Bear Down Wildcats

I'll say this. Losing all 3 recruits, after the ESPN article (though he got Williams back), plus a chance to get Bol, Little, Shittu, and others...Sean just kept moving forward. Great drive to always field a talented team. No quit.

Now if he could play with the idea of a situational zone, or maybe a little more tempo?? Or an occasional press? Last time we saw that was a comeback against Florida.

A bit predictable, me thinks.

It will be interesting to see what he can do with his '19 class. The program has taken a beating. While big recruits are still listing Arizona as a possible destination, one wonders if Miller will reel any of them in, or if opposing coaches will plant enough doubt in players' minds and succeed in watering down another recruiting year.

midnightx wrote:It will be interesting to see what he can do with his '19 class. The program has taken a beating. While big recruits are still listing Arizona as a possible destination, one wonders if Miller will reel any of them in, or if opposing coaches will plant enough doubt in players' minds and succeed in watering down another recruiting year.

I’m sorry but if people haven’t learned to never doubt Sean Miller when it comes to recruiting, I can’t help you. The guy is a recruiting MONSTER

What he just did in the time frame he did it in could be the single greatest recruiting outcome in the history of college athletics. Yes I said it and prove me wrong. Name me another coach who pulled off the miracle Sean Miller just did basically alone or with the help of one Assitant. Oh wait...maybe 2009 Arizona basketball class!

Now I still think Miller has some coaching ideals he needs to improve on but I am speechless at how good he is at recruiting. No one should ever doubt him.

We will be just fine in 2019

Recruiting is work and time. No one in college basketball outworks Sean or puts in the facetime with recruits......period. This year he re-recruit an entire class. Put scotch tape and bailing wire to get a decent team.

Sean Miller said in Thursday's press conference

http://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildcat ... 5ef.html#1" target="_blank

Look at this garbage human...he can take that tip of the hat and play just the tip with himself

GFY Vitale

I wouldn't piss on one-eyed dick if he were on fire.

What I would give for Dick face to do a game in Tucson. Fuuuuuuuuccccccvvvkkkkkkkkk him

UAEebs86 wrote:GFY Vitale

This! What a tool and a hater....now he’s just a click-baiting POS. GFY and retire already. Will never forgive him for his relentlessly ‘piling’ onto CSM and that ESPN Fake News Hit Piece on CSM.

Fuck Dukie Vitale, I hate that son of a bitch so much

Newportcat wrote:Fuck Dukie Vitale, I hate that son of a bitch so much

This x a million. I can't stand to even see his face anymore.

He used to be amusing, harmless, and mildly annoying. I never expected this level of unwarranted vitriol from him and now I can't stand his voice, his tweets are incomprehensible. What self respecting octogenarian uses "ur" for your, you're, and yore and then puts it out for the world to see? Also pitino and pearl get a free pass? He has lost it.

Vitale doesn’t contribute anything substantive to college hoops conversations. He’s a cheerleader, period. When he’s allowed to speak, he simply repeats the most surface-level, most bullet-point-ish comments he didn’t think of himself. He does seem to make some attempt to learn rosters, but the guy’s getting old and it’s obvious his recall is weakening, as it should for an 80-something.

I never really disliked the guy until he turned on Miller. And truthfully, if more at ESPN (Schlabach, Bilas) had gone the other way and actually defended Miller, I have no doubt Vitale would’ve done the same. He just flies with the wind and parrots whatever popular opinion happens to be emerging.

U.P. Zona Fan wrote:He used to be amusing, harmless, and mildly annoying. I never expected this level of unwarranted vitriol from him and now I can't stand his voice, his tweets are incomprehensible. What self respecting octogenarian uses "ur" for your, you're, and yore and then puts it out for the world to see? Also pitino and pearl get a free pass? He has lost it.

“...this level of unwarranted vitriol...” to characterize a compliment to CSM for “ bouncing back from the negative PR” is, IMNSHO, a bizarrely obtuse misreading of his tweet...
,
Regardless what anyone thinks of either the FBI story, or the arrest, the fact that they added up to incredibly “negative PR” throughout the sports media is indisputable. And, Miller is deserving for the recovery from that PR setback.... That also is indisputable.

pc in NM wrote:

U.P. Zona Fan wrote:He used to be amusing, harmless, and mildly annoying. I never expected this level of unwarranted vitriol from him and now I can't stand his voice, his tweets are incomprehensible. What self respecting octogenarian uses "ur" for your, you're, and yore and then puts it out for the world to see? Also pitino and pearl get a free pass? He has lost it.

“...this level of unwarranted vitriol...” to characterize a compliment to CSM for “ bouncing back from the negative PR” is, IMNSHO, a bizarrely obtuse misreading of his tweet...
,
Regardless what anyone thinks of either the FBI story, or the arrest, the fact that they added up to incredibly “negative PR” throughout the sports media is indisputable. And, Miller is deserving for the recovery from that PR setback.... That also is indisputable.

But reporters that publish single source hit pieces and talking heads who call for the subjects of those pieces to lose their careers based on no real evidence at all are cool, right? Good talk...

Chicat wrote:

pc in NM wrote:

U.P. Zona Fan wrote:He used to be amusing, harmless, and mildly annoying. I never expected this level of unwarranted vitriol from him and now I can't stand his voice, his tweets are incomprehensible. What self respecting octogenarian uses "ur" for your, you're, and yore and then puts it out for the world to see? Also pitino and pearl get a free pass? He has lost it.

“...this level of unwarranted vitriol...” to characterize a compliment to CSM for “ bouncing back from the negative PR” is, IMNSHO, a bizarrely obtuse misreading of his tweet...
,
Regardless what anyone thinks of either the FBI story, or the arrest, the fact that they added up to incredibly “negative PR” throughout the sports media is indisputable. And, Miller is deserving for the recovery from that PR setback.... That also is indisputable.

But reporters that publish single source hit pieces and talking heads who call for the subjects of those pieces to lose their careers based on no real evidence at all are cool, right? Good talk...

Come on... I did not say or imply that at all...

... but it is a fact that even false reports, rumor and/or innuendo can constitute “ negative PR”, and that alone can be difficult to overcome.

But you already know that.

pc in NM wrote:

Chicat wrote:

pc in NM wrote:

U.P. Zona Fan wrote:He used to be amusing, harmless, and mildly annoying. I never expected this level of unwarranted vitriol from him and now I can't stand his voice, his tweets are incomprehensible. What self respecting octogenarian uses "ur" for your, you're, and yore and then puts it out for the world to see? Also pitino and pearl get a free pass? He has lost it.

“...this level of unwarranted vitriol...” to characterize a compliment to CSM for “ bouncing back from the negative PR” is, IMNSHO, a bizarrely obtuse misreading of his tweet...
,
Regardless what anyone thinks of either the FBI story, or the arrest, the fact that they added up to incredibly “negative PR” throughout the sports media is indisputable. And, Miller is deserving for the recovery from that PR setback.... That also is indisputable.

But reporters that publish single source hit pieces and talking heads who call for the subjects of those pieces to lose their careers based on no real evidence at all are cool, right? Good talk...

Come on... I did not say or imply that at all...

... but it is a fact that even false reports, rumor and/or innuendo can constitute “ negative PR”, and that alone can be difficult to overcome.

But you already know that.

I'm sorry I should have been more clear. The tip of the hat he gave does not wipe away 3 months worth of angry all caps fire Miller who paid ayton dirty program rhetoric. He hasn't to my knowledge apologized or walked back his comments. Without that the tip of the hat seems snarky. Meanwhile he defends pitino and pearl who actually had student athletes that had committed violations and sat out all or part of the season due to those. Pearl isn't even cooperating with the internal investigation. It just makes a guy wonder what he has against us and why does it seem like he is singling CSM out.

Guess we need to give more to the Jimmy V foundation or something.

Dickie V got famous as a game analyst who got super excited and was a cheerleader for CBB. When he tries to go outside that, that's when the problems set in.

Nowadays, he's blind to his own hypocrisy.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:
Nowadays, he's blind to his own hypocrisy.

Seems to be a lot of that going around these days, especially via Twitter

Sorry, wrong thread for politics.

Dickie V can piss off.

My thoughts on this. They are about to try and interview the number 1 draft choice who could really make their life miserable. Ayton will be the most sought after interview and could refuse to even acknowledge them. They are extending an olive branch for that reason only. F...them.

TheCat wrote:My thoughts on this. They are about to try and interview the number 1 draft choice who could really make their life miserable. Ayton will be the most sought after interview and could refuse to even acknowledge them. They are extending an olive branch for that reason only. F...them.

Oh shit the thought of Ayton completely refusing to talk to ESPN would be the most amazing thing ever

TheCat wrote:My thoughts on this. They are about to try and interview the number 1 draft choice who could really make their life miserable. Ayton will be the most sought after interview and could refuse to even acknowledge them. They are extending an olive branch for that reason only. F...them.

He should demand $100,000 for the interview.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

TheCat wrote:My thoughts on this. They are about to try and interview the number 1 draft choice who could really make their life miserable. Ayton will be the most sought after interview and could refuse to even acknowledge them. They are extending an olive branch for that reason only. F...them.

He should demand $100,000 for the interview.

Wait until after the draft so there are no strings pulled with corporate partners or whatever...

Then ESPN silence until the article is debunked by an ESPN editor on the CBB front page.

And talk to every other outlet about why you are doing it.

That would take a lot of loyalty and balls, though. It would be nice to see...

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

TheCat wrote:My thoughts on this. They are about to try and interview the number 1 draft choice who could really make their life miserable. Ayton will be the most sought after interview and could refuse to even acknowledge them. They are extending an olive branch for that reason only. F...them.

He should demand $100,000 for the interview.

This is pretty hilarious

EVCat wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

TheCat wrote:My thoughts on this. They are about to try and interview the number 1 draft choice who could really make their life miserable. Ayton will be the most sought after interview and could refuse to even acknowledge them. They are extending an olive branch for that reason only. F...them.

He should demand $100,000 for the interview.

Wait until after the draft so there are no strings pulled with corporate partners or whatever...

Then ESPN silence until the article is debunked by an ESPN editor on the CBB front page.

And talk to every other outlet about why you are doing it.

That would take a lot of loyalty and balls, though. It would be nice to see...

Your lips to aytons ears.

Maybe one of the connected here can float this idea to him.

Probably best not to pick a public fight with people who buy ink (or screentime) by the barrel, though I appreciate the sentiment.

No ESPN interview last night?

gee, wonder why e s p n ?


ESPN's early Top 100 power ratings leave out Arizona Wildcats

Bruce Pascoe Arizona Daily Star Jul 30, 2018 Updated 4 hrs ago

Several Arizona players in a media gathering earlier this month mentioned how people have been "sleeping" on them.

By that reasoning, ESPN and its computers have completely nodded off.

ESPN's Basketball Power Ratings put out their early Top 100 teams over the weekend without the Wildcats anywhere to be found.

ESPN said its "BPI" forecasted big drops for both Arizona and UCLA (and didn't think much of the Pac-12 in general), apparently because of the Wildcats' lack of returning experience.

http://kokomoperspective.com/sports/nca ... f0902.html" target="_blank

**** ESPN. They don't control on court play, though.

I mean if they're solely utilizing production from returning players as a means to rank teams then ok I could see how we're not a top 100 team in that metric, but yeah needless to say I'm quite confident we'll be a better team than Duquesne or Radford or any other piss ant school that's rated above us on their list.

ChooChooCat wrote:I mean if they're solely utilizing production from returning players as a means to rank teams then ok I could see how we're not a top 100 team in that metric, but yeah needless to say I'm quite confident we'll be a better team than Duquesne or Radford or any other piss ant school that's rated above us on their list.

They count recruiting too. I'm not sure how having incoming seniors in Coleman and Luther works, but I'm pretty sure the B stands for bull****.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:I mean if they're solely utilizing production from returning players as a means to rank teams then ok I could see how we're not a top 100 team in that metric, but yeah needless to say I'm quite confident we'll be a better team than Duquesne or Radford or any other piss ant school that's rated above us on their list.

They count recruiting too. I'm not sure how having incoming seniors in Coleman and Luther works, but I'm pretty sure the B stands for bull****.

Yeah it doesn't add up ultimately. I mean this isn't your daddy's Arizona team this year, but good christ we are most certainly in the top 100 of teams nationally.

Lol out of the top 100 signifies that they think we won't even be good enough to make the NIT.

ChooChooCat wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:I mean if they're solely utilizing production from returning players as a means to rank teams then ok I could see how we're not a top 100 team in that metric, but yeah needless to say I'm quite confident we'll be a better team than Duquesne or Radford or any other piss ant school that's rated above us on their list.

They count recruiting too. I'm not sure how having incoming seniors in Coleman and Luther works, but I'm pretty sure the B stands for bull****.

Yeah it doesn't add up ultimately. I mean this isn't your daddy's Arizona team this year, but good christ we are most certainly in the top 100 of teams nationally.

The fact that the article goes out of its way to mention we aren't top 100 makes me believe it isn't some accident.

Its just a computer generated rating which is less accurate to start the season. ESPN or whoever quotes their BPI metric should note that. Based on the "cliff notes" on BPI from that article:

-- Quantity of experience on roster.
-- Quality of that experience.
-- Recruiting rankings for incoming freshmen, with an extra emphasis on five-stars.
-- Coach's past performance.

I think it is easy to see why we are rated low to start. What would we be rated high on? Coach's past performance?

ChooChooCat wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:I mean if they're solely utilizing production from returning players as a means to rank teams then ok I could see how we're not a top 100 team in that metric, but yeah needless to say I'm quite confident we'll be a better team than Duquesne or Radford or any other piss ant school that's rated above us on their list.

They count recruiting too. I'm not sure how having incoming seniors in Coleman and Luther works, but I'm pretty sure the B stands for bull****.

Yeah it doesn't add up ultimately. I mean this isn't your daddy's Arizona team this year, but good christ we are most certainly in the top 100 of teams nationally.

Absolutely. Maybe not top 25, but out of the first 100? Total BS.

If production from returnees is a criteria, then how much analytical ability does it take to understand our returnees didn't get much opportunity behind our strong front line producers. And Jeter, the quality of our recruits and transferees are ignored? If the ESPN brainiacs can't do better, why even put out a "top 100"?

Bottom line its great we're not just just underestimated, but totally forgotten. Love to be under the expectations radar.

DrWildcat wrote:Its just a computer generated rating which is less accurate to start the season. ESPN or whoever quotes their BPI metric should note that. Based on the "cliff notes" on BPI from that article:

-- Quantity of experience on roster.
-- Quality of that experience.
-- Recruiting rankings for incoming freshmen, with an extra emphasis on five-stars.
-- Coach's past performance.

I think it is easy to see why we are rated low to start. What would we be rated high on? Coach's past performance?

In the day and age of transfers being so damn prominent I can't imagine how they don't take them into account at all. Think of it this way, 3 of Arizona's likely starters will be transfers that didn't play at Arizona last year. If those 3 were taken into account would we seriously be outside the top 100?

There's the additional problem that they include recruiting rankings for freshman but not for sophomores or other non-first year players who simply didn't get PT their first year. It's a formula, and clearly not a complete one.

It tells me ESPN is a bit lazy, but it also tells me that we're simply in a unique spot. We're a program with a ton of talent that was stuck behind other talent, plus some solid incoming transfers and a good recruiting class (though we'll likely only need one of those recruits to perform).

4 five star players, 4 four star players, two capable grad transfers and a fourth year wing. Sean Miller at the top with a new, young, focused coaching tree supporting. We'll be just fine.

ChooChooCat wrote:

DrWildcat wrote:Its just a computer generated rating which is less accurate to start the season. ESPN or whoever quotes their BPI metric should note that. Based on the "cliff notes" on BPI from that article:

-- Quantity of experience on roster.
-- Quality of that experience.
-- Recruiting rankings for incoming freshmen, with an extra emphasis on five-stars.
-- Coach's past performance.

I think it is easy to see why we are rated low to start. What would we be rated high on? Coach's past performance?

In the day and age of transfers being so damn prominent I can't imagine how they don't take them into account at all. Think of it this way, 3 of Arizona's likely starters will be transfers that didn't play at Arizona last year. If those 3 were taken into account would we seriously be outside the top 100?

I would assume they would have to take into account transfers in some way. Probably falls under the quantity and quality of experience. So we have Jeter, Luther and Coleman. I'm not sure how they rate players (maybe efficiency ratings?) but Jeter didn't exactly light it up at Duke and Luther was hurt most of last year so that could play into his rating. Coleman had some decent stats but I'm not sure what his efficiency rating was. The returners still have a lot to prove as well and they haven't had a ton of playing time. To me, this leaves us as a tough team to rate programmatically.

I agree that there is no way we are not a top 100 team but in a metric that somewhat objectively rates different parameters I can see it. Its just a predictive model and models are not always right. I will be curious to see the comparative KenPom ratings when they come out.

PG: Fifth year

SG: Five star freshman

SF: Five star Soph

PF: Fifth year ACC transfer

C: Fourth year ACC transfer five star

We're a top fifty team out of the gate, and we'll likely be a top 25 team by year end.

DrWildcat wrote:Its just a computer generated rating which is less accurate to start the season. ESPN or whoever quotes their BPI metric should note that. Based on the "cliff notes" on BPI from that article:

-- Quantity of experience on roster.
-- Quality of that experience.
-- Recruiting rankings for incoming freshmen, with an extra emphasis on five-stars.
-- Coach's past performance.

I think it is easy to see why we are rated low to start. What would we be rated high on? Coach's past performance?

Experience isn't bad for us really. Jeter is a 4th year junior, Coleman a 5th year senior and Luther a senior. Dylan Smith is a 4th year junior. Akot and Randolph are returners. Luther was a leading scorer/rebounder for Pitt. Coleman was a second leading scorer.

That formula leaves it open about how Luther, Coleman and Jeter count, and they're a big part of things. Judging the quality of returners like Akot, Randolph and Lee is also essentially a projection.

Why does anyone care about this?

Because there is a void in my life shaped like a big block A.

In re UofA wrote:Why does anyone care about this?

Because it's the offseason and I'd overanalyze almost any minute bit of info available.

I think espns new business model is to print just shockingly unbelievable tripe. Get rid of all the journalists, hire a bunch of loudmouth knownothings, and just yell all the time. This is why I don't listen to political talking heads anymore, they just talk to stir the pot, espn must be using the msnbc model. The only real news is coast to coast am with George noory.
Edit. This is in response to the bpi article that, if I had come up with that algorithm, I would not tell anyone and definitely would not print it. Wonder how many retraction and corrections they will post to that thing.

...somehow you immediately jump to MSNBC when talking about empty news talking heads?

Take your pick.

Nothing remotely even compares to Fox news, not even by like 2% as much