure it.

(03-03-2020 04:05 PM)gusrob Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 03:47 PM)dwash Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 03:40 PM)tiger tiger Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 03:14 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 01:31 PM)dwash Wrote:  Duke would still be at the top of the freakin' AAC without Csrey and Stanley. They would be better.than Cincy and close to Houston. Get real

Any history to back that up? Last year they were #1 in the country. Then Zion went out for a month, and they went 3-3 in his absence.

There is really nothing to backup your claim. While there are plenty of cases where top teams struggled after losing just one player.

In general, I agree, logic suggests that a team's level of play declines (and expected number of losses increases) when they are without some of their best players. That was the case with Duke last year and Memphis this year.

But, I don't think that was really his point regarding Duke. He's arguing that Duke would be deep enough and talented enough relative to AAC competition (assuming with a depleted Memphis team), to remain on top of the conference without Carey and Stanley. Obviously that is debatable, but the 3-3 record last year after Zion's injury doesn't prove this to be wrong.

The three losses without Zion were against North Carolina (ranked #8 in country), Virginia Tech (ranked #20 in country) and North Carolina (ranked #3 in the country).

Not all 3-3 stretches are created equal.

I mean geez thank you.

That before you get into the fact that Duke is just reloading again next year...and we currently have no recruits signed.

So what exactly is your point? That Duke has a great program? I think everyone would agree to that.

They've had a recruiting class like what we just had (w/Wiseman) each of the last 10 years. Yeah, they're good.

How does it relate to our Tigers?

I dont know. Maybe cause the thread is titled "lets look at Duke?"

(03-03-2020 04:41 PM)dwash Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 04:05 PM)gusrob Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 03:47 PM)dwash Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 03:40 PM)tiger tiger Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 03:14 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  Any history to back that up? Last year they were #1 in the country. Then Zion went out for a month, and they went 3-3 in his absence.

There is really nothing to backup your claim. While there are plenty of cases where top teams struggled after losing just one player.

In general, I agree, logic suggests that a team's level of play declines (and expected number of losses increases) when they are without some of their best players. That was the case with Duke last year and Memphis this year.

But, I don't think that was really his point regarding Duke. He's arguing that Duke would be deep enough and talented enough relative to AAC competition (assuming with a depleted Memphis team), to remain on top of the conference without Carey and Stanley. Obviously that is debatable, but the 3-3 record last year after Zion's injury doesn't prove this to be wrong.

The three losses without Zion were against North Carolina (ranked #8 in country), Virginia Tech (ranked #20 in country) and North Carolina (ranked #3 in the country).

Not all 3-3 stretches are created equal.

I mean geez thank you.

That before you get into the fact that Duke is just reloading again next year...and we currently have no recruits signed.

So what exactly is your point? That Duke has a great program? I think everyone would agree to that.

They've had a recruiting class like what we just had (w/Wiseman) each of the last 10 years. Yeah, they're good.

How does it relate to our Tigers?

I dont know. Maybe cause the thread is titled "lets look at Duke?"

You took the point: Even the great almighty Duke struggles when they lose key players.

And you've tried to turn the point into......blah......don't know.

Are you trying to argue that losing your best and 3rd best players shouldn't decrease your results??

(03-03-2020 02:37 PM)Oman Wrote:  how / why is West Virginia ranked? because the beat Ohio State early in the season?

They have a player the NCAA wants in the tourney

(03-03-2020 05:16 PM)gusrob Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 04:41 PM)dwash Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 04:05 PM)gusrob Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 03:47 PM)dwash Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 03:40 PM)tiger tiger Wrote:  In general, I agree, logic suggests that a team's level of play declines (and expected number of losses increases) when they are without some of their best players. That was the case with Duke last year and Memphis this year.

But, I don't think that was really his point regarding Duke. He's arguing that Duke would be deep enough and talented enough relative to AAC competition (assuming with a depleted Memphis team), to remain on top of the conference without Carey and Stanley. Obviously that is debatable, but the 3-3 record last year after Zion's injury doesn't prove this to be wrong.

The three losses without Zion were against North Carolina (ranked #8 in country), Virginia Tech (ranked #20 in country) and North Carolina (ranked #3 in the country).

Not all 3-3 stretches are created equal.

I mean geez thank you.

That before you get into the fact that Duke is just reloading again next year...and we currently have no recruits signed.

So what exactly is your point? That Duke has a great program? I think everyone would agree to that.

They've had a recruiting class like what we just had (w/Wiseman) each of the last 10 years. Yeah, they're good.

How does it relate to our Tigers?

I dont know. Maybe cause the thread is titled "lets look at Duke?"

You took the point: Even the great almighty Duke struggles when they lose key players.

And you've tried to turn the point into......blah......don't know.

Are you trying to argue that losing your best and 3rd best players shouldn't decrease your results??

Im saying struggles are more acceptable for a young shorthanded team against better competition. Im saying people would care less about Duke struggling one year because.they are a sure bet to reload the next year. Im saying despite Dukes struggles they have developed a clear system that will likely work in the future while Memphis under Hardaway has looked terribly undisciplined for two years, which should create some doubt about his coaching ability moving forward.

I think the better comparison is Washington. They have a roster with two future lottery picks and are below 500. They did beat Baylor though. The youth on their team is hurting them.

(03-03-2020 07:06 PM)rolexjames Wrote:  I think the better comparison is Washington. They have a roster with two future lottery picks and are below 500. They did beat Baylor though. The youth on their team is hurting them.

I think their coach stinks...

The have top 100 Freshmen including the #2 and #7 ranked recruits.

Those freshman are paired with 2 more top 100 Sophmores and Juniors.

If Wiseman had stayed and we were 13-16 I would say Penny stinks as well.

(03-03-2020 04:20 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  I would bet if Coach K had those injuries he likely would have had to have surgery again and sit out the remainder of the season so he didn't have to endure it.

lol
"Perfect time to get this rotator cuff surgery I've been putting off for 10 years."

(03-03-2020 06:42 PM)dwash Wrote:  Memphis under Hardaway has looked terribly undisciplined for two years, which should create some doubt about his coaching ability moving forward.

psssh

See, there's where you lose the argument. There is nothing you can take away from this season to create doubt about his coaching ability. A better argument could be made that this year solidifies this ability. He's taken a lot of adversity and still has a group of freshmen-sophomores playing some of the best D in the country and hustling their tails off.

"Terribly undisciplined"? Do you know how hard it is to play D at the level they do - especially when they were in HS just last year playing optional D? And off the court - how much lack of discipline have you seen in these guys (suspensions, grades, fights, drama, etc.)? Zero. If you're talking about the turnovers, then say that rather than "undisciplined".

Speaking of coaches who lost their star player...didn't Pearl lose somebody....or am I getting him mixed up with the other orange guy, Barnes?

Anyway, Pearl lost at home on his senior night to unranked Aggies 78-75.

AUBURN, Alabama—Looking to finish a perfect home schedule at Auburn Arena, the No. 15 Auburn basketball Tigers (24-5, 11-5) will face off against Texas A&M (14-14, 8-8) at 6 p.m. CST on Wednesday.

It’s Senior Day for Coach Bruce Pearl’s team with point guard J'Von McCormick, guards Samir Doughty and Will McCoy, forwards Danjel Purifoy, Anfernee McLemore and Thomas Collier with center Austin Wiley will be honored.

Another win would also give Auburn the most SEC wins in a three-year span in school history with 36. The record of 35 is held by the 1958-60 Tigers.