|
Post by AztecBill on Mar 4, 2015 17:50:34 GMT -8
And drop the motha#%&'in' mic! Couldn't have said it much better. Enjoy the ride folks, and who knows, maybe this will be the team that catches fire at the right time and makes that Elite 8 you think we so rightfully "deserve". Support our team, they deserve that. Sdcoug, if I was a better writer, I would have posted something very similar to your amazing post. This is exactly how I feel about our team. Although we haven't lived up to the lofty expectations going into this season, I still feel we are doing pretty well. Who knows how this season would have been without the loss of Polee. We had our BEST recruiting class EVER this year and I hope we continue this trend. The future still looks bright and I look forward to seeing how the end of the season plays out. Be positive Aztec fans!! Be happy that we live in this beautiful city and aren't shoveling snow 24/7. And the loss of Zylan and the early limitations on Pope.
|
|
|
Post by northcountymike on Mar 4, 2015 17:51:34 GMT -8
Herein lies the problem, I think. You say, " We are not Kentucky, Duke, or even Kansas, so for fans to be disappointed with not making the E8 to me is ridiculous. Most teams and programs never ever make the S16." You've basically just conceded that it's ok to never be like them; to be winners. Sounds pretty defeatist to me. I'm curious, just how long are we expected to put up with it? I can enjoy that we're one of the most consistent programs anywhere, and I've been enjoying it for more than a few years now... Regarding highly-ranked classes, sure, we got a good one last year. However, it usually doesn't take blueblood schools 3 and 4 years to develop their "star" freshmen. I'm also not buying the argument that we've recruited "scorers." It seems like we recruit athletes in the hopes that they can score. We get lucky every now and then and a player or two becomes the go-to-guy (X or Jamaal). But, we haven't had a team that can put points on the board for almost 5 seasons now. I'm as realistic as they come and others have bashed me for calling out the team about glaring issues (i.e. the lack of an offense). Ok, let's just say the CSU loss was on our D (I think, however, that sometimes a team gets hot shooting and there isn't much you can do; same goes with our loss at BSU). How many losses could be attributed to a true lack of D? Maybe one or two? On the flip side, how many losses have we had because of our lack of offense? Quite a few. Lack of offense = running "set" plays, missing shots, missing free throws, etc. With an offense, I think we beat Washington, Cincy, Boise (at home), and probably Arizona...
Saying we're not going to be Kentucky or Duke or Kansas isn't "defeatist". It's being a realist, and it's based on facts. MONEY is critical in collegiate sports today, and a team operating on a fraction of the budget of a big time program is going to struggle to keep up. Those top tier schools attract more top tier talent for a reason. Doesn't mean you can't beat them occasionally (see Kansas) or even have a better year here or there, but overall - those are MUCH better programs & the elite, while the odds of us doing the same w/o a significant influx of money are very low.
What's funny is your statement "how long are we expected to 'put up with it'"? Huh? "Put up" with contending for a conference championship year after year? "Put up" with going to the NCAA tournament every year for 5 (now 6) years straight? "Put up" with going to the S16 2 of the prior 4 years. Yea, that sucks. We shouldn't "put up" with that any longer. No way. Listen to yourself - how entitled do you think you are? Over the past 6 years you're supporting a program that's among the top 5-10% in the country.
SDSU basketball is the very definition of success. We're a top 20-30 program nationally, if not higher when you factor in consistency. That, while operating on one of if not THE the smallest budgets among those same 20-30 programs.
As for developing players, you must not have read my email. We've been among the top 25 recruiting classes ONCE in the past 5 years, yet we're among the top 25 programs overall during that same timeframe! Do you think WE develop players while everyone else stands still? Our best, or highest recruit, didn't even practice fully for a couple months. We're not recruiting on the same plain as Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, etc. We don't have private jets for recruiting; we don't have elite locker rooms; we don't have a budget that allows us to fly charter to all our games. You don't think that matters?
Yea, I'd love to have a great offensive AND defensive team. I'd love to get 2-3 5-star recruits each year, and be loaded with McDonald's All-Americans. We don't. We're not. THEY ARE.
Fisher & crew should be COMMENDED for their recruiting, in spite of the hurdles. They should be commended for having a team identity, which is defense. Would you rather be BYU & score a ton but still lose? Indiana? Pittsburgh?
I don't disagree with you about our offense, and lack of sets/movement, etc. I'm not a fan of giving the players a lot of latitude & freedom, but they like it & it works most often than not. Personally, I've love to be Virginia & run the mover/blocker w/ the same level of D, but a lot of players don't like that style either.
"Haven't been a team that puts points on the board" - Really? Ultimately what matters is how efficient you are, and most important is whether you score more points per possession that you give up. Hopefully you agree with that. Winning 60-58 isn't any different than winning 70-68. Here's where we've ranked NATIONALLY over the past 5 years, with where we ranked within the conference in parenthesis (Adj Points/Possession per Kenpom):
2010: Offensive efficiency - 49th (3rd); Defensive efficiency - 40th (3rd) 2011: O - 32nd (2nd); D - 2nd (1st) 2012: O - 105th (5th); D - 49th (2nd) 2013: O - 95th (5th); D - 17th (3rd) 2014: O - 81st (6th); D - 9th (1st) 2015: O - 181st (5th); D - 4th (1st)
We've always been among the best defensive teams not only within our conference, but nationally. We've ALSO been better than average offensively - even top 25% half the time - up until THIS YEAR, where we're still about average. That's a pretty damn good combination. Whether it's Franklin, X or whoever scoring, it doesn't matter. All that matters is we put the ball in the hoop. You reference 4 games (out of 29) where we lost due to our offense. Want to check other programs & see how many THEY'VE lost due to the occasionally offensive issues? Check out national power Florida. 2 of those 4 were road games, where MANY teams struggle (Cincy is a top 20 defensive team nationally); the other was to a top 5-10 program nationally on a neutral court, and they're one of the best defenses ANYWHERE - 3rd nationally (& we shot a higher % than they did). Yea, losing those sucked, but most teams lose games that suck. IMO there have been 3 disappointing game - UW, who was playing well at the time; at Fresno, and BSU at home. THREE! How many programs don't have 3 frustrating, or bad losses? BTW, BSU is the 2nd best defensive team in our conference. They've held several other offenses to worse production than we had.
And up until last Saturday we've actually been pretty good offensively - among the better teams nationally during the month of February. So maybe, just MAYBE, Saturday was an anomaly given the past month? We'll see. Maybe our O will haunt us, but our D will give us a chance.
Dude, you can be all pissed off & disappointed, & "expect" to be Duke or Kentucky, but there are over 320 D1 programs who would trade places with you in a heartbeat, including MOST of the entire west coast.
IMO, we've OVERACHIEVED as a program, not underachieved especially given the financials, and we should all be proud of that. Not whining. Complain about the game; discuss offensive changes. I get that. But to complain about the program & where we are or what we've achieved? Wow.
I appreciate the lengthy response. My only question (again) is how long are you going to be extolling the virtues of a defense-only team? That's nice that 320 D1 programs wish they were us; we're not Duke or Kansas, but we can be. Why should we just assume that just because we don't have "private jets" or "elite locker rooms," we can't compete at a higher level than we are now? Regarding offense: 2010: Offensive efficiency - 49th (3rd); Defensive efficiency - 40th (3rd) 2011: O - 32nd (2nd); D - 2nd (1st) 2012: O - 105th (5th); D - 49th (2nd) 2013: O - 95th (5th); D - 17th (3rd) 2014: O - 81st (6th); D - 9th (1st) 2015: O - 181st (5th); D - 4th (1st)
How long has "offensive efficiency" been a stat? Stats have gotten so out of hand and can be manipulated so much now that anything bad can be made to look good. Whatever it takes to make us feel good about something I suppose. It's like saying "Oh well, the Aztecs are shooting much better in day games than night games" (doesn't make much sense, does it?). I see a team that can't consistently score. I don't have a stat for that, does that make my argument invalid? I'm not sure why you even bothered to include the conference stats. At this point, we're a "national" presence and we should be #1 in the conference rather consistently. Our program is at the national level now and we are expected to be good. We even get a little love from the honks back east. So why, pray tell, has our offensive efficiency really not turned the corner on a national level? According to your stats, it's been 4 years of almost the same (and this year, it's even worse). I don't feel "entitled" at all; I've just been expecting our team to make the next leap, the next advancement, all along. I'll continue to wait, but I'm simply not content to let another 5 or 10 years go by without some sort of improvement (improvement meaning even more national respect, higher rankings, deeper tournament runs, and yep, more scoring). I've been a San Diego sports fan my entire life, so I don't even know what "entitled" really means anyway. Yup, we've been quite fortunate to have the run that we have had the last 10 years or so. In 10 years, will we all be patting ourselves on the back and saying "look how far we've come" if we still haven't advanced past the sweet 16?
|
|
|
Post by northcountymike on Mar 4, 2015 17:52:42 GMT -8
Complaining about "offense" makes me wonder whether you have ever actually played basketball. It's not like you change players when you change possession like football. Whiners complaining about "offense" cannot seem to understand that scoring more points than the other team is not a simplistic function of having an "offense." That is why efficiency matters more than raw scoring. We still would have beat BSU, IMO, if we had rebounded better, not played better "offense." It's funny how no one complains about lack of offense when the shots are dropping. It's the same "offense," just more confident (therefore, better) shooting. I don't think "confident" has much to do with it. We can get hot just like any other team in the country. The problem is that we got hot a lot less often.
|
|
|
Post by northcountymike on Mar 4, 2015 17:58:31 GMT -8
Complaining about "offense" makes me wonder whether you have ever actually played basketball. It's not like you change players when you change possession like football. Whiners complaining about "offense" cannot seem to understand that scoring more points than the other team is not a simplistic function of having an "offense." That is why efficiency matters more than raw scoring. We still would have beat BSU, IMO, if we had rebounded better, not played better "offense." It's funny how no one complains about lack of offense when the shots are dropping. It's the same "offense," just more confident (therefore, better) shooting. I think confident shooting is a bit overused. I don't think "confidence" has as much to do with it as we think. We can get hot just like any other team in the country. The problem is that we got hot a lot less often.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Mar 4, 2015 19:15:12 GMT -8
I appreciate the lengthy response. My only question (again) is how long are you going to be extolling the virtues of a defense-only team? That's nice that 320 D1 programs wish they were us; we're not Duke or Kansas, but we can be. Why should we just assume that just because we don't have "private jets" or "elite locker rooms," we can't compete at a higher level than we are now? Regarding offense: 2010: Offensive efficiency - 49th (3rd); Defensive efficiency - 40th (3rd) 2011: O - 32nd (2nd); D - 2nd (1st) 2012: O - 105th (5th); D - 49th (2nd) 2013: O - 95th (5th); D - 17th (3rd) 2014: O - 81st (6th); D - 9th (1st) 2015: O - 181st (5th); D - 4th (1st)
How long has "offensive efficiency" been a stat? Stats have gotten so out of hand and can be manipulated so much now that anything bad can be made to look good. Whatever it takes to make us feel good about something I suppose. It's like saying "Oh well, the Aztecs are shooting much better in day games than night games" (doesn't make much sense, does it?). I see a team that can't consistently score. I don't have a stat for that, does that make my argument invalid? I'm not sure why you even bothered to include the conference stats. At this point, we're a "national" presence and we should be #1 in the conference rather consistently. Our program is at the national level now and we are expected to be good. We even get a little love from the honks back east. So why, pray tell, has our offensive efficiency really not turned the corner on a national level? According to your stats, it's been 4 years of almost the same (and this year, it's even worse). I don't feel "entitled" at all; I've just been expecting our team to make the next leap, the next advancement, all along. I'll continue to wait, but I'm simply not content to let another 5 or 10 years go by without some sort of improvement (improvement meaning even more national respect, higher rankings, deeper tournament runs, and yep, more scoring). I've been a San Diego sports fan my entire life, so I don't even know what "entitled" really means anyway. Yup, we've been quite fortunate to have the run that we have had the last 10 years or so. In 10 years, will we all be patting ourselves on the back and saying "look how far we've come" if we still haven't advanced past the sweet 16? You actually believe it's realistic to expect a program which has a fraction of the budget to compete year in & year out with the elite squads? Seriously? There's a reason the elite programs have been the elite programs for some time now, and those making noise are those who invest a LOT more money than we're able to invest.
As for Offensive efficiency, it's been around since the beginning of time. When Naismith invented the game the objective was to score more often than the other team does, whether your walking the ball up the court, playing Dean Smiths 4-corners offense, or whether your Paul Westhead's running LMU teams. THAT IS THE STANDARD - points per possession. A Dean Smith 4-corners offense led by Phil Ford is not any less productive than the Kimble/Gathers led LMU squads. Otherwise, you're saying a team that runs & guns but only scores 1 point per possession is better than a team which methodically scores every time it has the ball. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a team which scores 72 points on 59 possessions (e.g. Wisconsin) is better than an VMI team which scores 81.2 points a game on 77 possessions. You have to take into account the tempo of the game, and if you go solely by points you're ignoring the fact SDSU and others (like Wisky) make teams work on offense.
We have been pretty good offensively over the past 5 years, and this year we're average. In February, we've been way above average.
Why include conference stats? Because that's the baseline for your competition. We're not playing EVERY team in the country. Even with our "weak" conference we've still played a top 100 schedule overall (77 per RPI). Plus, you can't get to the dance until you get through your conference, so how you perform in conference is VERY relevant.
Sorry, I'm going to disagree with you on the entitlement angle. If you actually EXPECT a program operating on the budget we are should be doing better than the S16 & should be among the Kansas, Duke's & Kentucky's, you ARE ACTING ENTITLED. You may not "feel it," but to anyone with any perspective you are acting it.
If in 10 years we've made the dance every year and have been to 3 or 4 S16's but not made it past, HELL YES we should be patting ourselves on the back. I'll bet there are 250+ programs over that time frame who won't have made it to ANY S16s, and very few who had made the dance as often as we have or made the S16 as much as we have. The S16 means you're among the top 5%. Personally, I don't EXPECT a program that's not even among the top 20-25% in revenue to be within the top 2% in performance.
Sure, it'd be great to get to the E8 or even further but to EXPECT it? Wow. If I'm Kansas, Duke, Kentucky, Louisville, etc. & know that my tickets are among the more expensive tickets anywhere, my program generates & spends more money than most colleges, our recruiting classes are top 10 annually, etc., then I'd EXPECT it. But SDSU? Sorry, you have an inflated view of the program. Those types of programs generate more profits than we generate revenue, and it's not even close. Yes, we're respected nationally but we're PAID regionally - MW dollars. We're at a significant disadvantage financially compared to 6+ other conferences. That's not changing. Even with a price increase for next year we'll still be among the more affordable season tickets. There's a lot of luck involved with even getting the S16, and even more getting further. It MAY happen, but to EXPECT it? Sorry. We'll agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by jdaztec on Mar 4, 2015 21:16:13 GMT -8
Lets hope his leg injury is minor.
|
|
|
Post by jpaztec on Mar 4, 2015 21:22:26 GMT -8
I'm at a bar with no sound, any word yet?
|
|
|
Post by alohaboarder on Mar 4, 2015 21:25:36 GMT -8
Fish said he was told bone bruise.
What I know about bone bruises: Two weeks minimum to completely heal a minor bone bruise. Up to a year if it's major. (Seem to be of the minor variety). A lot of the time he could come back in same game then once it swells up after the game might not play for a few games.
|
|
|
Post by Gundo on Mar 4, 2015 22:38:44 GMT -8
Bone bruise, hoping Malik can put some meat on those bones in the off season, before he leaves to the NBA. I think all GMs think he needs another year. Weights and maturity.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Mar 4, 2015 22:54:03 GMT -8
Pope isn't ready for the pros yet. He is a perimeter player that shoots flat-footed because, at 6'10" you can do that in college. on the perimeter. He really isn't a force inside and he doesn't create shots for himself moving from outside to inside. He has a lot of natural talent to work with but from where I sit he needs to develop more. Kawhi was pretty solid coming out of SDSU. He could rebound and play defense. He could make plays inside and be physical. He needed to work on his outside shot coming out of college but other than that he was already a pro player. Pope needs to toughen up a bit, even of offense. He has the physical tools to play at the next level but I think he is still a bit too soft to be a high draft pick.
|
|
|
Post by northcountymike on Mar 4, 2015 23:57:44 GMT -8
I appreciate the lengthy response. My only question (again) is how long are you going to be extolling the virtues of a defense-only team? That's nice that 320 D1 programs wish they were us; we're not Duke or Kansas, but we can be. Why should we just assume that just because we don't have "private jets" or "elite locker rooms," we can't compete at a higher level than we are now? Regarding offense: 2010: Offensive efficiency - 49th (3rd); Defensive efficiency - 40th (3rd) 2011: O - 32nd (2nd); D - 2nd (1st) 2012: O - 105th (5th); D - 49th (2nd) 2013: O - 95th (5th); D - 17th (3rd) 2014: O - 81st (6th); D - 9th (1st) 2015: O - 181st (5th); D - 4th (1st)
How long has "offensive efficiency" been a stat? Stats have gotten so out of hand and can be manipulated so much now that anything bad can be made to look good. Whatever it takes to make us feel good about something I suppose. It's like saying "Oh well, the Aztecs are shooting much better in day games than night games" (doesn't make much sense, does it?). I see a team that can't consistently score. I don't have a stat for that, does that make my argument invalid? I'm not sure why you even bothered to include the conference stats. At this point, we're a "national" presence and we should be #1 in the conference rather consistently. Our program is at the national level now and we are expected to be good. We even get a little love from the honks back east. So why, pray tell, has our offensive efficiency really not turned the corner on a national level? According to your stats, it's been 4 years of almost the same (and this year, it's even worse). I don't feel "entitled" at all; I've just been expecting our team to make the next leap, the next advancement, all along. I'll continue to wait, but I'm simply not content to let another 5 or 10 years go by without some sort of improvement (improvement meaning even more national respect, higher rankings, deeper tournament runs, and yep, more scoring). I've been a San Diego sports fan my entire life, so I don't even know what "entitled" really means anyway. Yup, we've been quite fortunate to have the run that we have had the last 10 years or so. In 10 years, will we all be patting ourselves on the back and saying "look how far we've come" if we still haven't advanced past the sweet 16? You actually believe it's realistic to expect a program which has a fraction of the budget to compete year in & year out with the elite squads? Seriously? There's a reason the elite programs have been the elite programs for some time now, and those making noise are those who invest a LOT more money than we're able to invest.
As for Offensive efficiency, it's been around since the beginning of time. When Naismith invented the game the objective was to score more often than the other team does, whether your walking the ball up the court, playing Dean Smiths 4-corners offense, or whether your Paul Westhead's running LMU teams. THAT IS THE STANDARD - points per possession. A Dean Smith 4-corners offense led by Phil Ford is not any less productive than the Kimble/Gathers led LMU squads. Otherwise, you're saying a team that runs & guns but only scores 1 point per possession is better than a team which methodically scores every time it has the ball. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a team which scores 72 points on 59 possessions (e.g. Wisconsin) is better than an VMI team which scores 81.2 points a game on 77 possessions. You have to take into account the tempo of the game, and if you go solely by points you're ignoring the fact SDSU and others (like Wisky) make teams work on offense.
We have been pretty good offensively over the past 5 years, and this year we're average. In February, we've been way above average.
Why include conference stats? Because that's the baseline for your competition. We're not playing EVERY team in the country. Even with our "weak" conference we've still played a top 100 schedule overall (77 per RPI). Plus, you can't get to the dance until you get through your conference, so how you perform in conference is VERY relevant.
Sorry, I'm going to disagree with you on the entitlement angle. If you actually EXPECT a program operating on the budget we are should be doing better than the S16 & should be among the Kansas, Duke's & Kentucky's, you ARE ACTING ENTITLED. You may not "feel it," but to anyone with any perspective you are acting it.
If in 10 years we've made the dance every year and have been to 3 or 4 S16's but not made it past, HELL YES we should be patting ourselves on the back. I'll bet there are 250+ programs over that time frame who won't have made it to ANY S16s, and very few who had made the dance as often as we have or made the S16 as much as we have. The S16 means you're among the top 5%. Personally, I don't EXPECT a program that's not even among the top 20-25% in revenue to be within the top 2% in performance.
Sure, it'd be great to get to the E8 or even further but to EXPECT it? Wow. If I'm Kansas, Duke, Kentucky, Louisville, etc. & know that my tickets are among the more expensive tickets anywhere, my program generates & spends more money than most colleges, our recruiting classes are top 10 annually, etc., then I'd EXPECT it. But SDSU? Sorry, you have an inflated view of the program. Those types of programs generate more profits than we generate revenue, and it's not even close. Yes, we're respected nationally but we're PAID regionally - MW dollars. We're at a significant disadvantage financially compared to 6+ other conferences. That's not changing. Even with a price increase for next year we'll still be among the more affordable season tickets. There's a lot of luck involved with even getting the S16, and even more getting further. It MAY happen, but to EXPECT it? Sorry. We'll agree to disagree.
I understand we don't have the same resources (i.e. money) as the blue bloods, but if you "expect" us to consistently make sweet 16 appearances and not advance past that and then think everything's ok and rationalize it by saying "well, we just don't have the resources, so it's ok," then yes, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm ok with that .
|
|
|
Post by Gundo on Mar 5, 2015 1:48:21 GMT -8
Weight room. We have another year with Malik.
|
|
|
Post by ctap13 on Mar 5, 2015 2:17:31 GMT -8
Why? Using ESPN as a source, over the past 3 years we've had 1 class ranked in the top 25 & that's the '14 crop, which was at #17. That's arguably our best class ever & they're freshmen, and definitely the best class among this roster. Even then, it's not S16.
So why should I EXPECT more than getting in the dance? We've got some great talent, but so have a lot of other schools.
I'm hopeful we get to the S16 but in no way do I feel entitled to it, or would I be disappointed not making it. Getting into the dance is an accomplishment, yet it's the norm for us. But to do that you still have to win the conference. Winning 1 game in the dance is great; 2 is awesome. Beyond that is special & rare.
You should enjoy the ride & be proud of the fact we're one of only a few who've been in the dance the past 6 years.
While I agree with this, when are we going to stop patting ourselves on the back about how we've owned our conference for a few years now and how we get great recruiting classes every year but the results are the same? Are we going to beat the same drum in 5 years if we still can't get past the sweet 16? We need to stop rationalizing things or justifying them by implying that something like winning the conference is a huge, great accomplishment, which somehow softens the blow when we lose in the first or second round of the NCAAs. I could understand if we have been losing games for random reasons these past few years, but the truth is, we just haven't had a legit offense for a while now. We've had a few saviors (X and Jamaal), but nothing beyond that. "We've come a long way, enjoy the ride" is getting a bit tired. And no, it certainly doesn't make me less of a fan because I've come to expect more from "my" team. And please, spare me the whole "well, you haven't been a fan long enough to appreciate what we have now" argument. I've been a "fan" long enough to have my season tickets and not be on a waiting list for them... Besides, is it wrong to want and expect more? Nice post. At least somebody else is not afraid to step up to this fraternity. You nailed a lot of key points here. We should be focusing exclusively on the big tournament as that is where we need to perform.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Mar 5, 2015 9:33:10 GMT -8
I understand we don't have the same resources (i.e. money) as the blue bloods, but if you "expect" us to consistently make sweet 16 appearances and not advance past that and then think everything's ok and rationalize it by saying "well, we just don't have the resources, so it's ok," then yes, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm ok with that . Whether you "expect" to go further than the S16 or celebrate making the S16, NEITHER will have ANY impact on the success of the team. NONE. You having higher expectations doesn't make them play better, nor is it going to change how they operate. Fisher isn't getting fired because you get frustrated & won't "accept" not making it past the S16, nor will he change his offensive scheme or the identity of the team.
All you can control is whether you donate & believe you're helping the team financially enough to improve the program & raise it to the next level, buy game tickets & attend games.
Having higher expectations only means you'll be disappointed if we don't go beyond the S16 while others will still be happy. Nothing more.
So yes, we'll agree to disagree & I'm good celebrating the victories & not expecting to be Kentucky.
|
|
|
Post by northcountymike on Mar 5, 2015 14:42:01 GMT -8
I understand we don't have the same resources (i.e. money) as the blue bloods, but if you "expect" us to consistently make sweet 16 appearances and not advance past that and then think everything's ok and rationalize it by saying "well, we just don't have the resources, so it's ok," then yes, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm ok with that . Whether you "expect" to go further than the S16 or celebrate making the S16, NEITHER will have ANY impact on the success of the team. NONE. You having higher expectations doesn't make them play better, nor is it going to change how they operate. Fisher isn't getting fired because you get frustrated & won't "accept" not making it past the S16, nor will he change his offensive scheme or the identity of the team.
All you can control is whether you donate & believe you're helping the team financially enough to improve the program & raise it to the next level, buy game tickets & attend games.
Having higher expectations only means you'll be disappointed if we don't go beyond the S16 while others will still be happy. Nothing more.
So yes, we'll agree to disagree & I'm good celebrating the victories & not expecting to be Kentucky.
What? You mean my complaining won't change the way the team plays? You mean my complaining won't lead to Fisher being fired? I never said any of that. You implied it and everyone on this board loves to jump to conclusions rather quickly whenever someone offers a view that may be a tad different than everyone else's. I want this team to win, period. I'm not sure how that's any different than anyone else. The only difference is that I think we're capable of being much better and "settling" just because we don't have private jets is a bit of a reach. I can think of a few teams that have made the Final 4 in recent years that had the same level or even less notoriety and yes, less "funding" than we do. What about George Mason (2006)? Butler (2010, 2011)? VCU (2011)? Wichita State (2013)? What was it about these teams that let them advance to the Final 4?
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Mar 5, 2015 14:53:31 GMT -8
Whether you "expect" to go further than the S16 or celebrate making the S16, NEITHER will have ANY impact on the success of the team. NONE. You having higher expectations doesn't make them play better, nor is it going to change how they operate. Fisher isn't getting fired because you get frustrated & won't "accept" not making it past the S16, nor will he change his offensive scheme or the identity of the team.
All you can control is whether you donate & believe you're helping the team financially enough to improve the program & raise it to the next level, buy game tickets & attend games.
Having higher expectations only means you'll be disappointed if we don't go beyond the S16 while others will still be happy. Nothing more.
So yes, we'll agree to disagree & I'm good celebrating the victories & not expecting to be Kentucky.
What? You mean my complaining won't change the way the team plays? You mean my complaining won't lead to Fisher being fired? I never said any of that. You implied it and everyone on this board loves to jump to conclusions rather quickly whenever someone offers a view that may be a tad different than everyone else's. I want this team to win, period. I'm not sure how that's any different than anyone else. The only difference is that I think we're capable of being much better and "settling" just because we don't have private jets is a bit of a reach. I can think of a few teams that have made the Final 4 in recent years that had the same level or even less notoriety and yes, less "funding" than we do. What about George Mason (2006)? Butler (2010, 2011)? VCU (2011)? Wichita State (2013)? What was it about these teams that let them advance to the Final 4? No one's said we CAN'T get to the elite 8 or even the final 4. YOU said we shouldn't celebrate if we DON'T get further than the S16 & said you EXPECT our program to be on plain with the Kentucky's, Duke's, Kansas's of the world. We weren't comparing budgets to the George Mason's or Butler's (although theirs is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than ours). YOU were comparing us to the blue bloods. Last I checked those are the elite of college basketball, not George Mason or Butler.
Getting to the S16 is not "settling". It's extremely successful.
|
|
|
Post by northcountymike on Mar 5, 2015 14:59:58 GMT -8
What? You mean my complaining won't change the way the team plays? You mean my complaining won't lead to Fisher being fired? I never said any of that. You implied it and everyone on this board loves to jump to conclusions rather quickly whenever someone offers a view that may be a tad different than everyone else's. I want this team to win, period. I'm not sure how that's any different than anyone else. The only difference is that I think we're capable of being much better and "settling" just because we don't have private jets is a bit of a reach. I can think of a few teams that have made the Final 4 in recent years that had the same level or even less notoriety and yes, less "funding" than we do. What about George Mason (2006)? Butler (2010, 2011)? VCU (2011)? Wichita State (2013)? What was it about these teams that let them advance to the Final 4? No one's said we CAN'T get to the elite 8 or even the final 4. YOU said we shouldn't celebrate if we DON'T get further than the S16 & said you EXPECT our program to be on plain with the Kentucky's, Duke's, Kansas's of the world. We weren't comparing budgets to the George Mason's or Butler's (although theirs is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than ours). YOU were comparing us to the blue bloods. Last I checked those are the elite of college basketball, not George Mason or Butler.
Getting to the S16 is not "settling". It's extremely successful.
You're right - we weren't comparing budgets. I was. And I was pointing out a list of schools with seemingly less funding (or at least on par with) that have done more and advanced further than we ever have. Correct; those are not the "elite" schools. So how did they get that far? Was it coaching? Execution? Players getting hot at the right time? My point is, they did it without the same level of resources as the blue bloods. Why can't we? Especially when we've been just as good or better than the George Masons or VCUs of the world for longer. Regarding Butler, they may have more dedicated basketball money now but I guarantee you that wasn't the case the first or even second year that they made the Final 4. A serious question: how long are we going to be content with simply making the Sweet 16? How many years until we say "you know, getting to the Elite 8 or even Final 4 looks pretty good."
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Mar 5, 2015 15:21:34 GMT -8
No one's said we CAN'T get to the elite 8 or even the final 4. YOU said we shouldn't celebrate if we DON'T get further than the S16 & said you EXPECT our program to be on plain with the Kentucky's, Duke's, Kansas's of the world. We weren't comparing budgets to the George Mason's or Butler's (although theirs is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than ours). YOU were comparing us to the blue bloods. Last I checked those are the elite of college basketball, not George Mason or Butler.
Getting to the S16 is not "settling". It's extremely successful.
You're right - we weren't comparing budgets. I was. And I was pointing out a list of schools with seemingly less funding (or at least on par with) that have done more and advanced further than we ever have. Correct; those are not the "elite" schools. So how did they get that far? Was it coaching? Execution? Players getting hot at the right time? My point is, they did it without the same level of resources as the blue bloods. Why can't we? Especially when we've been just as good or better than the George Masons or VCUs of the world for longer. Regarding Butler, they may have more dedicated basketball money now but I guarantee you that wasn't the case the first or even second year that they made the Final 4. A serious question: how long are we going to be content with simply making the Sweet 16? How many years until we say "you know, getting to the Elite 8 or even Final 4 looks pretty good."Those aren't independent. You can be VERY content with making the S16 and still think the E8 or F4 looks pretty good. The difference is you don't EXPECT to be among the top 2% of all programs and aren't disappointed & believe you can't celebrate the fact you're still among the elite just getting to the S16.
As stated from the beginning, getting to the E8 & beyond includes a lot of luck, as well as getting hot at the right time & getting the right match-ups.
EVERYBODY on this board WANTS the team to get to the E8. The difference is, not everyone EXPECTS it & says we should NOT be happy when we don't. You call it "Settling"; I call it . Some realize getting to the S16 is a significant accomplishment, as is just getting to the dance regularly.
|
|
|
Post by northcountymike on Mar 5, 2015 15:41:43 GMT -8
You're right - we weren't comparing budgets. I was. And I was pointing out a list of schools with seemingly less funding (or at least on par with) that have done more and advanced further than we ever have. Correct; those are not the "elite" schools. So how did they get that far? Was it coaching? Execution? Players getting hot at the right time? My point is, they did it without the same level of resources as the blue bloods. Why can't we? Especially when we've been just as good or better than the George Masons or VCUs of the world for longer. Regarding Butler, they may have more dedicated basketball money now but I guarantee you that wasn't the case the first or even second year that they made the Final 4. A serious question: how long are we going to be content with simply making the Sweet 16? How many years until we say "you know, getting to the Elite 8 or even Final 4 looks pretty good."Those aren't independent. You can be VERY content with making the S16 and still think the E8 or F4 looks pretty good. The difference is you don't EXPECT to be among the top 2% of all programs and aren't disappointed & believe you can't celebrate the fact you're still among the elite just getting to the S16.
As stated from the beginning, getting to the E8 & beyond includes a lot of luck, as well as getting hot at the right time & getting the right match-ups.
EVERYBODY on this board WANTS the team to get to the E8. The difference is, not everyone EXPECTS it & says we should NOT be happy when we don't. You call it "Settling"; I call it . Some realize getting to the S16 is a significant accomplishment, as is just getting to the dance regularly.
Ok, so which one are we? The team that has to get lucky and get hot at the right time? Or the team that expects to be good consistently (i.e. blue bloods)? Are we somewhere in the middle? Getting to the S16 is a significant accomplishment but eventually, "dominating" until the S16 and not advancing is a moot point. Take the Buffalo Bills teams of the early 90's. They made 4 consecutive Super Bowl appearances and lost them all. I'm sure if you asked the losing players how they felt then and now, I doubt they would say "hey, at least we made it this far." And no, this isn't a comparison about the "funding" of college basketball vs. the NFL, this is a comparison about the players and fans and the mindset that accompanies it.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Mar 5, 2015 22:59:25 GMT -8
Those aren't independent. You can be VERY content with making the S16 and still think the E8 or F4 looks pretty good. The difference is you don't EXPECT to be among the top 2% of all programs and aren't disappointed & believe you can't celebrate the fact you're still among the elite just getting to the S16.
As stated from the beginning, getting to the E8 & beyond includes a lot of luck, as well as getting hot at the right time & getting the right match-ups.
EVERYBODY on this board WANTS the team to get to the E8. The difference is, not everyone EXPECTS it & says we should NOT be happy when we don't. You call it "Settling"; I call it . Some realize getting to the S16 is a significant accomplishment, as is just getting to the dance regularly.
Ok, so which one are we? The team that has to get lucky and get hot at the right time? Or the team that expects to be good consistently (i.e. blue bloods)? Are we somewhere in the middle? Getting to the S16 is a significant accomplishment but eventually, "dominating" until the S16 and not advancing is a moot point. Take the Buffalo Bills teams of the early 90's. They made 4 consecutive Super Bowl appearances and lost them all. I'm sure if you asked the losing players how they felt then and now, I doubt they would say "hey, at least we made it this far." And no, this isn't a comparison about the "funding" of college basketball vs. the NFL, this is a comparison about the players and fans and the mindset that accompanies it. Considering our program is nowhere near the level of the blue bloods that's not us, so we are more towards needing luck and the right matchups. Case in point, had we not been in UConns bracket who knows where that team ends up? We faced one of the hottest teams in the nation and even had a couple questionable calls cost us. Not saying we lost due to the refs, but you need breaks. Uconnn got them. And that draw hurt us. as for Bills, although they'd have liked to have won one Jim Kelly has said over and over how proud he was to get that close that often. Same with Tarkington and the Vikes. I have no doubt they weren't very disappointed but that doesn't make their seasons a failure. And would you rather be THOSE Buffalo Bills fans, or the current ones? Think they "expect" to win a Super Bowl or do you think they wish they were just playing in one, even if they lost? Yea, if we get to S16 but not beyond we will ask what if and be disappointed we didn't go further, but when I step back I know I'd realize it was an incredible accomplishment. And not something I "expect" or will deem a failure by any measure. If we had a top 10 revenue program and multiple top 20 classes I'd be a little more frustrated, but we don't. We are a very good program who has accomplished a lot over the last 6 years. That's awesome. Hopefully we we get a good draw and the right matchups. Maybe we go far. If not it doesn't mean we weren't successful this year. Maybe we get a sugar daddy like knight or TBoone to help level the playing field for our coaches? Maybe we get the $20MM+ B12 money? Maybe not. But when I see us at right now I see an incredibly successful program given our means.
|
|