You are the worst user on this site

12/25/2013 10:10:01 PM

^ Crazy talk.

12/26/2013 12:20:10 AM

Quote :

"Will espn2 in Seattle be showing this too? Not sure if it's a regional or national telecast?"

National all around. Don't believe ESPN does regional basketball broadcasts. Only related to ABC football broadcasts.

12/26/2013 12:38:10 AM

Not to feed the troll but jesus.

Quote :

"Missou hasn't played well this year and its their first road game."

Quote :

"10/25/13 vs. Oklahoma City # TV Hearnes Center W, 73-48 11/01/13 vs. Central Missouri # TV Mizzou Arena W, 92-79 11/08/13 vs. Southeastern Louisiana TV Mizzou Arena W, 89-53 11/12/13 vs. Southern Illinois TV Mizzou Arena W, 72-59 11/16/13 vs. Hawai'i TV Kansas City, Mo. (Sprint Center) W, 92-80 2013 Las Vegas Invitational (Opening Rounds) 11/23/13 vs. Gardner-Webb TV Mizzou Arena W, 72-63 11/25/13 vs. IUPUI TV Mizzou Arena W, 78-64 2013 Continental Tire Las Vegas Invitational 11/28/13 vs. Northwestern TV Las Vegas, Nev. (Orleans Arena) W, 78-67 11/29/13 vs. Nevada TV Las Vegas, Nev. (Orleans Arena) W, 83-70 Big 12/SEC Challenge 12/05/13 vs. West Virginia TV Mizzou Arena W, 80-71 12/07/13 vs. UCLA TV Mizzou Arena W, 80-71 12/15/13 vs. Western Michigan TV Mizzou Arena W, 66-60 2013 Bud Light Braggin' Rights 12/21/13 vs. Illinois TV St. Louis, Mo. (Scottrade Center) L, 65-64"

12/26/2013 9:18:09 AM

Like I said. They havent played well and its their first road game. We should be favored slightly

12/26/2013 9:48:28 AM

What the fuck are you on face. They beat an NBA team in their first game. They are crazy good.

Quote :

"Missou"

[Edited on December 26, 2013 at 9:54 AM. Reason : ]

12/26/2013 9:50:18 AM

Their wins over UCLA and WVU are solid resume fodder and they should have beaten Illinois. This game will hinge on whether or not their 3s are falling and if our big guys can control the paint (i.e. rebounds and allowing us to focus on perimeter D).

12/26/2013 10:10:41 AM

Bottom line is they obviously shouldn't be ranked. They are riding off reputation from previous seasons.

12/26/2013 1:26:40 PM

frank haith is not a very good coach, imo

12/26/2013 2:17:06 PM

Quote :

"frank haith is not a very good coach imo"

12/26/2013 2:28:53 PM

haha, yeah, that isn't a very unique opinion

12/26/2013 2:29:45 PM

it's somewhat disconcerting how poor our RPI is given how well we have played since vandy's return, especially since the acc this year wont be doing us many favors (8 games against 100+ rpi teams currently)

just a poor job scheduling. we needed another real team on the schedule once we found out the b10 match up was northwestern. mizzou will help, especially if we win, but it'll be immediately canceled out by uncg

12/26/2013 2:36:24 PM

RPI talk in February/March is bad enough, but in late-December??

c'mon, man

[Edited on December 26, 2013 at 2:50 PM. Reason : bleh]

12/26/2013 2:48:43 PM

^some people just have to be the first to "call it".

I agree, worrying about that now is getting waaaay ahead of ourselves. Should be a good game, if we stay out of foul trouble I like our odds. We have shown improvement game to game, and I want to see that continue.

GO PACK

12/26/2013 3:19:35 PM

who gives a shit about our RPI, we will get a #1 seed when we win the ACC

12/26/2013 3:21:32 PM

^
Is it based on the WRAL preseason rankings?

12/26/2013 3:25:53 PM

Missouri's Luck is even worse than ours. Easy 3 point win for the Vandenpack.

12/26/2013 4:29:18 PM

Lol at it being too early to talk about RPI. Might as well wait until the season is over.

12/26/2013 5:37:46 PM

RPI is fine if you use it as one of many different indicators

but I've always found it ridiculous when people cling to it as the end-all-be-all of indicators/treat it as if it's the only thing the selection committee looks at

12/26/2013 6:00:32 PM

You're right.

They're also going to look at:

1) Our loss to NC fucking Central

2) Our lack of schedule strength

3) Our lack of quality wins

4) Our .500 or worse ACC record



Actually come to think of it, the selection committee may not even look at us at all. We may not even make the "warrants debate" criteria.

12/26/2013 6:07:03 PM

^the only two of those you can even say with any certainty right now is 1 and 2. I usually ignore your idiotic trolling, but I couldn't help myself this time.

12/26/2013 7:30:07 PM

still trying to figure out why people respond to face

[Edited on December 26, 2013 at 8:49 PM. Reason : r]

12/26/2013 8:49:14 PM

because i'm insightful and speak in reality. People prefer blind hope and ignorance.

[Edited on December 26, 2013 at 8:55 PM. Reason : a]

12/26/2013 8:54:54 PM

haven't you already admitted you haven't watched this team this year? you predicted we'd get blown out by tennessee, if i recall

12/26/2013 9:08:47 PM

the nc central loss isnt that bad. most teams on the bubble have 1 or 2 pants shittingly bad losses. thats why they end up on the bubble. the alternative is having no bad losses but also no good wins and those teams usually really get shit on by the committee because that profile is typically the 225+ OOC conference scheduling type

our OOC right now is in the 180s with two games left and I expect it to stay there or maybe jump ~10 spots after the next two games. if long beach starts winning games or jason capel gets fired midseason maybe we end up on the good side of 150 but who knows

it's never too early to look at the rpi because all the metrics the committee look at besides the rpi are derived from the rpi. "top 50 wins" etc guess where that shit comes from? the rpi

face was shitting himself all of last year because we were underperforming but we were never really in trouble with the tournament because our RPI was higher than our actual strength. this year the opposite is the case

12/26/2013 9:13:24 PM

face predicted that Vandy would be awful this season and we'd be unable to rely on him down low. He also stated that we'd be lucky to finish .500 overall and make the NIT.

So I mean...we're certainly looking much better than a .500 overall team. And anybody who has seen us play (or in face's case, looked at a box score) knows that Vandy has been a solid contributor this season

[Edited on December 26, 2013 at 9:17 PM. Reason : Jhf]

12/26/2013 9:15:51 PM

um i nailed us last season when everyone said we were good and i said the whole way that we weren't

This season we're probably a bit better than our rankings show b/c we missed some Vandy games and Lewis was playing way too much early on. But our rpi is horrible and its awfully late in the game to correct that.

On top of that the ACC is really strong this year and even worse it isnt perceived by the media as being that strong.

I never said Vandy would suck. I've always been a Vandy supporter because he had some impact minutes as a fr. and played well at times as a sophomore. He did suck the last two years because clearly he was fat. You have me confused with NYM he is the one that always hated vandy. I just said i dont think we can rely on Vandy to carry us. In conference play i still think that's true.

12/26/2013 9:23:10 PM

dont you think the sample size is a little low for the stats to tell the whole story in december?

what do the stats say about UNC? they can beat the best teams in the country and lose to the worst teams in the country?

12/26/2013 9:24:51 PM

Face, I looked back and I was apparently wrong. I couldn't find any posts of you saying Vandy was going to be awful. Clearly I had you confused with somebody else

I did see your post saying that a 15-16 (6-12) season, borderline top 100 team, was your expectation. Do you still stand by that?

12/26/2013 9:32:28 PM

Quote :

"still trying to figure out why people respond to face"

12/26/2013 9:35:24 PM

Quote :

"um i nailed us last season when everyone said we were good and i said the whole way that we weren't"

That's a pretty fucking bland statement. I think everyone would agree that after the last 20 years, making the ncaa tourney is a good year

12/26/2013 9:35:53 PM

^^I'd be down to talk about Missouri but I don't know a lot about them

12/26/2013 9:43:44 PM

We don't have more important stuff to do here than responding to face do we? His posts are quite entertaining tbh, unlike Jaybee , thank god he's gone yeah?

12/26/2013 9:46:15 PM

This team lost 80% of its starters this year. I'll say so far they exceeded my expectations, what were people expecting this year a Cinderella story to the national finals? Root for your team, do your best to support them, and lets talk about the game Saturday instead of bitching about all the hypothetical rpi scenarios. Btw, our lost to Central was the worst game we played all year however this team still managed to send the game into overtime but end up falling because Vandy was out and we had a fouling buffet. Also, we have a very young team. It would of been idiotic for Gottfried to send them to the lions early in their career so i think the schedule strength was appropriate this season.

12/26/2013 9:58:17 PM

The fouling is a major, recurring problem, not a fluke.

12/27/2013 12:06:57 AM

Quote :

"still trying to figure out why people respond to face"

+1

^ This nerd is such a wannabe.

12/27/2013 12:44:03 AM

agreed that after the Tenn win we're an above .500 team obviously.

I'd say we go 9-9 in conference play with the next most likely scenario 8-10. But 10-8 is probably our ceiling.

It's going to be tough to make the NCAA-t with our resume.

Our only hope is Anya emerging as a huge presence

12/27/2013 4:47:20 AM

Face. We make the NCAA easy with 10-8 or even with .500 in the ACC. Stop trolling. The ACC is essentially the big east now.

12/27/2013 8:26:44 AM

Meh, I think the ACC isn't as strong as most thought it would be. Sure the top 3 spots are pretty strong, but after that it's really a scramble to be that 4th team. I mean even Duke and UNC getting peppered with losses already, and UNC losing to some bad teams.

BC and Maryland struggling already. FSU, UVA, and ND have more losses than us but some losses against ranked teams. Pitt looking solid at 11-1 but no huge wins or bad losses(Cincy by 1).

The NCAA Selection Committee does take injuries into consideration when looking at bubble teams. If we have a really strong season and Vandy turns out to be a solid contributor, they'll write that NCCU loss off to having a key contributor injured. We play NCCU tomorrow and I have no doubt we beat them comfortably.

I still don't think we're a bubble team, but it has more to do with our level of experience/depth/talent than it does our loss to NCCU early in the season. The NCAA has and will continue to be a "what have you done for me lately" entity. If we finish strong we'll have a decent shot, but I'd still be impressed with .500 or better in the ACC this year given the lack of experience we're bringing to the table.

12/27/2013 9:01:13 AM

We finished 9-7 in the ACC regular a couple of years back, and won 2 in the tourney to make it 11-8. No major wins. And we got a 11th seed in March. No doubt we get in this year with a .500 ACC . Of course getting to that record is not going to happen in all probability.



[Edited on December 27, 2013 at 9:30 AM. Reason : ]

12/27/2013 9:29:39 AM

Cmon people. face is way ahead of the game, as usual. He's quantified all the variables. He's loaded his algorithm into the mainframe, and he's already simulated this season thousands of times. He's playing chess while the rest of you clowns are playing checkers.

Season's over, move along folks. We lost before we stepped on the court. Just wait till next year. Unless face says we're already doomed next year as well.

[Edited on December 27, 2013 at 9:35 AM. Reason : 3]

12/27/2013 9:34:35 AM

^
We're basically doomed for the Gottfried era because we lost the recruiting momentum missing out on Randle.

Isn't that right face?

[Edited on December 27, 2013 at 9:37 AM. Reason : ]

12/27/2013 9:37:08 AM

we've analyzed the data

there is a 0% chance of ncaa tournament with a loss to frank haith

12/27/2013 9:48:49 AM

fuck you

12/27/2013 1:43:03 PM

Quote :

"Lol at the e man Trying to know what he's talking about and failing. I'm not even sure why anyone responds to ole Earl"

im not earl and know what im talking about. im the one who actually knows several d1 coaches personally. teams only schedule road games when they have to. sure they get you battle tested but nobody wants to lose. this is why teams that dont have to (duke) have the luxury of playing very few road ooc games. it works out pretty well for them.

gtown playing that game at kansas was a deathwish but for non-elite programs its the only way to play games against some good competition. duke can get anybody to play in the garden without having to go to their place. thats the ideal situation.

12/27/2013 3:51:24 PM

Pack opens as 1.5 point favorites.

12/27/2013 3:56:54 PM

^ Like I fucking said.

12/27/2013 5:43:38 PM

What's the best way for a D1 coach to get money to players?

12/27/2013 6:21:36 PM

Quote :

"who gives a shit about our RPI, we will get a #1 seed when we win the ACC"

12/27/2013 6:36:35 PM

Giving their parents jobs that they aren't qualified for has worked well for Duke and UNC. Even when caught/investigated they haven't had any issues cheating with that method.

12/27/2013 7:22:34 PM