(07-31-2017 04:47 PM)Wudizzle Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 04:33 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  The Valley wasn't full of cupcakes when Tulsa was a part of it.

And LOL. We have a lot of quality hardware.

Don't move the goalposts. You want to talk Natty trash, talk Natty trash. Ain't got no problem with that. Much respect. But don't talk about conference championships and then backpedal at full speed when it blows up in your face.

Point. . .

To be fair Uconn has.conference championships from before the aac. But yeah you scored on that one

(07-31-2017 04:47 PM)Wudizzle Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 04:33 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  The Valley wasn't full of cupcakes when Tulsa was a part of it.

And LOL. We have a lot of quality hardware.

Don't move the goalposts. You want to talk Natty trash, talk Natty trash. Ain't got no problem with that. Much respect. But don't talk about conference championships and then backpedal at full speed when it blows up in your face.

Where did I mention Nattys?? UCONN has 10 regular season Big East Championships, 9 Big East Tournament Championships, and 1 AAC Tournament Championship. These were all won in multi-bid conferences.

i.e. We have a lot of quality hardware...

(07-31-2017 04:04 PM)shock Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 03:51 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 03:29 PM)ShockerFever Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 03:25 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  Your program and Tulsa are on the same level.

I stopped reading after this. lol

At the moment, I completely agree that that line is ludicrous...but historically, not so much.

Tulsa has more NCAA appearances and conference championships than WSU while having nearly identical win and win percentage numbers (1402 vs. 1456 and 57.2% vs. 55.1% respectively). Tulsa in the 90's under Tubby Smith and Bill Self were very similar to WSU in the last decade or so under Marshall and Turgeon.

If you go back to the 1990 season (Relevant to most everyone now...same argument many make against the NC's that Cincinnati got before we were born), they have extremely similar NCAA Tournament performances:

Tulsa: 10 appearances, 7 Round of 32, 3 Sweet Sixteen, 1 Elite Eight
WSU: 7 appearances, 6 Round of 32, 3 Sweet Sixteen, 1 Elite Eight, 1 Final Four

And Tulsa definitely beats WSU in wins and winning percentage during that time.

Tulsa: 564-342, .622 Win %
WSU: 516-367, .584 Win %

So while I completely agree than in the last 10 years or so WSU is light years ahead in terms of program strength...that gets MUCH more murky when you widen the scope of relevance even a hair.

Sure, 1990's Tulsa was great. 1990's WSU was not. 2010's WSU is great, 2010's Tulsa is not. But they are on the same level because Tulsa used to be great. Lol

WSU could lose their starting 5 for the whole season and still be top half in the AAC. WSU is still a conference contender, even if LS never suits up.

But a conference championship won't even move the needle for the team. All it is for them is a means to an end. They are out for cutting nets in April.

I've read some crazy claims on here before but this takes the cake. WSU's second team would finish in the top half of the AAC? Are you effing kidding me?? When did you become Kentucky? How are we even supposed to respond to that?

(07-31-2017 04:51 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 04:47 PM)Wudizzle Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 04:33 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  The Valley wasn't full of cupcakes when Tulsa was a part of it.

And LOL. We have a lot of quality hardware.

Don't move the goalposts. You want to talk Natty trash, talk Natty trash. Ain't got no problem with that. Much respect. But don't talk about conference championships and then backpedal at full speed when it blows up in your face.

Point. . .

To be fair Uconn has.conference championships from before the aac. But yeah you scored on that one

He really didn't. I said we had quality hardware (meaning trophies). I didn't know off the top of my head how many were earned in the Big East.

WSU first 5
Landry
Conner
Zach
Markis
Shaq

The Rest
Reaves
Samajae
CJ
Roderick
Kelly
Nurger
Willis

No drop off in big man talent, guards take a hit. WSU feeds the post and a sharpshooter in reaves outside, Marshall on the side line shakin his watch, yeah, top half and a dark horse to win it.

Our #12 and #13 players are the only ones that don't play. They are Corey Henderson Jr. caliber players.

(07-31-2017 05:00 PM)shock Wrote:  WSU first 5
Landry
Conner
Zach
Markis
Shaq

The Rest
Reaves
Samajae
CJ
Roderick
Kelly
Nurger
Willis

No drop off in big man talent, guards take a hit. WSU feeds the post and a sharpshooter in reaves outside, Marshall on the side line shakin his watch, yeah, top half and a dark horse to win it.

Your starting 5 are starting for a reason, not because they're just randomly picking from 10 equal players.

Come in with your full team and finish in the top half then start talking trash. I realize your second five were impressive in the mvc clean up duty and regular rotation but this is a little different.

I fully expect you all to compete for the championship and maybe win it this year, but kind of like a high draft pick we need to actually see you perform on the court before declaring you hall of fame. You all might be KD, but you might be greg oden.

The top 7-8 will exchange starts depending on the situation. They start for a reason because of their individual strengths, but there is no "set" starting lineup.

Talk about both sides of the spectrum here

On one side WSU is trash without Shamet and on the other we finish in the top half with our bench players.

Pencil me in for something way in the middle....

(07-31-2017 05:22 PM)shocks21 Wrote:  Talk about both sides of the spectrum here

On one side WSU is trash without Shamet and on the other we finish in the top half with our bench players.

Pencil me in for something way in the middle....

No no no

Shocks you can't agree with the other schools aac posters, we have a clear divide here. Your school can win a final four/are doomed to a losing season with out shamet or its nice to be in a league where ooc dominance is important but not critical. You're a wsu fan you have to be in the first group. . .

(07-31-2017 05:21 PM)shock Wrote:  The top 7-8 will exchange starts depending on the situation. They start for a reason because of their individual strengths, but there is no "set" starting lineup.

So two possible starters (who strategically are effective strategically against certain teams/styles) and 3 or so bench players from a good but not sweet sixteen team are going to win the league? Does that sound reasonable?

Without looking i am going to say 5 players started better than 75% of your games. Now i would concede that there are 7 -8 interchangable players depending on situations at the end of the game, because thats just good coaching on a good team. I would also venture that 7 players account for 80% of your mins. . With 8-11 sharing the rest of the time pretty much equally. I am sure a knowlegable wsu fan will correct me if i am wrong.

(07-31-2017 05:22 PM)shocks21 Wrote:  Talk about both sides of the spectrum here

On one side WSU is trash without Shamet and on the other we finish in the top half with our bench players.

Pencil me in for something way in the middle....

Mid-AAC last year was top 100. I think the general consensus amongst WSU fans is that WSU is top 5 with Landry, top 50 without. Top 100 without everyone seems like it falls in line with both sides of the spectrum considering the crux of the Landry argument is that he's way more valuable than anyone else.

I'm not arguing either way about our second team, but no one is arguing both sides of the spectrum.

(07-31-2017 05:34 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 05:21 PM)shock Wrote:  The top 7-8 will exchange starts depending on the situation. They start for a reason because of their individual strengths, but there is no "set" starting lineup.

So two.possible starters (who strategically are effective strategicallyparticular teams/styles) and 3 or so bench players from a good but not sweet sixteen team are going to win the league? Does that sound reasonable?

Without looking i am going to say 5 players started better than 75% of your games. Now i would concede that there are 7 -8 interchangable players depending on situations at the end of the game, because thats just good coaching on a good team. I would also venture that 7 players account for 80% of your mins. . With 8-11 sharing the rest of the time pretty much equally. I am sure a knowlegable wsu fan will correct me if i am wrong.

Winning the league with the second team is unreasonable. Finishing in the top half with our second team is an argument that can be made.

(07-31-2017 05:37 PM)AndShock Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 05:34 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 05:21 PM)shock Wrote:  The top 7-8 will exchange starts depending on the situation. They start for a reason because of their individual strengths, but there is no "set" starting lineup.

So two.possible starters (who strategically are effective strategicallyparticular teams/styles) and 3 or so bench players from a good but not sweet sixteen team are going to win the league? Does that sound reasonable?

Without looking i am going to say 5 players started better than 75% of your games. Now i would concede that there are 7 -8 interchangable players depending on situations at the end of the game, because thats just good coaching on a good team. I would also venture that 7 players account for 80% of your mins. . With 8-11 sharing the rest of the time pretty much equally. I am sure a knowlegable wsu fan will correct me if i am wrong.

Winning the league with the second team is unreasonable. Finishing in the top half with our second team is an argument that can be made.

More within the realm of possibility, but i would be hard pressed to believe that the second five would be favored to win against anyone outside of the usf, ecu, tulane group.

You have to be better than 6 teams to be in the top half, what other 3 are you beating out? Uconn, tulsa, memphis, temple? Ucf, houston, smu, cinci were top four so you need to be number 5.

See how ridiculous this is starting to sound

(07-31-2017 05:34 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 05:21 PM)shock Wrote:  The top 7-8 will exchange starts depending on the situation. They start for a reason because of their individual strengths, but there is no "set" starting lineup.

So two possible starters (who strategically are effective strategically against certain teams/styles) and 3 or so bench players from a good but not sweet sixteen team are going to win the league? Does that sound reasonable?

Without looking i am going to say 5 players started better than 75% of your games. Now i would concede that there are 7 -8 interchangable players depending on situations at the end of the game, because thats just good coaching on a good team. I would also venture that 7 players account for 80% of your mins. . With 8-11 sharing the rest of the time pretty much equally. I am sure a knowlegable wsu fan will correct me if i am wrong.

Against Dayton, 9 players played over 10 minutes. Austin Reaves played 4 minutes but everyone expects him to be able to contribute over 10 minutes a game this season.

We did tighten up the rotation against UK but UK is an animal we won't encounter very often. Against Louisville we had 10 players play 12 minutes or above. Against Michigan State we had 10 players go 10 minutes or above.

Going 10 deep isn't some made up over-exaggeration that Wichita State fans make up.

(07-31-2017 05:43 PM)AndShock Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 05:34 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 05:21 PM)shock Wrote:  The top 7-8 will exchange starts depending on the situation. They start for a reason because of their individual strengths, but there is no "set" starting lineup.

So two possible starters (who strategically are effective strategically against certain teams/styles) and 3 or so bench players from a good but not sweet sixteen team are going to win the league? Does that sound reasonable?

Without looking i am going to say 5 players started better than 75% of your games. Now i would concede that there are 7 -8 interchangable players depending on situations at the end of the game, because thats just good coaching on a good team. I would also venture that 7 players account for 80% of your mins. . With 8-11 sharing the rest of the time pretty much equally. I am sure a knowlegable wsu fan will correct me if i am wrong.

Against Dayton, 9 players played over 10 minutes. Austin Reaves played 4 minutes but everyone expects him to be able to contribute over 10 minutes a game this season.

We did tighten up the rotation against UK but UK is an animal we won't encounter very often. Against Louisville we had 10 players play 12 minutes or above. Against Michigan State we had 10 players go 10 minutes or above.

Going 10 deep isn't some made up over-exaggeration that Wichita State fans make up.

Going 10 deep and having 10 starters are two different things.

(07-31-2017 05:43 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 05:37 PM)AndShock Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 05:34 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 05:21 PM)shock Wrote:  The top 7-8 will exchange starts depending on the situation. They start for a reason because of their individual strengths, but there is no "set" starting lineup.

So two.possible starters (who strategically are effective strategicallyparticular teams/styles) and 3 or so bench players from a good but not sweet sixteen team are going to win the league? Does that sound reasonable?

Without looking i am going to say 5 players started better than 75% of your games. Now i would concede that there are 7 -8 interchangable players depending on situations at the end of the game, because thats just good coaching on a good team. I would also venture that 7 players account for 80% of your mins. . With 8-11 sharing the rest of the time pretty much equally. I am sure a knowlegable wsu fan will correct me if i am wrong.

Winning the league with the second team is unreasonable. Finishing in the top half with our second team is an argument that can be made.

More within the realm of possibility, but i would be hard pressed to believe that the second five would be favored to win against anyone outside of the usf, ecu, tulane group.

You have to be better than 6 teams to be in the top half, what other 3 are you beating out? Uconn, tulsa, memphis, temple? Ucf, houston, smu, cinci were top four so you need to be number 5.

See how ridiculous this is starting to sound

Where would you rank Corey Henderson on your roster? 4th? 5th? He was 12th on ours and we have only gotten deeper. Not ridiculous at all that our second five is better than Tulsa and I thought Memphis was supposed to be horrendous this year.

(07-31-2017 05:43 PM)AndShock Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 05:34 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 05:21 PM)shock Wrote:  The top 7-8 will exchange starts depending on the situation. They start for a reason because of their individual strengths, but there is no "set" starting lineup.

So two possible starters (who strategically are effective strategically against certain teams/styles) and 3 or so bench players from a good but not sweet sixteen team are going to win the league? Does that sound reasonable?

Without looking i am going to say 5 players started better than 75% of your games. Now i would concede that there are 7 -8 interchangable players depending on situations at the end of the game, because thats just good coaching on a good team. I would also venture that 7 players account for 80% of your mins. . With 8-11 sharing the rest of the time pretty much equally. I am sure a knowlegable wsu fan will correct me if i am wrong.

Against Dayton, 9 players played over 10 minutes. Austin Reaves played 4 minutes but everyone expects him to be able to contribute over 10 minutes a game this season.

We did tighten up the rotation against UK but UK is an animal we won't encounter very often. Against Louisville we had 10 players play 12 minutes or above. Against Michigan State we had 10 players go 10 minutes or above.

Going 10 deep isn't some made up over-exaggeration that Wichita State fans make up.

Also 9 players going 10 mins is 90 or not even half of available mins in a game. I detect some fanhood here, you didnt answer the question, how was the time distributed across the team? 7 players account for how many of the 200 mins available? 160 or less?

(07-31-2017 05:44 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 05:43 PM)AndShock Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 05:34 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 05:21 PM)shock Wrote:  The top 7-8 will exchange starts depending on the situation. They start for a reason because of their individual strengths, but there is no "set" starting lineup.

So two possible starters (who strategically are effective strategically against certain teams/styles) and 3 or so bench players from a good but not sweet sixteen team are going to win the league? Does that sound reasonable?

Without looking i am going to say 5 players started better than 75% of your games. Now i would concede that there are 7 -8 interchangable players depending on situations at the end of the game, because thats just good coaching on a good team. I would also venture that 7 players account for 80% of your mins. . With 8-11 sharing the rest of the time pretty much equally. I am sure a knowlegable wsu fan will correct me if i am wrong.

Against Dayton, 9 players played over 10 minutes. Austin Reaves played 4 minutes but everyone expects him to be able to contribute over 10 minutes a game this season.

We did tighten up the rotation against UK but UK is an animal we won't encounter very often. Against Louisville we had 10 players play 12 minutes or above. Against Michigan State we had 10 players go 10 minutes or above.

Going 10 deep isn't some made up over-exaggeration that Wichita State fans make up.

Going 10 deep and having 10 starters are two different things.

You just going to discard your little 75% argument? I think we need an official "moving goalposts" GIF for this board. No player played over 67% of minutes.

(07-31-2017 05:47 PM)AndShock Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 05:43 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 05:37 PM)AndShock Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 05:34 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 05:21 PM)shock Wrote:  The top 7-8 will exchange starts depending on the situation. They start for a reason because of their individual strengths, but there is no "set" starting lineup.

So two.possible starters (who strategically are effective strategicallyparticular teams/styles) and 3 or so bench players from a good but not sweet sixteen team are going to win the league? Does that sound reasonable?

Without looking i am going to say 5 players started better than 75% of your games. Now i would concede that there are 7 -8 interchangable players depending on situations at the end of the game, because thats just good coaching on a good team. I would also venture that 7 players account for 80% of your mins. . With 8-11 sharing the rest of the time pretty much equally. I am sure a knowlegable wsu fan will correct me if i am wrong.

Winning the league with the second team is unreasonable. Finishing in the top half with our second team is an argument that can be made.

More within the realm of possibility, but i would be hard pressed to believe that the second five would be favored to win against anyone outside of the usf, ecu, tulane group.

You have to be better than 6 teams to be in the top half, what other 3 are you beating out? Uconn, tulsa, memphis, temple? Ucf, houston, smu, cinci were top four so you need to be number 5.

See how ridiculous this is starting to sound

Where would you rank Corey Henderson on your roster? 4th? 5th? He was 12th on ours and we have only gotten deeper. Not ridiculous at all that our second five is better than Tulsa and I thought Memphis was supposed to be horrendous this year.

Last year with 8 freshman or whatever? He was 6th or 7th. Not really a good comparison but stretch for it if you want.

But we know how they performed in this conference, we dont have any evidence how you will do in the grind vs the one offs you have been forced to put everything in to. Which is why i said finish top half with your full team then come back and talk trash.