Quote from: The Sultan on <strong>Today</strong> at 03:05:13 PMYou don't? I see plenty of reasons to write them off as an Elite 8 team. This group of players has not won anything. (As opposed to the 2023-24 team, which won a Big East title and tournament the year prior.) And I'm sorry to say, this teams also does not have the talent. 2023-24 had three players currently playing in the NBA. This team? Eh... I'm not sure they have any right now.

Maybe I am just down on them right now, but last night looked way too much like last year to me. Maybe it will gel and get them to the second weekend, but I find that to be EXTREMELY optimistic.

What did the NC State team that we lost to in 2024 have?

Adrien Stevens is clearly the best player on the team at this point - and a gamer. I truly felt sorry for him last night because he got no help from anyone else at all except Porter.

I sincerely hope I am wrong, but last night made me think it may well be another long year.

I saw where another poster said that MU is at the level of being a very good mid-major team but does not have the overall talent to be a truly strong high major team. Unfortunately, that may be accurate. The difference in overall talent between Michigan and Marquette was glaringly obvious. But, the real disappointment was that Michigan played much harder and with a lot more determination - on both ends of the court. Michigan looked like they came to win. MU looked like they came because they had to.

Quote from: GoldenEagles03 on <strong>Today</strong> at 02:56:48 PMI'm not saying it's a guarantee, I'm saying I see no reason to write them off in being able to do that. Look at the last time we played in a game to get to an Elite 8. We lost to an 11 seed that wouldn't even have made the tournament had they not won their own league tournament to get an auto-bid.

This team has the talent.

You don't? I see plenty of reasons to write them off as an Elite 8 team. This group of players has not won anything. (As opposed to the 2023-24 team, which won a Big East title and tournament the year prior.) And I'm sorry to say, this teams also does not have the talent. 2023-24 had three players currently playing in the NBA. This team? Eh... I'm not sure they have any right now.

Maybe I am just down on them right now, but last night looked way too much like last year to me. Maybe it will gel and get them to the second weekend, but I find that to be EXTREMELY optimistic.

Quote from: The Sultan on <strong>Today</strong> at 12:37:38 PMYou see no reason to believe they can't be an Elite 8 team??? Are you kidding???

The '08 team was full of experienced juniors and seniors who played in the S16 just the year prior. This team has shown NO evidence that they can play at that level. Getting to the tournament and winning A GAME would vastly exceed my expectations at this point in time.

I'm not saying it's a guarantee, I'm saying I see no reason to write them off in being able to do that. Look at the last time we played in a game to get to an Elite 8. We lost to an 11 seed that wouldn't even have made the tournament had they not won their own league tournament to get an auto-bid.

This team has the talent.

I have 4 more questions:

1. Is there any NIL money left to bring in Norman Reedus before the next game? This program is clearly a zombie at this point, and somebody needs to put a crossbow bolt through its head.

2. How many losses until the powers that be admit a coaching staff of Claude and ChatGPT would beat Shaka? At least one of them would call a timeout during a 15–0 run.

3. After last night's Blue Tsunami in Ann Arbor, is it true that 60% of the incumbent players lost their scholarships, and replacements will be sworn in for 2nd semester?

4. Should Shaka apply for the open Nvidia CEO job? As far as I can tell, he's never dated a spy, which makes him more qualified to run Nvidia than to coach Marquette basketball.

Quote from: TSmith34, Inc. on <strong>Today</strong> at 01:34:59 PMHistorically accurate, but I have the sense that it is different this time. (My innate Gen X cynicism is weirdly MIA right now).

The first step towards accountability happened last Tuesday. The administration and associated co-conspirators are absolutely terrified, with the tell being Blanche's hilariously impotent yappings that oversight itself is criminal.

I think the difference this time is going to be 1) the shear depth, breadth, and magnitude of the criminality, and 2) that the crimes are committed out in the open. It's not like we need Woodward and Berstein to break a hidden story, the Trump administration commits three Watergates per day and then brags about them.

It's pretty wild this story is like a wildfire because Rubio leaked it in a bid to get a head start on the presidential run in '28

Quote from: CreightonWarrior on <strong>Today</strong> at 01:59:28 PMthats strange, we don't have any elections coming up.

Well, the Khmer Rouge just had a successful past week

The corpse of Marquette basketball did what everyone but Scoopers expected against the football school from Ann Arbor.  No worries though.  Maybe the zombified remains of a once great program will finish in the top half of the Big Least this year since it's basically 2 legit teams and a bunch of jr high programs.

Quote from: Uncle Rico on <strong>Today</strong> at 12:18:03 PMSounds like caravans are back.  Be safe, white people

thats strange, we don't have any elections coming up.

Quote from: JWags85 on <strong>Today</strong> at 01:25:14 PMPushback in what way?  Unless there is something else you're referring to or suggesting, its a byproduct of market bubbles that have existed for centuries.  If you have a fundamental problem with the stock market in general, which given what I know about you might be true, that's a different argument/discussion.

However, nobody is forcing the public/retail investors to buy wildly overpriced IPOs.  You can look back in this thread at some of the stuff that myself, and others, said about the SpaceX IPO or AI valuations.  I'm not a Musk hater, I've always thought SpaceX was a pretty incredible company (the best of anything Musk has been involved with, IMO) and have been bullish on the ways its changed space utilization and rockets...but I wouldn't have touched the IPO with a 6,200 mile pole.  Valuations and buzz were way over done and I couldn't see any reliable risk vs return at the IPO prices.  But I knew plenty of people, some otherwise smart and non-novice investors who were desperate to get into it.

Same can be said about AI companies and valuations.  People just think/assume "stocks always go up" and AI is constantly talked about as this huge potential frontier/goldmine, so who cares if the valuation is insane, its gonna keep going up cause its just the beginning, right?

But its really no different than the Dotcom bubble in the 90s.  People paid insane sums for silly companies that were drastically overvalued because they NEEDED to have that internet investment exposure.  But now its even more inexcusable, IMO, for retail investors and the general public because of how much information and research materials are out there in the public domain.

Back to my initial paragraph, there is also just a lot of inherent passing of risk from private investors/founders to the general public in any IPO, even those of great and profitable and robust companies.  They are a way to raise capital, of course, but also allow people to cash out on money that had been otherwise invested and locked up in companies for years.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

I do feel bad for people bought SpaceX at 200 (or even 170) who are under water.  And I'll feel bad for people who eventually get run over by pullbacks in AI names that go public.  But unless its blatant Theranos level fraud or corporate malpractice, I still can't help but place blame on people who invest like lemmings.  You can say "oh there is shady accounting about XYZ in SpaceX" or "those revenue numbers for (insert AI company) were creatively crafted"...but most of these people getting rugpulled aren't pouring over 10-Ks or balance sheets, they are momentum/buzz chasing.

Quote from: JWags85 on <strong>Today</strong> at 01:25:14 PMPushback in what way?  Unless there is something else you're referring to or suggesting, its a byproduct of market bubbles that have existed for centuries.  If you have a fundamental problem with the stock market in general, which given what I know about you might be true, that's a different argument/discussion.

However, nobody is forcing the public/retail investors to buy wildly overpriced IPOs.  You can look back in this thread at some of the stuff that myself, and others, said about the SpaceX IPO or AI valuations.  I'm not a Musk hater, I've always thought SpaceX was a pretty incredible company (the best of anything Musk has been involved with, IMO) and have been bullish on the ways its changed space utilization and rockets...but I wouldn't have touched the IPO with a 6,200 mile pole.  Valuations and buzz were way over done and I couldn't see any reliable risk vs return at the IPO prices.  But I knew plenty of people, some otherwise smart and non-novice investors who were desperate to get into it.

Same can be said about AI companies and valuations.  People just think/assume "stocks always go up" and AI is constantly talked about as this huge potential frontier/goldmine, so who cares if the valuation is insane, its gonna keep going up cause its just the beginning, right?

But its really no different than the Dotcom bubble in the 90s.  People paid insane sums for silly companies that were drastically overvalued because they NEEDED to have that internet investment exposure.  But now its even more inexcusable, IMO, for retail investors and the general public because of how much information and research materials are out there in the public domain.

Back to my initial paragraph, there is also just a lot of inherent passing of risk from private investors/founders to the general public in any IPO, even those of great and profitable and robust companies.  They are a way to raise capital, of course, but also allow people to cash out on money that had been otherwise invested and locked up in companies for years.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

I do feel bad for people bought SpaceX at 200 (or even 170) who are under water.  And I'll feel bad for people who eventually get run over by pullbacks in AI names that go public.  But unless its blatant Theranos level fraud or corporate malpractice, I still can't help but place blame on people who invest like lemmings.  You can say "oh there is shady accounting about XYZ in SpaceX" or "those revenue numbers for (insert AI company) were creatively crafted"...but most of these people getting rugpulled aren't pouring over 10-Ks or balance sheets, they are momentum/buzz chasing.

Wags,

Talking about these things being forced into pension funds, 401ks, etc once they're public.