The List | Page 3 | The Boneyard

The List

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
ConnHuskBask said:
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.
Expand ...

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"...
 
UConnDan97 said:
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"...
Expand ...

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.
 
ConnHuskBask said:
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.
Expand ...

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.
 
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.
 
.-.
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.
 
Pudge said:
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.
Expand ...

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.
 
Jimmy Serrano said:
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.
Expand ...


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
 
whaler11 said:
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.
Expand ...

It is FISHY. And the time is 1:50am ...
 
uconnbill said:
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
Expand ...
Someone start a "The Negative Thread" and let them talk amongst themselves over there.
 
uconnbill said:
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
Expand ...

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.
 
.-.
Jimmy Serrano said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
Pudge said:
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.
Expand ...

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...
 
UConnDan97 said:
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...
Expand ...
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?!
 
BNich said:
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?!
Expand ...

Here's my answer to that. I believe that the games against Army, USF, SMU, Tulane, and Temple were ours to win. The Temple game was lost in the third quarter, so hopefully people don't look back at that scoreline and say, "Dan, you're crazy", because Dan was there to see it. So assuming that I got 4 of those 5 games, that would be 6-6.

And I know that people accuse me often times of being glass-half-full to the point of being ridiculous, but there was no reason at all that we shouldn't have won the games I listed if based on talent alone. None. Zero. Yale found a way to beat Army, for crying out loud. And SMU...I still can't stomach the fact that we lost that game. We lost to USF after attempting to pass the ball only 9 times?!? I still can't believe that happened. And against Tulane, we gained slightly over 200 yards of offense and ZERO TD's against a team that went 3-9. So yes, I absolutely positively believe that we should have been 6-6 with our roster, and there are no two ways around it...
 
UConnDan97 said:
Here's my answer to that. I believe that the games against Army, USF, SMU, Tulane, and Temple were ours to win. The Temple game was lost in the third quarter, so hopefully people don't look back at that scoreline and say, "Dan, you're crazy", because Dan was there to see it. So assuming that I got 4 of those 5 games, that would be 6-6.

And I know that people accuse me often times of being glass-half-full to the point of being ridiculous, but there was no reason at all that we shouldn't have won the games I listed if based on talent alone. None. Zero. Yale found a way to beat Army, for crying out loud. And SMU...I still can't stomach the fact that we lost that game. We lost to USF after attempting to pass the ball only 9 times?!? I still can't believe that happened. And against Tulane, we gained slightly over 200 yards of offense and ZERO TD's against a team that went 3-9. So yes, I absolutely positively believe that we should have been 6-6 with our roster, and there are no two ways around it...
Expand ...
Yet the roster produced 2-10. But ok.
 
.-.
BNich said:
Yet the roster produced 2-10. But ok.
Expand ...

Yup. So guess where I put the blame.

So here's the difference between you and me:

UConnDan97 - The UConn roster had enough talent to beat some of the worst teams in college football, but the rookie head coach made a lot of mistakes. He even recognized those mistakes, and has since removed his OC and replaced him with a new one.

BNich - The UConn roster was no good (or too small, or both), but rookie head coach Bob Diaco was "awesome sauce", and this latest recruiting class will be the first time in 4 years that we have recruited talent.

I just can't accept your version of events. Call me crazy, but there was enough talent on this team to stay in the middle of the pack against a weak AAC...
 
UConnDan97 said:
Yup. So guess where I put the blame.

So here's the difference between you and me:

UConnDan97 - The UConn roster had enough talent to beat some of the worst teams in college football, but the rookie head coach made a lot of mistakes. He even recognized those mistakes, and has since removed his OC and replaced him with a new one.

BNich - The UConn roster was no good (or too small, or both), but rookie head coach Bob Diaco was "awesome sauce", and this latest recruiting class will be the first time in 4 years that we have recruited talent.

I just can't accept your version of events. Call me crazy, but there was enough talent on this team to stay in the middle of the pack against a weak AAC...
Expand ...
If you can dig up a post where I said Diaco was "awesome sauce" I will never disagree with you moving forward. Talent or otherwise, depth was depleted and the past couple recruiting classes, as has been pointed out, many never made it to campus and some have left the program hence the 65 scholarship number. But ok continue to believe your belief and I will continue you with mine.
 
BNich said:
If you can dig up a post where I said Diaco was "awesome sauce" I will never disagree with you moving forward. Talent or otherwise, depth was depleted and the past couple recruiting classes, as has been pointed out, many never made it to campus and some have left the program hence the 65 scholarship number. But ok continue to believe your belief and I will continue you with mine.
Expand ...

Wait so we would have been a better team with 20 more players? Did SMU have around 65 players and that's why they were so bad too?
 
.-.
UconnFamily said:
Wait so we would have been a better team with 20 more players? Did SMU have around 65 players and that's why they were so bad too?
Expand ...
You're point is that, pointless. SMU beat Uconn. Move along.
 
UConnDan97 said:
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...
Expand ...

LOL

Look at the Math in this paragraph. Gosh ... Take some Statistics (get some Facts) & come back and see me.

I'm not saying Recruiting is not crucial. I'm saying the crapola you're spouting has no statistical significance. And I'm not teaching 101 to anyone.

We have no idea how Diaco did. Number 2 - the Stars are not the same; I just pointed out a huge variance. Offers? This ain't fact. Kids lie. The system is run by ... Guys like John O. At RutgersRivals ... who admittedly manipulates reports. The first indication of how Diaco did on Feb 4 is probably not until October. The record? Look at our retention of PP recruits if you want to cry. Blame Diaco? Hmmm.
 
BNich said:
You're point is that, pointless. SMU beat Uconn. Move along.
Expand ...

Lol... SMU went 1-11 with a full roster. But yet we were garbage because we had 65 players??? Sometimes BNich you just make no fuc**ng sense.
 
UconnFamily said:
Lol... SMU went 1-11 with a full roster. But yet we were garbage because we had 65 players??? Sometimes BNich you just make no fuc**ng sense.
Expand ...
??? Who said we were garbage? I don't like you either. But I never said that,. The roster and team was depleted.
 
BNich said:
??? Who said we were garbage? I don't like you either. But I never said that,. The roster and team was depleted.
Expand ...

Who cares who you like I'm not here to make friends especially with one who makes no sense most of the time. No one said YOU said we were garbage but your excuse for us not winning the games we should have won was because UConn had 65 players, but yet SMU had a full roster and went 1-11.
 
BNich said:
If you can dig up a post where I said Diaco was "awesome sauce" I will never disagree with you moving forward. Talent or otherwise, depth was depleted and the past couple recruiting classes, as has been pointed out, many never made it to campus and some have left the program hence the 65 scholarship number. But ok continue to believe your belief and I will continue you with mine.
Expand ...

The "awesome sauce" was adlib. I shouldn't have put that in quotes. My bad.

Getting back to the discussion: Out of the following teams, please tell me the ones that you think had more talent than we had on their rosters: USF, Temple, Army, SMU, Tulane. If you even say more than two of them, I'll know that you're lying. If you don't say more than two of them, then we agree and you are just fighting me for no reason...
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,366
Messages
4,568,186
Members
10,472
Latest member
MyStore24


Top Bottom