Dark Horse in Valley

[rlh04d]

I will give Shocker fans credit for consistency in their vision, in that clearly only their players improve in the offseason, only their unproven newcomers are sure bets to contribute, and only their losses from last year are not to be held as significant this year, while the loss of Downing is evidently a program breaker. I don't discount any of the points you make, you can make cases for any team including the Shockers for why a team will or won't meet their fans expectations. I just find it funny in a thread that focuses on "Dark Horses" you have to counter a fairly soft representation of the Bears chances to even be a top 5 team. But hey, you have your view ; we'll see how the year pans out .

And I have to give Bears fans (see, I can discredit you as a person by referring to you as just a generic fan of a team, too!) credit for blatantly arguing you'd be better than a "top half" team and saying all of us are foolishly focusing on the nonconference season, but when I point out how awful you were in the conference season, you try to focus on WSU rather than countering a SINGLE thing I said.

What I'm seeing is that you expect WSU to be worse or the same as last year and Missouri State to be MUCH better. The WSU and MoSt roster questions actually look very similar to me -- except WSU was a Final Four team and Missouri State was lucky to win double digit games. So how do you improve drastically with the same sort of question marks you believe we have? You can't compare your situation to WSU, because WSU was an amazing team last year -- if we just hold steady or slightly get worse, we're still going to be an amazing team. If MoSt holds steady or slightly gets worse, you're going to be AWFUL.

This isn't hypocrisy. If our rosters have the same sort of question marks, then I would have to expect the same level of improvement/decline/status quo relative to their performance last year. Your argument has to be that, with very similar question marks, MoSt will get dramatically better while we'll either be the same or worse -- and that is hypocrisy. If I expect us both to be a bit better, it's not hypocrisy to say that I don't think they'll jump from 9th to 3rd -- if I believed WSU was going to improve that dramatically, I'd be guaranteeing an undefeated season.

I clearly said Missouri State was the Dark Horse in the Valley, because I expect them to be better after being SO bad last year.

[BEARZ77]

I'm not sure quite what posts you were reading as much of what you are ranting about was never said in this thread, but hey you're passionate about what you thought you read. A few minor points , tied for 7th isn't 9th, which means with CU gone there were 5 teams ahead of us. 2 more wins and jump one team equals top half finish, which is what I said we will do but according to you is an almost insurmountable hurdle. So we'll just see where things end up at years end.

[rlh04d]

tied for 7th isn't 9th, which means with CU gone there were 5 teams ahead of us.

Tied for 7th is literally the same thing as being tied for 9th. There was 1 team behind you.

Keep changing the subject because you can't argue with anything I said, though. Tell us some more about how we're just blinded by your nonconference performance.

[Redbird23]

tied for 7th isn't 9th, which means with CU gone there were 5 teams ahead of us.

Tied for 7th is literally the same thing as being tied for 9th. There was 1 team behind you.

Keep changing the subject because you can't argue with anything I said, though. Tell us some more about how we're just blinded by your nonconference performance, though.

They showed that they can play with that Arch Madness loss to the Shox. They fell away at the end, and with another year of experience I say that the Bears are my Dark Horse team beside ISU.

[agrinut]

tied for 7th isn't 9th, which means with CU gone there were 5 teams ahead of us.

Tied for 7th is literally the same thing as being tied for 9th. There was 1 team behind you.

Keep changing the subject because you can't argue with anything I said, though. Tell us some more about how we're just blinded by your nonconference performance.

You do understand that there are several teams that lost a lot more then the putrid bears. This includes Bradley who finished behind the Bears.... It's funny to me how every other team can project improvements but the bears. That horrible team did everything they could to keep a final four team from even making the dance. The reason the Bears were so horrie last year has little to do with talent and everything to do with experience. This is evident by the improvement by years end.

[rlh04d]

You do understand that there are several teams that lost a lot more then the putrid bears. This includes Bradley who finished behind the Bears.... It's funny to me how every other team can project improvements but the bears. That horrible team did everything they could to keep a final four team from even making the dance. The reason the Bears were so horrie last year has little to do with talent and everything to do with experience. This is evident by the improvement by years end.

There's not really much improvement you can point to, though, except for a decent game against the Shockers that they still lost by double digits in. Even in that game, Jake White and Nick Wiggins both played more than 20 minutes -- those two averaged 3.2 minutes a game in the NCAA tournament. We were resting players.

The 'improvement by years end' is where I have a problem. The best thing you can point to is going 6-6 to end the conference season -- but that stretch includes you scoring 37 points against UNI, losing by 29 to the Shockers, losing by 36 to Illinois State, and losing by 8 to SIU. You weren't a good team by year's end, either, unless you specifically restrict that to the last three games. You were better than at the start of the season, but I don't think there was any point where you could argue that they were good.

Knock yourselves out on predicting improvement, but if you're going to keep arguing you have one of the most talented and proven rosters in the conference, you'd better be willing to defend it.

[AngryShock]

I don't see MSU finishing better than 4th if things go great for them or worse than 6th. I'm guessing 5th. I don't understand why rhl is so focused on the Bears not improving. They were playing better at the end of the season no matter what the record says. And they were something like the 5th youngest roster in all of college and were playing a number of FR. Those kids should improve a decent amount going into this year and MSU should be much better.

As far as Evansville being a dark horse, I don't see it. I like Ballentine and they have a couple of decent looking bigs, but I still see them playing on Thursday this year as they'll be relying on so much youth and inexperience.

[BEARZ77]

tied for 7th isn't 9th, which means with CU gone there were 5 teams ahead of us.

Tied for 7th is literally the same thing as being tied for 9th. There was 1 team behind you.

Keep changing the subject because you can't argue with anything I said, though. Tell us some more about how we're just blinded by your nonconference performance.

You're the only one beating the drum on your end, and you've yet to address the points I made instead of the ones you deluded yourself into believing were said. I've predicted nothing more than a top half finish and you act like I said we're going to be ranked and conference Champions. I don't need to argue any of your points because they have little to do with what I've said. If you really believe that winning two more conference games and passing one team in the standings is more than what the Bears are capable of then just say so directly instead of your dramatic posturing about things never said. I've been clear , we will finish 5th or better; what say you ???

[2livewu]

The 3 teams I think have the best chance of outperforming expectations are:

Evansville - I like Ballentine, Wing and their bigs.

Missouri State - Some good young talent.

Bradley - Can't afford anything bad to happen to Lemon or Pickett or they're done.




I can't fathom a scenario where Drake or SIU make any noise at all. Starting to think the road is a bit too steep for ISUR to climb this year. Loyola could surprise I suppose.

[Wufan]

The 3 teams I think have the best chance of outperforming expectations are:

Evansville - I like Ballentine, Wing and their bigs.

Missouri State - Some good young talent.

Bradley - Can't afford anything bad to happen to Lemon or Pickett or they're done.




I can't fathom a scenario where Drake or SIU make any noise at all. Starting to think the road is a bit too steep for ISUR to climb this year. Loyola could surprise I suppose.

I agree with 2live wholeheartedly. EU, MSU, BU in that order, of course it depends on where you expect them as to how much they will outperform. I don't think it is a stretch to predict any one of the three as the 4th place finisher, which I feel is near the ceiling. Loyola is too much of an unknown to predict.