Generational views... ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you run the numbers post-1974, The Gophers still rank 9th in the B1G in tournament appearances. Again, I agree completely with dpodoll on this topic. It's silly to set expectations when history and past performances are not recognized. Remember, when you bring up the fact that it was harder to make the tourney back 50-60 years ago, it was just as hard for other B1G teams to make it as well.

I assume when you run those numbers that you are excluding the academic scandal years.

So therefore, I assume you've also done the research to exclude the years all the other teams records/appearances were wiped...such as the Fab Four.
 


And what did you base your judgement of the team and individual players on?

I based my judgement on my evaluation of the players currently in the program. NOT from players 5, 10 OR 100 years ago.

Now if you want me to admit that those evaluations were from observing their play from a week or a month ago(even longer) and therefor from history, okay...BUT NOT FROM PLAYERS 25-75 YEARS AGO. Got it?
 

I based my judgement on my evaluation of the players currently in the program. NOT from players 5, 10 OR 100 years ago.

Now if you want me to admit that those evaluations were from observing their play from a week or a month ago(even longer) and therefor from history, okay...BUT NOT FROM PLAYERS 25-75 YEARS AGO. Got it?

I've got a bit of a headache today and would appreciate it if you didn't yell. Thanks.
 

Potential

How did you determine someone had potential? Observing and or/reading about them and their playing HISTORY.


The process of growth over time...aka HISTORY.


How many years they've lived on this earth...aka HISTORY.

physical growth

How their bodies have changed over time...aka HISTORY.


How that coach has performed over time...aka HISTORY.

Spin, spin, spin all you want...it always, always, always goes back to history. 100% of the time, every time.

How do those nuts taste? Rather piquant?
 



I based my judgement on my evaluation of the players currently in the program. NOT from players 5, 10 OR 100 years ago.

Now if you want me to admit that those evaluations were from observing their play from a week or a month ago(even longer) and therefor from history, okay...BUT NOT FROM PLAYERS 25-75 YEARS AGO. Got it?

So you were wrong. You did base your judgement (and thus your expectations) on history...in this case, the history of the players themselves. Thanks!
 

I assume when you run those numbers that you are excluding the academic scandal years.

So therefore, I assume you've also done the research to exclude the years all the other teams records/appearances were wiped...such as the Fab Four.
Well put. Seems like Minnesota is the only school were the media, fans seem to take it never happened approach. I was there the day we clinched the Big Ten title with Bobby Jackson was all over the court and John Thomas was throwing people around under the basket. Guess it never happened. You want to throw that history crap out there for football fine. Basketball it is just a lame way to defend Tubby and accept losing. If someone's expectations are that low. Why even bother being a fan?
 

I was there the day we clinched the Big Ten title with Bobby Jackson was all over the court and John Thomas was throwing people around under the basket. Guess it never happened.

Legitimately? No, it didn't. You thought you were watching two honest, legitimate teams go against each other. You didn't know at the time that one of them was full of a bunch of cheaters. If we don't punish cheaters and hold them accountable, what is there to discourage cheating? People thought they saw Ben Johnson become the fastest man in the world in 1988, but they didn't. They saw a guy drugged to the hilt running really, really fast. I suppose you think Johnson's record is legitimate? How about Lance Armstrong? Did he still win 7 Tours de France in your eyes?

You want to throw that history crap out there for football fine.

So history is important in football, but not in basketball? And you think that makes sense?

Basketball it is just a lame way to defend Tubby and accept losing.

Or, rather, it's accurately assessing the history of the program and realizing how difficult it is to change history, even if you pay a guy a whole bunch of money to do so.

accept losing

What does this even mean? People throw this phrase and its variants (accept mediocrity being my personal favorite) around here all the time. What does that mean? What exactly is it to "accept" losing? How does one do that?

If someone's expectations are that low. Why even bother being a fan?

This assumes that the only reason to be a fan is to watch a team win a bunch of championships. There are lots of teams you can watch if all you care about is winning. Please, go watch them. That's called being a bandwagon fan. This is my team, now and forever, win or lose. I'm not going to stamp my feet and pout because I made ridiculous expectations with no basis and they're now not meeting those ridiculous expectations.
 



So you were wrong. You did base your judgement (and thus your expectations) on history...in this case, the history of the players themselves. Thanks!

Do you mean to say your continuous rant on long term history is validated because the use of short term history is relevant? Maybe it is just about your need for people to say you are correct.

Edit: And no, I was not wrong.
 

How did you determine someone had potential? Observing and or/reading about them and their playing HISTORY.



The process of growth over time...aka HISTORY.



How many years they've lived on this earth...aka HISTORY.



How their bodies have changed over time...aka HISTORY.



How that coach has performed over time...aka HISTORY.

Spin, spin, spin all you want...it always, always, always goes back to history. 100% of the time, every time.

How do those nuts taste? Rather piquant?

Tell VCU and GMason about history genius. Butler perhaps?

If Miami make the 4 is that based on history?

Continue to stick you head in the sand. Genius doll.
 

Maybe many of us were basing our hopes that we could do well in the Big Ten and have a shot at winning the Big Ten, but looking at history too far gone?!

From 2008 to 2011 there were only 9 Big Ten teams who finished the regular season ranked in the Top 16, that's a 2.25 per year, or 2 per year for all but 1 of those 4 years.

If that history held true, and we all knew the talent on this team made us a Top 16 team, that would have put us among the Top 3 teams in the conference. Add to this our slightly favorable schedule, and how we played in the ooc part of the schedule, and its quite easy to see how we all got our expectations up so high.

Especially with how Wisconsin, the most consistent team in the conf the last few years, struggling early in the season.

Now add to this, a home win over an MSU squad that was early enough in the conf season that they hadn't really gotten into their groove yet, which is their typical pattern, and a ROAD win over an Illinois team that was simply cold as hell from outside.


How could our expectations not have been through the roof????



Well, for one, we did not rely enough on history.

Wisconsin's consistency was disregarded. MSU's annually kicking into gear more and more as the conf season rolled along. Indiana's preseason #1 ranking was apparently disregarded. Ohio St's FF trip just last year was disregarded.

And maybe, most importantly, instead of looking at the 2 Top 16 teams on average from 08-11, maybe we should have looked at the more recent history, and the Big Ten's getting FIVE teams ranked in the Top 16 just last year.


So, what do we have now?! We are ranked, #17 in the Sagarin, #14 in the Ken-Pom and #15 in the RPI. So, averaged out, 16th place.

And ahead of us, FIVE BIG TEN TEAMS, all ranked Top 13 by at least 2 of those 3 rating systems.

And we're tied for 6th place. Right where history says we should be.



See, we got better from last year, more experience, we got Trev back, that's fine, we should have improved this year from last. And if you look at all of the computer ratings, WE HAVE!!!!! A TON!!!!!!

But so has the rest of the Big Ten basically, right along with us. The 5 teams that finished ranked among the Top 16 last year, are the 5 teams ranked ahead of us this season.


But none of that makes the negative nancies feel better, because only getting pissed off and angry and frustrated and venting their negative frustrations apparently makes them feel better??????


Do I think that the possibilities were there, that we could have done better so far this year? Yes!!! But against such an absolutely brutal schedule, and being as shallow as we are, with no bench, I'd say we are doing pretty good when it really comes down to it.


I'm a silver lining kind of guy, I always try to find the silver lining, and guess what, I'm generally a happy guy.

I believe that there is a still a chance we'll pull off a 1989 or 90 kind of Big Dance run, and if we don't, well, then maybe that will help move the program in a different direction. Either way there is a positive to be found. My real hope is for us to have an Elite 8 run and then to have Tubby announce his retirement, going out ON TOP.
 

Tell VCU and GMason about history genius.

Did their fans and administrations EXPECT them to make the Final Four, genius? If it was so EXPECTED, why was it such a big story at the time, genius? If it was so EXPECTED, why are you still talking about it several years later, genius? Use your brain.

If Miami make the 4 is that based on history?

Much like you don't understand the difference between possibilities and expectations, you don't understand the difference between results and history. Results are based on performance. History is what already happened. History doesn't dictate results - performance does. The basis for your expectation of performance is history. NO ONE - repeat, NO ONE in their wildest dreams EXPECTED Miami to be this good this year. That doesn't mean it wasn't possible. The fact that you're talking about it right now proves that it wasn't EXPECTED, genius. If it were EXPECTED, it wouldn't be a big story and have you talking about it on a Gophers message board, genius. I couldn't help but notice how you didn't mention how good Duke or Indiana are this year. That's because they were EXPECTED to be that good. It's not a story, because it was expected.
 



Someone said that if I mention history, which I did mention, I therefore have no standards or expectations.

Somebody else said that history isn't destiny, which I agree with. That is basically what I said.

I said that when you're down in the dumps you need a miracle worker. First you have to understand your history and that you are indeed down in the dumps. In 1972 Bill Musselman was that miracle worker. Today, the Gophers need another miracle worker. That is what I said. How that equals no standards I don't know.

And as to the period from 1939 to 1972, someone pointed out that other Big 10 teams played by the same rules. My point was that everybody has ups and downs. If your downs came 1939 to 1976 or so, when only 1 Big 10 team could play in the post-season, you would of course have fewer NCAA tournament appearances than somebody who had their downs more recently, because now you can finish 5th or 6th or worse and still play in the post-season.

Some of you folks, it's not that I disagree with you. It's that I have no idea whatsoever what you are trying to say.
 

I assume when you run those numbers that you are excluding the academic scandal years.

So therefore, I assume you've also done the research to exclude the years all the other teams records/appearances were wiped...such as the Fab Four.

Actually I included all of the Gopher's NCAA appearances and they still rank 9th. You take away the sanction-ridden years, the Gophers still rank 9th in the B1G in tourney appearances. Despite the Fab 5 years, they still have more legit NCAA appearances than the Gophers since 1974.
 



Well, it started out as a delusional walk down a golden memory lane, recounting the glorious past of Gopher bb history that is only seen as glorious by homer Gopher fans who choose to only remember the good things and to remember them in a way that makes them out to be better than they actually were.

I love the Gophers, but I also value honesty and lying to ourselves about the past, will do nothing to help improve our future. Fans of just about any other cbb program considered relevant these days, would laugh at us if they knew how delusional we are about our past.
 


Did their fans and administrations EXPECT them to make the Final Four, genius? If it was so EXPECTED, why was it such a big story at the time, genius? If it was so EXPECTED, why are you still talking about it several years later, genius? Use your brain.

Use YOUR brain genius. If history was end all you say it is, they would not have made it to the FF. Stop your spinning.Much like you don't understand the difference between possibilities and expectations, you don't understand the difference between results and history. Results are based on performance. History is what already happened. History doesn't dictate results - performance does. The basis for your expectation of performance is history. NO ONE - repeat, NO ONE in their wildest dreams EXPECTED Miami to be this good this year. That doesn't mean it wasn't possible. The fact that you're talking about it right now proves that it wasn't EXPECTED, genius. If it were EXPECTED, it wouldn't be a big story and have you talking about it on a Gophers message board, genius. I couldn't help but notice how you didn't mention how good Duke or Indiana are this year. That's because they were EXPECTED to be that good. It's not a story, because it was expected.

NO ONE? Bet not. Maybe the players and coaches? Fans seeing the potential and growth of the players, system familiarity woth Laranaga?>

The fact remains that vcu and gm had no history of ff. According to smartdoll, they cannot have those lofty expectations.

U soooooo smart doll.
 

.



Much like you don't understand the difference between possibilities and expectations, you don't understand the difference between results and history. Results are based on performance. History is what already happened. History doesn't dictate results - performance does. The basis for your expectation of performance is history. NO ONE - repeat, NO ONE in their wildest dreams EXPECTED Miami to be this good this year. That doesn't mean it wasn't possible. The fact that you're talking about it right now proves that it wasn't EXPECTED, genius. If it were EXPECTED, it wouldn't be a big story and have you talking about it on a Gophers message board, genius. I couldn't help but notice how you didn't mention how good Duke or Indiana are this year. That's because they were EXPECTED to be that good. It's not a story, because it was expected.

Do you really want to stand behind that statement?
 

Do you really want to stand behind that statement?

I agree with dpo, preseason Nc state and duke were expected to run away with the acc, maybe the Miami players and their parents thought different. But if you guys want to be sticklers about the "no one" comment I will rephrase for him, no one nationally that covers NCAA basketball thought Miami would be a top 25 team let alone be top 10.
 

Same could have been said about the gophers when we were winning and were overrated
 

NO ONE? Bet not. Maybe the players and coaches? Fans seeing the potential and growth of the players, system familiarity woth Laranaga?>

The fact remains that vcu and gm had no history of ff. According to smartdoll, they cannot have those lofty expectations.

U soooooo smart doll.

Larranaga hadn't made the final four in 5 years before leaving for Miami, he probably should have just been fired though as he didn't meet those lofty expectations, right?

Hewitt better make it this year or he should be gone. Not living up to those final four expectations.

Their fans are just accepters of mediocrity if they keep him.
 

If you look through Gopher bb history, starting in 1949, the first year that they put out a cbb poll, up until the time Clem started cheating, the Gophers made it into the Top 20 about once every 6 years,


So if Tubby gets the team back up into the Top 25 poll by the end of the season, he'll have done just as well as any other coach since 1949.

Excluded are the 2 seasons Clem cheated and got us into the polls. But even if you added those years, and then accounted for Dan Monson not ever getting a team into the polls, it still comes out to once every 6 years approximately.
 

What does this even mean? People throw this phrase and its variants (accept mediocrity being my personal favorite) around here all the time. What does that mean? What exactly is it to "accept" losing? How does one do that?

I'm not going to get myself involved with this argument, but will say I agree with this part. I don't understand what people mean when they say these things. Everyone wants to win. Just because you don't get super mad after every loss or if you defend Tubby, doesn't mean you don't want to win.

For anyone who cares, here's the Gophers Big Ten record by decade going back to 1950. I broke up the 2000's by before Tubby and with Tubby.
1950-51 to 1959-60: 81-63 (.563)
1960-61 to 1969-70: 72-68 (.514)
1970-71 to 1979-80: 94-70 (.573)
1980-81 to 1989-90: 75-105 (.417)
1990-91 to 1999-00: 84-90 (.483)
2000-01 to 2006-07: 43-69 (.384)
2007-08 to 2011-12: 38-52 (.422)

Then bunching that into two groups.
1950-51 to 1979-80: 247-201 (.551)
1980-81 to 2011-12: 240-316 (.432)

Take what you want from it, just thought it was interesting.
 

I'm not going to get myself involved with this argument, but will say I agree with this part. I don't understand what people mean when they say these things. Everyone wants to win. Just because you don't get super mad after every loss or if you defend Tubby, doesn't mean you don't want to win.

For anyone who cares, here's the Gophers Big Ten record by decade going back to 1950. I broke up the 2000's by before Tubby and with Tubby.
1950-51 to 1959-60: 81-63 (.563)
1960-61 to 1969-70: 72-68 (.514)
1970-71 to 1979-80: 94-70 (.573)
1980-81 to 1989-90: 75-105 (.417)
1990-91 to 1999-00: 84-90 (.483)
2000-01 to 2006-07: 43-69 (.384)
2007-08 to 2011-12: 38-52 (.422)

Then bunching that into two groups.
1950-51 to 1979-80: 247-201 (.551)
1980-81 to 2011-12: 240-316 (.432)

Take what you want from it, just thought it was interesting.

How did you factor sanctioned years out of curiosity? Did they go 0-0, 0-18, or whatever the actual record was?
 

If you look through Gopher bb history, starting in 1949, the first year that they put out a cbb poll, up until the time Clem started cheating, the Gophers made it into the Top 20 about once every 6 years

I love statements like this that are proveable...

Highest AP appearances by season:
1949: 4
1950: 10
1952: 17
1953: 9
1954: 6
1955: 6
1956: 20
1957: 19
1958: 10
1965: 3
1966: 5
1972: 11
1973: 3
1975: 16
1976: 17
1977: 8
1978: 16
1981: 19
1982: 5
1983: 16

So let's see. Clem took over in '86-'87, so that means there were approximately 39 years of AP polls from 1949 until Clem became coach. Gophers made it into the top 20 for 20 of those 39 years. 39 divided by 20 equals 6. Rats, you were right.

Oh, and regarding Monson...here's a little nugget of knowledge for ya...

2003: 20
 


Fans of just about any other cbb program considered relevant these days, would laugh at us if they knew how delusional we are about our past.

Just about every different thing has been said so it's not clear what exactly the "delusions" are. The fact is that the Gophers have never been a basketball power. Wait. I take that back. National championships in 1902, 1903 and 1919; Big 10 titles 1906, 1907, 1917, 1919. The Gophers have not been a basketball power since 1919. That is the truth.

Since then Big 10 titles in 1937, 1972, 1982 and 1997, 2 of them tainted. But call it 4 titles since 1919, almost 100 years now.

It will take a "miracle" to become a basketball power now. Like I said, Tubby has proved not to be a miracle man. And, so, roll the dice.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.



Top Bottom