6th Man of St. John's Basketball
St. John's Red Storm => In The Jungle... => Topic started by: Poison on March 09, 2017, 08:12:49 PM
-
Will the University accept an invitation to one of these tournaments?
-
Will the University accept an invitation to one of these tournaments?
Won't get the chance to
-
Spare us the indignity. If we haven't learned to play a lick of defense by this point in the season playing some more sh#t teams isn't gonna help.
-
I know St Peters, Canisius and Fairfield all accepted CIT offers
-
Yeah, no.
-
If this is what they've earned then I think they should suck it up and play. Clearly, they needs more practice, and games are great practice.
-
Zero chance.
-
If this is what they've earned then I think they should suck it up and play. Clearly, they needs more practice, and games are great practice.
Normally I would agree. But whatever they are doing is broken. They have to fix it. Playing more games and not playing defense will not make them better. Guys need to get stronger. If guys are leaving they don't need to play anymore games. The season is over.
-
If this is what they've earned then I think they should suck it up and play. Clearly, they needs more practice, and games are great practice.
Could do way more harm than good. Nothing to gain by beating a bunch of mediocre mid majors, everything to lose if you lose to Lehigh to get bounced in the CBI. No chance an invite comes anyway
-
If this is what they've earned then I think they should suck it up and play. Clearly, they needs more practice, and games are great practice.
Of course. Every game they play is one more game they've played. You can't blame things on a lack of experience and then avoid opportunities for experience.
-
Coaches need the game more than anyone
-
If this is what they've earned then I think they should suck it up and play. Clearly, they needs more practice, and games are great practice.
Could do way more harm than good. Nothing to gain by beating a bunch of mediocre mid majors, everything to lose if you lose to Lehigh to get bounced in the CBI. No chance an invite comes anyway
I wouldn't skip a tournament because we could be embarrassed. Why go out like we did today if we don't have to? We were completely outclassed today. Nova is going to do that to others before their season is over. It's a great team. Doesn't mean should be done. For our level, the CBI is fine. It's where a young team belongs.
-
If this is what they've earned then I think they should suck it up and play. Clearly, they needs more practice, and games are great practice.
Could do way more harm than good. Nothing to gain by beating a bunch of mediocre mid majors, everything to lose if you lose to Lehigh to get bounced in the CBI. No chance an invite comes anyway
I wouldn't skip a tournament because we could be embarrassed. Why go out like we did today if we don't have to? We were completely outclassed today. Nova is going to do that to others before their season is over. It's a great team. Doesn't mean should be done. For our level, the CBI is fine. It's where a young team belongs.
You have to be bi-polar. You are either cut throat or wimpy.
-
If this is what they've earned then I think they should suck it up and play. Clearly, they needs more practice, and games are great practice.
Could do way more harm than good. Nothing to gain by beating a bunch of mediocre mid majors, everything to lose if you lose to Lehigh to get bounced in the CBI. No chance an invite comes anyway
I wouldn't skip a tournament because we could be embarrassed. Why go out like we did today if we don't have to? We were completely outclassed today. Nova is going to do that to others before their season is over. It's a great team. Doesn't mean should be done. For our level, the CBI is fine. It's where a young team belongs.
You have to be bi-polar. You are either cut throat or wimpy.
What?
-
Any chance to play and practice a week or two extra should be welcomed with open arms with a team this young and inexperienced. More postseason experience can only help these kids. It could also rinse the bad taste of the 41 pt loss out of their mouths.
-
Do teams just have to pay a fee to get into these tournaments?
-
Do teams just have to pay a fee to get into these tournaments?
I may be wrong, but I think you have to pay to host a game.
-
I don't understand the downside.
-
I don't understand the downside.
There is no downside as foad pointed out. People complain about this being an inexperienced young team. Here's a chance to get another game (or more) against teams that are going play their asses off to extend their season and careers. But I guess the Big East ego will get in the way
-
I don't understand the downside.
There is no downside as foad pointed out. People complain about this being an inexperienced young team. Here's a chance to get another game (or more) against teams that are going play their asses off to extend their season and careers. But I guess the Big East ego will get in the way
The current team doesn't play defense. not playing defense a few more times will not improve next years team. Our staff doesn't know how to teach team defense. Preparing for Fairfield with disinterested players won't change that. Our guys quit yesterday. Lovett is half way out the door. According to Baldi mussini is next. You guys want to play a tournament with 2 guards ?
I was In favor of Norm's team playing (I think 8 years ago). Effort, toughness, were not issues then . They just kind of sucked. More practice could have helped them. (More practice didn't help norm ) what makes anyone think more practice would help Mullin? Richmond has 50 times as much money as Chris Casey, you think he wants to work 2 more weeks?
-
Anyone who thinks we are above this is crazy. These are tournaments now. It's where we're at. All of our guys need practice. Even the ones who think they're NBA draft picks.
-
I don't understand the downside.
There is no downside as foad pointed out. People complain about this being an inexperienced young team. Here's a chance to get another game (or more) against teams that are going play their asses off to extend their season and careers. But I guess the Big East ego will get in the way
The current team doesn't play defense. not playing defense a few more times will not improve next years team. Our staff doesn't know how to teach team defense. Preparing for Fairfield with disinterested players won't change that. Our guys quit yesterday. Lovett is half way out the door. According to Baldi mussini is next. You guys want to play a tournament with 2 guards ?
I was In favor of Norm's team playing (I think 8 years ago). Effort, toughness, were not issues then . They just kind of sucked. More practice could have helped them. (More practice didn't help norm ) what makes anyone think more practice would help Mullin? Richmond has 50 times as much money as Chris Casey, you think he wants to work 2 more weeks?
Well then there's the problem.
-
The current team doesn't play defense. not playing defense a few more times will not improve next years team. Our staff doesn't know how to teach team defense. Preparing for Fairfield with disinterested players won't change that. Our guys quit yesterday. Lovett is half way out the door. According to Baldi mussini is next. You guys want to play a tournament with 2 guards ?
I was In favor of Norm's team playing (I think 8 years ago). Effort, toughness, were not issues then . They just kind of sucked. More practice could have helped them. (More practice didn't help norm ) what makes anyone think more practice would help Mullin? Richmond has 50 times as much money as Chris Casey, you think he wants to work 2 more weeks?
This is an argument for firing the coach and or disbanding the basketball program.If Mullin is not the answer the should fire him. Which is not at all evident one year into a five year rebuild and which they're not going to do anyway. If they believe he's the answer they should play as many games as possible to put into practice his coaching aesthetics.
Look at it another way. What's the worst thing that can happen? They just lost by 50 points. Unless Ponds breaks his leg there's no downside.
-
The current team doesn't play defense. not playing defense a few more times will not improve next years team. Our staff doesn't know how to teach team defense. Preparing for Fairfield with disinterested players won't change that. Our guys quit yesterday. Lovett is half way out the door. According to Baldi mussini is next. You guys want to play a tournament with 2 guards ?
I was In favor of Norm's team playing (I think 8 years ago). Effort, toughness, were not issues then . They just kind of sucked. More practice could have helped them. (More practice didn't help norm ) what makes anyone think more practice would help Mullin? Richmond has 50 times as much money as Chris Casey, you think he wants to work 2 more weeks?
This is an argument for firing the coach and or disbanding the basketball program.If Mullin is not the answer the should fire him. Which is not at all evident one year into a five year rebuild and which they're not going to do anyway. If they believe he's the answer they should play as many games as possible to put into practice his coaching aesthetics.
Look at it another way. What's the worst thing that can happen? They just lost by 50 points. Unless Ponds breaks his leg there's no downside.
Yup. Even some fans have a big ego. Meanwhile, the big east is a high mid major minus Villanova. Thank God for Jay Wright
-
Personally I'd decline the invite. Not because St. John's is above that but because I wouldn't want the guys to play March ball unless it's NIT or NCAA. Let them sit at home in their room while guys are playing and let that sink in. Make 'em hungry for next year.
-
Personally I'd decline the invite. Not because St. John's is above that but because I wouldn't want the guys to play March ball unless it's NIT or NCAA. Let them sit at home in their room while guys are playing and let that sink in. Make 'em hungry for next year.
If they're not hungry give their scholarships to somebody who is Mike Jarvis. Isn't that what got him fired, that he said he'd no longer be recruiting local players, because they weren't hungry enough? Good grief. We stink but let's not play anymore and possibly get better, let's all stew in the fact that we suck. You people are mentally ill.
-
Personally I'd decline the invite. Not because St. John's is above that but because I wouldn't want the guys to play March ball unless it's NIT or NCAA. Let them sit at home in their room while guys are playing and let that sink in. Make 'em hungry for next year.
If they're not hungry give their scholarships to somebody who is Mike Jarvis. Isn't that what got him fired, that he said he'd no longer be recruiting local players, because they weren't hungry enough? Good grief. We stink but let's not play anymore and possibly get better, let's all stew in the fact that we suck. You people are mentally ill.
It's always good leaving the season on a 40 point thrashing on your own court
-
Personally I'd decline the invite. Not because St. John's is above that but because I wouldn't want the guys to play March ball unless it's NIT or NCAA. Let them sit at home in their room while guys are playing and let that sink in. Make 'em hungry for next year.
If they're not hungry give their scholarships to somebody who is Mike Jarvis. Isn't that what got him fired, that he said he'd no longer be recruiting local players, because they weren't hungry enough? Good grief. We stink but let's not play anymore and possibly get better, let's all stew in the fact that we suck. You people are mentally ill.
It's always good leaving the season on a 40 point thrashing on your own court
I think the point is we've played 33 games and have been practicing for more than 5 months. Another couple of games against Lehigh and St Peters plus a few more practices isn't going to make us any better. And there's a chance we'd wind up ending the season with an 8 point loss to Lehigh which is worse than losing to the defending national champs by 40.
There have been numerous regular season games this year where the team showed up with absolutely no interest. There is no way they are going to be at all interested in playing a team like Toledo in the CBI for absolutely nothing, whereas Toledo might actually care and would end up beating us
-
Personally I'd decline the invite. Not because St. John's is above that but because I wouldn't want the guys to play March ball unless it's NIT or NCAA. Let them sit at home in their room while guys are playing and let that sink in. Make 'em hungry for next year.
If they're not hungry give their scholarships to somebody who is Mike Jarvis. Isn't that what got him fired, that he said he'd no longer be recruiting local players, because they weren't hungry enough? Good grief. We stink but let's not play anymore and possibly get better, let's all stew in the fact that we suck. You people are mentally ill.
It's always good leaving the season on a 40 point thrashing on your own court
POTY forthcoming:
If you could get better at playing basketball by sitting around in your dorm room getting stoned I'd be in the basketball hall of fame.
Evidently basketball is the only thing you can improve at by not doing it. Musicians don't get better by not playing their instruments, artists don't get better by not painting, mathematicians don't get better not doing equations. But basketball players get better by not playing basketball. Because it makes them hungry.
-
There is no way they are going to be at all interested in playing a team like Toledo in the CBI for absolutely nothing
Take away their scholarships then, the same way you would a history major who isn't interested at all in history.
-
I just don't think they're going to invite a 14-19 team.
-
I just don't think they're going to invite a 14-19 team.
They would love a big market Big East team to host. But our guys are too busy talking about going pro
-
Personally I'd decline the invite. Not because St. John's is above that but because I wouldn't want the guys to play March ball unless it's NIT or NCAA. Let them sit at home in their room while guys are playing and let that sink in. Make 'em hungry for next year.
If they're not hungry give their scholarships to somebody who is Mike Jarvis. Isn't that what got him fired, that he said he'd no longer be recruiting local players, because they weren't hungry enough? Good grief. We stink but let's not play anymore and possibly get better, let's all stew in the fact that we suck. You people are mentally ill.
It's always good leaving the season on a 40 point thrashing on your own court
POTY forthcoming:
If you could get better at playing basketball by sitting around in your dorm room getting stoned I'd be in the basketball hall of fame.
Evidently basketball is the only thing you can improve at by not doing it. Musicians don't get better by not playing their instruments, artists don't get better by not painting, mathematicians don't get better not doing equations. But basketball players get better by not playing basketball. Because it makes them hungry.
I do understand the experience argument here but I think it's being way overstated. Playing 3 meaningless games against mid majors after playing 33 games isn't going to make this team any better.
I don't think the players will just be sitting in their dorm rooms now that the season is over. I'm sure they will be in the gym every day getting shots up and this is the time players work on their weaknesses. Maybe Owens will use the time to work on his low post game, something he can't do in games yet. Maybe Ahmed will work on a jump stop and pull up jumper to avoid charges, something he can't do in games yet.
-
I just don't think they're going to invite a 14-19 team.
Exactly, there's 0% chance we get invited. Baldi wants the mid majors to get the nod over the big schools in the NCAA Tournament but sounds like he'd be cool with 14-19 St. John's getting a CBI invite over 19-13 St. Peters
-
I just don't think they're going to invite a 14-19 team.
Exactly, there's 0% chance we get invited. Baldi wants the mid majors to get the nod over the big schools in the NCAA Tournament but sounds like he'd be cool with 14-19 St. John's getting a CBI invite over 19-13 St. Peters
St Peters is already in. They are playing because they have some young guys who can use the minutes and experience. Siena said no because they are mostly seniors. I guess St Johns and the fans are too good for that. This is why St Johns is always in the fckn basement. SJU is an embarrassment
-
I just don't think they're going to invite a 14-19 team.
Exactly, there's 0% chance we get invited. Baldi wants the mid majors to get the nod over the big schools in the NCAA Tournament but sounds like he'd be cool with 14-19 St. John's getting a CBI invite over 19-13 St. Peters
St Peters is already in. They are playing because they have some young guys who can use the minutes and experience. Siena said no because they are mostly seniors. I guess St Johns and the fans are too good for that. This is why St Johns is always in the fckn basement. SJU is an embarrassment
How does playing in the CBI get us out of the basement though? Do you think these 2 or 3 or whatever it is games of experience against mid majors in front of 60 people is going to translate into any wins against teams like Villanova, Xavier, Butler etc next year or the year after that we otherwise wouldn't have won had we not played in the CBI?
-
I just don't think they're going to invite a 14-19 team.
Exactly, there's 0% chance we get invited. Baldi wants the mid majors to get the nod over the big schools in the NCAA Tournament but sounds like he'd be cool with 14-19 St. John's getting a CBI invite over 19-13 St. Peters
St Peters is already in. They are playing because they have some young guys who can use the minutes and experience. Siena said no because they are mostly seniors. I guess St Johns and the fans are too good for that. This is why St Johns is always in the fckn basement. SJU is an embarrassment
How does playing in the CBI get us out of the basement though? Do you think these 2 or 3 or whatever it is games of experience against mid majors in front of 60 people is going to translate into any wins against teams like Villanova, Xavier, Butler etc next year or the year after that we otherwise wouldn't have won had we not played in the CBI?
Not playing makes us better? Our staff can use the games to work on things? What makes you think the players and the staff will be working hard in the offseason. Did they last year? Oh wait, we are inexperienced team with underclassmen who have no idea how to play team basketball, no clue about fundamentals, and have no desire or capacity to play defense. Why in the world would they need to play more games?
What's the excuse next year?
-
I just don't think they're going to invite a 14-19 team.
Exactly, there's 0% chance we get invited. Baldi wants the mid majors to get the nod over the big schools in the NCAA Tournament but sounds like he'd be cool with 14-19 St. John's getting a CBI invite over 19-13 St. Peters
St Peters is already in. They are playing because they have some young guys who can use the minutes and experience. Siena said no because they are mostly seniors. I guess St Johns and the fans are too good for that. This is why St Johns is always in the fckn basement. SJU is an embarrassment
How does playing in the CBI get us out of the basement though? Do you think these 2 or 3 or whatever it is games of experience against mid majors in front of 60 people is going to translate into any wins against teams like Villanova, Xavier, Butler etc next year or the year after that we otherwise wouldn't have won had we not played in the CBI?
Not playing makes us better? Our staff can use the games to work on things? What makes you think the players and the staff will be working hard in the offseason. Did they last year? Oh wait, we are inexperienced team with underclassmen who have no idea how to play team basketball, no clue about fundamentals, and have no desire or capacity to play defense. Why in the works would they need to plat more games?
What's the excuse next year?
I'm not making any excuses this year. I just don't see how after playing 33 games a couple more against those caliber of teams is going to help and I don't even think those teams are all that much worse than we are. If it was the NIT and we could play 3 more games against teams like Illinois, Indiana, Georgia etc. I'd be all for it. 3 CBI games is not going to move the needle at all in terms of getting better at the fundamentals or learning how to play D with intensity. If they didn't learn it after 33 meaningful games and 20 games against big east competition, 3 games against mid majors ain't gonna make a difference
-
I just don't think they're going to invite a 14-19 team.
Exactly, there's 0% chance we get invited. Baldi wants the mid majors to get the nod over the big schools in the NCAA Tournament but sounds like he'd be cool with 14-19 St. John's getting a CBI invite over 19-13 St. Peters
St Peters is already in. They are playing because they have some young guys who can use the minutes and experience. Siena said no because they are mostly seniors. I guess St Johns and the fans are too good for that. This is why St Johns is always in the fckn basement. SJU is an embarrassment
How does playing in the CBI get us out of the basement though? Do you think these 2 or 3 or whatever it is games of experience against mid majors in front of 60 people is going to translate into any wins against teams like Villanova, Xavier, Butler etc next year or the year after that we otherwise wouldn't have won had we not played in the CBI?
Not playing makes us better? Our staff can use the games to work on things? What makes you think the players and the staff will be working hard in the offseason. Did they last year? Oh wait, we are inexperienced team with underclassmen who have no idea how to play team basketball, no clue about fundamentals, and have no desire or capacity to play defense. Why in the works would they need to plat more games?
What's the excuse next year?
I'm not making any excuses this year. I just don't see how after playing 33 games a couple more against those caliber of teams is going to help and I don't even think those teams are all that much worse than we are. If it was the NIT and we could play 3 more games against teams like Illinois, Indiana, Georgia etc. I'd be all for it. 3 CBI games is not going to move the needle at all in terms of getting better at the fundamentals or learning how to play D with intensity. If they didn't learn it after 33 meaningful games and 20 games against big east competition, 3 games against mid majors ain't gonna make a difference
Ya cause we did so well against the mid majors in the ooc schedule
-
I just don't think they're going to invite a 14-19 team.
Exactly, there's 0% chance we get invited. Baldi wants the mid majors to get the nod over the big schools in the NCAA Tournament but sounds like he'd be cool with 14-19 St. John's getting a CBI invite over 19-13 St. Peters
St Peters is already in. They are playing because they have some young guys who can use the minutes and experience. Siena said no because they are mostly seniors. I guess St Johns and the fans are too good for that. This is why St Johns is always in the fckn basement. SJU is an embarrassment
How does playing in the CBI get us out of the basement though? Do you think these 2 or 3 or whatever it is games of experience against mid majors in front of 60 people is going to translate into any wins against teams like Villanova, Xavier, Butler etc next year or the year after that we otherwise wouldn't have won had we not played in the CBI?
Not playing makes us better? Our staff can use the games to work on things? What makes you think the players and the staff will be working hard in the offseason. Did they last year? Oh wait, we are inexperienced team with underclassmen who have no idea how to play team basketball, no clue about fundamentals, and have no desire or capacity to play defense. Why in the works would they need to plat more games?
What's the excuse next year?
I'm not making any excuses this year. I just don't see how after playing 33 games a couple more against those caliber of teams is going to help and I don't even think those teams are all that much worse than we are. If it was the NIT and we could play 3 more games against teams like Illinois, Indiana, Georgia etc. I'd be all for it. 3 CBI games is not going to move the needle at all in terms of getting better at the fundamentals or learning how to play D with intensity. If they didn't learn it after 33 meaningful games and 20 games against big east competition, 3 games against mid majors ain't gonna make a difference
Ya cause we did so well against the mid majors in the ooc schedule
And playing against them sure didn't help much in the BE schedule
-
I do understand the experience argument here but I think it's being way overstated. Playing 3 meaningless games against mid majors after playing 33 games isn't going to make this team any better.
I don't think the players will just be sitting in their dorm rooms now that the season is over. I'm sure they will be in the gym every day getting shots up and this is the time players work on their weaknesses. Maybe Owens will use the time to work on his low post game, something he can't do in games yet. Maybe Ahmed will work on a jump stop and pull up jumper to avoid charges, something he can't do in games yet.
Probably playing in the CBI is not going to make anyone a better basketball player or the team that much better, But "let them sit at home in their room" is certainly not a recipe for success. If it was they'd be national champions. Owens has six months to work on his low post game and Ahmed has six months to work on his jump shot, which they can do on their own. The team does not have six months to be better at playing basketball collectively, which they can only do as a group. No one would argue that they should not play a couple of meaningless games together in the fall in some stupid preseason tournament because Owens might have better spent his time improving his jump shot. Everyone would say thank goodness for the experience. To the extent that it's even likely a post season appearance is a no brainer.
-
I do understand the experience argument here but I think it's being way overstated. Playing 3 meaningless games against mid majors after playing 33 games isn't going to make this team any better.
I don't think the players will just be sitting in their dorm rooms now that the season is over. I'm sure they will be in the gym every day getting shots up and this is the time players work on their weaknesses. Maybe Owens will use the time to work on his low post game, something he can't do in games yet. Maybe Ahmed will work on a jump stop and pull up jumper to avoid charges, something he can't do in games yet.
Probably playing in the CBI is not going to make anyone a better basketball player or the team that much better, But "let them sit at home in their room" is certainly not a recipe for success. If it was they'd be national champions. Owens has six months to work on his low post game and Ahmed has six months to work on his jump shot, which they can do on their own. The team does not have six months to be better at playing basketball collectively, which they can only do as a group. No one would argue that they should not play a couple of meaningless games together in the fall in some stupid preseason tournament because Owens might have better spent his time improving his jump shot. Everyone would say thank goodness for the experience. To the extent that it's even likely a post season appearance is a no brainer.
If it's a no brainer than by all means we should play. It is something we specialize in.
-
Personally I'd decline the invite. Not because St. John's is above that but because I wouldn't want the guys to play March ball unless it's NIT or NCAA. Let them sit at home in their room while guys are playing and let that sink in. Make 'em hungry for next year.
If they're not hungry give their scholarships to somebody who is Mike Jarvis. Isn't that what got him fired, that he said he'd no longer be recruiting local players, because they weren't hungry enough? Good grief. We stink but let's not play anymore and possibly get better, let's all stew in the fact that we suck. You people are mentally ill.
I'll take the Jarvis crew that won the NIT over the Lavin crew that didn't care at all.
-
Personally I'd decline the invite. Not because St. John's is above that but because I wouldn't want the guys to play March ball unless it's NIT or NCAA. Let them sit at home in their room while guys are playing and let that sink in. Make 'em hungry for next year.
If they're not hungry give their scholarships to somebody who is Mike Jarvis. Isn't that what got him fired, that he said he'd no longer be recruiting local players, because they weren't hungry enough? Good grief. We stink but let's not play anymore and possibly get better, let's all stew in the fact that we suck. You people are mentally ill.
I'll take the Jarvis crew that won the NIT over the Lavin crew that didn't care at all.
Totally agree with you there. I went to all 5 of those NIT games and had a great time. Beating Georgetown in final was great. But was that the one they stole from us or was it the Jayson Williams one we won under Lou?
-
I do understand the experience argument here but I think it's being way overstated. Playing 3 meaningless games against mid majors after playing 33 games isn't going to make this team any better.
I don't think the players will just be sitting in their dorm rooms now that the season is over. I'm sure they will be in the gym every day getting shots up and this is the time players work on their weaknesses. Maybe Owens will use the time to work on his low post game, something he can't do in games yet. Maybe Ahmed will work on a jump stop and pull up jumper to avoid charges, something he can't do in games yet.
Probably playing in the CBI is not going to make anyone a better basketball player or the team that much better, But "let them sit at home in their room" is certainly not a recipe for success. If it was they'd be national champions. Owens has six months to work on his low post game and Ahmed has six months to work on his jump shot, which they can do on their own. The team does not have six months to be better at playing basketball collectively, which they can only do as a group. No one would argue that they should not play a couple of meaningless games together in the fall in some stupid preseason tournament because Owens might have better spent his time improving his jump shot. Everyone would say thank goodness for the experience. To the extent that it's even likely a post season appearance is a no brainer.
And what happens when someone tears their ACL in some meaningless tournament against low majors?
-
But was that the one they stole from us or was it the Jayson Williams one we won under Lou?
The Jarvis title was stolen from us.
-
But was that the one they stole from us or was it the Jayson Williams one we won under Lou?
The Jarvis title was stolen from us.
Thanks, that's what I thought. the old Abe Kieta 300 dollars a month fiasco.
-
I do understand the experience argument here but I think it's being way overstated. Playing 3 meaningless games against mid majors after playing 33 games isn't going to make this team any better.
I don't think the players will just be sitting in their dorm rooms now that the season is over. I'm sure they will be in the gym every day getting shots up and this is the time players work on their weaknesses. Maybe Owens will use the time to work on his low post game, something he can't do in games yet. Maybe Ahmed will work on a jump stop and pull up jumper to avoid charges, something he can't do in games yet.
Probably playing in the CBI is not going to make anyone a better basketball player or the team that much better, But "let them sit at home in their room" is certainly not a recipe for success. If it was they'd be national champions. Owens has six months to work on his low post game and Ahmed has six months to work on his jump shot, which they can do on their own. The team does not have six months to be better at playing basketball collectively, which they can only do as a group. No one would argue that they should not play a couple of meaningless games together in the fall in some stupid preseason tournament because Owens might have better spent his time improving his jump shot. Everyone would say thank goodness for the experience. To the extent that it's even likely a post season appearance is a no brainer.
And what happens when someone tears their ACL in some meaningless tournament against low majors?
That would be bad. Come to think of it the bus might crash on the way to the meaningless game killing everyone aboard, which would be even worse. Or one of them might choke on a sandwich during the pre game meal, although since they're not sitting in their dorm rooms getting hungrier maybe that's not a realistic scenario. And then on the other hand what if one of them doesn't get hit by a car crossing Utopia Parkway because instead of crossing Utopia Parkway which they might otherwise have been doing they're playing a meaningless tournament game against a low major and that player goes on to develop a cure for cancer? So if we don't play in the CBI millions might die who otherwise would have been saved. That's a tough call, you've really opened up a can of existential worms with your insightful question.
-
Of course you play in this tourney if invited.
SJU is in no position to pick and choose if they want to play in a postseason tourney or not.
-
Of course you play in this tourney if invited.
SJU is in no position to pick and choose if they want to play in a postseason tourney or not.
Exactly. This is what deserve whether they like it or not. If someone wants to quit the team, let them. Frankly, I'd happily lose half of these guys.
-
But was that the one they stole from us or was it the Jayson Williams one we won under Lou?
The Jarvis title was stolen from us.
The hell it was
-
I do understand the experience argument here but I think it's being way overstated. Playing 3 meaningless games against mid majors after playing 33 games isn't going to make this team any better.
I don't think the players will just be sitting in their dorm rooms now that the season is over. I'm sure they will be in the gym every day getting shots up and this is the time players work on their weaknesses. Maybe Owens will use the time to work on his low post game, something he can't do in games yet. Maybe Ahmed will work on a jump stop and pull up jumper to avoid charges, something he can't do in games yet.
Probably playing in the CBI is not going to make anyone a better basketball player or the team that much better, But "let them sit at home in their room" is certainly not a recipe for success. If it was they'd be national champions. Owens has six months to work on his low post game and Ahmed has six months to work on his jump shot, which they can do on their own. The team does not have six months to be better at playing basketball collectively, which they can only do as a group. No one would argue that they should not play a couple of meaningless games together in the fall in some stupid preseason tournament because Owens might have better spent his time improving his jump shot. Everyone would say thank goodness for the experience. To the extent that it's even likely a post season appearance is a no brainer.
And what happens when someone tears their ACL in some meaningless tournament against low majors?
Then tough shit. You're on a basketball team, and the season may not be over yet. If the staff doesn't want to accept a bid to the CBI or the CIT because they think we're above it, I'd be fine with firing them right now. They should learn their damn place, and right now that place is in the CBI or the CIT. They consider themselves lucky to be invited, and they should take it seriously.
-
Personally I'd decline the invite. Not because St. John's is above that but because I wouldn't want the guys to play March ball unless it's NIT or NCAA. Let them sit at home in their room while guys are playing and let that sink in. Make 'em hungry for next year.
If they're not hungry give their scholarships to somebody who is Mike Jarvis. Isn't that what got him fired, that he said he'd no longer be recruiting local players, because they weren't hungry enough? Good grief. We stink but let's not play anymore and possibly get better, let's all stew in the fact that we suck. You people are mentally ill.
I'll take the Jarvis crew that won the NIT over the Lavin crew that didn't care at all.
Totally agree with you there. I went to all 5 of those NIT games and had a great time. Beating Georgetown in final was great. But was that the one they stole from us or was it the Jayson Williams one we won under Lou?
If you went to the game, nothing was stolen from us. I blame Jarvis for not being better at cheating, and for not keeping his damn mouth shut.
-
Of course you play in this tourney if invited.
SJU is in no position to pick and choose if they want to play in a postseason tourney or not.
Exactly. This is what deserve whether they like it or not. If someone wants to quit the team, let them. Frankly, I'd happily lose half of these guys.
+1
-
This debate is insane. You get better by playing more.
The end.
Whether it's 1% better or 10% better is irrelevant.
You do everything you can to improve.
-
This debate is insane. You get better by playing more.
The end.
Whether it's 1% better or 10% better is irrelevant.
You do everything you can to improve.
Did St. John's get better from playing Robert Morris?
If you can get up for playing the national champions in a sold out MSG, how are you going to get up to play St. Peter's in an empty alumni hall? As a fan do you want to go that game ? Baldi would you go?
The goal is to compete in the big east, how does beating up on St. Peter's help accomplish that ? Assuming we could.
You guys really want to watch even on tv any more of this team this year?
-
This debate is insane. You get better by playing more.
The end.
Whether it's 1% better or 10% better is irrelevant.
You do everything you can to improve.
Did St. John's get better from playing Robert Morris?
If you can get up for playing the national champions in a sold out MSG, how are you going to get up to play St. Peter's in an empty alumni hall? As a fan do you want to go that game ? Baldi would you go?
The goal is to compete in the big east, how does beating up on St. Peter's help accomplish that ? Assuming we could.
You guys really want to watch even on tv any more of this team this year?
Absolutely I'd go. This is a young team. They need as much game experience as they can get. If it's St.Peter's, then great. They play solid defense. It would be a worthwhile opponent. So would Hofstra.
-
This debate is insane. You get better by playing more.
The end.
Whether it's 1% better or 10% better is irrelevant.
You do everything you can to improve.
Yes, it's ridiculous.
More game action is good for the players, even if it's against the likes of St. Peter's. Who I'm not overly confident we could easily beat. It seems to me that the only argument against this is a pride thing, that we are somehow "above" playing in a tournament like this. We're not.
-
This debate is insane. You get better by playing more.
The end.
Whether it's 1% better or 10% better is irrelevant.
You do everything you can to improve.
Did St. John's get better from playing Robert Morris?
If you can get up for playing the national champions in a sold out MSG, how are you going to get up to play St. Peter's in an empty alumni hall? As a fan do you want to go that game ? Baldi would you go?
The goal is to compete in the big east, how does beating up on St. Peter's help accomplish that ? Assuming we could.
You guys really want to watch even on tv any more of this team this year?
Exactly
-
I checked out at half-time of the Nova game. I'll see them next year.
-
St. John's shouldn't be "above" playing anyone. They're bad. The only way you can get better is by playing. If anyone on the team, staff, or administration is saying they're above the CBI, those people are part of the problem. This isn't 1985-1986. Everyone needs to accept where this program is and understand you need to play to get better. It's a young team and if they got invited they should take it.
-
St. John's shouldn't be "above" playing anyone. They're bad. The only way you can get better is by playing. If anyone on the team, staff, or administration is saying they're above the CBI, those people are part of the problem. This isn't 1985-1986. Everyone needs to accept where this program is and understand you need to play to get better. It's a young team and if they got invited they should take it.
DePaul is bad. We are young and improving.
-
Fingers crossed we make the CBI/CIT dance.
-
Fingers crossed we make the CBI/CIT dance.
Lol we won't. We went 14-19. Season is over
-
Fingers crossed we make the CBI/CIT dance.
Lol we won't. We went 14-19. Season is over
8-12 in the BE is better than half of the teams in the NIT field.
-
Fingers crossed we make the CBI/CIT dance.
Lol we won't. We went 14-19. Season is over
8-12 in the BE is better than half of the teams in the NIT field.
Yeah the low major autobids, not the at larges
-
Fingers crossed we make the CBI/CIT dance.
Lol we won't. We went 14-19. Season is over
8-12 in the BE is better than half of the teams in the NIT field.
Yeah the low major autobids, not the at larges
Clemson, for example. Are they any better than we are? The win loss record shouldn't matter as much as a waded grade.
-
Would we accept an invite to the NIT?
-
Would we accept an invite to the NIT?
We didn't get one, but probably. We had better accept a bid to the CBI/CIT. Time to take your medicine.
-
Fingers crossed we make the CBI/CIT dance.
Lol we won't. We went 14-19. Season is over
8-12 in the BE is better than half of the teams in the NIT field.
Yeah the low major autobids, not the at larges
Clemson, for example. Are they any better than we are? The win loss record shouldn't matter as much as a waded grade.
Lol. Clemson is way better than us. If we played them on a neutral floor they'd be about 6 point favorites.
By the way, was looking at last year's CBI field and no teams from any of the power conferences made it so I'm not even sure we'd be eligible for the CBI anymore
-
Fingers crossed we make the CBI/CIT dance.
Lol we won't. We went 14-19. Season is over
8-12 in the BE is better than half of the teams in the NIT field.
Yeah the low major autobids, not the at larges
Clemson, for example. Are they any better than we are? The win loss record shouldn't matter as much as a waded grade.
Lol. Clemson is way better than us. If we played them on a neutral floor they'd be about 6 point favorites.
By the way, was looking at last year's CBI field and no teams from any of the power conferences made it so I'm not even sure we'd be eligible for the CBI anymore
Not only is Clemson not "way better" than us, by the conference numbers, they aren't as good as us. High majors can choose to play in the CBI or the CIT. Auburn figured they were above it. They aren't, but that's the shit Bruce Pearl is pulling.
-
Fingers crossed we make the CBI/CIT dance.
Lol we won't. We went 14-19. Season is over
8-12 in the BE is better than half of the teams in the NIT field.
Yeah the low major autobids, not the at larges
Clemson, for example. Are they any better than we are? The win loss record shouldn't matter as much as a waded grade.
Lol. Clemson is way better than us. If we played them on a neutral floor they'd be about 6 point favorites.
By the way, was looking at last year's CBI field and no teams from any of the power conferences made it so I'm not even sure we'd be eligible for the CBI anymore
We are def not eligible for CIT. Maybe the Vegas 16 will call.
-
Fingers crossed we make the CBI/CIT dance.
Lol we won't. We went 14-19. Season is over
8-12 in the BE is better than half of the teams in the NIT field.
Yeah the low major autobids, not the at larges
Clemson, for example. Are they any better than we are? The win loss record shouldn't matter as much as a waded grade.
Lol. Clemson is way better than us. If we played them on a neutral floor they'd be about 6 point favorites.
By the way, was looking at last year's CBI field and no teams from any of the power conferences made it so I'm not even sure we'd be eligible for the CBI anymore
Not only is Clemson not "way better" than us, by the conference numbers, they aren't as good as us. High majors can choose to play in the CBI or the CIT. Auburn figured they were above it. They aren't, but that's the shit Bruce Pearl is pulling.
You are so off base on this it's painful. Kenpom, which is essentially how Vegas makes their lines, has Clemson as the 35th best team in the country. We are 94th. The numbers translate to them being roughly 6 points favorites against us on a neutral floor and in today's college basketball landscape where 6 points ia lot, that equals way better than us
-
Sorry to the fam we didn't make the CBI
-
Fingers crossed we make the CBI/CIT dance.
Lol we won't. We went 14-19. Season is over
8-12 in the BE is better than half of the teams in the NIT field.
Yeah the low major autobids, not the at larges
Clemson, for example. Are they any better than we are? The win loss record shouldn't matter as much as a waded grade.
Lol. Clemson is way better than us. If we played them on a neutral floor they'd be about 6 point favorites.
By the way, was looking at last year's CBI field and no teams from any of the power conferences made it so I'm not even sure we'd be eligible for the CBI anymore
Not only is Clemson not "way better" than us, by the conference numbers, they aren't as good as us. High majors can choose to play in the CBI or the CIT. Auburn figured they were above it. They aren't, but that's the shit Bruce Pearl is pulling.
You are so off base on this it's painful. Kenpom, which is essentially how Vegas makes their lines, has Clemson as the 35th best team in the country. We are 94th. The numbers translate to them being roughly 6 points favorites against us on a neutral floor and in today's college basketball landscape where 6 points ia lot, that equals way better than us
It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.
-
It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.
Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.
We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team
-
Sorry to the fam we didn't make the CBI
Gee what a shock.
No big conference teams in the CBI again. George Washington from the A10 the highest profile program
-
2011 Iona went to CBI and made it to championship game, got 4 extra games. Got an unheard of at large bid the very next season. But I guess it wouldn't have helped St Johns
-
2011 Iona went to CBI and made it to championship game, got 4 extra games. Got an unheard of at large bid the very next season. But I guess it wouldn't have helped St Johns
Last year Morehead St went to the finals. This year they went 14-16
In 2015 Loyola Chi played Louisiana Monroe. In 2016 Loyola Chi went 15-17 and Louisiana Monroe went to the CIT
In 2014 Siena vs Fresno in the finals. In 2015 Siena went 11-20. Fresno went 15-17
2013 was George Mason vs Santa Clara. In 2014 George Mason went 11-20 and Santa Clara went 14-19
Seems that there's little to no correlation between playing in the CBI one year and being successful the next.
Regardless, we weren't even invited to the CBI this year. We aren't above the CBI. The CBI is above us
-
It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.
Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.
We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team
Outside of two games (on the road versus Louisville and Florida State), Clemson was certainly competitive in the majority of their games. Hopefully, we can make the jump (to an NCAA Tournament team) next season, but Clemson was better than us this season, IMO.
We are def not eligible for CIT. Maybe the Vegas 16 will call.
The Vegas 16 postseason tournament is a 'no go.'
http://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/basketball/vegasmadness/vegas-16-postseason-tournament-won-t-be-played-year
-
It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.
Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.
We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team
BE has 7/10 teams in the dance. Sorry, the ACC may have more teams, but they have more shitty teams, too. And sorry, their schedule isn't tougher than ours. They played Duke and NC a combined 3 times. We played Nova 3 times. Clemson gets zero credit for losing a close game to a very good team. All that means is that they know how collapse at the end of the game.
-
It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.
Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.
We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team
BE has 7/10 teams in the dance. Sorry, the ACC may have more teams, but they have more shitty teams, too. And sorry, their schedule isn't tougher than ours. They played Duke and NC a combined 3 times. We played Nova 3 times. Clemson gets zero credit for losing a close game to a very good team. All that means is that they know how collapse at the end of the game.
Except that all facts and numbers say Clemson is the better team and had a better strength of schedule. Clemson didn't lose to LIU, Old Dominion and Delaware St. They would have won each of those games by 20.
The metrics suggest that If they played us they'd be 6 point favorites and would win 7 out of 10 times. But hey logic and facts aren't for everyone.
It really is amazing that we win 2 of our last 8 games, both against the same pathetic team, and some think we are better than NIT teams
-
Seems that there's little to no correlation between playing in the CBI one year and being successful the next.
Is there any correlation between practicing a skill and improving it? If there is then extending the season to include more practice and games would be beneficial. If there isn't they should disband not just the basketball program but the entire university.
-
It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.
Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.
We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team
BE has 7/10 teams in the dance. Sorry, the ACC may have more teams, but they have more shitty teams, too. And sorry, their schedule isn't tougher than ours. They played Duke and NC a combined 3 times. We played Nova 3 times. Clemson gets zero credit for losing a close game to a very good team. All that means is that they know how collapse at the end of the game.
Except that all facts and numbers say Clemson is the better team and had a better strength of schedule. Clemson didn't lose to LIU, Old Dominion and Delaware St. They would have won each of those games by 20.
The metrics suggest that If they played us they'd be 6 point favorites and would win 7 out of 10 times. But hey logic and facts aren't for everyone.
It really is amazing that we win 2 of our last 8 games, both against the same pathetic team, and some think we are better than NIT teams
I'm ignoring the first half the season. In conference play, we beat more tournament teams than Clemson. So, clearly, all the facts don't say that they're better. If I were on the committee, I would actually consider the pre season to be like spring training.
But to their credit, they played well enough to lose close games in conference.
-
It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.
Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.
We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team
BE has 7/10 teams in the dance. Sorry, the ACC may have more teams, but they have more shitty teams, too. And sorry, their schedule isn't tougher than ours. They played Duke and NC a combined 3 times. We played Nova 3 times. Clemson gets zero credit for losing a close game to a very good team. All that means is that they know how collapse at the end of the game.
The ACC is WAAAY better than the Big East. Keep in mind Virginia, arguably the 6th best team in the ACC lost at the buzzer AT Nova after leading by 10 in the second half. You can't simply dismiss these as all losses count the same regardless of point differential.
Having 7 teams get in is nice, but a majority are weak seeds, 4 at 9 or lower. With 2 being barely in.
ACC had 6 teams seeded 5 or better, 4 teams seeded 3 or better, 3 teams in the top 8.
In addition they had 3 more teams make the NIT, the BE remaining 3 teams were never in the discussion.
-
It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.
Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.
We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team
BE has 7/10 teams in the dance. Sorry, the ACC may have more teams, but they have more shitty teams, too. And sorry, their schedule isn't tougher than ours. They played Duke and NC a combined 3 times. We played Nova 3 times. Clemson gets zero credit for losing a close game to a very good team. All that means is that they know how collapse at the end of the game.
The ACC is WAAAY better than the Big East. Keep in mind Virginia, arguably the 6th best team in the ACC lost at the buzzer AT Nova after leading by 10 in the second half. You can't simply dismiss these as all losses count the same regardless of point differential.
Having 7 teams get in is nice, but a majority are weak seeds, 4 at 9 or lower. With 2 being barely in.
ACC had 6 teams seeded 5 or better, 4 teams seeded 3 or better, 3 teams in the top 8.
In addition they had 3 more teams make the NIT, the BE remaining 3 teams were never in the discussion.
I think the depth in the dance is meaningful. Doesn't matter if you're barely in. All 7 games are winnable and come on, 7/10 is badass for the BE. It's better than 9/15. It just is. Even Providence could go to the final four. So could Marquette. So could Seton Hall. I think for us, going 8-12 is meaningful considering our experience level as a team the value of 4 strong wins that weren't cup cake wins like Depaul and Georgetown.
-
I think Nova, Seton Hall and Marquette advance. Others 1 and done
-
we suck. Their are probably a 100 teams that deserve to play in post season tournament before us.
-
I think Nova, Seton Hall and Marquette advance. Others 1 and done
Butler has a better shot than Hall and Marquette, IMO. MU playing South Carolina in SC is a bad beat.
-
It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.
Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.
We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team
BE has 7/10 teams in the dance. Sorry, the ACC may have more teams, but they have more shitty teams, too. And sorry, their schedule isn't tougher than ours. They played Duke and NC a combined 3 times. We played Nova 3 times. Clemson gets zero credit for losing a close game to a very good team. All that means is that they know how collapse at the end of the game.
The ACC is WAAAY better than the Big East. Keep in mind Virginia, arguably the 6th best team in the ACC lost at the buzzer AT Nova after leading by 10 in the second half. You can't simply dismiss these as all losses count the same regardless of point differential.
Having 7 teams get in is nice, but a majority are weak seeds, 4 at 9 or lower. With 2 being barely in.
ACC had 6 teams seeded 5 or better, 4 teams seeded 3 or better, 3 teams in the top 8.
In addition they had 3 more teams make the NIT, the BE remaining 3 teams were never in the discussion.
I think the depth in the dance is meaningful. Doesn't matter if you're barely in. All 7 games are winnable and come on, 7/10 is badass for the BE. It's better than 9/15. It just is. Even Providence could go to the final four. So could Marquette. So could Seton Hall. I think for us, going 8-12 is meaningful considering our experience level as a team the value of 4 strong wins that weren't cup cake wins like Depaul and Georgetown.
Dude the 4/5 ACC Quarterfinal game was Duke vs Louisville. 2 potential Final Four teams. Followed by a semifinal between Duke and UNC, another game pitting two legitimate Final Four reams.
The 4/5 BE Quarterfinal was SHU and Marquette. Seriously there is no comparison
Furthermore Pittsburgh finished 14th in the ACC this year. This is a program that from 2002 thru 2016 went to the NCAA's in 13 out if 15 years, winning 4 regular season BE titles and winning more BE games than any program from 2002-2011. And they were an afterthought in the ACC this year. BE equivalent is DePaul. You want to compare DePaul to Pittsburgh not even close.
-
It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.
Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.
We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team
BE has 7/10 teams in the dance. Sorry, the ACC may have more teams, but they have more shitty teams, too. And sorry, their schedule isn't tougher than ours. They played Duke and NC a combined 3 times. We played Nova 3 times. Clemson gets zero credit for losing a close game to a very good team. All that means is that they know how collapse at the end of the game.
The ACC is WAAAY better than the Big East. Keep in mind Virginia, arguably the 6th best team in the ACC lost at the buzzer AT Nova after leading by 10 in the second half. You can't simply dismiss these as all losses count the same regardless of point differential.
Having 7 teams get in is nice, but a majority are weak seeds, 4 at 9 or lower. With 2 being barely in.
ACC had 6 teams seeded 5 or better, 4 teams seeded 3 or better, 3 teams in the top 8.
In addition they had 3 more teams make the NIT, the BE remaining 3 teams were never in the discussion.
I think the depth in the dance is meaningful. Doesn't matter if you're barely in. All 7 games are winnable and come on, 7/10 is badass for the BE. It's better than 9/15. It just is. Even Providence could go to the final four. So could Marquette. So could Seton Hall. I think for us, going 8-12 is meaningful considering our experience level as a team the value of 4 strong wins that weren't cup cake wins like Depaul and Georgetown.
Dude the 4/5 ACC Quarterfinal game was Duke vs Louisville. 2 potential Final Four teams. Followed by a semifinal between Duke and UNC, another game pitting two legitimate Final Four reams.
The 4/5 BE Quarterfinal was SHU and Marquette. Seriously there is no comparison
Furthermore Pittsburgh finished 14th in the ACC this year. This is a program that from 2002 thru 2016 went to the NCAA's in 13 out if 15 years, winning 4 regular season BE titles and winning more BE games than any program from 2002-2011. And they were an afterthought in the ACC this year. BE equivalent is DePaul. You want to compare DePaul to Pittsburgh not even close.
Not comparing Pitt to DePaul as a program. I compared their performance this season only.
-
It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.
Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.
We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team
BE has 7/10 teams in the dance. Sorry, the ACC may have more teams, but they have more shitty teams, too. And sorry, their schedule isn't tougher than ours. They played Duke and NC a combined 3 times. We played Nova 3 times. Clemson gets zero credit for losing a close game to a very good team. All that means is that they know how collapse at the end of the game.
The ACC is WAAAY better than the Big East. Keep in mind Virginia, arguably the 6th best team in the ACC lost at the buzzer AT Nova after leading by 10 in the second half. You can't simply dismiss these as all losses count the same regardless of point differential.
Having 7 teams get in is nice, but a majority are weak seeds, 4 at 9 or lower. With 2 being barely in.
ACC had 6 teams seeded 5 or better, 4 teams seeded 3 or better, 3 teams in the top 8.
In addition they had 3 more teams make the NIT, the BE remaining 3 teams were never in the discussion.
I think the depth in the dance is meaningful. Doesn't matter if you're barely in. All 7 games are winnable and come on, 7/10 is badass for the BE. It's better than 9/15. It just is. Even Providence could go to the final four. So could Marquette. So could Seton Hall. I think for us, going 8-12 is meaningful considering our experience level as a team the value of 4 strong wins that weren't cup cake wins like Depaul and Georgetown.
Dude the 4/5 ACC Quarterfinal game was Duke vs Louisville. 2 potential Final Four teams. Followed by a semifinal between Duke and UNC, another game pitting two legitimate Final Four reams.
The 4/5 BE Quarterfinal was SHU and Marquette. Seriously there is no comparison
Furthermore Pittsburgh finished 14th in the ACC this year. This is a program that from 2002 thru 2016 went to the NCAA's in 13 out if 15 years, winning 4 regular season BE titles and winning more BE games than any program from 2002-2011. And they were an afterthought in the ACC this year. BE equivalent is DePaul. You want to compare DePaul to Pittsburgh not even close.
Not comparing Pitt to DePaul as a program. I compared their performance this season only.
Even there you're wrong Pitt beat Virginia and Syracuse. Their RPI and strength of schedule was significantly better than DePaul.
Ask yourself this, do you think other BE teams would have rather played DePaul twice or Pitt twice if given a choice this year? Wanna bet the vote by the 9 other schools would have been 9-0 in favor of DePaul being the 10th school over Pitt.
-
It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.
Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.
We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team
BE has 7/10 teams in the dance. Sorry, the ACC may have more teams, but they have more shitty teams, too. And sorry, their schedule isn't tougher than ours. They played Duke and NC a combined 3 times. We played Nova 3 times. Clemson gets zero credit for losing a close game to a very good team. All that means is that they know how collapse at the end of the game.
The ACC is WAAAY better than the Big East. Keep in mind Virginia, arguably the 6th best team in the ACC lost at the buzzer AT Nova after leading by 10 in the second half. You can't simply dismiss these as all losses count the same regardless of point differential.
Having 7 teams get in is nice, but a majority are weak seeds, 4 at 9 or lower. With 2 being barely in.
ACC had 6 teams seeded 5 or better, 4 teams seeded 3 or better, 3 teams in the top 8.
In addition they had 3 more teams make the NIT, the BE remaining 3 teams were never in the discussion.
I think the depth in the dance is meaningful. Doesn't matter if you're barely in. All 7 games are winnable and come on, 7/10 is badass for the BE. It's better than 9/15. It just is. Even Providence could go to the final four. So could Marquette. So could Seton Hall. I think for us, going 8-12 is meaningful considering our experience level as a team the value of 4 strong wins that weren't cup cake wins like Depaul and Georgetown.
Dude the 4/5 ACC Quarterfinal game was Duke vs Louisville. 2 potential Final Four teams. Followed by a semifinal between Duke and UNC, another game pitting two legitimate Final Four reams.
The 4/5 BE Quarterfinal was SHU and Marquette. Seriously there is no comparison
Furthermore Pittsburgh finished 14th in the ACC this year. This is a program that from 2002 thru 2016 went to the NCAA's in 13 out if 15 years, winning 4 regular season BE titles and winning more BE games than any program from 2002-2011. And they were an afterthought in the ACC this year. BE equivalent is DePaul. You want to compare DePaul to Pittsburgh not even close.
The Big East had three legit Final Four contenders mid-January before the injuries hit
(and will have three next year). Coaches make programs, so Pitt's past is irrelevant at this point. They would have battled us and Gtown for 8th or 9th.
-
It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.
Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.
We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team
BE has 7/10 teams in the dance. Sorry, the ACC may have more teams, but they have more shitty teams, too. And sorry, their schedule isn't tougher than ours. They played Duke and NC a combined 3 times. We played Nova 3 times. Clemson gets zero credit for losing a close game to a very good team. All that means is that they know how collapse at the end of the game.
The ACC is WAAAY better than the Big East. Keep in mind Virginia, arguably the 6th best team in the ACC lost at the buzzer AT Nova after leading by 10 in the second half. You can't simply dismiss these as all losses count the same regardless of point differential.
Having 7 teams get in is nice, but a majority are weak seeds, 4 at 9 or lower. With 2 being barely in.
ACC had 6 teams seeded 5 or better, 4 teams seeded 3 or better, 3 teams in the top 8.
In addition they had 3 more teams make the NIT, the BE remaining 3 teams were never in the discussion.
I think the depth in the dance is meaningful. Doesn't matter if you're barely in. All 7 games are winnable and come on, 7/10 is badass for the BE. It's better than 9/15. It just is. Even Providence could go to the final four. So could Marquette. So could Seton Hall. I think for us, going 8-12 is meaningful considering our experience level as a team the value of 4 strong wins that weren't cup cake wins like Depaul and Georgetown.
Dude the 4/5 ACC Quarterfinal game was Duke vs Louisville. 2 potential Final Four teams. Followed by a semifinal between Duke and UNC, another game pitting two legitimate Final Four reams.
The 4/5 BE Quarterfinal was SHU and Marquette. Seriously there is no comparison
Furthermore Pittsburgh finished 14th in the ACC this year. This is a program that from 2002 thru 2016 went to the NCAA's in 13 out if 15 years, winning 4 regular season BE titles and winning more BE games than any program from 2002-2011. And they were an afterthought in the ACC this year. BE equivalent is DePaul. You want to compare DePaul to Pittsburgh not even close.
The Big East had three legit Final Four contenders mid-January before the injuries hit
(and will have three next year). Coaches make programs, so Pitt's past is irrelevant at this point. They would have battled us and Gtown for 8th or 9th.
That's utter nonsense, Creighton and Xavier were not Final Four contenders anymore than Butler is.
Duke lost more talent to injuries than Creighton and Xavier COMBINED and Duke is better than they are even without Bolden and Giles.
Louisville lost Quentin Snider for a large part of the season and they ripped off like 4 straight wins WITHOUT HIM.
Sumner is not the difference between Xavier barely making the Tourney (their last two regular season wins over the last month were against DePaul) and being a Final Four contender. Some of you are completely clueless. Sumner makes a difference no doubt.
And Pitt is a better job than SJU, Georgetown, Seton hall, Marquette, DePaul etc. period. There is no one in college basketball that will tell you otherwise.
And if Pitt had not left for the ACC instead was still in the BE Jamie Dixon would not have left Pitt to begin with. The whole reason he left was Pitt was slipping in recruiting especially against the likes of Duke, UNC, Louisville etc. He knew the unreal expectations of the fan base at Pitt were starting to take its toll int hat conference. Geez look at NC St, they alone have more talent than most BE schools and they are the bottom of the ACC and fired their 4 time NCAA in 6 year coach.
Get a clue, the conferences are not even close and no one in college basketball would disagree with that notion.
-
It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.
Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.
We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team
BE has 7/10 teams in the dance. Sorry, the ACC may have more teams, but they have more shitty teams, too. And sorry, their schedule isn't tougher than ours. They played Duke and NC a combined 3 times. We played Nova 3 times. Clemson gets zero credit for losing a close game to a very good team. All that means is that they know how collapse at the end of the game.
The ACC is WAAAY better than the Big East. Keep in mind Virginia, arguably the 6th best team in the ACC lost at the buzzer AT Nova after leading by 10 in the second half. You can't simply dismiss these as all losses count the same regardless of point differential.
Having 7 teams get in is nice, but a majority are weak seeds, 4 at 9 or lower. With 2 being barely in.
ACC had 6 teams seeded 5 or better, 4 teams seeded 3 or better, 3 teams in the top 8.
In addition they had 3 more teams make the NIT, the BE remaining 3 teams were never in the discussion.
and Marquette, the sixth best team in the big east BEAT villanova. therefore, by this logic (i.e., the use of all caps and whether the sixth best team in a conference beat villanova) the big east is a better conference than the acc.
the RPI shows the acc as better. the big east has the overall #1 seed and defending national champ. the acc has more very good teams (unc, duke, louisville); although it is also just a larger conference. the acc has more tourney teams. the acc has more non-tourney teams. the big east got 70% of its teams in the tournament (acc has less). big east was 8-3 versus the acc. at the end of the day, these are both very good conferences. due to the size, it is comparing apples to oranges to some extent, but they are much closer to each other than the big east is to the next level of conferences -- difference in RPI between acc and big east is smaller than the gap from big east to SEC/pac12/AAC.
-
Just like when the BE was 16 teams there were bottom feeders. But no one is going to argue with a straight face that the BE with Pitino, Huggins, Boeheim, Calhoun, Howland/Dixon was not beter than the current makeup. That's self evident.
In 2009 the BE got 7 out of 16, however they had 3 of the 4 no. 1 seeds and 2 more 3 seeds. So they had 5 top 12 teams. That's ridiculously strong. Again the total number is nice but you have to look at the seeding to get a true idea of the strength of the conference.
I think the ACC this year is comparable if not better than the BE of 2005-2013 era. It is very strong and the 3 NIT teams are good teams that could more than compete in the middle of the conference and the top teams, Duke, FSU, UNC, Louisville, ND, Virginia save for Villanova are much stronger top to bottom then the top to middle of the BE. Not even close.
-
I think creighton was a final 4 contender before the injury. They had a great PG and lotttery pick. Plenty of talent there. Xavier I think was about as good as noter dame before their PG got hurt. They had an outside chance to make the final four.
Butler is a good team, but is not as talented of either of those teams.
Pitt, may be better then Georgetown and St. John's now. But they are going to have a tough time in the acc.
-
It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.
Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.
We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team
BE has 7/10 teams in the dance. Sorry, the ACC may have more teams, but they have more shitty teams, too. And sorry, their schedule isn't tougher than ours. They played Duke and NC a combined 3 times. We played Nova 3 times. Clemson gets zero credit for losing a close game to a very good team. All that means is that they know how collapse at the end of the game.
The ACC is WAAAY better than the Big East. Keep in mind Virginia, arguably the 6th best team in the ACC lost at the buzzer AT Nova after leading by 10 in the second half. You can't simply dismiss these as all losses count the same regardless of point differential.
Having 7 teams get in is nice, but a majority are weak seeds, 4 at 9 or lower. With 2 being barely in.
ACC had 6 teams seeded 5 or better, 4 teams seeded 3 or better, 3 teams in the top 8.
In addition they had 3 more teams make the NIT, the BE remaining 3 teams were never in the discussion.
and Marquette, the sixth best team in the big east BEAT villanova. therefore, by this logic (i.e., the use of all caps and whether the sixth best team in a conference beat villanova) the big east is a better conference than the acc.
the RPI shows the acc as better. the big east has the overall #1 seed and defending national champ. the acc has more very good teams (unc, duke, louisville); although it is also just a larger conference. the acc has more tourney teams. the acc has more non-tourney teams. the big east got 70% of its teams in the tournament (acc has less). big east was 8-3 versus the acc. at the end of the day, these are both very good conferences. due to the size, it is comparing apples to oranges to some extent, but they are much closer to each other than the big east is to the next level of conferences -- difference in RPI between acc and big east is smaller than the gap from big east to SEC/pac12/AAC.
I'm not sure what your point is, obviously if you have more teams and more traditional power teams then your conference is better. If that is your point then I agree. The percentage of teams is not my concern. That's overrated.
The Big Ten got 50 percent, so what. They also go NO teams with a sweet 16 seed or better. Ohio St, a normal traditional power, is hurting them the last couple of years. Michigan St did not have a great year. So even though they got 7 bids outside of Purdue they don't have a real threat on the second weekend. Heck Wisconsin struggled so bad at the end that despite finishing in 2nd place in a power 5 conference and being ranked most of the year they got a 8 seed!!!
-
Here's Duke's run to the ACC Tourney title in Brooklyn: Clemson, Louisville, UNC and Notre Dame.
Here is their potential path to the Final Four from the East (assuming the higher seeds win): Troy, South Carolina, Baylor and Villanova.
I would argue the ACC Tourney run was/would be HARDER...
-
To follow up here is Villanova's run to the BE Tourney Title: SJU, SHU and Creighton...
Just a guess but I think Duke's run was a weee bit harder.
Providence btw was the BE 3rd seed in their Tourney. They were one of the last 4 teams to get in the field.
-
I'm surprised that Big East got 7 teams in but I think this is because there are not a lot of good mid majors this year. A-10, AAC, and WCC conferences stink. Even Pac-12 and SEC had down years.
Also ACC is ridiculous this year.
-
Weak bubble this year Dave. That is why Jerry Palm got all 68 and Lunardi got 67/68, Lunardi had Syracuse in and USC out. There weren't a lot of good choices so the picks were easier.
Seedings left something to be desired in some cases.
And yes the ACC was ridiculously strong this year, when Duke/Louisville is your 4/5 QF matchup with the winner getting North Carolina, that is pretty strong don't you think???
And to get back to the original question, SJU had and has no interest in playing in the CBI and CIT. Waste of time to discuss.
-
It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.
Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.
We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team
BE has 7/10 teams in the dance. Sorry, the ACC may have more teams, but they have more shitty teams, too. And sorry, their schedule isn't tougher than ours. They played Duke and NC a combined 3 times. We played Nova 3 times. Clemson gets zero credit for losing a close game to a very good team. All that means is that they know how collapse at the end of the game.
The ACC is WAAAY better than the Big East. Keep in mind Virginia, arguably the 6th best team in the ACC lost at the buzzer AT Nova after leading by 10 in the second half. You can't simply dismiss these as all losses count the same regardless of point differential.
Having 7 teams get in is nice, but a majority are weak seeds, 4 at 9 or lower. With 2 being barely in.
ACC had 6 teams seeded 5 or better, 4 teams seeded 3 or better, 3 teams in the top 8.
In addition they had 3 more teams make the NIT, the BE remaining 3 teams were never in the discussion.
I think the depth in the dance is meaningful. Doesn't matter if you're barely in. All 7 games are winnable and come on, 7/10 is badass for the BE. It's better than 9/15. It just is. Even Providence could go to the final four. So could Marquette. So could Seton Hall. I think for us, going 8-12 is meaningful considering our experience level as a team the value of 4 strong wins that weren't cup cake wins like Depaul and Georgetown.
Dude the 4/5 ACC Quarterfinal game was Duke vs Louisville. 2 potential Final Four teams. Followed by a semifinal between Duke and UNC, another game pitting two legitimate Final Four reams.
The 4/5 BE Quarterfinal was SHU and Marquette. Seriously there is no comparison
Furthermore Pittsburgh finished 14th in the ACC this year. This is a program that from 2002 thru 2016 went to the NCAA's in 13 out if 15 years, winning 4 regular season BE titles and winning more BE games than any program from 2002-2011. And they were an afterthought in the ACC this year. BE equivalent is DePaul. You want to compare DePaul to Pittsburgh not even close.
The Big East had three legit Final Four contenders mid-January before the injuries hit
(and will have three next year). Coaches make programs, so Pitt's past is irrelevant at this point. They would have battled us and Gtown for 8th or 9th.
That's utter nonsense, Creighton and Xavier were not Final Four contenders anymore than Butler is.
Duke lost more talent to injuries than Creighton and Xavier COMBINED and Duke is better than they are even without Bolden and Giles.
Louisville lost Quentin Snider for a large part of the season and they ripped off like 4 straight wins WITHOUT HIM.
Sumner is not the difference between Xavier barely making the Tourney (their last two regular season wins over the last month were against DePaul) and being a Final Four contender. Some of you are completely clueless. Sumner makes a difference no doubt.
And Pitt is a better job than SJU, Georgetown, Seton hall, Marquette
GTFOH
Pitt is dead in the water without Dixon.
-
It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.
Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.
We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team
BE has 7/10 teams in the dance. Sorry, the ACC may have more teams, but they have more shitty teams, too. And sorry, their schedule isn't tougher than ours. They played Duke and NC a combined 3 times. We played Nova 3 times. Clemson gets zero credit for losing a close game to a very good team. All that means is that they know how collapse at the end of the game.
The ACC is WAAAY better than the Big East. Keep in mind Virginia, arguably the 6th best team in the ACC lost at the buzzer AT Nova after leading by 10 in the second half. You can't simply dismiss these as all losses count the same regardless of point differential.
Having 7 teams get in is nice, but a majority are weak seeds, 4 at 9 or lower. With 2 being barely in.
ACC had 6 teams seeded 5 or better, 4 teams seeded 3 or better, 3 teams in the top 8.
In addition they had 3 more teams make the NIT, the BE remaining 3 teams were never in the discussion.
I think the depth in the dance is meaningful. Doesn't matter if you're barely in. All 7 games are winnable and come on, 7/10 is badass for the BE. It's better than 9/15. It just is. Even Providence could go to the final four. So could Marquette. So could Seton Hall. I think for us, going 8-12 is meaningful considering our experience level as a team the value of 4 strong wins that weren't cup cake wins like Depaul and Georgetown.
Dude the 4/5 ACC Quarterfinal game was Duke vs Louisville. 2 potential Final Four teams. Followed by a semifinal between Duke and UNC, another game pitting two legitimate Final Four reams.
The 4/5 BE Quarterfinal was SHU and Marquette. Seriously there is no comparison
Furthermore Pittsburgh finished 14th in the ACC this year. This is a program that from 2002 thru 2016 went to the NCAA's in 13 out if 15 years, winning 4 regular season BE titles and winning more BE games than any program from 2002-2011. And they were an afterthought in the ACC this year. BE equivalent is DePaul. You want to compare DePaul to Pittsburgh not even close.
The Big East had three legit Final Four contenders mid-January before the injuries hit
(and will have three next year). Coaches make programs, so Pitt's past is irrelevant at this point. They would have battled us and Gtown for 8th or 9th.
That's utter nonsense, Creighton and Xavier were not Final Four contenders anymore than Butler is.
Duke lost more talent to injuries than Creighton and Xavier COMBINED and Duke is better than they are even without Bolden and Giles.
Louisville lost Quentin Snider for a large part of the season and they ripped off like 4 straight wins WITHOUT HIM.
Sumner is not the difference between Xavier barely making the Tourney (their last two regular season wins over the last month were against DePaul) and being a Final Four contender. Some of you are completely clueless. Sumner makes a difference no doubt.
And Pitt is a better job than SJU, Georgetown, Seton hall, Marquette
GTFOH
Pitt is dead in the water without Dixon.
Right, they need to hire a mid-major coach or an assistant coach to be just like Marquette and Seton Hall. In other words put those schools in the ACC and they would be killing it in front of Pitt.
So Jamie Dixon is the only coach that can win at Pitt because their facilities and recent history just suck so bad.
Geez you really have some issues with things like... reality.
-
It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.
Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.
We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team
BE has 7/10 teams in the dance. Sorry, the ACC may have more teams, but they have more shitty teams, too. And sorry, their schedule isn't tougher than ours. They played Duke and NC a combined 3 times. We played Nova 3 times. Clemson gets zero credit for losing a close game to a very good team. All that means is that they know how collapse at the end of the game.
The ACC is WAAAY better than the Big East. Keep in mind Virginia, arguably the 6th best team in the ACC lost at the buzzer AT Nova after leading by 10 in the second half. You can't simply dismiss these as all losses count the same regardless of point differential.
Having 7 teams get in is nice, but a majority are weak seeds, 4 at 9 or lower. With 2 being barely in.
ACC had 6 teams seeded 5 or better, 4 teams seeded 3 or better, 3 teams in the top 8.
In addition they had 3 more teams make the NIT, the BE remaining 3 teams were never in the discussion.
I think the depth in the dance is meaningful. Doesn't matter if you're barely in. All 7 games are winnable and come on, 7/10 is badass for the BE. It's better than 9/15. It just is. Even Providence could go to the final four. So could Marquette. So could Seton Hall. I think for us, going 8-12 is meaningful considering our experience level as a team the value of 4 strong wins that weren't cup cake wins like Depaul and Georgetown.
Dude the 4/5 ACC Quarterfinal game was Duke vs Louisville. 2 potential Final Four teams. Followed by a semifinal between Duke and UNC, another game pitting two legitimate Final Four reams.
The 4/5 BE Quarterfinal was SHU and Marquette. Seriously there is no comparison
Furthermore Pittsburgh finished 14th in the ACC this year. This is a program that from 2002 thru 2016 went to the NCAA's in 13 out if 15 years, winning 4 regular season BE titles and winning more BE games than any program from 2002-2011. And they were an afterthought in the ACC this year. BE equivalent is DePaul. You want to compare DePaul to Pittsburgh not even close.
The Big East had three legit Final Four contenders mid-January before the injuries hit
(and will have three next year). Coaches make programs, so Pitt's past is irrelevant at this point. They would have battled us and Gtown for 8th or 9th.
That's utter nonsense, Creighton and Xavier were not Final Four contenders anymore than Butler is.
Duke lost more talent to injuries than Creighton and Xavier COMBINED and Duke is better than they are even without Bolden and Giles.
Louisville lost Quentin Snider for a large part of the season and they ripped off like 4 straight wins WITHOUT HIM.
Sumner is not the difference between Xavier barely making the Tourney (their last two regular season wins over the last month were against DePaul) and being a Final Four contender. Some of you are completely clueless. Sumner makes a difference no doubt.
And Pitt is a better job than SJU, Georgetown, Seton hall, Marquette
GTFOH
Pitt is dead in the water without Dixon.
Right, they need to hire a mid-major coach or an assistant coach to be just like Marquette and Seton Hall. In other words put those schools in the ACC and they would be killing it in front of Pitt.
So Jamie Dixon is the only coach that can win at Pitt because their facilities and recent history just suck so bad.
Geez you really have some issues with things like... reality.
Except they're not in the acc so that doesn't mean anything. One BE school gets an up and coming assistant (wojo) the other gets an up and coming young coach (williard at the time) while the other gets a run of the mill sec coach who was on his way out and thats your metric for being a better program?
-
It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.
Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.
We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team
BE has 7/10 teams in the dance. Sorry, the ACC may have more teams, but they have more shitty teams, too. And sorry, their schedule isn't tougher than ours. They played Duke and NC a combined 3 times. We played Nova 3 times. Clemson gets zero credit for losing a close game to a very good team. All that means is that they know how collapse at the end of the game.
The ACC is WAAAY better than the Big East. Keep in mind Virginia, arguably the 6th best team in the ACC lost at the buzzer AT Nova after leading by 10 in the second half. You can't simply dismiss these as all losses count the same regardless of point differential.
Having 7 teams get in is nice, but a majority are weak seeds, 4 at 9 or lower. With 2 being barely in.
ACC had 6 teams seeded 5 or better, 4 teams seeded 3 or better, 3 teams in the top 8.
In addition they had 3 more teams make the NIT, the BE remaining 3 teams were never in the discussion.
I think the depth in the dance is meaningful. Doesn't matter if you're barely in. All 7 games are winnable and come on, 7/10 is badass for the BE. It's better than 9/15. It just is. Even Providence could go to the final four. So could Marquette. So could Seton Hall. I think for us, going 8-12 is meaningful considering our experience level as a team the value of 4 strong wins that weren't cup cake wins like Depaul and Georgetown.
Dude the 4/5 ACC Quarterfinal game was Duke vs Louisville. 2 potential Final Four teams. Followed by a semifinal between Duke and UNC, another game pitting two legitimate Final Four reams.
The 4/5 BE Quarterfinal was SHU and Marquette. Seriously there is no comparison
Furthermore Pittsburgh finished 14th in the ACC this year. This is a program that from 2002 thru 2016 went to the NCAA's in 13 out if 15 years, winning 4 regular season BE titles and winning more BE games than any program from 2002-2011. And they were an afterthought in the ACC this year. BE equivalent is DePaul. You want to compare DePaul to Pittsburgh not even close.
The Big East had three legit Final Four contenders mid-January before the injuries hit
(and will have three next year). Coaches make programs, so Pitt's past is irrelevant at this point. They would have battled us and Gtown for 8th or 9th.
That's utter nonsense, Creighton and Xavier were not Final Four contenders anymore than Butler is.
Duke lost more talent to injuries than Creighton and Xavier COMBINED and Duke is better than they are even without Bolden and Giles.
Louisville lost Quentin Snider for a large part of the season and they ripped off like 4 straight wins WITHOUT HIM.
Sumner is not the difference between Xavier barely making the Tourney (their last two regular season wins over the last month were against DePaul) and being a Final Four contender. Some of you are completely clueless. Sumner makes a difference no doubt.
And Pitt is a better job than SJU, Georgetown, Seton hall, Marquette
GTFOH
Pitt is dead in the water without Dixon.
Right, they need to hire a mid-major coach or an assistant coach to be just like Marquette and Seton Hall. In other words put those schools in the ACC and they would be killing it in front of Pitt.
So Jamie Dixon is the only coach that can win at Pitt because their facilities and recent history just suck so bad.
Geez you really have some issues with things like... reality.
You're impossible to debate with because you constantly move the goal posts by building straw men. Of course Dixon is not the ONLY coach that could win Pitt. Only a sith deals in absolutes.
-
It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.
Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.
We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team
BE has 7/10 teams in the dance. Sorry, the ACC may have more teams, but they have more shitty teams, too. And sorry, their schedule isn't tougher than ours. They played Duke and NC a combined 3 times. We played Nova 3 times. Clemson gets zero credit for losing a close game to a very good team. All that means is that they know how collapse at the end of the game.
The ACC is WAAAY better than the Big East. Keep in mind Virginia, arguably the 6th best team in the ACC lost at the buzzer AT Nova after leading by 10 in the second half. You can't simply dismiss these as all losses count the same regardless of point differential.
Having 7 teams get in is nice, but a majority are weak seeds, 4 at 9 or lower. With 2 being barely in.
ACC had 6 teams seeded 5 or better, 4 teams seeded 3 or better, 3 teams in the top 8.
In addition they had 3 more teams make the NIT, the BE remaining 3 teams were never in the discussion.
I think the depth in the dance is meaningful. Doesn't matter if you're barely in. All 7 games are winnable and come on, 7/10 is badass for the BE. It's better than 9/15. It just is. Even Providence could go to the final four. So could Marquette. So could Seton Hall. I think for us, going 8-12 is meaningful considering our experience level as a team the value of 4 strong wins that weren't cup cake wins like Depaul and Georgetown.
Dude the 4/5 ACC Quarterfinal game was Duke vs Louisville. 2 potential Final Four teams. Followed by a semifinal between Duke and UNC, another game pitting two legitimate Final Four reams.
The 4/5 BE Quarterfinal was SHU and Marquette. Seriously there is no comparison
Furthermore Pittsburgh finished 14th in the ACC this year. This is a program that from 2002 thru 2016 went to the NCAA's in 13 out if 15 years, winning 4 regular season BE titles and winning more BE games than any program from 2002-2011. And they were an afterthought in the ACC this year. BE equivalent is DePaul. You want to compare DePaul to Pittsburgh not even close.
The Big East had three legit Final Four contenders mid-January before the injuries hit
(and will have three next year). Coaches make programs, so Pitt's past is irrelevant at this point. They would have battled us and Gtown for 8th or 9th.
That's utter nonsense, Creighton and Xavier were not Final Four contenders anymore than Butler is.
Duke lost more talent to injuries than Creighton and Xavier COMBINED and Duke is better than they are even without Bolden and Giles.
Louisville lost Quentin Snider for a large part of the season and they ripped off like 4 straight wins WITHOUT HIM.
Sumner is not the difference between Xavier barely making the Tourney (their last two regular season wins over the last month were against DePaul) and being a Final Four contender. Some of you are completely clueless. Sumner makes a difference no doubt.
And Pitt is a better job than SJU, Georgetown, Seton hall, Marquette
GTFOH
Pitt is dead in the water without Dixon.
Right, they need to hire a mid-major coach or an assistant coach to be just like Marquette and Seton Hall. In other words put those schools in the ACC and they would be killing it in front of Pitt.
So Jamie Dixon is the only coach that can win at Pitt because their facilities and recent history just suck so bad.
Geez you really have some issues with things like... reality.
You're impossible to debate with because you constantly move the goal posts by building straw men. Of course Dixon is not the ONLY coach that could win Pitt. Only a sith deals in absolutes.
I didn't move any goalposts Pittsburgh is a better job than any of those BE jobs let alone the DePaul job and Pitt is not a top 5 ACC job. Jamie Dixon leaving did not change that.
Ergo the 14th place Panthers are both better this year and overall as a job then certainly the lower 3rd of the BE and a better job overall then most of the BE.
Your point is meaningless and full of nonsense. You have not brought one piece of evidence to dispute my claim which is why you basically are a whipping boy for this board.
Also you once proclaimed Mike Brey was overrated at ND because he inherited a great roster from Doherty and got transfer Humphries from Oklahoma. About as uneducated a remarkable as ever been uttered by a completely clueless person.
-
It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.
Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.
We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team
BE has 7/10 teams in the dance. Sorry, the ACC may have more teams, but they have more shitty teams, too. And sorry, their schedule isn't tougher than ours. They played Duke and NC a combined 3 times. We played Nova 3 times. Clemson gets zero credit for losing a close game to a very good team. All that means is that they know how collapse at the end of the game.
The ACC is WAAAY better than the Big East. Keep in mind Virginia, arguably the 6th best team in the ACC lost at the buzzer AT Nova after leading by 10 in the second half. You can't simply dismiss these as all losses count the same regardless of point differential.
Having 7 teams get in is nice, but a majority are weak seeds, 4 at 9 or lower. With 2 being barely in.
ACC had 6 teams seeded 5 or better, 4 teams seeded 3 or better, 3 teams in the top 8.
In addition they had 3 more teams make the NIT, the BE remaining 3 teams were never in the discussion.
I think the depth in the dance is meaningful. Doesn't matter if you're barely in. All 7 games are winnable and come on, 7/10 is badass for the BE. It's better than 9/15. It just is. Even Providence could go to the final four. So could Marquette. So could Seton Hall. I think for us, going 8-12 is meaningful considering our experience level as a team the value of 4 strong wins that weren't cup cake wins like Depaul and Georgetown.
Dude the 4/5 ACC Quarterfinal game was Duke vs Louisville. 2 potential Final Four teams. Followed by a semifinal between Duke and UNC, another game pitting two legitimate Final Four reams.
The 4/5 BE Quarterfinal was SHU and Marquette. Seriously there is no comparison
Furthermore Pittsburgh finished 14th in the ACC this year. This is a program that from 2002 thru 2016 went to the NCAA's in 13 out if 15 years, winning 4 regular season BE titles and winning more BE games than any program from 2002-2011. And they were an afterthought in the ACC this year. BE equivalent is DePaul. You want to compare DePaul to Pittsburgh not even close.
The Big East had three legit Final Four contenders mid-January before the injuries hit
(and will have three next year). Coaches make programs, so Pitt's past is irrelevant at this point. They would have battled us and Gtown for 8th or 9th.
That's utter nonsense, Creighton and Xavier were not Final Four contenders anymore than Butler is.
Duke lost more talent to injuries than Creighton and Xavier COMBINED and Duke is better than they are even without Bolden and Giles.
Louisville lost Quentin Snider for a large part of the season and they ripped off like 4 straight wins WITHOUT HIM.
Sumner is not the difference between Xavier barely making the Tourney (their last two regular season wins over the last month were against DePaul) and being a Final Four contender. Some of you are completely clueless. Sumner makes a difference no doubt.
And Pitt is a better job than SJU, Georgetown, Seton hall, Marquette
GTFOH
Pitt is dead in the water without Dixon.
Right, they need to hire a mid-major coach or an assistant coach to be just like Marquette and Seton Hall. In other words put those schools in the ACC and they would be killing it in front of Pitt.
So Jamie Dixon is the only coach that can win at Pitt because their facilities and recent history just suck so bad.
Geez you really have some issues with things like... reality.
You're impossible to debate with because you constantly move the goal posts by building straw men. Of course Dixon is not the ONLY coach that could win Pitt. Only a sith deals in absolutes.
I didn't move any goalposts Pittsburgh is a better job than any of those BE jobs let alone the DePaul job and Pitt is not a top 5 ACC job. Jamie Dixon leaving did not change that.
Ergo the 14th place Panthers are both better this year and overall as a job then certainly the lower 3rd of the BE and a better job overall then most of the BE.
Your point is meaningless and full of nonsense. You have not brought one piece of evidence to dispute my claim which is why you basically are a whipping boy for this board.
Also you once proclaimed Mike Brey was overrated at ND because he inherited a great roster from Doherty and got transfer Humphries from Oklahoma. About as uneducated a remarkable as ever been uttered by a completely clueless person.
Tough day at the office? Jesus Christ.
-
It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.
Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.
We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team
BE has 7/10 teams in the dance. Sorry, the ACC may have more teams, but they have more shitty teams, too. And sorry, their schedule isn't tougher than ours. They played Duke and NC a combined 3 times. We played Nova 3 times. Clemson gets zero credit for losing a close game to a very good team. All that means is that they know how collapse at the end of the game.
The ACC is WAAAY better than the Big East. Keep in mind Virginia, arguably the 6th best team in the ACC lost at the buzzer AT Nova after leading by 10 in the second half. You can't simply dismiss these as all losses count the same regardless of point differential.
Having 7 teams get in is nice, but a majority are weak seeds, 4 at 9 or lower. With 2 being barely in.
ACC had 6 teams seeded 5 or better, 4 teams seeded 3 or better, 3 teams in the top 8.
In addition they had 3 more teams make the NIT, the BE remaining 3 teams were never in the discussion.
I think the depth in the dance is meaningful. Doesn't matter if you're barely in. All 7 games are winnable and come on, 7/10 is badass for the BE. It's better than 9/15. It just is. Even Providence could go to the final four. So could Marquette. So could Seton Hall. I think for us, going 8-12 is meaningful considering our experience level as a team the value of 4 strong wins that weren't cup cake wins like Depaul and Georgetown.
Dude the 4/5 ACC Quarterfinal game was Duke vs Louisville. 2 potential Final Four teams. Followed by a semifinal between Duke and UNC, another game pitting two legitimate Final Four reams.
The 4/5 BE Quarterfinal was SHU and Marquette. Seriously there is no comparison
Furthermore Pittsburgh finished 14th in the ACC this year. This is a program that from 2002 thru 2016 went to the NCAA's in 13 out if 15 years, winning 4 regular season BE titles and winning more BE games than any program from 2002-2011. And they were an afterthought in the ACC this year. BE equivalent is DePaul. You want to compare DePaul to Pittsburgh not even close.
The Big East had three legit Final Four contenders mid-January before the injuries hit
(and will have three next year). Coaches make programs, so Pitt's past is irrelevant at this point. They would have battled us and Gtown for 8th or 9th.
That's utter nonsense, Creighton and Xavier were not Final Four contenders anymore than Butler is.
Duke lost more talent to injuries than Creighton and Xavier COMBINED and Duke is better than they are even without Bolden and Giles.
Louisville lost Quentin Snider for a large part of the season and they ripped off like 4 straight wins WITHOUT HIM.
Sumner is not the difference between Xavier barely making the Tourney (their last two regular season wins over the last month were against DePaul) and being a Final Four contender. Some of you are completely clueless. Sumner makes a difference no doubt.
And Pitt is a better job than SJU, Georgetown, Seton hall, Marquette
GTFOH
Pitt is dead in the water without Dixon.
Right, they need to hire a mid-major coach or an assistant coach to be just like Marquette and Seton Hall. In other words put those schools in the ACC and they would be killing it in front of Pitt.
So Jamie Dixon is the only coach that can win at Pitt because their facilities and recent history just suck so bad.
Geez you really have some issues with things like... reality.
Except they're not in the acc so that doesn't mean anything. One BE school gets an up and coming assistant (wojo) the other gets an up and coming young coach (williard at the time) while the other gets a run of the mill sec coach who was on his way out and thats your metric for being a better program?
What, I am not the biggest fan of Stallings but neither Willard or Wojo were much in demand. And neither cost very much. Wojo and Willard are not evidence the middle of the BE is better than the ACC nor is it evidence that either is a better job than Pittsburgh.
Here is your proof, if offered the Pitt job last year do you think Willard would have left SHU? In a NY minute. He would have left in a mili-second and at the same time the Pitt AD would have been hanged in effigy for hiring such a small time coach. Furthermore the fact that Pitt ran out of town such a successful coach whose overall record is light years ahead of the current coaches at SJU, SHU, Marquette, DePaul, Providence etc. shows how much higher their expectations are then most of the BE schools (even if they probably are a little too high).
Put it to you another way if Stallings does not get this turned around quickly (next 2 years) he is almost certainly gone. Willard lasted 5 years without a NCAA bid and got an extension after 1. Do you think that happens at Pitt? He would have been gone before you said MAAC.
-
BTW-Pitt's final RPI was 74, Georgetown's 107, SJU 140 and DePaul 236. So the 14th place team in the ACC which finished with a 3-15 league record had a RPI inside the top 75.
Think about that. There is no way a BE school could finish 3-15 in conference and still have an RPI that good. Not a chance. Simply not enough top level talent in the BE past Nova to get that type of strength even in a bad year.
-
BTW-Pitt's final RPI was 74, Georgetown's 107, SJU 140 and DePaul 236. So the 14th place team in the ACC which finished with a 3-15 league record had a RPI inside the top 75.
Think about that. There is no way a BE school could finish 3-15 in conference and still have an RPI that good. Not a chance. Simply not enough top level talent in the BE past Nova to get that type of strength even in a bad year.
So the "74th best team" in the country goes 3-15 in their conference and that makes it a good job?
-
Dude it is a bad year nobody disputes that. Indiana had a bad year. Indiana had 3 TERRIBLE years under Crean's first 3 years, so what? Are you going to argue SHU and Marquette are better jobs than IU?
Texas was GOD AWFUL this year under Shaka Smart. Are you going to argue that these middle to lower BE jobs are better than Texas? Really.
What I am trying to tell you is if Pittsburgh in the ACC and Texas in the Big 12 are your worst jobs THIS YEAR for those conferences, that means your conference is pretty damn good. Because those programs are REALLY good with great resources that have proven to be top flight NATIONAL programs in the recent history and with the right luck should be back there soon. DePaul, SHU, SJU do not share that type of history or expecations and that is why you can't compare the Big 12 or ACC to the Big East. I haven't even mentioned the Kansas' and Duke's of the world yet.
-
Dude it is a bad year nobody disputes that. Indiana had a bad year. Indiana had 3 TERRIBLE years under Crean's first 3 years, so what? Are you going to argue SHU and Marquette are better jobs than IU?
Texas was GOD AWFUL this year under Shaka Smart. Are you going to argue that these middle to lower BE jobs are better than Texas? Really.
What I am trying to tell you is if Pittsburgh in the ACC and Texas in the Big 12 are your worst jobs THIS YEAR for those conferences, that means your conference is pretty damn good. Because those programs are REALLY good with great resources that have proven to be top flight NATIONAL programs in the recent history and with the right luck should be back there soon. DePaul, SHU, SJU do not share that type of history or expecations and that is why you can't compare the Big 12 or ACC to the Big East. I haven't even mentioned the Kansas' and Duke's of the world yet.
Relax man. My point is that if you take the pitt job than you are dealing with a huge mountain to climb. Like you said a million times the acc is loaded. That makes it tough for pitt. The BE just got 7 schools into the dance. Those schools give coaches a better chance to succeed in today's college bball landscape. Just think, it might be possible an opinion other than yours could be valid.
-
The strength of the ACC forces a perennial BE power like Pitt to struggle to arguably it's worst year in more than a decade and a half and they still finish in the RPI miles ahead of BE bottom feeders, why?
Whereas a very soft middle of the Big East allows mediocre teams to finish .500 or slightly better and squeeze into the NCAA's.
That's my point.
Quite simply the ACC is the strongest conference in the country much stronger than the BE and arguably the strongest conference ever assembled.
-
Dude it is a bad year nobody disputes that. Indiana had a bad year. Indiana had 3 TERRIBLE years under Crean's first 3 years, so what? Are you going to argue SHU and Marquette are better jobs than IU?
Texas was GOD AWFUL this year under Shaka Smart. Are you going to argue that these middle to lower BE jobs are better than Texas? Really.
What I am trying to tell you is if Pittsburgh in the ACC and Texas in the Big 12 are your worst jobs THIS YEAR for those conferences, that means your conference is pretty damn good. Because those programs are REALLY good with great resources that have proven to be top flight NATIONAL programs in the recent history and with the right luck should be back there soon. DePaul, SHU, SJU do not share that type of history or expecations and that is why you can't compare the Big 12 or ACC to the Big East. I haven't even mentioned the Kansas' and Duke's of the world yet.
Relax man. My point is that if you take the pitt job than you are dealing with a huge mountain to climb. Like you said a million times the acc is loaded. That makes it tough for pitt. The BE just got 7 schools into the dance. Those schools give coaches a better chance to succeed in today's college bball landscape. Just think, it might be possible an opinion other than yours could be valid.
Then you just made my case, the fact that a perennial power like Pitt is having issues shows how much stronger the ACC is. Again put Pitt in the BE say for DePaul and they ain't going 3-15.
-
Dude it is a bad year nobody disputes that. Indiana had a bad year. Indiana had 3 TERRIBLE years under Crean's first 3 years, so what? Are you going to argue SHU and Marquette are better jobs than IU?
Texas was GOD AWFUL this year under Shaka Smart. Are you going to argue that these middle to lower BE jobs are better than Texas? Really.
What I am trying to tell you is if Pittsburgh in the ACC and Texas in the Big 12 are your worst jobs THIS YEAR for those conferences, that means your conference is pretty damn good. Because those programs are REALLY good with great resources that have proven to be top flight NATIONAL programs in the recent history and with the right luck should be back there soon. DePaul, SHU, SJU do not share that type of history or expecations and that is why you can't compare the Big 12 or ACC to the Big East. I haven't even mentioned the Kansas' and Duke's of the world yet.
Relax man. My point is that if you take the pitt job than you are dealing with a huge mountain to climb. Like you said a million times the acc is loaded. That makes it tough for pitt. The BE just got 7 schools into the dance. Those schools give coaches a better chance to succeed in today's college bball landscape. Just think, it might be possible an opinion other than yours could be valid.
Then you just made my case, the fact that a perennial power like Pitt is having issues shows how much stronger the ACC is. Again put Pitt in the BE say for DePaul and they ain't going 3-15.
Can you really not see what is going on here?
Do you think Pitt makes the tourney this year if they are in the BE?
-
Fingers crossed we make the CBI/CIT dance.
Lol we won't. We went 14-19. Season is over
8-12 in the BE is better than half of the teams in the NIT field.
Yeah the low major autobids, not the at larges
Clemson, for example. Are they any better than we are? The win loss record shouldn't matter as much as a waded grade.
Lol. Clemson is way better than us. If we played them on a neutral floor they'd be about 6 point favorites.
By the way, was looking at last year's CBI field and no teams from any of the power conferences made it so I'm not even sure we'd be eligible for the CBI anymore
Clemson = Shit. Case rested.
-
Fingers crossed we make the CBI/CIT dance.
Lol we won't. We went 14-19. Season is over
8-12 in the BE is better than half of the teams in the NIT field.
Yeah the low major autobids, not the at larges
Clemson, for example. Are they any better than we are? The win loss record shouldn't matter as much as a waded grade.
Lol. Clemson is way better than us. If we played them on a neutral floor they'd be about 6 point favorites.
By the way, was looking at last year's CBI field and no teams from any of the power conferences made it so I'm not even sure we'd be eligible for the CBI anymore
Clemson = Shit. Case rested.
As, much as I love the Johnnies, we lost to Delaware State at home, dude. Clemson is a mediocre team, but I still believe they were better than us this season.
The Tigers should feel like crap, as they blew a 20-point second half lead.
-
Fingers crossed we make the CBI/CIT dance.
Lol we won't. We went 14-19. Season is over
8-12 in the BE is better than half of the teams in the NIT field.
Yeah the low major autobids, not the at larges
Clemson, for example. Are they any better than we are? The win loss record shouldn't matter as much as a waded grade.
Lol. Clemson is way better than us. If we played them on a neutral floor they'd be about 6 point favorites.
By the way, was looking at last year's CBI field and no teams from any of the power conferences made it so I'm not even sure we'd be eligible for the CBI anymore
Clemson = Shit. Case rested.
They may be shit, but they are still way better than us, so what does that make us?
-
Fingers crossed we make the CBI/CIT dance.
Lol we won't. We went 14-19. Season is over
8-12 in the BE is better than half of the teams in the NIT field.
Yeah the low major autobids, not the at larges
Clemson, for example. Are they any better than we are? The win loss record shouldn't matter as much as a waded grade.
Lol. Clemson is way better than us. If we played them on a neutral floor they'd be about 6 point favorites.
By the way, was looking at last year's CBI field and no teams from any of the power conferences made it so I'm not even sure we'd be eligible for the CBI anymore
Clemson = Shit. Case rested.
As, much as I love the Johnnies, we lost to Delaware State at home, dude. Clemson is a mediocre team, but I still believe they were better than us this season.
The Tigers should feel like crap, as they blew a 20-point second half lead.
And that Delaware State game actually mattered, unlike an NIT game for an ACC team. I'm old enough to remember our last NIT game...
-
Fingers crossed we make the CBI/CIT dance.
Lol we won't. We went 14-19. Season is over
8-12 in the BE is better than half of the teams in the NIT field.
Yeah the low major autobids, not the at larges
Clemson, for example. Are they any better than we are? The win loss record shouldn't matter as much as a waded grade.
Lol. Clemson is way better than us. If we played them on a neutral floor they'd be about 6 point favorites.
By the way, was looking at last year's CBI field and no teams from any of the power conferences made it so I'm not even sure we'd be eligible for the CBI anymore
Clemson = Shit. Case rested.
They may be shit, but they are still way better than us, so what does that make us?
It makes them shit. IDK what it makes us.
-
Fingers crossed we make the CBI/CIT dance.
Lol we won't. We went 14-19. Season is over
8-12 in the BE is better than half of the teams in the NIT field.
Yeah the low major autobids, not the at larges
Clemson, for example. Are they any better than we are? The win loss record shouldn't matter as much as a waded grade.
Lol. Clemson is way better than us. If we played them on a neutral floor they'd be about 6 point favorites.
By the way, was looking at last year's CBI field and no teams from any of the power conferences made it so I'm not even sure we'd be eligible for the CBI anymore
Clemson = Shit. Case rested.
They may be shit, but they are still way better than us, so what does that make us?
It makes them shit. IDK what it makes us.
Irrelevant?
-
Fingers crossed we make the CBI/CIT dance.
Lol we won't. We went 14-19. Season is over
8-12 in the BE is better than half of the teams in the NIT field.
Yeah the low major autobids, not the at larges
Clemson, for example. Are they any better than we are? The win loss record shouldn't matter as much as a waded grade.
Lol. Clemson is way better than us. If we played them on a neutral floor they'd be about 6 point favorites.
By the way, was looking at last year's CBI field and no teams from any of the power conferences made it so I'm not even sure we'd be eligible for the CBI anymore
Clemson = Shit. Case rested.
They may be shit, but they are still way better than us, so what does that make us?
It makes them shit. IDK what it makes us.
I never said Clemson was a good or great team. I said they are/were better than us. And they are
-
Fingers crossed we make the CBI/CIT dance.
Lol we won't. We went 14-19. Season is over
8-12 in the BE is better than half of the teams in the NIT field.
Yeah the low major autobids, not the at larges
Clemson, for example. Are they any better than we are? The win loss record shouldn't matter as much as a waded grade.
Lol. Clemson is way better than us. If we played them on a neutral floor they'd be about 6 point favorites.
By the way, was looking at last year's CBI field and no teams from any of the power conferences made it so I'm not even sure we'd be eligible for the CBI anymore
Clemson = Shit. Case rested.
They may be shit, but they are still way better than us, so what does that make us?
It makes them shit. IDK what it makes us.
I think you do. Clemson a two seed in NIT makes them a next 4 out of NCAA. We on the other hand couldn't sniff a CBI or CIT bid so that makes us far less than Clemson to put it in polite terms. You seem to be the only poster too dense to grasp the concept but than with your rantings and ravings I guess it is to be expected.
-
Fingers crossed we make the CBI/CIT dance.
Lol we won't. We went 14-19. Season is over
8-12 in the BE is better than half of the teams in the NIT field.
Yeah the low major autobids, not the at larges
Clemson, for example. Are they any better than we are? The win loss record shouldn't matter as much as a waded grade.
Lol. Clemson is way better than us. If we played them on a neutral floor they'd be about 6 point favorites.
By the way, was looking at last year's CBI field and no teams from any of the power conferences made it so I'm not even sure we'd be eligible for the CBI anymore
Clemson = Shit. Case rested.
They may be shit, but they are still way better than us, so what does that make us?
It makes them shit. IDK what it makes us.
I never said Clemson was a good or great team. I said they are/were better than us. And they are
They've accomplished nothing to prove that, but go on thinking it if you like. Clemson is shit. They are shit every year.
-
Fingers crossed we make the CBI/CIT dance.
Lol we won't. We went 14-19. Season is over
8-12 in the BE is better than half of the teams in the NIT field.
Yeah the low major autobids, not the at larges
Clemson, for example. Are they any better than we are? The win loss record shouldn't matter as much as a waded grade.
Lol. Clemson is way better than us. If we played them on a neutral floor they'd be about 6 point favorites.
By the way, was looking at last year's CBI field and no teams from any of the power conferences made it so I'm not even sure we'd be eligible for the CBI anymore
Clemson = Shit. Case rested.
They may be shit, but they are still way better than us, so what does that make us?
It makes them shit. IDK what it makes us.
I think you do. Clemson a two seed in NIT makes them a next 4 out of NCAA. We on the other hand couldn't sniff a CBI or CIT bid so that makes us far less than Clemson to put it in polite terms. You seem to be the only poster too dense to grasp the concept but than with your rantings and ravings I guess it is to be expected.
You gotta be kidding me. You're calling me dense? You're a f'ing republican.
-
Bakersfield waxing Cal
-
They've accomplished nothing to prove that, but go on thinking it if you like. Clemson is shit. They are shit every year.
What have we accomplished that proves we are as good as Clemson, as you claim? That we beat a horrible Georgetown team twice? That we won 4 games away from home all year?
-
Bakersfield waxing Cal
Cal is also missing Rabb and Bird. Couple those losses with Cal-Bakersfield playing like they have something to prove against a high-major, and it has the recipe for a waxing.
That isn't an excuse, but a possible scenario without their two best players.
-
They've accomplished nothing to prove that, but go on thinking it if you like. Clemson is shit. They are shit every year.
What have we accomplished that proves we are as good as Clemson, as you claim? That we beat a horrible Georgetown team twice? That we won 4 games away from home all year?
They won 6 games. We won 8.
8 is better than 6, except, somehow, to you it isn't.
They made the NIT on a technicality.
-
They've accomplished nothing to prove that, but go on thinking it if you like. Clemson is shit. They are shit every year.
What have we accomplished that proves we are as good as Clemson, as you claim? That we beat a horrible Georgetown team twice? That we won 4 games away from home all year?
They won 6 games. We won 8.
8 is better than 6, except, somehow, to you it isn't.
They made the NIT on a technicality.
You're actually cherry-picking, as Clemson overall won 17 games, while we won 14. They made the NIT because they deserved it, per the NIT committee. Regardless, Clemson was mediocre and we stunk it up this past season. Hopefully, we can bounce back and find ourselves amongst the NCAA Tournament field.
-
They've accomplished nothing to prove that, but go on thinking it if you like. Clemson is shit. They are shit every year.
What have we accomplished that proves we are as good as Clemson, as you claim? That we beat a horrible Georgetown team twice? That we won 4 games away from home all year?
They won 6 games. We won 8.
8 is better than 6, except, somehow, to you it isn't.
They made the NIT on a technicality.
17 > 14 to everybody but you apparently
-
They've accomplished nothing to prove that, but go on thinking it if you like. Clemson is shit. They are shit every year.
What have we accomplished that proves we are as good as Clemson, as you claim? That we beat a horrible Georgetown team twice? That we won 4 games away from home all year?
They won 6 games. We won 8.
8 is better than 6, except, somehow, to you it isn't.
They made the NIT on a technicality.
You're actually cherry-picking, as Clemson overall won 17 games, while we won 14. They made the NIT because they deserved it, per the NIT committee. Regardless, Clemson was mediocre and we stunk it up this past season. Hopefully, we can bounce back and find ourselves amongst the NCAA Tournament field.
Clemson and St.John's were both bad. My only point is that they were worse because they were worse. I don't give a shit that they won 17 games. They beat a massively overrated FSU team, and they also beat, oh yea, right, no one else.
*Correction, Clemson didn't beat FSU. They beat Wake Forest, Davidson, Oklahoma and 14 other piles of garbage. But because a winning record is more important than quality wins, they made the nit, and we didn't. We're pretty light on quality wins, but we have more than Clemson, because they have zero.
-
They've accomplished nothing to prove that, but go on thinking it if you like. Clemson is shit. They are shit every year.
What have we accomplished that proves we are as good as Clemson, as you claim? That we beat a horrible Georgetown team twice? That we won 4 games away from home all year?
They won 6 games. We won 8.
8 is better than 6, except, somehow, to you it isn't.
They made the NIT on a technicality.
17 > 14 to everybody but you apparently
17 Norm Roberts wins. Congrats to Clemson. Lol, like I give a F what anyone thinks.
-
They've accomplished nothing to prove that, but go on thinking it if you like. Clemson is shit. They are shit every year.
What have we accomplished that proves we are as good as Clemson, as you claim? That we beat a horrible Georgetown team twice? That we won 4 games away from home all year?
They won 6 games. We won 8.
8 is better than 6, except, somehow, to you it isn't.
They made the NIT on a technicality.
You're actually cherry-picking, as Clemson overall won 17 games, while we won 14. They made the NIT because they deserved it, per the NIT committee. Regardless, Clemson was mediocre and we stunk it up this past season. Hopefully, we can bounce back and find ourselves amongst the NCAA Tournament field.
Clemson and St.John's were both bad. My only point is that they were worse because they were worse. I don't give a shit that they won 17 games. They beat a massively overrated FSU team, and they also beat, oh yea, right, no one else.
Whatever, dude! If you're arguining the Big East was better than the ACC (which, is essentially what you're doing), then that's your right. But, I doubt anyone else believes it.
-
They've accomplished nothing to prove that, but go on thinking it if you like. Clemson is shit. They are shit every year.
What have we accomplished that proves we are as good as Clemson, as you claim? That we beat a horrible Georgetown team twice? That we won 4 games away from home all year?
They won 6 games. We won 8.
8 is better than 6, except, somehow, to you it isn't.
They made the NIT on a technicality.
You're actually cherry-picking, as Clemson overall won 17 games, while we won 14. They made the NIT because they deserved it, per the NIT committee. Regardless, Clemson was mediocre and we stunk it up this past season. Hopefully, we can bounce back and find ourselves amongst the NCAA Tournament field.
Clemson and St.John's were both bad. My only point is that they were worse because they were worse. I don't give a shit that they won 17 games. They beat a massively overrated FSU team, and they also beat, oh yea, right, no one else.
Whatever, dude! If you're arguining the Big East was better than the ACC (which, is essentially what you're doing), then that's your right. But, I doubt anyone else believes it.
I think Oakland believes it.
Yes, the BE was better this year. One ACC team already put their shit in a box. Wake Forest had no business making the tournament. So after Wake Forest, who did Clemson beat?
-
They've accomplished nothing to prove that, but go on thinking it if you like. Clemson is shit. They are shit every year.
What have we accomplished that proves we are as good as Clemson, as you claim? That we beat a horrible Georgetown team twice? That we won 4 games away from home all year?
They won 6 games. We won 8.
8 is better than 6, except, somehow, to you it isn't.
They made the NIT on a technicality.
You're actually cherry-picking, as Clemson overall won 17 games, while we won 14. They made the NIT because they deserved it, per the NIT committee. Regardless, Clemson was mediocre and we stunk it up this past season. Hopefully, we can bounce back and find ourselves amongst the NCAA Tournament field.
Clemson and St.John's were both bad. My only point is that they were worse because they were worse. I don't give a shit that they won 17 games. They beat a massively overrated FSU team, and they also beat, oh yea, right, no one else.
Whatever, dude! If you're arguining the Big East was better than the ACC (which, is essentially what you're doing), then that's your right. But, I doubt anyone else believes it.
I think Oakland believes it.
Yes, the BE was better this year. One ACC team already put their shit in a box. Wake Forest had no business making the tournament. So after Wake Forest, who did Clemson beat?
There's a wing in Creedmore for people that think the Big East was better than the ACC this year
-
They've accomplished nothing to prove that, but go on thinking it if you like. Clemson is shit. They are shit every year.
What have we accomplished that proves we are as good as Clemson, as you claim? That we beat a horrible Georgetown team twice? That we won 4 games away from home all year?
They won 6 games. We won 8.
8 is better than 6, except, somehow, to you it isn't.
They made the NIT on a technicality.
You're actually cherry-picking, as Clemson overall won 17 games, while we won 14. They made the NIT because they deserved it, per the NIT committee. Regardless, Clemson was mediocre and we stunk it up this past season. Hopefully, we can bounce back and find ourselves amongst the NCAA Tournament field.
Clemson and St.John's were both bad. My only point is that they were worse because they were worse. I don't give a shit that they won 17 games. They beat a massively overrated FSU team, and they also beat, oh yea, right, no one else.
Whatever, dude! If you're arguining the Big East was better than the ACC (which, is essentially what you're doing), then that's your right. But, I doubt anyone else believes it.
I think Oakland believes it.
Yes, the BE was better this year. One ACC team already put their shit in a box. Wake Forest had no business making the tournament. So after Wake Forest, who did Clemson beat?
There's a wing in Creedmore for people that think the Big East was better than the ACC this year
7 out of 10 BE teams made it in. The ACC has 9 out of 15 teams in. That's the great thing about about math, think whatever you like, but math settles the debate.
-
They've accomplished nothing to prove that, but go on thinking it if you like. Clemson is shit. They are shit every year.
What have we accomplished that proves we are as good as Clemson, as you claim? That we beat a horrible Georgetown team twice? That we won 4 games away from home all year?
They won 6 games. We won 8.
8 is better than 6, except, somehow, to you it isn't.
They made the NIT on a technicality.
You're actually cherry-picking, as Clemson overall won 17 games, while we won 14. They made the NIT because they deserved it, per the NIT committee. Regardless, Clemson was mediocre and we stunk it up this past season. Hopefully, we can bounce back and find ourselves amongst the NCAA Tournament field.
Clemson and St.John's were both bad. My only point is that they were worse because they were worse. I don't give a shit that they won 17 games. They beat a massively overrated FSU team, and they also beat, oh yea, right, no one else.
Whatever, dude! If you're arguining the Big East was better than the ACC (which, is essentially what you're doing), then that's your right. But, I doubt anyone else believes it.
I think Oakland believes it.
Yes, the BE was better this year. One ACC team already put their shit in a box. Wake Forest had no business making the tournament. So after Wake Forest, who did Clemson beat?
Wake Forest probably got in because of their RPI (46). Whether, they deserved to be in the tournament or not is subjective, but you're an odd duck. That's for sure.
Honestly, I don't give a crap who Clemson did or didn't beat, but they obviously did enough to warrant an NIT bid (RPI was 76). Go back to sweating about St. John's getting into some shite tournament like the CBI or CIT.
-
They've accomplished nothing to prove that, but go on thinking it if you like. Clemson is shit. They are shit every year.
What have we accomplished that proves we are as good as Clemson, as you claim? That we beat a horrible Georgetown team twice? That we won 4 games away from home all year?
They won 6 games. We won 8.
8 is better than 6, except, somehow, to you it isn't.
They made the NIT on a technicality.
You're actually cherry-picking, as Clemson overall won 17 games, while we won 14. They made the NIT because they deserved it, per the NIT committee. Regardless, Clemson was mediocre and we stunk it up this past season. Hopefully, we can bounce back and find ourselves amongst the NCAA Tournament field.
Clemson and St.John's were both bad. My only point is that they were worse because they were worse. I don't give a shit that they won 17 games. They beat a massively overrated FSU team, and they also beat, oh yea, right, no one else.
Whatever, dude! If you're arguining the Big East was better than the ACC (which, is essentially what you're doing), then that's your right. But, I doubt anyone else believes it.
I think Oakland believes it.
Yes, the BE was better this year. One ACC team already put their shit in a box. Wake Forest had no business making the tournament. So after Wake Forest, who did Clemson beat?
Wake Forest probably got in because of their RPI (46). Whether, they deserved to be in the tournament or not is subjective, but you're an odd duck. That's for sure.
Honestly, I don't give a crap who Clemson did or didn't beat, but they obviously did enough to warrant an NIT bid (RPI was 76). Go back to sweating about St. John's getting into some shite tournament like the CBI or CIT.
You are confused. Clemson did one thing to make the NIT. They played enough shit teams to finish the season with a winning record. That is the only reason they are in, and we aren't. To play in the NIT, you can rack up wins against garbage, get your butt kicked in conference play, and they'll still take you. Mystery solved. Or so it should be.
-
They've accomplished nothing to prove that, but go on thinking it if you like. Clemson is shit. They are shit every year.
What have we accomplished that proves we are as good as Clemson, as you claim? That we beat a horrible Georgetown team twice? That we won 4 games away from home all year?
They won 6 games. We won 8.
8 is better than 6, except, somehow, to you it isn't.
They made the NIT on a technicality.
You're actually cherry-picking, as Clemson overall won 17 games, while we won 14. They made the NIT because they deserved it, per the NIT committee. Regardless, Clemson was mediocre and we stunk it up this past season. Hopefully, we can bounce back and find ourselves amongst the NCAA Tournament field.
Clemson and St.John's were both bad. My only point is that they were worse because they were worse. I don't give a shit that they won 17 games. They beat a massively overrated FSU team, and they also beat, oh yea, right, no one else.
Whatever, dude! If you're arguining the Big East was better than the ACC (which, is essentially what you're doing), then that's your right. But, I doubt anyone else believes it.
I think Oakland believes it.
Yes, the BE was better this year. One ACC team already put their shit in a box. Wake Forest had no business making the tournament. So after Wake Forest, who did Clemson beat?
Wake Forest probably got in because of their RPI (46). Whether, they deserved to be in the tournament or not is subjective, but you're an odd duck. That's for sure.
Honestly, I don't give a crap who Clemson did or didn't beat, but they obviously did enough to warrant an NIT bid (RPI was 76). Go back to sweating about St. John's getting into some shite tournament like the CBI or CIT.
You are confused. Clemson did one thing to make the NIT. They played enough shit teams to finish the season with a winning record. That is the only reason they are in, and we aren't. To play in the NIT, you can rack up wins against garbage, get your butt kicked in conference play, and they'll still take you. Mystery solved. Or so it should be.
Really? We didn't play our share of crappy teams? We also played in an inferior conference than Clemson. Not by a ton, but still inferior, nonetheless.
I once said, if stupidity was a crime, then you'd be on death row. Oh, well....
-
They've accomplished nothing to prove that, but go on thinking it if you like. Clemson is shit. They are shit every year.
What have we accomplished that proves we are as good as Clemson, as you claim? That we beat a horrible Georgetown team twice? That we won 4 games away from home all year?
They won 6 games. We won 8.
8 is better than 6, except, somehow, to you it isn't.
They made the NIT on a technicality.
You're actually cherry-picking, as Clemson overall won 17 games, while we won 14. They made the NIT because they deserved it, per the NIT committee. Regardless, Clemson was mediocre and we stunk it up this past season. Hopefully, we can bounce back and find ourselves amongst the NCAA Tournament field.
Clemson and St.John's were both bad. My only point is that they were worse because they were worse. I don't give a shit that they won 17 games. They beat a massively overrated FSU team, and they also beat, oh yea, right, no one else.
Whatever, dude! If you're arguining the Big East was better than the ACC (which, is essentially what you're doing), then that's your right. But, I doubt anyone else believes it.
I think Oakland believes it.
Yes, the BE was better this year. One ACC team already put their shit in a box. Wake Forest had no business making the tournament. So after Wake Forest, who did Clemson beat?
There's a wing in Creedmore for people that think the Big East was better than the ACC this year
7 out of 10 BE teams made it in. The ACC has 9 out of 15 teams in. That's the great thing about about math, think whatever you like, but math settles the debate.
It's kind of impossible for more than 9 or 10 teams to get in to the tournament in a 15 team league when the bottom of it is strong and they beat up on each other, whereas in the Big East everybody could use us DePaul and Gtown as punching bags
-
They've accomplished nothing to prove that, but go on thinking it if you like. Clemson is shit. They are shit every year.
What have we accomplished that proves we are as good as Clemson, as you claim? That we beat a horrible Georgetown team twice? That we won 4 games away from home all year?
They won 6 games. We won 8.
8 is better than 6, except, somehow, to you it isn't.
They made the NIT on a technicality.
You're actually cherry-picking, as Clemson overall won 17 games, while we won 14. They made the NIT because they deserved it, per the NIT committee. Regardless, Clemson was mediocre and we stunk it up this past season. Hopefully, we can bounce back and find ourselves amongst the NCAA Tournament field.
Clemson and St.John's were both bad. My only point is that they were worse because they were worse. I don't give a shit that they won 17 games. They beat a massively overrated FSU team, and they also beat, oh yea, right, no one else.
Whatever, dude! If you're arguining the Big East was better than the ACC (which, is essentially what you're doing), then that's your right. But, I doubt anyone else believes it.
I think Oakland believes it.
Yes, the BE was better this year. One ACC team already put their shit in a box. Wake Forest had no business making the tournament. So after Wake Forest, who did Clemson beat?
Wake Forest probably got in because of their RPI (46). Whether, they deserved to be in the tournament or not is subjective, but you're an odd duck. That's for sure.
Honestly, I don't give a crap who Clemson did or didn't beat, but they obviously did enough to warrant an NIT bid (RPI was 76). Go back to sweating about St. John's getting into some shite tournament like the CBI or CIT.
You are confused. Clemson did one thing to make the NIT. They played enough shit teams to finish the season with a winning record. That is the only reason they are in, and we aren't. To play in the NIT, you can rack up wins against garbage, get your butt kicked in conference play, and they'll still take you. Mystery solved. Or so it should be.
Clemson played a tougher non conference schedule than us. By a lot. They also wouldn't have lost to LIU, Delaware State or Penn St
-
You are confused. Clemson did one thing to make the NIT. They played enough shit teams to finish the season with a winning record. That is the only reason they are in, and we aren't. To play in the NIT, you can rack up wins against garbage, get your butt kicked in conference play, and they'll still take you. Mystery solved. Or so it should be.
Clemson played a tougher non conference schedule than us. By a lot. They also wouldn't have lost to LIU, Delaware State or Penn St
Since, he likes to use isolated situations (or, attempt to use 'em).... The ACC last place team (Boston College) thumped our 3rd place team (Providence).
-
They've accomplished nothing to prove that, but go on thinking it if you like. Clemson is shit. They are shit every year.
What have we accomplished that proves we are as good as Clemson, as you claim? That we beat a horrible Georgetown team twice? That we won 4 games away from home all year?
They won 6 games. We won 8.
8 is better than 6, except, somehow, to you it isn't.
They made the NIT on a technicality.
You're actually cherry-picking, as Clemson overall won 17 games, while we won 14. They made the NIT because they deserved it, per the NIT committee. Regardless, Clemson was mediocre and we stunk it up this past season. Hopefully, we can bounce back and find ourselves amongst the NCAA Tournament field.
Clemson and St.John's were both bad. My only point is that they were worse because they were worse. I don't give a shit that they won 17 games. They beat a massively overrated FSU team, and they also beat, oh yea, right, no one else.
Whatever, dude! If you're arguining the Big East was better than the ACC (which, is essentially what you're doing), then that's your right. But, I doubt anyone else believes it.
I think Oakland believes it.
Yes, the BE was better this year. One ACC team already put their shit in a box. Wake Forest had no business making the tournament. So after Wake Forest, who did Clemson beat?
There's a wing in Creedmore for people that think the Big East was better than the ACC this year
7 out of 10 BE teams made it in. The ACC has 9 out of 15 teams in. That's the great thing about about math, think whatever you like, but math settles the debate.
It's kind of impossible for more than 9 or 10 teams to get in to the tournament in a 15 team league when the bottom of it is strong and they beat up on each other, whereas in the Big East everybody could use us DePaul and Gtown as punching bags
Everyone except the 4 NCAA teams that we beat. How many NCAA teams did Clemson beat? 2?
Georgetown is no cup cake. They fell apart this year, but they still have several pros on that roster. Can't discount those wins.
-
They've accomplished nothing to prove that, but go on thinking it if you like. Clemson is shit. They are shit every year.
What have we accomplished that proves we are as good as Clemson, as you claim? That we beat a horrible Georgetown team twice? That we won 4 games away from home all year?
They won 6 games. We won 8.
8 is better than 6, except, somehow, to you it isn't.
They made the NIT on a technicality.
You're actually cherry-picking, as Clemson overall won 17 games, while we won 14. They made the NIT because they deserved it, per the NIT committee. Regardless, Clemson was mediocre and we stunk it up this past season. Hopefully, we can bounce back and find ourselves amongst the NCAA Tournament field.
Clemson and St.John's were both bad. My only point is that they were worse because they were worse. I don't give a shit that they won 17 games. They beat a massively overrated FSU team, and they also beat, oh yea, right, no one else.
Whatever, dude! If you're arguining the Big East was better than the ACC (which, is essentially what you're doing), then that's your right. But, I doubt anyone else believes it.
I think Oakland believes it.
Yes, the BE was better this year. One ACC team already put their shit in a box. Wake Forest had no business making the tournament. So after Wake Forest, who did Clemson beat?
Wake Forest probably got in because of their RPI (46). Whether, they deserved to be in the tournament or not is subjective, but you're an odd duck. That's for sure.
Honestly, I don't give a crap who Clemson did or didn't beat, but they obviously did enough to warrant an NIT bid (RPI was 76). Go back to sweating about St. John's getting into some shite tournament like the CBI or CIT.
You are confused. Clemson did one thing to make the NIT. They played enough shit teams to finish the season with a winning record. That is the only reason they are in, and we aren't. To play in the NIT, you can rack up wins against garbage, get your butt kicked in conference play, and they'll still take you. Mystery solved. Or so it should be.
Really? We didn't play our share of crappy teams? We also played in an inferior conference than Clemson. Not by a ton, but still inferior, nonetheless.
I once said, if stupidity was a crime, then you'd be on death row. Oh, well....
Good one. Really well thought out.
-
You are confused. Clemson did one thing to make the NIT. They played enough shit teams to finish the season with a winning record. That is the only reason they are in, and we aren't. To play in the NIT, you can rack up wins against garbage, get your butt kicked in conference play, and they'll still take you. Mystery solved. Or so it should be.
Clemson played a tougher non conference schedule than us. By a lot. They also wouldn't have lost to LIU, Delaware State or Penn St
Since, he likes to use isolated situations (or, attempt to use 'em).... The ACC last place team (Boston College) thumped our 3rd place team (Providence).
We beat the shit out of Syracuse in the Carrier Dome.
-
Truth is a game between us and Clemson on a neutral court would probably come down to the wire. Both teams are mediocre with severe flaws. You could go back and forth all day comparing conferences and common opponents, and who played better in November.
I think Clemson would finish anywhere from 6th to 9th in the BE. Are they better than us? maybe, but that's not saying much.
-
I'm old enough to remember our last NIT game...
So you're four then?
-
Truth is a game between us and Clemson on a neutral court would probably come down to the wire. Both teams are mediocre with severe flaws. You could go back and forth all day comparing conferences and common opponents, and who played better in November.
I think Clemson would finish anywhere from 6th to 9th in the BE. Are they better than us? maybe, but that's not saying much.
My original point wasn't that we're better, although I think we are. It's that because we have a stronger conference record and undeniably better wins in conference that our overall resume is right there with theirs. They were better in November and December. We were better in January, February and March.
The NIT has a senseless rule that teams selected must have an overall winning record. So, Clemson can beat up Radford or some shit, bomb in the ACC and still make the post season. It's pathetic. Straight out of Norm's playbook.
-
I guess Providence didn't belong in tournament, either. Frankly, I thought the conference was weakened once Watson and Sumner was injured. Providence finishing 3rd in the conference told me all I needed to know.
No doubt they deserved to be in the tournament, but they was very average, IMO. I believe I told mjmaher the same a couple weeks ago.
-
I guess Providence didn't belong in tournament, either. Frankly, I thought the conference was weakened once Watson and Sumner was injured. Providence finishing 3rd in the conference told me all I needed to know.
No doubt they deserved to be in the tournament, but they was very average, IMO. I believe I told mjmaher the same a couple weeks ago.
Agree they were average. But they had a great season. Not many teams could lose what they lost and did as well. Preseason they were picked behind us.
-
I guess Providence didn't belong in tournament, either. Frankly, I thought the conference was weakened once Watson and Sumner was injured. Providence finishing 3rd in the conference told me all I needed to know.
No doubt they deserved to be in the tournament, but they was very average, IMO. I believe I told mjmaher the same a couple weeks ago.
I think you're pretty spot on with this. Marquette could be a dangerous tourney team with their shooting ability. On other end of the spectrum they can also be a dud.
-
I guess Providence didn't belong in tournament, either. Frankly, I thought the conference was weakened once Watson and Sumner was injured. Providence finishing 3rd in the conference told me all I needed to know.
No doubt they deserved to be in the tournament, but they was very average, IMO. I believe I told mjmaher the same a couple weeks ago.
I think you're pretty spot on with this. Marquette could be a dangerous tourney team with their shooting ability. On other end of the spectrum they can also be a dud.
I think Marquette got a brutal 1st round matchup with South Carolina. When we beat Marquette we did it by making it hard on their guards to operate by pressuring them and forcing some turnovers. We aren't really a good team doing that normally and they adjusted and beat us the second time. The problem is South Carolina's guards are elite defensively and should really cause problems for Marquette. I dont think they'll have an answer for Thornwell
-
I guess Providence didn't belong in tournament, either. Frankly, I thought the conference was weakened once Watson and Sumner was injured. Providence finishing 3rd in the conference told me all I needed to know.
No doubt they deserved to be in the tournament, but they was very average, IMO. I believe I told mjmaher the same a couple weeks ago.
I think you're pretty spot on with this. Marquette could be a dangerous tourney team with their shooting ability. On other end of the spectrum they can also be a dud.
I told a friend the same thing tonight, in regards to Marquette. My words was Marquette could certainly lose to South Carolina, but they could also beat Duke, if they get it going offensively.
I guess Providence didn't belong in tournament, either. Frankly, I thought the conference was weakened once Watson and Sumner was injured. Providence finishing 3rd in the conference told me all I needed to know.
No doubt they deserved to be in the tournament, but they was very average, IMO. I believe I told mjmaher the same a couple weeks ago.
I think you're pretty spot on with this. Marquette could be a dangerous tourney team with their shooting ability. On other end of the spectrum they can also be a dud.
I think Marquette got a brutal 1st round matchup with South Carolina. When we beat Marquette we did it by making it hard on their guards to operate by pressuring them and forcing some turnovers. We aren't really a good team doing that normally and they adjusted and beat us the second time. The problem is South Carolina's guards are elite defensively and should really cause problems for Marquette. I dont think they'll have an answer for Thornwell
Frankly, it's a game of constrasting styles. South Carolina plays tough defense while Marquette can score with the best of 'em. But, Marquette somewhat resembles us on the defensive end, while South Carolina occasionally has trouble scoring.
I like Thornwell, but he can be streaky at times. This is going to be an interesting game. Personally, I think Marquette matches up better with Duke than South Carolina.
-
I guess Providence didn't belong in tournament, either. Frankly, I thought the conference was weakened once Watson and Sumner was injured. Providence finishing 3rd in the conference told me all I needed to know.
No doubt they deserved to be in the tournament, but they was very average, IMO. I believe I told mjmaher the same a couple weeks ago.
Agree they were average. But they had a great season. Not many teams could lose what they lost and did as well. Preseason they were picked behind us.
They did have a good season, but still average, nonetheless.
-
I guess Providence didn't belong in tournament, either. Frankly, I thought the conference was weakened once Watson and Sumner was injured. Providence finishing 3rd in the conference told me all I needed to know.
No doubt they deserved to be in the tournament, but they was very average, IMO. I believe I told mjmaher the same a couple weeks ago.
I think you're pretty spot on with this. Marquette could be a dangerous tourney team with their shooting ability. On other end of the spectrum they can also be a dud.
I think Marquette got a brutal 1st round matchup with South Carolina. When we beat Marquette we did it by making it hard on their guards to operate by pressuring them and forcing some turnovers. We aren't really a good team doing that normally and they adjusted and beat us the second time. The problem is South Carolina's guards are elite defensively and should really cause problems for Marquette. I dont think they'll have an answer for Thornwell
It's especially brutal because it's a home game: Greenville is 100 miles from SC's campus. That's a pretty odd advantage for a seven seed.
-
I guess Providence didn't belong in tournament, either. Frankly, I thought the conference was weakened once Watson and Sumner was injured. Providence finishing 3rd in the conference told me all I needed to know.
No doubt they deserved to be in the tournament, but they was very average, IMO. I believe I told mjmaher the same a couple weeks ago.
I think you're pretty spot on with this. Marquette could be a dangerous tourney team with their shooting ability. On other end of the spectrum they can also be a dud.
I think Marquette got a brutal 1st round matchup with South Carolina. When we beat Marquette we did it by making it hard on their guards to operate by pressuring them and forcing some turnovers. We aren't really a good team doing that normally and they adjusted and beat us the second time. The problem is South Carolina's guards are elite defensively and should really cause problems for Marquette. I dont think they'll have an answer for Thornwell
It's especially brutal because it's a home game: Greenville is 100 miles from SC's campus. That's a pretty odd advantage for a seven seed.
Game is in South Carolina because some people have a hard time figuring out which bathroom to use
-
I guess Providence didn't belong in tournament, either. Frankly, I thought the conference was weakened once Watson and Sumner was injured. Providence finishing 3rd in the conference told me all I needed to know.
No doubt they deserved to be in the tournament, but they was very average, IMO. I believe I told mjmaher the same a couple weeks ago.
I think you're pretty spot on with this. Marquette could be a dangerous tourney team with their shooting ability. On other end of the spectrum they can also be a dud.
I think Marquette got a brutal 1st round matchup with South Carolina. When we beat Marquette we did it by making it hard on their guards to operate by pressuring them and forcing some turnovers. We aren't really a good team doing that normally and they adjusted and beat us the second time. The problem is South Carolina's guards are elite defensively and should really cause problems for Marquette. I dont think they'll have an answer for Thornwell
It's especially brutal because it's a home game: Greenville is 100 miles from SC's campus. That's a pretty odd advantage for a seven seed.
Game is in South Carolina because some people have a hard time figuring out which bathroom to use
Or because some states have a hard time figuring out what needs legislation and what doesn't.
-
They've accomplished nothing to prove that, but go on thinking it if you like. Clemson is shit. They are shit every year.
What have we accomplished that proves we are as good as Clemson, as you claim? That we beat a horrible Georgetown team twice? That we won 4 games away from home all year?
They won 6 games. We won 8.
8 is better than 6, except, somehow, to you it isn't.
They made the NIT on a technicality.
You're actually cherry-picking, as Clemson overall won 17 games, while we won 14. They made the NIT because they deserved it, per the NIT committee. Regardless, Clemson was mediocre and we stunk it up this past season. Hopefully, we can bounce back and find ourselves amongst the NCAA Tournament field.
Clemson and St.John's were both bad. My only point is that they were worse because they were worse. I don't give a shit that they won 17 games. They beat a massively overrated FSU team, and they also beat, oh yea, right, no one else.
Whatever, dude! If you're arguining the Big East was better than the ACC (which, is essentially what you're doing), then that's your right. But, I doubt anyone else believes it.
I believe it.
-
They've accomplished nothing to prove that, but go on thinking it if you like. Clemson is shit. They are shit every year.
What have we accomplished that proves we are as good as Clemson, as you claim? That we beat a horrible Georgetown team twice? That we won 4 games away from home all year?
They won 6 games. We won 8.
8 is better than 6, except, somehow, to you it isn't.
They made the NIT on a technicality.
You're actually cherry-picking, as Clemson overall won 17 games, while we won 14. They made the NIT because they deserved it, per the NIT committee. Regardless, Clemson was mediocre and we stunk it up this past season. Hopefully, we can bounce back and find ourselves amongst the NCAA Tournament field.
Clemson and St.John's were both bad. My only point is that they were worse because they were worse. I don't give a shit that they won 17 games. They beat a massively overrated FSU team, and they also beat, oh yea, right, no one else.
Whatever, dude! If you're arguining the Big East was better than the ACC (which, is essentially what you're doing), then that's your right. But, I doubt anyone else believes it.
I believe it.
I'd never use a crapshoot tournament where styles, matchups, and a couple other variables to determine such. Not to mention, I also wouldn't use a one year sample to do it, either.
But, I'll never confuse you to be rational, logical, or, on most occasions, bright, either.
-
But, I'll never confuse you to be rational, logical, or, on most occasions, bright, either.
Do you, get paid, by, the comma?
-
They've accomplished nothing to prove that, but go on thinking it if you like. Clemson is shit. They are shit every year.
What have we accomplished that proves we are as good as Clemson, as you claim? That we beat a horrible Georgetown team twice? That we won 4 games away from home all year?
They won 6 games. We won 8.
8 is better than 6, except, somehow, to you it isn't.
They made the NIT on a technicality.
You're actually cherry-picking, as Clemson overall won 17 games, while we won 14. They made the NIT because they deserved it, per the NIT committee. Regardless, Clemson was mediocre and we stunk it up this past season. Hopefully, we can bounce back and find ourselves amongst the NCAA Tournament field.
Clemson and St.John's were both bad. My only point is that they were worse because they were worse. I don't give a shit that they won 17 games. They beat a massively overrated FSU team, and they also beat, oh yea, right, no one else.
Whatever, dude! If you're arguining the Big East was better than the ACC (which, is essentially what you're doing), then that's your right. But, I doubt anyone else believes it.
I believe it.
I'd never use a crapshoot tournament where styles, matchups, and a couple other variables to determine such. Not to mention, I also wouldn't use a one year sample to do it, either.
But, I'll never confuse you to be rational, logical, or, on most occasions, bright, either.
Never? Why don't you use it for the season that we're talking about right now? This one.
But hey, apology accepted.
-
It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.
Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.
We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team
BE has 7/10 teams in the dance. Sorry, the ACC may have more teams, but they have more shitty teams, too. And sorry, their schedule isn't tougher than ours. They played Duke and NC a combined 3 times. We played Nova 3 times. Clemson gets zero credit for losing a close game to a very good team. All that means is that they know how collapse at the end of the game.
The ACC is WAAAY better than the Big East. Keep in mind Virginia, arguably the 6th best team in the ACC lost at the buzzer AT Nova after leading by 10 in the second half. You can't simply dismiss these as all losses count the same regardless of point differential.
Having 7 teams get in is nice, but a majority are weak seeds, 4 at 9 or lower. With 2 being barely in.
ACC had 6 teams seeded 5 or better, 4 teams seeded 3 or better, 3 teams in the top 8.
In addition they had 3 more teams make the NIT, the BE remaining 3 teams were never in the discussion.
I think the depth in the dance is meaningful. Doesn't matter if you're barely in. All 7 games are winnable and come on, 7/10 is badass for the BE. It's better than 9/15. It just is. Even Providence could go to the final four. So could Marquette. So could Seton Hall. I think for us, going 8-12 is meaningful considering our experience level as a team the value of 4 strong wins that weren't cup cake wins like Depaul and Georgetown.
Dude the 4/5 ACC Quarterfinal game was Duke vs Louisville. 2 potential Final Four teams. Followed by a semifinal between Duke and UNC, another game pitting two legitimate Final Four reams.
The 4/5 BE Quarterfinal was SHU and Marquette. Seriously there is no comparison
Furthermore Pittsburgh finished 14th in the ACC this year. This is a program that from 2002 thru 2016 went to the NCAA's in 13 out if 15 years, winning 4 regular season BE titles and winning more BE games than any program from 2002-2011. And they were an afterthought in the ACC this year. BE equivalent is DePaul. You want to compare DePaul to Pittsburgh not even close.
The Big East had three legit Final Four contenders mid-January before the injuries hit
(and will have three next year). Coaches make programs, so Pitt's past is irrelevant at this point. They would have battled us and Gtown for 8th or 9th.
That's utter nonsense, Creighton and Xavier were not Final Four contenders anymore than Butler is.
Duke lost more talent to injuries than Creighton and Xavier COMBINED and Duke is better than they are even without Bolden and Giles.
Louisville lost Quentin Snider for a large part of the season and they ripped off like 4 straight wins WITHOUT HIM.
Sumner is not the difference between Xavier barely making the Tourney (their last two regular season wins over the last month were against DePaul) and being a Final Four contender. Some of you are completely clueless. Sumner makes a difference no doubt.
And Pitt is a better job than SJU, Georgetown, Seton hall, Marquette, DePaul etc. period. There is no one in college basketball that will tell you otherwise.
And if Pitt had not left for the ACC instead was still in the BE Jamie Dixon would not have left Pitt to begin with. The whole reason he left was Pitt was slipping in recruiting especially against the likes of Duke, UNC, Louisville etc. He knew the unreal expectations of the fan base at Pitt were starting to take its toll int hat conference. Geez look at NC St, they alone have more talent than most BE schools and they are the bottom of the ACC and fired their 4 time NCAA in 6 year coach.
Get a clue, the conferences are not even close and no one in college basketball would disagree with that notion.
Get your shine box you reject!!!!!!!
-
It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.
Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.
We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team
BE has 7/10 teams in the dance. Sorry, the ACC may have more teams, but they have more shitty teams, too. And sorry, their schedule isn't tougher than ours. They played Duke and NC a combined 3 times. We played Nova 3 times. Clemson gets zero credit for losing a close game to a very good team. All that means is that they know how collapse at the end of the game.
The ACC is WAAAY better than the Big East. Keep in mind Virginia, arguably the 6th best team in the ACC lost at the buzzer AT Nova after leading by 10 in the second half. You can't simply dismiss these as all losses count the same regardless of point differential.
Having 7 teams get in is nice, but a majority are weak seeds, 4 at 9 or lower. With 2 being barely in.
ACC had 6 teams seeded 5 or better, 4 teams seeded 3 or better, 3 teams in the top 8.
In addition they had 3 more teams make the NIT, the BE remaining 3 teams were never in the discussion.
I think the depth in the dance is meaningful. Doesn't matter if you're barely in. All 7 games are winnable and come on, 7/10 is badass for the BE. It's better than 9/15. It just is. Even Providence could go to the final four. So could Marquette. So could Seton Hall. I think for us, going 8-12 is meaningful considering our experience level as a team the value of 4 strong wins that weren't cup cake wins like Depaul and Georgetown.
Dude the 4/5 ACC Quarterfinal game was Duke vs Louisville. 2 potential Final Four teams. Followed by a semifinal between Duke and UNC, another game pitting two legitimate Final Four reams.
The 4/5 BE Quarterfinal was SHU and Marquette. Seriously there is no comparison
Furthermore Pittsburgh finished 14th in the ACC this year. This is a program that from 2002 thru 2016 went to the NCAA's in 13 out if 15 years, winning 4 regular season BE titles and winning more BE games than any program from 2002-2011. And they were an afterthought in the ACC this year. BE equivalent is DePaul. You want to compare DePaul to Pittsburgh not even close.
The Big East had three legit Final Four contenders mid-January before the injuries hit
(and will have three next year). Coaches make programs, so Pitt's past is irrelevant at this point. They would have battled us and Gtown for 8th or 9th.
That's utter nonsense, Creighton and Xavier were not Final Four contenders anymore than Butler is.
Duke lost more talent to injuries than Creighton and Xavier COMBINED and Duke is better than they are even without Bolden and Giles.
Louisville lost Quentin Snider for a large part of the season and they ripped off like 4 straight wins WITHOUT HIM.
Sumner is not the difference between Xavier barely making the Tourney (their last two regular season wins over the last month were against DePaul) and being a Final Four contender. Some of you are completely clueless. Sumner makes a difference no doubt.
And Pitt is a better job than SJU, Georgetown, Seton hall, Marquette, DePaul etc. period. There is no one in college basketball that will tell you otherwise.
And if Pitt had not left for the ACC instead was still in the BE Jamie Dixon would not have left Pitt to begin with. The whole reason he left was Pitt was slipping in recruiting especially against the likes of Duke, UNC, Louisville etc. He knew the unreal expectations of the fan base at Pitt were starting to take its toll int hat conference. Geez look at NC St, they alone have more talent than most BE schools and they are the bottom of the ACC and fired their 4 time NCAA in 6 year coach.
Get a clue, the conferences are not even close and no one in college basketball would disagree with that notion.
Get your shine box you reject!!!!!!!
To be fair X nearly played their way out of tourney in February. Hard to have Final Four confidence in them.
-
It's painful? No it isn't. It's actually simple arithmetic. The numbers don't need to be translated. We won 8 conference games. Clemson won 6.
Yeah, that's the right way to look at it. If we played Clemson's ACC schedule there's no way we win more than 6. If they played our schedule of DePaul twice and Gtown 3 times, they win more than 8.
We won 14 games, they won 17. They played in a better conference than we did. They played a tougher non conference schedule than we did. They are way better than us which is why they made the NIT and we would have been laughed at if we thought we were an NIT team
BE has 7/10 teams in the dance. Sorry, the ACC may have more teams, but they have more shitty teams, too. And sorry, their schedule isn't tougher than ours. They played Duke and NC a combined 3 times. We played Nova 3 times. Clemson gets zero credit for losing a close game to a very good team. All that means is that they know how collapse at the end of the game.
The ACC is WAAAY better than the Big East. Keep in mind Virginia, arguably the 6th best team in the ACC lost at the buzzer AT Nova after leading by 10 in the second half. You can't simply dismiss these as all losses count the same regardless of point differential.
Having 7 teams get in is nice, but a majority are weak seeds, 4 at 9 or lower. With 2 being barely in.
ACC had 6 teams seeded 5 or better, 4 teams seeded 3 or better, 3 teams in the top 8.
In addition they had 3 more teams make the NIT, the BE remaining 3 teams were never in the discussion.
I think the depth in the dance is meaningful. Doesn't matter if you're barely in. All 7 games are winnable and come on, 7/10 is badass for the BE. It's better than 9/15. It just is. Even Providence could go to the final four. So could Marquette. So could Seton Hall. I think for us, going 8-12 is meaningful considering our experience level as a team the value of 4 strong wins that weren't cup cake wins like Depaul and Georgetown.
Dude the 4/5 ACC Quarterfinal game was Duke vs Louisville. 2 potential Final Four teams. Followed by a semifinal between Duke and UNC, another game pitting two legitimate Final Four reams.
The 4/5 BE Quarterfinal was SHU and Marquette. Seriously there is no comparison
Furthermore Pittsburgh finished 14th in the ACC this year. This is a program that from 2002 thru 2016 went to the NCAA's in 13 out if 15 years, winning 4 regular season BE titles and winning more BE games than any program from 2002-2011. And they were an afterthought in the ACC this year. BE equivalent is DePaul. You want to compare DePaul to Pittsburgh not even close.
The Big East had three legit Final Four contenders mid-January before the injuries hit
(and will have three next year). Coaches make programs, so Pitt's past is irrelevant at this point. They would have battled us and Gtown for 8th or 9th.
That's utter nonsense, Creighton and Xavier were not Final Four contenders anymore than Butler is.
Duke lost more talent to injuries than Creighton and Xavier COMBINED and Duke is better than they are even without Bolden and Giles.
Louisville lost Quentin Snider for a large part of the season and they ripped off like 4 straight wins WITHOUT HIM.
Sumner is not the difference between Xavier barely making the Tourney (their last two regular season wins over the last month were against DePaul) and being a Final Four contender. Some of you are completely clueless. Sumner makes a difference no doubt.
And Pitt is a better job than SJU, Georgetown, Seton hall, Marquette, DePaul etc. period. There is no one in college basketball that will tell you otherwise.
And if Pitt had not left for the ACC instead was still in the BE Jamie Dixon would not have left Pitt to begin with. The whole reason he left was Pitt was slipping in recruiting especially against the likes of Duke, UNC, Louisville etc. He knew the unreal expectations of the fan base at Pitt were starting to take its toll int hat conference. Geez look at NC St, they alone have more talent than most BE schools and they are the bottom of the ACC and fired their 4 time NCAA in 6 year coach.
Get a clue, the conferences are not even close and no one in college basketball would disagree with that notion.
Get your shine box you reject!!!!!!!
To be fair X nearly played their way out of tourney in February. Hard to have Final Four confidence in them.
Don't ruin this for us, Dave. 😆 He got himself out of all those lockers he got stuffed into in high school...he can can get himself out of this too. Perhaps he will realize his dweeby heel act is getting old.
-
Personally I'd decline the invite. Not because St. John's is above that but because I wouldn't want the guys to play March ball unless it's NIT or NCAA. Let them sit at home in their room while guys are playing and let that sink in. Make 'em hungry for next year.
If they're not hungry give their scholarships to somebody who is Mike Jarvis. Isn't that what got him fired, that he said he'd no longer be recruiting local players, because they weren't hungry enough? Good grief. We stink but let's not play anymore and possibly get better, let's all stew in the fact that we suck. You people are mentally ill.
It's always good leaving the season on a 40 point thrashing on your own court
I think the point is we've played 33 games and have been practicing for more than 5 months. Another couple of games against Lehigh and St Peters plus a few more practices isn't going to make us any better. And there's a chance we'd wind up ending the season with an 8 point loss to Lehigh which is worse than losing to the defending national champs by 40.
There have been numerous regular season games this year where the team showed up with absolutely no interest. There is no way they are going to be at all interested in playing a team like Toledo in the CBI for absolutely nothing, whereas Toledo might actually care and would end up beating us
St. Peter's is still playing by the way. Tonight at Texas St. Good thing St Johns is well oiled machine and couldn't use a few more weeks of practice and games
-
The jets are expected to suck this year. After going 2-14 or 3-13, should they scrimmage the Toronto argonauts ? I am sure that would be productive.
-
The jets are expected to suck this year. After going 2-14 or 3-13, should they scrimmage the Toronto argonauts ? I am sure that would be productive.
So the staff and the team will improve by not playing? They should hire you to replace Mitch
-
St. Peter's beat Texas St. . Another week of practice and another game for them
-
St. Peter's beat Texas St. . Another week of practice and another game for them
They'll be no stopping them on their Road to the Final Four next season. ;)
-
St. Peter's beat Texas St. . Another week of practice and another game for them
They'll be no stopping them on their Road to the Final Four next season. ;)
Final 4 of a C tournament with St Johns
-
St. Peter's beat Texas St. . Another week of practice and another game for them
They'll be no stopping them on their Road to the Final Four next season. ;)
Final 4 of a C tournament with St Johns
For Marco, Foad and Poison:
CBI Finals best two out of three will be televised by ESPNU on Monday, Wednesday and if necessary Friday night. The CIT semi-finals will be televised by CBSSN on Wednesday night with the final televised on Friday night. Enjoy fellas!
-
St. Peter's beat Texas St. . Another week of practice and another game for them
They'll be no stopping them on their Road to the Final Four next season. ;)
Final 4 of a C tournament with St Johns
For Marco, Foad and Poison:
CBI Finals best two out of three will be televised by ESPNU on Monday, Wednesday and if necessary Friday night. The CIT semi-finals will be televised by CBSSN on Wednesday night with the final televised on Friday night. Enjoy fellas!
For the St Johns staff and team also. Watch and learn boys :)
-
St. Peter's beat Texas St. . Another week of practice and another game for them
They'll be no stopping them on their Road to the Final Four next season. ;)
Final 4 of a C tournament with St Johns
For Marco, Foad and Poison:
CBI Finals best two out of three will be televised by ESPNU on Monday, Wednesday and if necessary Friday night. The CIT semi-finals will be televised by CBSSN on Wednesday night with the final televised on Friday night. Enjoy fellas!
For the St Johns staff and team also. Watch and learn boys :)
Nothing for them to learn. They already know all there is to know about basketball and how to teach it.
-
St. Peter's beat Texas St. . Another week of practice and another game for them
Too bad that as has already been proven, being successful in the CBI has zero correlation to next season's success. Oh well
-
St. Peter's beat Texas St. . Another week of practice and another game for them
Too bad that as has already been proven, being successful in the CBI has zero correlation to next season's success. Oh well
How about not playing in any tournaments? Any correlations for success?
-
St. Peter's beat Texas St. . Another week of practice and another game for them
Too bad that as has already been proven, being successful in the CBI has zero correlation to next season's success. Oh well
How about not playing in any tournaments? Any correlations for success?
Not playing in a post season tournament one season has the same correlation to the next season's success as playing in the CBI does. Zero
-
St. Peter's beat Texas St. . Another week of practice and another game for them
Too bad that as has already been proven, being successful in the CBI has zero correlation to next season's success. Oh well
How about not playing in any tournaments? Any correlations for success?
Not playing in a post season tournament one season has the same correlation to the next season's success as playing in the CBI does. Zero
Can't win if you don't play. But they certainly did host the best game of the tournament last night
-
St. Peter's beat Texas St. . Another week of practice and another game for them
Too bad that as has already been proven, being successful in the CBI has zero correlation to next season's success. Oh well
How about not playing in any tournaments? Any correlations for success?
Not playing in a post season tournament one season has the same correlation to the next season's success as playing in the CBI does. Zero
Can't win if you don't play. But they certainly did host the best game of the tournament last night
Wake me up when St. Peter's and Texas St are in the sweet 16 next year
-
St. Peter's beat Texas St. . Another week of practice and another game for them
Too bad that as has already been proven, being successful in the CBI has zero correlation to next season's success. Oh well
How about not playing in any tournaments? Any correlations for success?
Not playing in a post season tournament one season has the same correlation to the next season's success as playing in the CBI does. Zero
Can't win if you don't play. But they certainly did host the best game of the tournament last night
Wake me up when St. Peter's and Texas St are in the sweet 16 next year
Expecting more early to bed nights next March I see?
-
St. Peter's beat Texas St. . Another week of practice and another game for them
Too bad that as has already been proven, being successful in the CBI has zero correlation to next season's success. Oh well
How about not playing in any tournaments? Any correlations for success?
Well played but leave aside this tournament or that. Name an endeavor where sitting around not doing it makes you better at it than doing it does. Everyone in the world gets better at doing what they do by doing what they do except evidently the basketball team that's won 15 games in two years. They're going to get better by not playing basketball. Musicians getting better by playing their instruments. Artists get better by painting. Mathematicians get better by doing equations. St John's basketball players though they get better by sitting around in their dorm rooms playing X box. If that's the case they should cancel fall practice, they'll be a lock for the post season.
-
We were either the second or fourth least experienced team of over 300 D-1 teams depending on the source. This notion that we couldn't improve with potentially an extra three weeks and 4-6 games is absurd. You can't look for correlation in something like this generally. A team full of juniors and seniors that loses a half-dozen impact players after the season clearly won't get the same benefit as a team like SJU whose entire roster is eligible to play at least one more season.
Our guys haven't even figured out team defense yet. That can only be learned through experience and by making mistakes. The NCAA only allows teams to go on foreign tours one year out of like four or five. Why? Because that extra practice and competion gives teams an advantage (and smaller conference teams could never compete with the tours/competition the big boys could set up).
That win or go home atmosphere turns boys into men. Any experience handling that pressure from the travel and meals to the hotels to the game is good IMO. You bet your ass SouthCarolina benefitted from last year's NIT practice and games.
-
St. Peter's beat Texas St. . Another week of practice and another game for them
Too bad that as has already been proven, being successful in the CBI has zero correlation to next season's success. Oh well
How about not playing in any tournaments? Any correlations for success?
Well played but leave aside this tournament or that. Name an endeavor where sitting around not doing it makes you better at it than doing it does. Everyone in the world gets better at doing what they do by doing what they do except evidently the basketball team that's won 15 games in two years. They're going to get better by not playing basketball. Musicians getting better by playing their instruments. Artists get better by painting. Mathematicians get better by doing equations. St John's basketball players though they get better by sitting around in their dorm rooms playing X box. If that's the case they should cancel fall practice, they'll be a lock for the post season.
+1... this possible injury argument is ridiculous. I've trained Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, including with some competitiors and when tell you the guys that are competing at it, live and breathe it. They train like they compete for several hours a day. Compete often, and search for harder opponents all the time. They're going all out, and this is a combat-art more potentially dangerous than basketball. We should play in any tournaments we can. In fact NCAA rules barring workouts and practices in the offseason is absurd as well. Only way to improve it to keep hammering at it.
-
We were either the second or fourth least experienced team of over 300 D-1 teams depending on the source. This notion that we couldn't improve with potentially an extra three weeks and 4-6 games is absurd. You can't look for correlation in something like this generally. A team full of juniors and seniors that loses a half-dozen impact players after the season clearly won't get the same benefit as a team like SJU whose entire roster is eligible to play at least one more season.
Our guys haven't even figured out team defense yet. That can only be learned through experience and by making mistakes. The NCAA only allows teams to go on foreign tours one year out of like four or five. Why? Because that extra practice and competion gives teams an advantage (and smaller conference teams could never compete with the tours/competition the big boys could set up).
That win or go home atmosphere turns boys into men. Any experience handling that pressure from the travel and meals to the hotels to the game is good IMO. You bet your ass SouthCarolina benefitted from last year's NIT practice and games.
I'm fine with most of this argument but pointing to South Carolina as an example of benefitting from last year's NIT is illogical. They played 2 games. They killed High Point and then got killed by Georgia Tech. The NIT didn't seem to help any of the NIT final 4 teams last year as none of them made the NCAA Tournament this year. And that's the NIT, which obviously we wouldn't reject an invite to, not the CBI.
-
FOURTEEN AND NINETEEN
-
FOURTEEN AND NINETEEN
108-67
-
You bet your ass SouthCarolina benefitted from last year's NIT practice and games.
We were either the second or fourth least experienced team of over 300 D-1 teams depending on the source. This notion that we couldn't improve with potentially an extra three weeks and 4-6 games is absurd. You can't look for correlation in something like this generally. A team full of juniors and seniors that loses a half-dozen impact players after the season clearly won't get the same benefit as a team like SJU whose entire roster is eligible to play at least one more season.
Our guys haven't even figured out team defense yet. That can only be learned through experience and by making mistakes. The NCAA only allows teams to go on foreign tours one year out of like four or five. Why? Because that extra practice and competion gives teams an advantage (and smaller conference teams could never compete with the tours/competition the big boys could set up).
That win or go home atmosphere turns boys into men. Any experience handling that pressure from the travel and meals to the hotels to the game is good IMO. You bet your ass SouthCarolina benefitted from last year's NIT practice and games.
I'm fine with most of this argument but pointing to South Carolina as an example of benefitting from last year's NIT is illogical. They played 2 games. They killed High Point and then got killed by Georgia Tech. The NIT didn't seem to help any of the NIT final 4 teams last year as none of them made the NCAA Tournament this year. And that's the NIT, which obviously we wouldn't reject an invite to, not the CBI.
I had already typed my response to Marillac, but saw this one from goredmen.
Here is my response: You could be right, but there's nothing to absolutely prove it. You're probably gonna attempt to use their success in this season's NCAA Tournament. But, what about the other schools who participated, and went farther in the NIT than the Gamecocks, but didn't do jack squat this season or ended back in the NIT?
Most people know you get better by practicing, but there isn't any proof that it will translate to the following season. Baldi you do a good job stirring, trolling (no offense, dude, but even you can't deny you're trolling on this crap) and keeping this thread going for whatever reason.... Seriously, I doubt most St. John's fans didn't bat an eye when it came to not participating in either the CBI or CIT.
-
FOURTEEN AND NINETEEN
108-67 (quote)
Exactly. We really improved from the first two losses to Nova by what 10 and 13 to the 41 point drubbing. Sitting home watching other players playing in March Madness will give them more incentive than one or two dopey games against garbage competition (I know we suck too, Poison) they wouldn't have been motivated to play. LoVett probably wouldn't have shown up (then Mullin would have not started him for first 3 minutes in our first game next year as punishment) and Shamorie wouldn't have crossed half court on defense. These guys should be immediately working on their strength and conditioning and on their individual skills.
-
You bet your ass SouthCarolina benefitted from last year's NIT practice and games.
We were either the second or fourth least experienced team of over 300 D-1 teams depending on the source. This notion that we couldn't improve with potentially an extra three weeks and 4-6 games is absurd. You can't look for correlation in something like this generally. A team full of juniors and seniors that loses a half-dozen impact players after the season clearly won't get the same benefit as a team like SJU whose entire roster is eligible to play at least one more season.
Our guys haven't even figured out team defense yet. That can only be learned through experience and by making mistakes. The NCAA only allows teams to go on foreign tours one year out of like four or five. Why? Because that extra practice and competion gives teams an advantage (and smaller conference teams could never compete with the tours/competition the big boys could set up).
That win or go home atmosphere turns boys into men. Any experience handling that pressure from the travel and meals to the hotels to the game is good IMO. You bet your ass SouthCarolina benefitted from last year's NIT practice and games.
I'm fine with most of this argument but pointing to South Carolina as an example of benefitting from last year's NIT is illogical. They played 2 games. They killed High Point and then got killed by Georgia Tech. The NIT didn't seem to help any of the NIT final 4 teams last year as none of them made the NCAA Tournament this year. And that's the NIT, which obviously we wouldn't reject an invite to, not the CBI.
I had already typed my response to Marillac, but saw this one from goredmen.
Here is my response: You could be right, but there's nothing to absolutely prove it. You're probably gonna attempt to use their success in this seaon's NCAA Tournament. But, what about the other schools who participated, and went farther in the NIT than the Gamecocks, but didn't do jack squat this season or ended back in the NIT?
Most people know you get better by practicing, but there isn't any proof that it will translate to the following season. Baldi you do a good job stirring, trolling (no offense, dude, but even you can't deny you're trolling on this crap) and keeping this thread going for whatever reason.... Seriously, I doubt most St. John's fans didn't bat an eye about not playing in either the CBI or CIT.
I think if the administration didn't want to play in the CIT then the administration should go F themselves because this coaching hire and staff is entirely their responsibility. We have a freshman team. They should be playing as many games as they possibly can, and Mullin should be coaching as many games as he possibly can until he learns how to do it. Right now, neither know what they're doing.
Let them practice until they learn, or like I said, they can all go F themselves.
-
You bet your ass SouthCarolina benefitted from last year's NIT practice and games.
We were either the second or fourth least experienced team of over 300 D-1 teams depending on the source. This notion that we couldn't improve with potentially an extra three weeks and 4-6 games is absurd. You can't look for correlation in something like this generally. A team full of juniors and seniors that loses a half-dozen impact players after the season clearly won't get the same benefit as a team like SJU whose entire roster is eligible to play at least one more season.
Our guys haven't even figured out team defense yet. That can only be learned through experience and by making mistakes. The NCAA only allows teams to go on foreign tours one year out of like four or five. Why? Because that extra practice and competion gives teams an advantage (and smaller conference teams could never compete with the tours/competition the big boys could set up).
That win or go home atmosphere turns boys into men. Any experience handling that pressure from the travel and meals to the hotels to the game is good IMO. You bet your ass SouthCarolina benefitted from last year's NIT practice and games.
I'm fine with most of this argument but pointing to South Carolina as an example of benefitting from last year's NIT is illogical. They played 2 games. They killed High Point and then got killed by Georgia Tech. The NIT didn't seem to help any of the NIT final 4 teams last year as none of them made the NCAA Tournament this year. And that's the NIT, which obviously we wouldn't reject an invite to, not the CBI.
I had already typed my response to Marillac, but saw this one from goredmen.
Here is my response: You could be right, but there's nothing to absolutely prove it. You're probably gonna attempt to use their success in this seaon's NCAA Tournament. But, what about the other schools who participated, and went farther in the NIT than the Gamecocks, but didn't do jack squat this season or ended back in the NIT?
Most people know you get better by practicing, but there isn't any proof that it will translate to the following season. Baldi you do a good job stirring, trolling (no offense, dude, but even you can't deny you're trolling on this crap) and keeping this thread going for whatever reason.... Seriously, I doubt most St. John's fans didn't bat an eye about not playing in either the CBI or CIT.
I think if the administration didn't want to play in the CIT then the administration should go F themselves because this coaching hire and staff is entirely their responsibility. We have a freshman team. They should be playing as many games as they possibly can, and Mullin should be coaching as many games as he possibly can until he learns how to do it. Right now, neither know what they're doing.
Let them practice until they learn, or like I said, they can all go F themselves.
Okay.
-
We were either the second or fourth least experienced team of over 300 D-1 teams depending on the source. This notion that we couldn't improve with potentially an extra three weeks and 4-6 games is absurd. You can't look for correlation in something like this generally. A team full of juniors and seniors that loses a half-dozen impact players after the season clearly won't get the same benefit as a team like SJU whose entire roster is eligible to play at least one more season.
Our guys haven't even figured out team defense yet. That can only be learned through experience and by making mistakes. The NCAA only allows teams to go on foreign tours one year out of like four or five. Why? Because that extra practice and competion gives teams an advantage (and smaller conference teams could never compete with the tours/competition the big boys could set up).
That win or go home atmosphere turns boys into men. Any experience handling that pressure from the travel and meals to the hotels to the game is good IMO. You bet your ass SouthCarolina benefitted from last year's NIT practice and games.
I'm fine with most of this argument but pointing to South Carolina as an example of benefitting from last year's NIT is illogical. They played 2 games. They killed High Point and then got killed by Georgia Tech. The NIT didn't seem to help any of the NIT final 4 teams last year as none of them made the NCAA Tournament this year. And that's the NIT, which obviously we wouldn't reject an invite to, not the CBI.
I don't think it's illogical at all. Those two games were win or go home. You can't duplicate that pressure November tnrough February. That got them two extra weeks of practice and put the bad taste of having their season "ended" twice in their mouths which gives competitors a chip on their shoulder. Guys who haven't been around a team in that atmosphere underestimate how important it is to experience the little details of class, travel, practice, sleep, and staying focused and loose through it all is to success. That experience is a big reason why programs like Xavier and Butler play so focused while many more talented teams can't get past the nerves.
Now, I'm not saying to caused a jump from NIT to the Elite Eight, but I'm sure it helped and I know it didn't hurt.
-
We were either the second or fourth least experienced team of over 300 D-1 teams depending on the source. This notion that we couldn't improve with potentially an extra three weeks and 4-6 games is absurd. You can't look for correlation in something like this generally. A team full of juniors and seniors that loses a half-dozen impact players after the season clearly won't get the same benefit as a team like SJU whose entire roster is eligible to play at least one more season.
Our guys haven't even figured out team defense yet. That can only be learned through experience and by making mistakes. The NCAA only allows teams to go on foreign tours one year out of like four or five. Why? Because that extra practice and competion gives teams an advantage (and smaller conference teams could never compete with the tours/competition the big boys could set up).
That win or go home atmosphere turns boys into men. Any experience handling that pressure from the travel and meals to the hotels to the game is good IMO. You bet your ass SouthCarolina benefitted from last year's NIT practice and games.
I'm fine with most of this argument but pointing to South Carolina as an example of benefitting from last year's NIT is illogical. They played 2 games. They killed High Point and then got killed by Georgia Tech. The NIT didn't seem to help any of the NIT final 4 teams last year as none of them made the NCAA Tournament this year. And that's the NIT, which obviously we wouldn't reject an invite to, not the CBI.
I don't think it's illogical at all. Those two games were win or go home. You can't duplicate that pressure November tnrough February. That got them two extra weeks of practice and put the bad taste of having their season "ended" twice in their mouths which gives competitors a chip on their shoulder. Guys who haven't been around a team in that atmosphere underestimate how important it is to experience the little details of class, travel, practice, sleep, and staying focused and loose through it all is to success. That experience is a big reason why programs like Xavier and Butler play so focused while many more talented teams can't get past the nerves.
Now, I'm not saying to caused a jump from NIT to the Elite Eight, but I'm sure it helped and I know it didn't hurt.
The reason why programs like Xavier and Butler continues to succeed, IMO, is based on the winning culture that has enveloped both programs.
The Gamecocks advancing to the second round in last season's NIT didn't hurt at all, but we can't say for certain it helped, as other team's (a few who even went further than South Carolina) in last season's NIT either didn't do diddly this season or went back to the NIT.
-
We were either the second or fourth least experienced team of over 300 D-1 teams depending on the source. This notion that we couldn't improve with potentially an extra three weeks and 4-6 games is absurd. You can't look for correlation in something like this generally. A team full of juniors and seniors that loses a half-dozen impact players after the season clearly won't get the same benefit as a team like SJU whose entire roster is eligible to play at least one more season.
Our guys haven't even figured out team defense yet. That can only be learned through experience and by making mistakes. The NCAA only allows teams to go on foreign tours one year out of like four or five. Why? Because that extra practice and competion gives teams an advantage (and smaller conference teams could never compete with the tours/competition the big boys could set up).
That win or go home atmosphere turns boys into men. Any experience handling that pressure from the travel and meals to the hotels to the game is good IMO. You bet your ass SouthCarolina benefitted from last year's NIT practice and games.
I'm fine with most of this argument but pointing to South Carolina as an example of benefitting from last year's NIT is illogical. They played 2 games. They killed High Point and then got killed by Georgia Tech. The NIT didn't seem to help any of the NIT final 4 teams last year as none of them made the NCAA Tournament this year. And that's the NIT, which obviously we wouldn't reject an invite to, not the CBI.
I don't think it's illogical at all. Those two games were win or go home. You can't duplicate that pressure November tnrough February. That got them two extra weeks of practice and put the bad taste of having their season "ended" twice in their mouths which gives competitors a chip on their shoulder. Guys who haven't been around a team in that atmosphere underestimate how important it is to experience the little details of class, travel, practice, sleep, and staying focused and loose through it all is to success. That experience is a big reason why programs like Xavier and Butler play so focused while many more talented teams can't get past the nerves.
Now, I'm not saying to caused a jump from NIT to the Elite Eight, but I'm sure it helped and I know it didn't hurt.
The reason why programs like Xavier and Butler continues to succeed, IMO, is based on the winning culture that has enveloped both programs.
The Gamecocks advancing to the second round in last season's NIT didn't hurt at all, but we can't say for certain it helped, as other team's (a few who even went further than South Carolina) in last season's NIT either didn't do diddly this season or went back to the NIT.
Again, that goes back to who they lost and who they returned. If you lose four seniors and a transfer from your 8-9 man rotation, a postseason trip won't have the same effect as it would with a team like us who started four first year players and a second year player.
-
We were either the second or fourth least experienced team of over 300 D-1 teams depending on the source. This notion that we couldn't improve with potentially an extra three weeks and 4-6 games is absurd. You can't look for correlation in something like this generally. A team full of juniors and seniors that loses a half-dozen impact players after the season clearly won't get the same benefit as a team like SJU whose entire roster is eligible to play at least one more season.
Our guys haven't even figured out team defense yet. That can only be learned through experience and by making mistakes. The NCAA only allows teams to go on foreign tours one year out of like four or five. Why? Because that extra practice and competion gives teams an advantage (and smaller conference teams could never compete with the tours/competition the big boys could set up).
That win or go home atmosphere turns boys into men. Any experience handling that pressure from the travel and meals to the hotels to the game is good IMO. You bet your ass SouthCarolina benefitted from last year's NIT practice and games.
I'm fine with most of this argument but pointing to South Carolina as an example of benefitting from last year's NIT is illogical. They played 2 games. They killed High Point and then got killed by Georgia Tech. The NIT didn't seem to help any of the NIT final 4 teams last year as none of them made the NCAA Tournament this year. And that's the NIT, which obviously we wouldn't reject an invite to, not the CBI.
I don't think it's illogical at all. Those two games were win or go home. You can't duplicate that pressure November tnrough February. That got them two extra weeks of practice and put the bad taste of having their season "ended" twice in their mouths which gives competitors a chip on their shoulder. Guys who haven't been around a team in that atmosphere underestimate how important it is to experience the little details of class, travel, practice, sleep, and staying focused and loose through it all is to success. That experience is a big reason why programs like Xavier and Butler play so focused while many more talented teams can't get past the nerves.
Now, I'm not saying to caused a jump from NIT to the Elite Eight, but I'm sure it helped and I know it didn't hurt.
The reason why programs like Xavier and Butler continues to succeed, IMO, is based on the winning culture that has enveloped both programs.
The Gamecocks advancing to the second round in last season's NIT didn't hurt at all, but we can't say for certain it helped, as other team's (a few who even went further than South Carolina) in last season's NIT either didn't do diddly this season or went back to the NIT.
Again, that goes back to who they lost and who they returned. If you lose four seniors and a transfer from your 8-9 man rotation, a postseason trip won't have the same effect as it would with a team like us who started four first year players and a second year player.
BYU, Georgia Tech and George Washington returned enough talent from last season's NIT, respectively, to where they could've catapulted to the NCAA's, this season. Yes, Georgia Tech has a new coach and they're still playing in the NIT, but as I stated, their success in the NIT last season didn't take 'em to the NCAA Tournament in '17.
It's late, and I could be forgetting others. I also know Indiana's Sweet 16 run didn't propel 'em at all this season. They had enough ammo to return to the NCAA Tournament (even with the loss of Yogi Ferrell.
So, again, there isn't any proof the Gamecocks extra two games in last season's NIT absolutely has anything to do with this season's NCAA Tournament run. I totally agree, it didn't hurt 'em. But, you can't say for sure it has helped 'em.
-
St. Peter's beat Texas St. . Another week of practice and another game for them
They'll be no stopping them on their Road to the Final Four next season. ;)
Final 4 of a C tournament with St Johns
For Marco, Foad and Poison:
CBI Finals best two out of three will be televised by ESPNU on Monday, Wednesday and if necessary Friday night. The CIT semi-finals will be televised by CBSSN on Wednesday night with the final televised on Friday night. Enjoy fellas!
The CBI is two of three? That's awesome
Also, regarding the "There's no correlation between playing in a postseason tournament and added success the following year" talk, what is this based on? Were the teams used in this study among the three youngest teams the year they played in the postseason tournament? If any of the teams as young as us who played in a crappy tournament got worse the following year, I would hope the coach was fired.
As Foad and others have said, you get better through experience. You gain experience by playing. I'm not sure why this is even an argument. There may have been other reasons they didn't want to play in a tourney (in theory, had they been invited) but any coach in the land will tell you a young team would get better by playing basketball, rather than by playing video games and drinking.
-
I haven't played golf in about five years, although I do watch others play on television. This lack of practice combined with the hunger for success that watching others win tournaments brings will no doubt after just a few more years of inactivity make me a lock for the senior tour.
-
Extra games couldn't have hurt but personally I'm glad the season is over. CBI/CIT seems like one of these stupid participation awards that kids get nowadays
Both my brackets are blown up now so let's go zags !
-
Also, regarding the "There's no correlation between playing in a postseason tournament and added success the following year" talk, what is this based on?
It's based on looking at who was successful in postseason tournaments one year and not seeing any improvement next year despite returning key players. Pretty simple actually
-
Practice helps no matter what time of the year it is. You can argue that it won't help "a lot." But to say there is no correlation between extra practice/experience and future success is completely illogical.
-
When does this horse die? It can't be beat much more.
-
Extra games couldn't have hurt but personally I'm glad the season is over. CBI/CIT seems like one of these stupid participation awards that kids get nowadays
Both my brackets are blown up now so let's go zags !
Feels to me like a bit of a pride issue. The program doesn't want to lower itself to play in such a tournament meant for St.Peter's. Thing is, St.Peter's is better than we are.
-
Extra games couldn't have hurt but personally I'm glad the season is over. CBI/CIT seems like one of these stupid participation awards that kids get nowadays
Agree.
Both my brackets are blown up now so let's go zags !
Yep! My brackets look like poop on a stick, so I'm now rooting for the Gamecocks. Otherwise, anybody but the Tar Heels (and, possibly, Kentucky).
-
Extra games couldn't have hurt but personally I'm glad the season is over. CBI/CIT seems like one of these stupid participation awards that kids get nowadays
Both my brackets are blown up now so let's go zags !
Feels to me like a bit of a pride issue. The program doesn't want to lower itself to play in such a tournament meant for St.Peter's. Thing is, St.Peter's is better than we are.
But I thought we were better than Clemson and other middle of the pack ACC teams
-
Extra games couldn't have hurt but personally I'm glad the season is over. CBI/CIT seems like one of these stupid participation awards that kids get nowadays
Both my brackets are blown up now so let's go zags !
Feels to me like a bit of a pride issue. The program doesn't want to lower itself to play in such a tournament meant for St.Peter's. Thing is, St.Peter's is better than we are.
But I thought we were better than Clemson and other middle of the pack ACC teams
Not telling you to think otherwise.
-
Extra games couldn't have hurt but personally I'm glad the season is over. CBI/CIT seems like one of these stupid participation awards that kids get nowadays
Both my brackets are blown up now so let's go zags !
Feels to me like a bit of a pride issue. The program doesn't want to lower itself to play in such a tournament meant for St.Peter's. Thing is, St.Peter's is better than we are.
But I thought we were better than Clemson and other middle of the pack ACC teams
Not telling you to think otherwise.
So St Peters is better than Clemson?
-
When does this horse die? It can't be beat much more.
We're just using the thread for extra practice for next season 😆
-
Extra games couldn't have hurt but personally I'm glad the season is over. CBI/CIT seems like one of these stupid participation awards that kids get nowadays
Both my brackets are blown up now so let's go zags !
Feels to me like a bit of a pride issue. The program doesn't want to lower itself to play in such a tournament meant for St.Peter's. Thing is, St.Peter's is better than we are.
But I thought we were better than Clemson and other middle of the pack ACC teams
Not telling you to think otherwise.
So St Peters is better than Clemson?
At that level, who gives a sh*t? Us, Pitt, St. Peter's...we're all flawed teams fighting for scraps. Any one of us can lose to a pure shi*t team any given night.
-
CBI championship on espnu.
-
CBI championship on espnu.
Can't wait! ;)
-
CBI championship on espnu.
Can't wait! ;)
Nevada won this last year.
-
St. Peter's wins again. On to the championship game the cocks go