Official "complain about WSU" thread

[Aargh]

Let's try to keep all the griping and complaiing about WSU confined to one thread. Maybe we can discuss the actual topics of other threads in those threads.

Just to start it off, I'll add some fuel to the already raging fire. It's reported that on a local TV sports interview Turgeon made the comment "...any time, any place. The players love it and the recruits love it".

It seems that Turgeon, the players and WSU's recruiting candidates want games against "name" teams. CU and SIU have more established "names" than WSU. It's harder for WSU to get home games with "name" teams than it is for SIU or CU. I don't consider Xavier, DePaul or St. Mary's to be "name" teams.

I think everyone out here agrees that WSU must make the Tourney next year, or WSU is just another "mid-major flash-in-the-pan". 2 years in a row the #2 team in the Valley went to the NIT.

Home-and-homes with RPI 75+ teams don't get your Dance Ticket punched out of the Valley. It's either win the regular season or win Arch Madness or you're a bubble team. WSU may not be able to do either next year.

Which pep talk is more likely to get the players fired up? "We're going to Baton Rouge and Syracuse and we're going to win those games - here's how we do it" - or "We've got [DePaul/Xavier/St.Mary's] at home and we're going to win those games and here's how we do it".

When talking to a recruit, which line seems better? "We're going to play 2 or 3 "name" schools a year outside of tournaments. We're going to win those games and here's how you are going to be part of that". Or "We're going to play a lot of mid-level teams that we're favored to beat and here's how you are going to be part of that".

There are only 16 teams with 5 consecutive NCAA bids. SIU is one of them. SIU has won the Valley title 4 of the last 5 years - while the Valley moved from the #11 conference to the #5 or #6 conference. You would think that track record would have a dominant Valley team in the top 25 or 40. SIU received a total of 3 votes in the ESPN poll during all 19 weeks of polling. Those 3 votes were in the Week 1 poll.

In the current Valley, that's not a leader. That's hanging onto a past when the Valley was a shadow of what it is today.

[iSASO]

Maybe this should be in the Complain about SIU thread, butu I don't want to clutter the board:

"SIU received a total of 3 votes in the ESPN poll during all 19 weeks of polling. Those 3 votes were in the Week 1 poll."

So, how many votes did SIU get all season during the 2002?

[Carrcar]

[QUOTE=Aargh]

Just to start it off, I'll add some fuel to the already raging fire. It's reported that on a local TV sports interview Turgeon made the comment "...any time, any place. The players love it and the recruits love it".


Aargh,
Is that the same Turgeon who said, "No one and done, no 2 for 1's."? I guess that's what happens to principle when money becomes important. Not to say MT is a sellout.
http://www.1-click-clipart.com/webspice_2/ClipArt/E-Commerce/ec5.gif

[dogdays]

And as the league got better over the past 5 years....according the WSU supporters SIU was where as the league was getting better? First, First, First, First, Second and Tournament Champion...one or two teams will not be what gets a conference and its teams over the top..the conference must have multiple teams winning big games and going deep into the tournament..each year...no doubt SIU needs to make another run , deeper than a first round game , but no one else in this league has done any better or done more for the league in the past 5 years than the Salukis.

[MSNSaluki]

Maybe this should be in the Complain about SIU thread, butu I don't want to clutter the board:

"SIU received a total of 3 votes in the ESPN poll during all 19 weeks of polling. Those 3 votes were in the Week 1 poll."

So, how many votes did SIU get all season during the 2002?

i can't believe i'm bothering, but siu probably didn't get many during the 2001-2002 season.
however, if you'll fast forward two years siu was ranked for a lot of the conference season (when the salukis went 17-1 in the league). i think they got as high at no. 15 in the ap and usa today polls.

[RoyalShock]

[quote=Aargh]

Just to start it off, I'll add some fuel to the already raging fire. It's reported that on a local TV sports interview Turgeon made the comment "...any time, any place. The players love it and the recruits love it".


Aargh,
Is that the same Turgeon who said, "No one and done, no 2 for 1's."? I guess that's what happens to principle when money becomes important. Not to say MT is a sellout.

Would you be so kind as to provide your evidence that it was about the money?

Sorry, but if you want your opinion to be taken seriously, please provide something to back it up. That was nothing but another tired old argument with no facts.

[RoyalShock]

And as the league got better over the past 5 years....according the WSU supporters SIU was where as the league was getting better? First, First, First, First, Second and Tournament Champion...one or two teams will not be what gets a conference and its teams over the top..the conference must have multiple teams winning big games and going deep into the tournament..each year...no doubt SIU needs to make another run , deeper than a first round game , but no one else in this league has done any better or done more for the league in the past 5 years than the Salukis.
Actually, I think it's a tie between CU and SIU for who has done the most for the Valley. That year where CU made it into the top 10 (when WSU beat them at the Cow Palace while ranked #12) also did a lot for the MVC.

Now that SIU and CU have taken the MVC to the doorstep, who is going to get them through the door? The answer remains to be seen.

Edit: After a re-read I see that you didn't imply SIU has done the most, only that no one has done better, so I'm not disagreeing with you, only adding to what you said.

[rjl]

I'll repeat the contention I made in the St. Marys thread.

FACT: You do NOT progress by having the best team you schedule be a team you are expected to beat.

FACT: WSU wants to progress.

THEN: So if teams ranked higher than us won't come to WSU, WSU will come to them.

How is that selling out? How is that not having pride? How is that being a whore?

Seems to me that actually having the guts to do what needs to be done isn't any of those.

[Bird]

This thread smells of "Look at us, Look at us". Get over yourselves already.

[rjl]

[QUOTE=Aargh]

Just to start it off, I'll add some fuel to the already raging fire. It's reported that on a local TV sports interview Turgeon made the comment "...any time, any place. The players love it and the recruits love it".


Aargh,
Is that the same Turgeon who said, "No one and done, no 2 for 1's."? I guess that's what happens to principle when money becomes important. Not to say MT is a sellout.
http://www.1-click-clipart.com/webspice_2/ClipArt/E-Commerce/ec5.gif

Wait a second...... hold the phone.

I thought the big whiney argument against the Syracuse game is that there's no return game that WSU can make money on?

So which weak argument is it? Is it that WSU is doing this for the money, or is it that WSU is ruining the little scheduling theory?

[rjl]

This thread smells of "Look at us, Look at us". Get over yourselves already.

No, this thread smells of "we're tired of gnats jumping all over us in other threads and moving the subject off topic, so lets start a thread dedicated to letting others complain about us".

And of course, the blue gnats try to take the subject off course again.

[cufan]

:sleeping:

[rjl]

:sleeping:

I guess you guys are content to crap on every other thread on Valleytalk, but when we set aside a thread specifically made for you to voice your greivances, you all go limp.

Figures.

[dogdays]

As you said on an earlier thread " you will continue to believe what you want, I will continue to believe what I want"...and that is clearly true, but remember this , as I said before " just because you say its so doent make it so".... and to Aargh...who repeated his statement about the current valley vs the old valley(last 4 years...if the Valley is so muc h different and stronger today remember this..SIU first, first, first, first, second and first in the tourney this year ...so clearly SIU is the past and the present....and most likely part of the future...cant have it both ways...

[rjl]

SIU first, first, first, first, second and first in the tourney this year ...so clearly SIU is the past and the present....and most likely part of the future...cant have it both ways...

SIU is the past of the Valley for waaaaaaay back the last 5 or 6 years then?

Man, now THAT's history!

[dogdays]

Try 30 years, which by all acounts is considered the modern era of the game(the period where college basketball came to the forefront of the public eye).... ...which isnt 100 years but it isnt 5 ..and as stated earlier...SIU holds a 32-26 advantage over the Shockers over those 30 years.And Our first sweet 16 appearance was in 1977..so talk about the past , we were there , present , we are here..future, time will tell...First you say that the Valley has changed over the past 5 years and that its not the same league, then when its pointed out that SIU was at the top then and is now you throw back the history argument... NOtice how you change the argument when the facts dont suit you. Just like W, youd be a good fit in the Bush administration....I'll bet youre not even 30....

[barkeep1967]

So, how many votes did SIU get all season during the 2002?


Actually they finished ranked 21st I believe. Got votes almost every week after losing by 1 to top 5 ranked Illinois and beating top 20 ranked Indiana.

[dogdays]

Keep in mind the Indiana finished 2nd in the NCAA Tourney that year as well.

[iSASO]

Actually they finished ranked 21st I believe. Got votes almost every week after losing by 1 to top 5 ranked Illinois and beating top 20 ranked Indiana.

My point exactly. Votes every week in 2002, 3 votes in Week 1 for the entire 2005-2006 season. Impressive progress.

[MoValley John]

[quote=Carrcar]

Would you be so kind as to provide your evidence that it was about the money?

Sorry, but if you want your opinion to be taken seriously, please provide something to back it up. That was nothing but another tired old argument with no facts.

Let me jump in and play a little referee. It was not all about the money, but it still was about the money. It was also about playing tougher competition and trying to build on some momentum. But to ask for evidence on the money factor, that was stupid. Money played a big factor. as for evidence, the very same article that Shocker fans posted about the game identifies money as a key. It underscores the point on money, but nobody has to stretch too far to see that money was a facyor. Here is the thread, followed by the quote.

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/sports/15256196.htm

Schaus said details of the financial guarantee to WSU are not final.

"They're helping us out," he said.


I don't have a big problem with Wichita State taking a one and done. Since WSU is sold out for teh year, there are very few ways to increase revenue except for taking a buy game. WSU just increased the bottom line when without the buy game, revenue was capped. I just wish it was against a team that didn't have such a reputation for pimping home games, Syracuse is the worst. Then again, you can't blame Syracuse for buying games when the Carrier Dome can fill enough seats to buy games.

[dogdays]

ISAO get your facts straight...
SIU got votes 9 weeks last year not one week

Week 1 3 votes
Weekd 11 41 votes 28th in the country
Week 12 9 votes
Week 13 18 votes 32nd in the country
Week 14 7 votes
Week 15 11 votes
Week 16 no votes
Weeks 17 17 votes
Week 18 28 votes 30th in the country..
Final Poll no votes....
You cannot take one year and say you have taken a step back..not all years are going to be banner years..SIU had 7 of 10 players as frosh or soph...no srs...
WSU got votes in 7 weeks...two less than SIU...but the Shox finished strong.

[barkeep1967]

My point exactly. Votes every week in 2002, 3 votes in Week 1 for the entire 2005-2006 season. Impressive progress.

Well when you consider that SIU lost 4 starters from the year before the fact they managed to get any votes is fairly impressive. I also want to add in at one point SIU was up to 29th in one of the polls. This is a mid major team that has recieved votes in each of the last 5 years. Name another so called mid major outside of Gonzaga that has accomplished that.

[RoyalShock]

[quote=RoyalShock]

Let me jump in and play a little referee. It was not all about the money, but it still was about the money. It was also about playing tougher competition and trying to build on some momentum. But to ask for evidence on the money factor, that was stupid. Money played a big factor. as for evidence, the very same article that Shocker fans posted about the game identifies money as a key. It underscores the point on money, but nobody has to stretch too far to see that money was a facyor. Here is the thread, followed by the quote.

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/sports/15256196.htm

Schaus said details of the financial guarantee to WSU are not final.

"They're helping us out," he said.


I don't have a big problem with Wichita State taking a one and done. Since WSU is sold out for teh year, there are very few ways to increase revenue except for taking a buy game. WSU just increased the bottom line when without the buy game, revenue was capped. I just wish it was against a team that didn't have such a reputation for pimping home games, Syracuse is the worst. Then again, you can't blame Syracuse for buying games when the Carrier Dome can fill enough seats to buy games.

If the financial aspect hasn't been finalized, how can it be about the money?

Besides, Schaus' comment about "They're helping us out" was likely a reference to it being so late in the scheduling game. Just because a journalist positioned that quote where he did, doesn't necessarily mean it refers to the previous paragraph.

So I still don't find any evidence to support carrcar's assertion.

[RoyalShock]

I will also add that even if the quote is attributed to the financial aspect, it doesn't mean it was a significant factor.

If, say, Virginia offered a similar guarantee, I doubt MT and JS would have accepted.

[rjl]

Yes, there is money involved.

That's why it's called a "buyout" game, after all. They pay you so that they don't have to make a return visit to your place the next year.

But WSU isn't doing this for the money. They're doing it to play Syracuse, and the money Syracuse is paying makes it feasible.

[Carrcar]

[quote=Carrcar]

Would you be so kind as to provide your evidence that it was about the money?

Sorry, but if you want your opinion to be taken seriously, please provide something to back it up. That was nothing but another tired old argument with no facts.
RoyalShock,
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. It's not about WSU needing money or playing for money. Before his big raise MT was anti- one and dones and 2 for 1s. When he got his new contract that went out the window. Maybe his change in philosophy is coincidental with his new found wealth, or perhaps the change in scheduling approach was part of the deal. Thay's all I'm pointing out.

[MoValley John]

Yes, there is money involved.

That's why it's called a "buyout" game, after all. They pay you so that they don't have to make a return visit to your place the next year.

But WSU isn't doing this for the money. They're doing it to play Syracuse, and the money Syracuse is paying makes it feasible.

Wow! That was all I was saying. Money was a factor, it wasn't the only or defining factor. But to say money didn't play a part is rediculous.

[rjl]

Wow! That was all I was saying. Money was a factor, it wasn't the only or defining factor. But to say money didn't play a part is rediculous.

Yeah, I get what you were saying now.

If there was no money, there would have been no deal.

Syracuse buying out the return game is what made the deal possible.

[rjl]

[QUOTE=RoyalShock]
RoyalShock,
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. It's not about WSU needing money or playing for money. Before his big raise MT was anti- one and dones and 2 for 1s. When he got his new contract that went out the window. Maybe his change in philosophy is coincidental with his new found wealth, or perhaps the change in scheduling approach was part of the deal. Thay's all I'm pointing out.

I think the deal is this:

WSU has acheived the level that, if it wants marquee matchups against teams ranked higher than WSU is now, it will have to accept unbalanced series to do so.

At one time, the Providence one-and-one series was just what WSU was after. Now, WSU wants to play teams that can help propel it to the next level.

Perennial top 25 teams just don't give out 1 and 1s except to each other.

[DoubleJayAlum]

But WSU isn't doing this for the money. They're doing it to play Syracuse, and the money Syracuse is paying makes it feasible.

Or they're doing it because it was mid-August, they were desperate for another game and this was the only offer available. I not saying this is the case, but its certainly a possibility as well.

[RoyalShock]

[quote=RoyalShock]
RoyalShock,
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. It's not about WSU needing money or playing for money. Before his big raise MT was anti- one and dones and 2 for 1s. When he got his new contract that went out the window. Maybe his change in philosophy is coincidental with his new found wealth, or perhaps the change in scheduling approach was part of the deal. Thay's all I'm pointing out.

Ok, I see your angle now. And I suppose, given the timing of events that one could come to that conclusion. Not that I agree it's true, but we can neither confirm or deny it's merits.

And to respond to MoVal John . . .

Money is ALWAYS a factor, regardless of the opponent. And since I know you're a smart guy (I'm not being sarcastic) who knows that, I interpreted your post to imply that it was one of (if not only) the primary factors.

[SiuCubFan8]

ISAO get your facts straight...
SIU got votes 9 weeks last year not one week

Week 1 3 votes
Weekd 11 41 votes 28th in the country
Week 12 9 votes
Week 13 18 votes 32nd in the country
Week 14 7 votes
Week 15 11 votes
Week 16 no votes
Weeks 17 17 votes
Week 18 28 votes 30th in the country..
Final Poll no votes....
You cannot take one year and say you have taken a step back..not all years are going to be banner years..SIU had 7 of 10 players as frosh or soph...no srs...
WSU got votes in 7 weeks...two less than SIU...but the Shox finished strong.


Uh oh did you just prove him wrong?:fear:

[rjl]

Or they're doing it because it was mid-August, they were desperate for another game and this was the only offer available. I not saying this is the case, but its certainly a possibility as well.

Well, certainly it's not ideal to play a one and done.

But you are right. It was August, we needed another marquee game against a team like Syracuse, the offer was there, and we took it.

I think I would rank the factors as follows:

1. It's Syracuse
2. Timing; we needed a game like this and the clock was running out.
3. Money; we're getting something out of it if not a return game.

One and two might be interchangeable, because it's not like the game HAD to be against Syracuse, but the fact that Syracuse is Syracuse and they're projected where they are this year made that the leading factor.

[MoValley John]

Money was not a primary factor. And as I stated earlier, I can't knock WSU for taking the game- I stayed out of the crap when it first surfaced. My only beef, and I'm sure many WSU fans would agree, that they would have rather taken a buy game from another perennial power such as Georgetown, UCLA etc. Teams that don't have such a bad reputation of refusing to go on the road. Syracuse is the poster child when it comes to buying games, I don't like Syracuse.

[SubGod22]

Money was not a primary factor. And as I stated earlier, I can't knock WSU for taking the game- I stayed out of the crap when it first surfaced. My only beef, and I'm sure many WSU fans would agree, that they would have rather taken a buy game from another perennial power such as Georgetown, UCLA etc. Teams that don't have such a bad reputation of refusing to go on the road. Syracuse is the poster child when it comes to buying games, I don't like Syracuse.

I can agree with that. I hate the Orange

[WSUfan]

Or they're doing it because it was mid-August, they were desperate for another game and this was the only offer available. I not saying this is the case, but its certainly a possibility as well.
I think there might be some truth to this comment. If you only have a few options, you have to pick the best one you can find. (I just hope we beat Syracuse.)

[The Mad Hatter]

While I don't like Syaracuse, it has been pointed out on shockernet that
a) the media loves them, so even when they are not very good, they are ranked highly. This means that any team that beats them must be a great team if they beat "mighty Syracuse", and a loss to Syracuse is usually portrayed not as a bad team losing, but as a good team being beaten by Syracuse, so that the ego of Syracuse can be stroked. This makes it a no-lose for media preception.
b) of teams that will be highly ranked, Syracuse may be as beatable as anyone. I think MT took this game because he thinks he can win it. Winning that game in that big of a market helps both WSU and the Valley.

I have a thought, instead of griping about WSU's schedule, maybe other Valley schools should try rooting for WSU to beat LSU and because those are games that could really boost the reputation of the conference.

P.S. where was the outrage over UNI "selling out" to LSU, which worked out pretty well I might add?

[JBizLN]

While I don't like Syaracuse, it has been pointed out on shockernet that
a) the media loves them, so even when they are not very good, they are ranked highly. This means that any team that beats them must be a great team if they beat "mighty Syracuse", and a loss to Syracuse is usually portrayed not as a bad team losing, but as a good team being beaten by Syracuse, so that the ego of Syracuse can be stroked. This makes it a no-lose for media preception.
b) of teams that will be highly ranked, Syracuse may be as beatable as anyone. I think MT took this game because he thinks he can win it. Winning that game in that big of a market helps both WSU and the Valley.

I have a thought, instead of griping about WSU's schedule, maybe other Valley schools should try rooting for WSU to beat LSU and because those are games that could really boost the reputation of the conference.

P.S. where was the outrage over UNI "selling out" to LSU, which worked out pretty well I might add?

For me (and I doubt I'm completely alone) I don't really care how WSU schedules. I wouldn't want my team scheduling one and dones but I don't think it's that big of a deal and it is certainly not worth creating the firestorm that has been created here. The problem I have is with the people that defend WSU based on failed scheduling of Creighton and SIU. This is especially true from a team that hasn't had the success in the last 10ish years that those two schools have had. There are different ways to put together a schedule and I don't care how Creighton, SIU, WSU.....put their schedules together as long as they don't start putting them together the way Maryland, Florida State, Texas A&M and the like have done. And, yes, I will be wanting to see WSU win those games.