PCWave wrote:I know squat about basketball (I HATE this time of year in sports). My opinion is based solely on the fact the Frazier did not CARRY the team to much success this season. I would expect an NBA first rounder to do that.
I agree with PCWave. Frazier has not shown me that he could not carry the team, especially in crunch time. Raw talent is overrated, especially if it is not overwhelming to competition. Frazier will be no more than a bit player, at best. Probably a defensive specialist, unless he improves his outside shot.
All that being said, if some team is willing to pay Melvin 7 figures, he'd be crazy not to take it. I cannot think of a better advisor than Mike Dunleavy.
GB— I’m not trying to debate, nor want to invest the time. I’m just truly shocked that very many people DON’T feel that way
Ml- The number of innings is obviously subjective, but it is at least the same for both teams. Either way a clock doesn’t run out. You keep hitting, you keep scoring.
Last edited by WaveProf on Mon Mar 05, 2018 7:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“We will expect success in all endeavors and be prepared to assess and hold ourselves accountable when we aren't successful. Tulane is a top 40 academic institution and it should expect nothing less from its athletic department.”--Troy Dannen 11.5.16
The more innings you play then you give the better team more chances to win. Same as series with more games. The number of unexpected results is directly related to the size of the sample.
So in that sense 6 or 8 innings is more arbitrary and 10 is less. But obviously all game limits are arbitrary even five day cricket test matches.
GreenieBacker wrote:it's like the "winner" was just fortunate to be ahead when time ran out
you mean like in baseball where whoever happens to be ahead at the end of nine inniings is the winner, or in football at the end of the Fourth Quarter? Seriously some of these arguments are a little odd, to say the least.
PCWave, while I completely understand enjoying and liking one sport more than another to think College Basketball lacks strategy or drama is simply wrong. Like in many sports its about creating the mismatch, getting the other team to play your game and putting the game in the hands of your best player(s).
You seized upon a minor point from my post. My primary point was that the final point differential is almost always minuscule, when compared to the total points scored--it's a game where points are scored 2 at a time (basically), and teams routinely score 80+ points. That's pretty much different from all other major sports. I would find the game more interesting if there was less scoring.
I don’t know, Roller. Many of us remember the pre shot clock days of Dean Smith and the hopefully never to be repeated Four Corners “offense”. Unless you wore Carolina blue, you wanted to gouge your eyes out.
Fan since 1974 living in Phelps seeing the upper bowl of Tulane Stadium
TUPF wrote:I don’t know, Roller. Many of us remember the pre shot clock days of Dean Smith and the hopefully never to be repeated Four Corners “offense”. Unless you wore Carolina blue, you wanted to gouge your eyes out.
TUPF wrote:I don’t know, Roller. Many of us remember the pre shot clock days of Dean Smith and the hopefully never to be repeated Four Corners “offense”. Unless you wore Carolina blue, you wanted to gouge your eyes out.
Wait...that’s what we were running under Conroy.
With one exception. Dean Smith’s boys would usually score on an easy layup after lulling the opposing team to sleep by passing the ball around for 5 minutes. Conroy’s Four Corners variant was run the clock down to 3 seconds and then jack up a no-prayer three from the parking lot.
Fan since 1974 living in Phelps seeing the upper bowl of Tulane Stadium
TUPF wrote:I don’t know, Roller. Many of us remember the pre shot clock days of Dean Smith and the hopefully never to be repeated Four Corners “offense”. Unless you wore Carolina blue, you wanted to gouge your eyes out.
Wait...that’s what we were running under Conroy.
With one exception. Dean Smith’s boys would usually score on an easy layup after lulling the opposing team to sleep by passing the ball around for 5 minutes. Conroy’s Four Corners variant was run the clock down to 3 seconds and then jack up a no-prayer three from the parking lot.
That's why my thoughts included a set-back from the goal that would eliminate layups and dunks. I might even suggest that the goals be placed 8 feet beyond the end line, and players be required to land inbounds after shooting.
But I am FAR from a student of the game, and I know so little about the "finer points" that any ideas I may have will be wide open to criticism. But I still think I would prefer to see a game where accurate
shooters were the top dogs and quickness and crisp passing were important.
TUPF wrote:I don’t know, Roller. Many of us remember the pre shot clock days of Dean Smith and the hopefully never to be repeated Four Corners “offense”. Unless you wore Carolina blue, you wanted to gouge your eyes out.
Wait...that’s what we were running under Conroy.
With one exception. Dean Smith’s boys would usually score on an easy layup after lulling the opposing team to sleep by passing the ball around for 5 minutes. Conroy’s Four Corners variant was run the clock down to 3 seconds and then jack up a no-prayer three from the parking lot.
That's why my thoughts included a set-back from the goal that would eliminate layups and dunks. I might even suggest that the goals be placed 8 feet beyond the end line, and players be required to land inbounds after shooting.
But I am FAR from a student of the game, and I know so little about the "finer points" that any ideas I may have will be wide open to criticism. But I still think I would prefer to see a game where accurate
shooters were the top dogs and quickness and crisp passing were important.
Then watch the U. of Michigan. John Beilein is a throwback. They'll be in the tourney. I love to watch his teams' style of play. What's old is new again.
TUPF wrote:I don’t know, Roller. Many of us remember the pre shot clock days of Dean Smith and the hopefully never to be repeated Four Corners “offense”. Unless you wore Carolina blue, you wanted to gouge your eyes out.
Wait...that’s what we were running under Conroy.
With one exception. Dean Smith’s boys would usually score on an easy layup after lulling the opposing team to sleep by passing the ball around for 5 minutes. Conroy’s Four Corners variant was run the clock down to 3 seconds and then jack up a no-prayer three from the parking lot.
That's why my thoughts included a set-back from the goal that would eliminate layups and dunks. I might even suggest that the goals be placed 8 feet beyond the end line, and players be required to land inbounds after shooting.
But I am FAR from a student of the game, and I know so little about the "finer points" that any ideas I may have will be wide open to criticism. But I still think I would prefer to see a game where accurate
shooters were the top dogs and quickness and crisp passing were important.
Then watch the U. of Michigan. John Beilein is a throwback. They'll be in the tourney. I love to watch his teams' style of play. What's old is new again.
Wisconsin cough cough badgers cough cough
Using big words is not a personal attack
#cousins don't count
The poster citing Michigan was bringing up an example of a team fans could watch in THIS year's tournament. Wisconsin was an irrelevant program THIS year. You follow?
And may our enemies, if they exist, be unconscious of our purpose. - From The Lady Vanishes
The poster citing Michigan was bringing up an example of a team fans could watch in THIS year's tournament. Wisconsin was an irrelevant program THIS year. You follow?
Wisconsin is old school more than Michigan ia my point
Using big words is not a personal attack
#cousins don't count
Baywave1 wrote:The more innings you play then you give the better team more chances to win. Same as series with more games. The number of unexpected results is directly related to the size of the sample.
So in that sense 6 or 8 innings is more arbitrary and 10 is less. But obviously all game limits are arbitrary even five day cricket test matches.
So you'd agree that the results of a basketball game with ~90-100 possessions per team is less arbitrary than a baseball game with ~35-40 plate appearances?
Baywave1 wrote:The more innings you play then you give the better team more chances to win. Same as series with more games. The number of unexpected results is directly related to the size of the sample.
So in that sense 6 or 8 innings is more arbitrary and 10 is less. But obviously all game limits are arbitrary even five day cricket test matches.
So you'd agree that the results of a basketball game with ~90-100 possessions per team is less arbitrary than a baseball game with ~35-40 plate appearances?
No. I'd agree a basketball game of 40 minutes is generally less arbitrary than one of 20 minutes. I'll defer to my betters as to whether an average NBA game is less arbitrary than an average MLB game or apples taste better than oranges.
The experience will good for him whether he sticks in the draft or comes back. I started this thread by saying I wouldn't take him in the first round and I stick by it. However, nobody pays me to evaluate talent.
For Tulane's sake we really need him to come back.
