EaglesTalon {l Wrote}: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." ???
EaglesTalon {l Wrote}: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 {l Wrote}:EaglesTalon {l Wrote}: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 {l Wrote}:2001Eagle {l Wrote}:EaglesTalon {l Wrote}: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.
EaglesTalon {l Wrote}:It's perfectly reasonable for someone with less than 30 posts to miss the backstory. I won't hold it against you.
2001Eagle {l Wrote}:EaglesTalon {l Wrote}: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 {l Wrote}:2001Eagle {l Wrote}:EaglesTalon {l Wrote}: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 {l Wrote}:EaglesTalon {l Wrote}: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.
BCEagles25 {l Wrote}:2001Eagle {l Wrote}:EaglesTalon {l Wrote}: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 {l Wrote}:BCEagles25 {l Wrote}:2001Eagle {l Wrote}:EaglesTalon {l Wrote}: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 {l Wrote}:2001Eagle {l Wrote}:BCEagles25 {l Wrote}:2001Eagle {l Wrote}:EaglesTalon {l Wrote}: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.
EaglesTalon {l Wrote}::lol:
EaglesTalon {l Wrote}: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.
2001Eagle {l Wrote}:You did miss obvious sarcasm.
2001Eagle {l Wrote}:EaglesTalon {l Wrote}: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.
TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:for those interested, i like bc basketball
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 163 guests