I believe the point is not whether all teams will lose to teams they are favored againgst, but the variance between the teams you've won against to the ones you've lost. All of those teams you mentioned above are NCAA Tournament teams, the winners and the losers. I think people on here a talking more about the fact that in one week we will beat a ranked tournament making opponent (Clemson) on their home court, but will also lose to a team that didn't even catch the scent of any tournament (Monmouth & Hofstra).
I think there is a difference between losing and winning big against good teams versus doing the same thing with a bad team and then a good team respcectively. So, from a previous example, if we were to talk about UCLA and you said they had beaten Stanford by 20, but also had lost to Pepperdine and San Francisco, then we would be talking more apples to apples. I do agree with you though, that we are not the only team that has shown inconsistency, but we are just the only ones that we are concerned about.
THANK YOU!
Maybe youâre not trying to spin us as amazing, I was exaggerating obviously, Iâm sorry if you didnât catch it. But as Ice Cold said, you mentioned all NCAA Tourney teams. I didnât say the team was inconsistent after the Nebraska game⌠I SAID IT LONG BEFORE THEN. For many it just reassured them that. That is all.
Letâs just let this die and all hope for a much more consistent product next year.:49ers:
I believe the point is not whether all teams will lose to teams they are favored againgst, but the variance between the teams you've won against to the ones you've lost. All of those teams you mentioned above are NCAA Tournament teams, the winners and the losers. I think people on here a talking more about the fact that in one week we will beat a ranked tournament making opponent (Clemson) on their home court, but will also lose to a team that didn't even catch the scent of any tournament (Monmouth & Hofstra).
I think there is a difference between losing and winning big against good teams versus doing the same thing with a bad team and then a good team respcectively. So, from a previous example, if we were to talk about UCLA and you said they had beaten Stanford by 20, but also had lost to Pepperdine and San Francisco, then we would be talking more apples to apples. I do agree with you though, that we are not the only team that has shown inconsistency, but we are just the only ones that we are concerned about.
So a tournament team canât be inconsistent? I donât know anything other than inconsistent to call what Wisconsin did. Beat KSU by 17 then lose to Davidson the next game by 17. The purpose of picking the tournament teams is to try to put things in perspective. Wisconsin ended the season 10th in the polls. Wisconsin plays a different style than Charlotte. I was showing that even good teams, with different styles of play, have bad games too. Its pretty common across the board with all teams. But for Charlotte itâs inconsistent, for Wisconsin itâs a bad game.
Youâre right that UCLAâs loss may not be comparing apples to apples. But neither is comparing Charlotte to UCLA. UCLA was top 4 in the RPI. Charlotte was around 70. So Charlotte losing to Monfstra is not the same as UCLA losing to Pepperdine.
I see your point about losing to Monfstra, but also beating Clemson. But to be fair, the Hofstra loss was a month before the Clemson win. I would say after the Clemson win we had bad losses to Temple, Nebraska, Richmond and Fordham. I donât have any problem saying that Temple and Nebraska are better teams, and that against Richmond and Fordham we had bad days. We caught Fordham in a stretch where they also beat UMass and Temple. Richmond was in a stretch where the beat Dayton and Temple.
Every Niner fan doesnât read or post on this board. More fans than you think just want to see us play some good solid basketball, especially on our half-court offensive sets.
Every Niner fan doesn't read or post on this board. More fans than you think just want to see us play some good solid basketball, especially on our half-court offensive sets.
True statement there.
-Consistency means to me that we break the 20 win mark every year, and compete in conference tourney and for a postseason bid whatever it should mean. I wasnât around for the NCAA years.
consistency to me is that we are among the top 3 teams in our conference and are competitive in the conference tournament. the ncaa tourney is a bonus. lets focus on winning in the a-10 first.
the ncaa tournament shouldnt be a bonus it should be the standard. anything less should not be acceptable and i think we are selling ourselves short if we are happy with anything less.
[QUOTE=ninerfan55;315748]the ncaa tournament shouldnt be a bonus it should be the standard. anything less should not be acceptable and i think we are selling ourselves short if we are happy with anything less.[/QUOTE]
I completely agree.
To me consistency is making the NCAA tournament year after year after year. Every year that we donât make the NCAA tournament to me is a sub-par year with the standards that I have in my mind for our basketball program.
I did say that I agreed with you that we werenât the only team that showed inconsistency, but the Niners are the only one that we are concerned about. Also, I was using UCLA as an example because they were used earlier, but the point was to show that we should not lose to teams that are at a certain degree of inferiority comparable to yours for the year. So, no matter who is used as the example, a team at about 70 or so in the RPI should not lose to two teams over 200 in the RPI, and be the same team that beats Clemson on the road. Once again, other teams in the country (tourney teams included) might do this same inconsistent thing, but I donât care about them. Because someone else does this does not make it any less inconsistent.
People keep talking about our team being inconsistent last season and mentioning the clemson wins and such⌠I hate to be negative, but Iâd say our clemson win was inconsistent⌠it was a great game, but it was definitely on the higher end of our play.
Consistency means to me that we play solid games and shoot a decent percentage. I hope not to see many <40% for field goal games from us next year. I donât mind being beat as much as long as we put up a solid game.
[QUOTE=49erPress;315746]consistency to me is that we are among the top 3 teams in our conference and are competitive in the conference tournament. the ncaa tourney is a bonus. lets focus on winning in the a-10 first.[/QUOTE]
BSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBS!!!
NCAA used to be the norm. Now itâs a friggin bonus???
Lower your expectations and watch your program fade into oblivion. I for one am tired of not even caring after about 12/15 until the Conf touney rolls around.
Memphis is in a crappy conference and they were 1 free throw from a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP and we used to beat them regularly. Davidson is in the SoCon (which a lot of you scoff at- why I donât know) and were a 23fter away from the Final Four and beating the eventual Champion.
Itâs time for us to quit whining like bitches and stand up and do something or shut up and go coach hunting in a few years.
I did say that I agreed with you that we weren't the only team that showed inconsistency, but the Niners are the only one that we are concerned about.
I agree and saw that you mentioned that. Iâm not concerned about other teams either. My comments came after the Nebraska loss when many people were saying that weâll never be consistent under Lutz. I only brought the other schools into discussion to show that just about every school has highs and lows through out the season.
Also, I was using UCLA as an example because they were used earlier, but the point was to show that we should not lose to teams that are at a certain degree of inferiority comparable to yours for the year. So, no matter who is used as the example, a team at about 70 or so in the RPI should not lose to two teams over 200 in the RPI, and be the same team that beats Clemson on the road. Once again, other teams in the country (tourney teams included) might do this same inconsistent thing, but I don't care about them. Because someone else does this does not make it any less inconsistent.
I understand why you used UCLA. I think you can use UCLA (or any team) to show how they might be inconsistent. But what I mean by it not being comparing apples to apples is that the criteria for UCLAâs consistency is probably different than it is for Charlotte. I would imagine that there are UNC-CH fans who think that after getting blown out by Kansas that their team is inconsistent, even if they are only separated by a couple of points in the RPI.
I just think its vague and difficult to use a broad requirement like any loss to a team over 200 in the RPI is inconsistent, but if you lose to #125 itâs a bad game.
Consistency means to me that we play solid games and shoot a decent percentage. I hope not to see many <40% for field goal games from us next year. I don't mind being beat as much as long as we put up a solid game.
This seems logical to me. I think evaluations like that, after a game, are more informative than âour system is too inconsistentâ.
Stuff like:
we had a bad shooting night
they were very effective at mixing their defenses on us
Coley looked sluggish
Gerrity was turnover happy
we missed our ftâs
the other team had better over all talent
we weâre sloppy setting screens
I know those sound like excuses, but that is the reality of what happens during a game. One team does some things better than the other team.
[QUOTE=Normmm;315921]This seems logical to me. I think evaluations like that, after a game, are more informative than âour system is too inconsistentâ.
Stuff like:
we had a bad shooting not
they were very effective at mixing their defenses on us
Coley looked sluggish
Gerrity was turnover happy
we missed our ftâs
the other team had better over all talent
we weâre sloppy setting screens
I know those sound like excuses, but that is the reality of what happens during a game. One team does some things better than the other team.[/QUOTE]
Well if numbers clear it upâŚhereâs my numbers argument for our inconsistencyâŚWe shoot 37% from 3 point range weâll usually win; no matter the opponent (within reason). We shoot less than that, have a bad 3 point shooting night, we lose. Nice and simple. Thatâs why WE, the 49ers are inconsistent. Our inconsistency is summed up in the saying, you live by the 3 you die by the 3. Thatâs it.
The PROBLEM is the 3 ball can be a giant killer (weâre really good), but when youâre not hittinâ and youâve got no other weapons, you lose to Monmouthâs of the world (weâre really bad). Our reliance on the 3 point shot is the reason, in my mind, for our inconsistency. Youâre not always going to have good shooting nights, and when we donât for what ever reason, we lose no matter what. Look at the A-10 tourney. We go on a role, we hit our 3s, we make a run. Last two games of the season? Trounced by two teams who took our 3 point shot away. Weâre inconsistent because sometimes itâs there, sometimes itâs not.
I donât want to turn this into a 3 point Lutz thread but if youâre looking for inconsistencies with our team, how weâre shooting 3s that night is the HUGE red flag, IMO.
NCAA used to be the norm. Now itâs a friggin bonus???
Lower your expectations and watch your program fade into oblivion. I for one am tired of not even caring after about 12/15 until the Conf touney rolls around.
Memphis is in a crappy conference and they were 1 free throw from a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP and we used to beat them regularly. Davidson is in the SoCon (which a lot of you scoff at- why I donât know) and were a 23fter away from the Final Four and beating the eventual Champion.
Itâs time for us to quit whining like bitches and stand up and do something or shut up and go coach hunting in a few years.
Yep, itâs amazing what our expectations have become.
Well if numbers clear it up...here's my numbers argument for our inconsistency....We shoot 37% from 3 point range we'll usually win; no matter the opponent (within reason). We shoot less than that, have a bad 3 point shooting night, we lose. Nice and simple. That's why WE, the 49ers are inconsistent. Our inconsistency is summed up in the saying, you live by the 3 you die by the 3. That's it.
The PROBLEM is the 3 ball can be a giant killer (weâre really good), but when youâre not hittinâ and youâve got no other weapons, you lose to Monmouthâs of the world (weâre really bad). Our reliance on the 3 point shot is the reason, in my mind, for our inconsistency. Youâre not always going to have good shooting nights, and when we donât for what ever reason, we lose no matter what. Look at the A-10 tourney. We go on a role, we hit our 3s, we make a run. Last two games of the season? Trounced by two teams who took our 3 point shot away. Weâre inconsistent because sometimes itâs there, sometimes itâs not.
I donât want to turn this into a 3 point Lutz thread but if youâre looking for inconsistencies with our team, how weâre shooting 3s that night is the HUGE red flag, IMO.
I agree with this to a certain extent. But my point is that is not that different from most other teams in the country. The shots arenât falling they lose. You take away their best weapon, they lose. Wouldnât this 3 point logic apply to Davidson? No team depended on a single player more than them. We didnât always lose on bad shooting nights from Lee. See the St Louis, GW and Wake Forest games.