Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

quickdraw

UNLV Roster - Roster for 2019-2020 and Beyond.

Recommended Posts

On 5/9/2019 at 6:19 PM, Aslowhiteguy said:

There are no "fluke" sweet 16 runs.

The Ducks peaked at the right time. 

My special lady is out f-ckin’ there!  I’m gonna find f-ckin’ her!  And I’m gonna live happily ever f-ckin’ ever!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, HawaiiMongoose said:

Assuming it still matters to him, it appears he’ll have to beat out Cal too.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Eurohopes/status/1127170172509405184

 

 

Not sure if they want him or the pg they have visiting. 

Totz has missed on at least two guards, so my guess is he would really like to sign one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2019 at 1:15 PM, qwelish said:

Totz is not what we were promised, hes no more proven than MM and his resume is no better. That does not mean he wont be good or better or whatever.

This is something we both agree on, and I would venture a guess that it is something most other UNLV fans on here agree with. DRF made some pretty big promises in her presser and so far she has, IMO, fallen flat. I've heard that Matta talked a big game behind the scenes about wanting to come to UNLV but pulled the rug out when it came to putting pen to paper. Very reminiscent of when Cronin told TKM he needed to go back to Cincy to talk to his family and then signed an extension with UC almost as soon as he had wheels on the ground. I think DRF was played. I think she has done a decent job at UNLV so far, but she was out maneuvered by Matta.

On 5/9/2019 at 1:15 PM, qwelish said:

Dudes retort was not to talk about Totz resume, but to trash MM. Which was irrelevant because the mwc strength has nothing to do with their respective resumes prior to UNLV.

See? This is what they do. He twisted the original point so much you couldnt even tell what we were debating. They change the point, move the goal post around, make vague arguments and if all else fails they will just misrepresent your point and then attack the strawman. When you call them out they get angry and attack you.

I don't think anyone could make the argument that the strength of the MWC has any bearing on how Menzies' and Otz's resume's look before they took over at UNLV, but you have also make other statements comparing Rice and Menzies. For example, there is this:

On 5/8/2019 at 10:53 PM, qwelish said:

The mwc is only slightly worse than it was under Rice and he never sniffed 11 mwc wins. 

As a side note, I would point out it is arguably inaccurate that Rice "never sniffed 11 mwc wins" because in the 2012-13 season Rice had 10 wins in conference. This is likely to come down to semantics, so I have no real interest in arguing about it, just pointing it out.

 

Before I just into you other post, I would point out that you implicitly admit that the MWC is declining.  In support of your point that Menzies was improving the program, you admit that the bottom of the conference was getting worse:

On 5/9/2019 at 12:10 PM, qwelish said:

Beating those bad teams only establishes that he actually improved the program, because he lost to those teams in previous years. Also, those teams got worse and UNLV continually got better. 

 

Now, on to your main post.  I agree that UNLV improved over the course of this last season.  I thought Menzies was losing control of the ship mid way through the season, but he actually held things together and finished respectably in conference. I think he should get some credit for that, but I also think it was a product of the MWC being the worst it has ever been.  When I think about the overall trajectory of the MWC, I think about much more than the last 6 seasons. I think back when UNLV had Kruger was at the helm and the MWC had multiple ranked teams.

Has there been a continued downward trajectory in the last six years? I think so, even if the RPI numbers don't bear it out.  Many of the schools at the top of the conference went from very good or respectable coaches to bad coaches. UNM went from Alford to Noodles (big step down) then to Weir (jury still out on whether he is better than Noodles, but he certainly hasn't made a case that he is better than Alford); Wyoming went from Shyatt to Edwards (big step down); SDSU went from Fisher to Dutcher (big step down); SJSU replaced Woj (who actually had something going). In fact, the only program I can think of who improved their coaching is UNR. Muss was a big step up from Carter and Alford will be a top coach in the MWC.

Also, the quality of play has gone down quite a bit, IMO. The "eye ball" test is inherently unscientific, but that is just my impression of the conference overall. 

As a final point, even using your conference RPI figures, the MWC was 15th this last season.  That is the worst it has ever been.

On 5/9/2019 at 2:00 PM, qwelish said:

RICE last 3 years

Rank 10th - 10 wins

Rank 13th - 8 wins

Rank 11th - 8 wins

MM  last 3 years

Rank 10th - 4 wins

Rank 9th - 8 wins

Rank 15th - 11 wins

This comment:

On 5/9/2019 at 2:00 PM, qwelish said:

MM faced a better MWC than Rice ever saw and did better.

is just untrue.  The first two years rice was at the helm the MWC was much better than it ever was when Menzies was here. IIRC, the MWC was top 5, or maybe even top 3, during one or more of Rice's first years. Maybe this isn't a point you were trying to actually make, but it is still a statement you made.  

On 5/9/2019 at 2:00 PM, qwelish said:

Also, I was talking about the conference, not Rice the coach. But I know DRs name triggers people.

As a final point, this is what I was talking about earlier with your posts coming off as abrasive.  The implicit message here is that I cannot think about this rationally and logically because it involves Dave Rice and I must be "triggered" but you, who has acknowledged and overcome this bias, has the high ground because you are thinking rationally.  That is untrue and it is condescending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, HoosierRebel said:

is just untrue.  The first two years rice was at the helm the MWC was much better than it ever was when Menzies was here

I clearly labeled it LAST 3 YEARS. but yet you somehow still took it out of context and argued a strawman.

What sense does it make to argue all the way back to Kruger or compare 5 years of Rice to 3 years of MM? Zero sense. Not sure why youd do it.

Obviously I cannot argue your opinion. Thats really all you offered. If you weight your opinion and eye test over objective facts, then the only basis is what you see and what you think. Sorry bit thats meaningless to me. Id think you would offer at least one corroborating fact or statistic. But hey, who needs those? :shrug:

Its still literally all irrelevant. No matter if the conference was ranked 5th or 15th, the conference champ went to the dance and theres always an auto bid. 

Some are arguing that Menzies did a bad job by improving each year I guess? Whats the argument? Yes he improved and got 11 wins, BUT. 

59 minutes ago, HoosierRebel said:

this is what I was talking about earlier with your posts coming off as abrasive.  The implicit message here is that I cannot think about this rationally and logically because it involves Dave Rice and I must be "triggered" but you, who has acknowledged and overcome this bias, has the high ground because you are thinking rationally.  That is untrue and it is condescending.

You dont think this is a bit of a reach? It seems people here conflate disagreement with disliking. Some here use snark and sarcasm as a means to disagree. Thats not construed as an attack, but this is? Youre proving my point exactly.

My statement about triggering people was directly reflecting the fact people see Rice and make off topic arguments for whatever reason. Thats exactly what you did. I called that out in the most harmless and indirect way possible, but you still fished out a way to take it as an excuse to claim I attacked you.

Looking back at my posts you havent liked anything ive posted, so whats the penalty for me anyhow? Lose likes i wasnt getting anyways? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, qwelish said:

I clearly labeled it LAST 3 YEARS. but yet you somehow still took it out of context and argued a strawman.

I made that argument because you said Menzies faced a more difficult MWC than Rice EVER faced. That is why I quoted you directly. It is even why I noted that this may not be the point you are trying to make, but it was still something you said. In the end, it is not a straw man argument when you mistate your position and then someone adresses the position you misstated.

1 hour ago, qwelish said:

What sense does it make to argue all the way back to Kruger or compare 5 years of Rice to 3 years of MM? Zero sense. Not sure why youd do it.

Obviously I cannot argue your opinion. Thats really all you offered. If you weight your opinion and eye test over objective facts, then the only basis is what you see and what you think. Sorry bit thats meaningless to me. Id think you would offer at least one corroborating fact or statistic. But hey, who needs those? :shrug:

Its still literally all irrelevant. No matter if the conference was ranked 5th or 15th, the conference champ went to the dance and theres always an auto bid. 

Some are arguing that Menzies did a bad job by improving each year I guess? Whats the argument? Yes he improved and got 11 wins, BUT. 

Comparing 5 years of Rice is relevant because it shows the drop off in the MWC. Calling this fact irrelevant in the context of evaluating Menzies’ performance is just silly. Winning the Big 12 or ACC is many multiples more impressive than winning the Colonial, the Patriot or the Big Sky. To that end, the impressiveness of winning the MWC, or winning games in the MWC, is relative to how the conference does overall.

If you would like some statistics demonstrating the recent decline of the MWC, here are some:

NBA draft picks from the MWC in 2013-16: 10

NBA draft pics from the MWC in 2017-present: 1

Number of MWC teams with overall winning records:

2015-16: 8  2016-17: 7   2017-18: 7   2018-19: 5

Plus, I wold circle back to the point I made about the quality of coaching. Losing Fisher for Dutcher, Alford for Noodles, Shyatt for Edwards, Morrill for Duryea were all steps down. Plus Shyatt went from respectable to a train wreck and SJS fired Woj. As I said before, UNR is the only school that upgraded coaches in recent history.

My argument, and I can only speak for myself, isn’t that Menzies did a bad job, but he was very mediocre. Tying into my points above, winning 11 games in the 2018-19 MWC just was not all that impressive. Even by your RPI figures, that was the worst the MWC has ever been. Even if you discount the win total by a win or two, it is still an improvement over the previous year, so technically it is still improvement, it just isn’t that impressive.

Also, Menzies getting canned also has to do with the names linked to the job. I never really expected Pitino to be a legit option, but the people I talk to who are closer to the program thought Matta was going to happen. If that is the coaching change, it is a no brainer. You fire Menzies and hire Matta every single time. When Matta turned into Otzleberger, that changed the calculus. If DRF would have said we are firing Menzies to bring in Otz, I would have scratched my head and wondered why. I would have rather kept Menzies for another year than hire Otz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, qwelish said:
  Reveal hidden contents

 

Based on what? 

Just the rumors I have heard about how things went down.  Like I said, from what I heard Matta made UNLV think he was much more interested than he turned out to be. Just like Cronin leveraged UNLV into a raise, Matta leveraged UNLV to ensure he collected another year of his buyout from OSU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I agree with everything except the argument that conference being down is relevant. Specifically because MM improved the mw record each year. From MM 1st year to his second the mwc improved, so the decline theory is literally false. UNLV still doubled its win total and improved its win total again the year after.

So the argument that MM did not improve in conference is always numerically inaccurate.  People saying yeah but are making hypothetical arguments that MM only beat those teams because they were bad. Although they may be correct, the fact remains the games were won, not lost. I give credit, others dont want to. Agree to disagree.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...