MacabreMob
New member
Perception isn't reality. Reality is reality. And so maybe UIUC isn't that good? :wink:
-
Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions. If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.
Rust?
- Thread starter tornado
- Start date
Perception isn't reality. Reality is reality. And so maybe UIUC isn't that good? :wink:
chitown fanatic
New member
while not of the caliber of an OKie St or BYU, Arkansas and St louis are no slouches as far as road tests and although they lost in OT, MO st had won nearly every other game by double digits, not squeaking out 2 point wins against the Woffords of the world.
MSU Road non-con (per realtimerpi.com)
Arkansas- Little Rock (RPI of 208)
Arkansas St. (RPI of 196)
SLU (RPI of 96)
Arkansas (RPI of 242)
(What's with all the ARK schools????)
BU's Road non-con
BYU (not scheduled by BU- RPI of 43)
Northern Illinois (RPI of 274)
Iowa State (RPI of 129)
Neither team is exactly blowing it up in terms of "real tough road tests"...
Not everyone can schedule like North Carolina in the non-con and play Texas and Michigan State...
There comes a point when non-conference schedules are irrelevant... Is there any actual proof that tough non-con opponents prepares you better for the conference season???
BradleyBrave
New member
How about their home games? They won those. We didn't win ours.
I think these are all great points. I think some of us (myself included) thought Bradley would breeze through the non-conference portion of their schedule with an 8-2 record and then have a great Valley season. However I think some of us underestimated the experience factor going into this season and the 5-5 non-con record showed that. Obviously most basketball pundits thought the same way by predicting a sixth place finish for Bradley. But we did show some flashes of brilliance and still have a good shot to at least finish in the top 3 of the Valley, a record that would obviously be better than most expected. Seeing how our players have played from time to time gives us some hope.
And it will be intersting to see just how "good" WSU, SIU and ISU will be by the end of the season as well!
Very true, but that 11-1 record for MSU will do them no good if they finish 8-10 in the Valley. Let's see just how good they are by the end of January. Then we can make a more accurate assessment of how good they and all the other Valley teams are by then.
I don't think anyone is saying this was acceptable. But these things happen with inexperienced teams. However, I do agree that I don't want to see these types of collapses at home for the rest of the year. With inexperience comes learning from mistakes, and learning from mistakes leads to experience. So no more excuses as the season moves along.
This team was suppose to have great depth which would make a huge difference in being able to substitute for anyone that was in foul trouble or just having a bad game, unfortunately Dunson and now Simms-Edwards got hurt which really has hurt our guard rotation , McCain is in a huge slump so Maniscalco is having to play a lot of minutes which takes some of the effectiveness out of him, the position of concern is center as Egolf is not experienced and small compared to the rest of the centers in the Valley, we just need to be able to hold our own until Dyricus gets back as he has been a huge contributor and will make a difference down the stretch.
BradleyBrave
New member
I don't think anyone is saying this was acceptable. But these things happen with inexperienced teams. However, I do agree that I don't want to see these types of collapses at home for the rest of the year. With inexperience comes learning from mistakes, and learning from mistakes leads to experience. So no more excuses as the season moves along.
We are not 'inexperienced'. Not even close. SM, AW, CR, EM, TB, and SS have all been in these situations before. It's really reaching for an excuse.
Not even close? I honestly don't get why it's so hard to understand that these guys have not played together for very long (more than one full season). Personally, I feel that's kind of important. Obviously, there are many people that don't seem to think that matters at all.
BradleyBrave
New member
It's an after-the-fact cop out that really isn't true. We don't have a team of freshmen or 1st year players. Yet we make plays - individual plays - by players who appear to have not played at this level. Quick 3's, no box outs, inexplicable turnovers by 3rd year guards. Are these really due to guys 'not playing together'? Thankfully we haven't heard any of the players or coaches lean on that crutch.
You have accurately described almost every team outside of the top 25 on any given night. I think you guys are both right - BU is a relatively inexperienced experienced team that is either over or under rated and can be anywhere from darned good to frustratingly ineffective. Then there is JL who is the least qualified (according to some) yet 2nd most tenured coach in the league with 3 consecutive 20+ win (sort of) seasons who has lead his no excuses, yet injury plagued team to 3 (kinda post season tournaments) without finishing any higher than 4th in the MVC.
This board has become completely polarized and anyone who expresses a thought that is even slightly outside of the agenda of either side of the swinging pendulum better be prepared to defend themselves.
THIS DOG & PONY ACT HAS GOTTEN OLD & only the fact that I love the Braves and want to keep up with some of the news brings me back here - but sorting through all this pro-con drivel is tiresome! What would be nice would be a moratorium where we can only comment on threads we are somewhat in agreement with for the next 30 or so days.
I really hesitate to get into this but you would find few teams that more than a few players have played together year in and year out.With injuries, transfers, and new players coming in you don't see too many teams with 3-4 players who have played together for more than 2 years.
I'm not doing any research so I reserve the right to be wrong
I'm not doing any research so I reserve the right to be wrong
After what fact?
Why would it matter if we have freshmen or 1st year players if length of time playing together doesn't matter? I happen to believe it does.
I really hesitate to get into this but you would find few teams that more than a few players have played together year in and year out.With injuries, transfers, and new players coming in you don't see too many teams with 3-4 players who have played together for more than 2 years.
I'm not doing any research so I reserve the right to be wrong
Well, as long as there are no more season-ending injuries and everyone stays, we'll have six such players next season. This is where the recruitment of four-year players comes into play. But I guess it won't matter that they have another 30+ games playing together. :roll:
I didn't say it didn't matter. It seems to me that there is always some changes like injuries,transfers, new players who do well and other players who fall out of rotation so it's uncommon that 3-4 players play a couple of full seasons together, These guys play so much ball together all year while it's not the same as games they still play together quite a bit.
It would be nice if you had 3 seniors and 3 juniors playing together for 3 years but it doesn't seem to happen that often
I see merits to both sides of the arguements. On one side, if there is an established system, then experienced players should perform well within the system, even if they have not always played "together". On the other side, a hallmark of a good team is improvement. Doesn't matter as much why they are improving, as long as they are improving their level of play, they are a good team.
BradleyBrave
New member
So, was tonight's disaster another case of 'not playing together'? Tony Freeman has only played 10 games with his fellow Salukis, doesn't look like it affected them too much! Did we turn the ball over 3 times in the last 1:44 because we haven't played together enough? Sure looked like we played together enough to shoot 61% and score 49 points in the 1st half! What's the excuse for this game?
Future Walk-On
New member
First of all, I don't recall ever saying all of our losses are because the players haven't played together. If you go back to my original post in this thread, this is what I said......
Look real hard and see if you can find where I blamed our losses on this. I simply threw a fact out there that I happen to think is kind of important in the game of basketball or just about any other team sport.
Apparently I'm wrong and it just doesn't matter at all. Someone explain to me how Drake continues losing games? Are their players just THAT bad? I thought I remember seeing somewhere that they had a fairly highly-rated recruiting class. Guess not.