You responded directly to my posting with a question and I responded, that's kind of how it works on a message board. Also, I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word context......either way I can already tell you'd be very annoying to get into an argument with so I'll pass.
We did not contend last year. We started 2-2 in the conference and never got in the race. We also lost to East Carolina and Tulane. We are already 2 games off the pace this year, and only 5 games in. So no, I don't consider that a contender.
We did not contend last year. We started 2-2 in the conference and never got in the race. We also lost to East Carolina and Tulane. We are already 2 games off the pace this year, and only 5 games in. So no, I don't consider that a contender.
i mean, by the same token, we didn't compete in 2 of the last 3 years in conference usa. i consider a team that's generally in the top few teams in a conference to be a perennial contender. i think that's what we've got and will continue to have here.
it's definitely not the early days of conference usa where we demolish everyone. i don't think those days are coming back, regardless of who is at the helm. i think the bad schools aren't as bad as they used to be.
Considering into Feb we had 3 conference losses and the league winner, SMU, had 2, both to us, I would consider that contending.
You're basically saying only the team that wins the league is "contending" for the title. Not sure that's how it works.
I'll consider us contenders anytime we are 14-4 or better in this mid-major conference
We were never in the hunt to win the league last year.
Well you go ahead and set up whatever rules for yourself you want.
That doesn't mean it's reality.
Well you go ahead and set up whatever rules for yourself you want.
That doesn't mean it's reality.
If you don't think after a month of league play being 1 game behind the eventual leaders with 2 wins vs them is in the hunt, then I don't really know what you're looking for.
They had that really bad 3 game stretch, 2 of which were conference losses, that really derailed them.
You do realize that your opinions don't necessarily reflect reality either right?
We were 3 games behind Tulsa at that point too.
yikes.
so if this year's team makes an elite 8 run, how long of a pass does that buy our program?
we seem to be putting a ton of stock into one-off runs in determining the status of the program and the hands it's in.
5 year totals:
vcu: 5 straight ncaa appearances; 3 round of 32; 1 each 16, 8 and 4; hasn't been past the round of 32 since 2011; generally competed for conference titles
butler: 3 of 5 ncaa appearances; 3 round of 32; 1 each sweet 16, 8, 4 and 2; also a runner-up run in 2010; hasn't been past the round of 32 since 2011; tough conference makes title contention tougher but haven't really contended (big east only)
xavier: 4 of 5, 2 round of 32, 2 sweet 16 (both times getting a fluke shitty seeded team in the round of 32 to advance); tough conference and haven't competed for a title (big east only)
san diego state: 5 straight, 4 of 5 round of 32, 2 sweet 16s; generally competed for conference titles
gonzaga: 5 straight; 5 round of 32; 1 sweet 16; generally competed for conference titles (actually dominated utter garbage)
and cincinnati: 5 straight; 3 round of 32; 1 sweet 16; generally competed for conference titles (american only)
----------
i think there's a tendency to get down on ourselves because of some recent disappointments, but if that's the company you guys are trying to keep, i think we're a lot closer than some folks may realize.
and, like i said, i think there's a tendency to put way too much stock into a one-year run. they're generally fluky and heavily influenced by luck.
vcu's run could easily have ended in the sweet 16 with one different bounce in a 1 point overtime win.
butler barely got out of the round of 32 in 2010 and almost lost in both the round of 64 and round of 32 in 2011.
if you want to measure a program's success by the presence or absence of occasional runs like that, that's fine with me i suppose. i'd think you'd need to be prepared to be satisfied for the long haul after a single uc run, though.
Also a team we didn't lose to and finished 1 game behind. Everybody knew Tulsa would drop games at the end of their schedule last year, it was just a matter of how many.
That doesn't mean we were in contention. By the time Tulsa fell apart, we had already lost to ECU and Tulane.
After 10 years, it amazes me that you can find anyone still trying to argue for this coach. On the streets, you can't hardly find a single one. But, on the forums, some stragglers keep wandering in every so often. I have one very good friend, who is a very significant booster, who worships the ground Mick walks on. But, that man takes a lot of crap from people at the games. He's on an island by himself most of the time, and he has a great sense of humor about the harassment. I refer to him as the "Lone Ranger".
Hard to judge guy on a 10 year basis when starting with football players on the team. I'd say with the recruits coming in and the players we have give him at least 2 more years and see what we can make of it. Each year kept getting better as far as wins and accomplishments until the sweet 16 year, however that has been 4 years now.