EagleOutsider.com

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:Incorrect, there are two themes you have to deal with 1) how you used to be really, really, really stupid; and 2) you being in high school.

3) never having physical contact with a female human

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:was kb25 the "I like basketball. do you like basketball?" guy?

yes - and though he claims he's not the same poster he somehow posts from the same ip address.

for the record, due to 38 minutes of this game being played the way it was - i consider this a moral loss.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:
What were you expecting for results this year?

Before I even saw Hanlan and Rahon play, I thought this was a just under .500 conference team and an NIT team. Having seen those two and watching the product that is actually on the floor right now, they should be even better than that in this conference.

As far as unprepared performances, how does the team that loses by 1 to two top 5 teams lay a clunker like the first Wake game? Like last night's Wake game? Fact is that when they actually show up and play a full 40 minutes (which is rare) they are a pretty good team. Anyone that looks at this team and says that they don't have enough talent to be mediocre or that they are too young to win is either making excuses or missed the first Miami and the Duke games.

So not only do you not take anything positive out of close games against conference opponents and in fact two top five teams nationally, you actually use the close losses to support your argument that the team is underachieving?

My take is and has been that not playing a full 40 minutes is pretty easily explainable. I think they have talent, but I think they need two or so more rotational guys to play a whole game consistently. There are games where this has been painfully obvious, and I think it can be argued in every conference loss except UNC and the second Miami game.

I don't understand your argument. There is nothing good about a loss, and there is nothing good about playing almost good enough to beat two good teams and playing shitty against every one else.

Those two games are irrelevant. Point is that they play like that against the hordes of mediocre teams they face in this conference and they are close to .500. But they didn't. So your theory is depth is not a problem against good teams, but reveals itself when they play Wake Forest?

I don't understand your argument. Donahue can't recruit ("he has failed in landing recruits at key position"), but has good talent and enough depth. Which one is it? This is an actual dichotomy because the talent and depth didn't come from nowhere, either there is a) a dearth of talent and/or a dearth of depth, which can either be blamed on Donahue or not; or b) there is not a dearth of talent or depth whereby Donahue has not failed in landing recruits at key positions.

And nice job with framing two possible options for the Wake loss in prepared/unprepared, because everyone knows that teams including the opponent play at a consistent level every night and that all match ups are fungible, shooting percentage is immutable etc.

You don't understand because you try to make my points black and white when they are mainly gray. I didn't say he can't recruit, I said he found some good players and failed miserably finding a big man - in the process, getting enough talent to be mediocre (Nerlens Noel pre ACL tear, and this is a sweet 16 team). So its neither. He can recruit, as long as the guy is under 6'6. So, no dichotomy.

And your second point is valid. So I will tell you what, I'd prefer to see them come out prepared for some of the games against mediocre teams instead of just the ones against top 5 opponents. Problem with BC is that they are pretty consistent - consistently worse than they should be against beatable opponents.

Clifford getting hurt does not make him a bad big man recruit.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:I'm not in any of these categories. I think Don has legitimate excuses, I think he has found some decent talent but has miserably failed in landing recruits at key positions, I think the progress of the program was set way back by whatever caused none of the recruits he inherited to stay and several players he himself recruited to leave. And worst of all, I look at a team with a couple of huge holes and a lack of experience and still see enough talent for it to be a lot better than it is. I didn't think there was any way that this team could be 3-8 in this watered down conference, and that was long before I even got to see how good Rahon and Hanlan turned out to be.

much like the skank polls (currently in hiatus for the lenten season), teddy and i have similar opinions on donahue. i also agree that he isn't on the hot seat but in the same vein... i thought skinner's seat got too hot one year too early.

lastly, i hope donahue's system can figure out how to be consistently good (as opposed to the consistently bad he's shown this year) at finishing games and bating bad's student athlete development can generate some excitement and put some asses in the seats

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

commavegarage {l Wrote}:its all comes down to winning and looking good doing it:

hockey does it, attendance is through the roof, beanpot records, expanded student section on a permanent basis etc.
basketball does neither, attendance is putrid.
football used to and the student section would be packed and loud. now it doesnt and youd be lucky to see a half full student section towards the end of the year.

its not that complicated.

At the end of the day I agree that winning will increase attendance, but it should never, ever be this bad. In many ways the chicken vs. egg thing is very real between our awful administration and our awful fans.

Can it really be entirely on the program to reach a level of success before anyone shows up even though it is not like this - without exaggeration - in 90+% other BCS conference programs in major sports?

its this bad because 1. we havent played exciting ball in years and 2. this'll be a full 4 year rotation without an ncaa tournament bid. meaning this graduating class will have come and gone without seeing one tournament game and will have seen only one exciting player.

i didnt think it could be this bad, but when you haven't won a tournament game since march 2007, when most of the seniors didnt even have their drivers licenses and freshman were still in middle school, an understandable mailaise of sorts sets in.

and this nerds excuse is bullshit. if they hated sports why does hockey have no problem getting thousands of students every game?

commavegarage {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

commavegarage {l Wrote}:its all comes down to winning and looking good doing it:

hockey does it, attendance is through the roof, beanpot records, expanded student section on a permanent basis etc.
basketball does neither, attendance is putrid.
football used to and the student section would be packed and loud. now it doesnt and youd be lucky to see a half full student section towards the end of the year.

its not that complicated.

At the end of the day I agree that winning will increase attendance, but it should never, ever be this bad. In many ways the chicken vs. egg thing is very real between our awful administration and our awful fans.

Can it really be entirely on the program to reach a level of success before anyone shows up even though it is not like this - without exaggeration - in 90+% other BCS conference programs in major sports?

its this bad because 1. we havent played exciting ball in years and 2. this'll be a full 4 year rotation without an ncaa tournament bid. meaning this graduating class will have come and gone without seeing one tournament game and will have seen only one exciting player.

i didnt think it could be this bad, but when you haven't won a tournament game since march 2007, when most of the seniors didnt even have their drivers licenses and freshman were still in middle school, an understandable mailaise of sorts sets in.

and this nerds excuse is bullshit. if they hated sports why does hockey have no problem getting thousands of students every game?

I'm not just talking about poor attendance now, I'm talking about historically, monumentally probably bottom three of the BCS conference basketball teams fanbases attendance. That is a few steps beyond malaise.

There is only one explanation, Harry Pussy Butthole Potter, reenacting nerds.

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:
What were you expecting for results this year?

Before I even saw Hanlan and Rahon play, I thought this was a just under .500 conference team and an NIT team. Having seen those two and watching the product that is actually on the floor right now, they should be even better than that in this conference.

As far as unprepared performances, how does the team that loses by 1 to two top 5 teams lay a clunker like the first Wake game? Like last night's Wake game? Fact is that when they actually show up and play a full 40 minutes (which is rare) they are a pretty good team. Anyone that looks at this team and says that they don't have enough talent to be mediocre or that they are too young to win is either making excuses or missed the first Miami and the Duke games.

So not only do you not take anything positive out of close games against conference opponents and in fact two top five teams nationally, you actually use the close losses to support your argument that the team is underachieving?

My take is and has been that not playing a full 40 minutes is pretty easily explainable. I think they have talent, but I think they need two or so more rotational guys to play a whole game consistently. There are games where this has been painfully obvious, and I think it can be argued in every conference loss except UNC and the second Miami game.

I don't understand your argument. There is nothing good about a loss, and there is nothing good about playing almost good enough to beat two good teams and playing shitty against every one else.

Those two games are irrelevant. Point is that they play like that against the hordes of mediocre teams they face in this conference and they are close to .500. But they didn't. So your theory is depth is not a problem against good teams, but reveals itself when they play Wake Forest?

I don't understand your argument. Donahue can't recruit ("he has failed in landing recruits at key position"), but has good talent and enough depth. Which one is it? This is an actual dichotomy because the talent and depth didn't come from nowhere, either there is a) a dearth of talent and/or a dearth of depth, which can either be blamed on Donahue or not; or b) there is not a dearth of talent or depth whereby Donahue has not failed in landing recruits at key positions.

And nice job with framing two possible options for the Wake loss in prepared/unprepared, because everyone knows that teams including the opponent play at a consistent level every night and that all match ups are fungible, shooting percentage is immutable etc.

You don't understand because you try to make my points black and white when they are mainly gray. I didn't say he can't recruit, I said he found some good players and failed miserably finding a big man - in the process, getting enough talent to be mediocre (Nerlens Noel pre ACL tear, and this is a sweet 16 team). So its neither. He can recruit, as long as the guy is under 6'6. So, no dichotomy.

And your second point is valid. So I will tell you what, I'd prefer to see them come out prepared for some of the games against mediocre teams instead of just the ones against top 5 opponents. Problem with BC is that they are pretty consistent - consistently worse than they should be against beatable opponents.

Clifford getting hurt does not make him a bad big man recruit.

Coach Jones v. no Coach Jones and Caudill/Van Nested not considered?

pick6pedro {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:
What were you expecting for results this year?

Before I even saw Hanlan and Rahon play, I thought this was a just under .500 conference team and an NIT team. Having seen those two and watching the product that is actually on the floor right now, they should be even better than that in this conference.

As far as unprepared performances, how does the team that loses by 1 to two top 5 teams lay a clunker like the first Wake game? Like last night's Wake game? Fact is that when they actually show up and play a full 40 minutes (which is rare) they are a pretty good team. Anyone that looks at this team and says that they don't have enough talent to be mediocre or that they are too young to win is either making excuses or missed the first Miami and the Duke games.

So not only do you not take anything positive out of close games against conference opponents and in fact two top five teams nationally, you actually use the close losses to support your argument that the team is underachieving?

My take is and has been that not playing a full 40 minutes is pretty easily explainable. I think they have talent, but I think they need two or so more rotational guys to play a whole game consistently. There are games where this has been painfully obvious, and I think it can be argued in every conference loss except UNC and the second Miami game.

I don't understand your argument. There is nothing good about a loss, and there is nothing good about playing almost good enough to beat two good teams and playing shitty against every one else.

Those two games are irrelevant. Point is that they play like that against the hordes of mediocre teams they face in this conference and they are close to .500. But they didn't. So your theory is depth is not a problem against good teams, but reveals itself when they play Wake Forest?

I don't understand your argument. Donahue can't recruit ("he has failed in landing recruits at key position"), but has good talent and enough depth. Which one is it? This is an actual dichotomy because the talent and depth didn't come from nowhere, either there is a) a dearth of talent and/or a dearth of depth, which can either be blamed on Donahue or not; or b) there is not a dearth of talent or depth whereby Donahue has not failed in landing recruits at key positions.

And nice job with framing two possible options for the Wake loss in prepared/unprepared, because everyone knows that teams including the opponent play at a consistent level every night and that all match ups are fungible, shooting percentage is immutable etc.

You don't understand because you try to make my points black and white when they are mainly gray. I didn't say he can't recruit, I said he found some good players and failed miserably finding a big man - in the process, getting enough talent to be mediocre (Nerlens Noel pre ACL tear, and this is a sweet 16 team). So its neither. He can recruit, as long as the guy is under 6'6. So, no dichotomy.

And your second point is valid. So I will tell you what, I'd prefer to see them come out prepared for some of the games against mediocre teams instead of just the ones against top 5 opponents. Problem with BC is that they are pretty consistent - consistently worse than they should be against beatable opponents.

Clifford getting hurt does not make him a bad big man recruit.

Coach Jones v. no Coach Jones and Caudill/Van Nested not considered?

Was Clifford a Jones recruit? I'm sure someone (from NJ) will be by to confirm this shortly.

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

pick6pedro {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:
What were you expecting for results this year?

Before I even saw Hanlan and Rahon play, I thought this was a just under .500 conference team and an NIT team. Having seen those two and watching the product that is actually on the floor right now, they should be even better than that in this conference.

As far as unprepared performances, how does the team that loses by 1 to two top 5 teams lay a clunker like the first Wake game? Like last night's Wake game? Fact is that when they actually show up and play a full 40 minutes (which is rare) they are a pretty good team. Anyone that looks at this team and says that they don't have enough talent to be mediocre or that they are too young to win is either making excuses or missed the first Miami and the Duke games.

So not only do you not take anything positive out of close games against conference opponents and in fact two top five teams nationally, you actually use the close losses to support your argument that the team is underachieving?

My take is and has been that not playing a full 40 minutes is pretty easily explainable. I think they have talent, but I think they need two or so more rotational guys to play a whole game consistently. There are games where this has been painfully obvious, and I think it can be argued in every conference loss except UNC and the second Miami game.

I don't understand your argument. There is nothing good about a loss, and there is nothing good about playing almost good enough to beat two good teams and playing shitty against every one else.

Those two games are irrelevant. Point is that they play like that against the hordes of mediocre teams they face in this conference and they are close to .500. But they didn't. So your theory is depth is not a problem against good teams, but reveals itself when they play Wake Forest?

I don't understand your argument. Donahue can't recruit ("he has failed in landing recruits at key position"), but has good talent and enough depth. Which one is it? This is an actual dichotomy because the talent and depth didn't come from nowhere, either there is a) a dearth of talent and/or a dearth of depth, which can either be blamed on Donahue or not; or b) there is not a dearth of talent or depth whereby Donahue has not failed in landing recruits at key positions.

And nice job with framing two possible options for the Wake loss in prepared/unprepared, because everyone knows that teams including the opponent play at a consistent level every night and that all match ups are fungible, shooting percentage is immutable etc.

You don't understand because you try to make my points black and white when they are mainly gray. I didn't say he can't recruit, I said he found some good players and failed miserably finding a big man - in the process, getting enough talent to be mediocre (Nerlens Noel pre ACL tear, and this is a sweet 16 team). So its neither. He can recruit, as long as the guy is under 6'6. So, no dichotomy.

And your second point is valid. So I will tell you what, I'd prefer to see them come out prepared for some of the games against mediocre teams instead of just the ones against top 5 opponents. Problem with BC is that they are pretty consistent - consistently worse than they should be against beatable opponents.

Clifford getting hurt does not make him a bad big man recruit.

Coach Jones v. no Coach Jones and Caudill/Van Nested not considered?

Was Clifford a Jones recruit? I'm sure someone (from NJ) will be by to confirm this shortly.

I assume Teddy was nodding to the Jones factor, so I took it as truth, since he believes in the law.

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

ATLeagle {l Wrote}:But make no mistake. He will be on the hotseat next season.

Have you ever been a proponent of the BC won't pay for decent assistant theory?

My expectations prior to this year were about 10 non-ACC wins and 6-8 ACC wins.

Bad performances: Bryant, Harvard, Dayton, the second Miami game, and the Virginia game.

I don't buy into the decent assistant pay theory. Gene served up some guys with major conference experience for Don's first staff and again when Jones left, yet Don wanted his own guys. That's his prerogative but I think he is suffering from it now when it comes to recruiting and scouting opponents.

ATLeagle {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

ATLeagle {l Wrote}:But make no mistake. He will be on the hotseat next season.

Have you ever been a proponent of the BC won't pay for decent assistant theory?

My expectations prior to this year were about 10 non-ACC wins and 6-8 ACC wins.

Bad performances: Bryant, Harvard, Dayton, the second Miami game, and the Virginia game.

I don't buy into the decent assistant pay theory. Gene served up some guys with major conference experience for Don's first staff and again when Jones left, yet Don wanted his own guys. That's his prerogative but I think he is suffering from it now when it comes to recruiting and scouting opponents.

I agree that those are bad performances but the first three have an obvious mitigating factor and the second two I think were bad performances but not bad losses.

I asked the second question because, I think it is difficult to believe on one hand the athletic department is going ridiculously cheap on assistants but also has a quick trigger finger on firing the head coach. I continue to think it is insane to think that this athletic department will fire the guy after next year almost regardless of results, which is not the same thing as saying I will not stop defending him if there is not significant improvement of results.

commavegarage {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

commavegarage {l Wrote}:its all comes down to winning and looking good doing it:

hockey does it, attendance is through the roof, beanpot records, expanded student section on a permanent basis etc.
basketball does neither, attendance is putrid.
football used to and the student section would be packed and loud. now it doesnt and youd be lucky to see a half full student section towards the end of the year.

its not that complicated.

At the end of the day I agree that winning will increase attendance, but it should never, ever be this bad. In many ways the chicken vs. egg thing is very real between our awful administration and our awful fans.

Can it really be entirely on the program to reach a level of success before anyone shows up even though it is not like this - without exaggeration - in 90+% other BCS conference programs in major sports?

its this bad because 1. we havent played exciting ball in years and 2. this'll be a full 4 year rotation without an ncaa tournament bid. meaning this graduating class will have come and gone without seeing one tournament game and will have seen only one exciting player.

i didnt think it could be this bad, but when you haven't won a tournament game since march 2007, when most of the seniors didnt even have their drivers licenses and freshman were still in middle school, an understandable mailaise of sorts sets in.

and this nerds excuse is bullshit. if they hated sports why does hockey have no problem getting thousands of students every game?

only 1 exciting player?

Fans go to sporting events for different reasons. Being in attendance =/= loves sports just like not being in attendance =/= hating sports.

pick6pedro {l Wrote}:

commavegarage {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

commavegarage {l Wrote}:its all comes down to winning and looking good doing it:

hockey does it, attendance is through the roof, beanpot records, expanded student section on a permanent basis etc.
basketball does neither, attendance is putrid.
football used to and the student section would be packed and loud. now it doesnt and youd be lucky to see a half full student section towards the end of the year.

its not that complicated.

At the end of the day I agree that winning will increase attendance, but it should never, ever be this bad. In many ways the chicken vs. egg thing is very real between our awful administration and our awful fans.

Can it really be entirely on the program to reach a level of success before anyone shows up even though it is not like this - without exaggeration - in 90+% other BCS conference programs in major sports?

its this bad because 1. we havent played exciting ball in years and 2. this'll be a full 4 year rotation without an ncaa tournament bid. meaning this graduating class will have come and gone without seeing one tournament game and will have seen only one exciting player.

i didnt think it could be this bad, but when you haven't won a tournament game since march 2007, when most of the seniors didnt even have their drivers licenses and freshman were still in middle school, an understandable mailaise of sorts sets in.

and this nerds excuse is bullshit. if they hated sports why does hockey have no problem getting thousands of students every game?

only 1 exciting player?

Fans go to sporting events for different reasons. Being in attendance =/= loves sports just like not being in attendance =/= hating sports.

if you are not a 1st round draft pick, the nerds can't be bothered to go watch you play. Harry Pussy Butthole Potter.

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

pick6pedro {l Wrote}:

commavegarage {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

commavegarage {l Wrote}:its all comes down to winning and looking good doing it:

hockey does it, attendance is through the roof, beanpot records, expanded student section on a permanent basis etc.
basketball does neither, attendance is putrid.
football used to and the student section would be packed and loud. now it doesnt and youd be lucky to see a half full student section towards the end of the year.

its not that complicated.

At the end of the day I agree that winning will increase attendance, but it should never, ever be this bad. In many ways the chicken vs. egg thing is very real between our awful administration and our awful fans.

Can it really be entirely on the program to reach a level of success before anyone shows up even though it is not like this - without exaggeration - in 90+% other BCS conference programs in major sports?

its this bad because 1. we havent played exciting ball in years and 2. this'll be a full 4 year rotation without an ncaa tournament bid. meaning this graduating class will have come and gone without seeing one tournament game and will have seen only one exciting player.

i didnt think it could be this bad, but when you haven't won a tournament game since march 2007, when most of the seniors didnt even have their drivers licenses and freshman were still in middle school, an understandable mailaise of sorts sets in.

and this nerds excuse is bullshit. if they hated sports why does hockey have no problem getting thousands of students every game?

only 1 exciting player?

Fans go to sporting events for different reasons. Being in attendance =/= loves sports just like not being in attendance =/= hating sports.

if you are not a 1st round draft pick, the nerds can't be bothered to go watch you play. Harry Pussy Butthole Potter.

This naming convention has to change. The image of any body part with hair bothers me - and confuses poor 25.

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:
What were you expecting for results this year?

Before I even saw Hanlan and Rahon play, I thought this was a just under .500 conference team and an NIT team. Having seen those two and watching the product that is actually on the floor right now, they should be even better than that in this conference.

As far as unprepared performances, how does the team that loses by 1 to two top 5 teams lay a clunker like the first Wake game? Like last night's Wake game? Fact is that when they actually show up and play a full 40 minutes (which is rare) they are a pretty good team. Anyone that looks at this team and says that they don't have enough talent to be mediocre or that they are too young to win is either making excuses or missed the first Miami and the Duke games.

So not only do you not take anything positive out of close games against conference opponents and in fact two top five teams nationally, you actually use the close losses to support your argument that the team is underachieving?

My take is and has been that not playing a full 40 minutes is pretty easily explainable. I think they have talent, but I think they need two or so more rotational guys to play a whole game consistently. There are games where this has been painfully obvious, and I think it can be argued in every conference loss except UNC and the second Miami game.

I don't understand your argument. There is nothing good about a loss, and there is nothing good about playing almost good enough to beat two good teams and playing shitty against every one else.

Those two games are irrelevant. Point is that they play like that against the hordes of mediocre teams they face in this conference and they are close to .500. But they didn't. So your theory is depth is not a problem against good teams, but reveals itself when they play Wake Forest?

I don't understand your argument. Donahue can't recruit ("he has failed in landing recruits at key position"), but has good talent and enough depth. Which one is it? This is an actual dichotomy because the talent and depth didn't come from nowhere, either there is a) a dearth of talent and/or a dearth of depth, which can either be blamed on Donahue or not; or b) there is not a dearth of talent or depth whereby Donahue has not failed in landing recruits at key positions.

And nice job with framing two possible options for the Wake loss in prepared/unprepared, because everyone knows that teams including the opponent play at a consistent level every night and that all match ups are fungible, shooting percentage is immutable etc.

You don't understand because you try to make my points black and white when they are mainly gray. I didn't say he can't recruit, I said he found some good players and failed miserably finding a big man - in the process, getting enough talent to be mediocre (Nerlens Noel pre ACL tear, and this is a sweet 16 team). So its neither. He can recruit, as long as the guy is under 6'6. So, no dichotomy.

And your second point is valid. So I will tell you what, I'd prefer to see them come out prepared for some of the games against mediocre teams instead of just the ones against top 5 opponents. Problem with BC is that they are pretty consistent - consistently worse than they should be against beatable opponents.

Clifford getting hurt does not make him a bad big man recruit.

No, just a bad big man.

pick6pedro {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

pick6pedro {l Wrote}:

commavegarage {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

commavegarage {l Wrote}:its all comes down to winning and looking good doing it:

hockey does it, attendance is through the roof, beanpot records, expanded student section on a permanent basis etc.
basketball does neither, attendance is putrid.
football used to and the student section would be packed and loud. now it doesnt and youd be lucky to see a half full student section towards the end of the year.

its not that complicated.

At the end of the day I agree that winning will increase attendance, but it should never, ever be this bad. In many ways the chicken vs. egg thing is very real between our awful administration and our awful fans.

Can it really be entirely on the program to reach a level of success before anyone shows up even though it is not like this - without exaggeration - in 90+% other BCS conference programs in major sports?

its this bad because 1. we havent played exciting ball in years and 2. this'll be a full 4 year rotation without an ncaa tournament bid. meaning this graduating class will have come and gone without seeing one tournament game and will have seen only one exciting player.

i didnt think it could be this bad, but when you haven't won a tournament game since march 2007, when most of the seniors didnt even have their drivers licenses and freshman were still in middle school, an understandable mailaise of sorts sets in.

and this nerds excuse is bullshit. if they hated sports why does hockey have no problem getting thousands of students every game?

only 1 exciting player?

Fans go to sporting events for different reasons. Being in attendance =/= loves sports just like not being in attendance =/= hating sports.

if you are not a 1st round draft pick, the nerds can't be bothered to go watch you play. Harry Pussy Butthole Potter.

This naming convention has to change. The image of any body part with hair bothers me - and confuses poor 25.

You're right, it should read Harry Butthole Pussy Potter.

A few ramblings all over the place:

Two things we dont know:
A. How Bates feels about The Don. Usually a New AD wants his own guy, so it is possible that a.500 season next year would mean the end for the Don, but who knows.

B. Whether Gene closed the bank window when Jones left. BC paid Jones good money to be an assistant, and undoubtedly he was a shocking and tremendous loss. Do we know for sure for The Don went to Gene and said I dont want a legit assistant, I want to backfill from within and hire some guy form Hobart, or did Gene hide the money after getting burned with an one and done by Jones. Burned like he did with Jags.

Elsewhere:

I have no idea if even winning will bring back the students. the apathy is at an all time staggering low. Less than 50 students at all these games. Lets say Bc gets hot early next year and gets to 11-2 or something and is around no. 30 in the country. Is anybody convinced that the students will start to come out. I am not. Even if you get more fans, what is reasonable, to go from 50 to 150? 200? you arent getting 1,500, or 2,000. Does 200 make any significant difference.

Also. signing a high profile recruit would do nothing for this fanbase. Do you think BC would get anymore students to come to the game if they signed Vonleh? If you polled every BC student and asked them who Vonleh was, how many would know, seriously, 10-20, max?

Agree even winning won't solve it. I think you need to change the ticketing to deal with this level of apathy.

You need to get better students.

the only two really exciting players in recent years have been reggie and rice. nobody currently on campus was here for rice i believe

hinghameagle {l Wrote}:A few ramblings all over the place:

Two things we dont know:
B. Whether Gene closed the bank window when Jones left. BC paid Jones good money to be an assistant, and undoubtedly he was a shocking and tremendous loss. Do we know for sure for The Don went to Gene and said I dont want a legit assistant, I want to backfill from within and hire some guy form Hobart, or did Gene hide the money after getting burned with an one and done by Jones. Burned like he did with Jags.

I hate defending Gene, but this wasn't a budget issue. Donahue went with guys he knew. I don't think Jones leaving was shocking. BU had an opening. They are always going to look at BC assistants.

joemack13 {l Wrote}:Agree even winning won't solve it. I think you need to change the ticketing to deal with this level of apathy.

I have always said cut off all electricity to dorms/library during games. You will have a line out the door every game

BC923 {l Wrote}:

joemack13 {l Wrote}:Agree even winning won't solve it. I think you need to change the ticketing to deal with this level of apathy.

I have always said cut off all electricity to dorms/library during games. You will have a line out the door every game

Except they have smartphones now.

To reel in the nerds, you have to do something gimmicky, like make William Hung guest PA announcer or something like that.

TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:I'm not in any of these categories. I think Don has legitimate excuses, I think he has found some decent talent but has miserably failed in landing recruits at key positions, I think the progress of the program was set way back by whatever caused none of the recruits he inherited to stay and several players he himself recruited to leave. And worst of all, I look at a team with a couple of huge holes and a lack of experience and still see enough talent for it to be a lot better than it is. I didn't think there was any way that this team could be 3-8 in this watered down conference, and that was long before I even got to see how good Rahon and Hanlan turned out to be.

much like the skank polls (currently in hiatus for the lenten season), teddy and i have similar opinions on donahue. i also agree that he isn't on the hot seat but in the same vein... i thought skinner's seat got too hot one year too early.

lastly, i hope donahue's system can figure out how to be consistently good (as opposed to the consistently bad he's shown this year) at finishing games and bating bad's student athlete development can generate some excitement and put some asses in the seats

I tend to fall in the same camp as TRE and Teddy or at least I think I do.

Mrs. Skinner

Cadillac90 {l Wrote}:

TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:I'm not in any of these categories. I think Don has legitimate excuses, I think he has found some decent talent but has miserably failed in landing recruits at key positions, I think the progress of the program was set way back by whatever caused none of the recruits he inherited to stay and several players he himself recruited to leave. And worst of all, I look at a team with a couple of huge holes and a lack of experience and still see enough talent for it to be a lot better than it is. I didn't think there was any way that this team could be 3-8 in this watered down conference, and that was long before I even got to see how good Rahon and Hanlan turned out to be.

much like the skank polls (currently in hiatus for the lenten season), teddy and i have similar opinions on donahue. i also agree that he isn't on the hot seat but in the same vein... i thought skinner's seat got too hot one year too early.

lastly, i hope donahue's system can figure out how to be consistently good (as opposed to the consistently bad he's shown this year) at finishing games and bating bad's student athlete development can generate some excitement and put some asses in the seats

I tend to fall in the same camp as TRE and Teddy or at least I think I do.

Mrs. Skinner

I made you your own category.

TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:was kb25 the "I like basketball. do you like basketball?" guy?

yes - and though he claims he's not the same poster he somehow posts from the same ip address.

hate to get all serious, but that's not true. the whole girl thing is kind of cute and clever, but that's over the top.

TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:Incorrect, there are two themes you have to deal with 1) how you used to be really, really, really stupid; and 2) you being in high school.

3) never having physical contact with a female human

and neither is that, you stalker.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
Before I even saw Hanlan and Rahon play, I thought this was a just under .500 conference team and an NIT team. Having seen those two and watching the product that is actually on the floor right now, they should be even better than that in this conference.

but I think this is true. if you do that horrible thing where you turn close losses into wins, (we'll say for example, they hung on to beat #2 Duke, #3 Miami, NC State, Wake Forest and BRYANT), you got a team that is 16-8 and 8-3 in conference with wins over two Top 3 teams and a win over a good NC State team on your resume. this team is close -- so close. they need one big man and one guard.

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:I continue to think it is insane to think that this athletic department will fire the guy after next year almost regardless of results.

Why?