Messages

1

Kansas State Basketball is hard / Re: I believe

« on: February 12, 2022, 09:34:32 PM »

Pack is just so good.  Best player we've had since Beasley?  Probably controversial, but I think he has a strong case.

The season isn't over and what the team accomplishes has to be factored into that, but so far it is hard to argue you are wrong. At least when just looking at and comparing where any other players was at as a sophomore. Whether raw per game stats, efficiency states or per 40 stats as a sophomore Pack is better than everyone else past 15-20 years. Hard to tell if he'll keep progressing like Pullen but same year comparison he is better at everything across the board and more efficient doing it except slightly less steals and less assist but less turnovers so a better assist/turnover ratio and less fouls.

2

Kansas State Basketball is hard / Re: Chester Frazier=Adorable

« on: May 06, 2021, 01:38:15 PM »

I don't think Chet can replace Orlando Antigua's recruiting

But how about Chin Coleman?

Nope! Better basketball mind but Chin brought in Ayo and Miller. Chet isn't bringing in that kinda talent.

3

Kansas State Basketball is hard / Re: Spirited debate inspired by Dax.

« on: October 31, 2013, 03:13:01 PM »

QS5, how do you know oscar?  Neighbors?  Coworkers?

He's an Illinois tuck that posts as IstillLikeHarv/Illini70math.  Came to love oscar more than Illinois basketball.  His unicorn.  Right color, age, values, brand of basketball, etc.  Perfect in everyway except then he got fired and life got flip-turned upside down.  He loves oscar, because when he looks at oscar he sees himself.  If losery old pud oscar can reach the highest of highs then there's hope for the everyday Bruces out there.  The common man Bruces.  To see him fail is to see a dream destroyed.

Wrong Illini fan Fear!

4

Kansas State Basketball is hard / Re: Spirited debate inspired by Dax.

« on: October 31, 2013, 02:54:40 PM »

Is there a reason that elite gE posters have been arguing with a guy that has 38 posts to his name for the last 4 pages??? This guy obviously has had some kind of head trauma or something, probably better to just ignore him.

When someone throws you a lob it's hard not to swing.

So you're going to swing also by going ahead and stating unequivocally that this years squad is Weber's and if he fails it's all on him and if he has a level of success it's because of him not because it's Frank's players?

5

Kansas State Basketball is hard / Re: IT'S A GOOD OLD FASHIONED SQUAWK HUNT Y'ALL!

« on: October 31, 2013, 02:00:15 PM »

what was the reason oscar's first 4 years @Illinois were ridculously worse than his last 4?

Once again oscar's sucktatudie is on him not the players. So if he loses this years it's because of him and he win's this year it's because of him according to you, nothing to do with Frank?

6

Kansas State Basketball is hard / Re: IT'S A GOOD OLD FASHIONED SQUAWK HUNT Y'ALL!

« on: October 31, 2013, 01:53:31 PM »

I really don't know because I don't care about ksu basketball.  And we'll probably have to wait until the season is over to see who plays. 

Regardless, oscar winning or losing is on him.  the supposition that he sucks with his players isn't negated because he sucks with other people's players this year.

So if he win's this year it's because of him and if he loses it's because of him? Nothing to do with it being Frank's players?

7

Kansas State Basketball is hard / Re: IT'S A GOOD OLD FASHIONED SQUAWK HUNT Y'ALL!

« on: October 31, 2013, 01:49:38 PM »

In order of minutes played:

1 Rodney McGruder
2 Angel Rodriguez
3 Shane Southwell
4 Thomas Gipson
5 Will Spradling
6 Martavious Irving
7 Jordan Henriquez
8 Nino Williams
9 Adrian Diaz
10 D.J. Johnson
11 Omari Lawrence

What drove our success - players 1-5 or 6-10? (please disregard that JO should have been in the top 5).  If someone told me that because players 6-10 were oscar's guys that this was oscar's team, I would have laughed in their face.

So this year's team is definitely Frank's team, not oscar's?

I haven't followed ksu basketball this season, but has the season ended?

So you don't believe that at the very least 3 of the starting positions are already set and that at least 4 of the top 8 rotation guys are set?

8

Kansas State Basketball is hard / Re: IT'S A GOOD OLD FASHIONED SQUAWK HUNT Y'ALL!

« on: October 31, 2013, 01:45:25 PM »

In order of minutes played:

1 Rodney McGruder
2 Angel Rodriguez
3 Shane Southwell
4 Thomas Gipson
5 Will Spradling
6 Martavious Irving
7 Jordan Henriquez
8 Nino Williams
9 Adrian Diaz
10 D.J. Johnson
11 Omari Lawrence

What drove our success - players 1-5 or 6-10? (please disregard that JO should have been in the top 5).  If someone told me that because players 6-10 were oscar's guys that this was oscar's team, I would have laughed in their face.

So this year's team is definitely Frank's team, not oscar's?

9

Kansas State Basketball is hard / Re: IT'S A GOOD OLD FASHIONED SQUAWK HUNT Y'ALL!

« on: October 31, 2013, 01:19:56 PM »

can the guy with the tenth most amount of minutes played on a team in a sport that only gives out thirteen scholarships really be considered a "regular player"?

so did you play a lot?
hell yeah. a ton.
how much?
well i was top ten on the whole team in terms of minutes per game.
oh that sounds impressive. how many people are on the team?
thirteen.
oh. 

Well impressive enough to earn a letter in high school and college for it as someone who was a regular participant.

so were you a regular player that contributed a lot to your teams on the court success or failure?
yep. absolutely.
that's awesome. tell me about it.
i got a letter.
a letter? what do you mean?
i got a letter.
cool but i mean how many points and minutes and things of that nature?
letter.
what?
letter.

Yeah playing in almost every game means nothing.

10

Kansas State Basketball is hard / Re: Dax talks to and teaches his gEMAW friends.

« on: October 31, 2013, 01:17:15 PM »

storm is excoriating the always angry too cool for schoolers.

Not really.  And he's making stuff up.

weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players.  He did it once.  He did, however, finish 9th twice with his own players.

weber's an inarticulate, insecure rube who can't recruit or manage a big-time program and that's why he's not a top 50 coach.  Using 5 year rolling periods, with his own players, weber had the 13th worst 5 year period in Illinois history (his last 5 years).  That's out of 100 or so such periods.  He was in the 13th percentile.

That sucks.

Frank beat 3 Top 10 teams with essentially a year younger team, and won a game in the NCAA on top of it. I think he would have done alright with the team last year.

Weber did in fact finish 2nd twice in the BigTen with rosters of all or mostly his players. 05-06 and 08-09. Pretty simple math count the players on the roster count who were his recruits and if more were his recruits then lo-and behold it's a team of mostly his players.

The top four guys in 05-06 in minutes per and scoring were all Self recruits.  Dee and James were seniors on that team.  That wasn't a oscar squad.  Suggesting otherwise based on total number of players recruited on the squad confirms you as a dumbfuck.

I believe you confirmed that about yourself that last time you attempted to correct me and got proven wrong. Only to be a little girl and resort to name calling. So according to you it's not a coaches sqaud until all the players are his not just most of the players but all of them? When all of the starters are his? When only the top rotation players are his? You started off by proving your an idiot with the stupid statement "weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players.  He did it once" You have all but acknowledged that was factually false. You have all but literally walked away from that by now saying well it wasn't his team because even though most of the players on the team were his not enough of them played enough minutes to meet your moving criteria. Don't move the goal post now! Don't get so angry and annoyed that you don't get to be percieved as all knowing about the Illini on here!

i would guess that somewhere around 98% of people, who even somewhat casually follow the sport of college basketball, would tell you that if a team's top four scorers and minutes per game players were recruited by a previous coach then the team isn't really the current coaches team regardless of how many of "his guys" are riding the pine. of course that's just my opinion and the opinion of almost every other rational brain thinking human out there. you do what you want and don't let anyone try to convince you not to.

And then they would be factually wrong unless they are of the belief that it isn't a coaches team until all of the players are his. When 5 of the 9 regulars are the current coaches and the coach has been there 3 years, guess what it's his team unless your arguement is that it's not his team until it's all his players. Otherwise then your arguemnt is Weber can't be judged by anything that happens this year so no matter how awful KSU may be this year it's not on him since the top 4 players in minutes will be Martin's players. We know Weber can win with other coaches players so if he doesn't win this year then it's not a reflection on him it's because of Franks players since it's Franks team? When is it his team, is it when all of the players are his? When the majority of the players who see regular playing time are his? When none of the starters are the previous coaches?

well i would say that some (most?) humans have the ability to critically think. that is to say that there does not need to be a specific formula for them to decide if a team is or isn't a direct reflection of the current coach (his team). the illinois one would obvioiusly fail for most (all?) rational humans with the ability to critically assess. top four scorers? top four ppg? that one is easy. very. last years was also obviously not his. obviously. just like the illinois one that we just got done chatting about. but this years? this years? that's tougher. if oscar wouldn't have chased off angel and adrian then i would say still not his. now? i'm not so sure. interesting question though. maybe a new thread is needed?

Thanks for at least attempting to answer the quetion. The fact that you seem to be non-commital about your answer though continues to prove my point. If the 05-06 Illini team wasn't Weber's despite 5 of the 9 players who played 10 minutes or more being his and despite 6 out of the 10 who played regularly being his how is there any question about whether this years KSU team is his or not? It will have almost the same construct and make up as that 05-06 Illini team especially in the non-conference,  with this being only his 2nd year at KSU as opposed to his 3rd at Illinois? You either go with actual static data and facts and not "it feels like or because most people would say" crutches. It's simple it's either when the majority of the guys playing are yours or when they are all yours. Not some contorted view that you can't quantify because it fits what you already want to believe. Otherwise it would be no problem for you to just say this years KSU team is still Frank's.  depending on only actual facts and and not crutches of "everyone would say" or "most people would think" makes things a lot simpler.

hey dork- nobody can answer your question about this year because a single game hasn't even been played yet. did foster wrestle away a starting job? did nigel average 20 minutes a game. did DJamer lock down the four spot? nobody knows. there is no data to analyze. of course i'm going to be a non-commital. last years team-not oscar's team. that other illinois team-not oscar's team. this year? dunno yet. if you have the end of the year stats by way of time machine of something then shoot them over to me. i'll spend roughly 11 seconds looking at them and get back to you about whose "team" it was.

Umm actually it's not hard to answer at all. Unless some how when this season starts you truly don't believe that Will, Shane and Thomas won't start and that Nino won't play significant minutes. As I said it will have almost the same construct as the Illini team unless somehow you don't believe those things to be true.

i mean, if you are asking me whether or not i hope that in the two years that oscar has been here that he has been able to recruit someone that is better at basketball than nino williams then my answer would be yes.

No I'm asking is a team where at least 3 of the starters will be players recruited by Frank and almost assuredlly at minimum 4 of the top players in minutes played will be players Frank recruited, will it be Weber's team or Frank's? With the fact in mind that we know Weber can win with other coaches players.

11

Kansas State Basketball is hard / Re: IT'S A GOOD OLD FASHIONED SQUAWK HUNT Y'ALL!

« on: October 31, 2013, 01:08:41 PM »

can the guy with the tenth most amount of minutes played on a team in a sport that only gives out thirteen scholarships really be considered a "regular player"?

so did you play a lot?
hell yeah. a ton.
how much?
well i was top ten on the whole team in terms of minutes per game.
oh that sounds impressive. how many people are on the team?
thirteen.
oh. 

Well impressive enough to earn a letter in high school and college for it as someone who was a regular participant.

12

Kansas State Basketball is hard / Re: Dax talks to and teaches his gEMAW friends.

« on: October 31, 2013, 12:55:54 PM »

storm is excoriating the always angry too cool for schoolers.

Not really.  And he's making stuff up.

weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players.  He did it once.  He did, however, finish 9th twice with his own players.

weber's an inarticulate, insecure rube who can't recruit or manage a big-time program and that's why he's not a top 50 coach.  Using 5 year rolling periods, with his own players, weber had the 13th worst 5 year period in Illinois history (his last 5 years).  That's out of 100 or so such periods.  He was in the 13th percentile.

That sucks.

Frank beat 3 Top 10 teams with essentially a year younger team, and won a game in the NCAA on top of it. I think he would have done alright with the team last year.

Weber did in fact finish 2nd twice in the BigTen with rosters of all or mostly his players. 05-06 and 08-09. Pretty simple math count the players on the roster count who were his recruits and if more were his recruits then lo-and behold it's a team of mostly his players.

The top four guys in 05-06 in minutes per and scoring were all Self recruits.  Dee and James were seniors on that team.  That wasn't a oscar squad.  Suggesting otherwise based on total number of players recruited on the squad confirms you as a dumbfuck.

I believe you confirmed that about yourself that last time you attempted to correct me and got proven wrong. Only to be a little girl and resort to name calling. So according to you it's not a coaches sqaud until all the players are his not just most of the players but all of them? When all of the starters are his? When only the top rotation players are his? You started off by proving your an idiot with the stupid statement "weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players.  He did it once" You have all but acknowledged that was factually false. You have all but literally walked away from that by now saying well it wasn't his team because even though most of the players on the team were his not enough of them played enough minutes to meet your moving criteria. Don't move the goal post now! Don't get so angry and annoyed that you don't get to be percieved as all knowing about the Illini on here!

i would guess that somewhere around 98% of people, who even somewhat casually follow the sport of college basketball, would tell you that if a team's top four scorers and minutes per game players were recruited by a previous coach then the team isn't really the current coaches team regardless of how many of "his guys" are riding the pine. of course that's just my opinion and the opinion of almost every other rational brain thinking human out there. you do what you want and don't let anyone try to convince you not to.

And then they would be factually wrong unless they are of the belief that it isn't a coaches team until all of the players are his. When 5 of the 9 regulars are the current coaches and the coach has been there 3 years, guess what it's his team unless your arguement is that it's not his team until it's all his players. Otherwise then your arguemnt is Weber can't be judged by anything that happens this year so no matter how awful KSU may be this year it's not on him since the top 4 players in minutes will be Martin's players. We know Weber can win with other coaches players so if he doesn't win this year then it's not a reflection on him it's because of Franks players since it's Franks team? When is it his team, is it when all of the players are his? When the majority of the players who see regular playing time are his? When none of the starters are the previous coaches?

well i would say that some (most?) humans have the ability to critically think. that is to say that there does not need to be a specific formula for them to decide if a team is or isn't a direct reflection of the current coach (his team). the illinois one would obvioiusly fail for most (all?) rational humans with the ability to critically assess. top four scorers? top four ppg? that one is easy. very. last years was also obviously not his. obviously. just like the illinois one that we just got done chatting about. but this years? this years? that's tougher. if oscar wouldn't have chased off angel and adrian then i would say still not his. now? i'm not so sure. interesting question though. maybe a new thread is needed?

Thanks for at least attempting to answer the quetion. The fact that you seem to be non-commital about your answer though continues to prove my point. If the 05-06 Illini team wasn't Weber's despite 5 of the 9 players who played 10 minutes or more being his and despite 6 out of the 10 who played regularly being his how is there any question about whether this years KSU team is his or not? It will have almost the same construct and make up as that 05-06 Illini team especially in the non-conference,  with this being only his 2nd year at KSU as opposed to his 3rd at Illinois? You either go with actual static data and facts and not "it feels like or because most people would say" crutches. It's simple it's either when the majority of the guys playing are yours or when they are all yours. Not some contorted view that you can't quantify because it fits what you already want to believe. Otherwise it would be no problem for you to just say this years KSU team is still Frank's.  depending on only actual facts and and not crutches of "everyone would say" or "most people would think" makes things a lot simpler.

Also, dumbfuck, oscar didn't recruit Warren Carter.  That's a Self stud from Texas.  So by your logic that would make it 4 of 9 oscar rotation guys.  Not his team now?

I think that's the first factually correct statement you've made, so only half of the 10 regulars were Weber's! And again my fault I didn't know your feelings got hurt so easily!

13

Kansas State Basketball is hard / Re: Dax talks to and teaches his gEMAW friends.

« on: October 31, 2013, 12:53:23 PM »

storm is excoriating the always angry too cool for schoolers.

Not really.  And he's making stuff up.

weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players.  He did it once.  He did, however, finish 9th twice with his own players.

weber's an inarticulate, insecure rube who can't recruit or manage a big-time program and that's why he's not a top 50 coach.  Using 5 year rolling periods, with his own players, weber had the 13th worst 5 year period in Illinois history (his last 5 years).  That's out of 100 or so such periods.  He was in the 13th percentile.

That sucks.

Frank beat 3 Top 10 teams with essentially a year younger team, and won a game in the NCAA on top of it. I think he would have done alright with the team last year.

Weber did in fact finish 2nd twice in the BigTen with rosters of all or mostly his players. 05-06 and 08-09. Pretty simple math count the players on the roster count who were his recruits and if more were his recruits then lo-and behold it's a team of mostly his players.

The top four guys in 05-06 in minutes per and scoring were all Self recruits.  Dee and James were seniors on that team.  That wasn't a oscar squad.  Suggesting otherwise based on total number of players recruited on the squad confirms you as a dumbfuck.

I believe you confirmed that about yourself that last time you attempted to correct me and got proven wrong. Only to be a little girl and resort to name calling. So according to you it's not a coaches sqaud until all the players are his not just most of the players but all of them? When all of the starters are his? When only the top rotation players are his? You started off by proving your an idiot with the stupid statement "weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players.  He did it once" You have all but acknowledged that was factually false. You have all but literally walked away from that by now saying well it wasn't his team because even though most of the players on the team were his not enough of them played enough minutes to meet your moving criteria. Don't move the goal post now! Don't get so angry and annoyed that you don't get to be percieved as all knowing about the Illini on here!

i would guess that somewhere around 98% of people, who even somewhat casually follow the sport of college basketball, would tell you that if a team's top four scorers and minutes per game players were recruited by a previous coach then the team isn't really the current coaches team regardless of how many of "his guys" are riding the pine. of course that's just my opinion and the opinion of almost every other rational brain thinking human out there. you do what you want and don't let anyone try to convince you not to.

And then they would be factually wrong unless they are of the belief that it isn't a coaches team until all of the players are his. When 5 of the 9 regulars are the current coaches and the coach has been there 3 years, guess what it's his team unless your arguement is that it's not his team until it's all his players. Otherwise then your arguemnt is Weber can't be judged by anything that happens this year so no matter how awful KSU may be this year it's not on him since the top 4 players in minutes will be Martin's players. We know Weber can win with other coaches players so if he doesn't win this year then it's not a reflection on him it's because of Franks players since it's Franks team? When is it his team, is it when all of the players are his? When the majority of the players who see regular playing time are his? When none of the starters are the previous coaches?

well i would say that some (most?) humans have the ability to critically think. that is to say that there does not need to be a specific formula for them to decide if a team is or isn't a direct reflection of the current coach (his team). the illinois one would obvioiusly fail for most (all?) rational humans with the ability to critically assess. top four scorers? top four ppg? that one is easy. very. last years was also obviously not his. obviously. just like the illinois one that we just got done chatting about. but this years? this years? that's tougher. if oscar wouldn't have chased off angel and adrian then i would say still not his. now? i'm not so sure. interesting question though. maybe a new thread is needed?

Thanks for at least attempting to answer the quetion. The fact that you seem to be non-commital about your answer though continues to prove my point. If the 05-06 Illini team wasn't Weber's despite 5 of the 9 players who played 10 minutes or more being his and despite 6 out of the 10 who played regularly being his how is there any question about whether this years KSU team is his or not? It will have almost the same construct and make up as that 05-06 Illini team especially in the non-conference,  with this being only his 2nd year at KSU as opposed to his 3rd at Illinois? You either go with actual static data and facts and not "it feels like or because most people would say" crutches. It's simple it's either when the majority of the guys playing are yours or when they are all yours. Not some contorted view that you can't quantify because it fits what you already want to believe. Otherwise it would be no problem for you to just say this years KSU team is still Frank's.  depending on only actual facts and and not crutches of "everyone would say" or "most people would think" makes things a lot simpler.

hey dork- nobody can answer your question about this year because a single game hasn't even been played yet. did foster wrestle away a starting job? did nigel average 20 minutes a game. did DJamer lock down the four spot? nobody knows. there is no data to analyze. of course i'm going to be a non-commital. last years team-not oscar's team. that other illinois team-not oscar's team. this year? dunno yet. if you have the end of the year stats by way of time machine of something then shoot them over to me. i'll spend roughly 11 seconds looking at them and get back to you about whose "team" it was.

Umm actually it's not hard to answer at all. Unless some how when this season starts you truly don't believe that Will, Shane and Thomas won't start and that Nino won't play significant minutes. As I said it will have almost the same construct as the Illini team unless somehow you don't believe those things to be true.

14

Kansas State Basketball is hard / Re: Dax talks to and teaches his gEMAW friends.

« on: October 31, 2013, 12:47:19 PM »

storm is excoriating the always angry too cool for schoolers.

Not really.  And he's making stuff up.

weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players.  He did it once.  He did, however, finish 9th twice with his own players.

weber's an inarticulate, insecure rube who can't recruit or manage a big-time program and that's why he's not a top 50 coach.  Using 5 year rolling periods, with his own players, weber had the 13th worst 5 year period in Illinois history (his last 5 years).  That's out of 100 or so such periods.  He was in the 13th percentile.

That sucks.

Frank beat 3 Top 10 teams with essentially a year younger team, and won a game in the NCAA on top of it. I think he would have done alright with the team last year.

Weber did in fact finish 2nd twice in the BigTen with rosters of all or mostly his players. 05-06 and 08-09. Pretty simple math count the players on the roster count who were his recruits and if more were his recruits then lo-and behold it's a team of mostly his players.

The top four guys in 05-06 in minutes per and scoring were all Self recruits.  Dee and James were seniors on that team.  That wasn't a oscar squad.  Suggesting otherwise based on total number of players recruited on the squad confirms you as a dumbfuck.

I believe you confirmed that about yourself that last time you attempted to correct me and got proven wrong. Only to be a little girl and resort to name calling. So according to you it's not a coaches sqaud until all the players are his not just most of the players but all of them? When all of the starters are his? When only the top rotation players are his? You started off by proving your an idiot with the stupid statement "weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players.  He did it once" You have all but acknowledged that was factually false. You have all but literally walked away from that by now saying well it wasn't his team because even though most of the players on the team were his not enough of them played enough minutes to meet your moving criteria. Don't move the goal post now! Don't get so angry and annoyed that you don't get to be percieved as all knowing about the Illini on here!

You were actually arguing with two different people here dumbfuck.  I'm not feartheillini.

Uh-oh did your feelings get hurt again? I could have sworn you and Fear were the same guy on here and the Illini boards. You were the only idiots to try and prove me wrong about Quinton Watkins only to get be so easily proven wrong. My fault if you two aren't on in the same.

15

Kansas State Basketball is hard / Re: Dax talks to and teaches his gEMAW friends.

« on: October 31, 2013, 12:26:00 PM »

storm is excoriating the always angry too cool for schoolers.

Not really.  And he's making stuff up.

weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players.  He did it once.  He did, however, finish 9th twice with his own players.

weber's an inarticulate, insecure rube who can't recruit or manage a big-time program and that's why he's not a top 50 coach.  Using 5 year rolling periods, with his own players, weber had the 13th worst 5 year period in Illinois history (his last 5 years).  That's out of 100 or so such periods.  He was in the 13th percentile.

That sucks.

Frank beat 3 Top 10 teams with essentially a year younger team, and won a game in the NCAA on top of it. I think he would have done alright with the team last year.

Weber did in fact finish 2nd twice in the BigTen with rosters of all or mostly his players. 05-06 and 08-09. Pretty simple math count the players on the roster count who were his recruits and if more were his recruits then lo-and behold it's a team of mostly his players.

The top four guys in 05-06 in minutes per and scoring were all Self recruits.  Dee and James were seniors on that team.  That wasn't a oscar squad.  Suggesting otherwise based on total number of players recruited on the squad confirms you as a dumbfuck.

I believe you confirmed that about yourself that last time you attempted to correct me and got proven wrong. Only to be a little girl and resort to name calling. So according to you it's not a coaches sqaud until all the players are his not just most of the players but all of them? When all of the starters are his? When only the top rotation players are his? You started off by proving your an idiot with the stupid statement "weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players.  He did it once" You have all but acknowledged that was factually false. You have all but literally walked away from that by now saying well it wasn't his team because even though most of the players on the team were his not enough of them played enough minutes to meet your moving criteria. Don't move the goal post now! Don't get so angry and annoyed that you don't get to be percieved as all knowing about the Illini on here!

i would guess that somewhere around 98% of people, who even somewhat casually follow the sport of college basketball, would tell you that if a team's top four scorers and minutes per game players were recruited by a previous coach then the team isn't really the current coaches team regardless of how many of "his guys" are riding the pine. of course that's just my opinion and the opinion of almost every other rational brain thinking human out there. you do what you want and don't let anyone try to convince you not to.

And then they would be factually wrong unless they are of the belief that it isn't a coaches team until all of the players are his. When 5 of the 9 regulars are the current coaches and the coach has been there 3 years, guess what it's his team unless your arguement is that it's not his team until it's all his players. Otherwise then your arguemnt is Weber can't be judged by anything that happens this year so no matter how awful KSU may be this year it's not on him since the top 4 players in minutes will be Martin's players. We know Weber can win with other coaches players so if he doesn't win this year then it's not a reflection on him it's because of Franks players since it's Franks team? When is it his team, is it when all of the players are his? When the majority of the players who see regular playing time are his? When none of the starters are the previous coaches?

well i would say that some (most?) humans have the ability to critically think. that is to say that there does not need to be a specific formula for them to decide if a team is or isn't a direct reflection of the current coach (his team). the illinois one would obvioiusly fail for most (all?) rational humans with the ability to critically assess. top four scorers? top four ppg? that one is easy. very. last years was also obviously not his. obviously. just like the illinois one that we just got done chatting about. but this years? this years? that's tougher. if oscar wouldn't have chased off angel and adrian then i would say still not his. now? i'm not so sure. interesting question though. maybe a new thread is needed?

Thanks for at least attempting to answer the quetion. The fact that you seem to be non-commital about your answer though continues to prove my point. If the 05-06 Illini team wasn't Weber's despite 5 of the 9 players who played 10 minutes or more being his and despite 6 out of the 10 who played regularly being his how is there any question about whether this years KSU team is his or not? It will have almost the same construct and make up as that 05-06 Illini team especially in the non-conference,  with this being only his 2nd year at KSU as opposed to his 3rd at Illinois? You either go with actual static data and facts and not "it feels like or because most people would say" crutches. It's simple it's either when the majority of the guys playing are yours or when they are all yours. Not some contorted view that you can't quantify because it fits what you already want to believe. Otherwise it would be no problem for you to just say this years KSU team is still Frank's.  depending on only actual facts and and not crutches of "everyone would say" or "most people would think" makes things a lot simpler.

16

Kansas State Basketball is hard / Re: Dax talks to and teaches his gEMAW friends.

« on: October 31, 2013, 11:50:51 AM »

All others on the team could be webs guys but if the top 4 scorers and min played are selfs guys, its a self team.  Argue technicality and number of useless guys all you want.

What most people call a technicality is a provable fact! When 5 of the 9 guys who play 10 minutes or more per game or his players and 6 out 10 who saw regular minutes in over half the games played on a team in year 3 of a coach most people call that his team because the majority of the players playing are his. If you disagree define when it becomes his team. At what point does it become his team? since obviously it isn't when the majority of the guys playing being his isn't the line of demarcation for you.

17

Kansas State Basketball is hard / Re: Dax talks to and teaches his gEMAW friends.

« on: October 31, 2013, 11:43:37 AM »

storm is excoriating the always angry too cool for schoolers.

Not really.  And he's making stuff up.

weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players.  He did it once.  He did, however, finish 9th twice with his own players.

weber's an inarticulate, insecure rube who can't recruit or manage a big-time program and that's why he's not a top 50 coach.  Using 5 year rolling periods, with his own players, weber had the 13th worst 5 year period in Illinois history (his last 5 years).  That's out of 100 or so such periods.  He was in the 13th percentile.

That sucks.

Frank beat 3 Top 10 teams with essentially a year younger team, and won a game in the NCAA on top of it. I think he would have done alright with the team last year.

Weber did in fact finish 2nd twice in the BigTen with rosters of all or mostly his players. 05-06 and 08-09. Pretty simple math count the players on the roster count who were his recruits and if more were his recruits then lo-and behold it's a team of mostly his players.

The top four guys in 05-06 in minutes per and scoring were all Self recruits.  Dee and James were seniors on that team.  That wasn't a oscar squad.  Suggesting otherwise based on total number of players recruited on the squad confirms you as a dumbfuck.

I believe you confirmed that about yourself that last time you attempted to correct me and got proven wrong. Only to be a little girl and resort to name calling. So according to you it's not a coaches sqaud until all the players are his not just most of the players but all of them? When all of the starters are his? When only the top rotation players are his? You started off by proving your an idiot with the stupid statement "weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players.  He did it once" You have all but acknowledged that was factually false. You have all but literally walked away from that by now saying well it wasn't his team because even though most of the players on the team were his not enough of them played enough minutes to meet your moving criteria. Don't move the goal post now! Don't get so angry and annoyed that you don't get to be percieved as all knowing about the Illini on here!

i would guess that somewhere around 98% of people, who even somewhat casually follow the sport of college basketball, would tell you that if a team's top four scorers and minutes per game players were recruited by a previous coach then the team isn't really the current coaches team regardless of how many of "his guys" are riding the pine. of course that's just my opinion and the opinion of almost every other rational brain thinking human out there. you do what you want and don't let anyone try to convince you not to.

And then they would be factually wrong unless they are of the belief that it isn't a coaches team until all of the players are his. When 5 of the 9 regulars are the current coaches and the coach has been there 3 years, guess what it's his team unless your arguement is that it's not his team until it's all his players. Otherwise then your arguemnt is Weber can't be judged by anything that happens this year so no matter how awful KSU may be this year it's not on him since the top 4 players in minutes will be Martin's players. We know Weber can win with other coaches players so if he doesn't win this year then it's not a reflection on him it's because of Franks players since it's Franks team? When is it his team, is it when all of the players are his? When the majority of the players who see regular playing time are his? When none of the starters are the previous coaches?

18

Kansas State Basketball is hard / Re: Dax talks to and teaches his gEMAW friends.

« on: October 31, 2013, 11:22:34 AM »

storm is excoriating the always angry too cool for schoolers.

Not really.  And he's making stuff up.

weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players.  He did it once.  He did, however, finish 9th twice with his own players.

weber's an inarticulate, insecure rube who can't recruit or manage a big-time program and that's why he's not a top 50 coach.  Using 5 year rolling periods, with his own players, weber had the 13th worst 5 year period in Illinois history (his last 5 years).  That's out of 100 or so such periods.  He was in the 13th percentile.

That sucks.

Frank beat 3 Top 10 teams with essentially a year younger team, and won a game in the NCAA on top of it. I think he would have done alright with the team last year.

Weber did in fact finish 2nd twice in the BigTen with rosters of all or mostly his players. 05-06 and 08-09. Pretty simple math count the players on the roster count who were his recruits and if more were his recruits then lo-and behold it's a team of mostly his players.

The top four guys in 05-06 in minutes per and scoring were all Self recruits.  Dee and James were seniors on that team.  That wasn't a oscar squad.  Suggesting otherwise based on total number of players recruited on the squad confirms you as a dumbfuck.

I believe you confirmed that about yourself that last time you attempted to correct me and got proven wrong. Only to be a little girl and resort to name calling. So according to you it's not a coaches sqaud until all the players are his not just most of the players but all of them? When all of the starters are his? When only the top rotation players are his? You started off by proving your an idiot with the stupid statement "weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players.  He did it once" You have all but acknowledged that was factually false. You have all but literally walked away from that by now saying well it wasn't his team because even though most of the players on the team were his not enough of them played enough minutes to meet your moving criteria. Don't move the goal post now! Don't get so angry and annoyed that you don't get to be percieved as all knowing about the Illini on here!

19

Kansas State Basketball is hard / Re: Dax talks to and teaches his gEMAW friends.

« on: October 31, 2013, 07:46:22 AM »

storm is excoriating the always angry too cool for schoolers.

Not really.  And he's making stuff up.

weber didn't finish 2nd twice with mostly his own players.  He did it once.  He did, however, finish 9th twice with his own players.

weber's an inarticulate, insecure rube who can't recruit or manage a big-time program and that's why he's not a top 50 coach.  Using 5 year rolling periods, with his own players, weber had the 13th worst 5 year period in Illinois history (his last 5 years).  That's out of 100 or so such periods.  He was in the 13th percentile.

That sucks.

Frank beat 3 Top 10 teams with essentially a year younger team, and won a game in the NCAA on top of it. I think he would have done alright with the team last year.

So I see we have to do this again huh How often do you have to challenge me on facts only to be proven wrong? Unlike you I don't have any wierd, overly emotional reaction to Weber so I can look at actual facts and not look for ways to manipulate them to fit my predetermined preference. Weber did in fact finish 2nd twice in the BigTen with rosters of all or mostly his players. 05-06 and 08-09. Pretty simple math count the players on the roster count who were his recruits and if more were his recruits then lo-and behold it's a team of mostly his players. If that simple math doesn't work for you then you can't say he finished 9th twice with teams of all his players because one of those teams weren't all his players! Once again don't try and be a douche and correct someone about Illini facts when it's someon who has more knowledge about them than you!! 

20

Kansas State Basketball is hard / Re: Dax Goes On A Squawk Hunt

« on: October 30, 2013, 04:35:21 PM »

Daris:  Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play.   You have to look long and rough ridin' hard to find much negative in there, the negativity is purely subjective at that juncture.

gosh darnit dax, no one (especially me) is arguing with your nameless oscar weber resume talking points so you can stop posting them. the argument (at least from me) is that they are simply that and nothing more.

Then there's massive swaths of the so called "Top 40" coaches who have nothing more than nameless talking points on their resume.

everything you listed above and then some could be applied to mike davis. their nameless bulletpoint resumes are virtually identical. that is why your "Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play" talking points are discounted and juvenile. i mean, just in case you were wondering.

also, if one factors in that oscar was fired from his previous job for losing too often then you really don't have to look that far to see a great big neon flashing negative.

Well except for the fact that Davis doesn't even have an overall winning % of 61%, not near 70% and the fact that he has never won more than 1 NCAA game before or after his Final 4 appearance and Weber has 2 S16s along with 3 times as many NCAA wins outside of his final 4 seasons, Weber has almost twice as many conference titles and has a better overall conference winning % despite coaching the majority of the time in high major conferences, their resumes are exactly a like 

i mean there are a million ways that you can bullet point out stuff like this on a resume and that was my whole point. congrats for just proving it. you made weber look good. good job. let me know if you want me to exercise this out for you and do the opposite. hopefully i won't need to though.

So you're saying Mike Davis and Weber do have similar resumes? Yes you can simply remove data at your pleasing to attempt to make Davis look better but I didn't attempt to make a blind comparison of partial data. I did a complete comparison of all data points for 2 known entities. This isn't bullet pointing things to make Weber look good this was pointing out all the data points to show that 2 different wholes weren't comparable, the absolute opposite of what you want to do. You want to parse out data points that fit your desired end result to make the 2 appear equal. I used all data to show there isn't anything equal about them.

21

Kansas State Basketball is hard / Re: Dax Goes On A Squawk Hunt

« on: October 30, 2013, 04:26:57 PM »

Daris:  Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play.   You have to look long and rough ridin' hard to find much negative in there, the negativity is purely subjective at that juncture.

gosh darnit dax, no one (especially me) is arguing with your nameless oscar weber resume talking points so you can stop posting them. the argument (at least from me) is that they are simply that and nothing more.

Then there's massive swaths of the so called "Top 40" coaches who have nothing more than nameless talking points on their resume.

everything you listed above and then some could be applied to mike davis. their nameless bulletpoint resumes are virtually identical. that is why your "Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play" talking points are discounted and juvenile. i mean, just in case you were wondering.

also, if one factors in that oscar was fired from his previous job for losing too often then you really don't have to look that far to see a great big neon flashing negative.

Well except for the fact that Davis doesn't even have an overall winning % of 61%, not near 70% and the fact that he has never won more than 1 NCAA game before or after his Final 4 appearance and Weber has 2 S16s along with 3 times as many NCAA wins outside of his final 4 seasons, Weber has almost twice as many conference titles and has a better overall conference winning % despite coaching the majority of the time in high major conferences, their resumes are exactly a like 

jfc.  During their Big 10 careers:
Overall / Conf
oscar   .675 / .578
Mike     .592 / .572

Both made Finals - Mike missed the post season 1/6 seasons, oscar 2/9.  Mike won big 10 once, oscar won twice - (his first two years with Bill Self's players).

Both were fired for performance.  this is so stupid.  oscar sucking is independent of anyone else sucking.  it doesn't matter if some other coach sucked just like oscar, what matters is that oscar sucked and got fired for it.  He was going to get hired by the College of Charleston until Currie called.

It is stupid to compare them since their overall records are nothing a like! Weber has an extremely solid record pre- Illinois Davis as no record before IU.  Davis has an overall conference record of 63% Weber 68%. despite Weber spending his in far more highly regarded conferences. Weber's over record .676, Davis .606.  Weber has made the NCAA tourney 9 of 16 years, Davis 5 of 13. Weber has a S16 and 3 NCAA tourney wins outised of his BigTen tour. Mike Davis has all of 1 NCAA tourney appearance and no wins! Weber placed 2nd twice in the BigTen with rosters made mostly of his players, Davis never did better than 4th. There is no comparison! There are many things to bash oscar for so the weak sauce of trying to equate him and Davis was pretty sad. So why was that attempt made in the first place? 

22

Kansas State Basketball is hard / Re: Dax Goes On A Squawk Hunt

« on: October 30, 2013, 03:55:17 PM »

Daris:  Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play.   You have to look long and rough ridin' hard to find much negative in there, the negativity is purely subjective at that juncture.

gosh darnit dax, no one (especially me) is arguing with your nameless oscar weber resume talking points so you can stop posting them. the argument (at least from me) is that they are simply that and nothing more.

Then there's massive swaths of the so called "Top 40" coaches who have nothing more than nameless talking points on their resume.

everything you listed above and then some could be applied to mike davis. their nameless bulletpoint resumes are virtually identical. that is why your "Nearly a .700 winning percentage in 15 years as a head coach, over .500 in the NCAA tourney, only one losing season overall, and only 2 losing seasons in conference play" talking points are discounted and juvenile. i mean, just in case you were wondering.

also, if one factors in that oscar was fired from his previous job for losing too often then you really don't have to look that far to see a great big neon flashing negative.

Well except for the fact that Davis doesn't even have an overall winning % of 61%, not near 70% and the fact that he has never won more than 1 NCAA game before or after his Final 4 appearance and Weber has 2 S16s along with 3 times as many NCAA wins outside of his final 4 seasons, Weber has almost twice as many conference titles and has a better overall conference winning % despite coaching the majority of the time in high major conferences, their resumes are exactly a like 

23

Kansas State Basketball is hard / Re: 2014 Recruiting Thread

« on: October 02, 2013, 10:52:32 AM »

Good pick up. He had offers from Indiana, Arizona, Miami, and Tennessee.

I see his only offers being Miami and Wichita St.

There are multiple articles out there about Hurt being offered and taking an unofficial visit to IU then deciding against taking an official and cutting them from his list. He was offered by them on his unofficial visit. The same with Tennessee, offered on his unofficial but he cut his list to the 3 you mentioned. There are multiple articles about him on IU and Tennesse sites.

http://247sports.com/Player/Stephen-Hurt-33761

24

Kansas State Basketball is hard / Re: 2013 Recruiting Thread

« on: June 28, 2013, 03:39:24 PM »

This is correct from what I have heard also. Very similar to another Cali recruit oscar had at Illinois, Quinton Watkins. He was a very good student but had really screwed up transcripts from attending multiple high schools in different districts, with different requirements. Some schools backed off because they didn't know if he'd be cleared to play. Most schools never really expressed any serious interest due to that uncertainty. Don't know if he's any good but his lack of offers was more to do with qualifying issues.

Watkins was not a "very good student."  He didn't go anywhere in 2007.  Not even juco.  Enrolled at SDSU in January of 2008 and was out of school by April that same year.  Didn't turn up in the juco ranks until 2010 and is now playing D-II ball.  You're a rough ridin' dumbass.

I'm a derpy fuckface who doesn't know crap.  I'm sorry that I tried to mislead everyone with my ignorance.  Thank you for correcting me Mr Bread.

No problem, bud.

Again, I'd just like to say what a complete rough ridin' crap sack dunce I am and sincerely apologize for my raging derpitude.  In fact if you'd permit me, I'd like to suck on your balls as an act of contrition.  I'm really, really rough ridin' contrite and I'd like to suck on those balls of yours.  Thoughts?

No thanks, bud.  You hang in there.

Oh now I get it, your gay! Not that there's anything wrong with that mind you. But you can just lead off with that when you get smashed with facts then everyone will know why you can't admit your wrong, you like getting smashed as often as possible. I'm not into that tho, so I'd really prefer not to play any part in your fantasy to get smashed by members of this board. Thanks in advance for understanding but good luck in your search of a man for that.

25

Kansas State Basketball is hard / Re: 2013 Recruiting Thread

« on: June 28, 2013, 02:58:50 PM »

This is correct from what I have heard also. Very similar to another Cali recruit oscar had at Illinois, Quinton Watkins. He was a very good student but had really screwed up transcripts from attending multiple high schools in different districts, with different requirements. Some schools backed off because they didn't know if he'd be cleared to play. Most schools never really expressed any serious interest due to that uncertainty. Don't know if he's any good but his lack of offers was more to do with qualifying issues.

Watkins was not a "very good student."  He didn't go anywhere in 2007.  Not even juco.  Enrolled at SDSU in January of 2008 and was out of school by April that same year.  Didn't turn up in the juco ranks until 2010 and is now playing D-II ball.  You're a rough ridin' dumbass.

I'm a derpy fuckface who does know crap.  I'm sorry that I tried to mislead everyone with my ignorance.  Thank you for correcting me Mr Bread.

No problem, bud.

Now that was just pathetic! Just man up and admit you thought you knew what you were talking about based off of a stupidly idiotic assumption, that since you couldn't find info about Watkins going to another school somewhere else, that he wasn't a good student. It shouldn't hurt your mangina too much to admit you made a mistake. Next time you wanna pick an info fight with someone about U of I recruits do it with someone who doesn't have student admin info from the U of I and you won't have to get mushed!