goTULA.NEt

DfromCT wrote:Q for the board: What does this victory do to your expectations for the season? Clearly, most of us were at or around that "7-8 AAC wins" in the other thread before the season started, and most were still there until the Temple game. So what does everyone else expect our overall record to be at the end of the regular season? What are our chances of meaningful (NIT minimum) post-season play?

I'm encouraged but not ready to change my expectations yet. We're showing that we're more capable than we may have thought, but we haven't shown the consistency needed to raise expectations. Go win @Memphis and home vs UConn, two name programs, and I think we'll be on the way to something good.

winwave wrote:

netshorty wrote:

winwave wrote:

netshorty wrote:

Ruski wrote:Best part is we'll have everyone back next year except Reynolds!

This team is starting to put together some impressive wins and set up something special for next year!

Apparently there was a 4 star recruit at yesterdays game too!

As it relates to the importance of a player to team :

Reynolds:Tulane = Michael Jordan:Bulls.

IMO, Saying we only will be losing Reynolds doesn't really bolster an argument for how good next year's team will be.

I understand and agree somewhat with that take. However it took Reynolds 5 years to get to this point. Many went on about him from the get go simply because he looked the part. He didn’t show any real consistency till last year. He can still be off and when he is he’s not even close. So he’s not Jordan. Daniels is way ahead of where he was as a freshman. He’ll be rolling next year. We still don’t know what we have this year but the fall off, if any, won’t be much.

Not talking about the progress just where we are today. Today, he is the most important offensive weapon we have. Does that mean that someone can't pick up his production? No. I was only commenting that while only losing one player, he's the most significant one.

My point is that Daniels is so much more advanced early that by next year he'll be picking up that production. Also while offense always sticks out to fans the argument can be made that Frazier is just as significant. He contributes so much in each area.

I understand that there is a potential to replace his production. Sure Daniels may do that. I agree that he looks good so far. To date Reynolds + Daniels = 22 pts per game. I'd expect that to increase if Dunleavy decides to play Daniels more {which I don't understand why he's not.) That's not insurmountable to replace, but it's also not an insignificant. Yes, Reynolds is hot and cold but we're currently in an SMU game thread where HE won this SMU game with his ability to create his own offense with his baseline post-up and his 3 point shooting. My comment was solely a response to someone saying we're only losing Reynolds next year to which in my opinion is that this is a big loss. I don't care about Reynolds struggle early in his career. Fact is he's our best offensive player and has averaged 17 pts per game the last 2 seasons.

tpstulane wrote:

winwave wrote:

tpstulane wrote:Something to note here on Cam. To be fair his first few years he had some bad luck with injuries. He’s finally in the grove after being fully healthy allowing him to reach his potential. His outside 3pt shooting will be missed for sure.

I was being fair. He got injured early one season and got redshirted. He was relatively healthy for the other years. He just wasn't that good. Like I said people were enamored with him b/c he looked the part. He simply didn't really start playing the part consistently till last season.

Relatively healthy and fully healthy are two different things especially for an athlete in basketball. He re-injured his same wrist he broke after his redshirt year. Like I said he’s finally fully healthy and it’s showing on the court.

He didn't re-injure the wrist. He broke his right thumb, non shooting hand, in the offseason following his RS year. He missed the first four games and then played the rest of the year. So like I said his health wasn't an issue. People were enamored with him b/c of his appearance. He finalyl started being consistent last year. Dunleavy gets a lot of credit with his development and others.

netshorty wrote:

winwave wrote:

netshorty wrote:

winwave wrote:

netshorty wrote:

Ruski wrote:Best part is we'll have everyone back next year except Reynolds!

This team is starting to put together some impressive wins and set up something special for next year!

Apparently there was a 4 star recruit at yesterdays game too!

As it relates to the importance of a player to team :

Reynolds:Tulane = Michael Jordan:Bulls.

IMO, Saying we only will be losing Reynolds doesn't really bolster an argument for how good next year's team will be.

I understand and agree somewhat with that take. However it took Reynolds 5 years to get to this point. Many went on about him from the get go simply because he looked the part. He didn’t show any real consistency till last year. He can still be off and when he is he’s not even close. So he’s not Jordan. Daniels is way ahead of where he was as a freshman. He’ll be rolling next year. We still don’t know what we have this year but the fall off, if any, won’t be much.

Not talking about the progress just where we are today. Today, he is the most important offensive weapon we have. Does that mean that someone can't pick up his production? No. I was only commenting that while only losing one player, he's the most significant one.

My point is that Daniels is so much more advanced early that by next year he'll be picking up that production. Also while offense always sticks out to fans the argument can be made that Frazier is just as significant. He contributes so much in each area.

I understand that there is a potential to replace his production. Sure Daniels may do that. I agree that he looks good so far. To date Reynolds + Daniels = 22 pts per game. I'd expect that to increase if Dunleavy decides to play Daniels more {which I don't understand why he's not.) That's not insurmountable to replace, but it's also not an insignificant. Yes, Reynolds is hot and cold but we're currently in an SMU game thread where HE won this SMU game with his ability to create his own offense with his baseline post-up and his 3 point shooting. My comment was solely a response to someone saying we're only losing Reynolds next year to which in my opinion is that this is a big loss. I don't care about Reynolds struggle early in his career. Fact is he's our best offensive player and has averaged 17 pts per game the last 2 seasons.

First off he didn't win that game. That was a collective effort and Daniels was a big part of it on both ends. As for him being our best offensive player the fact is Frazier is our leading scorer. He can attack the goal in a way Cam never has or will be able to. That gets back to what I said about people being fooled by appearances.

RobertM320 wrote:

DfromCT wrote:Q for the board: What does this victory do to your expectations for the season? Clearly, most of us were at or around that "7-8 AAC wins" in the other thread before the season started, and most were still there until the Temple game. So what does everyone else expect our overall record to be at the end of the regular season? What are our chances of meaningful (NIT minimum) post-season play?

I'm encouraged but not ready to change my expectations yet. We're showing that we're more capable than we may have thought, but we haven't shown the consistency needed to raise expectations. Go win @Memphis and home vs UConn, two name programs, and I think we'll be on the way to something good.

+1

winwave wrote:

netshorty wrote:

winwave wrote:

netshorty wrote:

winwave wrote:

netshorty wrote:

Ruski wrote:Best part is we'll have everyone back next year except Reynolds!

This team is starting to put together some impressive wins and set up something special for next year!

Apparently there was a 4 star recruit at yesterdays game too!

As it relates to the importance of a player to team :

Reynolds:Tulane = Michael Jordan:Bulls.

IMO, Saying we only will be losing Reynolds doesn't really bolster an argument for how good next year's team will be.

I understand and agree somewhat with that take. However it took Reynolds 5 years to get to this point. Many went on about him from the get go simply because he looked the part. He didn’t show any real consistency till last year. He can still be off and when he is he’s not even close. So he’s not Jordan. Daniels is way ahead of where he was as a freshman. He’ll be rolling next year. We still don’t know what we have this year but the fall off, if any, won’t be much.

Not talking about the progress just where we are today. Today, he is the most important offensive weapon we have. Does that mean that someone can't pick up his production? No. I was only commenting that while only losing one player, he's the most significant one.

My point is that Daniels is so much more advanced early that by next year he'll be picking up that production. Also while offense always sticks out to fans the argument can be made that Frazier is just as significant. He contributes so much in each area.

I understand that there is a potential to replace his production. Sure Daniels may do that. I agree that he looks good so far. To date Reynolds + Daniels = 22 pts per game. I'd expect that to increase if Dunleavy decides to play Daniels more {which I don't understand why he's not.) That's not insurmountable to replace, but it's also not an insignificant. Yes, Reynolds is hot and cold but we're currently in an SMU game thread where HE won this SMU game with his ability to create his own offense with his baseline post-up and his 3 point shooting. My comment was solely a response to someone saying we're only losing Reynolds next year to which in my opinion is that this is a big loss. I don't care about Reynolds struggle early in his career. Fact is he's our best offensive player and has averaged 17 pts per game the last 2 seasons.

First off he didn't win that game. That was a collective effort and Daniels was a big part of it on both ends. As for him being our best offensive player the fact is Frazier is our leading scorer. He can attack the goal in a way Cam never has or will be able to. That gets back to what I said about people being fooled by appearances.

I guess I was fooled by the appearance in the SMU game. He scored 9 of our first 11 points (including 3 one-on-one post ups) of the 2nd half to keep the game within striking distance and made back-to-back 3s to tie and give us our first lead at the 6 minute mark. We only make 3 FGs in the last 6 minutes and hold on at the FT line. No sh!t it's a team game and I've agreed Daniels and others had a good game. Yes many contributed to the run but he kept us in the game early in the 2nd. But if you are arguing that Reynolds wasn't the primary reason then you are just arguing for the hell of it.

Reynolds and Frazier have virtually the same ppg. They are different players and attacking the rim or being able to throw down thunderous dunks (and I so love those) is not the only definition of a good offensive player. I don't even know what we're arguing. I think they're both good offensive players. I'm glad we'll have Frazier back next year and still believe Reynolds will be missed.

galvezwave wrote:Tulsa is 10-5 and 3-0 in AAC. I know they're not great but it's not like we lost to prairie view.

Tulsa lost by 9 at Memphis today.

Houma de Wave wrote:

galvezwave wrote:Tulsa is 10-5 and 3-0 in AAC. I know they're not great but it's not like we lost to prairie view.

Tulsa lost by 9 at Memphis today.

So could we . So could SMU. It's a good league and if you don't play well in a place like Memphis you lose.

galvezwave wrote:

Houma de Wave wrote:

galvezwave wrote:Tulsa is 10-5 and 3-0 in AAC. I know they're not great but it's not like we lost to prairie view.

Tulsa lost by 9 at Memphis today.

So could we . So could SMU. It's a good league and if you don't play well in a place like Memphis you lose.

Agree. I was just giving the score in this thread and merely followed up on your earlier post.

Houma de Wave wrote:

galvezwave wrote:

Houma de Wave wrote:

galvezwave wrote:Tulsa is 10-5 and 3-0 in AAC. I know they're not great but it's not like we lost to prairie view.

Tulsa lost by 9 at Memphis today.

So could we . So could SMU. It's a good league and if you don't play well in a place like Memphis you lose.

Agree. I was just giving the score in this thread and merely followed up on your earlier post.

My bad Houma, didn't get what you were getting at.

RobertM320 wrote:

Robert1969 wrote:

galvezwave wrote:Tulsa is 10-5 and 3-0 in AAC. I know they're not great but it's not like we lost to prairie view.

11-4 and 2-1.

He was referring to Tulsa, Robert, not Tulane. Tulsa is 10-5 overall, 3-0 in AAC play.

Oh, I see. My dyslexia popped up again.

SMU blown out today by Cincinnati.
If this continues we may finish in the upper half of the league.
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basket ... conference
Probably a three bid league this year.

As it usually is. I said that when we got in . You and others insisted it would be much more than that. The reality is we can get to being competitive in this league quicker than most think.

winwave wrote:As it usually is. I said that when we got in . You and others insisted it would be much more than that. The reality is we can get to being competitive in this league quicker than most think.

IMO a 3 bid year would be a huge disappointment for the league especially with the addition of WSU. It has sent more than 3 in 2 of the 3 years.

2014: 4 (Uconn nat'l champ)
2015; 2 (lost Louisville)
2016: 4 (SMU not eligible but would have been selected)
2017 (add of Wichita St)

netshorty wrote:

winwave wrote:As it usually is. I said that when we got in . You and others insisted it would be much more than that. The reality is we can get to being competitive in this league quicker than most think.

IMO a 3 bid year would be a huge disappointment for the league especially with the addition of WSU. It has sent more than 3 in 2 of the 3 years.

2014: 4 (Uconn nat'l champ)
2015; 2 (lost Louisville)
2016: 4 (SMU not eligible but would have been selected)
2017 (add of Wichita St)

The league is down this year. Only ranked 7th in the RPI even with Wichita St.
Outside of Temple the AAC did not do well head to head in non-conference with the P5’s this year.
And now Temple has fell off the radar.
Wichita St and Cincy are in. Then the third spot up for grabs between UCF and UH likely.
But their RPI’s are in the 50’s and that may not get both of them in as a G5 at large.
Tulane at #88 now behind LSU at #82.

netshorty wrote:

winwave wrote:As it usually is. I said that when we got in . You and others insisted it would be much more than that. The reality is we can get to being competitive in this league quicker than most think.

IMO a 3 bid year would be a huge disappointment for the league especially with the addition of WSU. It has sent more than 3 in 2 of the 3 years.

2014: 4 (Uconn nat'l champ)
2015; 2 (lost Louisville)
2016: 4 (SMU not eligible but would have been selected)
2017 (add of Wichita St)

We weren't in the league in 2014 when UCONN won it all. The teams then were still operating with rosters recruited to the BE. The further they get away from that the tougher it gets for them.

winwave wrote:

netshorty wrote:

winwave wrote:As it usually is. I said that when we got in . You and others insisted it would be much more than that. The reality is we can get to being competitive in this league quicker than most think.

IMO a 3 bid year would be a huge disappointment for the league especially with the addition of WSU. It has sent more than 3 in 2 of the 3 years.

2014: 4 (Uconn nat'l champ)
2015; 2 (lost Louisville)
2016: 4 (SMU not eligible but would have been selected)
2017 (add of Wichita St)

We weren't in the league in 2014 when UCONN won it all. The teams then were still operating with rosters recruited to the BE. The further they get away from that the tougher it gets for them.

This a factor that applies in more ways then one. When you make the argument of P5 vs G5, if you were to give AAC schools P5 money and recognition, you would see the talent gap diminish in every sport as the rosters caught up. And if you took the money away from some of the P5s, they would regress to the mean very quickly, with some exceptions. Schools like Kansas, Missouri, Maryland, etc, would soon be in the bottom half of the G5s. Which is one of the things I think should legitimize some of UCFs natty claim. Its true they didn't play the SOS that the four playoff teams did. Its ALSO true they don't have rosters loaded with 4 and 5 star recruits either. So the P5 fans and PTB expect them to play a comparable schedule with an inferior roster, and then use that as a reason to keep them out of the CFP.