This Team is a Mystery

[Opus]

Weird, about 20 minutes ago I was thinking of that and the possible allusions. Hey, have you been peeking in my window? I sure as (bleep) don't have a webcam, even before I knew the NSA could turn them on(like your phones) without you knowing.

Ha all I can say is great (ok maybe demented) minds think alike? I am not high tech. Don't have a smart phone/ computer is 10 years old so...no camera for the NSA to turn on here.

 

[Opus]

Maybe he could figure it out or...

I'm not sure who that guy is but...he'll do.

 

[CaptainJ]

This isnt going to be popular(the truth often isnt), but we sure as (bleep) havent played any teams like that Duke team we played with Alaa Abdelnaby on the roster. Seriously, if we can't agree that this season's hoops landscape isnt mired in a sea of abject mediocrity, then I am not sure what we can agree on. Of course we'll next progress into discussions of relativity I'm guessing. We've managed to "close out" some rather weak/midling teams in desperation time when our averages/win margins get even higher. If we're up 20+ on them as in the past, are they still fouling and are our starters still in? I think those are legitimate questions when we consider our pedigree so far this season.

Dont get me wrong, I am not complaining about the team or the fact that we have a 6 man rotation, but I think the OP raises a valid question that I think deserves more than the usual programmed responses that make me feel like I'm in a military camp. I think we often seek to answer it in ways that seem most pleasing to our emotions and/or minds, but may not necessarily be reminiscent of the full scope of reality. I'll save the current/full strength MSU comparison for the next time I see people asking if we're going to be #1 in the polls, if that still applies after Duke.

Like JB says, this is a good team(with the potential to be great, my addition, not his), and tomorrow we get another nice home test. It will be interesting to see how the team handles it's first hostile away environment, whenever that may occur. Seriously, sometimes things like that can be a factor!

 

[pearl31]

This isnt going to be popular(the truth often isnt), but we sure as (bleep) havent played any teams like that Duke team we played with Alaa Abdelnaby on the roster. Seriously, if we can't agree that this season's hoops landscape isnt mired in a sea of abject mediocrity, then I am not sure what we can agree on. Of course we'll next progress into discussions of relativity I'm guessing. We've managed to "close out" some rather weak/midling teams in desperation time when our averages/win margins get even higher. If we're up 20+ on them as in the past, are they still fouling and are our starters still in? I think those are legitimate questions when we consider our pedigree so far this season.

Dont get me wrong, I am not complaining about the team or the fact that we have a 6 man rotation, but I think the OP raises a valid question that I think deserves more than the usual programmed responses that make me feel like I'm in a military camp. I think we often seek to answer it in ways that seem most pleasing to our emotions and/or minds, but may not necessarily be reminiscent of the full scope of reality. I'll save the current/full strength MSU comparison for the next time I see people asking if we're going to be #1 in the polls, if that still applies after Duke.

Like JB says, this is a good team(with the potential to be great, my addition, not his), and tomorrow we get another nice home test. It will be interesting to see how the team handles it's first hostile away environment, whenever that may occur. Seriously, sometimes things like that can be a factor!

But look what the OP actually says. The bullet points in that post attempt to make a case that, essentially, this team should not even have a good record. There are different ways to achieve (relative) greatness in college basketball other than scoring 100 a game or having a stud scorer or murdering teams by 20+ a game.
Certainly the college landscape has changed significantly over the past 20 years. But for this year, right now, our team is very, very good — and possibly even great. And it's not about programmed or emotional responses either, it's simply looking at all the teams int he country, right now, and assessing where our team resides.

 

[pfister1]

At 20-0, this team has a realistic chance at setting Syracuse's record for wins in a single season. I believe the current his is 34 in 2011-12. Some things have to break right for us and we need to keep winning especially once we hit the ACC and NCAA tournaments.

We have 11 regular season games remaining, including today's game.
If I understand the ACC format correctly we would have to play and win 4 games to take the championship
Obviously it takes 6 wins to bring home the big crown.

I don't expect this to occur, but if we went undefeated we'd end up with 41 wins. That gives us some room to lose a game or two during the regular season, win the post season tournaments and claim the record.

 

[SWC75]

I'm not sure who that guy is but...he'll do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_(TV_series)

 

[br801]

But look what the OP actually says. The bullet points in that post attempt to make a case that, essentially, this team should not even have a good record. There are different ways to achieve (relative) greatness in college basketball other than scoring 100 a game or having a stud scorer or murdering teams by 20+ a game.
Certainly the college landscape has changed significantly over the past 20 years. But for this year, right now, our team is very, very good — and possibly even great. And it's not about programmed or emotional responses either, it's simply looking at all the teams int he country, right now, and assessing where our team resides.

Damn straight.

I'm not sure how the season will play out in the end, but right now this team is getting it done on the scoreboard, with major contributions from multiple players, and still has room for improvement. That's a good formula for a deep run.

 

[moqui]

• No 100 point games
• No 30 point scorer

how about a 91 point game and a 28 point scorer? Close enough?