#3 Ga. Tech 67 - #2 Oklahoma State 65

[Quentin Daniels]

After going 31-32 after four seasons in the ACC, I don't think I'd have given him a $7 mill auto-renewing deal no.

 

[Quentin Daniels]

With the conclusion of our 4-12 and 12th place finish, I thought I'd give Gemini another chance to defend Hewitt's hiring.

That 12 point loss at home on Senior night to the 11th place Duquesne Dukes sure was one for the ages.

 

[GMUgemini]

With the conclusion of our 4-12 and 12th place finish, I thought I'd give Gemini another chance to defend Hewitt's hiring.

That 12 point loss at home on Senior night to the 11th place Duquesne Dukes sure was one for the ages.

Why single me out? I was with you as saying this year was make or break for Hewitt. Well, he broke it.

I also said he needed to look at what he was doing in year two and figure out ways to fix what was broken with his system. He didn't really do that either.

My argument with you in this thread specifically is that Hewitt's job during the entire season (and going back to his success at Siena), and not just one game, is what earned him the contract rightly or wrongly.

You are very dismissive of other teams and their talent sometimes (as evidenced by your dismissal of the teams GT beat in the Sweet 16 and Elite 8). I butted heads with you last year on what you thought of Northeastern's Jonathan Lee, who was a damn good player.

 

[Quentin Daniels]

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

I said it was one of the worst CAA's in several years and still couldn't do better then 6th place - as evidenced by an NU squad that wouldn't have had a chance against the UNCW's, ODU's, Richmond's, and Mason's of past season. You went on about Lee who I said was no Matt Janning or Chaison Allan....and the NU posters agreed.

Nice attempt at changing the subject though. Tell me again how that auto-renewing contract would have come about from a 31-32 ACC record otherwise though. That's believable.

 

[GMUgemini]

Because you can't take one game out of context. First, GT had to get to the final four and that begins with seeding, which included a few very impressive wins in the regular season (UConn -- who won the national championship that year -- in the preseason NIT championship game, breaking Dukes 41 game home winning streak etc.), and them there are the games which precede the final four, none of which are a foregone conclusion (just ask Mark Few how easy it is to get to a final four). The fact you are discounting a Nevada team that had two future NBA players on it (granted they were never stars) because of their seed should let anyone know just how silly your argument is.

None of this, of course, means I'm defending what Hewitt has done post 2004, because it is indefensible. But to pretend that his contract was simply and only because of one win that year is a bad argument.

 

[Quentin Daniels]

Because you can't take one game out of context.

Actually context is exactly what I provided in the opening post.

You should try changing the topic again - third time's the charm.

 

[GMUgemini]

Actually context is exactly what I provided in the opening post.

You should try changing the topic again - third time's the charm.

Being obtuse is not actually a sign of a sound argument. But go ahead and continuing to try to be clever and keep talking past my critique.