EagleOutsider.com

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:For all the serious Interwebbing hoops weirdos, let me make myself clearer. The fan support is pretty much reflective of the product on the floor.

Now resume seriousness.

Seriousness resumed in earnest:

No. Skinner's third year, which happened to be my freshman year was coming off a 6-21 season and had identical total win totals and conference win totals to this years team. There was never a crowd as embarrassing as last nights. The nerds are worse than ever. This cannot be denied.

First, this thread is an abortion.

Second, during the 6-21 season there were crowds that didn't seem to have more than five hundo present.

Third, that changed abruptly when Skinner's 00-01 team pulled a worst to first turnaround.

Fourthly, while I'd like to believe that could happen next year, I won't predict because (a) it doesn't seem likely; and (b) I don't want to be accused of shoehorning.

BCEagles25 {l Wrote}:

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.

FWIW, BC is 4-7 in games decided by 5 points or less this year. While I think just looking at that stat is not a good indicator of whether something is a good result (is a 2 point OT win over UNH better than a 1 point loss to Duke?), I do think that this stuff should generally more or less even out. If BC had two more wins (say Bryant and Miami), I think that does have a noticeable change in how this season is perceived. I won't get into whether this poor record in close games is an indictment of the Don or not as I genuinely have no idea.

The assistants, although nice guys, are in miles over their heads. Id keep Waheed and maybe Nat Graham and chuck the rest.

HJS {l Wrote}:

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?

Short version because I'm on phone spaz and priests.

2001Eagle {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:For all the serious Interwebbing hoops weirdos, let me make myself clearer. The fan support is pretty much reflective of the product on the floor.

Now resume seriousness.

Seriousness resumed in earnest:

No. Skinner's third year, which happened to be my freshman year was coming off a 6-21 season and had identical total win totals and conference win totals to this years team. There was never a crowd as embarrassing as last nights. The nerds are worse than ever. This cannot be denied.

First, this thread is an abortion.

Second, during the 6-21 season there were crowds that didn't seem to have more than five hundo present.

Third, that changed abruptly when Skinner's 00-01 team pulled a worst to first turnaround.

Fourthly, while I'd like to believe that could happen next year, I won't predict because (a) it doesn't seem likely; and (b) I don't want to be accused of shoehorning.

First, this forum and arguably the entire board is a pre-1973 back alley job.

Second, the 6-21 season predates me by a year, the next year was hardly good crowds but student attendance was never, ever like Wake this week. I do think they used to sit the band behind one of the baskets and push students to the other side until it filled. I have no idea why they don't do this anymore for optics.

Third, yes truly good without qualification student attendance began after the UConn win. It is my belief that the current nerds would require more to be awakened from playing Harry Pussy Butthole Potter.

Fourth, (a) you may be right and (b) you are shoehorning an argument that is not shoehorning into the shoehorning concern discussion.

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

HJS {l Wrote}:

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?

Short version because I'm on phone spaz and priests.

Who were you on the phone with?

DavidGordonsFoot {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

HJS {l Wrote}:

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?

Short version because I'm on phone spaz and priests.

Who were you on the phone with?

Short version because I'm on phone, your mom.

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

DavidGordonsFoot {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

HJS {l Wrote}:

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?

Short version because I'm on phone spaz and priests.

Who were you on the phone with?

Short version because I'm on phone, your mom.

And you criticize other people's 1980's style insults?

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

DavidGordonsFoot {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

HJS {l Wrote}:

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?

Short version because I'm on phone spaz and priests.

Who were you on the phone with?

Short version because I'm on phone, your mom.

And you criticize other people's 1980's style insults?

Sometimes.

According to Eric Hoffses on EA, Rubin was -11 in the Wake game.

Depth.

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.

It's hard to compete against a guy with a Lighning Bolt on his forehead. That's just awesomeness!

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

DavidGordonsFoot {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

HJS {l Wrote}:

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?

Short version because I'm on phone spaz and priests.

Who were you on the phone with?

Short version because I'm on phone, your mom.

And you criticize other people's 1980's style insults?

Sometimes.

I disagree with Teddy. "Your mom" is a timeless response. I LOL'D.

this is just because teddy has a cleaning lady to keep his balls perfectly clean and you are put out by him not needing your services

ps - the cleaning lady is not padme portman