Fab v Pigtails: we'll see it next year
Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 1:54 pmPage 1 of 3
Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 1:54 pmRe: Fab v Pigtails: we'll see it next year
Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 2:12 pmhaha, awesome.
Re: Fab v Pigtails: we'll see it next year
Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 2:31 pmvery interesting.
Re: Fab v Pigtails: we'll see it next year
Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 2:35 pmSeriously, God hates me
Re: Fab v Pigtails: we'll see it next year
Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 2:48 pmthis borders on comical. Not that God hates Ponydoh, that Fab is gonna have a chance to torch us two or three times per year.
Re: Fab v Pigtails: we'll see it next year
Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 2:52 pmWe suck....
Re: Fab v Pigtails: we'll see it next year
Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 3:34 pmDisgusting. Not shocking, but still completely disgusting.
Re: Fab v Pigtails: we'll see it next year
Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 3:41 pmThat is not comical, but ironic...it will absoulutly show if the correct decision was made or not. If Fab outshines Pigails ( I sure hope he gets rid of that hair style before he gets here)the first year....it will hasten Doh's demise. If not, then Doh will be vindicated..pure and simple. At least on these boards. 
Re: Fab v Pigtails: we'll see it next year
Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 4:03 pmponyscott wrote:That is not comical, but ironic...it will absoulutly show if the correct decision was made or not. If Fab outshines Pigails ( I sure hope he gets rid of that hair style before he gets here)the first year....it will hasten Doh's demise. If not, then Doh will be vindicated..pure and simple. At least on these boards.
the SMU staff wont even pretend they liked Pigtails more then Fab. They just didn't think it wise to wait on the kid academically, when they found another kid they liked. They couldn't force him to sign right after his brother passed, and they didn't think they could avoid grabbing a PG this cycle. His jumping that much on his ACT should almost be a clearinghouse flag on it's own. That said, you can't make this [deleted] up. Ridiculous situation that just went boom, right in their grill. Had they not grabbed a PG, waited on Harris, only to have him not clear, that's an equally large clusterfuck. Imagine that, then McCoy transfers.
This is what happens, when you haven't locked down a kid you are counting on, in the Fall. Whole thing is brutal
Re: Fab v Pigtails: we'll see it next year
Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 4:08 pmPonyDoh you took the words right out of my mouth...BEYOND BRUTAL. Murphy's Law alive and kickin the SMU bball program in the gut yet again
Re: Fab v Pigtails: we'll see it next year
Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 4:37 pmSomeone call the CLEARINGHOUSE. This smells funny to me.
Re: Fab v Pigtails: we'll see it next year
Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 4:38 pmFire Doherty?
Re: Fab v Pigtails: we'll see it next year
Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 4:46 pmPonyDoh wrote:They just didn't think it wise to wait on the kid academically, when they found another kid they liked. They couldn't force him to sign right after his brother passed, and they didn't think they could avoid grabbing a PG this cycle. His jumping that much on his ACT should almost be a clearinghouse flag on it's own. That said, you can't make this [deleted] up. Ridiculous situation that just went boom, right in their grill. Had they not grabbed a PG, waited on Harris, only to have him not clear, that's an equally large [deleted]. Imagine that, then McCoy transfers.
This is what happens, when you haven't locked down a kid you are counting on, in the Fall. Whole thing is brutal
What was the timeframe on him getting his scores back vs. us offering Pigtails? Didn't he find out he got a high enough score right around the same time? We couldn't have waited another couple of days to see? Were we really afraid of losing out on Pigtails in the process?
Re: Fab v Pigtails: we'll see it next year
Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 5:05 pmI recall it being only a few days. I guess the question is if Piggy was close to taking another offer.......
Re: Fab v Pigtails: we'll see it next year
Posted: Mon May 10, 2010 5:49 pmFriscoPMG wrote:PonyDoh wrote:They just didn't think it wise to wait on the kid academically, when they found another kid they liked. They couldn't force him to sign right after his brother passed, and they didn't think they could avoid grabbing a PG this cycle. His jumping that much on his ACT should almost be a clearinghouse flag on it's own. That said, you can't make this [deleted] up. Ridiculous situation that just went boom, right in their grill. Had they not grabbed a PG, waited on Harris, only to have him not clear, that's an equally large [deleted]. Imagine that, then McCoy transfers.
This is what happens, when you haven't locked down a kid you are counting on, in the Fall. Whole thing is brutal
What was the timeframe on him getting his scores back vs. us offering Pigtails? Didn't he find out he got a high enough score right around the same time? We couldn't have waited another couple of days to see? Were we really afraid of losing out on Pigtails in the process?
Pigtails was invited to visit the same weekend Fab supposedly got his scores, coincidentally, the same weekend Fab's brother was buried. The validity of his ACT is certainly fishy, but his GPA was very low 1s, from what I heard through Chicago channels. It wasn't just a matter of scores, but also GPA. When we had 5 final PG candidates, over 2 months before Fab gave his verbal to SMU, I was told he was by far the longest shot academically. Stranger things have happened, but if he 's qualified, he performed an academic miracle.