UPig basketball bout to get some bad press- won't release Clark to transfer
- Thread starter Coach34
- Start date
http://nwahomepage.com/fulltext/?nxd_id=248017
<div>
</div><div>
</div><div>They got some stud guards coming in, but will struggle having to play some true freshman-</div>
<div>
</div><div>
</div><div>They got some stud guards coming in, but will struggle having to play some true freshman-</div>
Either he does not like 40 minutes of hell type basketball or is a racist, not wanting to play for Anderson... I guess a Division 2 school will get a good player next year....
http://www.columbiatribun...ocking-clarkes-transfer/
Anderson is a total ***, he let's two other players transfer, but blocks Clarke and two signees of the hogs from this year's recruiting class.. This is after UAB let him take a signee to Mizzo when Anderson left UAB... Can u say pot and kettle..
http://www.columbiatribun...ocking-clarkes-transfer/
Anderson is a total ***, he let's two other players transfer, but blocks Clarke and two signees of the hogs from this year's recruiting class.. This is after UAB let him take a signee to Mizzo when Anderson left UAB... Can u say pot and kettle..
fishwater99 said:
Maybe Anderson is the racist here. The other two transfers have something in common that Clarke doesn't. Just sayin since you threw that out there.
Either way it is a ****** thing for an incoming coach to do. I can understand a player not wanting to play for a new coach that did not recruit them.
Not letting the recruits go elsewhere is going to hurt Anderson more than this Clarke fiasco in my opinion.
Ro and Diddy can run to the press all day knowing Arkansas can't comment on situation. Clarke must've wanted to go somewhere else in the league or somewhere close by. Or the other school was just being blatant and Anderson wasn't folding. He knows if the kid follows Pelphrey to Florida and he makes some shots to beat their ***, Anderson will be 2nd guessed by fans for releasing him.....ala Gary Ervin a few years ago for Stansbury.
hijack this thread but comparing a sweet 16 in basketball to a sweet 16 in baseball isn't really fair. The amount of teams in basketball that have tournament talent is far greater than in baseball. I do like your posts Coach but that comparison is not equal in my eyes. I'd say making the final 32 in basketball is equal to the final 16 in baseball.
Last 5 years, the mid-majors have had more success than they have ever had- and the Sweet 16 was still dominated by the 6 major conferences. 75% of the Sweet 16 participants were from the BCS conferences- and alot of the mid-major bids were from the same schools- Butler, Memphis,Xavier, etc....Memphis had their mini-run in basketball like Rice did in baseball.DAWG61 said:
The truth of the matter is thatthe top teams in both basketball and baseball are still the same teams for the most part season after season. Going to Ga Tech and Fla State winning those regionals is no easier than going toDallas and having to win 2 games to advance, or being a 2-seed and facing Butler, etc, etc, etc- it just isnt
You don't see the NCAA making overt actions to support certain areas of the country in basketball because the interest level is so low. Yet the NCAA does this a lot in baseball. The pool of schools serious about hoops is much larger than the pool of school serious about baseball.
College baseball = college hockey.
It's a very very regionally segmented sport in terms of popularity and talent.
Whether or not it's easier to get to the final 16 in baseball compared to basketball isn't, to me, important. What is important is how its perceived.
And its perceived as easier. Furthermore, it's perceived as less impressive.
Perception is, right or wrong, often times reality when it comes to these sort of discussions.
Part of me is convinced you won't say it's harder to make a Sweet16 in basketball because that could open the door for defending Stans.
It's a very very regionally segmented sport in terms of popularity and talent.
Whether or not it's easier to get to the final 16 in baseball compared to basketball isn't, to me, important. What is important is how its perceived.
And its perceived as easier. Furthermore, it's perceived as less impressive.
Perception is, right or wrong, often times reality when it comes to these sort of discussions.
Part of me is convinced you won't say it's harder to make a Sweet16 in basketball because that could open the door for defending Stans.
3/4 or more of Sweet 16 teams are BCS schools- yet they only get 50% of the bids entering the Tourney- thats a fact. So with that fact, we can surmise that most of the mid-majors are crap and dont really belong in big boy basketball. But just like baseball- basketball does have its "upper tier" mid-majors that are consistently quality teams.
Florida's program and State's were almost mirror images when Donovan took over. Both had 2 Sweet 16 appearances, 1 Final Four recently (ours in 1996, theirs in 1994). They had 5 tourney appearances in their history, we had 4. We had more SEC titles than they did, as well as 1 Tourney tile to their 0.
So, for 100 years, State and Florida were basically equal in basketball. They hired Donovan, we hired The Recruiter. The Sweet 16 is harder for us in basketball because of who our coach is- not because it's harder in college basketball than it is in college baseball.
Florida's program and State's were almost mirror images when Donovan took over. Both had 2 Sweet 16 appearances, 1 Final Four recently (ours in 1996, theirs in 1994). They had 5 tourney appearances in their history, we had 4. We had more SEC titles than they did, as well as 1 Tourney tile to their 0.
So, for 100 years, State and Florida were basically equal in basketball. They hired Donovan, we hired The Recruiter. The Sweet 16 is harder for us in basketball because of who our coach is- not because it's harder in college basketball than it is in college baseball.
just because Belmont, Valley, and Indiana State play D-1 basketball, doesnt mean college basketball is tougher. Like baseball, college basketball has 100 legitimate teams that can play. The rest are just there for entertainment.
Stetson will beat Georgia in baseball, just like Rider will beat a Mississippi State from time to time. But when push comes to shove in March, the big schools win the majority of the games- just like they do in baseball.
Stetson will beat Georgia in baseball, just like Rider will beat a Mississippi State from time to time. But when push comes to shove in March, the big schools win the majority of the games- just like they do in baseball.
It's really common sense, you posted on here one time that there were something close to 70 more teams playing DI basketball. Competing against more teams=making it tougher.<div>
</div><div>Not only that, but you say major conference teams dominate the latter stages of both tournaments. Difference in baseball is that instead of 6 major conferences competing, it's essentially 4, so you're taking a third of major conference schools out of the equation since you rarely if ever see a Big 10 or Big East team competing late in the baseball tourney.(The Big Ten has ONE appearance in a Super Regional the last 10 years)</div><div>
</div><div>Just in the last two years we've had VCU, Butler, San Diego St, Richmond, BYU, Northern Iowa, Xavier, Cornell, and St Mary's make a Sweet 16 in basketball compared to just TCU, Cal St Fullerton, UC Irvine, Dallas Baptist, and Coastal Carolina in baseball.</div><div>
</div><div>I'm not sure you've gotten anyone to agree with you on this</div>
</div><div>Not only that, but you say major conference teams dominate the latter stages of both tournaments. Difference in baseball is that instead of 6 major conferences competing, it's essentially 4, so you're taking a third of major conference schools out of the equation since you rarely if ever see a Big 10 or Big East team competing late in the baseball tourney.(The Big Ten has ONE appearance in a Super Regional the last 10 years)</div><div>
</div><div>Just in the last two years we've had VCU, Butler, San Diego St, Richmond, BYU, Northern Iowa, Xavier, Cornell, and St Mary's make a Sweet 16 in basketball compared to just TCU, Cal St Fullerton, UC Irvine, Dallas Baptist, and Coastal Carolina in baseball.</div><div>
</div><div>I'm not sure you've gotten anyone to agree with you on this</div>
at where those 5 schools are located. California, Texas and North Carolina. So you can almost eliminate any cold weather school from being any good at baseball but in basketball you have a conference like the Big East that has 10-12 of the top 40 teams every year. Then you can add the Big 10. Those two conferences alone make basketball much harder. That doesn't even include your random mid-majors that are very dangerous in a one game setting. It's also not fair to compare Billy Donovan and Rick Stansbury. Under those comparisons 99.9% of all division 1 basketball coaches would fall short to what Donovan has accomplished since taking over at Florida.
aGAIN,I dont see how you can say it's harderto get to the Sweet 16in basketball than baseball.You think Florida had an easier time playing their regional with Miami in it, than a Duke has in basketball as a 1 seed playing a 16 seed nobody and then an 8-9 seed? Thats ludicrous.DAWG61 said:
How difficult is it to get hot and win 2 neutral-site basketball games, even as the underdog? In 13 seasons, this should happen, even if accidental, see our trip to Omaha in 2007(lets face it, that WAS accidental) for an example.
Basketball is more competitive from top to bottom and nationwide, that is true. No one is arguing that fact. That makes it harder to win day in and day out. It does NOT make it more difficult to be a final 16 team, as saying this assumes there are less than 16 good baseball teams. In a post-season tourney, how many schools have a legit chance of winning a CWS title? Ncaa title? I bet those numbers are almost identical, at probably somewhere between 20-30 teams. /opinion
fact: We can settle this easily enough mathematically by looking back at the average historic RPI of the Sweet16 teams in each sport, over a 5-10 year period of time. Whichever has the best RPI number was the more difficult accomplishment...
Basketball is more competitive from top to bottom and nationwide, that is true. No one is arguing that fact. That makes it harder to win day in and day out. It does NOT make it more difficult to be a final 16 team, as saying this assumes there are less than 16 good baseball teams. In a post-season tourney, how many schools have a legit chance of winning a CWS title? Ncaa title? I bet those numbers are almost identical, at probably somewhere between 20-30 teams. /opinion
fact: We can settle this easily enough mathematically by looking back at the average historic RPI of the Sweet16 teams in each sport, over a 5-10 year period of time. Whichever has the best RPI number was the more difficult accomplishment...
get twisted but here goes anyways, list of the teams in the Big East basketball conference and the Big Ten. Now tell me which one of these teams is worth a **** in baseball. You listed 4 mid-majors for baseball. I'm comparing a final 32 in basketball to a sweet 16 in baseball. How many mid-majors made it to the final 32 in basketball in the last two years? Way more than 4. I'm not gonna look it up but I'm willing to bet there is a much higher number of mid-majors to make the final 32 in basketball than the final 32 in baseball in the last 5 years. Care to look it up?
In 2011, it was nine, some of which are not your typical mid-majors: George Mason, Temple, San Diego State, Gonzaga, BYU, Butler, VCU, Richmond, and Morehead State.
Of those nine, one was an 8 seed (Mason) who beat a major conference 9 seed. One was an 8 (Butler) who beat a mid major 9. Those two games were for all purposes tossups.
Richmond, Morehead, VCU and Gonzaga beat power conference teams seeded higher than they were, so upsets if you will.
San Diego State (2), BYU (3) were playing teams from one bid leagues based off their high seeding and Temple (7) was seeded higher than their power conference opponent. In other words, they were all expected to win.
In 2010 it was 11, with many of the same teams and circumstances. Two 8/9 games, some upsets, and some mid majors who were better seeds.
I have no idea on baseball. It's a little harder to figure since you would have to look at the regional brackets to see who the last two teams were.
Of those nine, one was an 8 seed (Mason) who beat a major conference 9 seed. One was an 8 (Butler) who beat a mid major 9. Those two games were for all purposes tossups.
Richmond, Morehead, VCU and Gonzaga beat power conference teams seeded higher than they were, so upsets if you will.
San Diego State (2), BYU (3) were playing teams from one bid leagues based off their high seeding and Temple (7) was seeded higher than their power conference opponent. In other words, they were all expected to win.
In 2010 it was 11, with many of the same teams and circumstances. Two 8/9 games, some upsets, and some mid majors who were better seeds.
I have no idea on baseball. It's a little harder to figure since you would have to look at the regional brackets to see who the last two teams were.
Is the Big East had 9 teams represented in the NCAAT (all these Top 40 teams), only 2 of them (not even the top two teams... UConn, a 3 seed and Marquette, an 11 seed) made to the sweet 16. There is no real "evidence" that baseball is harder than basketball, or vice-versa... but I WILL say that no matter where you play in baseball (unless you are hosting), you still have to beat a 1 seed NO MATTER WHAT to get to a super regional. Not only that, even if you are the 1 seed, you may face a teams ace or pull a Ga. Tech and lose to a 4 seed and have to play out of the losers bracket (which is much harder to do because you have to win an extra game). The talent level over most clubs is much more balanced in baseball, where basketball, not so much. Look at the SEC this year. Aside from the top 3 teams in the SEC (Vandy, USC, and UF), and the two worst teams (UT and UK), there was only a 3 win difference between 7 ball clubs, where as basketball, records are spread out much more across the conference (that is simply looking at the SEC). My point being, the level of talent between ball clubs in baseball seems to be much more balanced and evenly distributed as opposed to basketball.DAWG61 said:
<div>
</div><div>In basketball, simply win two games. Arguably, the hardest route is from the 8/9 seed position, but look at this year... VCU beat a 1 seed Pitt to make it all the way to the Final 4. It CAN be done (and has happened on many occasions in the past) and once tournament play starts, all bets are off on seeding (unless you are a 13-16 seed... and that is a "most of the time). We almost beat Memphis in 2008 to go to the Sweet 16 and we were Memphis' closest win until they lost to Kansas. the biggest problem with us in basketball seems to be that we are just contempt on making the tournament instead of making the tournament to compete for the national title. </div><div>
</div><div>Making it to the Sweet 16 is notable in both sports and each has it's individual challenges to get there. I personally think Stansbury should at LEAST have 1 (with all the talent he's had in the last 13 years) sweet 16, but doesn't. It all depends mostly on who came to play to win and who came to play because they were "proud they made the tournament and are satisfied with that." </div><div>
</div><div>
</div>
Give me a list of teams from the Pac-10 that are worth a **** in basketball? The SEC has been mighty weak the last few years also in basketballDAWG61 said:
Why in the hell would you compare the final 32 in basketball to the Sweet 16 in baseball? Doing that makes no sense
them being competitive is a new thing:
2002-2 mid-majors in the Sweet 16
2003- 1 MM in Sweet 16
2004- 1 MM in Sweet 16
2005- 4 MM's in Sweet 16
As another poster said- we arent talking day to day- we are talking when the Tourney starts and match-ups. It's simply no harder in basketball than baseball.
2002-2 mid-majors in the Sweet 16
2003- 1 MM in Sweet 16
2004- 1 MM in Sweet 16
2005- 4 MM's in Sweet 16
As another poster said- we arent talking day to day- we are talking when the Tourney starts and match-ups. It's simply no harder in basketball than baseball.
There have been 21 non-bcs basketball programs make it to the sweet 16, or 26.25%. There hasn't been a non-bcs champion since 1990.
In that same time, there have been 20 non-bcs baseball programs make super-regionals, or 25%. There has been 5 non-bcs champions since 1990.
Like I already said, it is basically identical in difficulty either way, with sound arguments to be made on each side...
In that same time, there have been 20 non-bcs baseball programs make super-regionals, or 25%. There has been 5 non-bcs champions since 1990.
Like I already said, it is basically identical in difficulty either way, with sound arguments to be made on each side...
Arizona and UCLA are probably two of the top 10 programs in the nation, comparing Pac 10 basketball to Big 10 or Big East baseball is dumb.<div>Also, since 2000 Stanford has been to the NCAA's 7 times, Oregon 5 times, Washington 6 times, USC 6 times, California 6 times, Washington St 2 times. </div><div>
</div><div>7 of the 10 teams in the Pac 10 have been to the Sweet 16 in the last 5 years, I'd say that's pretty good, or at least better than Big 10 baseball, which has had one super regional appearance in the last 10 years.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div>
</div><div>7 of the 10 teams in the Pac 10 have been to the Sweet 16 in the last 5 years, I'd say that's pretty good, or at least better than Big 10 baseball, which has had one super regional appearance in the last 10 years.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div>
They sucked? Memphis, Gonzaga, Xavier, Butler, St Joes...they all sucked? Oh, Temple made a 16 appearance then. Ooh, Souther Illinois and Kent State made it to 16 too. Oh boy, UAB and Nevada also didn't suck during that span.
Mid majors hardly sucked in that timeframe. They were then just what they are now- sporadic and typically make runs when the team is seasoned.
Mid majors hardly sucked in that timeframe. They were then just what they are now- sporadic and typically make runs when the team is seasoned.
starts that I am saying is harder it's that it's WAY harder to make the tournament when there are a lot more good teams. There is absolutely no way in hell that baseball has even close to as many good teams as basketball does. Therefore it is harder to make a sweet 16 in basketball than in baseball. Just change your sig (whatever it's called) and I will politely shut the 17 up.
in baseball, you get to play another day. In basketball - bad day equals finished.
I do agree Stansbury should have made a Sweet 16 by now.
I do agree Stansbury should have made a Sweet 16 by now.
There are not more good teams in basketball- dont mistake large numbers for quality.DAWG61 said:
There is a reason the BCS schools have won the last 21 NCAA titles.
There is a reason BCS schools get 50% of the bids, but only make up 20% of college basketball
There is a reason 75% of BCS schoolsadvance totheSweet 16 after only getting half the Tourney bids
Here is another nugget for you:
NCAA basketball's 1-4 seeds- 10 of 16 made the Sweet 16
NCAA baseball 16 hosts (1-4 seeds)- 10 of 16 made the Sweet 16
Just because the final 16 of baseball and basketball are filled with the same number of BCS and non BCS schools doesn't really prove your point, and since basketball has a greater number of not only mid major teams capable of making it that far (proven b/c more of them HAVE made it that far), but also major conference teams.<div>
</div><div>15 different mid major schools have made a Sweet 16 the last 5 years, and those schools are located in 13 different states. 10 different teams outside of the 6 major conferences have made a Super Regional the last 5 years, but they're from only TX, MS, California, or the Carolinas.</div><div>
</div><div>But since 2 of the top 6 "major" conferences are non-factors in baseball, that opens up more spots for "mid major" baseball teams, and they still haven't had as many schools make a run.</div><div>
</div><div>The Big 10 has had one appearance in a Super Regional the last 10 years, and the Big East has had 4 total appearances in a Super the last 10 years. Those two conferences have combined for 2 CWS appearance in the last 10 years. No major basketball conference has even close to that low of a number of Sweet 16 appearances the last 10 years. The Big East had zero teams in a Super 6 of the last 10 years</div><div>
</div><div>So in baseball you're competing w/ a lesser number of mid majors that have the capability of making a run AND a lesser number of major conference schools as well. If this doesn't make the point to you, then you just don't get it.</div>
</div><div>15 different mid major schools have made a Sweet 16 the last 5 years, and those schools are located in 13 different states. 10 different teams outside of the 6 major conferences have made a Super Regional the last 5 years, but they're from only TX, MS, California, or the Carolinas.</div><div>
</div><div>But since 2 of the top 6 "major" conferences are non-factors in baseball, that opens up more spots for "mid major" baseball teams, and they still haven't had as many schools make a run.</div><div>
</div><div>The Big 10 has had one appearance in a Super Regional the last 10 years, and the Big East has had 4 total appearances in a Super the last 10 years. Those two conferences have combined for 2 CWS appearance in the last 10 years. No major basketball conference has even close to that low of a number of Sweet 16 appearances the last 10 years. The Big East had zero teams in a Super 6 of the last 10 years</div><div>
</div><div>So in baseball you're competing w/ a lesser number of mid majors that have the capability of making a run AND a lesser number of major conference schools as well. If this doesn't make the point to you, then you just don't get it.</div>
is that conferences like Conference USA- while a non-factor in basketball (Memphis is back to Earth now that Calipari is gone), is a very good baseball conference. It all evens out in the wash
You're not smart enough to grasp it- it's ok. I never expected you to.
You're not smart enough to grasp it- it's ok. I never expected you to.
<div>We counted C-USA among the "mid-major" berths from non-BCS conferences in baseball, and basebal STILL has less non-BCS teams making the Sweet 16.</div><div>
</div>Yes, C-USA is better in baseball than basketball, but what YOU fail to realize is that more lower level teams and conferences have the opportunity to step up and take spots in the tourney b/c baseball is basically playing with only 4 instead of 6 major conferences (so someone has to take their place, naturally some lower tier teams are going to)<div>
</div><div>Bottom line is this:</div><div>46 BCS teams have made Sweet 16's the last 10 years</div><div>35 BCS teams have made Super Regionals the last 10 years</div><div>24 mid majors have made a Sweet 16 the last 10 years</div><div>19 mid majors have made a Super Regional the last 10 years</div><div>
</div><div>16 more total teams in the NCAA have made the final 16 in basketball, proving that more teams are capable of getting to that stage of the tournament, and the difference is even greater when you compare the diversity of teams that have made the final 8 or the final 32.</div><div>
</div><div>70 more teams in DI=tougher (this was according to your research)</div><div>More teams capable of getting there out of the non-BCS AND BCS teams=tougher</div><div>
</div><div>
</div>
</div>Yes, C-USA is better in baseball than basketball, but what YOU fail to realize is that more lower level teams and conferences have the opportunity to step up and take spots in the tourney b/c baseball is basically playing with only 4 instead of 6 major conferences (so someone has to take their place, naturally some lower tier teams are going to)<div>
</div><div>Bottom line is this:</div><div>46 BCS teams have made Sweet 16's the last 10 years</div><div>35 BCS teams have made Super Regionals the last 10 years</div><div>24 mid majors have made a Sweet 16 the last 10 years</div><div>19 mid majors have made a Super Regional the last 10 years</div><div>
</div><div>16 more total teams in the NCAA have made the final 16 in basketball, proving that more teams are capable of getting to that stage of the tournament, and the difference is even greater when you compare the diversity of teams that have made the final 8 or the final 32.</div><div>
</div><div>70 more teams in DI=tougher (this was according to your research)</div><div>More teams capable of getting there out of the non-BCS AND BCS teams=tougher</div><div>
</div><div>
</div>