burn. it. down

[catzacker]

talent - add a Curtis Kelly, sprinkle in a Rodney McGruder and Wally Judge
proven - add a Denis Clemente

jfc chum.  quit be a rough ridin' contrarian just to be one.

No one knew what to expect from Kelly beforehand.  Could easily have sucked.  Judge did suck, so I don't know why you'd want one of him in your hypothetical.  Clemente didn't do much at Miami.  I don't think you really knew those guys upon arrival would be any better or worse than any players coming in next year.  You're fooling yourself if you think you did.

Kelly was a 5*, Judge was a 5*, McGruder was a 4*, all "added" talent.  Judge provided good minutes his freshman year (and Judge flaming out also disproves your "hey the freshman will automatically get better" theory).

You're rough ridin' stupid if you think Clemente wasn't proven.

The 6-0, 180-pound native of Puerto Rico averaged 9.8 points while shooting 43.5% for Miami last year as a sophomore. He played in 27 games and scored in double figures in 11. He also averaged 3.3 assists and 2.5 rebounds. In Atlanic Coast Conference play, he averaged 10.5 points and 2.6 assists.

and the point isn't that you know, with 100% certainty, what each player will be, but that you have a basis (i.e. stars or historical/proven body of work) to go on for why you think the team will be better.

[lopakman]

 

[Pete]

Go look at oscar's tournament record....when he didn't have Bill Self's NBA players.  Woof.

[chum1]

talent - add a Curtis Kelly, sprinkle in a Rodney McGruder and Wally Judge
proven - add a Denis Clemente

jfc chum.  quit be a rough ridin' contrarian just to be one.

No one knew what to expect from Kelly beforehand.  Could easily have sucked.  Judge did suck, so I don't know why you'd want one of him in your hypothetical.  Clemente didn't do much at Miami.  I don't think you really knew those guys upon arrival would be any better or worse than any players coming in next year.  You're fooling yourself if you think you did.

Kelly was a 5*, Judge was a 5*, McGruder was a 4*, all "added" talent.  Judge provided good minutes his freshman year (and Judge flaming out also disproves your "hey the freshman will automatically get better" theory).

You're rough ridin' stupid if you think Clemente wasn't proven.

The 6-0, 180-pound native of Puerto Rico averaged 9.8 points while shooting 43.5% for Miami last year as a sophomore. He played in 27 games and scored in double figures in 11. He also averaged 3.3 assists and 2.5 rebounds. In Atlanic Coast Conference play, he averaged 10.5 points and 2.6 assists.

and the point isn't that you know, with 100% certainty, what each player will be, but that you have a basis (i.e. stars or historical/proven body of work) to go on for why you think the team will be better.

It's pretty dumb to say that there's no talent in this class solely because there are no five stars or whatever.  If that's true, there was no talent in last year's class, which is clearly not the case.  Talent is just a very vague concept and you haven't really helped me to understand what you mean by it.

I totally misremembered about Clemente, which is rare because I have an excellent memory.

[Cire]

The Maine guy and the Georgetown guy had better be effing good

[catzacker]

talent - add a Curtis Kelly, sprinkle in a Rodney McGruder and Wally Judge
proven - add a Denis Clemente

jfc chum.  quit be a rough ridin' contrarian just to be one.

No one knew what to expect from Kelly beforehand.  Could easily have sucked.  Judge did suck, so I don't know why you'd want one of him in your hypothetical.  Clemente didn't do much at Miami.  I don't think you really knew those guys upon arrival would be any better or worse than any players coming in next year.  You're fooling yourself if you think you did.

Kelly was a 5*, Judge was a 5*, McGruder was a 4*, all "added" talent.  Judge provided good minutes his freshman year (and Judge flaming out also disproves your "hey the freshman will automatically get better" theory).

You're rough ridin' stupid if you think Clemente wasn't proven.

The 6-0, 180-pound native of Puerto Rico averaged 9.8 points while shooting 43.5% for Miami last year as a sophomore. He played in 27 games and scored in double figures in 11. He also averaged 3.3 assists and 2.5 rebounds. In Atlanic Coast Conference play, he averaged 10.5 points and 2.6 assists.

and the point isn't that you know, with 100% certainty, what each player will be, but that you have a basis (i.e. stars or historical/proven body of work) to go on for why you think the team will be better.

It's pretty dumb to say that there's no talent in this class solely because there are no five stars or whatever.  If that's true, there was no talent in last year's class, which is clearly not the case.  Talent is just a very vague concept and you haven't really helped me to understand what you mean by it.

I totally misremembered about Clemente, which is rare because I have an excellent memory.

you can't do a postmortem and then say you new the cause of death a year ago.  stars are an indicator - again, have all the confidence in the world about next year's team - I do not because there isn't any talent or proven players coming in to aid the core guys (who  may or may not get better).  I'm sorry you can't understand the concept of talent as judged by recruiting services; it's a commonly accepted premise, so I'm amazed someone at your intelligence level can't comprehend it.

[420seriouscat69]

Jesus, 'Zacker.

[chum1]

talent - add a Curtis Kelly, sprinkle in a Rodney McGruder and Wally Judge
proven - add a Denis Clemente

jfc chum.  quit be a rough ridin' contrarian just to be one.

No one knew what to expect from Kelly beforehand.  Could easily have sucked.  Judge did suck, so I don't know why you'd want one of him in your hypothetical.  Clemente didn't do much at Miami.  I don't think you really knew those guys upon arrival would be any better or worse than any players coming in next year.  You're fooling yourself if you think you did.

Kelly was a 5*, Judge was a 5*, McGruder was a 4*, all "added" talent.  Judge provided good minutes his freshman year (and Judge flaming out also disproves your "hey the freshman will automatically get better" theory).

You're rough ridin' stupid if you think Clemente wasn't proven.

The 6-0, 180-pound native of Puerto Rico averaged 9.8 points while shooting 43.5% for Miami last year as a sophomore. He played in 27 games and scored in double figures in 11. He also averaged 3.3 assists and 2.5 rebounds. In Atlanic Coast Conference play, he averaged 10.5 points and 2.6 assists.

and the point isn't that you know, with 100% certainty, what each player will be, but that you have a basis (i.e. stars or historical/proven body of work) to go on for why you think the team will be better.

It's pretty dumb to say that there's no talent in this class solely because there are no five stars or whatever.  If that's true, there was no talent in last year's class, which is clearly not the case.  Talent is just a very vague concept and you haven't really helped me to understand what you mean by it.

I totally misremembered about Clemente, which is rare because I have an excellent memory.

you can't do a postmortem and then say you new the cause of death a year ago.  stars are an indicator - again, have all the confidence in the world about next year's team - I do not because there isn't any talent or proven players coming in to aid the core guys (who  may or may not get better).  I'm sorry you can't understand the concept of talent as judged by recruiting services; it's a commonly accepted premise, so I'm amazed someone at your intelligence level can't comprehend it.

I know that general point.  It's been made a thousand times before.  I'm saying that there seems to be something wrong with your current, unique suggestion that there is NO talent coming in next year.  It's too strong.

[catzacker]

Jesus, 'Zacker.

what?  someone says "hey we're going to be good" and I want to know why.  i'm sorry if I don't just rough ridin' assume every single rough ridin' player on the roster will make some incredible rough ridin' leap and every single incoming player will be rough ridin' studs and disregard that every other team has returning players and incoming players.

Unless the Maine Bear, GT transfer, and Hurt are the rough ridin' crap AND jevon learns how to shoot a basketball as a sophomore in college AND Westicles and Foster get incrementally better, this team will be mediocre next year.

That is a lot of ANDs and IFs.  Do other teams outside of KU have the same questions?  Probably.  I'd imagine UT will probably be good as they have talent and it is returning and they have a talented player coming in.  The rest of the Big 12 might be garbage-y enough to make KSU seem not as mediocre.

[catzacker]

I know that general point.  It's been made a thousand times before.  I'm saying that there seems to be something wrong with your current, unique suggestion that there is NO talent coming in next year.  It's too strong.

I dunno.  2 3*'s, a transfer from the America East Conference (unranked), and a transfer from GT (former 3*).  That's talent?

[chum1]

I know that general point.  It's been made a thousand times before.  I'm saying that there seems to be something wrong with your current, unique suggestion that there is NO talent coming in next year.  It's too strong.

I dunno.  2 3*'s, a transfer from the America East Conference (unranked), and a transfer from GT (former 3*).  That's talent?

What do you mean by "talent"?

[PowercatPat]

FWIW, Bolden's offer list was legit. Baylor, Florida, Georgia, Virginia, VCU, and Va Tech.

[Cire]

The Maine guy and the Georgetown guy had better be effing good

[catzacker]

I know that general point.  It's been made a thousand times before.  I'm saying that there seems to be something wrong with your current, unique suggestion that there is NO talent coming in next year.  It's too strong.

I dunno.  2 3*'s, a transfer from the America East Conference (unranked), and a transfer from GT (former 3*).  That's talent?

What do you mean by "talent"?

eff, maybe start with a few top 150 kids?  maybe a couple of 4*'s?   jesus chum, I 'm sorry I can't break it down into a formula for you. look at the top 30 classes on rivals. they usually have quantified talent. 

[chum1]

I know that general point.  It's been made a thousand times before.  I'm saying that there seems to be something wrong with your current, unique suggestion that there is NO talent coming in next year.  It's too strong.

I dunno.  2 3*'s, a transfer from the America East Conference (unranked), and a transfer from GT (former 3*).  That's talent?

What do you mean by "talent"?

eff, maybe start with a few top 150 kids?  maybe a couple of 4*'s?   jesus chum, I 'm sorry I can't break it down into a formula for you. look at the top 30 classes on rivals. they usually have quantified talent.

So, if you don't have a formula, do you just base this on your gut feeling?  That would explain why it is inaccessible to me.   

[Panjandrum]

1. Panj, you said we're tied with Florida with most consecutive tournament appearances at 5. I assume you're saying we're tied for 5th most consecutive appearances, right?

2. Frank and oscar's strengths are different, so these talking points are going to keep going around and around. Frank was inconsistent to the point that if he was hear last year, I don't think we would have won a Big 12 Championship. We would have lost a few more games that we shouldn't have, but maybe beat KU at home to make up for it. However, there is no doubt in my mind that if we had the same slot in the tourney we would have beaten La Salle. And we would have been talked about more (we were a borderline top 10 team for almost all of conference play, but most people will never remember that because no one wanted to talk about us, and I think that's oscar's fault.)

3. Why is coaching the tournament so different? A lot of coaches seem to have completely different reputations when it comes to tournament coaching vs. regular season coaching. I don't doubt that. But it seems weird to me that there is such a big disparity between them for a lot of coaches.

Tied for 9th with five straight appearances.

KU is #1 with 25 straight, FWIW.

[catzacker]

I know that general point.  It's been made a thousand times before.  I'm saying that there seems to be something wrong with your current, unique suggestion that there is NO talent coming in next year.  It's too strong.

I dunno.  2 3*'s, a transfer from the America East Conference (unranked), and a transfer from GT (former 3*).  That's talent?

What do you mean by "talent"?

eff, maybe start with a few top 150 kids?  maybe a couple of 4*'s?   jesus chum, I 'm sorry I can't break it down into a formula for you. look at the top 30 classes on rivals. they usually have quantified talent.

So, if you don't have a formula, do you just base this on your gut feeling?  That would explain why it is inaccessible to me.

Go by rivals ratings.  Are you able to access that?  I consider top 150 players or 4* players to have talent.  Fill a class primarily  with those. You are rough ridin' worthless with your stupid rough ridin' contrarian bullshit.  You fein this stupidity form some reason.  eff I thought dax was bad.

[chum1]

I know that general point.  It's been made a thousand times before.  I'm saying that there seems to be something wrong with your current, unique suggestion that there is NO talent coming in next year.  It's too strong.

I dunno.  2 3*'s, a transfer from the America East Conference (unranked), and a transfer from GT (former 3*).  That's talent?

What do you mean by "talent"?

eff, maybe start with a few top 150 kids?  maybe a couple of 4*'s?   jesus chum, I 'm sorry I can't break it down into a formula for you. look at the top 30 classes on rivals. they usually have quantified talent.

So, if you don't have a formula, do you just base this on your gut feeling?  That would explain why it is inaccessible to me.

Go by rivals ratings.  Are you able to access that?  I consider top 150 players or 4* players to have talent.  Fill a class primarily  with those. You are rough ridin' worthless with your stupid rough ridin' contrarian bullshit.  You fein this stupidity form some reason.  eff I thought dax was bad.

Like I said before, this commits you to saying that there was no talent in last year's class.  That's totally absurd.  You need to reject this theory. 

[sonofdaxjones]

When you get left with total non talents in Spradling and Omari, and a spot up streak shooter at best as your senior "leadership".  It makes things a little difficult. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[#LIFE]

When you get left with total non talents in Spradling and Omari, and a spot up streak shooter at best as your senior "leadership".  It makes things a little difficult. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Shutup dumbass

[sonofdaxjones]

Nope.  Go be angry elsewhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[catzacker]

I know that general point.  It's been made a thousand times before.  I'm saying that there seems to be something wrong with your current, unique suggestion that there is NO talent coming in next year.  It's too strong.

I dunno.  2 3*'s, a transfer from the America East Conference (unranked), and a transfer from GT (former 3*).  That's talent?

What do you mean by "talent"?

eff, maybe start with a few top 150 kids?  maybe a couple of 4*'s?   jesus chum, I 'm sorry I can't break it down into a formula for you. look at the top 30 classes on rivals. they usually have quantified talent.

So, if you don't have a formula, do you just base this on your gut feeling?  That would explain why it is inaccessible to me.

Go by rivals ratings.  Are you able to access that?  I consider top 150 players or 4* players to have talent.  Fill a class primarily  with those. You are rough ridin' worthless with your stupid rough ridin' contrarian bullshit.  You fein this stupidity form some reason.  eff I thought dax was bad.

Like I said before, this commits you to saying that there was no talent in last year's class.  That's totally absurd.  You need to reject this theory.

No.  You can have a warm fuzzy because foster turned out to be good.  If you believe in the DITR recruiting as a reason to think stars don't matter that is fine.  I think it is much more reliable to go off rankings in basketball as an indicator of talent.

[chum1]

I completely accept that stars matter.  I do not accept the assertion that a particular class with only three stars has no talent.  And it isn't solely because there might be a Foster in it.  It's because they reference two different ideas.

[sonofdaxjones]

We had two legit studs straight out of high/prep school in forever.   Their coach parlayed their studom into a 4th place finish and a second round blowout loss to  Camp Ginger.   Other than that it's been 3 stars and transfers leading the way.


Some people just live in non reality.   

[catzacker]

I completely accept that stars matter.  I do not accept the assertion that a particular class with only three stars has no talent.  And it isn't solely because there might be a Foster in it.  It's because they reference two different ideas.

It might turn out to have talent but right now it doesn't.  The let's win the lotto recruiting philosophy is always a good way to go about it.