# 12-19 - An Interesting Day of College Basketball



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

Alot of interesting things happening today. It seems that end of the day there is very little clarity as to who are teams 10-25 in the country. There may not be that much difference between #15 and #50.

A tough day for the undefeated's.

Georgetown fell at home to Old Dominion. With wins over Butler, Temple, and Washington (albeit by modest margins) it was unclear if Georgetown was ready to separate themselves into the elite. ODU is a pretty good team (KemPom #26) coming into today, so not a huge upset, but a game Georgetown should have won on its home floor.

Seton Hall had some large wins against nobodies, but it finally played Temple at home as a slight favourite. Temple comes away with a win. Considering there earlier win over Villanova, is Temple a top 25 team at year-end? 

Wichita St knocks off Texas Tech from the undefeated - not unexpected. I don't think either will be a top 25 team by year-end.

In what has to be deemed a major upset in the making, Creighton is up 14 at the half at the tough home court of New Mexico.

That would bring us down to seven undefeated.

MORE TO COME


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

Disappointing Results Today

West Virginia has to score at the buzzer to beat 4-8 Cleveland St. This will certainly hurt there power rankings. Are they really a top 5 level team? Not sure.

Tennessee loses by 22 to USC. Prior to this there best part of the season was losing by 1 to Purdue. Is Tennessee a top 10 team?

Gonzaga gets destroyed by Duke. Despite the loss at Wisconsin, Duke is one of the top five teams in the country. Gonzaga is just not a top 25 team. 

Florida loses to Richmond at home. This kills alot of the earlier positives Florida had. Richmond has played alot of quality teams this year and has a great OOC win profile of Miss St, ODU, Missouri and Florida. 10-6 in the A-10 and they are a tournament team for sure.

Memphis who had no real blemishes gets a major one with a buzzer beating loss at UMass.

Illinois is a confusing team - with wins over Vandy and Clemson, they seem like they can be top 25.... But Utah, Bradley and Georgia are not good losses.

MORE TO FOLLOW


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

NEW CANDIDATES FOR THE TOP 25

Tulsa - Great Power Ranking. The CUSA is going to be solid as will the A-10 this year and the MWC. Those conderences may all be better then the Pac-10. The top teams from these confernces will certainly deserve consideration from 15-25 in the polls.

Missouri St- They just keep winning - and with a win over Tulsa have earned a Top 25 position.

At the end of the day, depending on the balance or lack of parity in conference standings, any of the MWC, CUSA, or A-10 could get 3-4 teams in the tournament this year. But if those conferences have too much balance they might get hurt. They played well enough OOC such that the top teams will not have RPI's destroyed by bad conference members.


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

JuniorNoboa said:


> Disappointing Results Today
> 
> West Virginia has to score at the buzzer to beat 4-8 Cleveland St. This will certainly hurt there power rankings. Are they really a top 5 level team? Not sure.


Every team has bad games and West Virginia escaped. I would not put them in the top 5, but they are certainly top 10. Cleveland State is also a 4-8 team with losses to a bunch of solid teams. Kentucky, West Virginia, Wichita State, Wright State, and Detroit are all decent teams. Norris Cole is also one of the best mid-major guards in the country. Not excusing their play, but this close win does not change my view of West Virginia.


----------



## SheriffKilla (Jan 1, 2004)

I agree today was very interesting, a big step toward determining the March Selections, and I have NO idea who to rank 10 to 25 right now


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

bball2223 said:


> Every team has bad games and West Virginia escaped. I would not put them in the top 5, but they are certainly top 10. Cleveland State is also a 4-8 team with losses to a bunch of solid teams. Kentucky, West Virginia, Wichita State, Wright State, and Detroit are all decent teams. Norris Cole is also one of the best mid-major guards in the country. Not excusing their play, but this close win does not change my view of West Virginia.


Cleveland St. is not a good team, and I hate when people try to talk these kinds of teams up. Have they lost to some good teams? Yeah - but when you try and say Detroit is a good loss you're just talking crap. I mean, CS lost to Robert Morris at home for crying out loud. They were a good team last year, but they lost four starters from that squad and are a completely different team.

As far as West Virginia goes, I still think they are a high quality team, but I'm seeing a glaring weakness which is their interior defense. Cole was able to drive to the basket with ease (29 points yesterday) and that's a problem WVU is going to have to address.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Cleveland State got back into the game via their press. I expect them to press the rest of the year. They haven't been pressing all year. You can't underestimate having a home game against a major opponent and the crowd being up for the game as well.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

There are three good teams in college ball this year, that fourth final four team is up in the air, guess that's where one of those sleepers could emerge.


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

HB said:


> There are three good teams in college ball this year, that fourth final four team is up in the air, guess that's where one of those sleepers could emerge.


That's very debatable.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

What part? The 3 teams, or the fourth team?


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

Well, I'm guessing you mean Kansas, Texas, and Kentucky, and from what I've seen, Kentucky certainly doesn't belong in that group.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

They will come March. Kentucky is better than Kansas at least talent wise, and they really do get after it with all the lengthy athletes they have. There's no team in America that can contain Wall. Of course it all boils down to Calipari, can he really get this guys to play structured ball? I guess only time will tell.


----------



## kansasalumn (Jun 9, 2002)

HB said:


> They will come March. Kentucky is better than Kansas at least talent wise, and they really do get after it with all the lengthy athletes they have. There's no team in America that can contain Wall. Of course it all boils down to Calipari, can he really get this guys to play structured ball? I guess only time will tell.


I am sorry Kansas and Texas has more talent than Kentucky


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Nope! Not true. Kentucky's backup point guard will start for 99% of the teams in the country. Their back up PF will start for most teams in the nation too.


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

HB said:


> They will come March. Kentucky is better than Kansas at least talent wise, and they really do get after it with all the lengthy athletes they have. There's no team in America that can contain Wall. Of course it all boils down to Calipari, can he really get this guys to play structured ball? I guess only time will tell.


Just because you have talent doesn't make you a great team. If that was the case, URI would have been dancing the last three seasons.

Maybe you should analyze how good college basketball teams actually are, instead of looking at who has the most NBA talent.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

NBA talent and how they play together. They just present so much mismatches to opposing teams. Their 2 guard is like 6'7, 6'8. They might have the most length in the country and their backcourt is lightning quick. Cousins, Orton and Patterson and even Perry Stevenson with his shot blocking ability will give other teams fits. They are too talented not to the make the final four, but I am not sold on their coach.

I wasn't following URI closely, but what player(s) did they send to the NBA in the last 3 years?


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

coolpohle said:


> Cleveland St. is not a good team, and I hate when people try to talk these kinds of teams up. Have they lost to some good teams? Yeah - but when you try and say Detroit is a good loss you're just talking crap. I mean, CS lost to Robert Morris at home for crying out loud. They were a good team last year, but they lost four starters from that squad and are a completely different team.
> 
> As far as West Virginia goes, I still think they are a high quality team, but I'm seeing a glaring weakness which is their interior defense. Cole was able to drive to the basket with ease (29 points yesterday) and that's a problem WVU is going to have to address.


Point out where in my post I said they were a good team? I said they were 4-8 with 5 losses to teams who are a pretty decent % over .500. Don't put words in my mouth.

West Virginia's interior defense does need some work I agree, but I knew that before today. Cole got to the basket at ease because he is a damn good basketball player and he had a good game shooting the basketball. Not many teams are going to be able to slow him down when he was playing like he was yesterday.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

NBA talent is pretty much the way to a title in this day and age of basketball. Last year North Carolina had four guys taken in the NBA draft. Hansbrough, Lawson, Ellington and Green. Saying Kentucky can't get there is ludicrous considering that Wall, Bledsoe, Patterson, Orton and Cousins are future NBA players. Kentucky definitely has the talent, but is inexperienced.


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

HKF said:


> NBA talent is pretty much the way to a title in this day and age of basketball. Last year North Carolina had four guys taken in the NBA draft. Hansbrough, Lawson, Ellington and Green. Saying Kentucky can't get there is ludicrous considering that Wall, Bledsoe, Patterson, Orton and Cousins are future NBA players. Kentucky definitely has the talent, but is inexperienced.


Obviously NBA talent helps, but there are a lot of great college basketball players that don't do crap in the pros. I didn't say Kentucky can't get there, I'm just saying that they aren't a top 4 team like many think right now. I mean, what did the '07 Texas team win? Just because you have NBA talent doesn't mean you win. After all, if they're so good, why are they squeaking by lowly Miami of Ohio on their home court?


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

HB said:


> NBA talent and how they play together. They just present so much mismatches to opposing teams. Their 2 guard is like 6'7, 6'8. They might have the most length in the country and their backcourt is lightning quick. Cousins, Orton and Patterson and even Perry Stevenson with his shot blocking ability will give other teams fits. They are too talented not to the make the final four, but I am not sold on their coach.
> 
> I wasn't following URI closely, but what player(s) did they send to the NBA in the last 3 years?


URI didn't send anybody - my point was that they had a ton of COLLEGE (this is a college basketball thread not an NBA thread, right?) talent, but because they didn't play defense, they didn't win anything. It's a team driven game. If this game was based solely on talent alone, Wisconsin would win five games every year.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Sigh you always revert to defense. I guess in URI's conference NBA talent MIGHT NOT matter. But if you want to win championships as HKF said, you need NBA talent to win it all.


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

HB said:


> Sigh you always revert to defense. I guess in URI's conference NBA talent MIGHT NOT matter. But if you want to win championships as HKF said, you need NBA talent to win it all.


I'm a defensive minded guy, and after all, it's half the game. You can't be atrocious at it and win it all. Yes, you need NBA talent. But just because you have the most, doesn't mean you're the best team. And just because you have a couple NBA players, doesn't mean you're a top 10 team.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Put it this way, no mid major team has a shot of winning the championship and I dont see that changing for years to come. Its always going to be a rotating carousel type thing between the elite teams in the league, Memphis is the only outsider I see trying to break that up, but even they might be headed to the big East.


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

Yeah, I agree - I don't see a non BCS team other than Memphis with a chance in near future seasons.

But the talent argument can be used at the mid major level as well. There are a ton of teams who have a lot of very good players (maybe not NBA players but very good college players) but aren't as good as they could be because of lack of defense.


----------



## kansasalumn (Jun 9, 2002)

HB said:


> Nope! Not true. Kentucky's backup point guard will start for 99% of the teams in the country. Their back up PF will start for most teams in the nation too.



wow. That is sure impresive. :sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:

Kansas and Texas has players like that too.

Kansas is a young talent team. Most of the team are concise Sophs and Frosh, the only difference between UK and KU is the the point and the center who has final four expereince and upper classman. I think UK is a top 10 team, but I do not think they are a top 5 team yet


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

Who is Kentucky's backup PG?


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

eric bledsoe


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

TM said:


> eric bledsoe


I believe he's started every game this season...


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Playing out of position


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

HB said:


> Playing out of position


Yeah, but your argument doesn't make any sense. You say that he would start on 99% of college teams, yet he's starting on his own team!


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

That doesn't change the fact that he'd start on 99% of the teams in America as a point guard, not not forced to play the 2. I would think the guy would be more effective at his natural position no?


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

He's still starting on his own team.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Sigh this is like arguing with a wall, yes he's starting at the 2 guard but he's not playing his best at that position, and who do you think plays the back up point position when Wall goes to the bench?

What are you even disputing? Will he not start for 99% of the teams in the country? What difference does it make if he is starting for his team or not?


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

I dont understand the argument. Bledsoe would start at PG on nearly every team in the nation and while he does start at UK, he is the back up PG as well.


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

My point is that you state Kentucky's backup PG would start on 99% of teams. But Kentucky's backup PG is already in the starting lineup. So it doesn't really make sense.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Who plays point when Wall goes to the bench?


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

HB said:


> Who plays point when Wall goes to the bench?


How can a starter be a backup?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

You did not answer my question. When Wall goes to the bench who plays point for Kentucky? Stop throwing back my questions at me, answer it. Is it Jon Hood? Darius Miller? Or maybe the guy you keep saying is the starter?


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

HB said:


> You did not answer my question. When Wall goes to the bench who plays point for Kentucky? Stop throwing back my questions at me, answer it. Is it Jon Hood? Darius Miller? Or maybe the guy you keep saying is the starter?


A guy that's starting, cannot be considered a backup. Plain and simple.


----------



## SheriffKilla (Jan 1, 2004)

There is 2 sides to Eric Bledsoe. One is the regular Eric Bledsoe we see every game starting for Kentucky. Than there is the dark, deranged Eric Bledsoe who plays back up PG.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

For ****'s sake man, why are you being this stubborn? You are dancing around the issue. I should know better arguing with someone who has no clue what they are talking about. Yes Bledsoe plays the 2 spot with Wall, but immediately Wall goes to the bench, they move Darius Miller to the 2 and Bledsoe to the 1. Bledsoe is Wall's ****ing back up man. Is that so hard to understand? Geez maybe thats why you should stick to numbers, because if you knew anything about coaching, you'd know you dont put scrubs like Jon Hood out there to back up Wall, when there's a much skilled guard on the roster. Its not like he's playing huge minutes at the 1, Wall isnt on the bench forever.


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

fjkdsi said:


> There is 2 sides to Eric Bledsoe. One is the regular Eric Bledsoe we see every game starting for Kentucky. Than there is the dark, deranged Eric Bledsoe who plays back up PG.


How can a guy that's starting be playing as a backup?


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

hahaha awesome thread this has turned into


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

HB said:


> For ****'s sake man, why are you being this stubborn? You are dancing around the issue. I should know better arguing with someone who has no clue what they are talking about. Yes Bledsoe plays the 2 spot with Wall, but immediately Wall goes to the bench, they move Darius Miller to the 2 and Bledsoe to the 1. Bledsoe is Wall's ****ing back up man. Is that so hard to understand? Geez maybe thats why you should stick to numbers, because if you knew anything about coaching, you'd know you dont put scrubs like Jon Hood out there to back up Wall, when there's a much skilled guard on the roster. Its not like he's playing huge minutes at the 1, Wall isnt on the bench forever.


Guys who hit 63% ATS obviously know what they're talking about. If you think you know so much, why don't you do something to prove it?

No, he's not the backup, because he starts. He may switch positions, but that doesn't make him the backup.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

And he keeps asking the same silly questions over and over again, yet cannot answer the simple question, if Bledsoe is not backing up Wall, who the **** is?

Lol oh now its called switching. Gotcha!!!! You do realize Mr coolpohle that when Calipari recruited Bledsoe, they let him know he was going to be backing up Wall. 

As for the 63%ATS thing, I kinda liked the back and forth you had with J. Watters in that other thread n the issue. That was interesting.


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

HB said:


> And he keeps asking the same silly questions over and over again, yet cannot answer the simple question, if Bledsoe is not backing up Wall, who the **** is?


He's not backing him up, because he's starting. You can't be a starter and a backup. The two don't go together. He's switching positions.


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

HB said:


> As for the 63%ATS thing, I kinda liked the back and forth you had with J. Watters in that other thread n the issue. That was interesting.


Yeah, I liked it, too. I knew he would finally wise up and back down.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

coolpohle said:


> A guy that's starting, cannot be considered a backup. Plain and simple.


Why not? This is a stupid argument. There are multiple positions on the floor, so if a guy starts at one position he cant be considered the back up to another? 

So Kentucky just plays with no point guard when Wall goes out? 
Tony Romo wasnt the back up place kick holder because he is the starting QB?
Chone Figgins cant be the back up 2nd baseman if he starts at 3rd?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Nah the appropriate term is switch-up TC, didnt you know lol


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

TucsonClip said:


> Why not? This is a stupid argument. There are multiple positions on the floor, so if a guy starts at one position he cant be considered the back up to another?
> 
> So Kentucky just plays with no point guard when Wall goes out?
> Tony Romo wasnt the back up place kick holder because he is the starting QB?
> Chone Figgins cant be the back up 2nd baseman if he starts at 3rd?


Let's remember what the original argument was. HB was saying that Bledsoe would start on 99% of other teams as if he didn't start on Kentucky. He does.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Umm thats not what HB said, HB said their back up point guard would start on 99% of the teams on the country. Well since you dont understand the back up part, I'll use your terms, their switch up guard will start for 99% of the teams in the country. Better?


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

HB said:


> Umm thats not what HB said, HB said their back up point guard would start on 99% of the teams on the country. Well since you dont understand the back up part, I'll use your terms, their switch up guard will start for 99% of the teams in the country. Better?


Yes, but he's not a backup, he starts.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

As a shooting guard, you know what never mind. I give up.


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

HB said:


> As a shooting guard, you know what never mind. I give up.


Well played sir.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

coolpohle said:


> Let's remember what the original argument was. HB was saying that Bledsoe would start on 99% of other teams as if he didn't start on Kentucky. He does.


Ok so if you replace backup point guard with Eric Bledsoe in that sentence does it change the outcome? The way you are looking at it, it would. However, considering Bledsoe plays the point when John Wall goes out of the game, that doesnt qualify him as the back up point guard? 

The point is, if you make a depth chart and arrange it by minutes, Bledsoe would be listed as the starting SG and back up PG.

Its a senseless argument because both sides are technically right. However, if you asked anyone who Kentucky's back up PG was, they would say Eric Bledsoe.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

coolpohle said:


> Yeah, I liked it, too. I knew he would finally wise up and back down.


I wised up and backed down? 

Was that the part where I called you a fraud for your intentional inflation of your betting record and you had no response? 

And you still never bothered to back up the claims you made other than to make fraudulent claims about your betting record...


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

:laugh: I love this board


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

Jonathan Watters said:


> I wised up and backed down?
> 
> Was that the part where I called you a fraud for your intentional inflation of your betting record and you had no response?
> 
> And you still never bothered to back up the claims you made other than to make fraudulent claims about your betting record...


fradualant? It's pretty obvious sigs are for accomplishments. What sense would it make to put bad or average calls in your sig? You don't expect HB to put 'I picked Texas over UNC' in his sig, do you? That would be retarded.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

coolpohle said:


> Guys who hit 63% ATS obviously know what they're talking about.


Whose opinion are you referencing when you say this?


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

Jonathan Watters said:


> Whose opinion are you referencing when you say this?


You're not going to flip coins for a season and hit 63%. If you think you can, join the contest.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

coolpohle said:


> fradualant? It's pretty obvious sigs are for accomplishments. What sense would it make to put bad or average calls in your sig? You don't expect HB to put 'I picked Texas over UNC' in his sig, do you? That would be retarded.


So, I've said it isn't about the sig multiple times. I've said that having your one season % in your sig as an accomplishment is fine - and I've said it multiple times. 

So why do you keep responding to me as if I'm calling you out for your sig? 

Could it be that you have no ability to justify bragging about being able to hit 63% of your bets when you know full well you can't win at a 63% rate?


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

Jonathan Watters said:


> So, I've said it isn't about the sig multiple times. I've said that having your one season % in your sig as an accomplishment is fine - and I've said it multiple times.
> 
> So why do you keep responding to me as if I'm calling you out for your sig?
> 
> Could it be that you have no ability to justify bragging about being able to hit 63% of your bets when you know full well you can't win at a 63% rate?


Nobody is going to win at a 63% win rate. But to do it for one season? That's ridiculously good and reason enough to be in my sig. Nowhere have I said or implied that I hit 63% for my career. My sig states a fact.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

coolpohle said:


> Nobody is going to win at a 63% win rate. But to do it for one season? That's ridiculously good and reason enough to be in my sig. Nowhere have I said or implied that I hit 63% for my career. My sig states a fact.


NOT TALKING AOBUT YOUR SIG. (4th time I've had to mention that)

TALKING ABOUT YOU BRAGGING ABOUT IT IN YOUR POSTS.

You claim that someone who can hit 63% of their bets knows what they are talking about, as if you can do that. 

YOU CAN'T.


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

Jonathan Watters said:


> NOT TALKING AOBUT YOUR SIG. (4th time I've had to mention that)
> 
> TALKING ABOUT YOU BRAGGING ABOUT IT IN YOUR POSTS.
> 
> ...


No need to shout. 

I can do that. I did it for the entire '07-'08 season. 

Do you want me to brag about hitting 56% for my entire career on here? That's still ridiculously impressive.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

coolpohle said:


> No need to shout.
> 
> I can do that. I did it for the entire '07-'08 season.
> 
> Do you want me to brag about hitting 56% for my entire career on here? That's still ridiculously impressive.


Hitting 63% for one season is not the same as being able to win 63% of your bets. You know this. Why do you intentionally inflate your success rate? Does it make you feel better about yourself? 

And if you are really so childish that you have to hide behind your bet percentage every time you disagree with somebody, the least you can do is use your actual win percentage. 

It is still a d-bag move, but at least you aren't being deceptive. And most of the time, I'm not going to call somebody out for being a d-bag since I myself am a d-bag a large portion of the time.


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

I actually have something to prove I know what I'm talking about. What do you guys have?


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

coolpohle said:


> I actually have something to prove I know what I'm talking about.


Yet even though you have a good track record, you still feel the need to cherry pick your best season and act like it is your typical result. 

Only the sleaziest vegas advisors will stoop to this type of deception.


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

Jonathan Watters said:


> Yet even though you have a good track record, you still feel the need to cherry pick your best season and act like it is your typical result.
> 
> Only the sleaziest vegas advisors will stoop to this type of deception.


I've only had three seasons buddy! And at least I have one to promote.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

coolpohle said:


> I've only had three seasons buddy! And at least I have one to promote.


Yep, 3 seasons. 2 mediocre ones, and 1 outstanding one - plus another mediocre one in the works. Given that you yourself admit how unlikely a 63% season is, its pretty obvious which season is an outlier. 

Yet you repeatedly promote your one good season as if it is a normal one for you. 

Deceptive, also pathetic. 

And "promote" isn't quite the way to term it. More like, "use as a catch-all rationale for being right when I don't like the way a discussion is going"


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

Well, I'm at 54% for this season, so I think it's pretty early to say that's going to be a mediocre one. 

It's not deceptive at all. My sig says 63% for the 07-08 season, it doesn't say for my entire career. 

What have you done btw?


----------



## kansasalumn (Jun 9, 2002)

guys stop this bickering


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

coolpohle said:


> Well, I'm at 54% for this season, so I think it's pretty early to say that's going to be a mediocre one.
> 
> It's not deceptive at all. My sig says 63% for the 07-08 season, it doesn't say for my entire career.
> 
> What have you done btw?


If I wanted to impress you with my betting record and was willing to cherry pick my best stretch, trust me I could do it just fine. 

But I'm not that type of person...I have no desire to impress you when it comes to anything, as I would much prefer to back up my arguments legitimately and let them stand on their own merits.


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

Jonathan Watters said:


> If I wanted to impress you with my betting record and was willing to cherry pick my best stretch, trust me I could do it just fine.
> 
> But I'm not that type of person...I have no desire to impress you when it comes to anything, as I would much prefer to back up my arguments legitimately and let them stand on their own merits.


Show me where you hit 63% in a college basketball season, and I'll give you props.


----------



## Willo (Nov 21, 2003)

I'll be impressed when you make an argument based on facts and statistics, as opposed to a two year old prediction record.


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

Willo said:


> I'll be impressed when you make an argument based on facts and statistics, as opposed to a two year old prediction record.


I'll be impressed when you have something to show that you know what you're talking about.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

You don't have anything to show that you know what you are talking about. You are a 50% better.


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

Jonathan Watters said:


> You don't have anything to show that you know what you are talking about. You are a 50% better.


Well, I believe you stated earlier that you did the math and I'm 56%. That's pretty darn good buddy.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

coolpohle said:


> Well, I believe you stated earlier that you did the math and I'm 56%. That's pretty darn good buddy.


So you get to cherry pick seasons but I don't? How come I can't go to fantasy camp?


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

Jonathan Watters said:


> So you get to cherry pick seasons but I don't? How come I can't go to fantasy camp?


Why would I pick a season where I went 51% and put that in my sig? That seems silly.

Didn't realize you had any seasons to 'cherry pick' from.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

coolpohle said:


> Why would I pick a season where I went 51% and put that in my sig? That seems silly.
> 
> Didn't realize you had any seasons to 'cherry pick' from.


STILL NOT TALKING ABOUT YOUR SIG (that's #5). 

Fantasy camp must be nice...


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

Jonathan Watters said:


> STILL NOT TALKING ABOUT YOUR SIG (that's #5).
> 
> Fantasy camp must be nice...


No need to shout. 

Just go bet the house on La Salle tonight and thank me later.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

coolpohle said:


> No need to shout.
> 
> Just go bet the house on La Salle tonight and thank me later.


No need? If somebody is corrected for responding to an argument I'm not making, and proceeds to respond to that same argument I'm not making another four times...why shouldn't I assume that I'm not being heard?


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

Jonathan Watters said:


> No need? If somebody responds to an argument I'm not making and is corrected on five separate occasions, why shouldn't I assume that I'm not being heard?


Just a classic 2+2 move, that's all.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Whenever coolpohle brings up the 63% ATS thingy I'll bring up this thread or I could just say he predicted that Gonzaga would win it all last year lol


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

HB said:


> Whenever coolpohle brings up the 63% ATS thingy I'll bring up this thread or I could just say he predicted that Gonzaga would win it all last year lol


I also picked Kansas the year before. 50% ain't too bad in picking national champions, imo.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Well National champions arent too hard to pick, its usually one of the best teams in the nation. Kansas did send 4 or 5 players to the NBA on that team.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

If you win your LaSalle bet, are you going to subject anybody who questions your rationale on something to a line about how foolish they are for questioning somebody that wins 100% of their bets?


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

HB said:


> Well National champions arent too hard to pick, its usually one of the best teams in the nation. Kansas did send 4 or 5 players to the NBA on that team.


Well, in the 2008 forum pool, I believe only one other person picked them out of about 25. Guess it was harder than some thought.


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

Jonathan Watters said:


> If you win your LaSalle bet, are you going to subject anybody who questions your rationale on something to a line about how foolish they are for questioning somebody that wins 100% of their bets?


No, I'm just trying to make you some money.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

coolpohle said:


> No, I'm just trying to make you some money.


Geez, thank goodness I came to my senses and backed down.


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

Jonathan Watters said:


> Geez, thank goodness I came to my senses and backed down.


Well played sir.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

Ok guys this may be one of the worst threads I have read in some time.

Some people cant answer direct questions
Some people dont know when to back away from arguments
Some people would rather argue about obscurity than posting relevent information

For all those reason listed above and numerous more, I am locking this pointless thread.


----------

