Fire Shaka Smart

[ztejas 43411]

31 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I'm being selective by referencing the difference in expected and actual winning % for Texas this season when noting that Texas is one of the biggest outliers in that metric in D1 basketball?  Really?  

Yes, you're being selective you pedant. 

I can be selective too. I'll dumb it down as much as possible since apparently we are allowed to pick any statistic that fits our narrative. Texas is 241st in the country in unadjusted scoring offense and 106th in scoring margin. They are 35th in scoring defense, however, so they have that going for them. 

And outside of Kansas and UNC your schedule has been pretty fucking weak so far (MSU and Tech are also good), so I'm not sure how much "adjustment" is really necessary. 

6 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I think 20 wins is obtainable. 

Show me. Please show me where win #20 is. Texas is 10-7 having lost 3 straight and only playing 3 true road games on the season. You have 14 games left, play Kansas and Tech again, OU twice, TCU twice, Baylor on the road. Even if you go 3-4 on those 7 (which I highly doubt) I'm guessing Shaka finds another loss somewhere on the schedule.

Edited January 16, 2019 by ztejas

[Goo Punch 4275]

10 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Shaka’s team is better than any team Charlie fielded. 

and yet they still perform like Charlie's teams. 

[ztejas 43411]

To expound - part of the reason SRS thinks Texas' schedule has been strong is because you are handing out wins left and right and under-performing in terms of scoring margin. If Texas was actually handling the Radford's and VCU's and Oklahoma State's of the world like they should their SOS would rank considerably lower. I don't think UNC is even that good, tbh, and the jury is probably out on this Tech team until they get through the B12. MSU is looking like the best team Texas has played all season. 

[Burt Macklin 19020]

16 hours ago, Fozzz said:

I didn't deny that he fucks up final possessions in close games, many coaches do.  I simply noted that there is no evidentiary basis for drawing a connection between our bad luck and any skill of Shaka's, which is obviously true.  

That’s not obviously true at all. 

58 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I'm being selective by referencing the difference in expected and actual winning % for Texas this season when noting that Texas is one of the biggest outliers in that metric in D1 basketball?  Really?  

We have been an outlier three years in a row. If it was truly all luck, and no other variable like coaching, then we would regress to the mean at some point. The odds of us being such a heavy outlier three years straight are unbelievably low. It’s much more likely there’s a cause and the most likely cause is coaching. I already explained the reason for the uptick in this stat in 2015. 

Youre just spouting nonsense and saying we can’t know anything about Shaka’s coaching because luck. It’s absurd.

30 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Shaka’s team is better than any team Charlie fielded. 

How much better has Shaka been really? If you take out OOC games for both since basketball has so many cupcakes, you get these conference records:

Charlie

2014: 5-4 (56%)

2015: 4-5 (44%)

2016: 3-6 (33%)

total: 44%

Shaka:

2015-16: 11-7 (61%)

2016-17: 4-14 (22%)

2018:  8-10 (44%)

2019: 2-3 (40%)

Total: 51%

He’s barely been better than Charlie, and just like Charlie, his most success came with someone else’s players. It’s unlikely we finish with a winning record in conference this year, so Shaka will have one winning record in conference in 4 years compared to Charlie’s 1 in 3.

Shaka is not very far off from Charlie at all.

[CurlyDumps 4468]

21 hours ago, Fozzz said:

Of course, this team isn't perfect, and there have been some pretty big fuck ups this season.  But, imo, it appears to be a top 30 team and probably Shaka's best team at Texas.

And what does it say that Shaka is going to miss the tournament with his best team? What does it say that KenPom is like "uh...you got a top 30 squad over there" and Shaka is responding with a hold my beer meme.

Missing the tournament is the basketball equivalent of going 5-7.  Shaka is going to finish 5-7 with his best team. He might be a better recruiter but worse coach than Charlie. Is such a thing even possible?

[ztejas 43411]

Here's another good one: your dumb SRS stat that you keep piggybacking off of, Fozz, has Kansas, Tech, Iowa State, TCU and OU all in the top 17. Baylor and KState are both in the top 70. 

Then again, it seems like the B12 is probably overrated in circular fashion as always, but have fun getting to 20 wins with that murderers row. 

[Goo Punch 4275]

35 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

That’s not obviously true at all. 

We have been an outlier three years in a row. If it was truly all luck, and no other variable like coaching, then we would regress to the mean at some point. The odds of us being such a heavy outlier three years straight are unbelievably low. It’s much more likely there’s a cause and the most likely cause is coaching. I already explained the reason for the uptick in this stat in 2015. 

Youre just spouting nonsense and saying we can’t know anything about Shaka’s coaching because luck. It’s absurd.

How much better has Shaka been really? If you take out OOC games for both since basketball has so many cupcakes, you get these conference records:

Charlie

2014: 5-4 (56%)

2015: 4-5 (44%)

2016: 3-6 (33%)

total: 44%

Shaka:

2015-16: 11-7 (61%)

2016-17: 4-14 (22%)

2018:  8-10 (44%)

2019: 2-3 (40%)

Total: 51%

He’s barely been better than Charlie, and just like Charlie, his most success came with someone else’s players. It’s unlikely we finish with a winning record in conference this year, so Shaka will have one winning record in conference in 4 years compared to Charlie’s 1 in 3.

Shaka is not very far off from Charlie at all.

except that Shaka comparitavely recruits better than Charlie, making his lack of success that much more damning. It's hard to turn over an 85 man roster, but in basketball there's only five guys on the court, and one or two really good players can make a huge impact. To inherit a good team and then sign three top 8 classes only to be terrible is frankly hard to believe.

[Fozzz 152]

1 hour ago, ztejas said:

To expound - part of the reason SRS thinks Texas' schedule has been strong is because you are handing out wins left and right and under-performing in terms of scoring margin. If Texas was actually handling the Radford's and VCU's and Oklahoma State's of the world like they should their SOS would rank considerably lower. I don't think UNC is even that good, tbh, and the jury is probably out on this Tech team until they get through the B12. MSU is looking like the best team Texas has played all season. 

I haven't cited SRS once, although now that you mention it,  SRS is in agreement with KenPom that Texas has been a top 30 team so far this season.  Also, you're point that had we won more games we would have a slightly worse SOS (lol like this doesn't apply to everyone) would be some excellent, subtle trolling if you weren't being serious about it.  

[Fozzz 152]

40 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

That’s not obviously true at all. 

We have been an outlier three years in a row. If it was truly all luck, and no other variable like coaching, then we would regress to the mean at some point. The odds of us being such a heavy outlier three years straight are unbelievably low. It’s much more likely there’s a cause and the most likely cause is coaching. I already explained the reason for the uptick in this stat in 2015. 

Youre just spouting nonsense and saying we can’t know anything about Shaka’s coaching because luck. It’s absurd.

How much better has Shaka been really? If you take out OOC games for both since basketball has so many cupcakes, you get these conference records:

Charlie

2014: 5-4 (56%)

2015: 4-5 (44%)

2016: 3-6 (33%)

total: 44%

Shaka:

2015-16: 11-7 (61%)

2016-17: 4-14 (22%)

2018:  8-10 (44%)

2019: 2-3 (40%)

Total: 51%

He’s barely been better than Charlie, and just like Charlie, his most success came with someone else’s players. It’s unlikely we finish with a winning record in conference this year, so Shaka will have one winning record in conference in 4 years compared to Charlie’s 1 in 3.

Shaka is not very far off from Charlie at all.

The fact that his teams have had bad luck for the past few seasons is evidence of nothing other than...his teams have had bad luck for the past few seasons.  For example, if a baseball player had three extremely clutch hitting seasons in a row it would be foolish to presume from that evidence alone that said player has a skill for elevating his performance in high leverage situations.

I also wouldn't compare W-L records, which are subject to a substantial amount of variance (particularly in football).  For a better comparison, Charlie's best S&P+ at Texas was 37th in his first season, which is worse than where Texas will likely end up this year.  Hell, Texas has performed better this season relative to its peers than our football team did this year.

[Fozzz 152]

Also, regarding the odds of being such an extreme outlier three years in a row. 

*peruses kenpom for five seconds*  

Florida finished 286th (2017), 310th (2018), and 334th (2019)  in luck.  

[Burt Macklin 19020]

10 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

The fact that his teams have had bad luck for the past few seasons is evidence of nothing other than...his teams have had bad luck for the past few seasons.  For example, if a baseball player had three extremely clutch hitting seasons in a row it would be foolish to presume from that evidence alone that said player has a skill for elevating his performance in high leverage situations.

I also wouldn't compare W-L records, which are subject to a substantial amount of variance (particularly in football).  For a better comparison, Charlie's best S&P+ at Texas was 37th in his first season, which is worse than where Texas will likely end up this year.  Hell, Texas has performed better this season relative to its peers than our football team did this year.

First off, you’re still flawed by attributing everything to luck as if there can’t be any other factors explaining the varied performance from what analytics suggest to actual performance.

Second, You’ve now jumped the shark.

Wins and losses are performance. Advanced metrics suggesting what the performance should be are not. This basketball team has performed like shit compared to this year’s football team. It’s inarguable.  

Youre either trolling or so far in over your head at this point that you can’t tell up from down.

[ztejas 43411]

30 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I haven't cited SRS once, although now that you mention it,  SRS is in agreement with KenPom that Texas has been a top 30 team so far this season.

It's the same fucking thing. I bet if you laid the formulas next to each other there would be hardly any discrepancies. KenPom didn't reinvent the wheel.

Edited January 16, 2019 by ztejas

[Fozzz 152]

9 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

First off, you’re still flawed by attributing everything to luck as if there can’t be any other factors explaining the varied performance from what analytics suggest to actual performance.

Second, You’ve now jumped the shark.

Wins and losses are performance. Advanced metrics suggesting what the performance should be are not. This basketball team has performed like shit compared to this year’s football team. It’s inarguable.  

Youre either trolling or so far in over your head at this point that you can’t tell up from down.

I never said it was only due to luck, but that no one has provided any evidence as to some portion of under/over performing expected winning% being attributable to a particular skill.  If it has then what sample is required for that skill to "stabilize"?  

I also never said that W-L is not performance.  I said they are not the best for obvious reasons.  Particularly, they aren't adjusted for quality of opponent and they are subject to things that are out of the team's control (turnover luck, for instance), and thus, comparing S&P+ rating with KenPom rating would be a better comparison.

It's funny how I am the one who is either trolling or in over his head when you are the one misstating my claims.  

[Katfid54 8615]

What a weird last couple of pages this has been. 

Is everyone in agreement that Shaka sucks, and we're all just debating how badly he sucks?  Or are people still defending him and thinking he shouldn't be fired at the end of this year?[1]

[1] Whether Shaka will be fired is obviously dependent on a number of factors, including money and other potential candidates.  But whether he will be fired and whether he should be fired are two different things, only the latter of which is relevant to this thread and discussion.

[Braff Zacklin 13553]

Y'all are tilting at windmills with this one.

I generally welcome dissenting opinions, especially in the face of rampant groupthink, but this guy is Cameltoe Part Deux.

[Burt Macklin 19020]

1 minute ago, Fozzz said:

I never said it was only due to luck, but that no one has provided any evidence as to some portion of under/over performing expected winning% being attributable to a particular skill.  If it has then what sample is required for that skill to "stabilize"?  

I also never said that W-L is not performance.  I said they are not the best for obvious reasons.  Particularly, they aren't adjusted for quality of opponent and they are subject to things that are out of the team's control (turnover luck, for instance), and thus, comparing S&P+ rating with KenPom rating would be a better comparison.

It's funny how I am the one who is either trolling or in over his head when you are the one misstating my claims.  

Your actual quote. “Texas has performed better this season relative to its peers than our football team this year.”

im not twisting your words. You made this asinine comment. Advanced stats are not inherently flawless. Their rankings do not dictate actual performance.

The Footbalk team performed exponentially better than our basketball team this year. 

[Burt Macklin 19020]

2 minutes ago, Katfid54 said:

What a weird last couple of pages this has been. 

Is everyone in agreement that Shaka sucks, and we're all just debating how badly he sucks?  Or are people still defending him and thinking he shouldn't be fired at the end of this year?[1]

[1] Whether Shaka will be fired is obviously dependent on a number of factors, including money and other potential candidates.  But whether he will be fired and whether he should be fired are two different things, only the latter of which is relevant to this thread and discussion.

Fozzz is clearly attempting to defend Shaka. 

2 minutes ago, Braff Zacklin said:

Y'all are tilting at windmills with this one.

I generally welcome dissenting opinions, especially in the face of rampant groupthink, but this guy is Cameltoe Part Deux.

You’re right. I’m done.

[Machinator 32099]

Just now, Cashcar said:

Shaka has recruited big men well to an extent (Sims and Hamm look like poor takes right now), but his acumen when it comes to roster construction/management and recruiting wings who can shoot is a major question mark. Shaka knew going into this season he absolutely needed another shooter to space the floor. He failed to recruit anyone out of HS who fit this profile. I like the Ramey take, but in his HS film it's evident he is a slasher who will need time to develop into a reliable shooter. Shaka then put all his eggs into the Joe Cremo basket, and he ultimately signed with Nova. This is probably a decision Cremo regrets as he is averaging ~20 mins and ~5pts per game for Nova(but is shooting 42% from 3 pt range). It's just amazing Shaka had no other viable options on the radar when it came to recruiting a legit shooter to properly space the floor at either 2G or SF. If Shaka had committed to pushing tempo this season and leveraging the abundance of top tier athletes we have I think this season would be going much better. However, he is hell bent on his ball/screen offense which requires something we do not have - wings that can shoot. This type of roster management weakness will be his death sentence. 

Mitrou-Long shot in the high 30s BTA at MSM and profiled as a shooter. The problem is that his other limitations that prevent us from playing him more, and his shooting hasn't been that great so far.

[Machinator 32099]

1 minute ago, Cashcar said:

Fair - but Mitrou-Long should be a player who spells Coleman for ~8 to 10 mins per game. I think recruiting a ~6'4 to 6'7" guy who could shoot should have been a major priority for Shaka. He knew two years ago AJ was likely going pro if he had a solid Sophomore campaign. He knew early last year AJ was not coming back anytime soon due to his terrible leukemia diagnosis. With that in mind, it is puzzling he didn't prioritize finding a shooter with size to properly implement his preferred offense. 

Agreed.

[Tired Horn 738]

4 hours ago, Katfid54 said:

What a weird last couple of pages this has been. 

Is everyone in agreement that Shaka sucks, and we're all just debating how badly he sucks?  Or are people still defending him and thinking he shouldn't be fired at the end of this year?[1]

[1] Whether Shaka will be fired is obviously dependent on a number of factors, including money and other potential candidates.  But whether he will be fired and whether he should be fired are two different things, only the latter of which is relevant to this thread and discussion.

He's more or less at 0.500 on the winning percentage and hasn't produced a team anyone's been excited about in four years. So the debate over mediocrity seems settled.

If we're moving on to the next question, it's certainly not how good he is. 

[jimmyjazz 45889]

On recruiting:  I'll grant that it's hard to argue with the NBA's interest in our big men, but outside of them, exactly who have we recruited who has really rung the bell?  I just don't see hardly any natural basketball players on our roster -- high BBIQ guys who don't need to be coached up as much (and lord knows our staff doesn't appear to be optimized to do that anyway).  Who is living up to their recruiting hype?  Not Sims, not Coleman, not Hamm, not Mack, not Banks.  Obviously Shaka gets a pass on Jones, who was on pace to actually set a pretty high standard.  

So 3 bigs and Andrew Jones.  Can't really judge the rest of the 2018 class too harshly yet, but even so, am I missing someone?

 

EDIT:  sorry, got typing before I read the last dozen posts or so.  Some of this has been discussed.

Edited January 16, 2019 by jimmyjazz

[Machinator 32099]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

On recruiting:  I'll grant that it's hard to argue with the NBA's interest in our big men, but outside of them, exactly who have we recruited who has really rung the bell?  I just don't see hardly any natural basketball players on our roster -- high BBIQ guys who don't need to be coached up as much (and lord knows our staff doesn't appear to be optimized to do that anyway).  Who is living up to their recruiting hype?  Not Sims, not Coleman, not Hamm, not Mack, not Banks.  Obviously Shaka gets a pass on Jones, who was on pace to actually set a pretty high standard.  

So 3 bigs and Andrew Jones.  Can't really judge the rest of the 2018 class too harshly yet, but even so, am I missing someone?

Ramey.

[jimmyjazz 45889]

Ramey is playing like a top 100 recruit?  I mean, I think he has a somewhat high ceiling, but . . .

[Red Five 40845]

How do y’all have the energy for this? I can barely even make myself watch the fucking games.

[ztejas 43411]

8 minutes ago, Tired Horn said:

He's more or less at 0.500 on the winning percentage and hasn't produced a team anyone's been excited about in four years. So the debate over mediocrity seems settled.

If we're moving on to the next question, it's certainly not how good he is. 

The next question is when do you buy him out and who do you go after.

[Red Five 40845]

I hope CDC has been in touch with Fred Hoiberg.

[ClubWhatever 12120]

10 minutes ago, ztejas said:

The next question is when do you buy him out and who do you go after.

You buy him out the day after his last B12 tournament game this March.  Whom you replace him with depends on your money situation.  If you don’t have any money, you start from the premise that virtually any coach is an upgrade.  In that case you just promote Horn and pay him 900k while you pay off the old coach.  You are instantly better for basically no extra money.  If on the other hand you have a brinks truck you go get the Nevada guy.  

[Fozzz 152]

1 hour ago, ClubWhatever said:

  In that case you just promote Horn and pay him 900k while you pay off the old coach.  You are instantly better for basically no extra money.  If on the other hand you have a brinks truck you go get the Nevada guy.  

This is absolutely absurd.

[Machinator 32099]

1 hour ago, ClubWhatever said:

You buy him out the day after his last B12 tournament game this March.  Whom you replace him with depends on your money situation.  If you don’t have any money, you start from the premise that virtually any coach is an upgrade.  In that case you just promote Horn and pay him 900k while you pay off the old coach.  You are instantly better for basically no extra money.  If on the other hand you have a brinks truck you go get the Nevada guy.  

You don't replace a coach with a "bridge" guy. You replace him with the best candidate available.

[Pancho 44712]

1 hour ago, ClubWhatever said:

 Whom you replace him with depends on your money situation.  If you don’t have any money, you start from the premise that virtually any coach is an upgrade.  In that case you just promote Horn and pay him 900k while you pay off the old coach.    

[Fozzz 152]

He must be trolling.

[ClubWhatever 12120]

13 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

He must be trolling.

Sort of.  As a fan I’ll sign up to almost anything to avoid another year of this shit show. Even a bridge coach.  I guess I am not convinced we are ready to drop 13M plus the next guy’s buyout.  

Edited January 17, 2019 by ClubWhatever

[Machinator 32099]

19 minutes ago, ClubWhatever said:

Sort of.  As a fan I’ll sign up to almost anything to avoid another year of this shit show. Even a bridge coach.  I guess I am not convinced we are ready to drop 13M plus the next guy’s buyout.  

The best way to tank a program further is to hire a coach that nobody thinks is going to be there in the long term.

[Dbeasy 15042]

I was the most pessimistic of anyone in the Surly poll to estimate wins and losses this year. I like my chances to win.

[Goo Punch 4275]

4 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

I was the most pessimistic of anyone in the Surly poll to estimate wins and losses this year. I like my chances to win.

yeah i was way off, i had us 12-1 in non conference. 

[ClubWhatever 12120]

33 minutes ago, Machinator said:

The best way to tank a program further is to hire a coach that nobody thinks is going to be there in the long term.

Meh.  Even basketball programs in terrible disarray can be turned completely around in a couple of years by the right coach.  

Anyway what we have right now is “a coach that nobody thinks is going to be there long term”.  

[Goo Punch 4275]

Yeah, Steve Prohm looks like a great candidate. ISU's offense is looking great against maybe the best defense in the country. 

[Goo Punch 4275]

Steve Prohm come on down. 

[Fozzz 152]

I would be good with that. 

[dogbreath 434]

I'll take this guy.

https://theathletic.com/762393/2019/01/16/nate-oats-future-is-tbd-but-the-buffalo-coachs-present-is-pretty-great/

Quote

In conversations, Oats appears to be a very regular human. He's easygoing and seemingly low-maintenance. He happily shares details of a weight-loss competition with his staff and shows off the gift cards at stake, and he accepts life hacks such as how to use a pizza cutter for his kids' pancakes. Some Midwest austerity shines through when Oats admits to chiding players who don't finish what they take at team meals; he tells them they must have grown up rich, because he couldn't leave food on the plate as a kid. Any assumptions you make based on this information is at your own risk, though. After a few days at Alumni Arena, it's evident this is no guileless proprietor of a corner-store operation. There is bombast here. There is an urgency to beat everyone at everything, badly, and a healthy presumption about the ability to do so.

It's crystallized once you draw in close. Only then do you notice the serrated edges. "You'll see Nick Saban go crazy when (Alabama is) up three touchdowns in the fourth quarter," Oats says. "Well, that's what's starting to irritate me. We're up 28, for instance, at St. Bonaventure. We're supposed to win that game by 35 to 40. Well, we don't. We won it by 18 because we don't keep our foot on the gas pedal."

There are, as Oats calls them, various "non-negotiables" in how his players must perform on the floor. Some fall under the general umbrella of effort, of a workmanlike approach to the game; this is why the assistants wear mechanics' shirts while they warm up the team before a game, and why one player is rewarded with a blue hard hat for accruing the most points for tips, floor dives, etc., in any contest. Some are more specific, such as squaring up an opponent in a defensive stance and being in constant communication with teammates on the floor, or heeding attention to detail, lest you be penalized one way or another for a lack of concentration.

Quote

It's an idea Oats tries to embed in the players after practice, emphasizing the urgency to seize the opportunity to go up two games on the MAC contenders with a win the next night. He returns to the theme at shootaround the next afternoon, asking for an overwhelming intensity from the start. In general, he feels his group isn't exerting itself for the full 40 minutes. Not consistently enough, anyway. He anticipates taking Toledo's best shot, too, so his guard is up. As a rule, he wants Buffalo to play as if it has accomplished everything and nothing at all.

"It's a much better spot to be in when everyone's chasing you all year," Oats tells his team. "You have 100 percent control of your destiny. We need to come out and punch these guys in the mouth and control our own destiny."

 

[PilotsError 2286]

I don't give a fuck about life lessons. Just fucking win.

[Goo Punch 4275]

Here is his entire coaching career:



He was coaching high school five and half years ago. Hardest possible pass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

I wonder if we CAN still get to 20 wins, etc. 

OU: win

@ TCU: loss

@ UGA: win

KU: loss

@ ISU: loss

Baylor: win

@ WVU: win

KSU: win

Ok St: win

<this is approximately when greggym and Cameltoe's next account will show back up>

@ OU: loss

@ Baylor: loss

<this is approximately when greggym and Cameltoe's next account will go quiet again>

vs ISU: win

@ Tech: loss

vs TCU: win

 

That leaves us at 18-13, 9-9 in the conference. Flip one of those road Ls to a W-- TCU, maybe-- and then win a game in the Big 12 tournament, and we have 20 wins and a winning record in a very tough conference. That's an NCAA resume-- low seed, of course, but we'd likely be in.                             yay Shaka

[Fozzz 152]

Why would anyone crow about a win at home against a depleted okie lite squad?  Odd how some around here are willing to lie about the words of others with such alacrity.  Also odd that people neg on this board for speech they do not like.

[Machinator 32099]

7 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Why would anyone crow about a win at home against a depleted okie lite squad?

Cameltoe did things like that regularly.

Edited January 17, 2019 by Machinator

[Fozzz 152]

Objection: assumes facts not in evidence.

[ztejas 43411]

21 minutes ago, SwanderedTalent said:

I wonder if we CAN still get to 20 wins, etc. 

OU: win

@ TCU: loss

@ UGA: win

KU: loss

@ ISU: loss

Baylor: win

@ WVU: win

KSU: win

Ok St: win

<this is approximately when greggym and Cameltoe's next account will show back up>

@ OU: loss

@ Baylor: loss

<this is approximately when greggym and Cameltoe's next account will go quiet again>

vs ISU: win

@ Tech: loss

vs TCU: win

 

That leaves us at 18-13, 9-9 in the conference. Flip one of those road Ls to a W-- TCU, maybe-- and then win a game in the Big 12 tournament, and we have 20 wins and a winning record in a very tough conference. That's an NCAA resume-- low seed, of course, but we'd likely be in.                             yay Shaka

There is no way in fuck you go 5-0 at home against OU, Baylor, KState, TCU and ISU.

You barely have fans showing up to games.

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

15 minutes ago, ztejas said:

There is no way in fuck you go 5-0 at home against OU, Baylor, KState, TCU and ISU.

You barely have fans showing up to games.

you barely have competent coaching, more to the point, but I'm trying to figure out how it could be done more than "whether"

[Fozzz 152]

It's literally impossible to go 5-0 in games in which you will likely be favored?  Is that a serious post or a troll?

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

10 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

It's literally impossible to go 5-0 in games in which you will likely be favored?  Is that a serious post or a troll?

he said "no way in fuck", not "literally"

and you have to admit the odds of winning all five of those games are not favorable-- any one of them, absolutely, any three of them, maybe, but for this team? Winning ANY of five games picked off its schedule randomly is unlikely, eg Radford