EagleOutsider.com

Skinner will have to have two straight losing seasons to ever get on the hot seat. He is very very safe. And we would go with a Skinner guy as the next coach anyway.

This game sucked, but the people who call Skinner's coaching a "joke" are a joke. Watch him during games. He clearly cares and his ingame moves work more than they fail.

15Radnor {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

15Radnor {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:You people are fucking lame. It's humorous though, keep it up tards.

You are the fucking tard who can't come up a legitimate reason with why you excruciate the football staff yet accept not moving past the Sweet 16 in Hoops. Please differentiate. And don't say because Al won a regular season championship. The only thing that matters is March. MERRYMAN.

Because football is not hoop. Only a fucking retard would try to compare the two. Fuck Roy Williams and his national title, he LOST TO SANTA CLARA THAT YEAR! There are 320+ hoop teams, only 120 football, and of those 120, 60+ are terrible. Half of all football teams make bowls. 64 of 320 make the tourney. Of the 145 or so legit hoop programs, about 36 or so can make the tourney. Basketball is a 5 man game. One injury can fuck your season. You can't afford misses in recruiting because you have only 12 schollies total as opposed to 20-25 per year.

And Al won 2 regular season titles and a BE tourney title, 3 things the football team has never done. BC consistently finishes in the top of the best big conference in America (the football team might be in the worst, by the way).

Go work on your blog.

Why am I comparing the two, MERRYMAN? Because the school's motto is "Ever to Excel" and that means postseason results are the only things that matter. In this case, neither the football program nor basketball program have had them; yet you kill the football program for mediocrity and accept the mediocrity of the football program. If you can't see the hypocrisy in that, that you are clearly an idiot.

You killed Toby for not making adjustments. Yet you fellate Al despite his lack of adjustments. If you can't see hypocrisy in that, you are clearly an idiot.

12 Years, MERRYMAN. No further than the Sweet 16 in 12 Years. The school's motto is "EVER TO EXCEL." That equals 12 misses.

If this is 10 years or less, I would agree with you. But this is his 13th YEAR.

NO RESULTS IN MARCH!

MARCH MATTERS ONLY!

TIME TO MOVE ON!

There is no comparison. You are a fucking tard to think so. It is much easier for any team in the ACC to reach a BCS bowl than it is to reach the Sweet 16. Period. By 1000 times.

That said, all I ask for is some conference championship appearances and the occasional win. That is a realistic goal. Al has won 3 conference championships in the BE and made the finals in the ACC once. 4 times in 13 years. The football team went twice, both under the coach you idiots all hate.

I want big wins over big teams. I want wins over #1 UNC and #5 Duke. I want 20 game win streaks, 25+ win season, regular tourney appearances, conference championships. A Final Four would be nice, but to set that as an expectation is fucking stupid - that's like saying the football coach should be fired for not being top 5. Saying March Matters only is fucking even more retarded - every one not at Duke, MSU, Kansas, Kentucky (and even some of them) UNC, UConn and UCLA would get fired every other year.

BASKETBALL IS A MUCH EASIER SPORT IN WHICH TO COMPETE, AND HENCE, IS A MUCH TOUGHER SPORT IN WHICH TO WIN. THERE ARE MANY MANY MORE COMPETITIVE TEAMS. JUST LIKE FOOTBALL, 64 TEAMS MAKE THE POST SEASON, BUT THERE ARE THREE TIMES AS MANY TEAMS. BUTLER, SIENA, DAVIDSON. THIS IS NOT HARD.

Simply stated, getting your panties in a bunch because BC lost to Harvard is fucking stupid, yet funny all at the same time.

Hey I wanted Al and his stupid flex gone for years.

He may go 20-0, but that was more happenstance and schedule..

The season and ACC tourney for the eleventybillionth time is a seeding contest.

Al has failed miserably no matter what seed we get.

Villanova.

BCEagle74 {l Wrote}:Hey I wanted Al and his stupid flex gone for years.

He may go 20-0, but that was more happenstance and schedule..

The season and ACC tourney for the eleventybillionth time is a seeding contest.

Al has failed miserably no matter what seed we get.

Villanova.

Yes, it was horrible to lose to #3 ranked Villanova in a tough battle.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:There is no comparison. You are a fucking tard to think so. It is much easier for any team in the ACC to reach a BCS bowl than it is to reach the Sweet 16. Period. By 1000 times.

That said, all I ask for is some conference championship appearances and the occasional win. That is a realistic goal. Al has won 3 conference championships in the BE and made the finals in the ACC once. 4 times in 13 years. The football team went twice, both under the coach you idiots all hate.

I want big wins over big teams. I want wins over #1 UNC and #5 Duke. I want 20 game win streaks, 25+ win season, regular tourney appearances, conference championships. A Final Four would be nice, but to set that as an expectation is fucking stupid - that's like saying the football coach should be fired for not being top 5. Saying March Matters only is fucking even more retarded - every one not at Duke, MSU, Kansas, Kentucky (and even some of them) UNC, UConn and UCLA would get fired every other year.

BASKETBALL IS A MUCH EASIER SPORT IN WHICH TO COMPETE, AND HENCE, IS A MUCH TOUGHER SPORT IN WHICH TO WIN. THERE ARE MANY MANY MORE COMPETITIVE TEAMS. JUST LIKE FOOTBALL, 64 TEAMS MAKE THE POST SEASON, BUT THERE ARE THREE TIMES AS MANY TEAMS. BUTLER, SIENA, DAVIDSON. THIS IS NOT HARD.

Simply stated, getting your panties in a bunch because BC lost to Harvard is fucking stupid, yet funny all at the same time.

If you are going to combine regular season and tourney titles shouldn't it be 3 in 26 chances?

Sure a Final Four would be nice but I don't think anyone is expecting consistently reaching there, would it be too much to ask for 1 Elite 8 in 13 years?

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

BCEagle74 {l Wrote}:Hey I wanted Al and his stupid flex gone for years.

He may go 20-0, but that was more happenstance and schedule..

The season and ACC tourney for the eleventybillionth time is a seeding contest.

Al has failed miserably no matter what seed we get.

Villanova.

Yes, it was horrible to lose to #3 ranked Villanova in a tough battle.

Don't bring up that game.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

15Radnor {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

15Radnor {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:You people are fucking lame. It's humorous though, keep it up tards.

You are the fucking tard who can't come up a legitimate reason with why you excruciate the football staff yet accept not moving past the Sweet 16 in Hoops. Please differentiate. And don't say because Al won a regular season championship. The only thing that matters is March. MERRYMAN.

Because football is not hoop. Only a fucking retard would try to compare the two. Fuck Roy Williams and his national title, he LOST TO SANTA CLARA THAT YEAR! There are 320+ hoop teams, only 120 football, and of those 120, 60+ are terrible. Half of all football teams make bowls. 64 of 320 make the tourney. Of the 145 or so legit hoop programs, about 36 or so can make the tourney. Basketball is a 5 man game. One injury can fuck your season. You can't afford misses in recruiting because you have only 12 schollies total as opposed to 20-25 per year.

And Al won 2 regular season titles and a BE tourney title, 3 things the football team has never done. BC consistently finishes in the top of the best big conference in America (the football team might be in the worst, by the way).

Go work on your blog.

Why am I comparing the two, MERRYMAN? Because the school's motto is "Ever to Excel" and that means postseason results are the only things that matter. In this case, neither the football program nor basketball program have had them; yet you kill the football program for mediocrity and accept the mediocrity of the football program. If you can't see the hypocrisy in that, that you are clearly an idiot.

You killed Toby for not making adjustments. Yet you fellate Al despite his lack of adjustments. If you can't see hypocrisy in that, you are clearly an idiot.

12 Years, MERRYMAN. No further than the Sweet 16 in 12 Years. The school's motto is "EVER TO EXCEL." That equals 12 misses.

If this is 10 years or less, I would agree with you. But this is his 13th YEAR.

NO RESULTS IN MARCH!

MARCH MATTERS ONLY!

TIME TO MOVE ON!

There is no comparison. You are a fucking tard to think so. It is much easier for any team in the ACC to reach a BCS bowl than it is to reach the Sweet 16. Period. By 1000 times.

That said, all I ask for is some conference championship appearances and the occasional win. That is a realistic goal. Al has won 3 conference championships in the BE and made the finals in the ACC once. 4 times in 13 years. The football team went twice, both under the coach you idiots all hate.

I want big wins over big teams. I want wins over #1 UNC and #5 Duke. I want 20 game win streaks, 25+ win season, regular tourney appearances, conference championships. A Final Four would be nice, but to set that as an expectation is fucking stupid - that's like saying the football coach should be fired for not being top 5. Saying March Matters only is fucking even more retarded - every one not at Duke, MSU, Kansas, Kentucky (and even some of them) UNC, UConn and UCLA would get fired every other year.

BASKETBALL IS A MUCH EASIER SPORT IN WHICH TO COMPETE, AND HENCE, IS A MUCH TOUGHER SPORT IN WHICH TO WIN. THERE ARE MANY MANY MORE COMPETITIVE TEAMS. JUST LIKE FOOTBALL, 64 TEAMS MAKE THE POST SEASON, BUT THERE ARE THREE TIMES AS MANY TEAMS. BUTLER, SIENA, DAVIDSON. THIS IS NOT HARD.

Simply stated, getting your panties in a bunch because BC lost to Harvard is fucking stupid, yet funny all at the same time.

I know that it is hard to advance in a single given year. But he has had 13 years to come up with a working formula.

For the record, I have had Al on my "hot seat" since he the Villanova game. So I am not getting my panties in a bunch because we lost for the 2nd time in a row to an Ivy League opponent. This game is symptomatic of Al's massive shortcomings--the ability to adjust--which have been the reason why we have not advanced past the Sweet 16.

And to say that you care more about regular season championships than a Final Four throws any credibility of yours on the matter outside the Prudential Center window. By the way, I would accept an Elite 8 or two.

claver2010 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:There is no comparison. You are a fucking tard to think so. It is much easier for any team in the ACC to reach a BCS bowl than it is to reach the Sweet 16. Period. By 1000 times.

That said, all I ask for is some conference championship appearances and the occasional win. That is a realistic goal. Al has won 3 conference championships in the BE and made the finals in the ACC once. 4 times in 13 years. The football team went twice, both under the coach you idiots all hate.

I want big wins over big teams. I want wins over #1 UNC and #5 Duke. I want 20 game win streaks, 25+ win season, regular tourney appearances, conference championships. A Final Four would be nice, but to set that as an expectation is fucking stupid - that's like saying the football coach should be fired for not being top 5. Saying March Matters only is fucking even more retarded - every one not at Duke, MSU, Kansas, Kentucky (and even some of them) UNC, UConn and UCLA would get fired every other year.

BASKETBALL IS A MUCH EASIER SPORT IN WHICH TO COMPETE, AND HENCE, IS A MUCH TOUGHER SPORT IN WHICH TO WIN. THERE ARE MANY MANY MORE COMPETITIVE TEAMS. JUST LIKE FOOTBALL, 64 TEAMS MAKE THE POST SEASON, BUT THERE ARE THREE TIMES AS MANY TEAMS. BUTLER, SIENA, DAVIDSON. THIS IS NOT HARD.

Simply stated, getting your panties in a bunch because BC lost to Harvard is fucking stupid, yet funny all at the same time.

If you are going to combine regular season and tourney titles shouldn't it be 3 in 26 chances?

Sure a Final Four would be nice but I don't think anyone is expecting consistently reaching there, would it be too much to ask for 1 Elite 8 in 13 years?

or better yet, 2 Sweet 16's in 13 years?

15Radnor {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

15Radnor {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

15Radnor {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:You people are fucking lame. It's humorous though, keep it up tards.

You are the fucking tard who can't come up a legitimate reason with why you excruciate the football staff yet accept not moving past the Sweet 16 in Hoops. Please differentiate. And don't say because Al won a regular season championship. The only thing that matters is March. MERRYMAN.

Because football is not hoop. Only a fucking retard would try to compare the two. Fuck Roy Williams and his national title, he LOST TO SANTA CLARA THAT YEAR! There are 320+ hoop teams, only 120 football, and of those 120, 60+ are terrible. Half of all football teams make bowls. 64 of 320 make the tourney. Of the 145 or so legit hoop programs, about 36 or so can make the tourney. Basketball is a 5 man game. One injury can fuck your season. You can't afford misses in recruiting because you have only 12 schollies total as opposed to 20-25 per year.

And Al won 2 regular season titles and a BE tourney title, 3 things the football team has never done. BC consistently finishes in the top of the best big conference in America (the football team might be in the worst, by the way).

Go work on your blog.

Why am I comparing the two, MERRYMAN? Because the school's motto is "Ever to Excel" and that means postseason results are the only things that matter. In this case, neither the football program nor basketball program have had them; yet you kill the football program for mediocrity and accept the mediocrity of the football program. If you can't see the hypocrisy in that, that you are clearly an idiot.

You killed Toby for not making adjustments. Yet you fellate Al despite his lack of adjustments. If you can't see hypocrisy in that, you are clearly an idiot.

12 Years, MERRYMAN. No further than the Sweet 16 in 12 Years. The school's motto is "EVER TO EXCEL." That equals 12 misses.

If this is 10 years or less, I would agree with you. But this is his 13th YEAR.

NO RESULTS IN MARCH!

MARCH MATTERS ONLY!

TIME TO MOVE ON!

There is no comparison. You are a fucking tard to think so. It is much easier for any team in the ACC to reach a BCS bowl than it is to reach the Sweet 16. Period. By 1000 times.

That said, all I ask for is some conference championship appearances and the occasional win. That is a realistic goal. Al has won 3 conference championships in the BE and made the finals in the ACC once. 4 times in 13 years. The football team went twice, both under the coach you idiots all hate.

I want big wins over big teams. I want wins over #1 UNC and #5 Duke. I want 20 game win streaks, 25+ win season, regular tourney appearances, conference championships. A Final Four would be nice, but to set that as an expectation is fucking stupid - that's like saying the football coach should be fired for not being top 5. Saying March Matters only is fucking even more retarded - every one not at Duke, MSU, Kansas, Kentucky (and even some of them) UNC, UConn and UCLA would get fired every other year.

BASKETBALL IS A MUCH EASIER SPORT IN WHICH TO COMPETE, AND HENCE, IS A MUCH TOUGHER SPORT IN WHICH TO WIN. THERE ARE MANY MANY MORE COMPETITIVE TEAMS. JUST LIKE FOOTBALL, 64 TEAMS MAKE THE POST SEASON, BUT THERE ARE THREE TIMES AS MANY TEAMS. BUTLER, SIENA, DAVIDSON. THIS IS NOT HARD.

Simply stated, getting your panties in a bunch because BC lost to Harvard is fucking stupid, yet funny all at the same time.

I know that it is hard to advance in a single given year. But he has had 13 years to come up with a working formula.

For the record, I have had Al on my "hot seat" since he the Villanova game. So I am not getting my panties in a bunch because we lost for the 2nd time in a row to an Ivy League opponent. This game is symptomatic of Al's massive shortcomings--the ability to adjust--which have been the reason why we have not advanced past the Sweet 16.

And to say that you care more about regular season championships than a Final Four throws any credibility of yours on the matter outside the Prudential Center window. By the way, I would accept an Elite 8 or two.

Any fan of a team not named Kansas, UNC, UCLA, Kentucky or UConn that sets Elite Eight as a goal is an idiot. Win your conference. That is a realistic goal that all good programs should have. Bracket success is 3 parts luck, 2 parts draw and 1 part gravy.

The Smith/Dudley team would smoke the Curley/Eisley team head to head. But because one over achieved and made it one game further, you would wet yourself over Jim O'Brien. To me, unless you make the Final Four, you lost. Round is irrelevant.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
The Smith/Dudley team would smoke the Curley/Eisley team head to head. But because one over achieved and made it one game further, you would wet yourself over Jim O'Brien. To me, unless you make the Final Four, you lost. Round is irrelevant.

That's ridiculous. Would you support keeping Al Skinner for 13 years if you knew he would not get past the first round at any point during his tenure?

commavegarage {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
The Smith/Dudley team would smoke the Curley/Eisley team head to head. But because one over achieved and made it one game further, you would wet yourself over Jim O'Brien. To me, unless you make the Final Four, you lost. Round is irrelevant.

That's ridiculous. Would you support keeping Al Skinner for 13 years if you knew he would not get past the first round at any point during his tenure?

I don't judge either sport on post season. I want conference titles. I don't expect BC to win BCS bowls or Final Four games. It is dumb. I do expect them to win conference titles and compete for it every year. It's easier in football by a long shot, both based on the nature of the sport and the level of competition in the league. So I am harder on the football coaches.

ATLeagle {l Wrote}:Skinner will have to have two straight losing seasons to ever get on the hot seat. He is very very safe. And we would go with a Skinner guy as the next coach anyway.

This game sucked, but the people who call Skinner's coaching a "joke" are a joke. Watch him during games. He clearly cares and his ingame moves work more than they fail.

No one seems to want to call you out here and personally, I love your work but C'mon. Skinner has no fucking clue what's going on out there. We've lost to Harvard in two consecutive seasons. I don't care how many sources, etc. you have within the program. Really what you're saying is let's settle for this same medicore crap Al delivers us every year.

Entertain me with all these great "in game" moves. Like sitting our best players on the bench for long periods of time. How about not pressing against Harvard tonight?

He coached well in the Michigan game, I'll concede you that.

I laughed my ass off, by the way, when I saw "I would accept an Elite Eight or two". That was funny.

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:

ATLeagle {l Wrote}:Skinner will have to have two straight losing seasons to ever get on the hot seat. He is very very safe. And we would go with a Skinner guy as the next coach anyway.

This game sucked, but the people who call Skinner's coaching a "joke" are a joke. Watch him during games. He clearly cares and his ingame moves work more than they fail.

No one seems to want to call you out here and personally, I love your work but C'mon. Skinner has no fucking clue what's going on out there. We've lost to Harvard in two consecutive seasons. I don't care how many sources, etc. you have within the program. Really what you're saying is let's settle for this same medicore crap Al delivers us every year.

Entertain me with all these great "in game" moves. Like sitting our best players on the bench for long periods of time. How about not pressing against Harvard tonight?

He coached well in the Michigan game, I'll concede you that.

I am the first to admit that Al is not a great in-game coach. But to call what he has done "mediocre" is fucking lame.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

commavegarage {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
The Smith/Dudley team would smoke the Curley/Eisley team head to head. But because one over achieved and made it one game further, you would wet yourself over Jim O'Brien. To me, unless you make the Final Four, you lost. Round is irrelevant.

That's ridiculous. Would you support keeping Al Skinner for 13 years if you knew he would not get past the first round at any point during his tenure?

I don't judge either sport on post season. I want conference titles. I don't expect BC to win BCS bowls or Final Four games. It is dumb. I do expect them to win conference titles and compete for it every year. It's easier in football by a long shot, both based on the nature of the sport and the level of competition in the league. So I am harder on the football coaches.

So you would take Al Skinner for 13 years if he won 13 conference championships but never got out of the first round?

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:I laughed my ass off, by the way, when I saw "I would accept an Elite Eight or two". That was funny.

I laughed my ass off when I read all of your posts tonight. You are a fucking retarded Dane.

commavegarage {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

commavegarage {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
The Smith/Dudley team would smoke the Curley/Eisley team head to head. But because one over achieved and made it one game further, you would wet yourself over Jim O'Brien. To me, unless you make the Final Four, you lost. Round is irrelevant.

That's ridiculous. Would you support keeping Al Skinner for 13 years if you knew he would not get past the first round at any point during his tenure?

I don't judge either sport on post season. I want conference titles. I don't expect BC to win BCS bowls or Final Four games. It is dumb. I do expect them to win conference titles and compete for it every year. It's easier in football by a long shot, both based on the nature of the sport and the level of competition in the league. So I am harder on the football coaches.

So you would take Al Skinner for 13 years if he won 13 conference championships but never got out of the first round?

In your hyperbole, are you referring to 13 ACC championships? Then absofuckinglutely.

And if Spaz wins 13 straight ACC titles and loses all 13 Orange Bowls, he will be my fucking hero.

15Radnor {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:I laughed my ass off, by the way, when I saw "I would accept an Elite Eight or two". That was funny.

I laughed my ass off when I read all of your posts tonight. You are a fucking retarded Dane.

I laughed my ass off when I read your blog...er...no I didn't.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

commavegarage {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

commavegarage {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
The Smith/Dudley team would smoke the Curley/Eisley team head to head. But because one over achieved and made it one game further, you would wet yourself over Jim O'Brien. To me, unless you make the Final Four, you lost. Round is irrelevant.

That's ridiculous. Would you support keeping Al Skinner for 13 years if you knew he would not get past the first round at any point during his tenure?

I don't judge either sport on post season. I want conference titles. I don't expect BC to win BCS bowls or Final Four games. It is dumb. I do expect them to win conference titles and compete for it every year. It's easier in football by a long shot, both based on the nature of the sport and the level of competition in the league. So I am harder on the football coaches.

So you would take Al Skinner for 13 years if he won 13 conference championships but never got out of the first round?

In your hyperbole, are you referring to 13 ACC championships? Then absofuckinglutely.

And if Spaz wins 13 straight ACC titles and loses all 13 Orange Bowls, he will be my fucking hero.

Obviously in football this would be fine.

How the fuck would you accept 13 straight losses in the first round after winning the ACC tournament? You would be the first person to complain about underachieving.

commavegarage {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

commavegarage {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

commavegarage {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
The Smith/Dudley team would smoke the Curley/Eisley team head to head. But because one over achieved and made it one game further, you would wet yourself over Jim O'Brien. To me, unless you make the Final Four, you lost. Round is irrelevant.

That's ridiculous. Would you support keeping Al Skinner for 13 years if you knew he would not get past the first round at any point during his tenure?

I don't judge either sport on post season. I want conference titles. I don't expect BC to win BCS bowls or Final Four games. It is dumb. I do expect them to win conference titles and compete for it every year. It's easier in football by a long shot, both based on the nature of the sport and the level of competition in the league. So I am harder on the football coaches.

So you would take Al Skinner for 13 years if he won 13 conference championships but never got out of the first round?

In your hyperbole, are you referring to 13 ACC championships? Then absofuckinglutely.

And if Spaz wins 13 straight ACC titles and loses all 13 Orange Bowls, he will be my fucking hero.

Obviously in football this would be fine.

How the fuck would you accept 13 straight losses in the first round after winning the ACC tournament? You would be the first person to complain about underachieving.

I would accept that in basketball long before I accepted it in football, though I would accept it in both. It is a lot harder in hoop. To me, winning 1,2 or 3 games in the tourney is irrelevant. Win 4-6, or the rest is irrelevant. I never want to see an Elite Eight banner hung.

Honest question for the pro-Skinner crowd:

Do you think he is capable of putting together a team that is talented enough to get past the first weekend of the tournament AND coach them to that point? I no longer do. Here's our tournament history:

2000-2001: Barely escape a Round 1 upset and then lose to USC despite forcing like 30 turnovers. Disappointment.
2001-2002: Destroyed by Texas in the first round. Team probably didn't deserve a bid that year.
2002-2003: NIT. Bounced early by Temple in Bell's senior season.
2003-2004: Beat Utah in Round 1 and then lose a close game to Georgia Tech in Round 2 thanks to Steve Hailey and Craig Smith's awful game.
2004-2005: Beat Penn in Round 1 and then get embarrassed by Wisconsin-Milwaukee in Round 2. Huge disappointment.
2005-2006: Most talented BC team ever. Barely avoid Round 1 upset to Pacific. Beat a garbage Montana team in Round 2. Blow a huge lead to Villanova. HUGE disappointment.
2006-2007: Beat Texas Tech in Round 1. Lose tough contest to Georgetown in Round 2 without our suspended pot smoker.
2007-2008: Terrible team. No tournament.
2008-2009: Embarrassed by USC in Round 1.

So, in 9 seasons, Al made the tournament 7 times (very good), yet, only managed to reach the 2nd weekend once. If making the tournament is all you care about, then Skinner is the coach for you. You can't argue with a 77% success rate in that department. But if you want a deeper run every once and a while, then you're out of luck with Skinner. He's clearly plateaued as a coach. I give Skinner this year and the next. He has a team that's talented enough to make the tournament and do a little damage. This year, we're probably NIT bound. Next year, we'll have everyone back except for Roche and 3 quality freshmen. If he doesn't do anything with that team, then it's time to make a change in my opinion. Our Skinner has gotten stale.

branchinator {l Wrote}:Honest question for the pro-Skinner crowd:

Do you think he is capable of putting together a team that is talented enough to get past the first weekend of the tournament AND coach them to that point? I no longer do. Here's our tournament history:

2000-2001: Barely escape a Round 1 upset and then lose to USC despite forcing like 30 turnovers. Disappointment.
2001-2002: Destroyed by Texas in the first round. Team probably didn't deserve a bid that year.
2002-2003: NIT. Bounced early by Temple in Bell's senior season.
2003-2004: Beat Utah in Round 1 and then lose a close game to Georgia Tech in Round 2 thanks to Steve Hailey and Craig Smith's awful game.
2004-2005: Beat Penn in Round 1 and then get embarrassed by Wisconsin-Milwaukee in Round 2. Huge disappointment.
2005-2006: Most talented BC team ever. Barely avoid Round 1 upset to Pacific. Beat a garbage Montana team in Round 2. Blow a huge lead to Villanova. HUGE disappointment.
2006-2007: Beat Texas Tech in Round 1. Lose tough contest to Georgetown in Round 2 without our suspended pot smoker.
2007-2008: Terrible team. No tournament.
2008-2009: Embarrassed by USC in Round 1.

So, in 9 seasons, Al made the tournament 7 times (very good), yet, only managed to reach the 2nd weekend once. If making the tournament is all you care about, then Skinner is the coach for you. You can't argue with a 77% success rate in that department. But if you want a deeper run every once and a while, then you're out of luck with Skinner. He's clearly plateaued as a coach. I give Skinner this year and the next. He has a team that's talented enough to make the tournament and do a little damage. This year, we're probably NIT bound. Next year, we'll have everyone back except for Roche and 3 quality freshmen. If he doesn't do anything with that team, then it's time to make a change in my opinion. Our Skinner has gotten stale.

Oh brother. I am done. HUGE Disappointment losing to a pesky 1 seed like Villanova. Sad to lose to National Runner Up Georgia Tech. Sorry we lost to Final Four team Georgetown (their best team since Patrick Ewing by the way).

Fact is that the early Bell teams were terrible and played in a hyper diluted conference that went from Kerry Kittles, Allen Iverson, Ray Allen to Sweetney, Bell and Troy fucking Murphy in 5-6 very short seasons. The Smith years were marked with tough draws - hitting GT, Nova and G'Town with great teams or on hot stretches (unless you have 5 NBA players, it is all about LUCK, DRAW and MOMENTUM - any Syracuse fan will tell you that). Last year and the year they played Texas, they overachieved and hit a tough draw. To me, the UWM loss is the only really bad loss of the bunch.

What every one ignores is that not all tourney teams are created equal. BC has had several years where Al did a great job to get them in to the tourney. Any one expecting a Final Four with Jonathan Beerbom and Xavier Singletary at forward needs to pass the bong.

The last Smith team and the last Dudley team were the only legit contenders. One lost a tough game with a #1 seed, and one lost **** ********* to pot and still gave #2 seed G'Town a great battle. Is it dissapointing that they didn't go past that point? Sure. But to make it sound like bad coaching is lame.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

commavegarage {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

commavegarage {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

commavegarage {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
The Smith/Dudley team would smoke the Curley/Eisley team head to head. But because one over achieved and made it one game further, you would wet yourself over Jim O'Brien. To me, unless you make the Final Four, you lost. Round is irrelevant.

That's ridiculous. Would you support keeping Al Skinner for 13 years if you knew he would not get past the first round at any point during his tenure?

I don't judge either sport on post season. I want conference titles. I don't expect BC to win BCS bowls or Final Four games. It is dumb. I do expect them to win conference titles and compete for it every year. It's easier in football by a long shot, both based on the nature of the sport and the level of competition in the league. So I am harder on the football coaches.

So you would take Al Skinner for 13 years if he won 13 conference championships but never got out of the first round?

In your hyperbole, are you referring to 13 ACC championships? Then absofuckinglutely.

And if Spaz wins 13 straight ACC titles and loses all 13 Orange Bowls, he will be my fucking hero.

Obviously in football this would be fine.

How the fuck would you accept 13 straight losses in the first round after winning the ACC tournament? You would be the first person to complain about underachieving.

I would accept that in basketball long before I accepted it in football, though I would accept it in both. It is a lot harder in hoop. To me, winning 1,2 or 3 games in the tourney is irrelevant. Win 4-6, or the rest is irrelevant. I never want to see an Elite Eight banner hung.

Okay, so it would be more acceptable to win the conference championship 13 years in a row and have 13 WTF losses in the first round than make the sweet 16 for 13 years?

Any way you slice it, the expectations for this team is to one time, in the next two years, make the elite 8. That's not unrealistic expectations. Southern Illinois and other schools make a living bringing in a group of 5 kids to gel for four years with a Sweet 16 run resulting. It's not unrealistic that that same formula in the best conference in the country should result in an elite 8 run.

commavegarage {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

commavegarage {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

commavegarage {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

commavegarage {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
The Smith/Dudley team would smoke the Curley/Eisley team head to head. But because one over achieved and made it one game further, you would wet yourself over Jim O'Brien. To me, unless you make the Final Four, you lost. Round is irrelevant.

That's ridiculous. Would you support keeping Al Skinner for 13 years if you knew he would not get past the first round at any point during his tenure?

I don't judge either sport on post season. I want conference titles. I don't expect BC to win BCS bowls or Final Four games. It is dumb. I do expect them to win conference titles and compete for it every year. It's easier in football by a long shot, both based on the nature of the sport and the level of competition in the league. So I am harder on the football coaches.

So you would take Al Skinner for 13 years if he won 13 conference championships but never got out of the first round?

In your hyperbole, are you referring to 13 ACC championships? Then absofuckinglutely.

And if Spaz wins 13 straight ACC titles and loses all 13 Orange Bowls, he will be my fucking hero.

Obviously in football this would be fine.

How the fuck would you accept 13 straight losses in the first round after winning the ACC tournament? You would be the first person to complain about underachieving.

I would accept that in basketball long before I accepted it in football, though I would accept it in both. It is a lot harder in hoop. To me, winning 1,2 or 3 games in the tourney is irrelevant. Win 4-6, or the rest is irrelevant. I never want to see an Elite Eight banner hung.

Okay, so it would be more acceptable to win the conference championship 13 years in a row and have 13 WTF losses in the first round than make the sweet 16 for 13 years?

Any way you slice it, the expectations for this team is to one time, in the next two years, make the elite 8. That's not unrealistic expectations. Southern Illinois and other schools make a living bringing in a group of 5 kids to gel for four years with a Sweet 16 run resulting. It's not unrealistic that that same formula in the best conference in the country should result in an elite 8 run.

Setting expectations based on winning 4 straight games against the best teams in the country (and having to beat one of the top 8, depending on draw) doesn't do it for me. Teams lose games. Especially to good teams. It is why basketball is so much better than football, you have to get the luck, draw and momentum to win 6 straight games against the best of the best. It is hard.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Setting expectations based on winning 4 straight games against the best teams in the country (and having to beat one of the top 8, depending on draw) doesn't do it for me. Teams lose games. Especially to good teams. It is why basketball is so much better than football, you have to get the luck, draw and momentum to win 6 straight games against the best of the best. It is hard.

First, making the elite 8 would be winning 3 straight games. That being said, avoiding WTF losses like tonight make the first two a hell of a lot easier. How should you not expect your team to win games against bad teams when it wins games against good teams?

commavegarage {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Setting expectations based on winning 4 straight games against the best teams in the country (and having to beat one of the top 8, depending on draw) doesn't do it for me. Teams lose games. Especially to good teams. It is why basketball is so much better than football, you have to get the luck, draw and momentum to win 6 straight games against the best of the best. It is hard.

First, making the elite 8 would be winning 3 straight games. That being said, avoiding WTF losses like tonight make the first two a hell of a lot easier. How should you not expect your team to win games against bad teams when it wins games against good teams?

I never excused this loss. It is a bad loss for seeding. I am only responding to the ridiculous concept that losses like this are some rarity and that Al should be fired over it.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

commavegarage {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Setting expectations based on winning 4 straight games against the best teams in the country (and having to beat one of the top 8, depending on draw) doesn't do it for me. Teams lose games. Especially to good teams. It is why basketball is so much better than football, you have to get the luck, draw and momentum to win 6 straight games against the best of the best. It is hard.

First, making the elite 8 would be winning 3 straight games. That being said, avoiding WTF losses like tonight make the first two a hell of a lot easier. How should you not expect your team to win games against bad teams when it wins games against good teams?

I never excused this loss. It is a bad loss for seeding. I am only responding to the ridiculous concept that losses like this are some rarity and that Al should be fired over it.

Yes you did. You said we shouldn't be surprised that we lost because we didn't have Rakim.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:The last Smith team and the last Dudley team were the only legit contenders. One lost a tough game with a #1 seed, and one lost **** ********* to pot and still gave #2 seed G'Town a great battle. Is it dissapointing that they didn't go past that point? Sure. But to make it sound like bad coaching is lame.

well said

commavegarage {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

commavegarage {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Setting expectations based on winning 4 straight games against the best teams in the country (and having to beat one of the top 8, depending on draw) doesn't do it for me. Teams lose games. Especially to good teams. It is why basketball is so much better than football, you have to get the luck, draw and momentum to win 6 straight games against the best of the best. It is hard.

First, making the elite 8 would be winning 3 straight games. That being said, avoiding WTF losses like tonight make the first two a hell of a lot easier. How should you not expect your team to win games against bad teams when it wins games against good teams?

I never excused this loss. It is a bad loss for seeding. I am only responding to the ridiculous concept that losses like this are some rarity and that Al should be fired over it.

Yes you did. You said we shouldn't be surprised that we lost because we didn't have Rakim.

Not being surprised and excusing are two entirely different verbs. I said BC wins this and St. Joes with Rakim. Without Rakim, this was no big shocker like everyone is making out. Even in recent wins, they have been missing a go-to guy badly.

Regardless, I didn't excuse it, it is still not a good loss and Raji, Jackson and the boys should be able to make some layups and free throws to beat Harvard. I also don't excuse Al for not having the team ready to play. Not excusing him and wanting him fired are two entirely different things.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

commavegarage {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

commavegarage {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Setting expectations based on winning 4 straight games against the best teams in the country (and having to beat one of the top 8, depending on draw) doesn't do it for me. Teams lose games. Especially to good teams. It is why basketball is so much better than football, you have to get the luck, draw and momentum to win 6 straight games against the best of the best. It is hard.

First, making the elite 8 would be winning 3 straight games. That being said, avoiding WTF losses like tonight make the first two a hell of a lot easier. How should you not expect your team to win games against bad teams when it wins games against good teams?

I never excused this loss. It is a bad loss for seeding. I am only responding to the ridiculous concept that losses like this are some rarity and that Al should be fired over it.

Yes you did. You said we shouldn't be surprised that we lost because we didn't have Rakim.

Not being surprised and excusing are two entirely different verbs. I said BC wins this and St. Joes with Rakim. Without Rakim, this was no big shocker like everyone is making out. Even in recent wins, they have been missing a go-to guy badly.

Regardless, I didn't excuse it, it is still not a good loss and Raji, Jackson and the boys should be able to make some layups and free throws to beat Harvard. I also don't excuse Al for not having the team ready to play. Not excusing him and wanting him fired are two entirely different things.

Okay, so how should we not be surprised that after beating Michigan and Providence on the road without Rakim we would lose at home to an Ivy League team?