(11-02-2009 11:12 AM)outsideualr Wrote: [ -> ] (11-02-2009 10:34 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketba...y/12440724
Interesting article, but they obviously didn't hear about Will Neighbour not being able to get into school. They show him as one of our new players.
Interesting that they pick us higher than most on this board. Skimming their summaries I can't see why they picked us ahead of ASU, ULL, or ULM. I think its a credit to our coaching staff and the fact that most outsiders see us as consistently being one of the better teams in the Belt regardless of what we have coming back.
(11-02-2009 01:16 PM)mjs Wrote: [ -> ]I think its a credit to our coaching staff and the fact that most outsiders see us as consistently being one of the better teams in the Belt regardless of what we have coming back.
And isn't that a sign of a good program? We shouldn't have down years just because we had seniors last year.
I mean, even Duke doesn't make the Final Four every year. "Down" is relative, I admit, but even they have rebuilding years.
Not really. They are good year in and year out. Just like WKU and Creighton to name a few.
Given the talent Duke can attract, not advancing past the first round of the NCAA is a BAD down year. WKY and Creighton don't always make the NCAA, and those are down years for them.
(11-02-2009 05:25 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote: [ -> ]Given the talent Duke can attract, not advancing past the first round of the NCAA is a BAD down year. WKY and Creighton don't always make the NCAA, and those are down years for them.
With thirteen teams in the league, the odds are obviously 13-1 against any team winning the tournament, but the odds haven't exactly panned out. Beginning in 1991 Western has won the tournament 7 times. Lafayette 5 times. South Alabama 4 times. and New Orleans, North Texas and ASU, one each. UALR....0. There are other teams who haven't won, but some haven't been in the league as long as we have.
That's pretty piss poor performing by anybody's standards. The amazing stat is that we've tied for the championship FIVE TIMES. And out of that we've only been to the post season once, the NIT Derek Fisher's senior season. Talk about getting no respect. And the sad part is that I can remember two times losing in the conference finals, once on a last second shot by New Orleans and the other barely losing to Western. It's been a long dry spell, and will we come upon an oasis this season? Doubtful, but always hopeful.
I suspect that the preseason predictions for us this year are mainly respect for Shields and the stability he has brought to the program. Folks know that he gets a lot out of his players, and that defense will be a constant. So they pick them a spot or two higher than our talent and experience justify.
Our talent is not that good?!? Dang, we haven't even seen have half the guys play, and I for one like our talent that returned.
Can't dispute the experience factor, but lack of talent?
(11-03-2009 08:18 AM)Scotto Wrote: [ -> ]Our talent is not that good?!? Dang, we haven't even seen have the guys play, and I for one like our talent that returned.
Can't dispute the experience factor, but lack of talent?
Well, I meant known talent. We may have some good ones, but they were not highly rated coming in.
pg play = wins
no pg play = jj
(11-03-2009 08:23 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote: [ -> ]Well, I meant known talent. We may have some good ones, but they were not highly rated coming in.
Medium Mike not that good? III not that good? Jackson, Burton and Bails not that good?
I'll take 'em and build a team around them.
(11-03-2009 10:34 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote: [ -> ]Medium Mike. I like it!
Another 50 pounds and he'll be Mini Mike!
(11-03-2009 02:54 PM)outsideualr Wrote: [ -> ] (11-03-2009 10:34 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote: [ -> ]Medium Mike. I like it!
Another 50 pounds and he'll be Mini Mike!
Another 50 pounds and he'll be the ball boy and manager. He's about where he needs to be to have more stamina, and still be able to hold his own underneath with the Sun Belt boys.
He was amazingly agile even at 290. He may surprise some of the folks who guarded him last season.
(11-03-2009 05:18 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote: [ -> ]He was amazingly agile even at 290. He may surprise some of the folks who guarded him last season.
Yes, as quick and agile as he was at 290, I expect him to be much quicker this year after losing 50 lbs. I'm looking forward to seeing him. Hats off to Mike for losing it. I wish I could.
(11-03-2009 06:39 PM)LRTrojan Wrote: [ -> ] (11-03-2009 05:18 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote: [ -> ]He was amazingly agile even at 290. He may surprise some of the folks who guarded him last season.
Yes, as quick and agile as he was at 290, I expect him to be much quicker this year after losing 50 lbs. I'm looking forward to seeing him. Hats off to Mike for losing it. I wish I could.
This will help him later in the season too. Last season he looked worn down. Gotta give the staff credit for encouraging him to get in shape. And ultimately Mike for showing leadership and dedication to lose the weight.
(11-03-2009 07:21 PM)LR Alum Wrote: [ -> ] (11-03-2009 06:39 PM)LRTrojan Wrote: [ -> ] (11-03-2009 05:18 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote: [ -> ]He was amazingly agile even at 290. He may surprise some of the folks who guarded him last season.
Yes, as quick and agile as he was at 290, I expect him to be much quicker this year after losing 50 lbs. I'm looking forward to seeing him. Hats off to Mike for losing it. I wish I could.
This will help him later in the season too. Last season he looked worn down. Gotta give the staff credit for encouraging him to get in shape. And ultimately Mike for showing leadership and dedication to lose the weight.
I know myself, and many on this board would be better off losing a few pounds. I've tried a bunch and its not that easy. Svelte Mike deserves a lot of credit.
No doubt Medium Mike is the man.