this is a bit misleading. he is in his fifth, meaning he has completed 4 but actually 3 because one was canceled. of those 4 he has actually earned an invite to the tournament 3 times. his first season was not his team it was leftovers and he still hugely improved that team from a disaster to a decent team that won a postseason game. one time the tournament never happened. another time his team made it and he was suspended. he still coached them to the record that earned it. and he earned another too, its just the tournament never happened. good, saved money for the university. this is not a negative. makes him a better value. yes he is sitting as a projected 6 seed with a terrific NET ranking. NET is the most important metric. LSU is 19, ole miss is 107. being a bad recruiter is not a postive. having half the talent is worse than having more talent. i dont think you understand how any of this works. the goal is to get good players and win. not get bad players and lose like kermit davis.
Were you dropped on your head as a baby or you got ahold of some bad crack or something? You are so far up WW's rear end, I think we might have to send out a search group out to find you. That reminds me I need to call the psych ward and tell them to add a couple of more pad locks on the outside of your padded room or find you a more "special" place to deal with your psychotic episodes. Your statements lead me to believe that you're either Joe Biden, his wife or his crackhead son! As you lay down in your padded room tonight just repeat to yourself "Let's go Brandon!" a few hundred times and you'll sleep sound as a baby!
none of this is counterargument, and therefore is not interesting. i am making data based points and you are hoping to replace a coach with a guy who loses more and cant recruit. you dont seem to understand that the goal is to recruit good players and win. and win confronted with this fact, you resort to insults and boring dumb nonsense. you want to drag the argument into insults instead of data. not today, friend. compare any metric you want, winning %, number of high level recruits, tournament entry, even current SEC rankings after a terrible streak. wade wins all of it. again, right now LSU is 19 in the most important thing, the NET. ole miss and your boy davis is 107 and will miss the tournament. again.
but the op is never wrong because the fall back position is “less talent”… as if that’s not an indictment against ol kermit and his recruiting ability …. im not tracking to that….
whats fairly consistent among will wade critics is that they want to distract from the actual goal of the games, to win. winning consistently over time is the goal, but wade critics always want to shrink the sample size to bad streaks, and invoke other unfalsifiable metrics like "improvement" and "adjustments". these things are so vague that you cant disprove them. coach X is better, he made better adjustments!" did he? well did he win? no? then who cares. "but his players were not as good" well who recruited these losers? wade has been great and it shouldnt be disputable, but these clowns try.
My argument is that this actually applies to Wade therefore making him better. I don't see talent on Wade's team, certainly not the "quality" taint claims they have. Hell my son went through a mock draft yesterday and it had Eason going 25. If you are drafted outside of 15 in the 1st round of the NBA draft you aren't shit. Yes I know there are a few diamonds in the rough. The point is not a single one of our players are projected lottery picks. There is no talent on this squad. Wade has done well to get them where they are.
At this point I'm appointing myself referee and stopping the bout. @Jmg pounded you on his last post with fact and you responded with nothing but insults. Fight over, you lost.
this is a football town. we tend to think one loss ends he season and 3 losses means burn the thing to the ground and start over. basketball doesnt work that way. you can go into the tournament with 10 losses and be a killer final 4 team.
