Dear the other side of the argument...

[eagle9903]

A few days back eepstein said I never gave my opinion and just bashed his stupid opinion, specifically relating to his Dragicevich "analysis". I responded by posting my opinion on why you are all idiots below:

1) The overriding premise of my opinion is that there is not just one way to have success in college basketball. Al Skinner was successful recruiting unheralded players and then employing the flex despite it being a simple, dated, mostly out of favor system. Donahue, unsurprisingly, wants to recreate his extremely successful Cornell offense (which is essentially the same as the one Beilein took WVU to the elite 8 and sweet sixteen with and of course is the same one Donahue took Cornell to the sweet sixteen) with presumably more talented players. I despise the self limitation our football program hides behind because I think it is overstated and mostly self inflicted. However, basketball recruiting mostly due to the AAU ridiculousness(which I'm sure you love) has some concrete barriers to a school like BC, which when combined with the reputation of our current fanbase and some other issues are very real problems. My opinion is that with some rare exceptions BC has to win first without elite on paper talent to get elite on paper talent.

2) Ryan Whitman (0 star no offers) is more or less the perfect player for the Donahue/Beilein system despite being accurately described as a spot shooter as are Mike Gansey (0 star no offers transfer from Bonnies) and Kevin Pittsnogle(3 star no offers) and Jeff Foote (walk on for the Bonnies) are both facing the basket centers who have a nice shooting touch and lack athleticism.

3) If you look at Beilein's WVU recruiting despite it being a BigEast program with good fan support, no academic standards and a history of success, it looks like shit on paper, but the results were not at all consistent with such on paper recruiting, but then look at his results at Michigan and all of a sudden he's a much, much better on paper recruiter. This is the trajectory I hope Donahue's career follows albeit all at the same school.

4) This is not necessarily my favorite brand of basketball to watch, but it is not my least. I always liked watching Al's team play despite it being perceived as boring by you. Regardless, this is the system we will be running for the time being so I wouldn't hold my breath on a bunch of jump out of the gym 6'9 225 lb one and done freak athletes. I just don't care that much that we won't have them so long as the team progresses.

5) Specifically as to Dragicevich, he seems like a player who may provide at least depth in Donahue's system. If he in fact transfers to BC I see it as at least a potentially net benefit. I might not view him as such in Al's system and certainly would not if I was a fan at a program like Kentucky.

Well retarded side... what is your counter?

[eepstein0]

I agree with your point #1 if you're playing in the Ivy League. Those WVU teams had pretty decent athletes at guard/wing, just not down low. Wisconsin is the only team right now who can pull this off in a major conference and they actually play defense.

The ugly ugly style of basketball we played last year will not look at all like what we'll play going forward. Donahue didn't have enough decent players to play his brand of ball without getting run off the court. The only time you saw it was the 1st Half of the game in Raleigh against NCST. Have no clue what his plan is for this year. With 4 Division-1 level guards, I'd have to imagine we'll play more up-tempo this year.

We can agree to disagree on the transfer.

[eagle9903]

I agree with your point #1 if you're playing in the Ivy League. Those WVU teams had pretty decent athletes at guard/wing, just not down low. Wisconsin is the only team right now who can pull this off in a major conference and they actually play defense.

The ugly ugly style of basketball we played last year will not look at all like what we'll play going forward. Donahue didn't have enough decent players to play his brand of ball without getting run off the court. The only time you saw it was the 1st Half of the game in Raleigh against NCST. Have no clue what his plan is for this year. With 4 Division-1 level guards, I'd have to imagine we'll play more up-tempo this year.

We can agree to disagree on the transfer.

Its the same system. The difference is that you should be able acquire better albeit similarly skilled players in the ACC/BigEast. The WVU teams has Tyrone Salley who was a good athlete at SF and not similar to a player on the current BC roster unless Heckmann proves to be something more than he's shown, conversely those WVU teams lacked a player of Anderson's skill set.

I agree what you saw this year, intentional dragging games out, huge scoreless stretches, Humphreys, guys scared to shoot, no inside offense after the third period because Clifford was dead, is not what you will see going forward. I also agree it should be more up-tempo.

I am fine with agreeing to disagree so long as you know what we are agreeing to disagree about. I am saying that a) there are many ways to win which don't emulate Kentucky; b) instant evaluation/youtube evaluation/scouting services have value but are not dispositive of ability; c) Dragicevich may be able to contribute in Donahue's system.

I am not saying I know he will be a 4 year starter.

[joemack13]

There should be a warning on this thread that it will be 100% slap fights as opposed to the 90% we've come accustomed to.

[RedBaron67]

I agree with your point #1 if you're playing in the Ivy League. Those WVU teams had pretty decent athletes at guard/wing, just not down low. Wisconsin is the only team right now who can pull this off in a major conference and they actually play defense.

The ugly ugly style of basketball we played last year will not look at all like what we'll play going forward. Donahue didn't have enough decent players to play his brand of ball without getting run off the court. The only time you saw it was the 1st Half of the game in Raleigh against NCST. Have no clue what his plan is for this year. With 4 Division-1 level guards, I'd have to imagine we'll play more up-tempo this year.

We can agree to disagree on the transfer.

Its the same system. The difference is that you should be able acquire better albeit similarly skilled players in the ACC/BigEast. The WVU teams has Tyrone Salley who was a good athlete at SF and not similar to a player on the current BC roster unless Heckmann proves to be something more than he's shown, conversely those WVU teams lacked a player of Anderson's skill set.

I agree what you saw this year, intentional dragging games out, huge scoreless stretches, Humphreys, guys scared to shoot, no inside offense after the third period because Clifford was dead, is not what you will see going forward. I also agree it should be more up-tempo.

I am fine with agreeing to disagree so long as you know what we are agreeing to disagree about. I am saying that a) there are many ways to win which don't emulate Kentucky; b) instant evaluation/youtube evaluation/scouting services have value but are not dispositive of ability; c) Dragicevich may be able to contribute in Donahue's system.

I am not saying I know he will be a 4 year starter.

Dragicevich definitely won't be a 4 year starter, since he has only 2 years of eligibility left.

As for your position, (a) is obviously true but not all that obviously germane to the specific issue of Dragicevich; (b) is also obviously true but dubiously fair about the opposing position, because eepstein0 is criticizing Dragicevich on the basis of multiple game viewings both live and televised, and I'm criticizing him on the basis of his numbers; and (c) can't be conclusively disproven in the absence of actual test data, which leaves the issue as a probabilistic assessment on the basis of available data. The assessment on our side of the issue (if I understand eepstein0 correctly) is that Dragicevich would probably contribute something (i.e., more than nothing) to the BC program, but that any such contribution is unlikely or even very unlikely to outweigh the negatives involved. The main negatives are (to repeat them one more time): (a) that Dragicevich will contribute moderately at best even in his strongest area (shooting) while giving no help in BC's weakest areas (rebounding and defense); (b) that he'll tie up a scholarship for 3 years when BC has large areas of need and a very limited number of scholarships with which to fill them; and (c) that he'll add to the already oversized class of 2015 (from which we have no guarantee that anyone's going to transfer) and further exacerbate BC's class imbalance problem. I won't ask you if I'm being fair to your position, because I'm sure I'll hear from you.

Aside to joemack13: I don't think this qualifies as a slap fight.

[eagle9903]

Dragicevich definitely won't be a 4 year starter, since he has only 2 years of eligibility left.

As for your position, (a) is obviously true but not all that obviously germane to the specific issue of Dragicevich; (b) is also obviously true but dubiously fair about the opposing position, because eepstein0 is criticizing Dragicevich on the basis of multiple game viewings both live and televised, and I'm criticizing him on the basis of his numbers; and (c) can't be conclusively disproven in the absence of actual test data, which leaves the issue as a probabilistic assessment on the basis of available data. The assessment on our side of the issue (if I understand eepstein0 correctly) is that Dragicevich would probably contribute something (i.e., more than nothing) to the BC program, but that any such contribution is unlikely or even very unlikely to outweigh the negatives involved. The main negatives are (to repeat them one more time): (a) that Dragicevich will contribute moderately at best even in his strongest area (shooting) while giving no help in BC's weakest areas (rebounding and defense); (b) that he'll tie up a scholarship for 3 years when BC has large areas of need and a very limited number of scholarships with which to fill them; and (c) that he'll add to the already oversized class of 2015 (from which we have no guarantee that anyone's going to transfer) and further exacerbate BC's class imbalance problem. I won't ask you if I'm being fair to your position, because I'm sure I'll hear from you.

Aside to joemack13: I don't think this qualifies as a slap fight.

This is a pretty reasonable post.

I think a) is germane to the specific issue because the entire basis for the eepsteinbaron position, as I understand it, is that this team absolutely needs slashers/rebounding bigs or it will not improve. My counter to that is that successful teams, most germane being the one our head coach coached before BC and the teams of the coach he emulates have attained high levels without relying on the type of players you insist we need.

As to b) you, me and eepstein are a couple of messageboard posters. Our opinions are all well and good, but it is laughable to take our player evaluations seriously, especially if they are in the form of "I saw kid "A" play live three times, he will never play in the ACC". Here's why 1) it is completely and utterly not believable that eepstein sat on at the Notre Dame/Maryland game on December 4, 2011 and decided he was going to focus on Dragicevich for any notable amount of time. Why would he do this? Did he have a premonition the kid would many months later possible transfer to BC? 2) Brey and Donahue don't run the same system. Donahue may rely on AD to perform completely different roles than Brey did. 3) eepstein has some credibility issues - obvious one is his UNH dismissal of the entire BC freshman class as non-ACC players, did he do the same with AD? Then there's the Alabama-Georgetown game wherein he claimed one team started more freshman than it had on its team, a fact he stated he gleaned from the broadcast.

As to c) coupled with my disagreement of your definition of available data, my whole issue is you two jumping the gun constantly. I have literally given a hundred examples of this all through this forum.

You know my positions to your second list

a) see a combination of a) and c) above, which combined make me more optimistic of this kid's potential;
b) the multitude of transfers make this moot in my opinion and I'd rather roll the dice and have a few more players on the bench next year;
c) yes it could, but I will border on shocked if there is not a transfer from the 2015 class at some point, even if its AD transferring back out.

[RedBaron67]

Dragicevich definitely won't be a 4 year starter, since he has only 2 years of eligibility left.

As for your position, (a) is obviously true but not all that obviously germane to the specific issue of Dragicevich; (b) is also obviously true but dubiously fair about the opposing position, because eepstein0 is criticizing Dragicevich on the basis of multiple game viewings both live and televised, and I'm criticizing him on the basis of his numbers; and (c) can't be conclusively disproven in the absence of actual test data, which leaves the issue as a probabilistic assessment on the basis of available data. The assessment on our side of the issue (if I understand eepstein0 correctly) is that Dragicevich would probably contribute something (i.e., more than nothing) to the BC program, but that any such contribution is unlikely or even very unlikely to outweigh the negatives involved. The main negatives are (to repeat them one more time): (a) that Dragicevich will contribute moderately at best even in his strongest area (shooting) while giving no help in BC's weakest areas (rebounding and defense); (b) that he'll tie up a scholarship for 3 years when BC has large areas of need and a very limited number of scholarships with which to fill them; and (c) that he'll add to the already oversized class of 2015 (from which we have no guarantee that anyone's going to transfer) and further exacerbate BC's class imbalance problem. I won't ask you if I'm being fair to your position, because I'm sure I'll hear from you.

Aside to joemack13: I don't think this qualifies as a slap fight.

This is a pretty reasonable post.

I think a) is germane to the specific issue because the entire basis for the eepsteinbaron position, as I understand it, is that this team absolutely needs slashers/rebounding bigs or it will not improve. My counter to that is that successful teams, most germane being the one our head coach coached before BC and the teams of the coach he emulates have attained high levels without relying on the type of players you insist we need.

As to b) you, me and eepstein are a couple of messageboard posters. Our opinions are all well and good, but it is laughable to take our player evaluations seriously, especially if they are in the form of "I saw kid "A" play live three times, he will never play in the ACC". Here's why 1) it is completely and utterly not believable that eepstein sat on at the Notre Dame/Maryland game on December 4, 2011 and decided he was going to focus on Dragicevich for any notable amount of time. Why would he do this? Did he have a premonition the kid would many months later possible transfer to BC? 2) Brey and Donahue don't run the same system. Donahue may rely on AD to perform completely different roles than Brey did. 3) eepstein has some credibility issues - obvious one is his UNH dismissal of the entire BC freshman class as non-ACC players, did he do the same with AD? Then there's the Alabama-Georgetown game wherein he claimed one team started more freshman than it had on its team, a fact he stated he gleaned from the broadcast.

As to c) coupled with my disagreement of your definition of available data, my whole issue is you two jumping the gun constantly. I have literally given a hundred examples of this all through this forum.

You know my positions to your second list

a) see a combination of a) and c) above, which combined make me more optimistic of this kid's potential;
b) the multitude of transfers make this moot in my opinion and I'd rather roll the dice and have a few more players on the bench next year;
c) yes it could, but I will border on shocked if there is not a transfer from the 2015 class at some point, even if its AD transferring back out.

At this point I don't think any of us can say anything more about Dragicevich without repeating ourselves, so we might as well leave our disagreement there and see what happens. I'm reasonably certain that one thing that won't happen is Dragicevich transferring a second time, because (except in rare cases involving medical redshirts) NCAA rules only allow a player 5 years to complete his eligibility.

[eagle9903]

Dragicevich definitely won't be a 4 year starter, since he has only 2 years of eligibility left.

As for your position, (a) is obviously true but not all that obviously germane to the specific issue of Dragicevich; (b) is also obviously true but dubiously fair about the opposing position, because eepstein0 is criticizing Dragicevich on the basis of multiple game viewings both live and televised, and I'm criticizing him on the basis of his numbers; and (c) can't be conclusively disproven in the absence of actual test data, which leaves the issue as a probabilistic assessment on the basis of available data. The assessment on our side of the issue (if I understand eepstein0 correctly) is that Dragicevich would probably contribute something (i.e., more than nothing) to the BC program, but that any such contribution is unlikely or even very unlikely to outweigh the negatives involved. The main negatives are (to repeat them one more time): (a) that Dragicevich will contribute moderately at best even in his strongest area (shooting) while giving no help in BC's weakest areas (rebounding and defense); (b) that he'll tie up a scholarship for 3 years when BC has large areas of need and a very limited number of scholarships with which to fill them; and (c) that he'll add to the already oversized class of 2015 (from which we have no guarantee that anyone's going to transfer) and further exacerbate BC's class imbalance problem. I won't ask you if I'm being fair to your position, because I'm sure I'll hear from you.

Aside to joemack13: I don't think this qualifies as a slap fight.

This is a pretty reasonable post.

I think a) is germane to the specific issue because the entire basis for the eepsteinbaron position, as I understand it, is that this team absolutely needs slashers/rebounding bigs or it will not improve. My counter to that is that successful teams, most germane being the one our head coach coached before BC and the teams of the coach he emulates have attained high levels without relying on the type of players you insist we need.

As to b) you, me and eepstein are a couple of messageboard posters. Our opinions are all well and good, but it is laughable to take our player evaluations seriously, especially if they are in the form of "I saw kid "A" play live three times, he will never play in the ACC". Here's why 1) it is completely and utterly not believable that eepstein sat on at the Notre Dame/Maryland game on December 4, 2011 and decided he was going to focus on Dragicevich for any notable amount of time. Why would he do this? Did he have a premonition the kid would many months later possible transfer to BC? 2) Brey and Donahue don't run the same system. Donahue may rely on AD to perform completely different roles than Brey did. 3) eepstein has some credibility issues - obvious one is his UNH dismissal of the entire BC freshman class as non-ACC players, did he do the same with AD? Then there's the Alabama-Georgetown game wherein he claimed one team started more freshman than it had on its team, a fact he stated he gleaned from the broadcast.

As to c) coupled with my disagreement of your definition of available data, my whole issue is you two jumping the gun constantly. I have literally given a hundred examples of this all through this forum.

You know my positions to your second list

a) see a combination of a) and c) above, which combined make me more optimistic of this kid's potential;
b) the multitude of transfers make this moot in my opinion and I'd rather roll the dice and have a few more players on the bench next year;
c) yes it could, but I will border on shocked if there is not a transfer from the 2015 class at some point, even if its AD transferring back out.

At this point I don't think any of us can say anything more about Dragicevich without repeating ourselves, so we might as well leave our disagreement there and see what happens. I'm reasonably certain that one thing that won't happen is Dragicevich transferring a second time, because (except in rare cases involving medical redshirts) NCAA rules only allow a player 5 years to complete his eligibility.

My maybe Dragicevich will transfer out again was said mostly in jest, but Matt Humphrey did it literally less than a month ago. Because of the graduate program in field not offered rule its not crazy.

[DavidGordonsFoot]

For the record, I like eagle9903 and think eepstein stinks.

[twballgame9]

For the record, I like eagle9903 and think eepstein stinks.

For the record, I would have agreed until 9903 started getting his panties in a bunch lately and all his posts are obnoxiously trite and sound like they are ghostwritten by pedro and nick.

[bignick33]

For the record, I like eagle9903 and think eepstein stinks.

For the record, I would have agreed until 9903 started getting his panties in a bunch lately and all his posts are obnoxiously trite and sound like they are ghostwritten by pedro and nick.

This made me laugh out loud.

[twballgame9]

For the record, I like eagle9903 and think eepstein stinks.

For the record, I would have agreed until 9903 started getting his panties in a bunch lately and all his posts are obnoxiously trite and sound like they are ghostwritten by pedro and nick.

This made me laugh out loud.

Me too.

[DavidGordonsFoot]

For the record, I like eagle9903 and think eepstein stinks.

For the record, I would have agreed until 9903 started getting his panties in a bunch lately and all his posts are obnoxiously trite and sound like they are ghostwritten by pedro and nick.

This made me laugh out loud.

Me too.

But were you laughing while you typed it?

[twballgame9]

For the record, I like eagle9903 and think eepstein stinks.

For the record, I would have agreed until 9903 started getting his panties in a bunch lately and all his posts are obnoxiously trite and sound like they are ghostwritten by pedro and nick.

This made me laugh out loud.

Me too.

But were you laughing while you typed it?

Absolutely. I like ironing as much as the next guy.

[twballgame9]

It helps that I always read Pedro's posts in the Marvin the Martian voice, running down the stats. "The P-38 Space Modulator has a VORP of .65433..." It amuses me to no end.

[eagle9903]

For the record, I like eagle9903 and think eepstein stinks.

For the record, I would have agreed until 9903 started getting his panties in a bunch lately and all his posts are obnoxiously trite and sound like they are ghostwritten by pedro and nick.

Which came first? The obnoxious triteness or the utterly miserable repetition of the same absolute instant analysis followed by a seeming end to the argument but then an additional proponent of absolute instant analysis starting the same argument three days without acknowledging what had already been said.

[twballgame9]

For the record, I like eagle9903 and think eepstein stinks.

For the record, I would have agreed until 9903 started getting his panties in a bunch lately and all his posts are obnoxiously trite and sound like they are ghostwritten by pedro and nick.

Which came first? The obnoxious triteness or the utterly miserable repetition of the same absolute instant analysis followed by a seeming end to the argument but then an additional proponent of absolute instant analysis starting the same argument three days without acknowledging what had already been said.

Definitely the "bitter need to take yourself too seriously on a funny message board". I'd say that was the precursor to it all.

[eagle9903]

For the record, I like eagle9903 and think eepstein stinks.

For the record, I would have agreed until 9903 started getting his panties in a bunch lately and all his posts are obnoxiously trite and sound like they are ghostwritten by pedro and nick.

Which came first? The obnoxious triteness or the utterly miserable repetition of the same absolute instant analysis followed by a seeming end to the argument but then an additional proponent of absolute instant analysis starting the same argument three days without acknowledging what had already been said.

Definitely the "bitter need to take yourself too seriously on a funny message board". I'd say that was the precursor to it all.

I prefer bipolarity to restricting myself to seriousness or making the board suck. It keeps people on their toes. Plus the hoops weirdos board isn't funny, it's tragic.

[BCEagles25]

I liked this thread better when its title was arrogant. If you're gonna say it, say it dammit.

[twballgame9]

I liked this thread better when its title was arrogant. If you're gonna say it, say it dammit.

seconded. I was liking pedro and nick's new alter ego the new pompous ass version of eagle9903

[eagle9903]

I liked this thread better when its title was arrogant. If you're gonna say it, say it dammit.

seconded. I was liking pedro and nick's new alter ego the new pompous ass version of eagle9903

[RedBaron67]

At this point I don't think any of us can say anything more about Dragicevich without repeating ourselves, so we might as well leave our disagreement there and see what happens. I'm reasonably certain that one thing that won't happen is Dragicevich transferring a second time, because (except in rare cases involving medical redshirts) NCAA rules only allow a player 5 years to complete his eligibility.

My maybe Dragicevich will transfer out again was said mostly in jest, but Matt Humphrey did it literally less than a month ago. Because of the graduate program in field not offered rule its not crazy.

That's a very good point; I'd forgotten about that particular loophole, which I should have remembered because, as you point out, Humphrey just used it.

I like the change of title; I see no point in abusive rhetoric unless it involves something far more serious than basketball.

I also think it's a good point that one should keep one's sense of humor intact here; after all, this is recreation, not employment.

[bignick33]

I liked this thread better when its title was arrogant. If you're gonna say it, say it dammit.

seconded. I was liking pedro and nick's new alter ego the new pompous ass version of eagle9903

I can hardly help that I'm always right.

[RedBaron67]

I liked this thread better when its title was arrogant. If you're gonna say it, say it dammit.

seconded. I was liking pedro and nick's new alter ego the new pompous ass version of eagle9903

I can hardly help that I'm always right.

That's the spirit that made EO what it is -- we can all take inspiration from it.

[flyingelvii]

At this point I don't think any of us can say anything more about Dragicevich without repeating ourselves, so we might as well leave our disagreement there and see what happens. I'm reasonably certain that one thing that won't happen is Dragicevich transferring a second time, because (except in rare cases involving medical redshirts) NCAA rules only allow a player 5 years to complete his eligibility.

My maybe Dragicevich will transfer out again was said mostly in jest, but Matt Humphrey did it literally less than a month ago. Because of the graduate program in field not offered rule its not crazy.

That's a very good point; I'd forgotten about that particular loophole, which I should have remembered because, as you point out, Humphrey just used it.

I like the change of title; I see no point in abusive rhetoric unless it involves something far more serious than basketball.

I also think it's a good point that one should keep one's sense of humor intact here; after all, this is recreation, not employment.

Not to the professional moderators it isn't. This board is serious business for them. They even have a FedEx account.

[RedBaron67]

At this point I don't think any of us can say anything more about Dragicevich without repeating ourselves, so we might as well leave our disagreement there and see what happens. I'm reasonably certain that one thing that won't happen is Dragicevich transferring a second time, because (except in rare cases involving medical redshirts) NCAA rules only allow a player 5 years to complete his eligibility.

My maybe Dragicevich will transfer out again was said mostly in jest, but Matt Humphrey did it literally less than a month ago. Because of the graduate program in field not offered rule its not crazy.

That's a very good point; I'd forgotten about that particular loophole, which I should have remembered because, as you point out, Humphrey just used it.

I like the change of title; I see no point in abusive rhetoric unless it involves something far more serious than basketball.

I also think it's a good point that one should keep one's sense of humor intact here; after all, this is recreation, not employment.

Not to the professional moderators it isn't. This board is serious business for them. They even have a FedEx account.

I was referring to the users, not the moderators, but you still have a valid point. It's very difficult to find any form of activity where money isn't involved somewhere.

[flyingelvii]

At this point I don't think any of us can say anything more about Dragicevich without repeating ourselves, so we might as well leave our disagreement there and see what happens. I'm reasonably certain that one thing that won't happen is Dragicevich transferring a second time, because (except in rare cases involving medical redshirts) NCAA rules only allow a player 5 years to complete his eligibility.

My maybe Dragicevich will transfer out again was said mostly in jest, but Matt Humphrey did it literally less than a month ago. Because of the graduate program in field not offered rule its not crazy.

That's a very good point; I'd forgotten about that particular loophole, which I should have remembered because, as you point out, Humphrey just used it.

I like the change of title; I see no point in abusive rhetoric unless it involves something far more serious than basketball.

I also think it's a good point that one should keep one's sense of humor intact here; after all, this is recreation, not employment.

Not to the professional moderators it isn't. This board is serious business for them. They even have a FedEx account.

I was referring to the users, not the moderators, but you still have a valid point. It's very difficult to find any form of activity where money isn't involved somewhere.

Especially with all the Google AdBucks they're raking in. Look at them, sitting atop their ivory towers, laughing at us while they overindulge.

[RedBaron67]

At this point I don't think any of us can say anything more about Dragicevich without repeating ourselves, so we might as well leave our disagreement there and see what happens. I'm reasonably certain that one thing that won't happen is Dragicevich transferring a second time, because (except in rare cases involving medical redshirts) NCAA rules only allow a player 5 years to complete his eligibility.

My maybe Dragicevich will transfer out again was said mostly in jest, but Matt Humphrey did it literally less than a month ago. Because of the graduate program in field not offered rule its not crazy.

That's a very good point; I'd forgotten about that particular loophole, which I should have remembered because, as you point out, Humphrey just used it.

I like the change of title; I see no point in abusive rhetoric unless it involves something far more serious than basketball.

I also think it's a good point that one should keep one's sense of humor intact here; after all, this is recreation, not employment.

Not to the professional moderators it isn't. This board is serious business for them. They even have a FedEx account.

I was referring to the users, not the moderators, but you still have a valid point. It's very difficult to find any form of activity where money isn't involved somewhere.

Especially with all the Google AdBucks they're raking in. Look at them, sitting atop their ivory towers, laughing at us while they overindulge.

I resolutely ignore the advertising and recommend the same to everyone as a life-enhancing practice.

[flyingelvii]

It's tough though when they StubHub is advertising a cricket match in Ontario or the advertising at the bottom imploring me to "Sell Gold Eagle"?

[bignick33]

I don't know what this Jeff Goodman tweet means, but peach jam is obviously delicious:

https://twitter.com/GoodmanCBS/status/2 ... 3273549825