ADVERTISEMENT

Vandy, damn that could have been us!

cockn'fyr

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2006
9,445
1,582
113
How do you think we would have fared against the Shockers.... minus five guys!
 
How do you think we would have fared against the Shockers.... minus five guys!

They wouldn't have been in position to get into trouble and it should have at least been us against a team more deserving than the Shockers. I like the Shockers, but by no objective measurement do they belong in the field. Tonight was their second best win and it was against Vandy with an rpi currently at 65.
 
The geniuses on ESPNU said what was anyone talking about SC never deserved being in the NCAA and they should be glad to play in the NIT. I guess they never looked at the Orange or Vandy, did they?
 
The geniuses on ESPNU said what was anyone talking about SC never deserved being in the NCAA and they should be glad to play in the NIT. I guess they never looked at the Orange or Vandy, did they?

They will look wherever they want to confirm their own biases. Not that we're different in that regard, but I think we can make a better case had we had an advocate on the committee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cock_Donor
They will look wherever they want to confirm their own biases. Not that we're different in that regard, but I think we can make a better case had we had an advocate on the committee.

Based on the committee chair's discussion of us, we didn't have anyone advocating for us on the committee like other teams did or he'd have had a real reason why we weren't in.
 
Don't know who you're referencing but the announcers at the game said SC should have been there.
They said several times we were an NCAA team. I couldn't enjoy the game...knowing that we had 5 players that can't handle disappointment!
 
They said several times we were an NCAA team. I couldn't enjoy the game...knowing that we had 5 players that can't handle disappointment!
And legions of fans. They still aren't handling it. The only difference is the fans haven't act out as destructively, well, most of them anyway.
 
What a game that could have been ... Greg Marshall/Witchita St. Vs Frank Martin/SC. That game could have put to rest the controversy over whether Marshall should have been named our HC, instead of Martin.
 
Vanderbilt representing the SEC proud in first round losing by 20. Still scratching my head how the gamecocks weren't picked.
 
It was the guys back at game central U, not the game announcers.

Game announcers are always complimentary of the teams playing. I never heard an announcer all weekend say that the bubble team in the game they were playing weren't in or didn't pass the "eye test".
 
I think Vandy made the strongest case for us to have been in instead of them. Lose a dang Play-in game by 20 points? Talk about embarrassing...
 
It may be the NIT, people, but we're still playing. Maybe it's where we belong right now.

Chill and support. :)

GOCOCKS! BEATJACKSONVILLE! BEATARK! BEATPROBABLYGATECH!
 
  • Like
Reactions: rpp2001
And legions of fans. They still aren't handling it. The only difference is the fans haven't act out as destructively, well, most of them anyway.
First incidents occurred on March 6 and 7... before the SEC tourney (link). It was not a reaction to the NCAA's stupidity. It was dumb - reaaallllly stupid - teenage behavior. The really bad part is pointing the pellet gun at someone in a car or at a car with someone in it. Certainly this is behavior unbecoming of our university and the student-athletes who represent our school, but it's not robbing, selling drugs, or pushing women around. There is a path to make up for these kinds of crimes and hopefully people will wait to pass judgment until we see if these boys are interested in making amends.
 
First incidents occurred on March 6 and 7... before the SEC tourney (link). It was not a reaction to the NCAA's stupidity. It was dumb - reaaallllly stupid - teenage behavior. The really bad part is pointing the pellet gun at someone in a car or at a car with someone in it. Certainly this is behavior unbecoming of our university and the student-athletes who represent our school, but it's not robbing, selling drugs, or pushing women around. There is a path to make up for these kinds of crimes and hopefully people will wait to pass judgment until we see if these boys are interested in making amends.
I'm OK with all that.
 
First incidents occurred on March 6 and 7... before the SEC tourney (link). It was not a reaction to the NCAA's stupidity. It was dumb - reaaallllly stupid - teenage behavior. The really bad part is pointing the pellet gun at someone in a car or at a car with someone in it. Certainly this is behavior unbecoming of our university and the student-athletes who represent our school, but it's not robbing, selling drugs, or pushing women around. There is a path to make up for these kinds of crimes and hopefully people will wait to pass judgment until we see if these boys are interested in making amends.
Disagree. Malicious destruction of private property and Assault and Battery is every bit as bad as robbery and pushing women around. Per reports, the air rifles they used can cause a lot of damage. If they are guilty, they should be kicked off the team and expelled from school.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fightingcock103
Disagree. Malicious destruction of private property and Assault and Battery is every bit as bad as robbery and pushing women around. Per reports, the air rifles they used can cause a lot of damage. If they are guilty, they should be kicked off the team and expelled from school.
I want to see what the facts of the case are before making that kind of judgment. Malicious could mean that they were targeting people in a pre-meditated way. If that's the case, yes, they should be kicked off the team. If malicious here means they, but were out "joy-riding" and randomly destroying property, I think they deserve a chance to make amends (which is by no means a free pass). In every mistake, there is a learning opportunity. Lets not forget Stephen Garcia maliciously keying his professor's car. That was done with intent.
 
I want to see what the facts of the case are before making that kind of judgment. Malicious could mean that they were targeting people in a pre-meditated way. If that's the case, yes, they should be kicked off the team. If malicious here means they, but were out "joy-riding" and randomly destroying property, I think they deserve a chance to make amends (which is by no means a free pass). In every mistake, there is a learning opportunity. Lets not forget Stephen Garcia maliciously keying his professor's car. That was done with intent.
No excuse but it wasn't "his" professor. It was a visitor who stole the parking space Garcia was waiting on in the rain.
 
What a game that could have been ... Greg Marshall/Witchita St. Vs Frank Martin/SC. That game could have put to rest the controversy over whether Marshall should have been named our HC, instead of Martin.


What? Gregg has been to 5 straight NCAAT and been in the FF4 in 2013. Had an undefeated regular season during that time frame. There is not a comparison. Hell, Gregg has 2 win in this NCAAT already. The man has done more at a mid-major than the entire history of our program.
 
Disagree. Malicious destruction of private property and Assault and Battery is every bit as bad as robbery and pushing women around. Per reports, the air rifles they used can cause a lot of damage. If they are guilty, they should be kicked off the team and expelled from school.
If they pointed a pellet gun at somebody, they should consider themselves fortunate to not have taken return fire of a truly deadly variety. Unbelievably stupid thing to do, if true. I won't lose any sleep if they are kicked off the team.
 
If they pointed a pellet gun at somebody, they should consider themselves fortunate to not have taken return fire of a truly deadly variety. Unbelievably stupid thing to do, if true. I won't lose any sleep if they are kicked off the team.
That's the part that's not clear - whether they pointed it at someone or pointed it at a car with someone in it. Gotta find out first if there was intent to harm - and if there was intent to harm someone in particular - or if they were just randomly shooting the gun. There's a big difference there between being a sociopath and just being teenage stupid.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT