How many walk-ons will be in the starting line up next year?

[talon]

Making the Sweet 16 means you have made the second weekend, won two games, with at least one against a very good team in a high pressure situation

not necessarily.

let's look at the 2009 NCAA tournament (without looking it up or guessing, how many of those 16 teams could you name?)

Louisville made the sweet sixteen by beating Morehead State and Sienna. Which one of those two games was against a "VERY GOOD" team in a "HIGH PRESSURE SITUATION?"

Kansas got there by beating North Dakota State and Dayton.
UConn got there by beating Chattanooga and Texas A&M.
Memphis got there by beating Cal State Northridge and Maryland.
Xavier got there by beating Portland State and Wisconsin.
Gonzaga got there by beating Akron and Western Kentucky.
Oklahoma got there by beating Morgan State and Michigan.

Which one of THOSE teams was a "VERY GOOD" team? Almost half of the sweet sixteen in 2009 got there without facing an 8 seed or better.

BC's last time in the sweet sixteen was achieved by beating Pacific and Montana.

Sweet sixteen is the line because it's convenient. If Al made the sweet sixteen every year, none of his critics would give him a pass and they'd have the elite 8 as their line.

[commavegarage]

Making the Sweet 16 means you have made the second weekend, won two games, with at least one against a very good team in a high pressure situation

not necessarily.

let's look at the 2009 NCAA tournament (without looking it up or guessing, how many of those 16 teams could you name?)

Louisville made the sweet sixteen by beating Morehead State and Sienna. Which one of those two games was against a "VERY GOOD" team in a "HIGH PRESSURE SITUATION?"

Kansas got there by beating North Dakota State and Dayton.
UConn got there by beating Chattanooga and Texas A&M.
Memphis got there by beating Cal State Northridge and Maryland.
Xavier got there by beating Portland State and Wisconsin.
Gonzaga got there by beating Akron and Western Kentucky.
Oklahoma got there by beating Morgan State and Michigan.

Which one of THOSE teams was a "VERY GOOD" team? Almost half of the sweet sixteen in 2009 got there without facing an 8 seed or better.

BC's last time in the sweet sixteen was achieved by beating Pacific and Montana.

Sweet sixteen is the line because it's convenient. If Al made the sweet sixteen every year, none of his critics would give him a pass and they'd have the elite 8 as their line.

You'd make a very good politician. You're excellent at taking one of the smaller points of the argument and blowing it up, and completely disregarding all of the rest of the points that make plenty of sense.

1, 3, 1, 2, 4, 4, 2. You know what those are? The seeds of the schools you point to. You know how many times we were at least a 4 seed under Al Skinner's tenure? 3 times. Out of 13 years. We were a 4 seed or better,

2001. A 3 seed. We made the second round. 2005. A 4 seed. We made the second round. 2006. A 4 seed. We made the Sweet 16. Unfortunately, we were in the fortunate position that you point to only 3 times. What's my point? You can't make that argument because we have been in that position such few times. When you're not good enough in the regular season, you're going to have to play very good teams in the NCAA tournament. And don't give me that "was it high pressure" bullshit. Every game in the NCAA tournament is high pressure. Your season on the line. I analyzed it from a BC point of view. You analyzed it from a top team perspective. We weren't a top team during the Al Skinner tenure.

How about you address the whole argument instead of addressing the only part in which you can address a technicality. It's like you want to fucking filibuster an argument on a message board.

[Eagledom]

Its pretty simple, really. There are those that think making the tournament is the line you draw to define success, and there are those that think you should actually advance past the first weekend once in a while. Al's post season performance screams mediocrity to the latter group. To the former group, success is just getting there.

[twballgame9]

Its pretty simple, really. There are those that think making the tournament is the line you draw to define success, and there are those that think you should actually advance past the first weekend once in a while. Al's post season performance screams mediocrity to the latter group. To the former group, success is just getting there.

And there are those that think that losing to the National Runner up (3 seed) a Final Four team (2 seed) and a one seed with your best teams is nothing to be ashamed of, regardless of whether those losses were in the round of 32 or the round of 16. Your standards are nice in a vacuum.

[commavegarage]

Its pretty simple, really. There are those that think making the tournament is the line you draw to define success, and there are those that think you should actually advance past the first weekend once in a while. Al's post season performance screams mediocrity to the latter group. To the former group, success is just getting there.

And there are those that think that losing to the National Runner up (3 seed) a Final Four team (2 seed) and a one seed with your best teams is nothing to be ashamed of, regardless of whether those losses were in the round of 32 or the round of 16. Your standards are nice in a vacuum.

And what about the other 10 years?

[twballgame9]

Its pretty simple, really. There are those that think making the tournament is the line you draw to define success, and there are those that think you should actually advance past the first weekend once in a while. Al's post season performance screams mediocrity to the latter group. To the former group, success is just getting there.

And there are those that think that losing to the National Runner up (3 seed) a Final Four team (2 seed) and a one seed with your best teams is nothing to be ashamed of, regardless of whether those losses were in the round of 32 or the round of 16. Your standards are nice in a vacuum.

And what about the other 10 years?

6 other years. And I have said numerous times, there is one bad postseason loss. Wisconsin Milwaukee. The major criticism that is legit is that Al never pulled an upset in the tourney. Disappointing. Not grounds to be fired.

[commavegarage]

The reason you deem those upsets is because his teams weren't good enough to get upset (outside of UWM) in the first place. They were the ones attempting the upset. And no, it's 10 years. Al shouldn't be rewarded for not making the tourney.

[Eagledom]

so no the argument is not only, "making the tournament = success. regarless of how far you go", but its also "you can't blame Al for having teams that weren't as good as the competition he lost to"

Nice.

[twballgame9]

so no the argument is not only, "making the tournament = success. regarless of how far you go", but its also "you can't blame Al for having teams that weren't as good as the competition he lost to"

Nice.

Blaming a coach for not being great instead of good is different than demand his firing. Excellent job never staying on point, however.

Let me make this clear:

1. twballgame never liked Al's coaching, was disappointed in the lack of postseason runs, and was annoyed that the big prospects never turned out as good as the small ones. twballgame is pleased that the Don is the new coach and is looking forward to big things.

2. twballgame is thankful for the consistent success of the hoop team, and doesn't feel that Al deserved to be fired.

[Cadillac90]

Its pretty simple, really. There are those that think making the tournament is the line you draw to define success, and there are those that think you should actually advance past the first weekend once in a while. Al's post season performance screams mediocrity to the latter group. To the former group, success is just getting there.

Well Dickhead, your beloved Gene DeFilippo seems to think making the tournament is the definition of success. Hence firing Skinner this year as opposed to next year when Coach Flip expected Skinner to take the team to the tournament and by doing so he wouldn't be able to fire Skinner.

[commavegarage]

Its pretty simple, really. There are those that think making the tournament is the line you draw to define success, and there are those that think you should actually advance past the first weekend once in a while. Al's post season performance screams mediocrity to the latter group. To the former group, success is just getting there.

Well Dickhead, your beloved Gene DeFilippo seems to think making the tournament is the definition of success. Hence firing Skinner this year as opposed to next year when Coach Flip expected Skinner to take the team to the tournament and by doing so he wouldn't be able to fire Skinner.

Huh? You say, "Well Dickhead, your beloved Gene DeFilippo seems to think making the tournament is the definition of success." then prove (quite well actually) that that is precisely not the case.

I don't get it.

[Cadillac90]

Its pretty simple, really. There are those that think making the tournament is the line you draw to define success, and there are those that think you should actually advance past the first weekend once in a while. Al's post season performance screams mediocrity to the latter group. To the former group, success is just getting there.

Well Dickhead, your beloved Gene DeFilippo seems to think making the tournament is the definition of success. Hence firing Skinner this year as opposed to next year when Coach Flip expected Skinner to take the team to the tournament and by doing so he wouldn't be able to fire Skinner.

Huh? You say, "Well Dickhead, your beloved Gene DeFilippo seems to think making the tournament is the definition of success." then prove (quite well actually) that that is precisely not the case.

I don't get it.

It's quite simple, OJ seems to think that making the Sweet 16 is the definition of success. His hero, the almighty, Gene DeFilippo seems to think that making the tournament is the definition of success. I'd like OJ to explain how someone he adores so much could think something so easy as making the tournament should define success. I guess Gene is a "we are what we are" thinker because he has such a low ceiling.

[commavegarage]

Its pretty simple, really. There are those that think making the tournament is the line you draw to define success, and there are those that think you should actually advance past the first weekend once in a while. Al's post season performance screams mediocrity to the latter group. To the former group, success is just getting there.

Well Dickhead, your beloved Gene DeFilippo seems to think making the tournament is the definition of success. Hence firing Skinner this year as opposed to next year when Coach Flip expected Skinner to take the team to the tournament and by doing so he wouldn't be able to fire Skinner.

Huh? You say, "Well Dickhead, your beloved Gene DeFilippo seems to think making the tournament is the definition of success." then prove (quite well actually) that that is precisely not the case.

I don't get it.

It's quite simple, OJ seems to think that making the Sweet 16 is the definition of success. His hero, the almighty, Gene DeFilippo seems to think that making the tournament is the definition of success. I'd like OJ to explain how someone he adores so much could think something so easy as making the tournament should define success. I guess Gene is a "we are what we are" thinker because he has such a low ceiling.

I don't know if OJ likes Gene or not, that being said I do see where you're coming from, but this is my take:

I thought exactly the same way you did. I thought Gene thought making the tourney was enough and was horrified to think that Al would get another year, make the 2nd round and then get another extension. But this firing made me think otherwise. I think (1) Gene didn't see eye-to-eye with Al for a long time and (2) it might be those above Gene who love just making the NCAA tournament. Maybe, Gene realized if Al squeaked out a tourney berth then the higher ups would LET him fire Al. I don't know. I'm not on the board or an 81 level donor or anything. But the way things went down made me thing this may be the case. Maybe gene has a high ceiling and the higher ups have a low ceiling? Again, I don't know.

[bcmurph]

Here's a walk-on candidate;

http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2010/04/24/sports/high_school/doc4bd3a5b62df62762963106.txt