The List

[Pudge]

Sportsart, Confident Carl, Bnich, and the others: Just remember when whaler responds where to direct your anger to.

There are reasonable adult posters going back 10 years that do not post any longer & many that post far less because of the board's current poison. Some of the best. I know you just like to read your posts. I happen to miss many others that had a point of view different from yours.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

I will give you your wish. You can spout 3 Stars forever. I am never going to buy the argument. So ... I suggest we just let you spout away cause it is spurious.

Priceless. YOU are the one that initiated this discussion.

But go ahead and keep on with the spurious "you and whaler are poison to the board and have driven away all of these 10 year posters" nonsense.

 

[junglehusky]

LOL. I have been called every name in the book from an Apologista to a Negative Nancy. I can stomach the arguing and name calling. Mostly because I'm usually right.

If you're right (or not) you can make your argument with points without whining about being called out. Both you and Pudge are coming across as thin-skinned in this thread and however many other threads you go back and forth.

 

[whaler11]

Pudge if anyone's feelings are hurt they are yours.

You want to ignore data because it leads to conclusions you don't like.

Your case that UConn is geographic outlier and therefore the data isn't applicable holds no water since the on-field results line up very closely with the past recruiting analysis.

That you continue to pick fights and then cry about being disagreed with on a topic where you are wrong seems that you might not have the ability to determine what a reasonable adult poster looks like. A couple of months back you were scolding posters for creating us versus them in the fanbase. You've done nothing for the past two weeks than attempt to drive posters into us vs them. So make up your mind?

Wanting to beat FBS schools for recruits instead of Monmouth and Bryant is only 'negative' because you keep framing it as such. Thinking that the program should have higher aspirations when it comes to recruiting doesn't strike me as negative.

If you don't think offers (you know the actual argument you keep trying to turn into stars) matter - bully for you. You can probably find some people that think the sun revolves around the earth and that if you sail far enough east there are dragons awaiting your arrival.

 

[UConnDan97]

You just lack the understanding of how kids get a 3 Star.

IF ... for instance ... we had 5000 fans on Connecticut Rivals.com who pay membership, we could get 20 3 Stars instead of 4. That is what happens at multiple sites around the country. When that is the fundamental qualitative threshold, I call BS on the whole system. Second, our (OUR) High Schools - NY & all the NE states are far under-recruited and far under-evaluated. Plus Quebec and Ontario. There's rarely a kid playing in the NFL today from that region that got a 3 Star.

I will give you your wish. You can spout 3 Stars forever. I am never going to buy the argument. So ... I suggest we just let you spout away cause it is spurious.

Thank you so much for allowing me the courtesy of "spouting away"! I was so much looking forward to that, and you have honored me greatly by awarding that to me!

Pudge, try to get a hold of yourself. Honestly. In one breath, you are saying that we don't get 3-star kids because NE states don't get any kids listed as 3-stars. Then, in another breath, you say that you don't think any of the Connecticut kids were "big losses" (seven of which were 3-star rated or higher). And that's just CT. I haven't the slightest clue what you think your point is. But more importantly, I'm not really sure what your problem is. But facts are facts, and I'm not particularly concerned if you "don't buy it". I'll end my spouting away now. Thanks again for the kind allowance you have given me!!!

 

[UConnDan97]

You want to ignore data because it leads to conclusions you don't like.

^^^ Yahtzee!!!

And this sums up in one sentence what I've been trying to say in 3 posts. That doesn't speak well for my writing prowess...

 

[whaler11]

Thank you so much for allowing me the courtesy of "spouting away"! I was so much looking forward to that, and you have honored me greatly by awarding that to me!

Pudge, try to get a hold of yourself. Honestly. In one breath, you are saying that we don't get 3-star kids because NE states don't get any kids listed as 3-stars. Then, in another breath, you say that you don't think any of the Connecticut kids were "big losses" (seven of which were 3-star rated or higher). And that's just CT. I haven't the slightest clue what you think your point is. But more importantly, I'm not really sure what your problem is. But facts are facts, and I'm not particularly concerned if you "don't buy it". I'll end my spouting away now. Thanks again for the kind allowance you have given me!!!

It was generous of someone who is attempting to make the argument that the recruiting actions of 128 FBS coaching staffs don't in the aggregate create qualitative data.

Certainly the opinions of Steve Addazio, James Franklin and David Cutcliffe hold no value.

I look forward to a future diatribe that a 6th round pick in the NFL draft holds as much value as a first round pick because of Tom Brady.

 

[ZooCougar]

Beating Monmouth for recruits=Doing it the right way

Beating FBS Schools for Recruits=Doing it the wrong way

Ok. Really?

I'd rather win more games and go to bowl games that put kids in the league. Putting kids in the league is not a metric that doesn't indicate TEAM success on the field.

 

[ZooCougar]

There are cranky adult posters going back 10 years that do not post any longer & many that post far less because of the board's current acceptance of reality. Some of the best. I know you just like to read your posts. I happen to miss many others that had a point of view different from yours.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Hoophound]

One advantage we have is we attract and produce men who have solid character and are intelligent. Our academic and moral standards are high. That does help in the long term.

I think this does help. Despite the willingness of others to dismiss it, it takes discipline and hard work to turn a kid into a pro prospect. Kids that achieve in school are workers.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Again with the long time posters who have been driven away by people on a message board.

Yes, because UConnDan97 schooling everyone with recruiting facts/reality has driven people away and not 5,5,3 and 2 win seasons with the loss of our BCS bid had nothing to do with it.

 

[UConnDan97]

Again with the long time posters who have been driven away by people on a message board.

Yes, because UConnDan97 schooling everyone with recruiting facts/reality has driven people away and not 5,5,3 and 2 win seasons with the loss of our BCS bid had nothing to do with it.

You can provide some people with stats, dates, and even graphs, but it just won't matter. Sometimes, people dig their heels in on an argument to the point where they find it impossible to say something as simple as, "Good point"...

 

[Pudge]

You can provide some people with stats, dates, and even graphs, but it just won't matter. Sometimes, people dig their heels in on an argument to the point where they find it impossible to say something as simple as, "Good point"...

You're like Karl Rove with the Ohio voters. You just know all so much.

Three Stars from Rivals?

4. Two of whom got re-evaluated for God knows why. Often by guys, like Mike Farrell, that listen to deep deep sources at BC or Maryland.

Three Stars from ESPN

13. Evaluated by former Coaches; plus people who write for ESPN & have been in the scouting industry.

I think you 5 guys should debate which is a MORE VALID Three Star. Is it Rivals or Scout or 247 ... or ESPN. There's huge disparity from 4 to 13. I say it is what it has been for the last 15 years: IF you pay money to Rivals, you get the Stars. The reality is you all just like to WHINE. You have nothing to go on with Diaco & recruiting. That 2 win debacle has nothing to do with his recruiting ... if you are fair.

 

[Pudge]

Again with the long time posters who have been driven away by people on a message board.

Yes, because UConnDan97 schooling everyone with recruiting facts/reality has driven people away and not 5,5,3 and 2 win seasons with the loss of our BCS bid had nothing to do with it.

Facts?

I see nothing. You would fail most any course I teach - yes Graduate MBA - and I see no Case history that makes any point that's relevant to the discussion. You just WHINE.

 

[Bonehead]

Lovely NE weather we are having these days...

 

[whaler11]

78 games played to a record of 31-47 seems like a lot of facts.

We've got another set of facts on Diaco's recruiting. Who he beat out for players.

Might his staff's ability to judge high school players far outweigh the cumulative ability of all of the other coaching staffs? Sure, that is possible.

Might his staff's ability to coach and scheme make up for whatever was lacking in recruiting? Sure, that is possible too.

Odd that everyone seems to agree that highly touted recruits are a good thing for Geno and Ollie (if Stone picks Wisconsin someone should post the number to a suicide prevention hotline)... but some seem to think college football is a mysterious puzzle where you don't want to start with players as talented or more talented than your opponents.

Two fun pieces of irony:

Pudge calling people WHINERS while whining for weeks on end

Pudge ignoring that if you look up 'guy who thinks he's the smartest guy in the room' you get a picture of Bob Diaco.

 

[UCFBfan]

This thread is clearly off topic but I gotta agree with what Jimmy said a few posts back. It truly feels that as soon as whaler or some of the other supposed "negative, board ruining posters" posts something, even if it's rational, folks wanna just automatically claim they're destroying a thread with negativity, For goodness sake folks, lighten up. There are clearly posts that we all make that are bad posts or ones that drive a thread into the grave. However, just because someone posts an opposing view doesn't mean their "ruining" a thread. I thought the point of this and other message boards was to actually have back and forth conversations with people presenting their ideas? Instead, this place is quickly turning into folks ignoring that someone who can be negative a lot, might actually be making a valid point. It's really getting ridiculous.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Facts?

I see nothing. You would fail most any course I teach - yes Graduate MBA - and I see no Case history that makes any point that's relevant to the discussion. You just WHINE.

Good grief. This is getting out of hand. I'm gonna throw you a lifeline and attempt to call a truce with you. Just put us all on ignore. Or just stop responding to everything we write. You win. We drove all the posters and fans away. We all think we're the smartest guy in the room. We all whine. You win. Just stop it with your jihad. It's getting embarrassing. For everyone involved.

 

[uconnbill]

Your beef really should be with Pudge here. He started this thread to pick a fight with whaler. So you shouldn't be surprised when whaler responds.

Also, I'm getting tired of the notion that when people like myself, whaler, CHB, and others post our opinions which are based on actual evidence we are accused of ruining the board. Meanwhile, you have a mod, who shall remain nameless, "drawing lines in the sand" and dividing the board based on opinion. The opinion about stars and more importantly offer lists is a valid concern and that shouldn't be mocked as being "negative". It's getting tiring listening to some of these posts from some of these clowns.

Here is what I suggest to people who think whaler and I are ruining the board. Don't troll us. If you want to have an honest discussion of things fine. But if you're going on blind faith alone than simply avoid the argument. This isn't hard. People on this board need thicker skin and a tougher stomach.

Thicker skin would mean not threatening to quit the board because of others differing with your viewpoint.

My issue is that I come here to read UCONN football and not how sucky they were last year. Guess what we know they sucked last year as we saw it for ourselves. We don't need to be reminded of it all the time by those who are not fans of HCBD and his methods.

Go Huskies with my rose colored glasses

 

[Pudge]

78 games played to a record of 31-47 seems like a lot of facts.

We've got another set of facts on Diaco's recruiting. Who he beat out for players.

Might his staff's ability to judge high school players far outweigh the cumulative ability of all of the other coaching staffs? Sure, that is possible.

Might his staff's ability to coach and scheme make up for whatever was lacking in recruiting? Sure, that is possible too.

Odd that everyone seems to agree that highly touted recruits are a good thing for Geno and Ollie (if Stone picks Wisconsin someone should post the number to a suicide prevention hotline)... but some seem to think college football is a mysterious puzzle where you don't want to start with players as talented or more talented than your opponents.

Two fun pieces of irony:

Pudge calling people WHINERS while whining for weeks on end

Pudge ignoring that if you look up 'guy who thinks he's the smartest guy in the room' you get a picture of Bob Diaco.

It is FISHY. And the time is 1:50am ...

 

[BNich]

Thicker skin would mean not threatening to quit the board because of others differing with your viewpoint.

My issue is that I come here to read UCONN football and not how sucky they were last year. Guess what we know they sucked last year as we saw it for ourselves. We don't need to be reminded of it all the time by those who are not fans of HCBD and his methods.

Go Huskies with my rose colored glasses

Someone start a "The Negative Thread" and let them talk amongst themselves over there.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Thicker skin would mean not threatening to quit the board because of others differing with your viewpoint.

My issue is that I come here to read UCONN football and not how sucky they were last year. Guess what we know they sucked last year as we saw it for ourselves. We don't need to be reminded of it all the time by those who are not fans of HCBD and his methods.

Go Huskies with my rose colored glasses

Differing opinions are fine. My issue is with people who think they've been appointed to decipher what is and what is not valuable opinion.

If this board continues to be taken over by the passive aggressive babies then everyone will get their wish and I either won't post anymore or get banned.

Then you can all listen with glee as Conf Carl tells everyone the AAC is better than the old BE and hear BNich boast about his twitter convos with 16 year old kids.

 

[BNich]

Differing opinions are fine. My issue is with people who think they've been appointed to decipher what is and what is not valuable opinion.

If this board continues to be taken over by the passive aggressive babies then everyone will get their wish and I either won't post anymore or get banned.

Then you can all listen with glee as Conf Carl tells everyone the AAC is better than the old BE and hear BNich boast about his twitter convos with 16 year old kids.

Sorry you're too old to understand appreciate social media. I don't boast about conversations with recruits. Whether you want to like/believe it or not, the kids today seek the proverbial fist bumps and high fives that fellow fans give them. Just look at how many are on twitter interacting with fans, coaches, media, etc. But ok, continue to try to poke fun. You have your opinion and beliefs and I have mine. Enough already.
Anyway, its good to know someone is at least talking about me.

 

[UConnDan97]

You're like Karl Rove with the Ohio voters. You just know all so much.

Three Stars from Rivals?

4. Two of whom got re-evaluated for God knows why. Often by guys, like Mike Farrell, that listen to deep deep sources at BC or Maryland.

Three Stars from ESPN

13. Evaluated by former Coaches; plus people who write for ESPN & have been in the scouting industry.

I think you 5 guys should debate which is a MORE VALID Three Star. Is it Rivals or Scout or 247 ... or ESPN. There's huge disparity from 4 to 13. I say it is what it has been for the last 15 years: IF you pay money to Rivals, you get the Stars. The reality is you all just like to WHINE. You have nothing to go on with Diaco & recruiting. That 2 win debacle has nothing to do with his recruiting ... if you are fair.

Yup. I'm famous on the Boneyard for my whining. Hey Pudge, if we put a poll on the BY to see which of us was the biggest whiner, do you really think I would win?

Secondly, whether you use Rivals or ESPN or 247, the result is the same. The top20 recruiting classes eventually lead to top40 teams. The bottom20 recruiting classes eventually lead to bottom40 teams. I think it was Junglehusky that provided the graph that demonstrated that. You can underachieve a little, or overachieve a little, but in the end your fate will be determined by the level of athlete that you have. That's true of any sport in any place in the world. I'm just not sure why you can't accept that. And yes, I agree that the 2 win debacle had nothing to do with his recruiting. I believe that we had the talent to be bowl eligible last year. But we didn't have the talent to be a top25 team. That's the reality, folks...

 

[BNich]

Yup. I'm famous on the Boneyard for my whining. Hey Pudge, if we put a poll on the BY to see which of us was the biggest whiner, do you really think I would win?

Secondly, whether you use Rivals or ESPN or 247, the result is the same. The top20 recruiting classes eventually lead to top40 teams. The bottom20 recruiting classes eventually lead to bottom40 teams. I think it was Junglehusky that provided the graph that demonstrated that. You can underachieve a little, or overachieve a little, but in the end your fate will be determined by the level of athlete that you have. That's true of any sport in any place in the world. I'm just not sure why you can't accept that. And yes, I agree that the 2 win debacle had nothing to do with his recruiting. I believe that we had the talent to be bowl eligible last year. But we didn't have the talent to be a top25 team. That's the reality, folks...

65 scholarship players and you though the team should have been bowling? Just a question. Don't attack me. But why would the NCAA allow 85 scholarship players if 65 was enough? Not only that, 3-9 the year prior, a number of starters gone and the team still had enough talent to be bowl eligible?!