Armani Moore '12 Tennessee committ!!!

#103
#103
Hey, bleeding, where did you get that he had a Cincy offered and Bama/FSU were interested?
 
#104
#104
Roustabout said:
Fill me in. What is this post trying to prove?

That UT should be in the Sweet 16, or that Martin under acheived?

If it is that CCM underachieved then I am in agreement.
Click to expand...

He's trying to point out that Izzo makes deep runs in the tourney without the Kentucky's and North Carolina talent every year.

CCM underachieved? Really lol.

It's the first year. Come back and talk to me next year when we are playing in the sweet 16, pushing for an elite 8 spot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#105
#105
Roustabout said:
Fill me in. What is this post trying to prove?

That UT should be in the Sweet 16, or that Martin under acheived?

If it is that CCM underachieved then I am in agreement.
Click to expand...

You really think a team that was picked.11th in the SEC and finished 2nd underachieved!? Just plain ignorance!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#106
#106
zjcvols said:
Hey, bleeding, where did you get that he had a Cincy offered and Bama/FSU were interested?
Click to expand...

It was in one of the articles I read. That was copy and pasted here. Either off rivals, scout or another website I'm nt sure which.

Edit: i found it: http://m.ihigh.com/allmetrosports/article_64936.html


And fwiw ole miss Tennessee coc and Georgia state were his final 4.
 
Last edited:
#107
#107
Roustabout said:
Fill me in. What is this post trying to prove?

That UT should be in the Sweet 16, or that Martin under acheived?

If it is that CCM underachieved then I am in agreement.
Click to expand...

Is this #92 with a new screen name???

No poster #92 said that in order to be a constant in the dance that you had to have much better "star"rated guys than what this team has.

I was pointing out that stars don't mean jack, as we have an equally as talented roster as Michigan state according to stars. Point being Michigan state is a sweet 16 fixture with that type of roster every year, and that you don't have to be like UK and have all 4&5 stars on your roster to be good every year.

As far as underachieved I'm not even going to address that. You are the only person on this site or in this world I have seen say that. Most people realize when picked to finished 11th and you finish 2nd, that's not underachieving.
 
#108
#108
I mean, I feel like you can easily mathematically PROVE that Martin overachieved this season. Yes, there were plenty of sour moments, but we finished with a better record and SEC standing than anyone reasonably predicted. I was pretty darn sure we wouldn't finish 11th, but I would have never guessed we'd finish 2nd/4th (4th going by overall record). This was easily an overachievement. <-- didn't know that was a real word.
 
#109
#109
bleedingTNorange said:
K you ready Michigan State:

Draymond Green 4*
Keith appling 4*
Brandon wood 2*
Austin Thornton 2*
Branden Dawson 5*
Derrick Nix 4*
Adreian Payne 5*
Travis Trice 3*
That's a 3.625* average in your 8 man rotation


Tennessee
Golden 4*
McRae 4*
Mcbee 2*
Tatum 4*
Stokes 5*
Maymon 4*
Richardson 3*
Yemi 3*
Guess what....that's also a 3.625* average in your 8 man rotation. Add in hall in place of yemi and we, according to stars, are actually more talented than Michigan state.





Can't wait to hear this response.........
Click to expand...
You can do all the math you want with your star averages on paper, but on the court(where it really counts) The teams with the most stars, usually wind up going farther than the teams without them. All you have to do is look at Kentucky. When their stars come off the bench, they lose nothing. Most of the time, if the higher seeds lose, they're guilty of overlooking their opponent. I'm 68 yrs. old and have followed college basketball for 55 of those years, and I have enough sense to know, that the teams with the best players generally win the most. There are a few exceptions over the years, but not many.:shakehead:
 
#110
#110
#92 said:
You can do all the math you want with your star averages on paper, but on the court(where it really counts) The teams with the most stars, usually wind up going farther than the teams without them. All you have to do is look at Kentucky. When their stars come off the bench, they lose nothing. Most of the time, if the higher seeds lose, they're guilty of overlooking their opponent. I'm 68 yrs. old and have followed college basketball for 55 of those years, and I have enough sense to know, that the teams with the best players generally win the most. There are a few exceptions over the years, but not many.:shakehead:
Click to expand...

Exactly on the court is where it counts, not on paper. It doesn't matter how many stars they are, they have to play ball. Their star rating doesn't automatically give them some sort of handicap or something. Tennessee has one of the higher star average per player in the country I'd say, yet what has it amounted to?

Who has been better the last decade, Michigan state or Kentucky? More succesful than Kentucky who has about the highest star average per player.

Michigan State and it's not even close. So yes, Michigan State with a similar star average to Tennessee, has been one of the most succesful teams this decade.

I rest my case.
 
Last edited:
#111
#111
I get what you're saying, it's much easier usually to win with talented guys than scrubs. However limiting it to the number of stars is absurd.

Chris Lofton and Jajaun Smith are 2 guys that by your standards you wouldn't have wanted on tennessees roster. Yet you want a team full of renaldo Woolridge & Cameron tatums???

Those star ratings are very flawed to say the least. As I said, yes you need talent, but that doesn't mean you can't be successfull without a team full of 4&5 stars. As I said Michigan state has a mix of 2,3,4 and 5 star guys and they are arguably one of the most succesful teams of the decade. On the flip side, Caliparis teams the last decade have been some of the most talented, going by stars, yet what have they accomplished?

Point being, as I've said the stars don't mean jack. If the stars meant everything coaches wouldn't go evaluate players, they'd log onto scout and just recruit guys according to their stars.
 
#112
#112
I haven't followed thus debate very closely, but is it possible that this is a misunderstanding?

In the last few posts, it seems like bleeding is referring to the star rating system, while 92 seems to be using the word "stars" to identify the best players (ie Jarnell Stokes is going to be a star, or, Stokes and Maymon are stars).

Just a thought. I didn't wade through it all, so I could be off.
 
#113
#113
cncchris33 said:
I haven't followed thus debate very closely, but is it possible that this is a misunderstanding?

In the last few posts, it seems like bleeding is referring to the star rating system, while 92 seems to be using the word "stars" to identify the best players (ie Jarnell Stokes is going to be a star, or, Stokes and Maymon are stars).

Just a thought. I didn't wade through it all, so I could be off.
Click to expand...

No here's his OP...

#92 said:
This is what happens when you have a bunch of 3**s coming off the bench. Next year will be even worse, if Martin doesn't kick a bunch of them to the curb. He's already lost Charles Mitchell by slow playing him. Stokes, Maymon and Golden, at least scored on a consistent basis last night.
Click to expand...

Followed by this doozy...
92 said:
If stars don't matter, then why do the teams with the higher star players ALWAYS have the better records, and are consistently the higher seeds in the NCAAT? You can't come up with a sensible answer to that, that will hold water.
Click to expand...


He's definitely talking about the star ratings, as in number of stars a recruit has. Pathetic really that he wants to recruit solely off of how many stars does a player have apparently. He wants all 4 and 5's nothing less, so in other words, no lofton or jajauns but a bunch of tatums and woolridges. Makes sense to me.
 
Last edited:
#115
#115
Most people realize when picked to finished 11th and you finish 2nd, that's not underachieving.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm being a little harsh. If the only judgment is based on pre-season predictions coming off the NCAA black cloud and coaching change. The reality is that the difference in those predictions from slots four through 12 were miniscule, when compared to the difference between what the prognosticators picked between one and two. It was UK, by a large margin, then Vandy, Bama and UF. The next 8 spots were a pick em.
 
#116
#116
Roustabout said:
Maybe I'm being a little harsh. If the only judgment is based on pre-season predictions coming off the NCAA black cloud and coaching change. The reality is that the difference in those predictions from slots four through 12 were miniscule, when compared to the difference between what the prognosticators picked between one and two. It was UK, by a large margin, then Vandy, Bama and UF. The next 8 spots were a pick em.
Click to expand...

That's just wrong. Miss St was highly regarded coming into the season.
 
#118
#118
zjcvols said:
Bama, UF, and Vandy were all preseason top 25 teams.
Click to expand...

My point is that 4-12 was not a pick-em. Miss St and Ole Miss both returned Starters and proven SEC caliber players. While teams like UT and South Carolina did not.
 
#119
#119
bleedingTNorange said:
No here's his OP...



Followed by this doozy...



He's definitely talking about the star ratings, as in number of stars a recruit has. Pathetic really that he wants to recruit solely off of how many stars does a player have apparently. He wants all 4 and 5's nothing less, so in other words, no lofton or jajauns but a bunch of tatums and woolridges. Makes sense to me.
Click to expand...

I wonder if any of the star searches have really done the least bit of research on the make up of team rosters.

There are over 300 D1 schools courting the affections of about 150 players which usually include about 15 5 stars, 40 to 50 (in a good year) 4 stars and the rest 3 star players.

The top 10 elite d1 schools usually get most of the 5s and it leaves the remaining 300 plus d1s fighting over the 3 and 4s.

The majority of mid major teams are made up of leftovers, 2s and unrated players.

Anyone who thinks that the average high major can pack their roster with 4s and 5s every year needs to set down and do a little thinking.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top