TCUownstheBig12
Active Member
100% agree. We are in barring an EPIC collapse.
Paging TCUOwnsthebig12
- Thread starter SuperTFrog
- Start date
100% agree. We are in barring an EPIC collapse.
FrogsMcGee
Active Member
Are you capable of enjoying the ride, or just dedicated to this wet blanket bit?
CountryFrog
Active Member
I think the primary reason that it's embarrassing for you is because you are not only sticking by your shaky opinion, despite the fact that it's looking wrong more and more every minute, but the fact that you're vehemently attacking anyone who would dare question that very shaky opinion. It's actually just funny to me watching you search for any argument that can possibly make your argument look slightly less wrong. so I'm not hating on you. Keep it rolling.
I think our RPI is around 19 right now, though. That's nowhere near the NIT, no matter how you want to form your argument.
TCUownstheBig12
Active Member
Most of the misguided accusations of the KF mob don't bother me but this one does.
I'm slighting our basketball program because, half way through the season, I said we were closer to being an NIT team than a 4-5 seed? How is that slighting our program? How would a dishonest assessment of what I saw be better? Don't we promote honest thought and open dialogue on this board.
I've followed TCU basketball since the Iba days and became a mega-fan when Tubbs took over. If you haven't noticed, the 97-98 TCU basketball team is my favorite sports squad of all-time...I followed that team to tons of away games including Puerto Rico for one the most stacked in-season tournaments in recent NCAA history. I would go as far to say that I would trade the Rose Bowl win in football to have seen that team go to the Final Four.
With the exception of Dougherty (I never liked that guy after talking to him on a few occasions when I was a student), I've supported TCU basketball and every coach with my attendance and money. I want this team to win a national title...but that doesn't mean I have to THINK that they are every year.
You can say that my opinion on how good the team was at that point in time but don't question my devotion to this school and their teams. I'm not going to sit down and take that garbage.
Last edited:
I truly hope you’re correct. I just like certainty!
Haha me neither. I actually am preserving the Hell’s Bells
Froggy Style
Active Member
You: I have always thought were 8ish-11 is the lowest at large.(despite evidence to the contrary)
Me: 11 is not the lowest
You: You are wrong, 11 is the lowest
Me: Link to facts
You: Well, despite my absolute statement and calling you wrong, I am right because 11 is the "lowest" 9 of 14 times. (clearly not understanding definition of lowest)
Me: Facts matter
You: more blather distracting from inaccurate statements
TCUownstheBig12
Active Member
I said on a recent thread that I'll admit that I was wrong when that big number 5-6-7 flashes next to "TCU" on Selection Sunday. And, this is what you people aren't understanding...I want to be wrong. But I will argue the validity of my prediction until it's not valid. And, to your point, it's looking like I will be wrong.
BUT...on that note, where's the guy that said Hamdy was guaranteed to have a 20-10 game? Once again, I hope that guy is right...he won't be...but I hope he is because I root for Hamdy more than anyone.
Where's the guy that claimed how deep our squad was? All 8 of them.
Are their people out there that actually think this team could beat the 97-98 team anymore? I'm already regretting typing this because points that can't actually be proven, no matter what common sense and the eye test dictate, never end well.
TCUownstheBig12
Active Member
You're "facts" are a Lunardi bracketology post?
You are arguing that, despite an 11 seed being the lowest at-large 9 out of 14 times in the First Four era, that I should use a different number for my argument? I should use a "12" because Joe Lunardi says so. Wow.
FrogsMcGee
Active Member
Haven't followed closely, but did anyone actually guaranty the 20-10 Hamdy thing, or just state an opinion that he was capable of 20-10 if he got enough minutes?
TCUownstheBig12
Active Member
If the word "guarantee" wasn't actually typed, I'll still stand my stance even with it being "he's capable of a 20-10 game". If you play your entire college career and don't do it one single time, I would think that would support, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he's not "capable". 100+ tries (or however many it is) with a 0% success rate is a pretty good sample size.
I wouldn't want the argument to get caught up in semantics.
Froggy Style
Active Member
Lowest: Located at the bottom
If a number is low 64.28% of the time, and 35.72% of the time there are lower numbers, it is should never be cited as the lowest. When someone points out that 11 is not the lowest, you should not say they are wrong and repeat that 11 is the lowest.
I could care less what you use for your argument, but when you're called out as wrong, you shouldn't continue down the same path like a bull in a china shop like you did with your stupid NIT opinion.
Oh and you may want to look into the possessive of the word you.
P
purplePPO
Guest
TCUownstheBig12=ifrog? Just asking!
Purp
Active Member
I've never seen anyone guarantee Hamdy goes 20 and 10. I'm probably the closest to that a month or so ago when I was making the case for the quality of our depth.
We could go 9 deep at the time and, aside from Olden and probably Bane (not enough assists or boards) it wasn't unrealistic that 7 guys could get to 20 and 10 any given night. Hamdy was in that list for me, though he'd only get enough minutes for those numbers if Vlad was in foul trouble.
Curious why you ask. That's resurrecting a debate from the way back machine.
Peacefrog
Degenerate
How about your prediction that we would be lucky to make NIT? Or are you pretending that didn't happen?
You are bad at sports. You should find another hobby.
Peacefrog
Degenerate
The ghost keeps bringing it up to distract from his dumbassery.
TCUownstheBig12
Active Member
Sorry for the typo on "you're"/"your". When people go there on boards, that typically means they are losing the argument.
Arguing "lowest" vs. "highest" terminology is silly...you could make the case that a 1 seed is lower/higher than an 8 seed. Is #1 a lower ranking than #8? Is it a higher ranking?
My point is that the "most correct" (even though correctness is really an absolute) answer to "In the NCAA tournament, what seed is typically the lowest ranked at-large team?" is 11. I'm sorry for not phrasing that with enough clarity.
So, when I was making my case that we are closer to being an NIT team...I was using 11 as the last at-large team.
Better?
Purp
Active Member
He's saying someone guaranteed Hamdy would score 20 and 10? I'm starting to think he may speak English as a secondary language.
TCUownstheBig12
Active Member
Not going to keep acknowledging your first point. I think the actual thread proves that out.
I am bad at sports? Hahaha...you don't read KillerFrogs very much do you? I would LOVE to review everyone's "accuracy" and commentary post-by-post.
I'm getting attacked by a person that thought a 12-seed was the more common "lowest ranked" at-large team (wrong), people that believe Ahmed Hamdy could produce a 20-10 game because "he's on our team...yay!" (he's 0 for over 100+), a handful of "it's the refs fault" whiners, etc. etc. I'm not the one that's bad at sports, my friend. I'll proudly stand my 400-500 posts (I know that's not many compared to most on here; and some are about Tim Love, not sports).
