time to go Al...

[pick6pedro]

Talent is not the problem for this team. It's so simple to chalk it up to that, but it just isn't the case.

I'm sorry, but our second leading scorer is a UVM transfer. Biko and Southern are not good at basketball and they have made up 40% of our starting lineup for most of the year. Dunn, Elmore and Ravenel have very, very limited offensive game. tw makes fun of Raji all the time so he can't think too highly of him. That leaves Sanders and Jackson. Both are pretty good. I'm not sure if there is an ACC fan base that would trade their players for ours. Maybe Miami.

So you don't believe that if this team had merely played the game they are supposed to play and known/played their roles that they'd be 20-6 or 19-7 right now? .

That's a joke.

Why is that? St. Joe's, Maine, Harvard, FSU and VT. That right there changes their record from 13-13 to 18-8. The only joke is you.

[pick6pedro]

Wow, someone's really karma-bombing me. 19 negative karma hits in the last 10 minutes. What a tool.

[Eagledom]

Talent is not the problem for this team. It's so simple to chalk it up to that, but it just isn't the case.

I'm sorry, but our second leading scorer is a UVM transfer. Biko and Southern are not good at basketball and they have made up 40% of our starting lineup for most of the year. Dunn, Elmore and Ravenel have very, very limited offensive game. tw makes fun of Raji all the time so he can't think too highly of him. That leaves Sanders and Jackson. Both are pretty good. I'm not sure if there is an ACC fan base that would trade their players for ours. Maybe Miami.

So you don't believe that if this team had merely played the game they are supposed to play and known/played their roles that they'd be 20-6 or 19-7 right now? .

That's a joke.

Why is that? St. Joe's, Maine, Harvard, FSU and VT. That right there changes their record from 13-13 to 18-8. The only joke is you.

Because EVERY FUCKING TEAM IN THE NATION can point to games they didn't play well. It happens over the course of 30 games. More with teams that just aren't very good. Its really easy to look at the best game of the year and say we should have played that way every game. And, by the way, UNC is 2nd to last in the conference.

[pick6pedro]

Because EVERY FUCKING TEAM IN THE NATION can point to games they didn't play well. It happens over the course of 30 games. More with teams that just aren't very good. Its really easy to look at the best game of the year and say we should have played that way every game. And, by the way, UNC is 2nd to last in the conference.

OK, and I pointed to 5 games. This is why you're a joke Dom - you don't get the difference between playing completely outside of the system and having a bad game. You've clearly not watched this team at all. There are plenty of wins and losses where teams play well and there are plenty of wins and losses where teams play poorly. You're brilliant analysis is W=played well and L=played poorly.

Thanks for pointing out where UNC is in the conferece. What was the purpose of that? I'm basing my statements on watching this team over the course of 26 games you putz. And I've been saying the talent isn't a problem for quite some time.

[Eagledom]

Because EVERY FUCKING TEAM IN THE NATION can point to games they didn't play well. It happens over the course of 30 games. More with teams that just aren't very good. Its really easy to look at the best game of the year and say we should have played that way every game. And, by the way, UNC is 2nd to last in the conference.

This is why you're a joke Dom - you don't get the difference between playing completely outside of the system and having a bad game. You've clearly not watched this team at all. There are plenty of wins and losses where teams play well and there are plenty of losses where teams play well or poorly. You're brilliant analysis is W=played well and L=played poorly.

Thanks for pointing out where UNC is in the conferece. What was the purpose of that? I'm basing my statements on watching this team over the course of 26 games you putz. And I've been saying the talent isn't a problem for quite some time.

I fully understand the difference. And "playing outside the system" is not the only reason for those losses. Sometimes the system is broken down by the other teams and this team doesn't have the talent or coaching to adjust. Its a medicore team that maybe should be a little better than it is. But it is not a 20-7 team. And I brought up UNC because 3 of BC's 4 ACC wins are against UNC and Miami....where are they in the conference standings?

And if I accept the proposition that this team SHOULD be 20-7, the Al should not be given one more year.

[pick6pedro]

I fully understand the difference. And "playing outside the system" is not the only reason for those losses. Sometimes the system is broken down by the other teams and this team doesn't have the talent or coaching to adjust. Its a medicore team that maybe should be a little better than it is. But it is not a 20-7 team. And I brought up UNC because 3 of BC's 4 ACC wins are against UNC and Miami....where are they in the conference standings?

Right, just like OJ to put words in your mouth. What a waste of time. This team could easily have 19 wins right now. Beating lesser teams and closing against FSU and VT gets them there. But yes, it's the talent gap!

[MilitantEagle]

Talent is not the problem for this team. It's so simple to chalk it up to that, but it just isn't the case.

I'm sorry, but our second leading scorer is a UVM transfer. Biko and Southern are not good at basketball and they have made up 40% of our starting lineup for most of the year. Dunn, Elmore and Ravenel have very, very limited offensive game. tw makes fun of Raji all the time so he can't think too highly of him. That leaves Sanders and Jackson. Both are pretty good. I'm not sure if there is an ACC fan base that would trade their players for ours. Maybe Miami.

Citing tw as to why Raji sucks. Citing what players other fan bases want. Only talking about offense. Interesting, but they don't mean shit. So you don't believe that if this team had merely played the game they are supposed to play and known/played their roles that they'd be 20-6 or 19-7 right now? Because that's how I see it and it's not a stretch at all. Talent may not be top notch, but it's clearly not the problem. Plenty of other problems plague this team, and it's plenty obvious.

I think you have maroon and gold colored glasses on. Even if they were 19-7, that would still only make them about 6-6 in the ACC and probably another first round exit in the NCAAs IF they got there. Big deal.

[pick6pedro]

I think you have maroon and gold colored glasses on. Even if they were 19-7, that would still only make them about 6-6 in the ACC and probably another first round exit in the NCAAs IF they got there. Big deal.

I guess you could say that, but then if you'd have to outright ignore how critical I am of the team and coach. So tell me where I said this team would be a deep tourney threat or a force in the ACC. That's right, because I didn't, and I don't think that a 19-7 record would be something to brag about at all. I was saying the team easily has the talent to have that record. Big difference, and not a stretch by any means.

[MilitantEagle]

I think you have maroon and gold colored glasses on. Even if they were 19-7, that would still only make them about 6-6 in the ACC and probably another first round exit in the NCAAs IF they got there. Big deal.

I guess you could say that, but then if you'd have to outright ignore how critical I am of the team and coach. So tell me where I said this team would be a deep tourney threat or a force in the ACC. That's right, because I didn't, and I don't think that a 19-7 record would be something to brag about at all. I was saying the team easily has the talent to have that record. Big difference, and not a stretch by any means.

Fine. We disagree. But if you ask any college basketball analyst other than Andy Katz about the talent level on BC and how it compares to the rest of the ACC, I think you'll find that more agree with me.

[pick6pedro]

Fine. We disagree. But if you ask any college basketball analyst other than Andy Katz about the talent level on BC and how it compares to the rest of the ACC, I think you'll find that more agree with me.

I have no problem disagreeing, but am I to understand that you feel it's a stretch that this team could have pulled 5 more wins than they have? That I just don't get at all.

Next time I run into Bilas and Katz at MA's, I'll make sure to ask them.

P.S. One caveat: I always say talent isn't THE problem. But I am willing to admit it is A problem. Even if they were playing up to their ability, they wouldn't be a great basketball team. But IMO talent is further down on the list than some people realize.

[pick6pedro]

Wow, someone's really karma-bombing me. 19 negative karma hits in the last 10 minutes. What a tool.

Now someone's pumping up my karma. I don't really get it.

[Eagledom]

I fully understand the difference. And "playing outside the system" is not the only reason for those losses. Sometimes the system is broken down by the other teams and this team doesn't have the talent or coaching to adjust. Its a medicore team that maybe should be a little better than it is. But it is not a 20-7 team. And I brought up UNC because 3 of BC's 4 ACC wins are against UNC and Miami....where are they in the conference standings?

Right, just like OJ to put words in your mouth. What a waste of time. This team could easily have 19 wins right now. Beating lesser teams and closing against FSU and VT gets them there. But yes, it's the talent gap!

where did i put words in your mouth exactly? You are the one that said 19-20 wins at this point. Actually, I just quoted you directly. Feel free to read the posts again if you'd like. Its pretty fucking easy to say we should have won more games. We didn't. Becasue of coaching, a lack or effort, and a lack of talent. But according to you, this is not a 13-13 team. Even though BC is at the bottom 1/3 of the ACC, it SHOULD be a torunament team DAMMIT.

[EaglesTalon]

Fine. We disagree. But if you ask any college basketball analyst other than Andy Katz about the talent level on BC and how it compares to the rest of the ACC, I think you'll find that more agree with me.

How many college basketball analysts have given BC more than a passing glance? Katz probably knows more about BC than every other college basketball analyst combined.

[Eagledom]

I think you have maroon and gold colored glasses on. Even if they were 19-7, that would still only make them about 6-6 in the ACC and probably another first round exit in the NCAAs IF they got there. Big deal.

I guess you could say that, but then if you'd have to outright ignore how critical I am of the team and coach. So tell me where I said this team would be a deep tourney threat or a force in the ACC. That's right, because I didn't, and I don't think that a 19-7 record would be something to brag about at all. I was saying the team easily has the talent to have that record. Big difference, and not a stretch by any means.

And if grandma had balls, she'd be grandpa.

[EaglesTalon]

Even though BC is at the bottom 1/3 of the ACC, it SHOULD be a torunament team DAMMIT.

So, a team of crappy recruits, being led by a crappy coach, should be a torunament team?

[MilitantEagle]

Fine. We disagree. But if you ask any college basketball analyst other than Andy Katz about the talent level on BC and how it compares to the rest of the ACC, I think you'll find that more agree with me.

I have no problem disagreeing, but am I to understand that you feel it's a stretch that this team could have pulled 5 more wins than they have? That I just don't get at all.

Next time I run into Bilas and Katz at MA's, I'll make sure to ask them.

P.S. One caveat: I always say talent isn't THE problem. But I am willing to admit it is A problem. Even if they were playing up to their ability, they wouldn't be a great basketball team. But IMO talent is further down on the list than some people realize.

I may have quoted you initially, but I was also responding to tw and hjs who feel talent is not the problem. I certainly think this team could/should have five more wins, but that still does not make us a great team.

If you don't run into Bilas and Katz at MAs you could send an email to one of the thousands of basketball analysts online or join an ESPN chat session. It really wouldnt be that hard to solicit opinions.

[Eagledom]

Fine. We disagree. But if you ask any college basketball analyst other than Andy Katz about the talent level on BC and how it compares to the rest of the ACC, I think you'll find that more agree with me.

I have no problem disagreeing, but am I to understand that you feel it's a stretch that this team could have pulled 5 more wins than they have? That I just don't get at all.

Next time I run into Bilas and Katz at MA's, I'll make sure to ask them.

P.S. One caveat: I always say talent isn't THE problem. But I am willing to admit it is A problem. Even if they were playing up to their ability, they wouldn't be a great basketball team. But IMO talent is further down on the list than some people realize.

I may have quoted you initially, but I was also responding to tw and hjs who feel talent is not the problem. I certainly think this team could/should have five more wins, but that still does not make us a great team.



If you don't run into Bilas and Katz at MAs you could send an email to one of the thousands of basketball analysts online or join an ESPN chat session. It really wouldnt be that hard to solicit opinions.

ironic that the people who say the talent on this team is not the problem are also the ones who are the biggest defenders of Al. Can't have it both ways, people. This team has lots of problems. One of them is talent (due to Al's recruiting). Sure they could be a little better than 13-13, but Al is the coach. Mediocre talent and a mediocre coach lead to a 13-13 record.

[MilitantEagle]

Fine. We disagree. But if you ask any college basketball analyst other than Andy Katz about the talent level on BC and how it compares to the rest of the ACC, I think you'll find that more agree with me.

How many college basketball analysts have given BC more than a passing glance? Katz probably knows more about BC than every other college basketball analyst combined.

Depends on the analyst. I think someone who covers the ACC like Giminski would be a good person to ask. I would be curious to see how he would rank the ACC in terms of talent alone.

I think one of the main reasons why BC has only made it past the round of 32 once in the last 15 years is because our talent level does not compare to the top teams. This team is no exception.

[pick6pedro]

where did i put words in your mouth exactly? You are the one that said 19-20 wins at this point. Actually, I just quoted you directly. Feel free to read the posts again if you'd like. Its pretty fucking easy to say we should have won more games. We didn't. Becasue of coaching, a lack or effort, and a lack of talent. But according to you, this is not a 13-13 team. Even though BC is at the bottom 1/3 of the ACC, it SHOULD be a torunament team DAMMIT.

>>And "playing outside the system" is not the only reason for those losses.<<

Here. At no time did I claim that playing outside the system was the only reason for those losses. I said there is a difference between a loss in which you play poorly and one where you play outside the system . Try and keep up.

And here: you use my saying this team could easily be a 19 win team to then say "But according to you, this is not a 13-13 team".

And here: "Even though BC is at the bottom 1/3 of the ACC, it SHOULD be a torunament team DAMMIT." You love playing this subsitute- shoulds-for-coulds-and-greats-for-goods game. It's what children do: exaggerate in a desperate attempt to legitimize their side.

Typical Dommy. Some things never change.

[EaglesTalon]

Fine. We disagree. But if you ask any college basketball analyst other than Andy Katz about the talent level on BC and how it compares to the rest of the ACC, I think you'll find that more agree with me.

How many college basketball analysts have given BC more than a passing glance? Katz probably knows more about BC than every other college basketball analyst combined.

Depends on the analyst. I think someone who covers the ACC like Giminski would be a good person to ask. I would be curious to see how he would rank the ACC in terms of talent alone.

I think one of the main reasons why BC has only made it past the round of 32 once in the last 15 years is because our talent level does not compare to the top teams. This team is no exception.

I just think that Andy Katz knows more about BC than most other college basketball analysts. If he's got an outlier opinion, it's either because he knows more than every body else, he's a retard, or he's a homer.

[pick6pedro]

I think one of the main reasons why BC has only made it past the round of 32 once in the last 15 years is because our talent level does not compare to the top teams. This team is no exception.

OK, I think I see the problem now. Generally, we are in agreement. Let me break it down and let me know if this seems right:

I can only speak for myself, but from what I gather - tw, hjs, myself and others who say the talent is not the problem (or not the main problem(s) to be more exact) don't mean that this talent is off the charts and should be at the top of the ACC, just that the talent on this team should not be leading to a 13-13 record.

yourself and others who say talent is the problem are saying that the talent is the reason BC is not at the top of the ACC. That probably goes without saying, and I agree with that. Even the most optimistic people weren't expecting this team to be top 3 in the ACC with this roster. They just weren't expecting bottom 4.

So we weren't exactly talking about the same thing.

[MilitantEagle]

Fine. We disagree. But if you ask any college basketball analyst other than Andy Katz about the talent level on BC and how it compares to the rest of the ACC, I think you'll find that more agree with me.

How many college basketball analysts have given BC more than a passing glance? Katz probably knows more about BC than every other college basketball analyst combined.

Depends on the analyst. I think someone who covers the ACC like Giminski would be a good person to ask. I would be curious to see how he would rank the ACC in terms of talent alone.

I think one of the main reasons why BC has only made it past the round of 32 once in the last 15 years is because our talent level does not compare to the top teams. This team is no exception.

I just think that Andy Katz knows more about BC than most other college basketball analysts. If he's got an outlier opinion, it's either because he knows more than every body else, he's a retard, or he's a homer.

But Katz is also a reporter first, analyst second. The guy never played the game. I think Giminski knows plenty about BC and the entire ACC. And he would be objective. Somebody tell him to come over to EagleOutsider. Or maybe ATLeagle can have him as a guest blogger.

[pick6pedro]

But Katz is also a reporter first, analyst second. The guy never played the game. I think Giminski knows plenty about BC and the entire ACC. And he would be objective. Somebody tell him to come over to EagleOutsider. Or maybe ATLeagle can have him as a guest blogger.

I agree with you to a point. But Len Elmore played the game and sees BC all the time. He still spouts things about our team that are about as accurate as a drunk pissing on a paper clip from 4 stories up.

[MilitantEagle]

I think one of the main reasons why BC has only made it past the round of 32 once in the last 15 years is because our talent level does not compare to the top teams. This team is no exception.

OK, I think I see the problem now. Generally, we are in agreement. Let me break it down and let me know if this seems right:

I can only speak for myself, but from what I gather - tw, hjs, myself and others who say the talent is not the problem (or not the main problem(s) to be more exact) don't mean that this talent is off the charts and should be at the top of the ACC, just that the talent on this team should not be leading to a 13-13 record.

yourself and others who say talent is the problem are saying that the talent is the reason BC is not at the top of the ACC. That probably goes without saying, and I agree with that. Even the most optimistic people weren't expecting this team to be top 3 in the ACC with this roster. They just weren't expecting bottom 4.

So we weren't exactly talking about the same thing.

I think we both agree that talent is a problem, but I would assign it a larger percentage. I think tw felt that BC was around 4 or 5 for talent in the ACC. Not sure where you stand, but I would say definitely bottom half, maybe bottom 4. I think these teams definitely have more talent: Duke, GT, WF, UNC, Clemson, and Maryland.

[MilitantEagle]

But Katz is also a reporter first, analyst second. The guy never played the game. I think Giminski knows plenty about BC and the entire ACC. And he would be objective. Somebody tell him to come over to EagleOutsider. Or maybe ATLeagle can have him as a guest blogger.

I agree with you to a point. But Len Elmore played the game and sees BC all the time. He still spouts things about our team that are about as accurate as a drunk pissing on a paper clip from 4 stories up.

Len Elmore has a mancrush on Skinner. They've known each other since their days in NYC. He would be about as objective as Katz.

[Eagledom]

where did i put words in your mouth exactly? You are the one that said 19-20 wins at this point. Actually, I just quoted you directly. Feel free to read the posts again if you'd like. Its pretty fucking easy to say we should have won more games. We didn't. Becasue of coaching, a lack or effort, and a lack of talent. But according to you, this is not a 13-13 team. Even though BC is at the bottom 1/3 of the ACC, it SHOULD be a torunament team DAMMIT.

>>And "playing outside the system" is not the only reason for those losses.<<

Here. At no time did I claim that playing outside the system was the only reason for those losses. I said there is a difference between a loss in which you play poorly and one where you play outside the system . Try and keep up.

And here: you use my saying this team could easily be a 19 win team to then say "But according to you, this is not a 13-13 team".

And here: "Even though BC is at the bottom 1/3 of the ACC, it SHOULD be a torunament team DAMMIT." You love playing this subsitute- shoulds-for-coulds-and-greats-for-goods game. It's what children do: exaggerate in a desperate attempt to legitimize their side.

Typical Dommy. Some things never change.

And back to the original point. EVERY team and EVERY teams fans claim they COULD have won more games. Its a losing argument.

[angrychicken]

Hoops weirdos

[EaglesTalon]

where did i put words in your mouth exactly? You are the one that said 19-20 wins at this point. Actually, I just quoted you directly. Feel free to read the posts again if you'd like. Its pretty fucking easy to say we should have won more games. We didn't. Becasue of coaching, a lack or effort, and a lack of talent. But according to you, this is not a 13-13 team. Even though BC is at the bottom 1/3 of the ACC, it SHOULD be a torunament team DAMMIT.

>>And "playing outside the system" is not the only reason for those losses.<<

Here. At no time did I claim that playing outside the system was the only reason for those losses. I said there is a difference between a loss in which you play poorly and one where you play outside the system . Try and keep up.

And here: you use my saying this team could easily be a 19 win team to then say "But according to you, this is not a 13-13 team".

And here: "Even though BC is at the bottom 1/3 of the ACC, it SHOULD be a torunament team DAMMIT." You love playing this subsitute- shoulds-for-coulds-and-greats-for-goods game. It's what children do: exaggerate in a desperate attempt to legitimize their side.

Typical Dommy. Some things never change.

And back to the original point. EVERY team and EVERY teams fans claim they COULD have won more games. Its a losing argument.

But not every team has fans who claim that the coach sucks, the players suck, the recruiting sucks but the team should still go to the torunment.

[pick6pedro]

And back to the original point. EVERY team and EVERY teams fans claim they COULD have won more games. Its a losing argument.

WHOOSH - my points fly right over your head. A simpleton indeed.

[Eagledom]

And back to the original point. EVERY team and EVERY teams fans claim they COULD have won more games. Its a losing argument.

WHOOSH - my points fly right over your head. A simpleton indeed.

pretty easy when your points are so flimsy