should BC be a torunment team DAMMIT?

[EaglesTalon]

Keep in mind that we have to base this question on two undisputed facts:

1) BC's recruiting is terrible and Al hasn't lucked into "diamond in the rough" since Tyrese Rice was recruited five years ago. BC's recruiting classes have been shitty for over five straight years.

2) Al Skinner is a terrible gameday coach.

Given these facts, is it logical to say "Even though BC is at the bottom 1/3 of the ACC, it SHOULD be a torunament team DAMMIT." ???

[2001Eagle]

Keep in mind that we have to base this question on two undisputed facts:

1) BC's recruiting is terrible and Al hasn't lucked into "diamond in the rough" since Tyrese Rice was recruited five years ago. BC's recruiting classes have been shitty for over five straight years.

2) Al Skinner is a terrible gameday coach.

Given these facts, is it logical to say "Even though BC is at the bottom 1/3 of the ACC, it SHOULD be a torunament team DAMMIT." ???

Dude, it was obviously sarcasm. Maybe just delete this post?

[EaglesTalon]

obvious sarcasm? by a guy who thinks making the tournament in and of itself is a sign of mediocrity?

I don't think so.

[2001Eagle]

obvious sarcasm? by a guy who thinks making the tournament in and of itself is a sign of mediocrity?

I don't think so.

You should re-read the back and forth. Seriously, you're barking up the wrong tree here.

[EaglesTalon]

obvious sarcasm? by a guy who thinks making the tournament in and of itself is a sign of mediocrity?

I don't think so.

You should re-read the back and forth. Seriously, you're barking up the wrong tree here.

re-reading any back and forth by OJ means you're going to see him arguing two sides of any argument.


The fact is that he thinks that these recruits suck. He thinks Al Skinner sucks. He thinks that every year, making the sweet sixteen should be the absolute minimum.

I'd just like to know which other teams that are coached by shitty coaches, filled with shitty recruits, should be disappointed year in and year out for not making the sweet sixteen.

[2001Eagle]

obvious sarcasm? by a guy who thinks making the tournament in and of itself is a sign of mediocrity?

I don't think so.

You should re-read the back and forth. Seriously, you're barking up the wrong tree here.

re-reading any back and forth by OJ means you're going to see him arguing two sides of any argument.


The fact is that he thinks that these recruits suck. He thinks Al Skinner sucks. He thinks that every year, making the sweet sixteen should be the absolute minimum.

I'd just like to know which other teams that are coached by shitty coaches, filled with shitty recruits, should be disappointed year in and year out for not making the sweet sixteen.

That may be the case, I don't have the accumulated historical knowledge to judge that, but simply reading the words written, the post with "torunment" in it was responding to another poster saying that BC easily should have win 6-7 more games with sarcasm.

Point is, your topic is off base and looks kinda dumb.

[EaglesTalon]

It's perfectly reasonable for someone with less than 30 posts to miss the backstory. I won't hold it against you.

[2001Eagle]

It's perfectly reasonable for someone with less than 30 posts to miss the backstory. I won't hold it against you.

Thanks dude, doesn't change the fact that your post makes you sound like a moron.

[EaglesTalon]

It's perfectly reasonable for someone with less than 30 posts to miss the backstory. I won't hold it against you.

Thanks dude, doesn't change the fact that your post makes you sound like a moron.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Go back to lurking.

[2001Eagle]

It's perfectly reasonable for someone with less than 30 posts to miss the backstory. I won't hold it against you.

Thanks dude, doesn't change the fact that your post makes you sound like a moron.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Go back to lurking.

Go fuck yourself. You started a whole thread based on an inability to understand the English language. That was simply you being dumb. My lack of history has nothing to do with that.

Evn worse, then you justify it based on the historical content of some other guy's posts. What does that have to do with you starting a stupid thread? I'm not a lurker but only a recent discoverer of this board. It's got some good stuff, but most of the bad stuff comes from dipshits like you who spend more time attacking other people than anything else.

[claver2010]

[BCEagles25]

It's perfectly reasonable for someone with less than 30 posts to miss the backstory. I won't hold it against you.

Thanks dude, doesn't change the fact that your post makes you sound like a moron.

Oh great. Another slapfight artist. Newbie, I got some advice (quoting the great Dr. Cox). Don't fuck around with the regulars, because you will never win an arguement. I guess you could say it's like arguing with a girl. And I'll leave the rest of that analogy to you.

[2001Eagle]

It's perfectly reasonable for someone with less than 30 posts to miss the backstory. I won't hold it against you.

Thanks dude, doesn't change the fact that your post makes you sound like a moron.

Oh great. Another slapfight artist. Newbie, I got some advice (quoting the great Dr. Cox). Don't fuck around with the regulars, because you will never win an arguement. I guess you could say it's like arguing with a girl. And I'll leave the rest of that analogy to you.

Just trying to provide some objective perspective that could likely benefit some regulars who come off as being just as bad, if not worse, than the posters they regularly deride. For better of worse (and for my sanity worse) I reread all 15 pages of the "Al must go" thread. Therein, there was actually a rather coherent debate occurring about whether the team's declining performance justified the replacement of BC's basketball coach. Then, certain posters hi-jacked the thread with ad hominem and straw man arguments (not to mention absurdist arguments like "If recruiting is based on national prominence then why isn't Yale in the top 25?"). This hi-jacking was recognized by other posters who both questioned the absurdity of certain arguments and asked for points to be bulleted so that meaningful assertions could be separated from bull shit. These requests were ignored in the frenzy to sling shit. And, frankly, that makes for awful discussion and content. It kinda pissed me off.

Then some one takes the stupid shit from that thread and starts a whole new thread based not only on stupid shit, but a misreading of stupid shit! That is exponential stupidity and it pissed me off more.

[EaglesTalon]

It's perfectly reasonable for someone with less than 30 posts to miss the backstory. I won't hold it against you.

Thanks dude, doesn't change the fact that your post makes you sound like a moron.

Oh great. Another slapfight artist. Newbie, I got some advice (quoting the great Dr. Cox). Don't fuck around with the regulars, because you will never win an arguement. I guess you could say it's like arguing with a girl. And I'll leave the rest of that analogy to you.

Just trying to provide some objective perspective that could likely benefit some regulars who come off as being just as bad, if not worse, than the posters they regularly deride. For better of worse (and for my sanity worse) I reread all 15 pages of the "Al must go" thread. Therein, there was actually a rather coherent debate occurring about whether the team's declining performance justified the replacement of BC's basketball coach. Then, certain posters hi-jacked the thread with ad hominem and straw man arguments (not to mention absurdist arguments like "If recruiting is based on national prominence then why isn't Yale in the top 25?"). This hi-jacking was recognized by other posters who both questioned the absurdity of certain arguments and asked for points to be bulleted so that meaningful assertions could be separated from bull shit. These requests were ignored in the frenzy to sling shit. And, frankly, that makes for awful discussion and content. It kinda pissed me off.

Then some one takes the stupid shit from that thread and starts a whole new thread based not only on stupid shit, but a misreading of stupid shit! That is exponential stupidity and it pissed me off more.

So, someone takes a sub-discussion that you hate and into its own separate thread and you complain? I'm sorry for holding a gun to your head forcing you to read this new thread.

[2001Eagle]

It's perfectly reasonable for someone with less than 30 posts to miss the backstory. I won't hold it against you.

Thanks dude, doesn't change the fact that your post makes you sound like a moron.

Oh great. Another slapfight artist. Newbie, I got some advice (quoting the great Dr. Cox). Don't fuck around with the regulars, because you will never win an arguement. I guess you could say it's like arguing with a girl. And I'll leave the rest of that analogy to you.

Just trying to provide some objective perspective that could likely benefit some regulars who come off as being just as bad, if not worse, than the posters they regularly deride. For better of worse (and for my sanity worse) I reread all 15 pages of the "Al must go" thread. Therein, there was actually a rather coherent debate occurring about whether the team's declining performance justified the replacement of BC's basketball coach. Then, certain posters hi-jacked the thread with ad hominem and straw man arguments (not to mention absurdist arguments like "If recruiting is based on national prominence then why isn't Yale in the top 25?"). This hi-jacking was recognized by other posters who both questioned the absurdity of certain arguments and asked for points to be bulleted so that meaningful assertions could be separated from bull shit. These requests were ignored in the frenzy to sling shit. And, frankly, that makes for awful discussion and content. It kinda pissed me off.

Then some one takes the stupid shit from that thread and starts a whole new thread based not only on stupid shit, but a misreading of stupid shit! That is exponential stupidity and it pissed me off more.

So, someone takes a sub-discussion that you hate and into its own separate thread and you complain? I'm sorry for holding a gun to your head forcing you to read this new thread.

Straw man again. Nice consistency.

[EaglesTalon]

[2001Eagle]

:lol:

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

I never said it was a sub-discussion or that I hated it. I said it was a mis-reading of basic english that was stupid and lacked any semblance of useful content. By not responding, once again, you commit the straw man fallacy.

And so as to not fall into the category of failing to provide any useful content myself, I submit the following opinion.

I think the question of replacing Al Skinner is a fair one. Both his recruiting and coaching have declined in the past three years. BC had immediate success in the ACC upon joining and has steadily dropped towards the lower echelon of the conference since 2006. Al has either recruited players unable to sustain that success or has failed to coach his players sufficiently to win games in the conference consistently. While it can be argued, strongly I would add, that his body of work makes him deserving of more time to right the ship, it can also be argued that a program shouldn't wait until rock bottom to make a change.

My personal opinion is that Al should stay on for next year, and that next year is essentially a litmus test. If he cannot integrate the new recruits and make positive changes based on lessons learned from the failings of this season, then I think a replacement is in order.

[EaglesTalon]

Your entire premise in this thread is based on the fact that you think I missed obvious sarcasm. Past statements by this poster in question have led the board to believe that simply making the field of 65 more often than not is NOTHING to be proud of and anything less than a sweet sixteen is a failure.

I find it absurd that anybody could believe:

a) the coaching is bad
b) the players are bad
c) anything less than the sweet sixteen is a failure.

[twballgame9]

This thread is retarded and that is not due to the initial post.

[2001Eagle]

Your entire premise in this thread is based on the fact that you think I missed obvious sarcasm. Past statements by this poster in question have led the board to believe that simply making the field of 65 more often than not is NOTHING to be proud of and anything less than a sweet sixteen is a failure.

I find it absurd that anybody could believe:

a) the coaching is bad
b) the players are bad
c) anything less than the sweet sixteen is a failure.

You did miss obvious sarcasm. And again, your distortion of what the thread was about continues.

BC is 17-27 in the ACC over the past three seasons. Something has to be bad about that and other than a mix of the coaching and players, I don't know what it could be.

[EaglesTalon]

You did miss obvious sarcasm.

you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

[BCFAN94]

Your entire premise in this thread is based on the fact that you think I missed obvious sarcasm. Past statements by this poster in question have led the board to believe that simply making the field of 65 more often than not is NOTHING to be proud of and anything less than a sweet sixteen is a failure.

I find it absurd that anybody could believe:

a) the coaching is bad
b) the players are bad
c) anything less than the sweet sixteen is a failure.

You did miss obvious sarcasm. And again, your distortion of what the thread was about continues.

BC is 17-27 in the ACC over the past three seasons. Something has to be bad about that and other than a mix of the coaching and players, I don't know what it could be.

You obviously haven't been reading this board for very long or other boards where the same posters have been posting. BC basketball has been in decline because of the fans. How do you expect Al to recruit and coach with they all get distracted by all of the silence in Conte. It's also Gene D's fault because he interfers too much and my favorite is that this is BC we are talking about, not Duke or UNC.

And...."wait til next year". Al's going to turn this thing around.

[BCEagles25]

for those interested, i like bc basketball

I am not interested. But I like BC basketball, too.