Today's thots
Edward M. Kennedy
the second half? Our defense isn't *that* good.
Ten points in a half is parapathetic.
Will St Johns ever be back?
Will UConn make the NCAAs? They have no good OOC
wins, and .500 in the Big East ain't gonna cut it.
Especially with an RPI around 100. Unless they
win vs. Villanova and @Georgetown and make some noise
in the Big East tourney, they are toast.
After a bumpy early start, Georgetown has emerged
as a sleeper team. Because conference record and
last ten games are part of the formula, they may
not be under-seeded, but with poor OOC play and a
bad Big East tourney, they could be an excellent
upset pick.
The ACC is getting six teams -- the ones at .500
and above.
I almost wanted the Duke wimmens to lose today as
an undefeated season reeks of Illinois. Not that
the ACC tourney is a given by any stretch, but I'd
rather have a single loss during the regular season.
Oh well, I'll take a win over Carolina.
--Tedward
James Gibson
> Will UConn make the NCAAs? They have no good OOC
> wins
I think you mean no good wins, not just no good OOC wins (a home win
over Syracuse doesn't qualify.
> , and .500 in the Big East ain't gonna cut it.
> Especially with an RPI around 100. Unless they
> win vs. Villanova and @Georgetown and make some noise
> in the Big East tourney, they are toast.
I think you mean unless they win the Big East tourney, they are toast.
> After a bumpy early start, Georgetown has emerged
> as a sleeper team. Because conference record and
> last ten games are part of the formula, they may
> not be under-seeded, but with poor OOC play and a
> bad Big East tourney, they could be an excellent
> upset pick.
Pomeroy loves G'town and thinks they are a potential final 4 team.
Constance Reeder
>
> The ACC is getting six teams -- the ones at .500
> and above.
I think it may be 7 -- if FSU can win out then they will get a break for
being minus Douglas.
--
I don't want to get to the end of my life and find I have just
lived the length of it. I want to have lived the width of it as
well. -- Diane Ackerman
Edward M. Kennedy
> > After a bumpy early start, Georgetown has emerged
> > as a sleeper team. Because conference record and
> > last ten games are part of the formula, they may
> > not be under-seeded, but with poor OOC play and a
> > bad Big East tourney, they could be an excellent
> > upset pick.
>
> Pomeroy loves G'town and thinks they are a potential final 4 team.
Heh, Pomeroy loves UConn more than twice as much
as the RPI. Then again, Pomeroy has Duke at number
ten.
--Tedward
Howard Lander
> On 2007-02-25, Edward M. Kennedy <do...@wox.com> wrote:
>> The ACC is getting six teams -- the ones at .500
>> and above.
>
> I think it may be 7 -- if FSU can win out then they will get a break for
> being minus Douglas.
>
leaves them 7-9 and their RPI is 48. I think they'll get screwed unless
they win 2 games in the ACC tourney.
Georgia Tech, however at least has their own destiny in their hands.
They're 6-8 with 2 home games left. I won't be surprised if they beat
BC, but I don't particularly like their chances against UNC. I'm
starting to think the Tar Heels might have been over rated all year, but
I still think they'll send Georgia Tech to the NIT.
Howard
Donnie Barnes
> Georgia Tech, however at least has their own destiny in their hands.
> They're 6-8 with 2 home games left. I won't be surprised if they beat
> BC, but I don't particularly like their chances against UNC. I'm
> starting to think the Tar Heels might have been over rated all year, but
> I still think they'll send Georgia Tech to the NIT.
They've done well coming off of losses, that's for sure. Hopefully the
trend continues, but that won't help come NCAA tourney time. I really see
them losing at some point in the ACC tourney, then waxing someone in the
first round of the NCAAs, beating someone fairly handily in the second, and
then getting beaten in a close game by someone they should have beaten.
Diamondback said he didn't think they had the heart. Call it what you
want, but I tend to agree. Will, heart, passion, guts...it's something
like that. I think it stems from a lack of leadership, personally. Tyler
just isn't the type of guy to lead. Reyshawn certainly isn't. The
freshmen aren't gonna do it, at least not yet. We're sorta hosed in that
respect. If they find something, they've got a great shot. But unless
something changes down the stretch, I see them losing fairly early in the
tournament.
--Donnie
--
Donnie Barnes http://www.donniebarnes.com 879. V.
Diamondback
> want, but I tend to agree. Will, heart, passion, guts...it's something
> like that. I think it stems from a lack of leadership, personally. Tyler
> just isn't the type of guy to lead. Reyshawn certainly isn't. The
> freshmen aren't gonna do it, at least not yet.
Depends on the frosh. You never know when one will emerge. Vasquez seems
to be for the Terps, and you might see the same from Ty Lawson. He didn't
shine last night, but he's going to be very good.
> We're sorta hosed in that
> respect. If they find something, they've got a great shot. But unless
> something changes down the stretch, I see them losing fairly early in the
> tournament.
The 2005 championship team aside (and its five NBA players), this is Roy's
pattern, isn't it? Top shelf teams that lack that little something that
propels them from good to great? I don't say that to be snide, but that was
the baggage he brought with him to Carolina, wasn't it?
foaddoc
"Edward M. Kennedy" <do...@wox.com> wrote in message
news:ert7k9$ac9$1...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
> What is it with Duke opponents not showing up till
> the second half? Our defense isn't *that* good.
> Ten points in a half is parapathetic.
>
> Will St Johns ever be back?
Two of this year's top 25 class were lost to academics (Rob Thomas, Derwin
Kitchen) and Darryl Hill's been injured. So we're playing with Jarhead's
last "recruiting" class, ie Lamont "Oops I missed another dunk" Hamilton,
Roberts first class (Lawrence) and his second class (Mason and Thomas
"Frankenstein" Jasilionus). So we're still seriously undermanned. Next year,
when the last remnants of the Jarvae are gone, we have a six member top 25
class coming in. I have no doubt Roberts will succeed. He's just taking his
time abou tit.
Regarding Dewk, this is an interesting Duke team in at least one aspect,
viz.: usually it's pretty apparent which smug Ivy league wannabe is most
deserving of a swift punch in the face or a vicious boot in the groin. In
recent years for example, it was clearly Jonathon Clay Reddick; and before
JJ Christian Laettner. This year though, you'd be hard pressed to decide
whether to grind a fistful of glass into the face of the insufferable Jon
Scheyer or to break several of the utterly appalling Greg Paulus's fingers
with a garlic press. On the one hand, Sheyer's parents get a ton of ESPN
face time during Duke broadcasts and they appear to be reprehensible Yuppie
swine of the highest order. On the other hand, as a soph Paulus has already
mastered the art of palming the ball on nearly every dribble whilst warding
off defenders by wildly swinging his left hand into their faces. Plus I
understand that his parents named him after Greg Brady, whereas he's clearly
a Peter. Advantage Paulus.
Donnie Barnes
> The 2005 championship team aside (and its five NBA players), this is Roy's
> pattern, isn't it? Top shelf teams that lack that little something that
> propels them from good to great? I don't say that to be snide, but that was
> the baggage he brought with him to Carolina, wasn't it?
That was probably the baggage, but I'm not sure I buy into it. He had some
very good teams that got up-ended by some teams on a hot streak. Winning
it all now takes a certain amount of luck, too, and even Dean didn't win a
ton of championships. Note that he had a couple teams better than any of
his championships, and they didn't get all that close to championships
themselves.
Besides, I'm not sure I'd call this a "top shelf team." It has all the
makings to turn into one, but the youth is just a lot to overcome. Sure,
you look at the McD AA's and the recruiting rankings and you can make that
case, but in the past you'd be hard pressed to find a team this highly
rated in those terms yet this young. You've usually had more seniors and
juniors in the mix to give that experience and leadership. We're simply
unlucky in that our lone scholarship senior can't hack the leadership thing
(nor personal consistency) and our other senior who gets minutes is a
walk-on who is 5'10".
I honestly think that even if we were to lose both Tyler and Wright to the
NBA, we'll be better next year. At this point, though, I can't see losing
Tyler, since I still think we'll have a fairly disappointing end to the
season and the draft is strong for big men. So we should be a lot better
overall...we'll lose inconsistency and gain experience. I really think Roy
cares more about making sure every year is good and *builds* on the
previous one rather than just winning a championship this year (because
obviously if you're successful at that you'll have better shots at
championships in theory). That's why Thompson and Stepheson are getting so
many minutes even down the stretch this year, as well as why Bobby Frasor
and Quentin Thomas are splitting so many minutes.
The odd thing this year is that it seems more like last year than I
expected. There's little in the way of a clear-cut front runner for the
title. That makes me think the winner may be another surprise team. I
thought the front three or four would be pulling away from everyone by now,
but they aren't. UCLA is good but not great. Florida is the same. Ohio
State I just can't figure out. They keep winning, but man is it ugly.
Wisconsin is good but not great. UNC has their issues. It's anyone's ball
game at this point.
Donnie Barnes
> Regarding Dewk, this is an interesting Duke team in at least one aspect,
> viz.: usually it's pretty apparent which smug Ivy league wannabe is most
> deserving of a swift punch in the face or a vicious boot in the groin. In
> recent years for example, it was clearly Jonathon Clay Reddick; and before
> JJ Christian Laettner. This year though, you'd be hard pressed to decide
> whether to grind a fistful of glass into the face of the insufferable Jon
> Scheyer or to break several of the utterly appalling Greg Paulus's fingers
> with a garlic press. On the one hand, Sheyer's parents get a ton of ESPN
> face time during Duke broadcasts and they appear to be reprehensible Yuppie
> swine of the highest order. On the other hand, as a soph Paulus has already
> mastered the art of palming the ball on nearly every dribble whilst warding
> off defenders by wildly swinging his left hand into their faces. Plus I
> understand that his parents named him after Greg Brady, whereas he's clearly
> a Peter. Advantage Paulus.
POTW, even though you left out some guys in between Laettner and JJ, like
Dahntay Jones, for example. (Okay, DJ played with JJ, IIRC, but JJ wasn't
nearly as hatable in the early years as Dahntay.)
Constance Reeder
> Constance Reeder wrote:
>> On 2007-02-25, Edward M. Kennedy <do...@wox.com> wrote:
>>> The ACC is getting six teams -- the ones at .500
>>> and above.
>>
>> I think it may be 7 -- if FSU can win out then they will get a break for
>> being minus Douglas.
>>
> They've only got one regular season game left: it's at Miami. A win
> leaves them 7-9 and their RPI is 48.
48 is well within the upper bounds of what the committee puts in. And
they have wins vs. FL, Duke, VT, and Maryland. Not many teams have that
many RPI top-25 wins.
> I think they'll get screwed unless they win 2 games in the ACC
> tourney.
I still think the injury to Douglas will be their savior if they can
demonstrate he will be back for the tourney.
--
Some people have twenty years of experience, some people have
one year of experience twenty times over. -- Anonymous
Edward M. Kennedy
I think I need to puke my guts out after reading about
UNC fans discussing hate-able players. In terms of in
your face antics, UNC has always had better atheletes
and have generally flaunted it. Vince Carter? Rasheed
Wallace? Eric Montross? Maktar Ndiaye???
King Rice still sucks. If Dahntay Jones was a problem,
you're pathetic. Yeah, Duke has owned the ACC of late
but with lesser talent. In terms on long term hate
UNC takes the ACC cake.
--Tedward
Edward M. Kennedy
> > The 2005 championship team aside (and its five NBA players), this is Roy's
> > pattern, isn't it? Top shelf teams that lack that little something that
> > propels them from good to great? I don't say that to be snide, but that was
> > the baggage he brought with him to Carolina, wasn't it?
>
> That was probably the baggage, but I'm not sure I buy into it. He had some
> very good teams that got up-ended by some teams on a hot streak. Winning
> it all now takes a certain amount of luck, too, and even Dean didn't win a
> ton of championships. Note that he had a couple teams better than any of
> his championships, and they didn't get all that close to championships
> themselves.
On the one hand, I totally agree that winning it all is no way
to judge a coach/program. Duke's FF credentials were not marred
pre-1991. On the other hand, Roy's early round chokes are, well,
legendary.
Whether or not that continues at UNC with his own players remains
to be seen. This years team is certainly underachieving, but the
regular season only means so much. UNC is lucky there is no clear
powerhouse this year, so yes, they have as good a shot as anyone.
I'd like to see Roy coach a team held together with duct tape and
bailing wire. Julius Peppers aside, Duke has had more walk-on
players than anyone I can recall.
--Tedward
Donnie Barnes
> I think I need to puke my guts out after reading about
> UNC fans discussing hate-able players. In terms of in
> your face antics, UNC has always had better atheletes
> and have generally flaunted it. Vince Carter? Rasheed
> Wallace? Eric Montross? Maktar Ndiaye???
Dude, Dahntay posed after WAY less impressive dunks than Carter or Wallace
ever posed after. I mean shit, at least those guys did hate-able things
after insane plays. Dahntay liked to do it after a fairly ordinary dunk.
:P
And how you put Montross on that list I'll never understand.
Oh, and I never said we didn't have players that other team's fans would
hate. There's more than enough UNC hate to go around. Look at Charlie.
;-)
Edward M. Kennedy
> >> The ACC is getting six teams -- the ones at .500
> >> and above.
> >
> > I think it may be 7 -- if FSU can win out then they will get a break for
> > being minus Douglas.
> >
> They've only got one regular season game left: it's at Miami. A win
> leaves them 7-9 and their RPI is 48. I think they'll get screwed unless
> they win 2 games in the ACC tourney.
The committee will never admit it, but they are
not going to send over half of a conference to
the tourney unless the credentials really merit
it. FSU is screwed; an RPI of 48 is way too high.
> Georgia Tech, however at least has their own destiny in their hands.
> They're 6-8 with 2 home games left. I won't be surprised if they beat
> BC, but I don't particularly like their chances against UNC. I'm
> starting to think the Tar Heels might have been over rated all year, but
> I still think they'll send Georgia Tech to the NIT.
The odds of GT beating both BC and UNC are small.
It could happen, but I stand by my prediction.
--Tedward
Edward M. Kennedy
> > I think I need to puke my guts out after reading about
> > UNC fans discussing hate-able players. In terms of in
> > your face antics, UNC has always had better atheletes
> > and have generally flaunted it. Vince Carter? Rasheed
> > Wallace? Eric Montross? Maktar Ndiaye???
>
> Dude, Dahntay posed after WAY less impressive dunks than Carter or Wallace
> ever posed after. I mean shit, at least those guys did hate-able things
> after insane plays. Dahntay liked to do it after a fairly ordinary dunk.
> :P
>
> And how you put Montross on that list I'll never understand.
Thug value.
--Tedward
jsh
"foaddoc" <whatarey...@muttonhead.com> wrote:
>
> Regarding Dewk, this is an interesting Duke team in at least one aspect,
> viz.: usually it's pretty apparent which smug Ivy league wannabe is most
> deserving of a swift punch in the face or a vicious boot in the groin. In
> recent years for example, it was clearly Jonathon Clay Reddick; and before
> JJ Christian Laettner. This year though, you'd be hard pressed to decide
> whether to grind a fistful of glass into the face of the insufferable Jon
> Scheyer or to break several of the utterly appalling Greg Paulus's fingers
> with a garlic press. On the one hand, Sheyer's parents get a ton of ESPN
> face time during Duke broadcasts and they appear to be reprehensible Yuppie
> swine of the highest order. On the other hand, as a soph Paulus has already
> mastered the art of palming the ball on nearly every dribble whilst warding
> off defenders by wildly swinging his left hand into their faces. Plus I
> understand that his parents named him after Greg Brady, whereas he's clearly
> a Peter. Advantage Paulus.
>
If you're from Illinois, you definitely go with Scheyer. It's all sour
grapes, of course, but it does tick you off when the homegrown kid turns
his back on you and opts for the more obvious glitz and glory. (For
those who don't know, Scheyer's high school coach was Bruce Weber's
brother.)
And, we needed him him a lot more than you, dammit!
So, naturally, we hate him and want him to fail. It's all pretty simple
really.
-- jsh
Milt Epstein
>"Howard Lander" <howard...@mindspring.com> wrote
>
>> >> The ACC is getting six teams -- the ones at .500 and above.
>> >
>> > I think it may be 7 -- if FSU can win out then they will get a
>> > break for being minus Douglas.
>>
>> They've only got one regular season game left: it's at Miami. A
>> win leaves them 7-9 and their RPI is 48. I think they'll get
>> screwed unless they win 2 games in the ACC tourney.
>
>The committee will never admit it, but they are not going to send
>over half of a conference to the tourney unless the credentials
>really merit it. FSU is screwed; an RPI of 48 is way too high.
[ ... ]
What counts as "really meriting it"? Hasn't the ACC gotten more than
half the conference in before? I know the Big Ten has -- they've had
six teams in a few times, and seven once or twice.
As to 48 being way too high, here are years and teams that have gotten
an at large bid having an RPI of 48 or higher/worse:
2006 50 Air Force, 51 NC State, 56 Alabama, 57 California, 58 Seton Hall
2005 49 UAB, 63 Iowa State, 65 NC State
2004 60 Washington, 70 Air Force
2003 53 NC State
2002 50 So. Illinois, 51 Pepperdine, 52 Missouri, 54 Wisconsin, 64 Wyoming
2001 49 Oklahoma State
2000 48 Seton Hall, 50 Utah, 51 UNLV, 52 Pepperdine
1999 48 UAB, 49 Oklahoma, 51 Mississippi, 53 Oklahoma State, 74 New Mexico
(This is using Pomeroy's RPI, which has FSU at 48 currently. Not sure
how much things would be different using The Real RPI(TM); also not
sure where FSU is ranked in any other RPIs.)
So it's happened every year in that period, and usually multiple teams
per year. A lot of major conference teams there (including NC State
*3* times). I didn't try to determine what other factors might have
helped these teams get in, but I'd be suprised if "good wins" was not
among them.
--
Milt Epstein
meps...@uiuc.edu
Milt Epstein
But to be fair, I don't think Weber's brother had been there too long,
plus suppsedly Scheyer had "always" wanted to go to Duke.
--
Milt Epstein
meps...@uiuc.edu
Jaybyrd
Nothing in your poast about Virginia Tech who is the fun cindarella
team to watch this year IMO. Also, Pitino is quietly getting
louisville up to high status and could surprise everyone.
jsh
Milt Epstein <meps...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
Yeah, and that's why we hate Duke.
Seriously though, did that comment come before or after he committed?
After the fact, I'm sure every Duke recruit says he's always dreamed of
playing there. (To be honest, he does seem like the archetypal Duke
player.)
You follow recruiting more closely than I do. I thought I remembered a
fair amount of shock and disbelief in the community when he announced
his choice. Am I misremembering that?
-- jsh
Edward M. Kennedy
> >> >> The ACC is getting six teams -- the ones at .500 and above.
> >> >
> >> > I think it may be 7 -- if FSU can win out then they will get a
> >> > break for being minus Douglas.
> >>
> >> They've only got one regular season game left: it's at Miami. A
> >> win leaves them 7-9 and their RPI is 48. I think they'll get
> >> screwed unless they win 2 games in the ACC tourney.
> >
> >The committee will never admit it, but they are not going to send
> >over half of a conference to the tourney unless the credentials
> >really merit it. FSU is screwed; an RPI of 48 is way too high.
> [ ... ]
>
> What counts as "really meriting it"? Hasn't the ACC gotten more than
> half the conference in before? I know the Big Ten has -- they've had
> six teams in a few times, and seven once or twice.
Yes, but it is rare. More often than not they tend
to leave out teams with good creds when they are the
N/2 + 1 team. (I can't prove this, it is just my
anecdotal memory.)
> As to 48 being way too high, here are years and teams that have gotten
> an at large bid having an RPI of 48 or higher/worse:
>
> 2006 50 Air Force, 51 NC State, 56 Alabama, 57 California, 58 Seton Hall
> 2005 49 UAB, 63 Iowa State, 65 NC State
> 2004 60 Washington, 70 Air Force
> 2003 53 NC State
> 2002 50 So. Illinois, 51 Pepperdine, 52 Missouri, 54 Wisconsin, 64 Wyoming
> 2001 49 Oklahoma State
> 2000 48 Seton Hall, 50 Utah, 51 UNLV, 52 Pepperdine
> 1999 48 UAB, 49 Oklahoma, 51 Mississippi, 53 Oklahoma State, 74 New Mexico
>
> (This is using Pomeroy's RPI, which has FSU at 48 currently. Not sure
> how much things would be different using The Real RPI(TM); also not
> sure where FSU is ranked in any other RPIs.)
>
> So it's happened every year in that period, and usually multiple teams
> per year. A lot of major conference teams there (including NC State
> *3* times). I didn't try to determine what other factors might have
> helped these teams get in, but I'd be suprised if "good wins" was not
> among them.
True, I meant the 48 was way too high given the
5 game skid and 7-9 record. Unless they win the
ACC tourney, their last 10 games will be 4-6.
Going back to Jan. 3, they are 6-9. They have
tanked.
Then again those are all ACC games. Hmmm...I have
not analyzed their top 50/100 record, but
http://realtimerpi.com/rpi_Men.html seems to have
a lot of teams with similar or better creds and
.500 or better conference.
I'm still trying to figure out how UNC lost to
Gonzaga.
--Tedward
Edward M. Kennedy
A white guard with footspeed as a freshman? Actually
he reminds me a little of Billy McCaffrey, whose name
I cannot remember how to spell.
> You follow recruiting more closely than I do. I thought I remembered a
> fair amount of shock and disbelief in the community when he announced
> his choice. Am I misremembering that?
I hope not.
--Tedward
jsh
Milt Epstein <meps...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
As has been stated repeatedly, this is Illinois' Achilles' heel. It
seems the committee pays a lot more attention to good wins than bad
losses. On the other hand, there's always a fair amount of talk about
the importance of how well a team does heading into the tournament.
Illinois has won 6 of its last 7, so they should look good there, even
when acknowledging that the competition has been less than stellar.
-- jsh
-- jsh
Milt Epstein
>In article <ervkso$6fk$2...@news.ks.uiuc.edu>,
> Milt Epstein <meps...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
[ ... ]
>> >If you're from Illinois, you definitely go with Scheyer. It's all
>> >sour grapes, of course, but it does tick you off when the homegrown
>> >kid turns his back on you and opts for the more obvious glitz and
>> >glory. (For those who don't know, Scheyer's high school coach was
>> >Bruce Weber's brother.)
>>
>> But to be fair, I don't think Weber's brother had been there too long,
>> plus suppsedly Scheyer had "always" wanted to go to Duke.
>
>Yeah, and that's why we hate Duke.
>
>Seriously though, did that comment come before or after he committed?
>After the fact, I'm sure every Duke recruit says he's always dreamed of
>playing there. (To be honest, he does seem like the archetypal Duke
>player.)
>
>You follow recruiting more closely than I do. I thought I remembered a
>fair amount of shock and disbelief in the community when he announced
>his choice. Am I misremembering that?
Perhaps some were shocked, but I think most anyone close to the
situation and/or who follows recruiting at least a bit were not at all
surprised. Even though Illinois was in his final two, most didn't
think he would end up there. The impression was that it was more lip
service than anything, since Illinois was the state school and his
high school coach was Illinois's coach's brother. BTW, another Duke
connection is that he went to the same high school as Chris Collins.
--
Milt Epstein
meps...@uiuc.edu
mollusk
I remember all this and I can say as an almost neutral observer that I
wasn't the least bit surprised when he announced for Duke.
Dave Mikolaitis
Milt Epstein
>"Milt Epstein" <meps...@uiuc.edu> wrote
[ ... ]
>> >The committee will never admit it, but they are not going to send
>> >over half of a conference to the tourney unless the credentials
>> >really merit it. FSU is screwed; an RPI of 48 is way too high.
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> What counts as "really meriting it"? Hasn't the ACC gotten more than
>> half the conference in before? I know the Big Ten has -- they've had
>> six teams in a few times, and seven once or twice.
>
>Yes, but it is rare. More often than not they tend to leave out
>teams with good creds when they are the N/2 + 1 team. (I can't prove
>this, it is just my anecdotal memory.)
This topic comes up here every now and then (I think you've claimed a
de facto "at least .500 conference record" standard, which I've argued
against). It'd be interesting to do a more comprehensive analysis.
My anecdotal memory is that those just below .500 teams can make it if
their conference is strong (although admittedly that seems less the
case recently).
[ ... ]
>> So it's happened every year in that period, and usually multiple teams
>> per year. A lot of major conference teams there (including NC State
>> *3* times). I didn't try to determine what other factors might have
>> helped these teams get in, but I'd be suprised if "good wins" was not
>> among them.
>
>True, I meant the 48 was way too high given the 5 game skid and 7-9
>record. Unless they win the ACC tourney, their last 10 games will be
>4-6. Going back to Jan. 3, they are 6-9. They have tanked.
I don't follow them that closely, but people have mentioned they've
been without one of their best players. When did they lose him --
does it coincide with the skid? And is he expected back? If things
line up right, the committee may very will give them a break with that.
>Then again those are all ACC games. Hmmm...I have not analyzed their
>top 50/100 record, but http://realtimerpi.com/rpi_Men.html seems to
>have a lot of teams with similar or better creds and .500 or better
>conference.
[ ... ]
I don't know. Scanning Pomeroy's RPI, they look like they compare
favorable with the teams around (and slightly above) them. For
example, they have no bad losses (2 in 51-100, but those are both to
51 Georgia Tech). Many of those other teams have multiple 51-100
losses and some 101+ losses. They are 4-9 against the Top 50, and the
only other teams in the 31-60 range with four or more Top 50 wins are
Notre Dame, Butler, Virginia, Stanford, Clemson, Texas Tech, Purdue,
USC, Oklahome State, and Georgia Tech.
--
Milt Epstein
meps...@uiuc.edu
Milt Epstein
>In article <ervkf4$6fk$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu>,
> Milt Epstein <meps...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
[ ... ]
>> So it's happened every year in that period, and usually multiple teams
>> per year. A lot of major conference teams there (including NC State
>> *3* times). I didn't try to determine what other factors might have
>> helped these teams get in, but I'd be suprised if "good wins" was not
>> among them.
>
>As has been stated repeatedly, this is Illinois' Achilles' heel. It
>seems the committee pays a lot more attention to good wins than bad
>losses. On the other hand, there's always a fair amount of talk about
>the importance of how well a team does heading into the tournament.
>Illinois has won 6 of its last 7, so they should look good there,
>even when acknowledging that the competition has been less than
>stellar.
Frankly, despite it being listed as a criterion, my impression is that
record in the last 10 games, in and of itself, is not used much by the
committee. Where it may matter more for the Illini in particular is
that it's showing (and hopefully continues to show) that they are
finally coming together and playing more consistently, now that the
team is stabilized after all the injuries. It may help even with
regard to Smith and Carlwell, showing that the Illini can play with a
tightened rotation without them.
And don't underestimate the importance of *no* bad losses (really, how
many teams outside the top ten or so can say that?). It may be that
the Illini have shown themselves to be in a tight band in terms of
their range of play (e.g., best and worst performances), making them a
long shot to rise up and beat a top team. But that band is certainly
within the tournament quality range.
--
Milt Epstein
meps...@uiuc.edu
Edward M. Kennedy
> >> >If you're from Illinois, you definitely go with Scheyer. It's all
> >> >sour grapes, of course, but it does tick you off when the homegrown
> >> >kid turns his back on you and opts for the more obvious glitz and
> >> >glory. (For those who don't know, Scheyer's high school coach was
> >> >Bruce Weber's brother.)
> >>
> >> But to be fair, I don't think Weber's brother had been there too long,
> >> plus suppsedly Scheyer had "always" wanted to go to Duke.
> >
> >Yeah, and that's why we hate Duke.
> >
> >Seriously though, did that comment come before or after he committed?
> >After the fact, I'm sure every Duke recruit says he's always dreamed of
> >playing there. (To be honest, he does seem like the archetypal Duke
> >player.)
> >
> >You follow recruiting more closely than I do. I thought I remembered a
> >fair amount of shock and disbelief in the community when he announced
> >his choice. Am I misremembering that?
>
> Perhaps some were shocked, but I think most anyone close to the
> situation and/or who follows recruiting at least a bit were not at all
> surprised. Even though Illinois was in his final two, most didn't
> think he would end up there. The impression was that it was more lip
> service than anything, since Illinois was the state school and his
> high school coach was Illinois's coach's brother. BTW, another Duke
> connection is that he went to the same high school as Chris Collins.
I wish you hadn't told me that.
--Tedward
Milt Epstein
Did I mention that he idolized him?
--
Milt Epstein
meps...@uiuc.edu
Edward M. Kennedy
Howard Lander
I think, speaking for myself as an ACC fan, that this is exactly the
point. Not that I could prove it, but it sure seems like the ACC
doesn't get anything you could call a *break* from the committee, at
least not recently. My perception is that year after year the ACC is one
of the best conferences in the country and normally has one of the best
records in the tourney, but when it comes to getting bids, well we just
don't get as many as we deserve. I perceive this as a pattern and if it
holds again this year the ACC will get 6 teams when at least 3 more have
a legit argument to get in.
Howard
John A Witzke
Sheyer's parents get a ton of ESPN face time during Duke broadcasts and
they appear to be reprehensible Yuppie swine of the highest order.
==================================
gotta be the most factual statement in this entire thread...there's NO
WAY his mom has ever been with a real man...you can see it in her eyes
you're almost always on point, but this is truly exceptional stuff...you
have a gift
"i wanna party with him"--bill murray on judge reinhold in "stripes"
John A Witzke
If you're from Illinois, you definitely go with Scheyer. It's all sour
grapes, of course, but it does tick you off when the homegrown kid turns
his back on you and opts for the more obvious glitz and glory. (For
those who don't know, Scheyer's high school coach was Bruce Weber's
brother.)
And, we needed him him a lot more than you, dammit!
So, naturally, we hate him and want him to fail. It's all pretty simple
really.
==================================
LOOK AT HIM!...when you're a stupid looking rich white kid from an
elitist suburb that looks like that, do you really have a choice when
koach K makes the offer?...he's had the mouth-breather monopoly on
recruits for over two decades now
i've always maintained that some jihadist illini fan needs to hide in
the bushes and dump orange paint over his parents' heads...i'd even
drive down to northbrook and post bond
jsh
Milt Epstein <meps...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
But that's pretty much the same thing. If, as you say, it shows the team
is coming together, it becomes a metric in their possible selection.
I suppose you could argue that it's the perceived quality of play rather
than the record that gets looked at. But I think that's unlikely,
particularly for a team that, this year, has a had a relatively low
profile. How many Illinois games do you think the committee members will
have actually seen? I'm asking in all seriousness, since I have no idea.
(My guess is they've seen a couple of the games against higher ranked
teams, almost all of which Illinois has lost.)
Of course, teams _should_ get better as the season progresses. When it
appears they don't, unless there's an obvious late-season injury
situation, it should definitely count against them.
> And don't underestimate the importance of *no* bad losses (really, how
> many teams outside the top ten or so can say that?). It may be that
> the Illini have shown themselves to be in a tight band in terms of
> their range of play (e.g., best and worst performances), making them a
> long shot to rise up and beat a top team. But that band is certainly
> within the tournament quality range.
I just think the "no bad losses" thing doesn't balance equally (in the
minds of the committee) against the "no good wins". Everyone seems to
understand that a really good team can have a "bad game", but if
multiple contests against good competition result in no wins, it seems
to clearly define how good you can possibly imagine that team to be.
But Illinois may still have a chance for a "good win" against Wisconsin
and/or Ohio State in the B10 tournament, so all is not lost.
-- jsh
Constance Reeder
Illinois doesn't have no good wins. It has two RPI top 25 wins and
three RPI top 50 wins. They aren't great because only one is on a
neutral court, but it is better than some teams have (you know who
you are, Texas).
>
> But Illinois may still have a chance for a "good win" against Wisconsin
> and/or Ohio State in the B10 tournament, so all is not lost.
That would be a great not good win, but alas the chance of it happening
is slim indeed. (Though if Brian Butch is out Illinois may have some
chance against Wisconsin with their extreme size advantage.)
--
Getting old is tough. It's frustrating when you know all the
answers and nobody bothers to ask the questions. -- unknown
jsh
Constance Reeder <cons...@duxmail.com> wrote:
> On 2007-02-27, jsh <hug...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
> > In article <ervr38$9k9$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu>,
> > Milt Epstein <meps...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> And don't underestimate the importance of *no* bad losses (really, how
> >> many teams outside the top ten or so can say that?). It may be that
> >> the Illini have shown themselves to be in a tight band in terms of
> >> their range of play (e.g., best and worst performances), making them a
> >> long shot to rise up and beat a top team. But that band is certainly
> >> within the tournament quality range.
> >
> > I just think the "no bad losses" thing doesn't balance equally (in the
> > minds of the committee) against the "no good wins". Everyone seems to
> > understand that a really good team can have a "bad game", but if
> > multiple contests against good competition result in no wins, it seems
> > to clearly define how good you can possibly imagine that team to be.
>
> Illinois doesn't have no good wins. It has two RPI top 25 wins and
> three RPI top 50 wins. They aren't great because only one is on a
> neutral court, but it is better than some teams have (you know who
> you are, Texas).
>
Point taken. I probably should have said "marquee wins". Illinois had a
few opportunities (Maryland, Arizona, Wisconsin, Ohio State) and failed
each time (even though they were usually leading at some point in the
second half).
I still think that people look a lot at your best win, and at least say:
"Well, they did beat <blank>". Our best wins (Michigan State, Indiana)
were both on our home court (and in-conference). And State wasn't
playing nearly as well as they are now, and the Indiana win isn't
looking quite as good as it did a couple weeks ago.
-- jsh
Milt Epstein
>In article <ervr38$9k9$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu>,
> Milt Epstein <meps...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
[ ... ]
>> >As has been stated repeatedly, this is Illinois' Achilles'
>> >heel. It seems the committee pays a lot more attention to good
>> >wins than bad losses. On the other hand, there's always a fair
>> >amount of talk about the importance of how well a team does
>> >heading into the tournament. Illinois has won 6 of its last 7, so
>> >they should look good there, even when acknowledging that the
>> >competition has been less than stellar.
>>
>> Frankly, despite it being listed as a criterion, my impression is
>> that record in the last 10 games, in and of itself, is not used
>> much by the committee. Where it may matter more for the Illini in
>> particular is that it's showing (and hopefully continues to show)
>> that they are finally coming together and playing more
>> consistently, now that the team is stabilized after all the
>> injuries. It may help even with regard to Smith and Carlwell,
>> showing that the Illini can play with a tightened rotation without
>> them.
>
>But that's pretty much the same thing. If, as you say, it shows the
>team is coming together, it becomes a metric in their possible selection.
[ ... ]
What I'm trying to say is that in general I don't think the committee
uses "record in last ten games" very much, but that in particular it
may be more important for the Illini because it represents
approximately the time period they've been healthier. So one can say,
"Look, this is how they would've been playing all along if they hadn't
had all those injuries".
>> And don't underestimate the importance of *no* bad losses (really,
>> how many teams outside the top ten or so can say that?). It may be
>> that the Illini have shown themselves to be in a tight band in
>> terms of their range of play (e.g., best and worst performances),
>> making them a long shot to rise up and beat a top team. But that
>> band is certainly within the tournament quality range.
>
>I just think the "no bad losses" thing doesn't balance equally (in
>the minds of the committee) against the "no good wins". Everyone
>seems to understand that a really good team can have a "bad game",
>but if multiple contests against good competition result in no wins,
>it seems to clearly define how good you can possibly imagine that
>team to be.
Maybe so. But again, if that clearly defined level is tournament
quality (i.e., at least top 40 or so), they deserve a bid. Not every
team that gets in the tournament is expected to go far, after all.
There's also the fact that the Illini had injured players for pretty
much all those games (i.e., against the top teams).
>But Illinois may still have a chance for a "good win" against
>Wisconsin and/or Ohio State in the B10 tournament, so all is not
>lost.
I don't feel real confident about beating Ohio State, but Wisconsin is
possible, especially with Butch out (and the game not in Wisconsin).
But at this point, I'm not looking that far ahead.
--
Milt Epstein
meps...@uiuc.edu
Milt Epstein
Reports are Butch is going to be out 4-6 weeks. That was a nasty
injury, the kind you hate to watch.
--
Milt Epstein
meps...@uiuc.edu
Andrew
news:es27vd$6qq$2...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
The kind that still makes me shudder two days later whenever I hear, read or
think the name Brian Butch...Ouch.
And major props to the classy Ohio St fan who yelled out (audibly on the CBS
broadcast) as Butch was being helped off the court: "The Oscars are later!"
Good to know sportsmanship is alive and well in Columbus...
Milt Epstein
>In article <ervkf4$6fk$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu>,
> Milt Epstein <meps...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
[ ... ]
>> As to 48 being way too high, here are years and teams that have
>> gotten an at large bid having an RPI of 48 or higher/worse:
[ ... ]
>> So it's happened every year in that period, and usually multiple
>> teams per year. A lot of major conference teams there (including
>> NC State *3* times). I didn't try to determine what other factors
>> might have helped these teams get in, but I'd be suprised if "good
>> wins" was not among them.
>
>As has been stated repeatedly, this is Illinois' Achilles' heel. It
>seems the committee pays a lot more attention to good wins than bad
>losses. On the other hand, there's always a fair amount of talk about
>the importance of how well a team does heading into the tournament.
>Illinois has won 6 of its last 7, so they should look good there,
>even when acknowledging that the competition has been less than
>stellar.
The other thing to note is that the context for the above remark
(about good wins) was teams ranked 48-60 in the RPI. Remember, I
showed some other data that showed that the vast vast vast majority of
teams ranked up to about 37 got in, regardless of any good wins/bad
losses/record against top whatever considerations. The Illini right
now are 31. Can't tell how much that's going to change with their
remaining games, but right now, they're looking pretty good.
--
Milt Epstein
meps...@uiuc.edu
Jason Bell
Edward M. Kennedy wrote:
>
> I'm still trying to figure out how UNC lost to
> Gonzaga.
>
> --Tedward
Really?
UNC doesn't defend the 3-point line. They never have. If you are hot
from there, you destroy UNC's offensive-efficiency model, period.
That's why they lost to Gonzaga, that's why they lost to NCSU.
It's not rocket science, it's just three points on enough possessions.
- Jason Bell
Jason Bell
Donnie Barnes wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb, foaddoc wrote:
>
>>Regarding Dewk, this is an interesting Duke team in at least one aspect,
>>viz.: usually it's pretty apparent which smug Ivy league wannabe is most
>>deserving of a swift punch in the face or a vicious boot in the groin. In
>>recent years for example, it was clearly Jonathon Clay Reddick; and before
>>JJ Christian Laettner. This year though, you'd be hard pressed to decide
>>whether to grind a fistful of glass into the face of the insufferable Jon
>>Scheyer or to break several of the utterly appalling Greg Paulus's fingers
>>with a garlic press. On the one hand, Sheyer's parents get a ton of ESPN
>>face time during Duke broadcasts and they appear to be reprehensible Yuppie
>>swine of the highest order. On the other hand, as a soph Paulus has already
>>mastered the art of palming the ball on nearly every dribble whilst warding
>>off defenders by wildly swinging his left hand into their faces. Plus I
>>understand that his parents named him after Greg Brady, whereas he's clearly
>>a Peter. Advantage Paulus.
>
>
> POTW...
> --Donnie
Wow, just wow. Two great big scoops of hate and idiocy ("Dewk", wishes
of violence, everything except the homophobia in this post, and you tag
a POTW on it.
Wow. Just wow.
I had forgotten, for a minute, Donnie, why you weren't worth more than a
fleck of spittle.
I remember now, thanks for the reminder.
Just wow.
- Jason Bell
foaddoc
"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:45e58534$0$1344$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
And Dook fans wonder why normal people think they're humorless smarmy
self-righteous fuckskulls.
Edward M. Kennedy
If there's someone who thinks you aren't an asshole,
I'm sure they will speak up.
--Tedward
foaddoc
"Edward M. Kennedy" <do...@wox.com> wrote in message
news:es4938$v9h$1...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
Evidently you haven't been reading this thread, because it's mostly been
about how fucking wonderful I am. So how about you fuck off back to honing
your tedious Foster Brooks impersonation, k?
*Burp*
>
> --Tedward
Edward M. Kennedy
Maybe Donnie will suck your dick again, but I doubt it.
> *Burp*
A redeeming quality, who'd of thunk it?
--Tedward
Milt Epstein
>"Edward M. Kennedy" <do...@wox.com> wrote in message
>news:es4938$v9h$1...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
[ ... ]
>>> And Dook fans wonder why normal people think they're humorless
>>> smarmy self-righteous fuckskulls.
>>
>> If there's someone who thinks you aren't an asshole, I'm sure they
>> will speak up.
>
>Evidently you haven't been reading this thread, because it's mostly
>been about how fucking wonderful I am. So how about you fuck off back
>to honing your tedious Foster Brooks impersonation, k?
Does this mean you're going to stick with your Don Rickles?
I could do Rodney Dangerfield ...
man, we don't get no respect ...
--
Milt Epstein
meps...@uiuc.edu
foaddoc
Don't worry muttonhead. At your current rate of two or three hundred RSBC
posts per week you're bound to say something vaguely amusing eventually, and
then this Donnie person will maybe suck your dick too. Won't be as
satisfying for him, obviously. But still.
foaddoc
> I could do Rodney Dangerfield ...
See now I had you pegged as more of a Paul Lynde type. Just not as butch.
Donnie Barnes
> Donnie Barnes wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Feb, foaddoc wrote:
>>>Regarding Dewk, this is an interesting Duke team in at least one aspect,
>>>viz.: usually it's pretty apparent which smug Ivy league wannabe is most
>>>deserving of a swift punch in the face or a vicious boot in the groin. In
>>>recent years for example, it was clearly Jonathon Clay Reddick; and before
>>>JJ Christian Laettner. This year though, you'd be hard pressed to decide
>>>whether to grind a fistful of glass into the face of the insufferable Jon
>>>Scheyer or to break several of the utterly appalling Greg Paulus's fingers
>>>with a garlic press. On the one hand, Sheyer's parents get a ton of ESPN
>>>face time during Duke broadcasts and they appear to be reprehensible Yuppie
>>>swine of the highest order. On the other hand, as a soph Paulus has already
>>>mastered the art of palming the ball on nearly every dribble whilst warding
>>>off defenders by wildly swinging his left hand into their faces. Plus I
>>>understand that his parents named him after Greg Brady, whereas he's clearly
>>>a Peter. Advantage Paulus.
>>
>> POTW...
>
> of violence, everything except the homophobia in this post, and you tag
> a POTW on it.
>
> Wow. Just wow.
>
> I had forgotten, for a minute, Donnie, why you weren't worth more than a
> fleck of spittle.
>
> I remember now, thanks for the reminder.
>
> Just wow.
Lighten up. It's *funny*, and that's all. Sure, go ahead and say anyone
who even thought it was funny is odd as hell, but there are plenty of
watercooler discussions all over America among rivals who "hate" the
players from the other team for this, that, and the other thing. Ted
responded in kind, and I took that FWIW, good natured fun. Heck, while
Dahntay is high on my list of "most hated Dukies", I actually know some
people who know him and it's my understanding he's a really good guy.
Doesn't change me wanting to include him in *this* particular conversation,
though.
Just because you choose not to participate in some of the more childish
parts of the game doesn't mean you're any better than those of us who do.
You're just less childish. ;-)
I honestly think you take this way too seriously. Even more seriously than
the *players* would take it. In fact, it should be *flattering* to guys
like that to be "hated" in that way by the fans of ones rival. Means
you're doing something right...
--Donnie
--
Donnie Barnes http://www.donniebarnes.com 879. V.
Donnie Barnes
> Evidently you haven't been reading this thread, because it's mostly been
> about how fucking wonderful I am. So how about you fuck off back to honing
> your tedious Foster Brooks impersonation, k?
Whoa there, fella. Nobody thinks you're wonderful. You just had one funny
post. Let's don't go getting bigheaded.
Donnie Barnes
> posts per week you're bound to say something vaguely amusing eventually, and
> then this Donnie person will maybe suck your dick too. Won't be as
> satisfying for him, obviously. But still.
Let the record state that I've done no such thing to anyone. I have
laughed at posts that Ted made, though. Heck, I've laughed at posts from
George and Charlie and a whole host of other people. It's not really
worthy of a popularity contest, though.
Milt Epstein
That's the last time I stick up for you.
Now that you've got that out of your system, can we get back to
basketball. Oh wait, I forgot, you don't do basketball, you just do
being an ass. Can't say that I blame you, though, if my team sucked
as much as yours does, I probably wouldn't want to talk basketball
either. (And perhaps explains why you're so hung up on gays and blow
jobs.) I mean, obviously you can't get into this talk about the NCAA
tournament when you're more concerned with whether you're team is
going to make the conference tournament. Good job there, by the way.
--
Milt Epstein
meps...@uiuc.edu
Edward M. Kennedy
> Just because you choose not to participate in some of the more childish
> parts of the game doesn't mean you're any better than those of us who do.
> You're just less childish. ;-)
And all of you are less drunk, but that's okay, more
for me.
> I honestly think you take this way too seriously. Even more seriously than
> the *players* would take it. In fact, it should be *flattering* to guys
> like that to be "hated" in that way by the fans of ones rival. Means
> you're doing something right...
There are exceptions, like King Rice, who still sucks.
He couldn't even do his hair right.
--Tedward
Not gonna mention Grant Hill's freshman doo
foaddoc
> "foaddoc" <whatarey...@muttonhead.com> writes:
>
>>"Milt Epstein" <meps...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
>>news:es4csf$2hr$2...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>>
>>> I could do Rodney Dangerfield ...
>>
>>See now I had you pegged as more of a Paul Lynde type. Just not as butch.
>
> That's the last time I stick up for you.
Circle gets the square!
> Now that you've got that out of your system, can we get back to
> basketball. Oh wait, I forgot, you don't do basketball, you just do
> being an ass.
Well, not just.
> Can't say that I blame you, though, if my team sucked
> as much as yours does, I probably wouldn't want to talk basketball
> either. (And perhaps explains why you're so hung up on gays and blow
> jobs.)
I see. I'm "hung up on gays" because St John's is 6 and 9. I don't think -
hey wait a minute, 6-9, sixty-nine. Hmmm, maybe you're onto something.
Anyway, you seem to have misapprehended what occured. Allow me to set you to
rights, viz.:
What happened was I posted an amusing vignette about college basketball, to
the effect that Duke is a team of sneering punks coached by a rat faced
bully and that Greg Paulus should have his teeth kicked in. And a good time
was had by all. At which point the the tedious and awful Jason "Dumb" Bell
jumped in, allowing as how he wouldn't spit on this poor Donnie Barnes
fellow because Donnie found the "hate . . . idiocy . . . violence [and] . .
.. homophobia" in the aforementioned post amusing. Which is about par for
the course for the humorless mushbrain Bell, but which I nonetheless found
somewhat interesting, as the post did not mention any homosexual practices,
such as meat smoking, rimming, fisting, teabagging, ass fucking, or shopping
for drapes. Then, after some more witty reparte on my part, Tedward accused
this poor Donnie fellow of fellatio - which, you'll note, drew no
approbation from the boring and atrocious Dumb Bell. Which brings us about
to here, where you have no accused me of being obsessed with pansies, the
proof being that everyone in this thread except me has mentioned gayness and
or homosexualoisity.
> I mean, obviously you can't get into this talk about the NCAA
> tournament when you're more concerned with whether you're team is
> going to make the conference tournament. Good job there, by the way.
If you're trying to wound me you're going to have to better than that. I've
been a SJ fan for 30 years. There is not a more futile overrated program in
existence. They're lovable losers. Hell, I'm a Detroit Lion fan. And anyway,
we backed into the tournament this evening, as the Hall lost, so neener
neener. The good news is that a first round BET tournament loss will bring
back memories of the glory that was the Carnessecca years.
foaddoc
"Donnie Barnes" <djbSPA...@donniebarnes.com> wrote in message
news:slrneubpcf.kt...@gomer.donniebarnes.com...
> Whoa there, fella. Nobody thinks you're wonderful. You just had one
> funny
> post. Let's don't go getting bigheaded.
Damn. I wished you'd mentioned that before I got this "Usenet's Funniest
Poster" coffee cup made at the mall.
Jason Bell
Man, when you're right, you're right. I should have read more carfully.
Had I done so, I would have seen the ribald humor behind "punch in the
face," "boot in the groin," glass into the face," "break... fingers with
a garlic press." Oh man, now that you mention it, that's just the kind
of pure, comic genius that would lead a clown like you to say "POTW."
Now, if we're done, (and even if you haven't reconsidered you own
idiocy) if this guy's next 5 posts haven't made you regret ever even
responding to him, perhaps you could just apologize and let it go.
But I know you won't, Donnie, because I'm right about you.
You are a piece of garbage. You are a fanboy of anonymous fantasies of
violence against members of an opposing sports team. You are just
nauseating.
Get foaddoc's e-mail, you guys should go enjoy a drink together, you'll
get along famously.
- Jason Bell
foaddoc
Jesus, what a horrifyingly stupid fucking dullard.
Edward M. Kennedy
> > Whoa there, fella. Nobody thinks you're wonderful. You just had one
> > funny
> > post. Let's don't go getting bigheaded.
>
> Damn. I wished you'd mentioned that before I got this "Usenet's Funniest
> Poster" coffee cup made at the mall.
IBYM: "Everyone thinks I'm an asshole and no one is denying it" mug.
Good luck with that.
--Tedward
foaddoc
Golly, you're mean.
jsh
"foaddoc" <whatarey...@muttonhead.com> wrote:
How dare you offend Jason's delicate sensibilities. Shame on you. I
demand an apology _immediately_. You too, Donnie.
Donnie Barnes
>> Lighten up. It's *funny*, and that's all.
>
> Man, when you're right, you're right. I should have read more carfully.
> Had I done so, I would have seen the ribald humor behind "punch in the
> face," "boot in the groin," glass into the face," "break... fingers with
> a garlic press." Oh man, now that you mention it, that's just the kind
> of pure, comic genius that would lead a clown like you to say "POTW."
>
> Now, if we're done, (and even if you haven't reconsidered you own
> idiocy) if this guy's next 5 posts haven't made you regret ever even
> responding to him, perhaps you could just apologize and let it go.
>
> But I know you won't, Donnie, because I'm right about you.
>
> You are a piece of garbage. You are a fanboy of anonymous fantasies of
> violence against members of an opposing sports team. You are just
> nauseating.
>
> Get foaddoc's e-mail, you guys should go enjoy a drink together, you'll
> get along famously.
Somehow I still think I'm right. You need to lighten up.
Edward M. Kennedy
> Somehow I still think I'm right. You need to drink copious amounts of gin.
IFYPFY.
--Tedward
Edward M. Kennedy
Somebody remind me to follow my own advice.
March is gonna be fugly.
--Tedward
Jason Bell
These are independent questions. You may be right about my need to
lighten up, but you are, by all available indicators, still a fanboy of
voilent fantasies about people who you have never even met. That's all
foaddoc's post was, that was it.
Why? I mean, really, why? I think I already know, but I'd love to hear
it from you.
- Jason Bell
foaddoc
Gawd. "Voilent fantasies about people who you have never even met." You
really are just fucking priceless. Maybe when you're done here you should
hurry over to alt.thesimpsons, I hear that someone there was amused by an
Itchy and Scratchy cartoon, i.e., "fanboys who harbor secret bloody
fantasies about evicerating cute little kitties with a chainsaw and setting
their entrails on fire."
Donnie Barnes
>> lighten up, but you are, by all available indicators, still a fanboy of
>> voilent fantasies about people who you have never even met. That's all
>> foaddoc's post was, that was it.
>>
>> Why? I mean, really, why? I think I already know, but I'd love to hear it
>> from you.
My newsserver must have eaten this post originally because all I got was
foad's response.
Anyway, I took his post as so outlandish that there was no way to take it
seriously (in my mind, obviously not yours) as something of a violent
"fantasy" or anything close. It was wild hyperbole to me, and seemed very
creative at that. He didn't seem to be advocating any serious violence to
me. Obviously he did to you, but I think it's because you are overly
sensitive (and hence the need to "lighten up"). Your responses have simply
reinforced that. The fact that I could rile you so badly by simply typing
four letters in response to his post makes me feel somewhat sorry for you,
to be honest (I'm sure you don't care, but you asked...).
I'd never advocate actual violence against basketball players, and I
honestly don't think our 4-10 225 pound coke bottle glasses friend here
would, either.
Oh, and thinking one post of his was funny doesn't in any way mean I agree
with anything else he writes, nor will you find any evidence of that. So
you're pretty much continually going off the deep end in this whole thing,
AS USUAL.
jsh
Donnie Barnes <djbSPA...@donniebarnes.com> wrote:
Donnie --
The fact that you had to explain this is kinda sad.
-- jsh
Edward M. Kennedy
[bobbit]
> > Oh, and thinking one post of his was funny doesn't in any way mean I agree
> > with anything else he writes, nor will you find any evidence of that. So
> > you're pretty much continually going off the deep end in this whole thing,
> > AS USUAL.
>
> Donnie --
>
> The fact that you had to explain this is kinda sad.
I figure Duke's only shot this weekend is if the cook at
the athlete's cafeteria at UNC has the nora virus that
has been going around. Not to give anyone ideas, of
course. During the St. Johns game I had wondered if
the guy who threw the second towel on the court, which
earned a technical, was a Duke fan.
--Tedward
foaddoc
"Edward M. Kennedy" <do...@wox.com> wrote in message
news:es9pln$r65$1...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
> I figure Duke's only shot this weekend is if the cook at
> the athlete's cafeteria at UNC has the nora virus that
> has been going around. Not to give anyone ideas, of
> course. During the St. Johns game I had wondered if
> the guy who threw the second towel on the court, which
> earned a technical, was a Duke fan.
According to certain fanbois on the SJ boards who were at MSG, the second
towel came from the Duke fan section.
foaddoc
>> "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message
>>> These are independent questions. You may be right about my need to
>>> lighten up, but you are, by all available indicators, still a fanboy of
>>> voilent fantasies about people who you have never even met. That's all
>>> foaddoc's post was, that was it.
>>>
>>> Why? I mean, really, why? I think I already know, but I'd love to hear
>>> it
>>> from you.
>
> My newsserver must have eaten this post originally because all I got was
> foad's response.
>
> Anyway, I took his post as so outlandish that there was no way to take it
> seriously (in my mind, obviously not yours) as something of a violent
> "fantasy" or anything close. It was wild hyperbole to me, and seemed very
> creative at that. He didn't seem to be advocating any serious violence to
> me. Obviously he did to you, but I think it's because you are overly
> sensitive (and hence the need to "lighten up"). Your responses have
> simply
> reinforced that. The fact that I could rile you so badly by simply typing
> four letters in response to his post makes me feel somewhat sorry for you,
> to be honest (I'm sure you don't care, but you asked...).
>
> I'd never advocate actual violence against basketball players, and I
> honestly don't think our 4-10 225 pound coke bottle glasses friend here
> would, either.
Actually, I am of normal size and stunningly fucking attractive.
Other than that though, agree with this poast.
Jason Bell
Donnie Barnes wrote:
>>"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>These are independent questions. You may be right about my need to
>>>lighten up, but you are, by all available indicators, still a fanboy of
>>>voilent fantasies about people who you have never even met. That's all
>>>foaddoc's post was, that was it.
>>>
>>>Why? I mean, really, why? I think I already know, but I'd love to hear it
>>>from you.
>
>
> My newsserver must have eaten this post originally because all I got was
> foad's response.
>
> Anyway, I took his post as so outlandish that there was no way to take it
> seriously (in my mind, obviously not yours) as something of a violent
> "fantasy" or anything close. It was wild hyperbole to me, and seemed very
> creative at that. He didn't seem to be advocating any serious violence to
> me. Obviously he did to you, but I think it's because you are overly
> sensitive (and hence the need to "lighten up"). Your responses have simply
> reinforced that. The fact that I could rile you so badly by simply typing
> four letters in response to his post makes me feel somewhat sorry for you,
> to be honest (I'm sure you don't care, but you asked...).
The original poster was fantasizing about committing violence against
people he hates. He doesn't know them, he just hates them.
You cheered. I called you on it because I expected better. I know
better what to expect of you now.
You hate them too, which is why you find fantasies where they are the
victims of violence funny? Is that it? Or maybe as Duke players, they
aren't real people to you? I know what that's called, and hey, if you
want that tag, I'll think of you so henceforth.
> I'd never advocate actual violence against basketball players, and I
> honestly don't think our 4-10 225 pound coke bottle glasses friend here
> would, either.
But apparently you'd encourage him right up to the moment he committed
it. If he claims someone is "clearly deserving" of being the victim of
violence, there is no reasonable sense in which he is not advocating it.
> Oh, and thinking one post of his was funny doesn't in any way mean I agree
> with anything else he writes, nor will you find any evidence of that. So
> you're pretty much continually going off the deep end in this whole thing,
> AS USUAL.
Here is the meat of the post:
"usually it's pretty apparent which smug Ivy league wannabe is most
deserving of a swift punch in the face or a vicious boot in the groin.
In recent years for example, it was clearly Jonathon Clay Reddick; and
before JJ Christian Laettner. This year though, you'd be hard pressed to
decide whether to grind a fistful of glass into the face of the
insufferable Jon Scheyer or to break several of the utterly appalling
Greg Paulus's fingers with a garlic press."
Good luck defending that, even on a one-shot for "POTW." And yet you
do, but only sideways. You must know you're wrong and your position is
indefensible, but instead of accounting for it, you're dismissing the
post itself (the very one you lauded) and blaming me for your behavior.
I don't figure I'm the one off the deep end. First off that end is the
moron who would whittle away his hours deciding which stranger to hate,
which to hurt, and how.
The second off is the moron who cheers him on.
However, I'll gladly be the third moron who is absolutely repulsed by
them both. I just don't think that's off the deep end.
- Jason Bell
foaddoc
> The original poster was fantasizing about committing violence against
> people he hates. He doesn't know them, he just hates them.
Well no, you sanctimonious fucking gasbag. The OP was telling a humorous
spoof or vignette, of the type that gets him invited to dinner parties and
so forth. That it was at your expense was just an added bonus.
> You cheered.
Lie #1. He chuckled.
> I called you on it because I expected better. I know better what to
> expect of you now.
Lie #2. What you said about Mr Donnie Barnes originally was "I had
forgotten, for a minute, Donnie, why you weren't worth more than a fleck of
spittle." See? You didn't expect better, in fact, you said he is so awful
you wouldn't even deign to spit on him.
You don't even know him, yet you hate him. That's so wrong.
> You hate them too, which is why you find fantasies where they are the
> victims of violence funny? Is that it? Or maybe as Duke players, they
> aren't real people to you? I know what that's called, and hey, if you
> want that tag, I'll think of you so henceforth.
It's called having a sense of humor you shitbrain. People laugh at the Three
Stooges. It's not moral or immoral; it's just funny or not funny.
>> I'd never advocate actual violence against basketball players, and I
>> honestly don't think our 4-10 225 pound coke bottle glasses friend here
>> would, either.
>
> But apparently you'd encourage him right up to the moment he committed it.
> If he claims someone is "clearly deserving" of being the victim of
> violence, there is no reasonable sense in which he is not advocating it.
Lie #3. I never used the phrase "clearly deserving." Why do you lie so
often? Is it because people like Donnie Barnes and I aren't real people to
you? And by real people I mean real people like the powerful half-orc
half-elf character you have guided thru so many dangerous dungeons and
dragons adventures in your dorm room lo those many Saturday nights.
>> Oh, and thinking one post of his was funny doesn't in any way mean I
>> agree
>> with anything else he writes, nor will you find any evidence of that. So
>> you're pretty much continually going off the deep end in this whole
>> thing,
>> AS USUAL.
>
> Here is the meat of the post:
> "usually it's pretty apparent which smug Ivy league wannabe is most
> deserving of a swift punch in the face or a vicious boot in the groin. In
> recent years for example, it was clearly Jonathon Clay Reddick; and before
> JJ Christian Laettner. This year though, you'd be hard pressed to decide
> whether to grind a fistful of glass into the face of the insufferable Jon
> Scheyer or to break several of the utterly appalling Greg Paulus's fingers
> with a garlic press."
Holy fuck that was funny. Thanks for reposting it!
> Good luck defending that, even on a one-shot for "POTW."
That's what you're all exercised about, isn't it. That I got an important
award in usenet and you didn't. Not to mention this new coffee mug I treated
myself to.
> And yet you do, but only sideways. You must know you're wrong and your
> position is indefensible,
I don't know about that it's "wrong" or "indefensible", that's rather
judgmental on your part. I do know though that sometimes when I do it
sideways I sometimes suffer a little chafing, which can be inconvenient.
> but instead of accounting for it, you're dismissing the post itself (the
> very one you lauded) and blaming me for your behavior.
Lie #4. Mr Donnie Barnes never blamed you for his behavior because he -
rightly - doesn't think there's anything wrong with anything he did.
> I don't figure I'm the one off the deep end. First off that end is the
> moron who would whittle away his hours deciding which stranger to hate,
> which to hurt, and how.
Didn't take hours, only a couple of minutes really. But then I'm not a brain
damaged tedious mullethead, as are you.
> The second off is the moron who cheers him on.
Hip hip HOORAY!
> However, I'll gladly be the third moron
Yes, well there's something to be said for being content with one's lot in
life, isn't there. And speaking of contentment:
"The supreme satisfaction is to be able to despise one's neighbour. It is
consoling to reflect that the people next door are headed for hell."
-- Aleister Crowley
Donnie Barnes
> The original poster was fantasizing about committing violence against
> people he hates. He doesn't know them, he just hates them.
I disagree. I don't think he was fantasizing at all. He was intentionally
being over the top, and you either know that and are so caught up in this
you can't turn back, -or- you REALLY need to lighten up. If I thought he
was fantasizing about doing those things to any of those people, I'd
probably feel the need to *report* him to some sort of higher authority, as
should you. *shrug*
> You cheered. I called you on it because I expected better. I know
> better what to expect of you now.
Heh. I like watching The Sopranos and think The Godfather series were some
of the best movies ever made. I guess that makes me a closet mobster, too.
Or at least a fan of mobsters.
> You hate them too, which is why you find fantasies where they are the
> victims of violence funny? Is that it? Or maybe as Duke players, they
> aren't real people to you? I know what that's called, and hey, if you
> want that tag, I'll think of you so henceforth.
You're reaching sooooooo far it isn't even funny. If you asked me back in
the day, I "hated" Dale Earnhardt, too. But you know what? I *loved* to
hate him. He was the "bad" guy. Your beloved Coach K and most of the Duke
players who have stood out in the past 20 years are people I "hate." You
appear to dislike the word "hate", and I probably overuse it. Get over it.
When DE died I was heartbroken. How could that be? Because I *loved* to
hate him. I won't be *as* heartbroken with Laettner inevitably meets his
maker as I was when DE died, but it'll sting a bit. It stung a bit with
Jason Williams had his motorcycle accident, in fact. Hated that guy, too.
But I enjoyed hating him. Maybe that clears it up for you, maybe it
confuses you, or more likely somehow it makes you want to label me with
something other nasty tag. I really don't care.
> But apparently you'd encourage him right up to the moment he committed
> it. If he claims someone is "clearly deserving" of being the victim of
> violence, there is no reasonable sense in which he is not advocating it.
Encourage violence? You really think that's what "POTW" actually did?!?
Seriously, seek help.
>> Oh, and thinking one post of his was funny doesn't in any way mean I agree
>> with anything else he writes, nor will you find any evidence of that. So
>> you're pretty much continually going off the deep end in this whole thing,
>> AS USUAL.
>
> Here is the meat of the post:
> "usually it's pretty apparent which smug Ivy league wannabe is most
> deserving of a swift punch in the face or a vicious boot in the groin.
> In recent years for example, it was clearly Jonathon Clay Reddick; and
> before JJ Christian Laettner. This year though, you'd be hard pressed to
> decide whether to grind a fistful of glass into the face of the
> insufferable Jon Scheyer or to break several of the utterly appalling
> Greg Paulus's fingers with a garlic press."
>
> Good luck defending that, even on a one-shot for "POTW." And yet you
> do, but only sideways. You must know you're wrong and your position is
> indefensible, but instead of accounting for it, you're dismissing the
> post itself (the very one you lauded) and blaming me for your behavior.
Oh, I'm not blaming you for my behavior in any way. My behavior is what it
is, and you don't like it. Too f'n bad. You're on a horse so high I don't
think I could see you without the help of a large lens.
> I don't figure I'm the one off the deep end. First off that end is the
> moron who would whittle away his hours deciding which stranger to hate,
> which to hurt, and how.
You think he put a lot of time in his "how"? I think he was in a rare mood
and threw out some funny stuff. Sort of Quentin Terrantino-esque.
> The second off is the moron who cheers him on.
Guilty as charged!
> However, I'll gladly be the third moron who is absolutely repulsed by
> them both. I just don't think that's off the deep end.
Sorry, you're in a completely different pool. But what do I know, I'm just
garbage. *chuckle* Go enjoy your incredibly politically correct life.
You're wasting way too much time on this one.
Sigmund Freud
> Heh. I like watching The Sopranos and think The Godfather series were
> some
> of the best movies ever made. I guess that makes me a closet mobster,
> too.
> Or at least a fan of mobsters.
Dear Mr. Barnes:
You make a great point: not every word a writer writes reveals a truth about
the writer's inner life. However I am constrained to point out that the
opposite can be true as well. For example, not only did I actually want to
fuck my mother, but I often pretended that my cigar was an engored penis.
Yours etc.
Siggy
Edward M. Kennedy
> > The original poster was fantasizing about committing violence against
> > people he hates. He doesn't know them, he just hates them.
>
> I disagree. I don't think he was fantasizing at all. He was intentionally
> being over the top,
He sounds immature enough to mean it though.
--Tedward
foaddoc
Golly. Immature's pretty harsh coming from a 50 year old frat boy who's
spent the last 15 years pretending to be drunk in usenet. Maybe we could
just say that I'm not quite as fully actualized a human being as are you.
*Burp*
Donnie Barnes
> Golly. Immature's pretty harsh coming from a 50 year old frat boy who's
> spent the last 15 years pretending to be drunk in usenet. Maybe we could
> just say that I'm not quite as fully actualized a human being as are you.
> *Burp*
I'd say the senator is 34 or so. You probably got the rest right, though.
;)
foaddoc
> ;)
Stick your winkie up your ass you racist POS.
Jason Bell
Donnie Barnes wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Mar, Jason Bell wrote:
>
>>The original poster was fantasizing about committing violence against
>>people he hates. He doesn't know them, he just hates them.
>
>
> I disagree. I don't think he was fantasizing at all. He was intentionally
> being over the top, and you either know that and are so caught up in this
> you can't turn back, -or- you REALLY need to lighten up. If I thought he
> was fantasizing about doing those things to any of those people, I'd
> probably feel the need to *report* him to some sort of higher authority, as
> should you. *shrug*
>
>
>>You cheered. I called you on it because I expected better. I know
>>better what to expect of you now.
>
>
> Heh. I like watching The Sopranos and think The Godfather series were some
> of the best movies ever made. I guess that makes me a closet mobster, too.
> Or at least a fan of mobsters.
>
>
>>You hate them too, which is why you find fantasies where they are the
>>victims of violence funny? Is that it? Or maybe as Duke players, they
>>aren't real people to you?
Your comparison to actors playing fictional characters answers the
question that you don't seem to accept these players as real people.
Fantasies of violence to them don't seem to carry any weight at all to
you, as (I presume) would such fantasies published about you or your
friends.
I just don't understand that mindset. They aren't actors playing
basketball players, they are people playing basketball, and this clown
gleefully fantasizes about their mutilation, for playing basketball.
And again, that didn't surprise me, Duke basketball causes any number of
twisted people to vent their prejudices, hatreds, and any number of
other nuggets from their sick minds. I just thought those people got
sent to the killfile, not patted on the back for how cleverly they
spewed forth the dark contents of their minds.
- Jason Bell
Donnie Barnes
> Your comparison to actors playing fictional characters answers the
> question that you don't seem to accept these players as real people.
> Fantasies of violence to them don't seem to carry any weight at all to
> you, as (I presume) would such fantasies published about you or your
> friends.
Sports are about entertainment, whether you like it or not. As such,
forums like these are a part of said entertainment.
> I just don't understand that mindset. They aren't actors playing
> basketball players, they are people playing basketball, and this clown
> gleefully fantasizes about their mutilation, for playing basketball.
Again, you simply take him way too seriously.
> And again, that didn't surprise me, Duke basketball causes any number of
> twisted people to vent their prejudices, hatreds, and any number of
> other nuggets from their sick minds. I just thought those people got
> sent to the killfile, not patted on the back for how cleverly they
> spewed forth the dark contents of their minds.
Duke basketball causes normal people to vent hatred on a day like today,
that's for sure. And it appears for very good reason. But even before
that, all I can say is that we're at an impasse. You hate me, you've hated
me for a long time, and you'll continue to hate me. I really, REALLY don't
care. You're an overly sensitive weirdo, IMHO. You obviously think I'm a
piece of garbage. Whatever. Hopefully there is something you get
enjoyment out of that doesn't get you as riled up as some vitriol spewed on
a newsgroup.
And I'm pretty sure you are quite mistaken if you think a simple
"deserves" in that huge post of his would hold up in a court of law
in the United States as a threat *by itself*. *shakes head* I'm sure
you'd like it to, but that doesn't make it so. I'd bet if you really
believed that you would have probably reported him to authorities by
now, anyway.
foaddoc
> Your comparison to actors playing fictional characters answers the
> question that you don't seem to accept these players as real people.
> Fantasies of violence to them don't seem to carry any weight at all to
> you, as (I presume) would such fantasies published about you or your
> friends.
>
> I just don't understand that mindset. They aren't actors playing
> basketball players, they are people playing basketball, and this clown
> gleefully fantasizes about their mutilation, for playing basketball.
Hey dumbell, what's worse. (1) when someone in usenet writing a humorous
vignette where it's suggested that a Dook player get smacked in the face or
(2) when a crybaby Dook player gets upsets about losing a real BB game and
smashes one of the opposing players in the face with his elbow and the real
playter bleeds real blood all over the real basketball court.
I'll expect a 2 page sanctimonious essay on the subject from you by the end
of the period. Pencils up.
Edward M. Kennedy
> > Golly. Immature's pretty harsh coming from a 50 year old frat boy who's
> > spent the last 15 years pretending to be drunk in usenet. Maybe we could
> > just say that I'm not quite as fully actualized a human being as are you.
> > *Burp*
>
> I'd say the senator is 34 or so. You probably got the rest right, though.
You're both dingbats or don't pay much attention.
Foadoc enjoys being an asshole. Noted.
--Tedward
Donnie Barnes
> You're both dingbats or don't pay much attention.
> Foadoc enjoys being an asshole. Noted.
I might be wrong with 34, but I'll bet I'm way closer than he was with 50.
Edward M. Kennedy
> > You're both dingbats or don't pay much attention.
> > Foadoc enjoys being an asshole. Noted.
>
> I might be wrong with 34, but I'll bet I'm way closer than he was with 50.
44. I believe I've mentioned Coach K's first year was
my freshman year. That pegs me as ~18 in 1980.
--Tedward
Donnie Barnes
> my freshman year. That pegs me as ~18 in 1980.
Oh well, I lose. You old fart.