Wed, Jan 11th. 5th MVC Game

[Wufan]

Why is the original assertion that ISU has been "good" since it's last tournament appearance being backed up with citations to 4 tournament runs to the final game during an 18 year stretch? The merits of whether those wins in those specific conference tournaments make a team "good" have been discussed ad nauseum above, but the entire counterpoint using 2008, 2009, 2013 and 2015 as support to defend the assertion of being "good" over a near-two decade time span is either intellectually insincere or just a very poorly constructed argument.

An equally effective tactic would be to post ISUr's results from its 4 or 5 shittiest seasons during that same time span and somehow try to pretend that such proof conclusively refutes (lol) an assertion that ISUr was good during that much, much longer period. Multiple subsequent claims that any poster who disagree was checkmated or refuted (again, lol) by such "proof" would be, you guessed it, retarded. Because it is a very, very poor way to prove or disprove the original point.

In short, let's please argue more effectively.

Play Angry, please tell me you can read or you're going to get lumped into a group with your boy Championz. It's cute coming to his defense though...

The original data points that I gave of those 4 years were the entire data set in which those points existed. Another Bird fan stated we had made it to the finals 4 of the last 9 years, and those are the points in which arguments were based around when discussing "good" teams.

So unless you want me to include quarterfinal or semifinal losses during that time when discussing "years in which we went to the title game"... 4 and only 4 years can be used.

In short, let's please read more effectively. Nice try though. I can see that Shocker education just shining from this board right now.

Those data points aren't valid. You missed the entire argument, but thanks for the back and forth.

[specialsauce]

Play Angry, please tell me you can read or you're going to get lumped into a group with your boy Championz. It's cute coming to his defense though...

The original data points that I gave of those 4 years were the entire data set in which those points existed. Another Bird fan stated we had made it to the finals 4 of the last 9 years, and those are the points in which arguments were based around when discussing "good" teams.

So unless you want me to include quarterfinal or semifinal losses during that time when discussing "years in which we went to the title game"... 4 and only 4 years can be used.

In short, let's please read more effectively. Nice try though. I can see that Shocker education just shining from this board right now.

Gee, it seems like everybody who responds to you has a reading problem. Strange.

Maybe, you're the one with the problem, stiff.

[Wufan]

Moral victories suck but Loyola had WSU down to a 4 point game with about 2 minutes left to go; Ingram missed a wide open three and then it mostly became a free throw contest. Great game; both sides complained about officiating but so it's a wash. Custer had 3 fouls in the first twelve minutes. WSU got 2 fouls on 3 pt shooters that were super soft. But Doyle also was able to get to the rim at will and generally get the calls (LUC 22 FT to WSU 29FT). I'm sure Marshall's gonna drill these guys hard before their matchup with ISU. Should be a great battle.

Also feeling much better about my Ramblers. Drake's showing to be a surprise team in conference so that loss looks a LITTLE less bad, and the ISU drubbing seems to have resonated with the team. Big game against MSU Sunday to help sort out the middle of the MVC some more.

Shockers are tough at home! WSU had to play a hell of a game to win, and got outreboubded by the migits. Good luck going forward!

Also, I'm doubtful the middle or even the top of the Valley will be sorted out this month. The bottom appears to be getting sorted out.

[specialsauce]

Man, for all of those who think Marshall whines about everything, I submit Porter Moser. He was a maniac from the opening tip. And I mean a complete lunatic. He worked the officials EVERY time they came down the floor. EVERY time. Came across as a major whiner and made Marshall look like St. Francis.

As to the game, WSU had a chance to bury Loyola up 19 with about 10 minutes left, but made some stupid turnovers and missed a decent amount of free throws during that stretch. Loyola got quite a few calls with the bullrush moves. Overall, it was a poorly officiated game on both sides. WSU just is too much offensively and hit some big daggers like winners do. We also only beat Loyola by 12 during our undefeated year. You can't beat every team to a pulp by 30 at Koch. It's only natural and I think a closer game helps WSU in the long run as they haven't had too many of those in the Valley this year.

[musiccitybulldog]

Drake beats Indy State 87-70.

[Redbirdgrad]

Home teams hold serve outside of SIU.

Nice wins Wichita, MSU, and Drake. Bradley looks well on their way to holding serve as well.

Sets up a fun Saturday!

[Redhawk]

Great TEAM win by the Birds!

Evans is a huge factor in the strong play. The fact that Müller has enough confidence in him to take Lee out when he tries to do too much has really forced Paris to play smarter and get the ball to the true scorers in crunch time.

Excited for the Shocker game. Let's go Birds!

[Play Angry]

Why is the original assertion that ISU has been "good" since it's last tournament appearance being backed up with citations to 4 tournament runs to the final game during an 18 year stretch? The merits of whether those wins in those specific conference tournaments make a team "good" have been discussed ad nauseum above, but the entire counterpoint using 2008, 2009, 2013 and 2015 as support to defend the assertion of being "good" over a near-two decade time span is either intellectually insincere or just a very poorly constructed argument.

An equally effective tactic would be to post ISUr's results from its 4 or 5 shittiest seasons during that same time span and somehow try to pretend that such proof conclusively refutes (lol) an assertion that ISUr was good during that much, much longer period. Multiple subsequent claims that any poster who disagree was checkmated or refuted (again, lol) by such "proof" would be, you guessed it, retarded. Because it is a very, very poor way to prove or disprove the original point.

In short, let's please argue more effectively.

Play Angry, please tell me you can read or you're going to get lumped into a group with your boy Championz. It's cute coming to his defense though...

This part is just sort of weird since there was no white knighting in my post.

The original data points that I gave of those 4 years were the entire data set in which those points existed.

lol, is this in english? You had to chuckle when you typed this.

Another Bird fan stated we had made it to the finals 4 of the last 9 years, and those are the points in which arguments were based around when discussing "good" teams. So unless you want me to include quarterfinal or semifinal losses during that time when discussing "years in which we went to the title game"... 4 and only 4 years can be used.

I see where the problem is. You are stupid. Too stupid to read the quote I posted which was the genesis of the entire argument. Here it is again:

. . . yes we haven't been to the NCAAs since 1998, but we have made the finals of Arch in 4 of the last 9 years. So we have been good, just not good enough.

As your colleague noted above, he intended to argue that ISUr was better than SIU over the course of the last decade, which is a sound and provable point. What was disputed was that ISUr has been good since last appearing in the NCAAs a couple decades back - reasonable minds could probably disagree on this, and citing 4 appearances in the MVC finals over the course of almost 20 years doesn't do much to sway the needle.

So...

The original data points that I gave of those 4 years were the entire data set in which those points existed.

Uh, yeah, the entire data set of 4 finals appearance is, in fact, the entire data set in which all 4 finals appearances occurred. It is also ~20% of a subset of the ~20 years of data points which the original quote addressed. Not quite the checkmate you seem to think it is even though your more reasonable peer already conceded he intended something quite different.

In short, let's please read more effectively. Nice try though. I can see that Shocker education just shining from this board right now.

Okay now it works: To borrow one of your favorite ways to end a post: There, there, it is okay, you lost. Your argument sucked, admitting it won't hurt anything. It's not the end of the world. Cheers and we'll all know more after this weekend's games! Good luck and thanks for the back and forth, which, just to be clear, you lost.




In all seriousness, Saturday's game should be a lot of fun and I look forward to rubbing your dipshit face in the stench of defeat as the Redbirds cede yet another regular season title to the Shox this season.

[BirdsEyeView]

Play Angry,

Your quoting skills and attention to detail are really lacking. You make all those quotes seem like I wrote it. I did not.

[Play Angry]

Play Angry,

Your quoting skills and attention to detail are really lacking. You make all those quotes seem like I wrote it. I did not.

Hahah, good catch. I copied your quote in and it fubar'd the entire chain since you can only imbed so many - I will fix to avoid any misattribution.

Thanks for pointing this out.