MVCfans.com

Black wrote:Name me any team in the country and I'll point out some weaknesses for you. If you're expecting to see the 1976 Indiana Hoosiers, you're expectations are a bit too high.

It's kinda hard starting out 10-0, especially against some decent competition with everybody gunning after you. Considering that early looked lost for a large part of the game, and Baker was playing with half a good ankle, I'll take a 9 point win over a high to mid sec team. Still covered the spread.

We just hadn't seen the Shox yet this year and reading on here had come to the conclusion the Shox were unbeatable, much better than last year, and a sight to be seen!
They just didn't live up to the billing (except the top 4 of Baker, Van Vleet, Early, and Cotton) they had gotten. WSU will win the league easily and should finally win in the Lou. Really enjoyed their tourney run last year and love the respect they bring the Valley. They also raise the bar for the other league schools.

bleach wrote:

Black wrote:Name me any team in the country and I'll point out some weaknesses for you. If you're expecting to see the 1976 Indiana Hoosiers, you're expectations are a bit too high.

It's kinda hard starting out 10-0, especially against some decent competition with everybody gunning after you. Considering that early looked lost for a large part of the game, and Baker was playing with half a good ankle, I'll take a 9 point win over a high to mid sec team. Still covered the spread.

We just hadn't seen the Shox yet this year and reading on here had come to the conclusion the Shox were unbeatable, much better than last year, and a sight to be seen!
They just didn't live up to the billing (except the top 4 of Baker, Van Vleet, Early, and Cotton) they had gotten. WSU will win the league easily and should finally win in the Lou. Really enjoyed their tourney run last year and love the respect they bring the Valley. They also raise the bar for the other league schools.

Carter had 11 and 14 and held Stokes to 8 points. How the hell did you miss that?

Wufan wrote:

bleach wrote:I guess we saw different games. My 16 yr old son and I both thought the Shox looked very beatable. We both rode the Shox final 4 ride last year but thought they looked REAL good 4 players deep and there wasn't much else this year. Tenn isn't very good (not poor by any means) and played the Shox equal.

Not saying they won't win the league but expected a little more depth to be there.

bleach wrote:Never said I wasn't impressed.
Said I thought the first 4 were REAL good.
Said I expected more depth.
I don't think this team at this point is as good as last year, that's all.

Fair enough on the second quote, however, what game did you see that was different than the consensus in this thread?

Since you are only using this game as a barometer, which four are the four that are "real" good?

I didn't see a great win considering I expected a romp over a mid level SEC team.
Baker, Van Vleet, Early, Cotton. I knew those 4 were good from last year but didn't see any new parts that stood out. Wondered what would happen with injuries or foul troubles.

Cdizzle wrote:Which WSU team from last year are you comparing them to? The inexperienced team that started 9-0? The injury-laden team that went 17-8? Or the more experienced, healthy team that went 4-1 against some of the best teams in the country?

The team I saw in person twice, on TV numerous times, and that went to the national title game. The team that went about 10 deep without losing a step. The team that lost 3 starters without much effect.

Wufan wrote:Carter had 11 and 14 and held Stokes to 8 points. How the hell did you miss that?

I don't know. I've read that here today and was shocked. Stokes (i've seen numerous games with him) is a physical phenom without much motor. He gets shut down routinely. I know his averages are better this year but time will tell if it was Carter or not.

bleach wrote:

Wufan wrote:

bleach wrote:I guess we saw different games. My 16 yr old son and I both thought the Shox looked very beatable. We both rode the Shox final 4 ride last year but thought they looked REAL good 4 players deep and there wasn't much else this year. Tenn isn't very good (not poor by any means) and played the Shox equal.

Not saying they won't win the league but expected a little more depth to be there.

bleach wrote:Never said I wasn't impressed.
Said I thought the first 4 were REAL good.
Said I expected more depth.
I don't think this team at this point is as good as last year, that's all.

Fair enough on the second quote, however, what game did you see that was different than the consensus in this thread?

Since you are only using this game as a barometer, which four are the four that are "real" good?

I didn't see a great win considering I expected a romp over a mid level SEC team.
Baker, Van Vleet, Early, Cotton. I knew those 4 were good from last year but didn't see any new parts that stood out. Wondered what would happen with injuries or foul troubles.

You expected too much to think WSU was going to crush an athletic SEC team. 10 wins is hard enough without expecting blow outs too. Still don't get how you could miss Carter. He had more rebounds yeasterday than any Shocker all of last year.

bleach wrote:

Cdizzle wrote:Which WSU team from last year are you comparing them to? The inexperienced team that started 9-0? The injury-laden team that went 17-8? Or the more experienced, healthy team that went 4-1 against some of the best teams in the country?

The team I saw in person twice, on TV numerous times, and that went to the national title game. The team that went about 10 deep without losing a step. The team that lost 3 starters without much effect.

What part of 13-1 against average-great competition didn't lose a step at 17-8 against average competition? The fact that WSU could lose 3 starters and play .670 is really good. But let's not pretend that the healthier version wasn't on another level.

Cdizzle wrote:What part of 13-1 against average-great competition didn't lose a step at 17-8 against average competition? The fact that WSU could lose 3 starters and play .670 is really good. But let's not pretend that the healthier version wasn't on another level.

Excuse me? English please. I may be from SWOMO but don't unerstand hillbillyeze.

Wufan wrote:
You expected too much to think WSU was going to crush an athletic SEC team.

My expectations were formed reading this forum.
There is a thread about 25 pages long extolling the greatness of Baker and Van Vleet. There is another thread that has Early as the easy winner of POY. There is another thread about the Shox national rank. Etc, etc, etc.

bleach wrote:

Wufan wrote:
You expected too much to think WSU was going to crush an athletic SEC team.

My expectations were formed reading this forum.
There is a thread about 25 pages long extolling the greatness of Baker and Van Vleet. There is another thread that has Early as the easy winner of POY. There is another thread about the Shox national rank. Etc, etc, etc.

That's all I needed to hear. You either have a bone to pick, or you are an idiot when it comes to basketball. Only an idiot would base his opinion on a fan forum. Only a blind idiot could have missed Darius Carter yesterday. I see no other alternatives to the two listed above. Either way, discussing basketball with you is a bad idea.