The Wes Miller Thread

[leeraymond]

You are correct. I got it wrong. I was thinking of .500 in another way.

I went back and took another look at what I was thinking. You can actually look at the number of games up or down based on starting from a .500 win percentage. You will get an index. That is the last thing about this matter.

[leeraymond]

This is where the semantics comes in. 7-13 is indeed 6 games "under .500". We would have to win our next 6 games to get to .500 (now impossible because the season is over). But we finished 3 games "behind" a 10-10 team.

You are correct. I got it wrong. I was thinking of .500 in another way.

[leeraymond]

7-13 is 6 games under .500 but those 6 games could be made up in 3 games since you’re adding a victory and subtracting a loss in each of those 3 games. Semantics.

Yes. Something like that. However, the more I think of it that way, the more I think I may be wrong in how I am thinking about it.

[Bearcat93]

Minnesota fired their coach after 4 years of 6 year deal, buyout? 2.9m.

[leeraymond]

I agree MDW79 . Our roster is good enough to compete. Simas would be great in any system that uses off ball actions and more of a pack line defense. Aziz is being misused as a focal point on offense. I think there are quite a few coaches who would have led this team to a top half finish in the B12.

I am in agreement with that. Also, I think that a second decent big man would have really helped UC this season.

[Gmann]

I agree MDW79 . Our roster is good enough to compete. Simas would be great in any system that uses off ball actions and more of a pack line defense. Aziz is being misused as a focal point on offense. I think there are quite a few coaches who would have led this team to a top half finish in the B12.

Couldn't agree more. Most of the shortcomings and dysfunction of this group lies squarely on Miller. He will reshuffle the deck with guys out and in and still under develop and fail to install a system that works. Our only hope is that he recognizes the desperation of this next year and changes his ways.

[sedz]

I agree MDW79 . Our roster is good enough to compete. Simas would be great in any system that uses off ball actions and more of a pack line defense. Aziz is being misused as a focal point on offense. I think there are quite a few coaches who would have led this team to a top half finish in the B12.

[MDW79]

ya...Lukosius and Badaogo were both brought in before the move to the Big 12. In the AAC they would have been fine. So...exactly my point - 2 of the starting 5 are not Big 12 quality. .

No offense but this is complete nonsense. Both were brought in last offseason, in 2023, which was also first offseason heading into the Big 12. We recruited them already knowing we'd be joining the Big 12 (in a matter of weeks I might add). They, along with their families, their coaches, and everyone elsethat surrounds the entire recruiting landscape knew this is as well.

****, Aziz Bandago was ranked as the 17th overall player in the transfer portal. You can go check the rankings and you'll have to scroll down (and down, and down) quite aways past him to see the Power 5 offers dissipate. I guarantee you the vast majoirty of the Big 12 would have gladly taken him as a transfer.

Simas Lukosius started 32 of 32 games in the Big East as a true Sophmore, and he averaged 12 points a game doing it. There is no doubt that he was, at least at the time, a legitimate option to start in any league.

I mean, we call all debate whether these guys were ultimately the right fit, or if they were developed and/or used correctly. But I'm sorry, pretending as if we were somehow disadvanted, or that we hampered by being a member of the AAC for 6 more weeks is simply not true.

All you have to to do look at how much money they making. It is "Big 12" money or is it "AAC money"? The AAC has nothing to do with these players not performing up to standards. We either spent our money on the wrong players, or we didn't do enough once they got here to put them in a position for success. Take your pick.

[GunSlinger]

7-13 is 6 games under .500 but those 6 games could be made up in 3 games since you’re adding a victory and subtracting a loss in each of those 3 games. Semantics.

[SKell82155]

ya...Lukosius and Badaogo were both brought in before the move to the Big 12. In the AAC they would have been fine. So...exactly my point - 2 of the starting 5 are not Big 12 quality. And yet we blew a road game against Kansas St. by a bucket. a home game against them we could have won. a road game against Utah by a bucket. and 1 bucket loss home to WV. So really...we are five buckets from flipping those games and being over .500 in the Big 12 despite starting 2 seniors that are not Big 12 Quality. And I'm back to my point. Mckinley/Griffith/Page/Betsey ...add them to this roster as contributors and you are adding three big men and a wing. So...I see next year as the year Wes needs to produce, and I see the recruits as all guys brought in for the Big 12.

Not sure I agree with this. They knew they were
going into the Big XII before those players were
”recruited”.

[Gmann]

Got it guys. I will say with this team winning 3 more games in conference seems like 6.

[sedz]

I was told there would be no math

Gotta use that UC education sometimes.

[Oldtimer_UC_fan]

So that means that UC is actually 3 games under .500, not 6. Remember 10-10 is .500.

It simply means they needed to win 3 league games which they lost. As sedz said, it's math.

[Lobot]

I was told there would be no math

[leeraymond]

This is where the semantics comes in. 7-13 is indeed 6 games "under .500". We would have to win our next 6 games to get to .500 (now impossible because the season is over). But we finished 3 games "behind" a 10-10 team.

No . That does not seem right to me. The BIG XII played a 20-game schedule this year. If a team finished at .500, then it would have finished 10-10. UC finished at 7-13. That is only a 3-game difference from .500. For instance, if UC was 13-7, then it would be 3 games above .500. If UC finished 3 games behind a 10-10 team, then it would have 3 less wins and 3 more losses.

So, I am not following you when you say 6 games under .500.