The regular season game I am most looking forward to next year is when the UCLA Bruins come to Fiserv.
First , there is no question that UCLA has the best hair in the NCAA last year. Second, I enjoy the way they play . Jaquez has that old school power to the basket kind of power forward game. Sort of a modern day version of the late Dave Meyers with his tenacious play . Johnny Juzang is a pure scoring machine ( he may get drafted this year). Tyger Campbell will be running their offense with passion and good choices. Obviously Cronin is not joining in on the good hair but at least he shaves his head to compensate.
Our young team, with emerging hair, actually played reasonable well against The Bruins on the road, was a close game till UCLA wore us out at the end. Should give the team confidence going into the rematch. Shaka has the best lettuce in the Big East and will show the Bruins what home cookin is all about.
They will blow our socks off..if they all return...but should be a good game to watch.
Ehh, maybe. Let's not forget they were a bubble team that very nearly lost in the play-in game. They're the most consistent overrated team in the "too early" rankings. Maybe a top-20ish team, but I don't see top-5.
Juzang declared for the draft today, but will maintain his eligibility for now.
Quote from: Pakuni on April 20, 2021, 10:03:59 PM
Juzang declared for the draft today, but will maintain his eligibility for now.
Dick Vitale has a point of view on the matter
https://247sports.com/Article/UCLA-Bruins-Basketball-preseason-No-1-2021-22-season-Dick-Vitale-prediction-Mick-Cronin-164316656/
The most interesting question on this topic is why was I attacked weeks ago when I mentioned this game and that UCLA would be a top 5 team?
Muggs..if you're on scoop..you will be attacked. lol
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 19, 2021, 11:21:07 PM
Ehh, maybe. Let's not forget they were a bubble team that very nearly lost in the play-in game. They're the most consistent overrated team in the "too early" rankings. Maybe a top-20ish team, but I don't see top-5.
Well, they did not lose and made it to the final. Pretty damn good.
Quote from: MuggsyB on April 20, 2021, 10:19:30 PM
The most interesting question on this topic is why was I attacked weeks ago when I mentioned this game and that UCLA would be a top 5 team?
This should be a very good game for the fans .
Quote from: 79Warrior on April 21, 2021, 12:01:24 AM
Well, they did not lose and made it to the final. Pretty damn good.
Tournament results are frequently overrated when balanced against the full season, which is a far more accurate measuring stick. I just hope we get this game early while they are still highly ranked.
Quote from: MUUWUWM on April 20, 2021, 10:43:20 PM
Muggs..if you're on scoop..you will be attacked. lol
Ha!! Alright. Fair enough.
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 21, 2021, 05:07:47 AM
Tournament results are frequently overrated when balanced against the full season, which is a far more accurate measuring stick. I just hope we get this game early while they are still highly ranked.
Torvik has them projected as the #3 team next season and that's without Juzang.
I could be talked into believing it with Juzang, but I'm not buying it with him gone.
Quote from: genious expert on April 21, 2021, 06:12:53 AM
Torvik has them projected as the #3 team next season and that's without Juzang.
I could be talked into believing it with Juzang, but I'm not buying it with him gone.
I understand the argument, but even with him I'm a skeptic. They had an awesome run, but were ranked 30 in Torvik & 44 in kenpom going into the tournament. Their new rankings are reflecting an impressive but incredibly fortuitous run.
They played like an unranked team for 3+ months, then played like a top-5 team for 3 weeks. My main question is which data set is more reflective of their true worth.
Quote from: genious expert on April 21, 2021, 06:12:53 AM
Torvik has them projected as the #3 team next season and that's without Juzang.
I could be talked into believing it with Juzang, but I'm not buying it with him gone.
They're not #3 unless they have an elite scorer that can get his own shot. Who in Torvik's mind is replacing Juzang?
They might still be in the preseason top 5 without Juzang ... but after an early loss or two or three, including quite possibly to Marquette, they'll fall like an anvil.
Quote from: MikeDeanesDarkGlasses on April 21, 2021, 03:27:04 PM
They're not #3 unless they have an elite scorer that can get his own shot. Who in Torvik's mind is replacing Juzang?
I've not read anything, but I would imagine that thinking would be that Jaquez will be that. During their run, I became a UCLA fan (thanks to my brother's enthusiasm) and I most enjoyed Jaquez' creativity and tenacity.
Quote from: MikeDeanesDarkGlasses on April 21, 2021, 03:27:04 PM
They're not #3 unless they have an elite scorer that can get his own shot. Who in Torvik's mind is replacing Juzang?
Torvik's is a model, so it's not in his mind, it's in the framework. It does look like Jacquez with a heavy dose of freshman Peyton Watson mixed in.
The last time UCLA played MU in Milwaukee was 1964 in the Milwaukee Classic. The defending national champions had Gail Goodrich, Keith Ericsson, Kenny Washington, Fred Goss and Mike Lynn.
Marquette was leading near the end of the first half 24-22, with less than 20 seconds left until halftime. The late Tom Flynn told me that Al wanted the Warriors to take a shot with just six seconds left on the clock. "I took the shot with eight or nine seconds left on the clock. They get the rebound and Gail Goodrich hit a shot from beyond half court that went in at the buzzer to tie the game."
Flynn scored 19 for the Warriors that night. MU held Goodrich to 21 points and UCLA to 30 points under its season average, but lost 61-52.
Marquette and UCLA never played again during Al's tenure.
Last season was the first time a Marquette team played at Pauley Pavilion. The Warriors stayed within four points most of the game before UCLA finished off MU at the free throw line. A good effort by MU that night.
We will see how Shaka has the guys prepared for this season's rematch at the Fabulous Forum.
Go Warriors!
Quote from: warriorjoe on April 22, 2021, 10:08:21 AM
The last time UCLA played MU in Milwaukee was 1964 in the Milwaukee Classic. The defending national champions had Gail Goodrich, Keith Ericsson, Kenny Washington, Fred Goss and Mike Lynn.
Marquette was leading near the end of the first half 24-22, with less than 20 seconds left until halftime. The late Tom Flynn told me that Al wanted the Warriors to take a shot with just six seconds left on the clock. "I took the shot with eight or nine seconds left on the clock. They get the rebound and Gail Goodrich hit a shot from beyond half court that went in at the buzzer to tie the game."
Flynn scored 19 for the Warriors that night. MU held Goodrich to 21 points and UCLA to 30 points under its season average, but lost 61-52.
Marquette and UCLA never played again during Al's tenure.
Last season was the first time a Marquette team played at Pauley Pavilion. The Warriors stayed within four points most of the game before UCLA finished off MU at the free throw line. A good effort by MU that night.
We will see how Shaka has the guys prepared for this season's rematch at the Fabulous Forum.
Go Warriors!
Ty warriorjoe!! How are ya doing? I hope you get to Ireland soon. and can write your novel.
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 21, 2021, 05:07:47 AM
Tournament results are frequently overrated when balanced against the full season, which is a far more accurate measuring stick. I just hope we get this game early while they are still highly ranked.
.....Unless it's Shaka's Final Four team, which was a 4th Place Colonial team, 11 seed. You have posted many, many times, positively about Shaka's Final Four. That's great. No problem there. For me, it counts. Results count. It's the inconsistency of your standard when other teams do it that doesn't make much sense. A similar result isn't somehow similar for you.
Quote from: shoothoops on April 22, 2021, 11:52:32 AM
.....Unless it's Shaka's Final Four team, which was a 4th Place Colonial team, 11 seed. You have posted many, many times, positively about Shaka's Final Four. That's great. No problem there. For me, it counts. Results count. It's the inconsistency of your standard when other teams do it that doesn't make much sense. A similar result isn't somehow similar for you.
This take is completely wrong. I've also posted many times about how that team did not deserve a NCAA bid. Because regular season results matter. I said at the time and stand by the point now that VCU should not have earned a NCAA bid in 2011. Want evidence? Here's what I posted at the time:
Quote from: brewcity77 on March 13, 2011, 05:56:09 PM
No doubt. Virginia Tech out and VCU in? What a joke.
VCU did not deserve a bid. I never said otherwise. I will say that what matters is what you do with the postseason opportunity you are given. Smart has done very well with those opportunities, whether the 2011 Final Four, the 2010 CIT crown, or the 2019 NIT Championship. And that when he loses, it isn't in blowout fashion, it's on the last possession or overtime. HOWEVER that doesn't have any impact on my opinions of his teams the NEXT year.
You are making a false equivocation on two completely different topics. The reason I put weight in Smart's ability to generate March results is because he has done very well in March in the past and when he does lose, it's usually very close, so the expectation going forward is that he will be in the position to win games again.
The difference with UCLA is that while I can respect the excellent run they went on, I believe the results of 3.5 months are more valuable than than the results of 2.5 weeks. What UCLA was as a team was an unranked team that was a borderline NCAA team, and if they essentially return the same team, there's little reason to believe they'll be much more than marginally better than that in the next season. That doesn't mean Mick Cronin couldn't find similar magic if they do get into the Tournament, but that is a completely different topic than the value of those five March wins on their 2021-22 projection.
Mugs:
Thanks for the note.
The novel will have to wait until I take care of some unfinished business with the fifth edition of my biography of Coach Al.
More details to come in the near future.
Go Warriors!
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 22, 2021, 12:37:22 PM
This take is completely wrong. I've also posted many times about how that team did not deserve a NCAA bid. Because regular season results matter. I said at the time and stand by the point now that VCU should not have earned a NCAA bid in 2011. Want evidence? Here's what I posted at the time:
VCU did not deserve a bid. I never said otherwise. I will say that what matters is what you do with the postseason opportunity you are given. Smart has done very well with those opportunities, whether the 2011 Final Four, the 2010 CIT crown, or the 2019 NIT Championship. And that when he loses, it isn't in blowout fashion, it's on the last possession or overtime. HOWEVER that doesn't have any impact on my opinions of his teams the NEXT year.
You are making a false equivocation on two completely different topics. The reason I put weight in Smart's ability to generate March results is because he has done very well in March in the past and when he does lose, it's usually very close, so the expectation going forward is that he will be in the position to win games again.
The difference with UCLA is that while I can respect the excellent run they went on, I believe the results of 3.5 months are more valuable than than the results of 2.5 weeks. What UCLA was as a team was an unranked team that was a borderline NCAA team, and if they essentially return the same team, there's little reason to believe they'll be much more than marginally better than that in the next season. That doesn't mean Mick Cronin couldn't find similar magic if they do get into the Tournament, but that is a completely different topic than the value of those five March wins on their 2021-22 projection.
Shaka Smart has made the NCAA Tourney 2nd weekend once on his career, with the above mentioned team. He has gotten out of the first round 3 times in 12 seasons. half of this was at a Power 5 school. That doesn't mean he can't have more or better success at MUBB or in the future.
I was more interested in your posts about it the past four months than one from ten years ago.
It wasn't about the value of the regular season vs postseason. It was about treating similar things similarly regardless of coach or school.
Quote from: shoothoops on April 22, 2021, 02:10:26 PM
LIt wasn't about the value of the regular season vs postseason. It was about treating similar things similarly regardless of coach or school.
Using year over year postseason results as indicators of potential future postseason success is not remotely similar to using one set of postseason results to indicate a bubble team deserves a #1 ranking the following year.
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 22, 2021, 02:34:40 PM
Using year over year postseason results as indicators of potential future postseason success is not remotely similar to using one set of postseason results to indicate a bubble team deserves a #1 ranking the following year.
Neither I nor the two posters above your first post mentioned anything about #1 ranking. Neither did the additional poster who made positive remarks about UCLA's Final Four Run.
Then you mentioned that NCAA Tourney results are frequently overrated etc...and it went from there. It stood out to me because you frequently mention Shaka's FF Run as a positive, but, you seem less positive when others have done it. That was and still is what I was talking about. If it's a positive for one, it's a positive for others, and the reverse.
Quote from: shoothoops on April 22, 2021, 03:15:33 PM
Neither I nor the two posters above your first post mentioned anything about #1 ranking. Neither did the additional poster who made positive remarks about UCLA's Final Four Run.
Then you mentioned that NCAA Tourney results are frequently overrated etc...and it went from there. It stood out to me because you frequently mention Shaka's FF Run as a positive, but, you seem less positive when others have done it. That was and still is what I was talking about. If it's a positive for one, it's a positive for others, and the reverse.
I am getting the sense you are arguing just to argue because you have so thoroughly lost the thread that it's hard to imagine this is anything other than willful ignorance.
When the positive conclusions drawn from results are completely disparate conclusions, then no, it's not the same for one and the same for others. That's idiotic.
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 22, 2021, 03:26:30 PM
I am getting the sense you are arguing just to argue because you have so thoroughly lost the thread that it's hard to imagine this is anything other than willful ignorance.
When the positive conclusions drawn from results are completely disparate conclusions, then no, it's not the same for one and the same for others. That's idiotic.
You are consistent when you are called out on using certain comparable results for positive here but not so positive there based on who achieves the results. Then you gaslight, change the subject, and personal attack.
You have posted many times in the past four months positively referencing Shaka Smart's FF run 10 years ago. And once again, that's great. It's a bit interesting when other schools do something similar, your posting tone or style changes. It stands out because of your frequency of posts regarding the topic. UCLA had a good team that had a great NCAA run. Hopefully it will be good fun game next season. 👍✌️
Quote from: shoothoops on April 22, 2021, 03:34:25 PM
You are consistent when you are called out on using certain comparable results for positive here but not so positive there based on who achieves the results. Then you gaslight, change the subject, and personal attack.
You have posted many times in the past four months positively referencing Shaka Smart's FF run 10 years ago. And once again, that's great. It's a bit interesting when other schools do something similar, your posting tone or style changes. It stands out because of your frequency of posts regarding the topic. UCLA had a good team that had a great NCAA run. Hopefully it will be good fun game next season. 👍✌️
It isn't based on who achieved the results. It's the conclusions drawn from the results. Consistently either winning in March or having your team in position to win in March is not the same as using a single March run to make broad conclusions about the upcoming season. You still refuse to address this. The only gaslighting is you being unwilling to address the actual point.
And please, show me posts going back four months positively referencing Smart's FF run as indicative of regular season results, because that's what we are talking about here. Or rather, that's what my initial comment and everything I have responded to since has been talking about:
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 19, 2021, 11:21:07 PM
Ehh, maybe. Let's not forget they were a bubble team that very nearly lost in the play-in game. They're the most consistent overrated team in the "too early" rankings. Maybe a top-20ish team, but I don't see top-5.
UCLA had a bubble team that went on a great run. I don't believe that run should make us forget the results from November to mid-March, which had them as a bubble team. But go ahead and avoid the actual things I said again and try to put words in my mouth that were not relevant to this thread in the first place other than to service talking points you manufactured out of whole cloth.
Seriously, here are all of my posts in the thread before you decided to completely change the topic to a completely irrelevant direction:
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 21, 2021, 05:07:47 AM
Tournament results are frequently overrated when balanced against the full season, which is a far more accurate measuring stick. I just hope we get this game early while they are still highly ranked.
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 21, 2021, 06:30:15 AM
I understand the argument, but even with him I'm a skeptic. They had an awesome run, but were ranked 30 in Torvik & 44 in kenpom going into the tournament. Their new rankings are reflecting an impressive but incredibly fortuitous run.
They played like an unranked team for 3+ months, then played like a top-5 team for 3 weeks. My main question is which data set is more reflective of their true worth.
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 21, 2021, 09:21:11 PM
Torvik's is a model, so it's not in his mind, it's in the framework. It does look like Jacquez with a heavy dose of freshman Peyton Watson mixed in.
What this has to do with Shaka's Final Four run and it's implications on regular season results going forward is beyond me.
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 22, 2021, 04:33:06 PM
It isn't based on who achieved the results. It's the conclusions drawn from the results. Consistently either winning in March or having your team in position to win in March is not the same as using a single March run to make broad conclusions about the upcoming season. You still refuse to address this. The only gaslighting is you being unwilling to address the actual point.
And please, show me posts going back four months positively referencing Smart's FF run as indicative of regular season results, because that's what we are talking about here. Or rather, that's what my initial comment and everything I have responded to since has been talking about:
UCLA had a bubble team that went on a great run. I don't believe that run should make us forget the results from November to mid-March, which had them as a bubble team. But go ahead and avoid the actual things I said again and try to put words in my mouth that were not relevant to this thread in the first place other than to service talking points you manufactured out of whole cloth.
Seriously, here are all of my posts in the thread before you decided to completely change the topic to a completely irrelevant direction:
I agree mostly with your points but UCLA is still going to be a very good team next fall, regardless of what they did in March.
Just looking at Torvik's early projections, there isn't much reason for me to believe they aren't worthy of top-5 status heading into the fall. That can change between now and then but I don't think there's recency bias thinking they're worthy of early lofty projections
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 22, 2021, 04:33:06 PM
It isn't based on who achieved the results. It's the conclusions drawn from the results. Consistently either winning in March or having your team in position to win in March is not the same as using a single March run to make broad conclusions about the upcoming season. You still refuse to address this. The only gaslighting is you being unwilling to address the actual point.
And please, show me posts going back four months positively referencing Smart's FF run as indicative of regular season results, because that's what we are talking about here. Or rather, that's what my initial comment and everything I have responded to since has been talking about:
UCLA had a bubble team that went on a great run. I don't believe that run should make us forget the results from November to mid-March, which had them as a bubble team. But go ahead and avoid the actual things I said again and try to put words in my mouth that were not relevant to this thread in the first place other than to service talking points you manufactured out of whole cloth.
Seriously, here are all of my posts in the thread before you decided to completely change the topic to a completely irrelevant direction:
What this has to do with Shaka's Final Four run and it's implications on regular season results going forward is beyond me.
No one compared winning in March once vs winning in March annually. I certainly didn't. Shaka Smart for example made a FF ten years ago. But in 12 seasons, he hasn't had much NCAA Tourney success outside of that. MUBB hopes that will change and improve moving forward.
Multiple times in other posts and threads you have referenced Smart's FF as a positive selling point for him without any asterisk elaboration in those posts. No problem there. What was interesting were your less enthusiastic descriptions of others in comparable situations.
Quote from: shoothoops on April 22, 2021, 04:52:02 PM
No one compared winning in March once vs winning in March annually. I certainly didn't. Shaka Smart for example made a FF ten years ago. But in 12 seasons, he hasn't had much NCAA Tourney success outside of that. MUBB hopes that will change and improve moving forward.
Multiple times in other posts and threads you have referenced Smart's FF as a positive selling point for him without any asterisk elaboration in those posts. No problem there. What was interesting were your less enthusiastic descriptions of others in comparable situations.
When I reference Smart in that regard, it is how he used that Final Four to sustain success at VCU, recruit at a high level there relative to the league he was in, and carry that reputation to Texas. I didn't realize that required such detailed explanation. However, despite that Final Four, VCU was not a top-25 team coming into the next season. They were unranked in the AP, which was appropriate. They did peak at 19, but that was well into the season and earned. So that Final Four didn't lead to preseason accolades the next year, as it is with UCLA, apparently.
And as far as my multiple praises of Shaka over the past 4 months, that's a lie. I mentioned Shaka on March 21. There was only one other post I made this year that referenced him, and it was a quote tweet in January where someone else had mentioned him. So again, untruthful on your part. Feel free to search posts to verify, I did.
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 22, 2021, 05:10:54 PM
When I reference Smart in that regard, it is how he used that Final Four to sustain success at VCU, recruit at a high level there relative to the league he was in, and carry that reputation to Texas. I didn't realize that required such detailed explanation. However, despite that Final Four, VCU was not a top-25 team coming into the next season. They were unranked in the AP, which was appropriate. They did peak at 19, but that was well into the season and earned. So that Final Four didn't lead to preseason accolades the next year, as it is with UCLA, apparently.
And as far as my multiple praises of Shaka over the past 4 months, that's a lie. I mentioned Shaka on March 21. There was only one other post I made this year that referenced him, and it was a quote tweet in January where someone else had mentioned him. So again, untruthful on your part. Feel free to search posts to verify, I did.
Today is April 22nd. You mentioned Smart one other time since December of 2020 and today? You really want to stick with that. You can call me a liar, even make the accusation twice, but it doesn't make it true either time.
Then unfortunate part is all the topic had to be was see UCLA had a good season and a great NCAA Tourney run. That's it. That simple.
I love Scoop.
Quote from: shoothoops on April 22, 2021, 05:44:17 PM
Today is April 22nd. You mentioned Smart one other time since December of 2020 and today? You really want to stick with that. You can call me a liar, even make the accusation twice, but it doesn't make it true either time.
Then unfortunate part is all the topic had to be was see UCLA had a good season and a great NCAA Tourney run. That's it. That simple.
Prior to March 21. Obviously I've spoke of him since he became our coach. In the past month I've talked about him, in the three months before (when you said I posted "many times") I only referenced him in a quote tweet and not regarding what you say I did.
And still avoiding the actual topic. So ridiculously predictable.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/story/2021-04-22/ucla-final-four-reminds-gary-cunningham-team-sparked-john-wooden-dynasty
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 22, 2021, 09:26:36 PM
Prior to March 21. Obviously I've spoke of him since he became our coach. In the past month I've talked about him, in the three months before (when you said I posted "many times") I only referenced him in a quote tweet and not regarding what you say I did.
And still avoiding the actual topic. So ridiculously predictable.
Now it is prior to March 21, got it. Now go through all of your posts referencing Smart's FF as a positive, you know, the ones you said you didn't post. ...And you finished with projection, again.
Groundhog's Day.
UCLA (or insert other team/coach here), good season, great FF run. That's all it had to be. If it's a positive point for one it's a positive point for others too. Yet you keep going and going and going and here we are. Your inconsistencies got us here. 👍
Quote from: shoothoops on April 22, 2021, 10:36:31 PM
Now it is prior to March 21, got it. Now go through all of your posts referencing Smart's FF as a positive, you know, the ones you said you didn't post. ...And you finished with projection, again.
Groundhog's Day.
UCLA (or insert other team/coach here), good season, great FF run. That's all it had to be. If it's a positive point for one it's a positive point for others too. Yet you keep going and going and going and here we are. Your inconsistencies got us here. 👍
I sent that post too quickly without having a chance to fully read it. Obviously I have spoken about our coach in the past month since he became a candidate. I didn't have the word "prior to" in there. That was my mistake, and I apologize for it. It should have read:
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 22, 2021, 05:10:54 PMAnd as far as my multiple praises of Shaka over the past 4 months, that's a lie. I mentioned Shaka on March 21. There was only one other post I made this year prior to that referenced him, and it was a quote tweet in January where someone else had mentioned him. So again, untruthful on your part. Feel free to search posts to verify, I did.
But you said I've been talking about this for 4 months, and that's just complete and utter BS. Invented out of whole cloth. But as usual, you would rather drill in on things not relevant to the topic at hand than actually address what's being said and what we are talking about. The reality is not all positives, and not all conclusions are drawn in the same manner. You are obstinately refusing to address that while dragging out what seemed a pretty simple point longer and longer. Prior to you coming in to troll this conversation to the point it's at now, I posted the following.
Please, tell me what is factually incorrect in what is posted here:Quote from: brewcity77 on April 21, 2021, 06:30:15 AM
I understand the argument, but even with him I'm a skeptic. They had an awesome run, but were ranked 30 in Torvik & 44 in kenpom going into the tournament. Their new rankings are reflecting an impressive but incredibly fortuitous run.
They played like an unranked team for 3+ months, then played like a top-5 team for 3 weeks. My main question is which data set is more reflective of their true worth.
Next, when it comes to Smart's multiple postseason appearances and this single postseason appearance from UCLA, there are two very obvious and disparate conclusions I am making:
1. There is value to having your teams regularly in position to win games in single-elimination March tournaments year after year.
2. Pundits often overrate teams based on a NCAA run without fully considering their overall season success.
Those two things are not the same. Do you disagree?Actually refute the two bolded portions of this post and maybe you have a leg to stand on. Otherwise, you're just wasting time.
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 23, 2021, 06:26:48 AM
I sent that post too quickly without having a chance to fully read it. Obviously I have spoken about our coach in the past month since he became a candidate. I didn't have the word "prior to" in there. That was my mistake, and I apologize for it. It should have read:
But you said I've been talking about this for 4 months, and that's just complete and utter BS. Invented out of whole cloth. But as usual, you would rather drill in on things not relevant to the topic at hand than actually address what's being said and what we are talking about. The reality is not all positives, and not all conclusions are drawn in the same manner. You are obstinately refusing to address that while dragging out what seemed a pretty simple point longer and longer. Prior to you coming in to troll this conversation to the point it's at now, I posted the following. Please, tell me what is factually incorrect in what is posted here:
Next, when it comes to Smart's multiple postseason appearances and this single postseason appearance from UCLA, there are two very obvious and disparate conclusions I am making:
1. There is value to having your teams regularly in position to win games in single-elimination March tournaments year after year.
2. Pundits often overrate teams based on a NCAA run without fully considering their overall season success.
Those two things are not the same. Do you disagree?
Actually refute the two bolded portions of this post and maybe you have a leg to stand on. Otherwise, you're just wasting time.
Do this or you are wasting time. Do that or you are a liar. Do this or you are idiotic and so on. This is how you speak on a regular basis. Do that or you are a troll. Maybe decaf?
My posts in this thread are the same. Perhaps slow down, keep an even keel.
What I said was and is you decide to like or support something or someone first, and then you say things that provide support for those things. If other teams or coaches have similar experiences, your support isn't with the same enthusiasm or doesn't exist at all. (whether its an NCAA Tourney Run or Regular Season League Titles etc...the value of each seems to vary) And that's okay, it isn't against the law. It isn't objectively consistent. But it's perfectly fine.
In this particular thread you posted a couple of times with less enthusiasm for what UCLA accomplished, or at minimum did so with a "but" this or that. Other posters besides me even responded to you about it.
UCLA had a pretty good young team, with a lot of upside talent, that was able to have a great NCAA Tourney run. Good for them. We'll see who returns for them along with their new additions. They will be tough to best for MUBB next season. That could have been it. That's all it had to be.
I am happy to discuss UCLA, why their baseball team dropped out of the top 25 recently, or what kind of run can their Women's Soccer team can make in the NCAA's next week, whether or not their Women's tennis team can win a National Title next month, or their Men's hoops team and whether or not Johnny Juzang will be back, moving forward in this thread.
If your trolling doesn't allow you to actually engage the discussion at hand, then clearly it's just trolling with no attempt at legitimate discussion. Bye.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/story/2021-04-22/ucla-final-four-reminds-gary-cunningham-team-sparked-john-wooden-dynasty
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 23, 2021, 09:33:30 AM
If your trolling doesn't allow you to actually engage the discussion at hand, then clearly it's just trolling with no attempt at legitimate discussion. Bye.
I engaged in the discussion at hand. You changed the subject, moved the goalposts etc...then you double backed to say you misspoke. And you finish with your consistent personal attacks. Did I leave anything out?
On March 26, you started a new thread celebrating Smart's FF.
On March 26, you wrote that Shaka Smart gets consistent results, always in the top 70 KenPom. ...In this thread you didn't seem impressed with UCLA's 44 KenPom pre NCAA Tourney. (They finished at 13 which wasn't mentioned)
A few months ago you (end of December 2020) were on board with Brian Wardle as next MUBB coach. His KenPom ratings (you like to use KenPom a lot) were 145, 107, 161, 124 (finished 146). Other posters pointed out to you that all four were worse than a fellow MVC league coach who also just so happened to win the league 3/4 years while also coming in 2nd, while Wardle finished 4th or better once.
KenPom matters here but not there. Top 70 is good here but 44 isn't there and so on. Winning your league and regular season results matter here but not there. Not all FF runs are the same etc...it's difficult to keep up. You found ways to spin what you wanted, using specific criteria for whom you liked. You had conniptions when it was pointed out to you.
We can keep going if you want. Plenty more examples. Or, we can move on. Your call.
We all want MUBB to be successful. It would be great if UCLA had a great team next season, and played a great game, in a loss to MUBB.
Quote from: shoothoops on April 23, 2021, 10:17:08 AM
I engaged in the discussion at hand. You changed the subject, moved the goalposts etc...then you double backed to say you misspoke. And you finish with your consistent personal attacks. Did I leave anything out?
On March 26, you started a new thread celebrating Smart's FF.
On March 26, you wrote that Shaka Smart gets consistent results, always in the top 70 KenPom. ...In this thread you didn't seem impressed with UCLA's 44 KenPom pre NCAA Tourney. (They finished at 13 which wasn't mentioned)
A few months ago you (end of December 2020) were on board with Brian Wardle as next MUBB coach. His KenPom ratings (you like to use KenPom a lot) were 145, 107, 161, 124 (finished 146). Other posters pointed out to you that all four were worse than a fellow MVC league coach who also just so happened to win the league 3/4 years while also coming in 2nd, while Wardle finished 4th or better once.
KenPom matters here but not there. Top 70 is good here but 44 isn't there and so on. Winning your league and regular season results matter here but not there. Not all FF runs are the same etc...it's difficult to keep up. You found ways to spin what you wanted, using specific criteria for whom you liked. You had conniptions when it was pointed out to you.
We can keep going if you want. Plenty more examples. Or, we can move on. Your call.
We all want MUBB to be successful. It would be great if UCLA had a great team next season, and played a great game, in a loss to MUBB.
(https://media.tenor.com/images/2ae0c1373712250870b981917e48515c/tenor.gif)
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on April 23, 2021, 10:34:00 AM
(https://media.tenor.com/images/2ae0c1373712250870b981917e48515c/tenor.gif)
You cared enough to post, otherwise you would have ignored it. Apparently BrewCity77 cares because he has posted 7 times about it since my post. So, maybe take it up with him. I am hapoy to discuss UCLA.
Quote from: shoothoops on April 23, 2021, 10:43:33 AM
You cared enough to post, otherwise you would have ignored it. Apparently BrewCity77 cares because he has posted 7 times about it since my post. So, maybe take it up with him. I am hapoy to discuss UCLA.
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/a29446fe101f74c2969d87170cead1f0/tenor.gif?itemid=9195401)
(H/T to Hards)
Quote from: Spaniel with a Short Tail on April 23, 2021, 10:47:47 AM
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/a29446fe101f74c2969d87170cead1f0/tenor.gif?itemid=9195401)
(H/T to Hards)
That's 3 people who care. Two of them came here and didn't discuss UCLA at all.
Quote from: shoothoops on April 23, 2021, 10:43:33 AM
You cared enough to post, otherwise you would have ignored it. Apparently BrewCity77 cares because he has posted 7 times about it since my post. So, maybe take it up with him. I am hapoy to discuss UCLA.
Oh we know you're happy to discuss, brother.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on April 23, 2021, 10:50:56 AM
Oh we know you're happy to discuss, brother.
Just curious. How many times are you going to post in this thread without discussing UCLA?
Quote from: shoothoops on April 23, 2021, 10:57:19 AM
Just curious. How many times are you going to post in this thread without discussing UCLA?
Just curious. How often you think your line of questioning endears yourself to people. Do you think you change many minds? Or is it just mental masturbation to be 'right'?
I honestly don't care, just pointing something out that others have brought to my attention. Either way, last response from my as my questions were rhetorical.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on April 23, 2021, 11:09:44 AM
Just curious. How often you think your line of questioning endears yourself to people. Do you think you change many minds? Or is it just mental masturbation to be 'right'?
I honestly don't care, just pointing something out that others have brought to my attention. Either way, last response from my as my questions were rhetorical.
That's 3 posts that have nothing to do with UCLA. Will there be a 4th?
This post has nothing to do with UCLA (but post count is post count)
This whole board needs to get laid.
Who was a better center? Swen Nater or Steve Patterson?
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on April 23, 2021, 12:17:30 PM
Who was a better center? Swen Nater or Steve Patterson?
Going back a waaaaaays....One could say Patterson had the better college career but Nater had the better professional career.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on April 23, 2021, 12:17:30 PM
Who was a better center? Swen Nater or Steve Patterson?
Give me Mike Webster
Shoothoops posts are The Cardinal Way.
And I am trolling.
And post count mattas.
And SpongeBob.
All Posts Matter, hey?