Kolek planning to go pro
Who cares? Why does anyone think this is important? Let your play in March do the rankings.
Aww... This comment was so great, I immediately, involuntarily showed my support for MU by tossing my cookies just like Junior.
Harvard, Yale, and Princeton would disagree with you.
The reason I went with the hyperbole is just because these threads are getting really repetitive. Maybe we should have one "Marquette Ranking" thread in which people can discuss where they think we'll be ranked and where we are ranked on Mondays when the polls come out. Right now, we're seeing 2-3 threads every week about "Where will we be ranked", followed by "AP has MU at XX" and "Coaches Poll -- Marquette #XX". Becoming more than a little bit of a broken record.
Disagree. Every week should have its own thread for both the ranking and out come. No one is forcing you to read them.
Why?
At the same time, let's do the same for threads on Vander.....either ban them completely, or limit them to one loooooong thread.
I'm honestly asking. What's wrong with one thread? Is it the lack of maturity in posters? The fear of it going off topic? Change the title every week to indicate the current ranking and to promote relevant discussion. The Scout Insider board has one thread that is a catch-all for recruiting tidbits. It's probably around 800+ posts long, but always stays on topic. Just make sure your settings have the maximum posts per page and go to the last page of the thread for current discussion. You can do that directly from the Hangin' board, so why is it a problem?It really seems like people have a need to start threads for some form of online self-validation. It's not just here, it's all over the Internet. On the Scout free board, I'm pretty sure that the only form of self-validation MuggsyB ever gets is starting threads, because he'll start them on anything, from Vander Blue, to Jimmy Butler, to LeBron James, to what type of berries he likes to put in his breakfast cereal.One large thread, possibly incorporating the votes of the media involved (similar to how Enlund does) to further encourage discussion seems like a far more engaging and enjoyable prospect. Every week you can use the one thread to look at the voting trends, see which writers like and dislike Marquette, even post up all their Twitter handles so we know who to spam with #mubb posts on a weekly basis.It's just a lot easier for users to have one thread where they know a certain topic is being discussed. And as for your point with Vander threads (or any others, for that matter), I mostly agree. When I start a thread, I usually do a search first to make sure there isn't a relevant thread already in existence where I can continue discussion rather than starting another discussion we've already had 18 gazillion times.
We don't need a poll each week. This thread doesn't have a poll. And because it's a fluid topic, it doesn't matter if it gets off-topic, because every Monday there's a new discussion to be had. And if half the posters each week are complaining about the endless litany of threads, clearly it IS broken.I don't have a phobia of threads, but why keep making new ones if they aren't necessary, and by the same token, why the obsession with making new threads? Just saying that if there are viable alternatives and half the posts in these threads are either facetious or denigrate the nature of the thread, maybe it's time to explore other options.
So, Augie... what do you think we deserve
hard to say with any certainty..., but the way we've been playing my gut says towards bottom of top 30 or so.
I would take the Rick SLU program right now.
I'm honestly asking. What's wrong with one thread?
+1Its completely irrelevant that were ranked right now, we may not even have what qualifies as a quality win yet. Madison will become on (hopefully) when they get their act together as they always do, but right now our next best win is Washington...