So to rehash a topic.....
- Thread starter HD6
- Start date
Judging by your original post, the 2 main reasons we shouldn't have played this game were a) UCLA sucks and b)we didn't get a return game.
Point B. I'll address this one first because it's the easier of the two. We play invitationals all the time in basketball (i.e. San Padre, Puerto Rico, etc.) I've never heard anyone argue that we shouldn't play these games because they are played elsewhere and we don't get the money we would at a home game.
Point A. Given that this was scheduled some time last year, I would think (I'm not sure how far in advance the basketball schedule is worked out, but it was certainly before the season started) there was no way we would have known at the time that UCLA was going to suck. If I remember right, they were coming off a pretty good year. Yeah, they lost some good players... happens all the time and doesn't necessarily mean that team is going to suck.
There was a lot of talk last year about how we needed to play some better teams in our OOC to help with seeding come tournament time. I don't remember who argued for or against this, nor do I care to look it up, so this is not an attempt to call anyone out specifically. The point is, simply that it was argued. This seems to me to be an attempt to assuage those arguments. Unfortunately for us, it didn't work out that well. It's kind of like how we ended up playing Houston and Ga Tech in football this year, only in reverse. When we agreed to play them (Houston and GT), they sucked and we were good. By the time we got around to playing them, the situations had reversed themselves. So, we ended up with the hardest schedule in the nation this year.
My question to you is: if you were the AD and someone from UCLA had called you <span style="font-style: italic;">last year</span> and said "How about coming out to California next year and playing UCLA in the Wooden Classic?" Based on the facts at hand <span style="font-style: italic;">last year</span>, would you have turned them down?
Point B. I'll address this one first because it's the easier of the two. We play invitationals all the time in basketball (i.e. San Padre, Puerto Rico, etc.) I've never heard anyone argue that we shouldn't play these games because they are played elsewhere and we don't get the money we would at a home game.
Point A. Given that this was scheduled some time last year, I would think (I'm not sure how far in advance the basketball schedule is worked out, but it was certainly before the season started) there was no way we would have known at the time that UCLA was going to suck. If I remember right, they were coming off a pretty good year. Yeah, they lost some good players... happens all the time and doesn't necessarily mean that team is going to suck.
There was a lot of talk last year about how we needed to play some better teams in our OOC to help with seeding come tournament time. I don't remember who argued for or against this, nor do I care to look it up, so this is not an attempt to call anyone out specifically. The point is, simply that it was argued. This seems to me to be an attempt to assuage those arguments. Unfortunately for us, it didn't work out that well. It's kind of like how we ended up playing Houston and Ga Tech in football this year, only in reverse. When we agreed to play them (Houston and GT), they sucked and we were good. By the time we got around to playing them, the situations had reversed themselves. So, we ended up with the hardest schedule in the nation this year.
My question to you is: if you were the AD and someone from UCLA had called you <span style="font-style: italic;">last year</span> and said "How about coming out to California next year and playing UCLA in the Wooden Classic?" Based on the facts at hand <span style="font-style: italic;">last year</span>, would you have turned them down?
Here's the game story written by an LA Times writer: http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-ucla-basketball13-2009dec13,0,6918141.story
Here's the photo gallery by an LA Times photographer: http://www.latimes.com/sports/lat-ucla-basketball13-pictures,0,6785058.photogallery
Here's the first of two columns not necessarily about the game, but written by an LA Times columnist who was there: http://www.latimes.com/sports/college/basketball/la-sp-plaschke13-2009dec13,0,2972258.column
Here's the second column written by an LA Times columnist: http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-simers13-2009dec13,0,3541067.column
Here's the photo gallery by an LA Times photographer: http://www.latimes.com/sports/lat-ucla-basketball13-pictures,0,6785058.photogallery
Here's the first of two columns not necessarily about the game, but written by an LA Times columnist who was there: http://www.latimes.com/sports/college/basketball/la-sp-plaschke13-2009dec13,0,2972258.column
Here's the second column written by an LA Times columnist: http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-simers13-2009dec13,0,3541067.column
is getting the point. My point is that Coach and DAA spent months blithering about how this was how it was going to be going forward, and how we needed these kind of games to be able to win in March. And I did and still do completely disagree with that.
I already said these invitationals are one thing, but playing road games without getting a return is a lose/lose.
I already said these invitationals are one thing, but playing road games without getting a return is a lose/lose.
the first article is the op-ed piece I referenced.
Here are the references of Mississippi State in the Plaschke piece, which isn't about the game at all, it's about John Wooden's grandson on the team. In other words, they could have been playing anyone and gotten this piece written.
The Simers piece doesn't have the words "Mississippi State" in it at all. It's about John Wooden. Again, they could have played anyone and gotten that column.
That, my friend, is the biggest reach you have ever made.
Here are the references of Mississippi State in the Plaschke piece, which isn't about the game at all, it's about John Wooden's grandson on the team. In other words, they could have been playing anyone and gotten this piece written.
The Simers piece doesn't have the words "Mississippi State" in it at all. It's about John Wooden. Again, they could have played anyone and gotten that column.
That, my friend, is the biggest reach you have ever made.
I thought C. I guess since we are playing in the tourney it's OK, but if this were a true road game, we would be stupid not to get a return game. But regardless of that, playing this game will not affect our performance in March at all, despite what idiots like Coach34 say.
1. Money is not an issue. We make plenty of money on basketball. Playing Jacksonville St at home instead would not have netted us that much money anyway.
2. A win over a top program nationally is always good- regardless of RPI this season
3. We traveled cross country and played on a quick turnaround. Good experience for us as a team and also for the coaching staff.
4. We need to keep playing these types of games whether we get a return game or not. If we somehow manage to start breaking into some Sweet 16's, we will get the return games. But year in and year out, the RPI boost will be beneficial come selection committee time.
5. While you like to use the LR team as your poster team for a high seed, I'll go the opposite way in saying had that team played some tougher teams earlier in the season and faced more tougher situations in games, then maybe their *** could have played tougher and handled it in the NCAA's when the other team "just got hot"
2. A win over a top program nationally is always good- regardless of RPI this season
3. We traveled cross country and played on a quick turnaround. Good experience for us as a team and also for the coaching staff.
4. We need to keep playing these types of games whether we get a return game or not. If we somehow manage to start breaking into some Sweet 16's, we will get the return games. But year in and year out, the RPI boost will be beneficial come selection committee time.
5. While you like to use the LR team as your poster team for a high seed, I'll go the opposite way in saying had that team played some tougher teams earlier in the season and faced more tougher situations in games, then maybe their *** could have played tougher and handled it in the NCAA's when the other team "just got hot"
Actually the word "journalism" could be replaced by a lot of things, but for the moment, the topic is journalism.
The first link is a game story. It's got some bite to it, but it's not op-ed. It's written by the same writer who wrote the pre-game story. And the Kansas pre and post game stories. And the Long Beach State pre and post game stories. I am going to surmise he is their basketball beat writer. I don't think that's a reach at all.
I never said the columns (the actual columns, not the game story) were about us. I said they were written by LA Times columnists who were at the game. Actually, here is the quote.
The first link is a game story. It's got some bite to it, but it's not op-ed. It's written by the same writer who wrote the pre-game story. And the Kansas pre and post game stories. And the Long Beach State pre and post game stories. I am going to surmise he is their basketball beat writer. I don't think that's a reach at all.
I never said the columns (the actual columns, not the game story) were about us. I said they were written by LA Times columnists who were at the game. Actually, here is the quote.
Here's your original statement.
Not only did they send a writer (the same writer who has done the game stories of the last several games), they also sent a photographer. Two of their columnists also went to the game, although, and I will type this slowly so you understand it this time, they were not there to watch us. They were there to see Wooden. At the Wooden Classic. In which we were competing, against your desires. It also can't hurt that they saw an athletic looking MSU team destroy UCLA. None of that is a reach. What's also not a reach is that you are wrong about two things (at least) in this thread, but in a great SPS tradition, you will never admit either of them.
because Byrne did exactly as we had been saying we should do, which he was vehemently against, and then went out there and won. Over basketball dynasty UCLA
Hell, I even talked about how good we looked in the first half- the least he could do is man up and say he is wrong
Hell, I even talked about how good we looked in the first half- the least he could do is man up and say he is wrong
you said:
"While you like to use the LR team as your poster team for a high seed, I'll go the opposite way in saying had that team played some tougher teams earlier in the season and faced more tougher situations in games, then maybe their *** could have played tougher and handled it in the NCAA's when the other team "just got hot""
That team played the very team that beat them in the tournament. How much better preparation could you ask for?
"While you like to use the LR team as your poster team for a high seed, I'll go the opposite way in saying had that team played some tougher teams earlier in the season and faced more tougher situations in games, then maybe their *** could have played tougher and handled it in the NCAA's when the other team "just got hot""
That team played the very team that beat them in the tournament. How much better preparation could you ask for?
Read it and surmise how many rebounds Varnado had. Tell me what our record is from the information in that article. Give me a quote from one of our players. It's not a game article when you are only talking about one team. It's an opinion piece, it's talking about the difference between this year's team and the past few Bruin teams. The fact that it has any bite to it means it's an opinion piece. Have you ever seen a game recap that had "bite" to it? And as for the other two, we were talking about exposure we gleaned from this trip. If two columns are written that mention us twice in passing, then that's not exposure for us. The game recap article I mentioned was online last night, and it was an AP recap.
Coach34 telling someone to man up and admit when they are wrong. Next, I'll be giving weight loss tips. And Coach, I'm not mad we won, that's your gig.
My main premise remains, and it remains correct. MSU should not give up home games to play road games without a return. Tournaments like this are an exception. You claim that Byrne has done something I didn't want, and that isn't true. We played in a tournament, no different that we have for the past decade. And I'll bet that Byrne has no intention of scheduling those kinds of games. We'll find out when the next schedule comes out.
Coach34 telling someone to man up and admit when they are wrong. Next, I'll be giving weight loss tips. And Coach, I'm not mad we won, that's your gig.
My main premise remains, and it remains correct. MSU should not give up home games to play road games without a return. Tournaments like this are an exception. You claim that Byrne has done something I didn't want, and that isn't true. We played in a tournament, no different that we have for the past decade. And I'll bet that Byrne has no intention of scheduling those kinds of games. We'll find out when the next schedule comes out.
A. I used that statement meaning to play some really tough teams so that we could face adversity. Your team needs to go thru adversity a number of times in order to grow and relax in those type situations. I understand your point, but we basically had a cupcake schedule pre-conference. You wouldnt say Boise played a tough football schedule this year just because they played Oregon.
B. A good team getting a 2nd chance to play Little Wooden definitely has the advantage. Its not like we are going to make some coaching adjustments. I love how Xavier was "hot at the right time" when we played them in the Tourney, but yet somehow, after winning the SEC Tourney, we werent the "hot" team in Washington last year.
B. A good team getting a 2nd chance to play Little Wooden definitely has the advantage. Its not like we are going to make some coaching adjustments. I love how Xavier was "hot at the right time" when we played them in the Tourney, but yet somehow, after winning the SEC Tourney, we werent the "hot" team in Washington last year.
but we also play a 16 game SEC schedule, which normally gets you ready. Is it a great conference? No, but whether the conference is good or bad, after you've done that for 2 months, what you did in Nov/Dec is likely forgotten.
And you can face plenty of adversity in the 16 game SEC.
We need to play these games, but I just think its for a different reason. I don't think it makes that big of a difference to play 3-4 really good opponents in Nov/Dec. as far as getting you ready for the tourney. It does, however, give you an RPI boost even all 3-4 teams beat your brains out.
Im a firm believer the RPI can be manipulated.
And you can face plenty of adversity in the 16 game SEC.
We need to play these games, but I just think its for a different reason. I don't think it makes that big of a difference to play 3-4 really good opponents in Nov/Dec. as far as getting you ready for the tourney. It does, however, give you an RPI boost even all 3-4 teams beat your brains out.
Im a firm believer the RPI can be manipulated.