Cal Poly-Official Game Thread

[RabbitObsessed]

Re: Cal Poly-Official Game Thread

Undefeated.

Haha nice.

[jack power]

Re: Cal Poly-Official Game Thread

The topic has wandered to how good they are now compared to other State teams. That being said, how do you think they'd be doing this year if they were in the NSIC?

43-8 .... maybe 42-9

[rcjacks]

Re: Cal Poly-Official Game Thread

I don't remember any such comments, I'd love to see a citation, and finally, what someone says would happen is hardly definitive----you may, for instance, insist that your child is smarter than Albert Einstein, but the foundation for saying so is no more supportable than the foundation for insisting that someone else's child is the dumbest kid in his class.

Zooropa, even you have to admit, that if Nagy did indeed say this (please note I am stating hypotheticals here so), that what Nagy says would be more definitive or at least more credible than what you and I are saying.

[jack power]

Re: Cal Poly-Official Game Thread

Zooropa, even you have to admit, that if Nagy did indeed say this (please note I am stating hypotheticals here so), that what Nagy says would be more definitive or at least more credible than what you and I are saying.

Of course he would be more credible, but i wouldn't say it was definitive.

[minnesotarabbit]

Re: Cal Poly-Official Game Thread

They'd be 1-1.

Nice..........500 aint bad

I'm guessing W against upper Iowa and L against SWMS

[jackmd]

Re: Cal Poly-Official Game Thread

Nagy did say that he THOUGHT his best teams from the DII era would have had 15-17 wins last year. I don't remember in what interview at what time but I am pretty sure I heard him say that.

Does it matter one bit? Hell no.

The team we have is the team we have and the DII days don't matter. This program is building towards a goal and that goal is to compete for a conference title, tourney championship and NCAA DI tourney bid. We aren't anywhere near where we need to be now but I truly believe we are closer than we were 4 years ago and we are sure one heck of a lot closer than the years when we were DII. I hope everyone understands that.

[zooropa]

Re: Cal Poly-Official Game Thread

what Nagy says would be more definitive or at least more credible than what you and I are saying.

No, it would not. What you are positing is a variation of the 'intentional fallacy', which asserts that an author has the ultimate, or final, say over the interpretation of his work.

While it's true one should not dismiss Nagy's comments out of hand, it is also true that for Nagy's comments to carry weight, they must be supported by independently verifiable data.

In fact they are not.

Therefore you have two sets of opinions:

1) SDSU could not compete--and the support is a logical inference based on the struggles of Kennesaw State.

2) SDSU could compete--with the support being a coach's assertion that it is so.

Do you see the problem here? One statement has an observable verifiable basis, the other does not.

[rcjacks]

Re: Cal Poly-Official Game Thread

No, it would not. What you are positing is a variation of the 'intentional fallacy', which asserts that an author has the ultimate, or final, say over the interpretation of his work.

While it's true one should not dismiss Nagy's comments out of hand, it is also true that for Nagy's comments to carry weight, they must be supported by independently verifiable data.

In fact they are not.

Therefore you have two sets of opinions:

1) SDSU could not compete--and the support is a logical inference based on the struggles of Kennesaw State.

2) SDSU could compete--with the support being a coach's assertion that it is so.

Do you see the problem here? One statement has an observable verifiable basis, the other does not.

I am sorry, but no logical inference can be based on the struggles of Kennesaw State's men's basketball team. Kennesaw State is a completely different program and their struggles or success has nothing to do with SDSU, just as NDSU's success has nothing to do with SDSU.

In addition, according to Jackmd and Grizzled_Jack Nagy did state his past teams would have 17 wins in the Summit, Nagy's assertion that his best teams would have 15-17 wins last year in the Summit, is based upon an "observable basis." Nagy knows the talent of his past and current teams, Nagy knows the teamwork and chemistry of his past and current teams, he knows the intensity and heart of his past and current teams ... all of which are observable.

[LakeJack]

Re: Cal Poly-Official Game Thread

Ya, so? Those are both D-I conferences.


Want to know how the last three D-II Men's Basketball National Champions that moved up to D-I are doing?

Kennesaw State - 2004 D-II National Champion is 7-17 with a RPI of 337. They are 1-11 on the road. '04 was our last year in D-II and the NCC.

Cal State Bakersfield - They won 3 D-II National Championships in the '90s. They are 6-18 with a RPI of 321. They are 1-13 on the road.

UC David - They won the '98 D-II National crown and have been D-I the longest. This season they are 11-14 with a RPI of 255 and a road record of 4-7.

Moving from D-II to D-I is a huge jump in Men's Basketball.

-Bump-

[zooropa]

Re: Cal Poly-Official Game Thread

I am sorry, but no logical inference can be based on the struggles of Kennesaw State's men's basketball team. Kennesaw State is a completely different program and their struggles or success has nothing to do with SDSU, just as NDSU's success has nothing to do with SDSU.

In addition, according to Jackmd and Grizzled_Jack, Nagy's assertion that his best teams would have 15-17 wins last year in the Summit, is based upon an "observable basis." Nagy knows the talent of his past and current teams, Nagy knows the teamwork and chemistry of his past and current teams, he knows the intensity and heart of his past and current teams ... all of which are observable.

I'd hate to think you took the same liberal arts classes I took, and yet came out of them with such a radically different understanding of 'burden of proof'.

To start with:

The assertion is made "SDSU's best NCC teams could compete in the Summit"

Understandably, clarification is requested for 'best'.

Let's say that the parties advancing the assertion suggest the 1997 Jackrabbit team, as it won its bracket and advanced to the E-8 quarter finals.

Okay, now the question of proof comes up. Those that oppose this assertion request proof.

Those favoring the assertion provide the following proof:

"Scott Nagy says that his best teams could've won 12-17 games in 2007/08"

And that is the sum total 'proof' that is marshaled in favor of the assertion.

Now, those opposing the assertion furnish the following counter argument:

A team that lost a quarterfinal match is generally considered to be inferior to a team that wins a championship.

Further, the difference between a quarterfinal loser and a championship winner, is great enough as to exceed the margin for error (by contrast, it could not be argued that the loser of the championship game, losing by only 3 points, is indisputably worse than the game winner).

Therefore, it can be argued that the 1997 Jackrabbit team was worse than the 1997 Cal State Bakersfield team (the team that won the title).

Now, assuming a steady quality of competition from 1997 to 2004, it may be argued that the 1997 Cal State Bakersfield team was at least as good as the 2004 Kennesaw State team

Granting even a deterioration of competition, it would require the 8 best teams in D-2 to leave for D-1, in order to put the 2004 Kennesaw State team below the 1997 Jackrabbit team.

In the intervening years, however, only two D-2 powers left (UC Davis & Cal State Bakersfield).

Therefore, we can, perhaps say that the Kennesaw State team in 2004 was equivalent to the 3rd best team in the 1997 tournament. Still far ahead of the 1997 Jackrabbits.

Now the 2006 Kennesaw State team carried a 249 RPI and finished their first transitional year with a losing record (11-15) (SOS: 279). (SOS for 2007/08 Jacks: 301)

Therefore, the logical conclusion is that an arguably better team did worse than the posited performance of the 1997 Jacks, thus negating the claim that the 1997 Jacks would 'win 15-17 games'.

Note the following assumptions:

1) asserting that if the 2004 Kennesaw State team was not as good as the 1997 Cal State Bakersfield team, it was not worse than the Jacks

2) asserting that the team's performance two years after it won the championship was on par with its performance as a championship winning team--or at the very least it was better than the performance of a Jackrabbit team that lost in the E-8 quarterfinals.

Those are the clearly acknkowledged assumptions for the opposition provided.

Further research can be done with UC Davis and Cal State Bakersfield, and I might just do it...

There are, however, no independently observable FACTS, by which the Nagy assertion can be tested, therefore it must rest solely on the weight of the person offering it.

As such, it is on shaky grounds at best. In no small part because Nagy didn't elaborate on the comment, but also because his proximity to the situation makes his judgment suspect.

If you would not take someone's assertion that their daughter is a brilliant jazz pianist at face value, why would you take a coach's comments about his past or present players at face value?

[rcjacks]

Re: Cal Poly-Official Game Thread

I'd hate to think you took the same liberal arts classes I took, and yet came out of them with such a radically different understanding of 'burden of proof'.

To start with:

The assertion is made "SDSU's best NCC teams could compete in the Summit"

Understandably, clarification is requested for 'best'.

Let's say that the parties advancing the assertion suggest the 1997 Jackrabbit team, as it won its bracket and advanced to the E-8 quarter finals.

Okay, now the question of proof comes up. Those that oppose this assertion request proof.

Those favoring the assertion provide the following proof:

"Scott Nagy says that his best teams could've won 12-17 games in 2007/08"

And that is the sum total 'proof' that is marshaled in favor of the assertion.

Now, those opposing the assertion furnish the following counter argument:

A team that lost a quarterfinal match is generally considered to be inferior to a team that wins a championship.

Further, the difference between a quarterfinal loser and a championship winner, is great enough as to exceed the margin for error (by contrast, it could not be argued that the loser of the championship game, losing by only 3 points, is indisputably worse than the game winner).

Therefore, it can be argued that the 1997 Jackrabbit team was worse than the 1997 Cal State Bakersfield team (the team that won the title).

Now, assuming a steady quality of competition from 1997 to 2004, it may be argued that the 1997 Cal State Bakersfield team was at least as good as the 2004 Kennesaw State team

Granting even a deterioration of competition, it would require the 8 best teams in D-2 to leave for D-1, in order to put the 2004 Kennesaw State team below the 1997 Jackrabbit team.

In the intervening years, however, only two D-2 powers left (UC Davis & Cal State Bakersfield).

Therefore, we can, perhaps say that the Kennesaw State team in 2004 was equivalent to the 3rd best team in the 1997 tournament. Still far ahead of the 1997 Jackrabbits.

Now the 2006 Kennesaw State team carried a 229 RPI and finished their first transitional year with a losing record.

Therefore, the logical conclusion is that an arguably better team did worse than the posited performance of the 1997 Jacks, thus negating the claim that the 1997 Jacks would 'win 15-17 games'.

Note the following assumptions:

1) asserting that if the 2004 Kennesaw State team was not as good as the 1997 Cal State Bakersfield game, it was not worse than the Jacks

2) asserting that the team's performance two years after it won the championship was on par with its performance as a championship winning team--or at the very least it was better than the performance of a Jackrabbit team that lost in the E-8 quarterfinals.

Those are the clearly acknkowledged assumptions for the opposition provided.

Further research can be done with UC Davis and Cal State Bakersfield, and I might just do it...

There are, however, no independently observable FACTS, by which the Nagy assertion can be tested, therefore it must rest solely on the weight of the person offering it.

As such, it is on shaky grounds at best. In no small part because Nagy didn't elaborate on the comment, but also because his proximity to the situation makes his judgment suspect.

If you would not take someone's assertion that their daughter is a brilliant jazz pianist at face value, why would you take a coach's comments about his past or present players at face value?

Dude, we are a bunch of Jacks fans debating the quality of the current men Jackrabbits compared to Jackrabbit teams of the past. We are just having fun, not using philosophical deduction for our arguments. As someone mentioned earlier, the computer generation ESPN did a few years back comparing past generational teams versus today's teams ... that doesn't flow from philosophical deduction, but it was a fun series and created some buzz and debate ... we are doing the same here. Lighten up a little and have some fun.

[zooropa]

Re: Cal Poly-Official Game Thread

Dude, we are a bunch of Jacks fans debating the quality of the current men Jackrabbits compared to Jackrabbit teams of the past.

Then let's go back to the days of the two-hand set shot!

How many of those guys could've made the transition to the jumpshot?

[rcjacks]

Re: Cal Poly-Official Game Thread

Then let's go back to the days of the two-hand set shot!

How many of those guys could've made the transition to the jumpshot?

I don't think Brian Norberg utilized the two handed set shot ... maybe Cody Volmer or Matt Jones did....jeesh. I thought it was clear we were talking about the teams of the late 90s, the teams Nagy said would have 17 wins last year in the Summit?

[zooropa]

Re: Cal Poly-Official Game Thread

I don't think Brian Norberg utilized the two handed jumpshot ... Did Cody Volmer or Matt Jones? Weren't we talking about the teams of the late 90s, the teams Nagy said would have 17 wins last year in the Summit?

Dude, I'm saying that if we're not subjecting ourselves to any rational basis for our arguments, then let's open the floodgates to whimsy. Let's talk about some of the Jacks greats of the 60s---how many of them would've been good 3-point shooters?

What about today's athleticism and athletic training.... Is it okay to assume that yesterday's good players would be good players today, provided they worked out to today's expectations?

[rcjacks]

Re: Cal Poly-Official Game Thread

Dude, I'm saying that if we're not subjecting ourselves to any rational basis for our arguments, then let's open the floodgates to whimsy. Let's talk about some of the Jacks greats of the 60s---how many of them would've been good 3-point shooters?

What about today's athleticism and athletic training.... Is it okay to assume that yesterday's good players would be good players today, provided they worked out to today's expectations?

I think you are taking this debate a little to seriously and far. We were clearly talking about Nagy's teams of the late 90's, not teams of the 60's who didn't have a 3 pt. line or who weren't allowed to play true freshmen.

We aren't opening any "floodgates to whimsy."

Please just have some fun with this debate.