(11-15-2013 01:49 AM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(11-15-2013 01:33 AM)Dracorex Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 11:15 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  How many times are you guys going to bring up our schedule? I mean really, like we haven't been down this road 1000 times. What F do you want? None of us make the schedule, most hate it. Move on. This is getting old. Yes, too many non-D-1's that a garbage teams.

With apologies but we had to hear from SJ et. al. all off season about your CIT/CBI championship. The issue for us is that your SOS is the only reason ECU was above .500 and even got an invite to a postseason to that tournament.

On top of that, you guys are leaving for the AAC and SJ et. al. ran their mouth about how your recruiting will improve now and how ECU is gonna be world beaters.

It has nothing to do with most of the ECU fans on this board but a certain few. Most of you are fun.

Take it up with SJ then No one likes the schedule. Like I said in another thread... at least we won the damn games, we could've just lost them and looked even worse.

How do you propose we take it up with that stupid troll? The mods won't ban him, because technically he doesn't break enough of the rules to deserve it. He walks a very fine line and is very good with what he does.

(11-15-2013 02:03 AM)Dracorex Wrote:  

(11-15-2013 01:49 AM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(11-15-2013 01:33 AM)Dracorex Wrote:  

(11-14-2013 11:15 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  How many times are you guys going to bring up our schedule? I mean really, like we haven't been down this road 1000 times. What F do you want? None of us make the schedule, most hate it. Move on. This is getting old. Yes, too many non-D-1's that a garbage teams.

With apologies but we had to hear from SJ et. al. all off season about your CIT/CBI championship. The issue for us is that your SOS is the only reason ECU was above .500 and even got an invite to a postseason to that tournament.

On top of that, you guys are leaving for the AAC and SJ et. al. ran their mouth about how your recruiting will improve now and how ECU is gonna be world beaters.

It has nothing to do with most of the ECU fans on this board but a certain few. Most of you are fun.

Take it up with SJ then No one likes the schedule. Like I said in another thread... at least we won the damn games, we could've just lost them and looked even worse.

How do you propose we take it up with that stupid troll?

Ignore him? Works wonders.

(11-15-2013 01:33 AM)Dracorex Wrote:  With apologies but we had to hear from SJ et. al. all off season about your CIT/CBI championship.

Wrong I talk about our rankings. I talk about our entire season not just one 5 game part of it while you guy are hung up on that one small part and want to pretend they were never played.

Quote:On top of that, you guys are leaving for the AAC and SJ et. al. ran their mouth about how your recruiting will improve now and how ECU is gonna be world beaters.

I predicted top 75 last year and that's about what we were at the end of the year. I predicted anywhere from 75-175 this preseason because I honestly didn't have a clue with so many new guys. That's world beaters? I probably have the most realistic view of reality and my team of anyone here. Yeah, I predicted for many reasons that recruiting would improve, including the new practice facility and winning, and in fact it has and that we signed our first 4 star player in 15+ years.

I don't know where you have ever heard me say we would be world beaters just that we are as good or in better shape than the UAB or UNCC's for the foreseeable future and at the very worst on par as a program. Sorry if that hurts your self pride of what you think you are but you guys are the one with the outrageous expectations built mostly on crap decades ago like a Hall of Fame coach that left UCLA (yeah that's normal) to be at UAB and stay or having Louisville or Cincy to recruit against.

I know what we are. It's you guys that expect to be top 25 with like 125th best resources in the nation, and 3k fans in the stands no practice facility etc.

(11-17-2013 04:06 PM)notnow Wrote:  How could that be?
Texas Southern has Mike Davis as the coach.
SJ thinks Davis is a top level coach.
FIU best a Davis coached team ?

You have to take into account the level of player you can get there as well. That is the worst conference in America, like 32nd best. He was also 16-2 vs his peers last year in year one and finished on a 12 game win streak. If they weren't on probation they would have likely been in the NCAA's.

You can say what you want about him but he had you in the top 40 or 50 most years when you haven't even got top 100 resources, facilities, or support. That's called overachieving.

At the end of the day there is no bad coach that has taken a team to the National Finals. It just doesn't happen. I mean who did he even have. Jared Jefferies. Seriously. It was an amazing coaching job to get a career NBA Journyman, Tom Coverdale, Dane Fife and a bunch of scrubs to the finish line and beat teams like defending champs Duke with Boozer, Dunlevy, Duhon, Dahntay Jones, and Jason Williams along the way. Anyone that thinks otherwise really doesn't know basketball. Most of those Duke guys are still in the NBA.

Mike Davis finished top 50 RPI 3out of 6 years and made one NCAA.
Mike Anderson finished top 50 3 out of 4 years and made 3 NCAAs

Davis didn't over achieve at UAB. He failed to maintain what Anderson had revived that Bartow had started.

(11-17-2013 06:47 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  Mike Davis finished top 50 RPI 3out of 6 years and made one NCAA.
Mike Anderson finished top 50 3 out of 4 years and made 3 NCAAs

Davis didn't over achieve at UAB. He failed to maintain what Anderson had revived that Bartow had started.

These are the regular season RPI finishes under Davis.

2012: 111
2011: 31
2010: 45
2009: 46
2008: 51
2007: 137

That's mostly top 50 with far less than top 50 support or resources.

You can build your expectations on stuff from a decade, two or three if you want but your situation in no where near the same today. Mike Davis didn't have the benefit of a power conference that was getting 5 teams to the NCAA's a year or that had multiple final 4 runs to recruit or build his RPI with like Mike Anderson did.

Bartow is just a flat out anomaly. If you are waiting around for another Hall of Fame coach to leave a blue blood program like UCLA to come to UAB and stay 15 or 20 years, you'll be waiting forever cause it's never happening again. Davis did a great job for the situation he had and what he really had to work with.

(11-17-2013 06:19 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(11-15-2013 01:33 AM)Dracorex Wrote:  With apologies but we had to hear from SJ et. al. all off season about your CIT/CBI championship.

Wrong I talk about our rankings. I talk about our entire season not just one 5 game part of it while you guy are hung up on that one small part and want to pretend they were never played.

This is where you're incorrect jonesing. You tried to manipulate the rpi rankings by including the cit tournament (a tournament which had teams with losing records participating in it.) The season was not a top 100 rpi season, but it was damn well near it. It was a season that saw ecu finish 105 in the rpi, which is pretty good for ecu, but the fact that you tried to force feed the cit down everyone's throat has diminished the results of that tournament in people's eyes.

You should have just gone with "we finished the season almost in the top 100 rpi, and won the cit". I think that would have gone over a lot better with the board.

My point is, you were the one who kept bringing up the cit.

Average Regular season RPI

Under Mike Anderson....59

Under Mike Davis....70


That's actually pretty remarkable when you consider how much worse CUSA was and the tougher situation recruiting and winning games of substance were. His tourny wins would help for sure if they were factored in for Anderson like some sites do today and like Sagarin and Pomory, but the gap is not nearly what you people make out to be even in a considerably worse situation.

(11-17-2013 07:05 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  This is where you're incorrect jonesing. You tried to manipulate the rpi rankings by including the cit tournament (a tournament which had teams with losing records participating in it.) The season was not a top 100 rpi season, but it was damn well near it. It was a season that saw ecu finish 105 in the rpi, which is pretty good for ecu, but the fact that you tried to force feed the cit down everyone's throat has diminished the results of that tournament in people's eyes.

You should have just gone with "we finished the season almost in the top 100 rpi, and won the cit". I think that would have gone over a lot better with the board.

That is not a ranking of the season. That is a ranking of a partial season with 3 important weeks left out, not just for ECU but for our opponents and our opponents-opponents, many of which were also still playing and that impact the rankings for everyone.

There is no manipulation of anything. It's the same RPI formula with an actual complete season data where 3 weeks where most of the top 1/3rd of college basketball is playing head to head. I'm sorry you don't like it but grading a season that is far from complete and actually thinking it's a more accurate reflection of that season is what is an absolute joke.

Games are games, it really doesn't matter when or why they were played and the RPI judged them just as such. If it was the first game of the year it would have registered just the same and said we had a 67th ranked season when all the returns were in at the actual end of the season.

Trying to pretend they didn't happen or give us no credit for them or completely ignoring another loss by just about every other team to end the year is what's the manipulation and incomplete and inaccurate reflection. I can't even believe people actually try to have this argument and argue incomplete season rankings are better than the EXACT same rankings with all the data.

spin it however you want. I will leave some facts for you, though... two thirds of the teams involved in the formula weren't even playing, many of which, elected not to play. By the end of the season, each team has played 30 opponents. At that point, your opponents results and even more so, your opponents-opponents results will be non-factors. The only thing that affects the rpi at that point, is your team's winning percentage, and ecu won 5 games in the cit. Trying to count those games when two thirds of the teams have virtually no possibility of improving is manipulation and grasping at straws.

Answer this. Did those games happen? Yes or no. It's as simple as that. If they were played they absolutely should be judged when grading out a teams complete season.

Spin it however you want. Most of those 2/3rd teams did not earn the right to play any more games and it's not anyone but your own problem that teams like yours decided to stay home while others continued to build their final resumes and define their season. Frankly the butt hurt coming off your post reaks.

At the end of the day you played 32 D1 games, we played 33 that's as about as apples to apples as you are going to get to run a comparison on and it really doesn't matter where the games came from. It's like saying you shouldn't be able to count your exempt tourny from early in the year because you get extra games than some teams. Games are games, we didn't play really anymore than you did, and our season when it was all said and done simply graded out better.

to me it is hard to count games that teams can choose to play in. If you are invited to the NCAA or the NIT you are required to play.

Many teams are eligible for the CBI and the CIT and choose not to play because they either think it is a waste of time or a waste of money.

(11-17-2013 07:02 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  Davis did a great job for the situation he had and what he really had to work with.

Yes, Mrs. Davis.

Your son is going very well, and we know how proud you must be.

1 NCAA tournament vs. 3.
0 NCAA wins vs. 3

In that tougher CUSA, Anderson had 7 tournament wins in 4 years.
In the weaker CUSA, Davis had 2 tournament wins in 6 years.

And how many times have you toured UAB's facilities. How do you come up with the fact that we are not top 100. If you have the right coach, you can overcome that. Davis wasn't fired solely for his won-loss record. He was fired because of his recruiting, because of his academic record, and because he refused to get out in the community.

Quote:And how many times have you toured UAB's facilities. How do you come up with the fact that we are not top 100.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you don't have a practice facility. Hard to be up there if that's the case with so many schools adding them.

" The same is true for other schools whose basketball teams need dedicated practice space to keep up in the “arms race” for college sports facilities. Five years ago, about a dozen Division I universities were planning or building basketball practice facilities. Now, the trend has exploded.

A partial list of practice facility projects covers Arizona State, Arkansas, Clemson, Connecticut, Drake, Georgetown, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas State, LSU, Mississippi State, Purdue, Richmond, Rutgers, South Florida, SMU, Texas A&M, Tulane, Washington and Washington State.

“It is not the space itself, but the messaging that is important,” said Jon Niemuth, design director for Aecom, West Virginia’s architect. “They have a solid arena and a winning tradition. But if you want to compete for national championships, you need something more.”

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketb...ion-market

I wouldn't dog you, we just got one ourself, but you guys have some delusional expectations today for what what your coach has to work with if 4 top 50 teams in the last 5 years wasn't good enough and putting 3k or 4k in the arena spending like a 100+ team and playing in a 10-12 ranked conference.

Jonesing, I try not to read your stuff because the more I read it, the more I realize just how phucked in the head you really are.

Yeah, I'm effed because I don't believe a school with 100+ type resources, support, facilities should expect top 35 and at large bids most years now with much tougher situations than they faced a decade ago.

You're an idiot.

(11-17-2013 11:13 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

Quote:And how many times have you toured UAB's facilities. How do you come up with the fact that we are not top 100.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you don't have a practice facility. Hard to be up there if that's the case with so many schools adding them.

" The same is true for other schools whose basketball teams need dedicated practice space to keep up in the “arms race” for college sports facilities. Five years ago, about a dozen Division I universities were planning or building basketball practice facilities. Now, the trend has exploded.

A partial list of practice facility projects covers Arizona State, Arkansas, Clemson, Connecticut, Drake, Georgetown, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas State, LSU, Mississippi State, Purdue, Richmond, Rutgers, South Florida, SMU, Texas A&M, Tulane, Washington and Washington State.

“It is not the space itself, but the messaging that is important,” said Jon Niemuth, design director for Aecom, West Virginia’s architect. “They have a solid arena and a winning tradition. But if you want to compete for national championships, you need something more.”

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketb...ion-market

I wouldn't dog you, we just got one ourself, but you guys have some delusional expectations today for what what your coach has to work with if 4 top 50 teams in the last 5 years wasn't good enough and putting 3k or 4k in the arena spending like a 100+ team and playing in a 10-12 ranked conference.

3 top 50 RPI (which is not the only deciding factor). It may come as a surprise to you but 51 is not top 50.

You are an ECU fan. As such you have no clue what basketball expectations are.

(11-18-2013 12:21 AM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  3 top 50 RPI (which is not the only deciding factor). It may come as a surprise to you but 51 is not top 50.

Good grief, excuse me. Top 51.

Quote:You are an ECU fan. As such you have no clue what basketball expectations are.

We got good football and baseball as well as the foundational things backing up our program up like good facilities and top 45 and top 20 support in both. They really are very good jobs and where we should have some expectations. I still take a realistic approach, probably more so than most ECU fans. You've never seen me calling for Ruff's head or even Godwin's because we don't go to the regional every year. Top 35/ At larges is ridiculous expectations most years in the situation you are in now and with the foundational things you have. Davis was still almost pulling it off a good part of the time too because he is a good coach.