PonyFans.com

Just asking?.....it could get embarrassing by the end of the week....you either step up or out....

The two games tonight were not a good start.

mustangbill67 wrote:The two games tonight were not a good start.

..They weren't even close....BLOW outs...no pride.

Marshall lost by 1 and ECU by 5 in OT.

UAB did not look good at all. That was the first time I've seen them play. Tulsa, Memphis, utep, ucf and ole miss all looked better than what i saw. Maybe it was the caliber of competition, but man.

RGV Pony wrote:Marshall lost by 1 and ECU by 5 in OT.

UAB did not look good at all. That was the first time I've seen them play. Tulsa, Memphis, utep, ucf and ole miss all looked better than what i saw. Maybe it was the caliber of competition, but man.

ALL losses to start it off for CUSA, and that's all that we know!!!! And UAB really needed to step up and make a statement as they were simply called out on National TV by Jay Silas and they played horrible and were an embarrassment to CUSA with their effort and play, IMHO. Yes Clemson played good tight D, but wasn't UAB supposed to be better than that?
If SMU can't beat ORU, then CUSA appears to really be a 1 team league.....that is if Memphis can win one.

Fox Sports is piling on now about what a bad pick UAB actually was;

http://www.foxsportsohio.com/msn/03/16/ ... eedID=3725

Really need Memphis to upset Arizona

pretty poor showing so far..up to SMU to win a home game. Very disappointing losses by Marshall and ECU at home

Last night stunk for CUSA, but I'm not sweating it. It's still a 2-bid league. ACC sucks every single year in the tourney, other than Duke and/or Carolina. My issue w/UAB was that they looked so unorganized. They couldn't even establish sets cause Clemson's full court, man/ball pressure, ate them up. 9 turnovers in the first 8 minutes or so. Awful.

I didn't expect UTEP to win at New Mexico, they seldom do. New Mexico may have won CUSA this year.

Fair or unfair, the postseason performance drives the reputation of the league. So the conference took a beating Tuesday night and it whitewashes what the coaches were saying going into conference tournament last week.

If you're going to talk the talk...

UAB was a disaster. That's not surprising because I don't have a lot of faith in Mike Davis. Never been a fan of his.

I thought UTEP hung in there. But their seniors were reckless in the second half. Keep in mind BYU lost at The Pit with a complete roster.

The CBI and CIT tournaments appear to be mainly a mental thing. Do the kids and the coaches really want to do it? If they're not motivated, then they play like it. Plus, home games in these tournaments just take on a different feel. Sometimes, they don't even seem like a home game. Gyms are half full. Fans don't seem to be jacked. I caught a little bit of the Davidson and Boise State games and that's the vibe I caught.

I know the ECU and Marshall games were close but Marshall was in the CIT last year. I wonder if their kids were that pumped. That really might be the reason why Tulsa and So. Miss declined invitations.

Given SMU's situation, you would hope that Doherty and the kids are excited and really want to do this.

I know I'm excited about tonight.

UAB simply did not have the credentials and schedule to deserve an NCAA bid. Bilas was correct critizing the selection of UAB a program that only played one top 50 team (Duke) and was blown out. UAB obviously did not play a good game and looked disorganized and somewhat frantic for most of the game; however, it was faily obvious to me that they simply did not have anywhere near the calibur of talent to compete. If you do not have the talent to even compete against one of the lowest rated bubble teams (Clemson) then it makes a clear statement as to the level of C-USA programs and how really far behind the SMU program is from being nationally competitive let alone a Top 25 program. It is somewhat frightening to think that SMU is really in the position of trying to start building at the very bottom again next season with transfers, some ineligible players gaining eligibility and the hope that some of the 2011 class will actually be admitted and be ready to play.

PoconoPony wrote:UAB simply did not have the credentials and schedule to deserve an NCAA bid. Bilas was correct critizing the selection of UAB a program that only played one top 50 team (Duke) and was blown out. UAB obviously did not play a good game and looked disorganized and somewhat frantic for most of the game; however, it was faily obvious to me that they simply did not have anywhere near the calibur of talent to compete. If you do not have the talent to even compete against one of the lowest rated bubble teams (Clemson) then it makes a clear statement as to the level of C-USA programs and how really far behind the SMU program is from being nationally competitive let alone a Top 25 program. It is somewhat frightening to think that SMU is really in the position of trying to start building at the very bottom again next season with transfers, some ineligible players gaining eligibility and the hope that some of the 2011 class will actually be admitted and be ready to play.

I'm ok w/your post until you start talking about SMU basically starting over. We have 9 kids in the program returning next year, that have been practicing in the system for a year. That's not starting over, or building from the bottom etc. As for the '11 class, we'll see but the only kid legitimately in the two deep in Cunningham next year, and he's qualifying, as is Norman. Manuel has good grades, not sure about scores, and Jalen is on shaky ground. The sky isn't falling.

I agree about UAB. They looked awful and were out classed. Don't feed me the lower rated bubble nonsense though, cause Clemson was a top 4 ACC team, that has McD AAs on the roster, and are chock w/Top 100 nationals. It's an upset if ANY mid beats them

hoopmanx wrote:

PoconoPony wrote:UAB simply did not have the credentials and schedule to deserve an NCAA bid. Bilas was correct critizing the selection of UAB a program that only played one top 50 team (Duke) and was blown out. UAB obviously did not play a good game and looked disorganized and somewhat frantic for most of the game; however, it was faily obvious to me that they simply did not have anywhere near the calibur of talent to compete. If you do not have the talent to even compete against one of the lowest rated bubble teams (Clemson) then it makes a clear statement as to the level of C-USA programs and how really far behind the SMU program is from being nationally competitive let alone a Top 25 program. It is somewhat frightening to think that SMU is really in the position of trying to start building at the very bottom again next season with transfers, some ineligible players gaining eligibility and the hope that some of the 2011 class will actually be admitted and be ready to play.

I'm ok w/your post until you start talking about SMU basically starting over. We have 9 kids in the program returning next year, that have been practicing in the system for a year. That's not starting over, or building from the bottom etc. As for the '11 class, we'll see but the only kid legitimately in the two deep in Cunningham next year, and he's qualifying, as is Norman. Manuel has good grades, not sure about scores, and Jalen is on shaky ground. The sky isn't falling.

I agree about UAB. They looked awful and were out classed. Don't feed me the lower rated bubble nonsense though, cause Clemson was a top 4 ACC team, that has McD AAs on the roster, and are chock w/Top 100 nationals. It's an upset if ANY mid beats them

I fully understand that the transfers and some of the ineligibles have been practicing with the team and will hopefully have a sound understanding of the system, Never-the-less, you will still have a relatively inexperienced large group that will be trying to find their chemistry, establish their roles, blend with the new comers....etc. My narrow view is that you really have 2 returning starters and everything else is to be determined. That is the basis of my statement.

UAB got a tough draw with Clemson. Having seen a lot of Clemson this year, I'm still surprised they are a 12 seed...I would have made them a 10 or 11, but the 12 seed is actually a great place from which to sneak into the sweet 16. Clemson has been inconsistent, but when they want to play, they can compete with the elite teams. Doesn't mean they won't get blown out by WVU, but they are talented enough to reach the round of 16

PoconoPony wrote:

hoopmanx wrote:

PoconoPony wrote:UAB simply did not have the credentials and schedule to deserve an NCAA bid. Bilas was correct critizing the selection of UAB a program that only played one top 50 team (Duke) and was blown out. UAB obviously did not play a good game and looked disorganized and somewhat frantic for most of the game; however, it was faily obvious to me that they simply did not have anywhere near the calibur of talent to compete. If you do not have the talent to even compete against one of the lowest rated bubble teams (Clemson) then it makes a clear statement as to the level of C-USA programs and how really far behind the SMU program is from being nationally competitive let alone a Top 25 program. It is somewhat frightening to think that SMU is really in the position of trying to start building at the very bottom again next season with transfers, some ineligible players gaining eligibility and the hope that some of the 2011 class will actually be admitted and be ready to play.

I'm ok w/your post until you start talking about SMU basically starting over. We have 9 kids in the program returning next year, that have been practicing in the system for a year. That's not starting over, or building from the bottom etc. As for the '11 class, we'll see but the only kid legitimately in the two deep in Cunningham next year, and he's qualifying, as is Norman. Manuel has good grades, not sure about scores, and Jalen is on shaky ground. The sky isn't falling.

I agree about UAB. They looked awful and were out classed. Don't feed me the lower rated bubble nonsense though, cause Clemson was a top 4 ACC team, that has McD AAs on the roster, and are chock w/Top 100 nationals. It's an upset if ANY mid beats them

I fully understand that the transfers and some of the ineligibles have been practicing with the team and will hopefully have a sound understanding of the system, Never-the-less, you will still have a relatively inexperienced large group that will be trying to find their chemistry, establish their roles, blend with the new comers....etc. My narrow view is that you really have 2 returning starters and everything else is to be determined. That is the basis of my statement.

Maybe so, but the OOC will probably only be upgraded a bit, which means chemistry or no chemistry, that amount of talent should roll, other than against high end clubs. We should drub the cupcakes next year. By that time, we'll be 13 games in, and some chemistry should be in the works.

any sense of what our OOC schedule will look like next year?