Poll Watch (2013-14 Edition)

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I'm really trying to comprehend how sad and pathetic your personal and/or professional life must be, what with your full conversion to a poster who contributes nothing to this forum but antagonism. I'm not trying to say that you don't ever have a point, but good grief all you do now is go around and try to start arguments in conversations you weren't previously involved in.

I got into it with you ONE time, over what I would guess was about a mere FOUR post back-and-forth, and you tried to continue the argument via PM's, since I had ignored you in the open forum. Can't imagine how many posters you have PM harassed since that time. Several posters here must now have PM inboxes stuffed full with JH4P's harassing assclown messages.

Can we get an ignore function on SN? JH4P is the first poster in my years here that I would like to add to such a list.

I PM'ed you once. I was truly curious to hear a little more of your perspective. You ignored me, so I let it go. For you to claim that I harassed you is an out and out lie.

I've sent 5 PMs total in the last year. Not 5 to you, but 5 to all of Shockernet combined.

Got any other wrong assumptions or outright lies you would like to share?

[Rosewood]

Got any other wrong assumptions or outright lies you would like to share?

[ROOT ANGRY!]

Looking at pollstalker, more than half of the voters have ranked us ahead of Nova. It's the few jackasses that still have us at 9th and 10th that are the problem.

nothing a few statement road wins couldn't solve

[ShockerPrez]

2013 - Big 12 3-5, MVC 5-2
2012 - Big 12 10-6, MVC 1-2
2011 - Big 12 5-5, MVC 0-1
2010 - Big 12 9-7, MVC 2-1
2009 - Big 12 11-6, MVC 0-1
2008 - Big 12 12-5, MVC 0-1
2007 - Big 12 6-4, MVC 2-2
2006 - Big 12 4-4, MVC 4-4
2005 - Big 12 6-6, MVC 1-3
2004 - Big 12 10-4, MVC 0-2
2003 - Big 12 16-6, MVC 0-2
2002 - Big 12 13-6, MVC 3-2

Im assuming that is with KU included?

[Downtown Shocker Brown]

Im assuming that is with KU included?

Yes. Not giving KU enough time to filter them out.

Someone else could probably subtract them out.

[ABC]

Why subtract KU? What is attempting to be proved? Is someone seriously trying to argue that the Big 12 is not a good basketball conference?

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Yes ABC, the Big 12, minus KU, is garbage! Didn't you know that?!

(End of sarcasm)

7 Elite 8 appearances in the last 10 years despite the exclusion of the conference’s most successful program shows that the Big 12 has been one of the best conferences in America. To call the non-KU members of the Big 12 “garbage” is idiotic. Keep probing the issue deeper if you’d like, but I’m not going any further on this one. My point has been made.

[ShockerPrez]

Why subtract KU? What is attempting to be proved? Is someone seriously trying to argue that the Big 12 is not a good basketball conference?

Yes. I think that once you get past KU, its a fraud.

Not a Bernie Madoff fraud, but a fraud.

[wsushox1]

Yes. I think that once you get past KU, its a fraud.

Not a Bernie Madoff fraud, but a fraud.

That's just not true.

[ShockerFever]

My point has been made.

Oh yes it definitely has.

No way a Big 12 slight gets past you on this forum.

[WSUwatcher]

Yes. I think that once you get past KU, its a fraud.

Not a Bernie Madoff fraud, but a fraud.

A) No, it isn't -- true, it isn't nearly as good (which can be said of any conference won every year by the same team), but that doesn't make it bad.

B) More to the point, who cares -- and what does it have to do with WSU?

[ShockerPrez]

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this. I looked at the last 3 years of the tournament.

If you take out KU:

2013 Highest seed beaten = 7. Lost to a 12, 7, 13 and a 2 seed.
2012 Seeds beaten: 8, 9, 14, 11, 10. Lost to 1, 6, 7, 1, 1 and a 15 seed.
2011 Seeds beaten: 12 and 13. Lost to 4, 10, 5 and 6.

Ok, ok, I'll go one more year:

2010 Seeds beaten: 6, 7, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15. Lost to 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10.

So, while one would say, good conference. Lots of deep runs. I see 6 wins over single digit seeds with no win over a seed higher than 6.

I see a loss to a 15 seed (ok, that team is no longer in the Big 12, but they were) a loss to a 12 seed and a 13 seed just last year.

They don't freaking beat anyone, they don't beat KU, and they are a fraud of a conference after KU. It's smoke and mirrors.

[Rlh04d]

Except we haven't lost.

And again... ZERO Top 50 wins, as an ACC team. Weak.

They've only played one top 50 team in the ACC. Syracuse.

You're just choosing an arbitrary fact that has no basis on anything. They have four games against top 50 RPI teams coming up. They've played one so far, against the #2 team in the country. They don't suck because they lost on the road to the #2 team in the country. Zero wins against the top 50 as an ACC team doesn't mean anything when they've only played the #2 team in the country on the road as their only top 50 game.

As for not losing yet ... so the moment we lose one game, we suck because we haven't played anyone?

[Rlh04d]

Don't hate on someone's argument as "EXACTLY" the same as something and then put two very big exceptions after it. There is another element to this argument as well. I'm willing to bet Pitt could have put together a better schedule, perhaps a MUCH better schedule, if they had been interested. WSU could not.

They HAVE lost. They HAVEN'T beat anyone good. They intentionally scheduled a horrible non-conference schedule. What about that makes one think people should be nice to them?

I could care less if you're nice to them or not. I'm just pointing out that it is childish to assume a poor schedule makes someone a poor team.

They have lost. They haven't beat anyone good. Their schedule is poor. So everyone with at least one loss, no major win, and a poor schedule is automatically garbage? I sure hope we never lose a game, because if our one major win Saint Louis starts losing, apparently someone will need to break it to HCGM that we've been garbage this whole time.

But fine, I shouldn't have used the word "exact." He's making "almost exactly" the same argument.

[1979Shocker]

2013 - Big 12 3-5, MVC 5-2
2012 - Big 12 10-6, MVC 1-2
2011 - Big 12 5-5, MVC 0-1
2010 - Big 12 9-7, MVC 2-1
2009 - Big 12 11-6, MVC 0-1
2008 - Big 12 12-5, MVC 0-1
2007 - Big 12 6-4, MVC 2-2
2006 - Big 12 4-4, MVC 4-4
2005 - Big 12 6-6, MVC 1-3
2004 - Big 12 10-4, MVC 0-2
2003 - Big 12 16-6, MVC 0-2
2002 - Big 12 13-6, MVC 3-2

Probably most of these Big 12 wins were against a lower seeded team, making it easier to win than the MVC teams, which were not seeded as high.