MBB Transfer Portal Thread: Moser Year 4

NorthCarolinaSooner said:
The SOS measures the totality of the schedule. You can't pick and choose. You are trying to pick out a portion of the schedule to complain about the the total schedule was similar. You want to point out the SOS so I fave you comparable SOS with Lon.

As far as the Athletic article you are misquoted it...you're latching on to one part and projecting your own opinion in it to attempt to prove a point. The article only pointed out OU losing players...nothing else.

The new guys may or may not succeed and you 100% have a right to your opinion but please stop stating your opinion as facts or twist someone else's words (the Athletic) into something it isn't.

I AM curious though. Since you are so stuck on PMs failure and using not getting into the tournament for your argument.....if we made the tournament this year, would you still be grandstanding about PM and this team being a total failure? Same record....same everything....but we get in the tournament?
Click to expand...
What I said was that our noncon SOS was garbage and cost us a tourney spot. I have never complained about our "total" schedule. We played in the toughest conference in America. There was nothing Moser could do to screw that up. I have never said anything remotely inconsistent on this subject. All sorts of metrics break down SOS by overall numbers and noncon, because anyone who is looking at this objectively and rationally understands the very basic point that teams can only control noncon scheduling. So yes, it is not only fair to look at things that way, it is precisely what the committee does.

As to your final question -- if that exact scenario played out and we snuck into the first four, and that was his biggest accomplishment in three years in Norman, I would still think he has done a crappy job and would have preferred he move on to DePaul or write a book about Majerus and culture walls, but I would have understood why Joe C stuck with him. But since the committee didn't put a team with a middling NET, bad noncon SOS, and brutal record against tourney teams in the field, I will always be disappointed that Joe missed a chance to move on and hire one of the good coaches in the market. Instead, we will be forced to live through a repeat of the past three seasons, albeit with different conference opponents beating us next winter, and next season will basically just be a wasted year.
 
WichitaSooner said:
The headline at the top of the article: "Who won, and who lost, in college basketball's transfer portal?" For the people in the back, LOST IS IN THE FREAKING HEADLINE.
Click to expand...

Maybe the headline. But it's not what the article states at all. Nor does it say Oklahoma is a loser.

In the intro, it states, "Portal season has become the most important roster-building time on the college basketball calendar. It’s not just who you add but who you retain....let’s look at the winners, five transfers who I think will perform better than consensus and the teams hardest hit by the portal."

The seven teams he mentioned, and the comments that follow, all talk about who left and their contribution to the success of the team.

Describing the article by saying Oklahoma is a loser in the portal to validate an opinion of PM is not opined by the author nor appears anywhere in the article.

It's an assumption or an opinion, not established fact by the article.
 
I finally read the article. If I were this guy's editor (something I've done--and still do, in part--for a living, though I'm sure I'll catch grief for mentioning that), I would have sent this piece right back to the writer. His approach is seriously flawed.

For the winners, he focuses primarily on the incoming transfers. He occasionally mentions the departing player an incoming transfer is replacing, but the incoming guy is undeniably the focus.

For the teams to whom the portal was "unkind," he focuses, as others have observed, entirely on the departing players. At no point does he mention the incoming players at those programs. There's no suggestion that those coaches dropped the ball or came up short; he simply ignores the incoming transfers altogether.

There's a reason he used the term "winners" but not "losers" and it's silly to suggest otherwise. That would have been the obvious, easiest choice, so he definitely had a reason for going in a different direction with the wording of those subheads.

It's a flawed approach for the reason we're seeing play out in this thread: many a reader will assume his assessments for winners and the "unkind" group are equivalent, but they simply aren't--they're based on entirely different data sets. I don't know why--perhaps his deadline was too tight, he was given a strict word count, or he simply took the easy way out, but the story shouldn't, in my opinion, have seen the light of day in its current state. It's confusing and, frankly, half-assed.
 
Some of you are just incredible. A dude writes a column that is captioned as who won and who lost in the portal, and some of you are spinning it as if OU being listed in the latter category should not be interpreted as him thinking OU lost in the portal in his eyes. Apparently you wouldn’t be convinced that was his opinion unless he inserted the word “loser” between every word in the section about us.

I guess it’s similar to people continuing to insist that our noncon schedule wasn’t a problem for us even after we missed the tourney in large part due to who we played out of conference.
 
WichitaSooner said:
What I said was that our noncon SOS was garbage and cost us a tourney spot. I have never complained about our "total" schedule. We played in the toughest conference in America. There was nothing Moser could do to screw that up. I have never said anything remotely inconsistent on this subject. All sorts of metrics break down SOS by overall numbers and noncon, because anyone who is looking at this objectively and rationally understands the very basic point that teams can only control noncon scheduling. So yes, it is not only fair to look at things that way, it is precisely what the committee does.

As to your final question -- if that exact scenario played out and we snuck into the first four, and that was his biggest accomplishment in three years in Norman, I would still think he has done a crappy job and would have preferred he move on to DePaul or write a book about Majerus and culture walls, but I would have understood why Joe C stuck with him. But since the committee didn't put a team with a middling NET, bad noncon SOS, and brutal record against tourney teams in the field, I will always be disappointed that Joe missed a chance to move on and hire one of the good coaches in the market. Instead, we will be forced to live through a repeat of the past three seasons, albeit with different conference opponents beating us next winter, and next season will basically just be a wasted year.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to argue honestly....just some debate/banter back and forth. You are obviously a pessimistic person, at least on here...and that's fine. I try, at least, to temper expectations while being hopeful. I may give the benefit of the doubt to PM and other coaches since I've "walked in their shoes so to speak.

I've tried to point out several times that some blame for stuff sits squarely in his lap but he's done it, and been successful, at a higher level than I have. I feel like you and your crew are too negative and personal with your attacks but that is how you operate. I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong at all....just that we have different views.

PM wasn't my first choice as HC....I wanted McCasland or another young guy. I don't have the affinity for Kellen you guys do but I like the idea of fresh, young views. We'll see what happens this year.
 
WichitaSooner said:
Some of you are just incredible. A dude writes a column that is captioned as who won and who lost in the portal, and some of you are spinning it as if OU being listed in the latter category should not be interpreted as him thinking OU lost in the portal in his eyes. Apparently you wouldn’t be convinced that was his opinion unless he inserted the word “loser” between every word in the section about us.

I guess it’s similar to people continuing to insist that our noncon schedule wasn’t a problem for us even after we missed the tourney in large part due to who we played out of conference.
Click to expand...
And you are desperately clinging to the headline (which--guess what--was almost certainly certainly written by someone other than the author of the story) and ignoring the article's actual content (or more accurately--what's missing from the article).
 
WichitaSooner said:
Some of you are just incredible. A dude writes a column that is captioned as who won and who lost in the portal, and some of you are spinning it as if OU being listed in the latter category should not be interpreted as him thinking OU lost in the portal in his eyes. Apparently you wouldn’t be convinced that was his opinion unless he inserted the word “loser” between every word in the section about us.

I guess it’s similar to people continuing to insist that our noncon schedule wasn’t a problem for us even after we missed the tourney in large part due to who we played out of conference.
Click to expand...
Where’d your boy go? Taking a break from calling PM racist?
 
TINY said:
One of the funniest parts of the Moser era has been WT and Wichita’s kumbaya after being board enemies during the Kruger era.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it shows that we each have independent thoughts and don’t just base our opinions on what others think. Meanwhile, some of you would disagree with me if I said water is wet just because you don’t like me.

Can’t wait for tomorrow. By that time, I’m sure some of you (who may or may not have actually read the article) will be spinning it as him suggesting we were the biggest winner of the portal season.
 
WichitaSooner said:
Perhaps it shows that we each have independent thoughts and don’t just base our opinions on what others think. Meanwhile, some of you would disagree with me if I said water is wet just because you don’t like me.

Can’t wait for tomorrow. By that time, I’m sure some of you (who may or may not have actually read the article) will be spinning it as him suggesting we were the biggest winner of the portal season.
Click to expand...
So everyone that agrees isn’t an independent thinker? That’s a stretch! Even for you
 
This upcoming team will need a go-to guy. Does OU have that person on the roster? Or are we crossing our fingers, toes etc. and hope someone comes out of this crowd and takes this team upward?
 
WichitaSooner said:
Meanwhile, some of you would disagree with me if I said water is wet just because you don’t like me.
Click to expand...
It would more about your disappointment with the quality of the water. Not the fact it's wet. You constantly harp on "Sunshine Pumpers" when you're exactly the same ...just the complete opposite. You're a negativity pumper. But no one can harp on you, because you're "realistic". 🤷🏻‍♂️

And I'm going to call you out for not responding to TE4T. And yes I read through every post since.You continued on SOS and then the athletic article, but hard stop here.

TEvans4Three said:
If by adding 5 players it provides a bigger sample size, then okay, I can take a look.

I can go back and see his recruits year-by-year development. It is just hard for me to accept something subjective.

So what do you want me to look at? Just young players, recruited or not by Moser and if they got better the first year to the second?

But would you at least concede, based on the numbers I shared, that the portal numbers may not have been what you thought since the majority of the transfers showed improvement?
Click to expand...
 
WichitaSooner said:
Perhaps it shows that we each have independent thoughts and don’t just base our opinions on what others think. Meanwhile, some of you would disagree with me if I said water is wet just because you don’t like me.

Can’t wait for tomorrow. By that time, I’m sure some of you (who may or may not have actually read the article) will be spinning it as him suggesting we were the biggest winner of the portal season.
Click to expand...

I love your negativity. Super pumped to come to this board daily just to read your posts.
 
daqman said:
I love your negativity. Super pumped to come to this board daily just to read your posts.
Click to expand...
He must be a joy to live with. I read the article...and it clearly was referring to the players who LEFT the program, and at no point did they even discuss the players coming in...for ANY team listed in that category! It' simple reading comprehension! But negativity is like racism...you can find in in ANYTHING if you look hard enough.
 
Eielson said:
Did you year about how Moser is racist? We're going to have 3 white players next year. Only explanation. Great detective work by WT.
Click to expand...
EDIT: lets not get political ...... it is just not worth it .... even in an election year ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cvangild said:
He must be a joy to live with. I read the article...and it clearly was referring to the players who LEFT the program, and at no point did they even discuss the players coming in...for ANY team listed in that category! It' simple reading comprehension! But negativity is like racism...you can find in in ANYTHING if you look hard enough.
Click to expand...
EDIT : no reason for this ..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
random


Image
 
StoopsBros said:
random


Image
Click to expand...

Wow..some of these blow my mind. It's shocking that Nebraska has never won a tourney game! They had some decent teams during my life, and have had some talent. SJ not winning one in 20+ years...and yet Pitino is able to lure some talent there..thank god for NIL I guess. UNLV is def not the program I remember watching in the 80's/90's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top