Spirited debate inspired by Dax.

[quietstorm5]

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.

[0.42]

only to get be so easily proven wrong

ski-be is lying in a bayou somewhere with a fork stabbed straight through his cranium

[quietstorm5]

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!

[Dr Rick Daris]

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. 

[Dr Rick Daris]

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.

[quietstorm5]

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.

[Dr Rick Daris]

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!

so five of the top 9 players were self guys, the top four scorers were self guys and the top four ppg were self guys. yet you think it was oscar's team? you are an odd duck quietstorm5.

[Dr Rick Daris]

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.

[0.42]

 

[sonofdaxjones]

While I don't really need know whether to be sad or overjoyed watching the great unwashed fight over the pitifully small remnants left in this thread. 

I feel as though I must ask, are their any coaches on that "Interchangeable after #10" Top 40 or 50 coaches list who added numerous "Resume Talking Points" with other coaches players?

[quietstorm5]

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.

[quietstorm5]

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.

[0.42]

Oh good another rivals/scout poster that doesn't know how to cut down on their quotes per post.

[Trim]

Will and Nino are oscar guys, not Frank guys.

[EMAWmeister]

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.

Holy rough ridin' :DNR:, Batman

[catzacker]

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.

[nicname]

Much as it pains me to say it Frank, going forward, would have been a disaster.  He was done.  Players (not spradling) were on their way out.  It was a sinking ship.  I didn't believe the players revolt stuff before, but I do now. 

[quietstorm5]

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?

[slimz]

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.

A school teacher must schedule seven sessions, which are abbreviated M, N, O, P, S, T, and U, during a day. Seven different consecutive time periods are available for the sessions, and are numbered one through seven in the order that they occur. Only one session can be schedules for each period. The assignment of the sessions to the periods is subject to the following restrictions:
M and O must occupy consecutive periods.
M must be scheduled for an earlier period than U.
O must be scheduled for a later period than S.
If S does not occupy the fourth period, then P must occupy the fourth period.
U and T cannot occupy consecutively numbered periods.

1.Which of the following could be a possible list of the sessions in the order that they are scheduled during the day?
(A) MOPSTNU
(B) NTMSOUP
(C) SMOPTNU
(D) SOMPUTN
(E) STOMPUN

[catzacker]

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?

[quietstorm5]

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?

[catzacker]

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.

[sunny_cat]

lol

[quietstorm5]

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?

[catzacker]

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