UPDATE: Louisville Escorts ---> 2016 Postseason Ban...

[NJRedman]

Every year stever is proven wrong, every year he comes back with the same trash talk. When I was a kid my mom told me it's better to be quiet and be thought a fool than open your mouth and prove them right. But hey, Temple and Tulsa made the NCAA tournament last year, so there's some validation...wait...Ok, here's one, the BE will not continue recruiting at the same level, that happened...wait...SMU is totally doing things the right way and will become a future basketball power...wait...

stever, get a hobby. It is simply not healthy to spend so much of your time and your mother's wifi posting on every message board. Get a job, get some friends, maybe hit up a bar some time (most places have ladies night either Wednesday or Thursday, if that's your thing). At the very least, try a day without the tin foil had.

You really do not believe in free speech do you Marquette? We have had this argument before I believe. You have the right of free speech AND SO DOES EVERYONE ELSE WHO POSTS HERE. You don't have to like Stever or his posts but don't tell other people what to do or attempt in your feeble and jejune way to demean them. I understand you don't like Stever's posts and very likely you don't like mine as well (certainly not this one) but try to be civilized please. This is supposed to be a group of fans who are college graduates, many with graduate degrees who express our opinions with some civility. Don't read posts by someone you don't like. Would not that be easier and more intelligent?

Here are a couple of things intelligent people can understand. First, civil rights apply only against the government. We've had this discussion before. For a person who supposedly has a degree you seem to have some trouble retaining information. Second, it might be wise to refrain from telling someone how to act in a post criticizing them for telling someone how to act. Third, hyperbole and sarcasm, they exist. Learn to recognize them. Fourth, putting words in an order that hasn't been commonly used for the better part of a century doesn't make you look smart, just pretentious. Finally, civility goes all ways. You don't walk into a strangers house and immediately start critiquing their fashion sense, unless you want to get kicked out (best case) or knocked out (worst case). That's what stever does here. He has no interest in the BE other than to drive by and take shots at it. Any criticism is well deserved, and in the case of my first paragraph 100% accurate.

Note, I haven't told you to do anything. I'm just pointing out some interesting facts about your post.

RobinReed is Stever. He already admitted to posting here under a different name and no one gave him a hard time. This is his other screen name, why do you think he just popped up defending Stever and being just as plain wrong as Stever is.

We found you Stever and i'd like to ask our admin to ban him for using multiple screen names.

[GumbyDamnit!]

The 2013 class which is the first class of the new conference- was largely signed in November 2012, a month before the split. You can't take that really into account. That class had 11 players....

This might be accurate if recruiting had indeed fallen off. But a year later the BE had a 13 player class. Good try.

Also the number you had was 36 players. Take out 11 players and the true number so far is 25 in 3 years. Or 0.83 per school. if got 2 more- up to 0.9 per year.

You can't just take out the 10-15 blue blood players that are one and done.

This is just flat out inaccurate. OK, let's take out the recruiting class of kids who are now seniors (the DSR, Dunham, Arch, Ochefu class). There are 29 recruits who are left in classes '13, '14 and '15, who committed knowing full well what the nBE was. 29/3 = 9.7, or .97 per team (not .83 as you are trying to peddle).

Also do you not understand that one-and-done means that a player leaves the program? So while UK brings in 7 new Top 100 players every year, Nova already has 7 on the roster. So just looking at Top 100 payers per year to determine recruiting success is flawed, because those players are no longer on the roster. Why can't you understand that? Duke helped the ACC have a slight edge over the BE last year but Winslow, Jones and Okafor are all gone and Whitehead, Delgado, Copeland, Blueitt, Booth, Peak, White, etc. are all still in the BE. Last year UK brought in Booker to shoot up 3's, Nova already had Hilliard and Butler had Dunham on their rosters to shoot 3's. So which players were better for their teams last year? It's debatable but proves the point I am trying to make. UK does it with Freshmen and most BE teams do it with 4 year players. That is why the recruiting strategy of one-and-dones skew the argument you are trying to make. So, yet again, your argument is not sound at all.

Based on the numbers the last 3 years- since realignment- the Big East is looking like 5th- behind the ACC, SEC, Big Ten, and Pac 12. Those 4 all get 1 or more per school per year on average. Big East is slightly behind that.

Also, the number that is concerning- the number of P5 top 100 recruits...
2014 65
2015 83
2016 45 as of 3 weeks ago

You don't want 2015 to become the new normal. Remember- we only got 5 guys last year in the top 100. At least so far this year- we were up to 7 as of 3 weeks ago- so that's an improvement.

Totally inaccurate and misleading. Let's just look at the BE vs. the B1G & the ACC, who most believe are the top 2 conf in college BB. In the last 3 years the B1G has brought in 44 players for 14 teams, which equals 1.05 per school. The ACC brought in 56, or 1.24 per school. But of those 56, 11 of them or 20% came from one school: Duke. Take out Duke and the 14 remaining teams equal 1.05, just like the B1G. We should not be comparing ourselves to Duke or UK but the rest of the P5 if you want to know if we are keeping up with those schools in recruiting. And the resounding answer is YES.

Additionally looking closer at 2016, so far there have been 74/100 commit. 8 of those have gone to BE schools, which equals 1.1 per school. 53 have gone to the P5 which equals 1.1 avg per school. What am I missing? Is your calculator not working properly?

So even factoring in 2015, in which we all agree was a "down" year for the BE in recruiting (even though we brought in 2 of the top 15 players), and adding in 2016 so far, the BE is averaging .99 player per team per year (37 recruits out of 374 possible). So is .99 and 1.05 really a huge difference? That equals 2 recruits (total) over 4 years. And like I said when you take into account one and dones, you can clearly see that there is zero significant statistical difference between the BE and the P5.

You're again proven wrong. NEXT!

[robinreed]

RobinReed is Stever. He already admitted to posting here under a different name and no one gave him a hard time. This is his other screen name, why do you think he just popped up defending Stever and being just as plain wrong as Stever is.

We found you Stever and i'd like to ask our admin to ban him for using multiple screen names.

Unfortunately you have erred once again. I am not stever however I do believe many of his posts are interesting and informative. I am a retired financial advisor who lives in the greater Cincinnati area who has a BA from XU and MA from U of Cincinnati. I do not know who stever is or where he lives but I rarely if ever see him using the kind of language and offensive innuendo which Marquette uses often in place of civility and logic. I have nothing against either you or Marquette other than his angry tone and insulting dialogue. Perhaps I am somewhat at a disadvantage concerning such language as both of you seem to find acceptable. You see I attended religious schools from the 1st to 12th grades and then for 4 additional years at Xavier. Before attending XU I spent a year in a catholic seminary before finding my calling was not what I had earlier believed.

I married and a few years later my wife died of heart failure. She had a quadruple bypass operation and never fully recovered. She underwent immense and almost unending pain. If ever there was a person who was in a situation where language and temperament of the type Marquette demonstrates would have been justified in anger, censorious behavior and insulting verbosity she was that person. Yet she never, never lowered herself to any of those weaknesses. Perhaps I expect too much of the average person. However if a poor, weak, afflicted and suffering person has the strength of character to reject the behavior that Marquette displays should we not all have this strength? Should we not at least all strive for this strength?

[marquette]

Unfortunately you have erred once again. I am not stever however I do believe many of his posts are interesting and informative. I am a retired financial advisor who lives in the greater Cincinnati area who has a BA from XU and MA from U of Cincinnati. I do not know who stever is or where he lives but I rarely if ever see him using the kind of language and offensive innuendo which Marquette uses often in place of civility and logic. I have nothing against either you or Marquette other than his angry tone and insulting dialogue. Perhaps I am somewhat at a disadvantage concerning such language as both of you seem to find acceptable. You see I attended religious schools from the 1st to 12th grades and then for 4 additional years at Xavier. Before attending XU I spent a year in a catholic seminary before finding my calling was not what I had earlier believed.

Language? Really? If the old internet taunt of "get out of your mother's basement" is too strong of language for your delicate sensibilities I would recommend (NOTE: not force, lest you accuse me of telling you what to do again) you avoid 99.9% of all internet traffic. Offensive innuendo? Where did I insult his manhood, mother, or imply that he spends his free time in less than reputable dens of iniquity performing godless acts? You won't find innuendo in my posts because if I want to say something I will come right out with it. You're also not going to out-Christian me. I've been hearing that garbage since I was about 5. I still hear it every day while working in the court. "Your honor, I'm a good Christian." "OK, then why are you on video here robbing a liquor store?" If you want to make this into a morality contest I've got plenty of ammo myself, but it is completely irrelevant. If your point is that my foul mouth (lol) is harming your sensibilities then you might possibly want to refrain from contact with the general public, as the low-level insults I've aimed at stever would be considered tame in most middle schools today. If, however, your point was to show how insular your life has been up to this point and ask that I respect that insularity and help you achieve it throughout your daily life experience, then the ignore button is easy enough to find. I know I will be using it shortly.

I married and a few years later my wife died of heart failure. She had a quadruple bypass operation and never fully recovered. She underwent immense and almost unending pain. If ever there was a person who was in a situation where language and temperament of the type Marquette demonstrates would have been justified in anger, censorious behavior and insulting verbosity she was that person. Yet she never, never lowered herself to any of those weaknesses. Perhaps I expect too much of the average person. However if a poor, weak, afflicted and suffering person has the strength of character to reject the behavior that Marquette displays should we not all have this strength? Should we not at least all strive for this strength?

Sorry to hear about your wife, but unless stever was personally stopping by her hospital room to insult her 20 times a day I'm not really sure I see the parallel.

[Bill Marsh]

Sorry to hear about your wife, but unless stever was personally stopping by her hospital room to insult her 20 times a day I'm not really sure I see the parallel.

Wasn't he?

[Bill Marsh]

The 2013 class which is the first class of the new conference- was largely signed in November 2012, a month before the split. You can't take that really into account. That class had 11 players....

This might be accurate if recruiting had indeed fallen off. But a year later the BE had a 13 player class. Good try.

Also the number you had was 36 players. Take out 11 players and the true number so far is 25 in 3 years. Or 0.83 per school. if got 2 more- up to 0.9 per year.

You can't just take out the 10-15 blue blood players that are one and done.

This is just flat out inaccurate. OK, let's take out the recruiting class of kids who are now seniors (the DSR, Dunham, Arch, Ochefu class). There are 29 recruits who are left in classes '13, '14 and '15, who committed knowing full well what the nBE was. 29/3 = 9.7, or .97 per team (not .83 as you are trying to peddle).

Also do you not understand that one-and-done means that a player leaves the program? So while UK brings in 7 new Top 100 players every year, Nova already has 7 on the roster. So just looking at Top 100 payers per year to determine recruiting success is flawed, because those players are no longer on the roster. Why can't you understand that? Duke helped the ACC have a slight edge over the BE last year but Winslow, Jones and Okafor are all gone and Whitehead, Delgado, Copeland, Blueitt, Booth, Peak, White, etc. are all still in the BE. Last year UK brought in Booker to shoot up 3's, Nova already had Hilliard and Butler had Dunham on their rosters to shoot 3's. So which players were better for their teams last year? It's debatable but proves the point I am trying to make. UK does it with Freshmen and most BE teams do it with 4 year players. That is why the recruiting strategy of one-and-dones skew the argument you are trying to make. So, yet again, your argument is not sound at all.

Based on the numbers the last 3 years- since realignment- the Big East is looking like 5th- behind the ACC, SEC, Big Ten, and Pac 12. Those 4 all get 1 or more per school per year on average. Big East is slightly behind that.

Also, the number that is concerning- the number of P5 top 100 recruits...
2014 65
2015 83
2016 45 as of 3 weeks ago

You don't want 2015 to become the new normal. Remember- we only got 5 guys last year in the top 100. At least so far this year- we were up to 7 as of 3 weeks ago- so that's an improvement.

Totally inaccurate and misleading. Let's just look at the BE vs. the B1G & the ACC, who most believe are the top 2 conf in college BB. In the last 3 years the B1G has brought in 44 players for 14 teams, which equals 1.05 per school. The ACC brought in 56, or 1.24 per school. But of those 56, 11 of them or 20% came from one school: Duke. Take out Duke and the 14 remaining teams equal 1.05, just like the B1G. We should not be comparing ourselves to Duke or UK but the rest of the P5 if you want to know if we are keeping up with those schools in recruiting. And the resounding answer is YES.

Additionally looking closer at 2016, so far there have been 74/100 commit. 8 of those have gone to BE schools, which equals 1.1 per school. 53 have gone to the P5 which equals 1.1 avg per school. What am I missing? Is your calculator not working properly?

So even factoring in 2015, in which we all agree was a "down" year for the BE in recruiting (even though we brought in 2 of the top 15 players), and adding in 2016 so far, the BE is averaging .99 player per team per year (37 recruits out of 374 possible). So is .99 and 1.05 really a huge difference? That equals 2 recruits (total) over 4 years. And like I said when you take into account one and dones, you can clearly see that there is zero significant statistical difference between the BE and the P5.

You're again proven wrong. NEXT!

Very impressive analysis.

[marquette]

Good to have you back, Bill.

[GumbyDamnit!]

Good to have you back, Bill.

+1

Bill M = quality poster

[Xudash]

Good to have you back, Bill.

+1

Bill M = quality poster

+2

Agreed. Refreshing offset to some of what passes for input here.

[mpwalsh8]

Saw this on Twitter earlier today, pretty funny.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcWFuzptMSs[/youtube]