ADVERTISEMENT

#FMM

Hope this is a Hardt mid Feb. firing. Let's get out ahead of the March coaching shuffle, get our place in line.
???
there is no place in line! we're not going to talk to anyone that's currently coaching. we just won't do that. you'd get the reputation of being a total scumbag. if it's to happen, it'll happen after the season.
 
???
there is no place in line! we're not going to talk to anyone that's currently coaching. we just won't do that. you'd get the reputation of being a total scumbag. if it's to happen, it'll happen after the season.

Well said. Some on here continue to pretend they know things and only show how clueless they really are.
 
you see and hear this all the time. AD's are in touch with the coaches agents. The coaches obviously are telling there agents that they are looking to move up, what opportunities intrigue them, etc etc. This is not "scummy" it is the way of the world. You guys are lost in your little Mooney vacuum, just like he is.
 
Well said. Some on here continue to pretend they know things and only show how clueless they really are.
like yourself fella, you need to understand that AD's are in discussion with coaches agents now. And Hardt better well be knee deep in this process or we will be in for another 5 years of bad luck. Stop pretending, or let us know your inside credentials. If you are an insider, we are in bigger trouble than we thought.
 
Coincidentally they were a big reason why Mooney intentionally scheduled so weak. Yet 4700 says we didn't.

We will never know since we lost Nick. Had I known we would have lost Nick along with Buck and Khwan, of course I would not have said we would be a better team this year than last. Every time I mentioned this year in the offseason, I said "as long as we don't lose Jacob, Grant, or Nick". I was not as worried about losing our fourth and fifth best starters, but losing a guy who carried us in the A-10 last year is cause for concern. As for the schedule, all I ever said was this year's schedule was not dramatically worse than some past schedules.
 
Except it was

No it was not. Not dramatically different. Both were bad. This one was worse, but not dramatically worse. Once you start talking bad schedules only a couple teams make a schedule go from bad to really bad. The post of mine you dug up explains that very well and backs up my point. Thanks.
 
Why are you going out of your way to copy past posts and try to prove something that is based on opinion anyway? As bad as the schedule was this year, I stand by my post saying it was not dramatically worse than the one a few years ago. That is my opinion. Didn't we have close to a 200 SOS a few years ago? Even if this year's is close to 300, once you get close to 200, that is pretty bad, so anything past that is not dramatically worse. I don't feel like looking it up, but I think we played five of the exact same teams, and only two P6 teams when comparing those 2 schedules.
 
No it was not. Not dramatically different. Both were bad. This one was worse, but not dramatically worse. Once you start talking bad schedules only a couple teams make a schedule go from bad to really bad. The post of mine you dug up explains that very well and backs up my point. Thanks.

2014-15 OOC strength of schedule rank: 56

That is what you compared. That is not dramatically different than the garbage we had this year? Come again?

Crazy talk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: plydogg
2014-15 OOC strength of schedule rank: 56

That is what you compared. That is not dramatically different than the garbage we had this year? Come again?

Crazy talk.

No chance was that schedule anywhere close to 56. Or even top 150. Kenpom had it at 177, and I think someone else used another source and mentioned we were 173. Look again at the old post of mine you copied. The one that had both schedules on it. Tell me why you think they are dramatically different.
 
No chance was that schedule anywhere close to 56. Or even top 150. Kenpom had it at 177, and I think someone else used another source and mentioned we were 173. Look again at the old post of mine you copied. The one that had both schedules on it. Tell me why you think they are dramatically different.

https://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/rankings/sos/2014-15?&_3:col_1=8

Actually higher - 32 per Jerry Palm who is one of the more respected stats guys out there. I was looking at 56 RPI. can't speak to other sources. Kenpom is good but he does so many adjusted metrics it makes my head explode. I already wrote in that other thread why schedule was different. I gave you 2-1 odds it would be worse this year. You declined. But that's a pretty good indication I knew not similar. We were 1st four out that year, our numbers had to be pretty good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: plydogg
Not sure what the #FMM has up its sleeve, but like most everything else about our men's basketball program, it will likely be anti-climatic and disappointing.

If it is a mid-season firing (crossing my fingers), we would likely let an assistant take over until the end of the season. There is nothing wrong with our AD contacting coaches' agents and letting them know we are interested. Not scummy at all, but given how the Truthers think anything short of a contract extension for CM is scummy, I'm not the least bit surprised.

#NoMoreMooneyTruthing
 
  • Like
Reactions: plydogg
4700, you made a super surfacy analysis of the OOC that presumes that a bunch of teams in common on both schedules were going to be competitively the same. Several of those teams were really good that year and not projected to be good this year. I suspect you’d recognize our team this year is not as good as the one from that season, right?

I’m not trying to pile on but it was a flawed analysis and you kind of keep defending it in spite of ample evidence then and now that this year’s schedule is ultra weak.
 
Bump. This topic seems to be of strong interest. I agree, #FMM is likely impotent like a Mooney rebound. I do see their best days ahead of them after this hijinx.
 
Didn't we have close to a 200 SOS a few years ago? Even if this year's is close to 300, once you get close to 200, that is pretty bad, so anything past that is not dramatically worse.

I get the point you're trying to make, but this particular statement is nonsense. A 200-ish SOS is still in the "weak-middling A10 schedule" range. A 300 is far worse.....it's a MEAC schedule.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT