Search results

I don't care if I am agitating you. It isn't my intent. I am pointing out that, in this thread, you're a porster who goes on tangents. Another tangent. It is nice to know that you've developed theories about me. Sad. The tinfoil is too tight Marc. I am "notorious". OMG. Sad Marc, sad...

Tangent, tangent, tangent...Marc is on a tangent. You really are a consistent porster. Stick to one topic, one thread. If you want to respond to a different post, in a different thread, respond to that post in that thread. So let's end this tangent. 1. You received a response (#54) 2. Said...

Simple roster management issues.

Again, you're still hung up on bullchit that isn't there. You continue to porst from tangentland. 1. I was shocked. I was shocked that someone could make such predictions based on the improvement of other big men during Coach L's era at Miami. I was shocked that someone could put up such stats...

Interesting. 1. If you assume that during the ACC schedule (so around January, 2020), Gak is fully healthy and back, does he become the starter? Based on what we've actually seen from him at UM, and his minutes were limited to 8 games, he has shown more potential and skill than Rodney. 2...

So we can't move on. Even you're unable to agree that: 1. You received a response. 2. It was on topic. 3. You had no retort to the response. So with that said, here is my response to your porst. 1. I asked you for predictions, there wasn't even a question. I wanted to know what you expect...

I did respond to your post. Please go back in the thread and check (try post #54). Did you respond to my post (#54)? Can we agree that I did acknowledge your response and followed it up? Can we agree that you had no response to my response? As for the point of the question, this is a message...

Please note: I never said a waiver was guaranteed. My point is we need proven quality talent now. As to this health conspiracy, that is clearly bullchit. There is no real reason to play Brooks in useless exhibitions if his health was at risk. I don’t understand how the last Center we brought...

Here is a tinfoil theory, Brooks is scared to compete with our current crop of players. He wants to “sit out” and told Coach not to apply for a waiver. He wants to learn the system first and then compete. Oh wait, all those players (Miller and Gak) still have eligibility next year. Back to...

Another porst from the potato and now you’re an “insider”. Since you’ve failed to provide any logic, reasoning or retort in our convo, let’s try something else. Were you on the Italy trip?

1. I am not going to argue whether or not the former school has an opinion or may make an opinion on the matter. My point is that there is an obvious exception in Brooks' case. 2. It is clear that Brooks was healthy enough to play in useless exhibition games. So clearly it isn't health that is...

Just to review...you ignored the majority of my prior post. You then went on a random tangent. 1. You provided NO SOURCE as to LaQuill Hardnett and Cinn. Are you aware that your source doesn't mention the player's name? 2. Even if you did have a source, it isn't relevant. It has been...

He isn't. He actually was Brooks' personal doctor at Cinn and is still treating him here. AmherstCane only cleared him for useless exhibition games and he is the only one privy to Brooks' condition. He agreed to release said status, randomly, months from now.

Please provide a source for this above. Also, it isn't relevant. Are you aware that one of the reasons the NCAA allows these waivers are coaching changes? Are you aware that numerous other players receive these waivers for said reason? Please explain the following: 1. If he is healthy...

Tell me if you will agree with the following: 1. Brooks was healthy enough to play in useless (they don't count) exhibition games recently. 2. LaQuill Hardnett (freshman from Cinn) received a waiver to play at another program this season. 3. Miami has ZERO proven quality big men on the roster...

Why were other non-grad transfers at Cinn being given waivers? Since you're not applying for a waiver for Brooks this season, are you concerned with only having 10 players on "active" scholarship?

This right here.

Take off your tinfoil helmet, it is too tight.

Who is bashing? We're having a convo on a message board. Some of us, use actual data and discuss. If you don't like it, don't reply or click ignore.

I stopped here because I don't think you understand at all. Italy doesn't count. It wasn't real. It was a few games. The competition sucked, the competition was the best, or in between. It wasn't a real game and was very different from college rules (did you notice they played quarters?). The...