forums

2018-2019 Schedule

Advertisement
OriginalGatorHater said:
Obviously losing to a bad team is worse then beating a bad team, but if you think we are going to lose to a bad team what makes you think we will beat a good team? 1 extra win is not what one would consider a good amount. Especially when you actually look at the teams we played.
Click to expand...

You're still not understanding. Let's keep it simple:

1. Losing to crappy teams is bad.

2. Beating crappy teams does nothing.

3. Losing to good teams is not detrimental as it happens.

More to come after the following.

OriginalGatorHater said:
2016 doesn't really fit the agenda you are trying to push because we actually played Florida and Iowa state which where both solid teams.
Click to expand...

Side note: This was a regular season tourney, I am talking about actually scheduling OOC opponents. But let's continue on.

How did losing to them hurt our chances? It fits under (3) above. Good teams beat other good teams. It happens in basketball all the time.

I don't understand why actually scheduling 1-2 teams with a pulse is a bad thing. We already play plenty of bad OOC teams. I am NOT saying we're going to beat the good teams, I am saying the 3 things above (plus it helps us get ready for ACC play).

OriginalGatorHater said:
With such a small sample size the statistics get skewed massively so you need to look at the actual games. For example had Newton not hit the miracle shot to beat UNC we would have finished 5-4 in the second half as well. That should have warmed us up to perform well in the ACC, but instead the opposite happened and we had the worst start to ACC play in the past 3 years. In 15 had we played Virginia at home in the first half and away in the second half the stat would have been flipped again.
Click to expand...

Do you follow what you actually said? Here is what you actually said...

OriginalGatorHater said:
Finally, if you look at our schedule the past few years we didn't really perform much better at the end of ACC play vs the beginning of ACC play so we most likely would not have fared any better had we had tougher OOC competition.
Click to expand...

You set the criteria (the past few years) and it is wrong. We did perform better at the end of ACC play versus the beginning. This isn't up for debate.

Now to double down on an incorrect point, you bring up ONE RANDOM game with Newton against UNC and flipping games against UVA. Again, we finished better the past few years at the end of ACC play vs the beginning of ACC play.

Just so you know, even under your incorrect points (we lose to UNC and UVA games are flipped), we still finished better the past few years at the end of ACC play vs the beginning of ACC play.
 
Consigliere said:
You're still not understanding. Let's keep it simple:

1. Losing to crappy teams is bad.

2. Beating crappy teams does nothing.

3. Losing to good teams is not detrimental as it happens.

More to come after the following.



Side note: This was a regular season tourney, I am talking about actually scheduling OOC opponents. But let's continue on.

How did losing to them hurt our chances? It fits under (3) above. Good teams beat other good teams. It happens in basketball all the time.

I don't understand why actually scheduling 1-2 teams with a pulse is a bad thing. We already play plenty of bad OOC teams. I am NOT saying we're going to beat the good teams, I am saying the 3 things above (plus it helps us get ready for ACC play).



Do you follow what you actually said? Here is what you actually said...



You set the criteria (the past few years) and it is wrong. We did perform better at the end of ACC play versus the beginning. This isn't up for debate.

Now to double down on an incorrect point, you bring up ONE RANDOM game with Newton against UNC and flipping games against UVA. Again, we finished better the past few years at the end of ACC play vs the beginning of ACC play.

Just so you know, even under your incorrect points (we lose to UNC and UVA games are flipped), we still finished better the past few years at the end of ACC play vs the beginning of ACC play.
Click to expand...

Quote 1: No I understand your point, but beating a crappy team is better than losing to a decent OOC team. If you are worried about losing to some scrubs why would you want us to play a better team?

Quote 2: This has nothing to do with play off chances. You stated that playing a weak OOC schedule fails to prepare us for ACC play. If that was the case then we presumably should perform better in the second half of the ACC after we had some time to warm up with solid opponents. However, the season where we played the most solid OOC schedule we performed the worst in the first half of the ACC. The fact that it is a tournament doesn't matter. They still received the tune up games that you state are so important.

Quote 3/4: I said we didn't perform MUCH better. 1 game difference between the first and second half is not much better. That one game difference could come down to a number of different things. I pointed out how easily the outcome could have been reversed. 2018 came down to a lucky game winning shot and 2016 came down to the fact that we played VA at Home at the end and away in the begining. Had our schedule been reversed we would have ended up playing worse at the end of conference play. Finally the one season where your claim is actually correct(we performed much better in the second half) was the season where we actually had a tough OOC schedule. That goes against your logic that having a tough OOC schedule somehow makes us perform better in early ACC play.
 
Advertisement
OriginalGatorHater said:
Quote 1: No I understand your point, but beating a crappy team is better than losing to a decent OOC team. If you are worried about losing to some scrubs why would you want us to play a better team?
Click to expand...

It is extremely hard to have a conversation with you.

Here is one example (bold above): I never said DECENT. Here is what was actually said (by me):

You're still not understanding. Let's keep it simple:

1. Losing to crappy teams is bad.

2. Beating crappy teams does nothing.

3. Losing to good teams is not detrimental as it happens.


You can't even argue the opposite point because you just make up what it says. It isn't semantics either. It is just making up the conversation in your head.

Can't you just stick to what is actually posted? Do you want to have a discussion or not?
 
Consigliere said:
It is extremely hard to have a conversation with you.

Here is one example (bold above): I never said DECENT. Here is what was actually said (by me):

You're still not understanding. Let's keep it simple:

1. Losing to crappy teams is bad.

2. Beating crappy teams does nothing.

3. Losing to good teams is not detrimental as it happens.


You can't even argue the opposite point because you just make up what it says. It isn't semantics either. It is just making up the conversation in your head.

Can't you just stick to what is actually posted? Do you want to have a discussion or not?
Click to expand...

You are the one that is straying from the actual discussion. I agree with all 3 of your points. They are painfully obvious. However, my point is that Losing to a good team is WORSE then beating a bad team. That is a fact. So my point was that if we are having this much trouble sweeping poor competition. Why would we want to add even more losses by adding in some solid competition as well?
 
OriginalGatorHater said:
You are the one that is straying from the actual discussion.
Click to expand...

That is comical coming from that ACC analysis where you switched the schedule and discount Newton's shot. Yet we still performed better in the second half. But let's move on to the substance and away from the bullchit you created.

OriginalGatorHater said:
Why would we want to add even more losses by adding in some solid competition as well?
Click to expand...

1. We're not adding more losses. We're scheduling better teams. The results aren't guaranteed or known beforehand. Yes, it is harder to beat better opponents. But, it isn't a guaranteed loss. We already play __________ (insert the amount of crappy OOC opponents here) every year. What is 1-2 less?

2. Scheduling 1-2 good OOC teams helps us get ready for the ACC schedule. It gives us a test earlier.

I feel like we're going in circles here.
 
Consigliere said:
That is comical coming from that ACC analysis where you switched the schedule and discount Newton's shot. Yet we still performed better in the second half. But let's move on to the substance and away from the bullchit you created.



1. We're not adding more losses. We're scheduling better teams. The results aren't guaranteed or known beforehand. Yes, it is harder to beat better opponents. But, it isn't a guaranteed loss. We already play __________ (insert the amount of crappy OOC opponents here) every year. What is 1-2 less?

2. Scheduling 1-2 good OOC teams helps us get ready for the ACC schedule. It gives us a test earlier.

I feel like we're going in circles here.
Click to expand...

It is because you need to use a little bit of critical thinking here. This is not a scientific experiment in a controlled environment where we can use the data as the gold standard. Let me see if I can break it down to you even simpler with a very basic example. Lets say we start the season against Duke, UNC, Louisville, and Virginia. Then end the season against GT, Pitt, Wake, and BC. Will us performing better in the second half mean that the team got better or just easier competition? When it is only a 1 game difference between the two halves and it is purely due to the timing of a home and away scheduling it ends up skewing the stats. Also, when you win off of a miracle shot that doesn't prove that the team has gotten better over ACC play. I never said it was a guaranteed loss. You are the one that kept bringing up the fact that we would lose to sub par teams.

Here is my point. You can agree to disagree. If we went undefeated against all of the scrubs last season then yes we should play tougher competition. However, we struggled against these teams and even lost a few. Making an even tougher schedule would not be in our best interest. Then when you factor in the fact that the team didn't perform any better after they had a few tests in early ACC play it makes even less sense.
 
Advertisement
OriginalGatorHater said:
Then when you factor in the fact that the team didn't perform any better after they had a few tests in early ACC play it makes even less sense.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I am done discussing your bullchit ACC stuff because it isn't a small difference, as there is a 26.6% difference in wins the last few years (as evidenced by the actual data). You can't have a discussion because you can't even accept facts.

These are facts:

2015-16

First 9 Games: 6-3
Second 9 Games: 7-2


2016-17

First 9 Games: 4-5
Second 9 Games: 6-3


2017-18

First 9 Games: 5-4
Second 9 Games: 6-3

So over the last few years we won 15 games in total during the first half of ACC play. We won 19 games in total during the second half of ACC play. Those 4 games represent a 26.6% difference (in terms of an increase in wins).

This was a waste of time. What is the point of continuing this discussion if you can't accept the actual results of those games?

We should be able to get past this stuff so we can discuss the substance of the discussion. I don't understand why you can't accept the stuff above.
 
Consigliere said:
I disagree. I am done discussing your bullchit ACC stuff because it isn't a small difference, as there is a 26.6% difference in wins the last few years (as evidenced by the actual data). You can't have a discussion because you can't even accept facts.

These are facts:

2015-16

First 9 Games: 6-3
Second 9 Games: 7-2


2016-17

First 9 Games: 4-5
Second 9 Games: 6-3


2017-18

First 9 Games: 5-4
Second 9 Games: 6-3

So over the last few years we won 15 games in total during the first half of ACC play. We won 19 games in total during the second half of ACC play. Those 4 games represent a 26.6% difference (in terms of an increase in wins).

This was a waste of time. What is the point of continuing this discussion if you can't accept the actual results of those games?

We should be able to get past this stuff so we can discuss the substance of the discussion. I don't understand why you can't accept the stuff above.
Click to expand...

I guess neither of us should waste our breath. If you can't use critical thinking and actually look at the schedule individually you will just remain ignorant. 2016-2017 we need to leave out because it does not prove your point. Your point is that having a tough OOC schedule will help you perform better in ACC play due to the warm up games. 2016-17 proves that wrong because that was our toughest OOC schedule and instead of performing consistently throughout ACC play we actually had the worst first half of ACC play in those 3 years. Now over a 2 year time frame I don't think a 2 game difference is significant. Especially when I have already stated the fact that had our schedule been Virginia Home then Away instead of reverse we would only have a 1 game difference. The 1 game difference was also a game won by a miracle half court shot.
 
Advertisement
Please note this is my last post with you on this subject. Feel free to ignore my post and/or get the last word in. I am not going to read a response from you because there is no point.

OriginalGatorHater said:
If you can't use critical thinking and actually look at the schedule individually you will just remain ignorant.
Click to expand...

I didn't know it was critical thinking to disregard the actual facts, rearrange a set schedule (ACC) and discount wins (Newton, even though the game was tied when he hit the shot). 26.6% increase in wins over the last few years or 3 seasons, which includes 2016-17, is a significant difference but hey...you can think whatever you want.
 
Consigliere said:
Please note this is my last post with you on this subject. Feel free to ignore my post and/or get the last word in. I am not going to read a response from you because there is no point.



I didn't know it was critical thinking to disregard the actual facts, rearrange a set schedule (ACC) and discount wins (Newton, even though the game was tied when he hit the shot). 26.6% increase in wins over the last few years or 3 seasons, which includes 2016-17, is a significant difference but hey...you can think whatever you want.
Click to expand...

Because you are using a useless stat to debate a strawman. Half of those losses came from a season in which we had the toughest OOC schedule available. One quarter was due to the schedule being set up in a certain way. The final quarter was due to a miracle shot. You are welcome to think whatever you want, but L has no interest in making a tougher OOC schedule for obvious reasons.
 
Advertisement
NorthFloridaCane said:
Who would have thought consigliere would be arguing to the death with multiple people over some pointless thing he got upset about?


Welcome to discussing anything with consigliere.
Click to expand...

I know it is ridiculous. He refuses to acknowledge the most important pieces of the discussion. It is like arguing with a child.
 
NorthFloridaCane said:
Who would have thought consigliere would be arguing to the death with multiple people over some pointless thing he got upset about?
Click to expand...

He's just mad because he can't find one example of a Larranaga coached Miami team missing the tournament because of a weak non-conference schedule.
 
0 Chris Lykes So. 5-7 161 G Mitchellville, Md. / Gonzaga College HS
1 Dejan Vasiljevic Jr. 6-3 203 G Melbourne, Australia / Australian Institute of Sport
2 Willie Herenton So. 6-1 190 G Lincolnshire, Ill. / Stevenson HS
3 Anthony Lawrence II Sr. 6-7 210 G St. Petersburg, Fla. / Lakewood Senior
5 Zach Johnson R-Sr. 6-2 195 G Miami, Fla. / Norland HS Florida Gulf Coast
10 Miles Wilson R-So. 6-5 198 G Baltimore, Md. / Mount St. Joseph's HS Mount St. Mary's
13 Anthony Mack R-Fr. 6-6 218 G Las Vegas, Nev. / Blair Academy (N.J.) Wyoming
14 Rodney Miller, Jr. Jr. 7-0 255 C Laurelton, N.Y. / Oak Hill Academy
15 Ebuka Izundu Sr. 6-10 235 C Charlotte, N.C. / Victory Christian Center School
20 Dewan Huell Jr. 6-11 236 F Miami, Fla. / Norland HS
21 Sam Waardenburg R-So. 6-10 217 F Henderson, New Zealand / Rangitoto College
22 Deng Gak R-Fr. 6-10 195 F Sydney, Australia / Blair Academy (N.J.)
23 Kameron McGusty Jr. 6-5 192 G Katy, Texas / Sunrise Christian Academy (Kan.) Oklahoma
 
rokulika said:
0 Chris Lykes So. 5-7 161 G Mitchellville, Md. / Gonzaga College HS
1 Dejan Vasiljevic Jr. 6-3 203 G Melbourne, Australia / Australian Institute of Sport
2 Willie Herenton So. 6-1 190 G Lincolnshire, Ill. / Stevenson HS
3 Anthony Lawrence II Sr. 6-7 210 G St. Petersburg, Fla. / Lakewood Senior
5 Zach Johnson R-Sr. 6-2 195 G Miami, Fla. / Norland HS Florida Gulf Coast
10 Miles Wilson R-So. 6-5 198 G Baltimore, Md. / Mount St. Joseph's HS Mount St. Mary's
13 Anthony Mack R-Fr. 6-6 218 G Las Vegas, Nev. / Blair Academy (N.J.) Wyoming
14 Rodney Miller, Jr. Jr. 7-0 255 C Laurelton, N.Y. / Oak Hill Academy
15 Ebuka Izundu Sr. 6-10 235 C Charlotte, N.C. / Victory Christian Center School
20 Dewan Huell Jr. 6-11 236 F Miami, Fla. / Norland HS
21 Sam Waardenburg R-So. 6-10 217 F Henderson, New Zealand / Rangitoto College
22 Deng Gak R-Fr. 6-10 195 F Sydney, Australia / Blair Academy (N.J.)
23 Kameron McGusty Jr. 6-5 192 G Katy, Texas / Sunrise Christian Academy (Kan.) Oklahoma
Click to expand...

Good overall look, thanks for posting that.

We'll have some newcomers, but we won't be "young". Take away Kam McGusty (since he has to sit due to transfer), and 6 out of the remaining 11 are Juniors or older. I'm guessing Herenton is a walk on who won't play, so take him away and we're talking 6 of 10.

I think the starting lineup will probably be Lykes/Johnson/Amp/Huell/Izundu. Leaves DJ/Wilson/Mack/Miller/Waardenburg/Gak off the bench...good depth there if Wilson/Mack/Gak are ballplayers who can contribute solid minutes...I'd like to see us be able to go 10-deep, helps when dealing with a tough ACC slate. I can only hope that Miller has improved, and Waardenburg continues to develop on an upward trajectory.

I don't think we'll be as bad off losing Walker/Brown/Newton as first glance would indicate...I know I personally thought it would be much worse. Credit to Coach L for filling recruiting gaps with the transfers.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top