tOFFICIAL M v MSU For the B1G SpartyBoard Mens Hoops Tournament Title Thread

[Spartanmack]

Apologies. Correction noted and made. It has however been my observation that you are the chronic shleprock of this board when it comes to anything MSU. Glass is always half empty is what I read from your take on many things.

Again, what is "half empty" about saying we win that game 7 out of 10 times w/ those lineups if both are fresh? The answer is "nothing". it's your interpretation that makes it negative and your unwillingness is give michigan any credit whatsoever for being a good basketball team.

Suggesting even in the slightest that MSU was fortunate to have played UofM in the third game and not the first is simply an example of looking for the downside in an otherwise exceptional MSU performance.

Again, 7 out of 10 with fresh lineups - I am in no way suggesting MSU was fortunate to have played them in the third game - just that the game probably isn't over with 15 minutes left. And your suggestion here shows you clearly don't understand what I've said.

Nope. Not the same result. I believe if both teams were fresh, MSU would have likely won by more. Take what the two teams had in their arsenal yesterday, and give both teams closer to their usual outside shooting productivity, and the matchup favors MSU even more.

Here's where we really disagree but the fact that I think we would have won, just not sooooo easily hardly makes me a glass half full kind of person.

 

[RedeemerKid]

Michigan is a very good basketball team. But yesterday I think MSU showed that when the group they had on the floor yesterday gels together, they are simply better.

You can seriously sit here and say "I am in no way suggesting MSU was fortunate to have played them in the third game". Really?

Sure just not too excited. Michigan was exhausted the entire second half - we can't take all the credit for that. In fact, the 2h was very sloppy for both teams. .

Did you watch the second half? michigan had no life, couldn't get anyone open, couldn't make shots when they did. Some of the credit goes to MSU's defense but that game is not representative of what would happen if that game was played in the first round and not the final. .

It was the game plan but it was clearly aided by Michigan not having the legs to overcome it. When healthy I think we're the better team but I wouldn't expect that result against a fresh squad. Our guys were tired too, the whole second half sucked at both ends but fatigue definitely made them easier to defend. .

I think it?s clear you are arguing that the game was an easier win than it otherwise would have been. It?s almost as if you are saying that game is not representative of what would happen if that game was played in the first round and not the final.

Oh wait. That?s exactly what you said.

 

[Spartanmack]

Michigan is a very good basketball team. But yesterday I think MSU showed that when the group they had on the floor yesterday gels together, they are simply better.

You can seriously sit here and say "I am in no way suggesting MSU was fortunate to have played them in the third game". Really?

Yes, really. I have said time and again, MSU wins that game if it's the first round or the final. I agree we are the better team but I don't think the result of yesterday's game is proof that we would necessarily dominate michigan like that time and again. Nor do I think it's proof that we are where we expected to be at this time back in December. I'm hopeful and it's a step in the right direction, but it's one game played under far from normal circumstances - circumstances that I choose not to ignore. Look at the wisco game - we were up 17 at half and they got to within 7 with 5 minutes left. Do you think wisco is that much better than michigan or that we were that much better on Sunday than we were on Saturday? No they're not and we we aren't. It's not at all unreasonable or negative to say that we win but not so easily under different circumstances.

I guess those quotes make your post look clever but it's proof of nothing other than what I've consistently said throughout this thread. Each speaks to my belief that michigan makes it a better game if both teams are fresh, one that we win but one that's not over with 15 minutes left. Good effort on the spin, but it doesn't really work.

I think it’s clear you are arguing that the game was an easier win than it otherwise would have been. It’s almost as if you are saying that game is not representative of what would happen if that game was played in the first round and not the final.

Oh wait. That’s exactly what you said.

I won't deny that - it is EXACTLY what I said and I stand by it. But giving us at least a 70% chance of winning vs. a 90% chance of winning is not even in the same ballpark as saying we're fortunate to have faced them when we did. Those are your words based on your need to spin my comments into something negative.

 

[RedeemerKid]

Yes, really. I have said time and again, MSU wins that game if it's the first round or the final. I agree we are the better team but I don't think the result of yesterday's game is proof that we would necessarily dominate michigan like that time and again. Nor do I think it's proof that we are where we expected to be at this time back in December. I'm hopeful and it's a step in the right direction, but it's one game played under far from normal circumstances - circumstances that I choose not to ignore. Look at the wisco game - we were up 17 at half and they got to within 7 with 5 minutes left. Do you think wisco is that much better than michigan or that we were that much better on Sunday than we were on Saturday? No they're not and we we aren't. It's not at all unreasonable or negative to say that we win but not so easily under different circumstances.

I guess those quotes make your post look clever but it's proof of nothing other than what I've consistently said throughout this thread. Each speaks to my belief that michigan makes it a better game if both teams are fresh, one that we win but one that's not over with 15 minutes left. Good effort on the spin, but it doesn't really work.



I won't deny that - it is EXACTLY what I said and I stand by it. But giving us at least a 70% chance of winning vs. a 90% chance of winning is not even in the same ballpark as saying we're fortunate to have faced them when we did. Those are your words based on your need to spin my comments into something negative.

Thought we were done talking about this, but I now notice you were still editing this four hours later.

No matter how many times you say otherwise, there's no difference between what you clearly said......

my belief (is) that michigan makes it a better game if both teams are fresh

that game is not representative of what would happen if that game was played in the first round and not the final

......and my paraphrasing of it that you take issue with.

It's worth noting that those two statements of yours are totally at odds with this one:

I am in no way suggesting MSU was fortunate to have played them in the third game

It is clear that you stated MSU was fortunate to, or benefited from, having drawn UofM in the finals rather than an earlier round. You have made it clear that you feel it would have been a different, perhaps closer, more competitive game had it been played earlier in the tourney when UofM had fresher legs.

It's inarguable, despite your protests to the contrary.

Quite simply, what I and others have expressed is that we simply disagree with that premise.

In my opinion, and that of others expressed here, having both teams fresher would not necessarily benefit UofM in the matchup. Suggesting as much is at best speculative as opposed to a matter of physics, and at worst an effort to marginalize an otherwise fine effort by the MSU team.

I and others have speculated that an earlier matchup would have benefited MSU. We disagree. It happens. No need to backpedal here. Own your words. It's OK. The worst that can happen is someone will disagree with you.

 

[Spartanmack]

Thought we were done talking about this, but I now notice you were still editing this four hours later.

No matter how many times you say otherwise, there's no difference between what you clearly said......

......and my paraphrasing of it that you take issue with.

It's worth noting that those two statements of yours are totally at odds with this one:

It is clear that you stated MSU was fortunate to, or benefited from, having drawn UofM in the finals rather than an earlier round. You have made it clear that you feel it would have been a different, perhaps closer, more competitive game had it been played earlier in the tourney when UofM had fresher legs.

It's inarguable, despite your protests to the contrary.

Quite simply, what I and others have expressed is that we simply disagree with that premise.

What difference does it make what time I edit a post? Are you saying you weren't going to respond but then you saw I edited the post past your tolerable allowance for edits?

What's clear is that YOU said I stated MSU was fortunate to play that game when we did. What I said was I wasn't getting too excited just yet because we didn't beat michigan at their best and it was my opinion that the fatigue factor worked in our favor. I also clearly stated my belief that w/ those lineups, we're the better team and we win that game, but the game probably isn't over with 15 minutes left. What's inarguable is the fact that by definition, if you're paraphrasing, there is a difference and the fact is, in paraphrasing, you made an incorrect assumption that's not only is not supported by facts, it's explicitly contradicted by my posts. You can spin my comments into something I never said as many times as you like, repeating a mistake over and over doesn't make it correct.

In my opinion, and that of others expressed here, having both teams fresher would not necessarily benefit UofM in the matchup. Suggesting as much is at best speculative as opposed to a matter of physics, and at worst an effort to marginalize an otherwise fine effort by the MSU team. If you think me saying we don't put them away until later than 15 minutes means I think we were lucky to play them when we did then I don't know what to tell you.

I and others have speculated that an earlier matchup would have benefited MSU. We disagree. It happens. No need to backpedal here. Own your words. It's OK. The worst that can happen is someone will disagree with you.

You are entitled to your opinion and I have no problem with you disagreeing with me. In fact you're quickly achieving Johnny2x2x or michchump status - if either of them disagrees with me, I consider that to be a validation of my opinion. What i do have a problem with is you misrepresenting what I said. But let's be clear, you didn't say having both teams fresher "wouldn't necessarily favor michigan", you clearly said you thought we would have beaten them by even more - you said it, you should own it. You do kinda cop to it in your next paragraph but it sorta rings hallow after your prior backpedaling. Let's also be clear that your opinion is also, at best speculation - perhaps even more speculative than mine as we've actually seen those two fatigued lineups play each other - what evidence do you have? None. Hmmm, sounds like pure speculation to me. And hang on a second, maybe you should go back and read some of sbee's comments about what role fatigue plays and how it affects teams before you imply there's any kind of majority or plurality of opinion on your side. So far it's you and Johnny. Hardly a brain trust of sports knowledge (refer to my comments above about how much weight that carries, in my opinion).

Your conclusion is again clever, but again pure spin. You tell me to own my comments when in the very comment you were quoting I explicitly said "I won't deny that - it is EXACTLY what I said and I stand by it." At the risk of pulling a classic Redeemerkid, what you're really saying is you want me to own your spin on my comments. You want to accuse me of backpedaling because I reject your spin of my comments, go ahead.

 

[Michchamp]

... In fact you're quickly achieving Johnny2x2x or michchump status - if either of them disagrees with me, I consider that to be a validation of my opinion. ...

you seem to be the one with the problem here, always getting in long circular arguments that never go anywhere, editing posts, or replying long after everyone else has left the thread. It's time to look in the mirror and admit you are the problem, not "everyone else." This is the first step to better understanding the world around you, and learning to live in peace with your fellow internet posters.

may allah have mercy on you.

 

[Spartanmack]

you seem to be the one with the problem here, always getting in long circular arguments that never go anywhere, editing posts, or replying long after everyone else has left the thread. It's time to look in the mirror and admit you are the problem, not "everyone else." This is the first step to better understanding the world around you, and learning to live in peace with your fellow internet posters.

may allah have mercy on you.

There's the validation I was looking for. Typical michchump, jumping in and getting the facts completely wrong. Funny that you accuse me of "replying long after everyone has left". take a look at the timestamps doosh. Who waited 24 hours? The whole time lapse point is a stupid argument but I find it funny and worth mentioning how you are constantly contradict yourself. Personally, I don't really care that people take their time to respond or if they edit their posts because I assume, like myself that most people here have jobs and lives outside of DSF - other than you of course, if you're not beating off to Rachel Maddow, you're trolling on DSF. You are one pathetic loser.

and for the record, I don't consider you, johnny2x2x, gulo or redeemerkid to be my "fellow internet posters" nor do you 4 collectively add up to "everyone else". your need to belong is understandable, but i have no problem disagreeing with others or others disagreeing with me - having those conversations is how you learn to understand the world around you. You can enjoy the comfort of conformity, you probably need it as you're clearly in over your head.

 

[RedeemerKid]

What difference does it make what time I edit a post? Are you saying you weren't going to respond but then you saw I edited the post past your tolerable allowance for edits?

No. I?m saying it?s obvious that with repeated edits over several hours, you are really working hard as this gnaws at you, to try to spin your way out of contradicting yourself.

What's clear is that YOU said I stated MSU was fortunate to play that game when we did. What I said was I wasn't getting too excited just yet because we didn't beat michigan at their best and it was my opinion that the fatigue factor worked in our favor. I also clearly stated my belief that w/ those lineups, we're the better team and we win that game, but the game probably isn't over with 15 minutes left. What's inarguable is the fact that by definition, if you're paraphrasing, there is a difference and the fact is, in paraphrasing, you made an incorrect assumption that's not only is not supported by facts, it's explicitly contradicted by my posts. You can spin my comments into something I never said as many times as you like, repeating a mistake over and over doesn't make it correct.

Shenanigans. You said ? my belief (is) that michigan makes it a better game if both teams are fresh?
And ?that game is not representative of what would happen if that game was played in the first round and not the final?
And when I called you out for being negative and taking away from a nice perfromance and eventual win you said ?I am in no way suggesting MSU was fortunate to have played them in the third game?
That is contradictory. Backpedaling. And in no way am I spnning these comments. These are verbatims. Own them.

You are entitled to your opinion and I have no problem with you disagreeing with me. In fact you're quickly achieving Johnny2x2x or michchump status - if either of them disagrees with me, I consider that to be a validation of my opinion. What i do have a problem with is you misrepresenting what I said.

Again, these are verbatims. Things you actually said. Word for word.

You are entitled to your opinion and I have no problem with you disagreeing with me. In fact you're quickly achieving Johnny2x2x or michchump status - if either of them disagrees with me, I consider that to be a validation of my opinion. What i do have a problem with is you misrepresenting what I said. But let's be clear, you didn't say having both teams fresher "wouldn't necessarily favor michigan", you clearly said you thought we would have beaten them by even more - you said it, you should own it.

I personally do own that. I believe that, but when I characterizing what ?I and others? have suggested in the thread, I broaden the message as to make applicable and a fair representation of whet everyone has said that has collectively disagreed with you.

You do kinda cop to it in your next paragraph but it sorta rings hallow after your prior backpedaling.

Yep. I have consistently said that I personally believe that an earlier matchup would have benefited MSU.

Let's also be clear that your opinion is also, at best speculation - perhaps even more speculative than mine as we've actually seen those two fatigued lineups play each other - what evidence do you have? None. Hmmm, sounds like pure speculation to me.

I am sorry but if this is a ?gotcha? or something, it fails. I can?t make it any clearer that what I said in my last post. Verbatim from me: ?I and others have speculated that an earlier matchup would have benefited MSU.? We just simply disagree on that. It's opinion. You consider yours fact though for some reason. This isn't physics. It's sports prognostication.

And hang on a second, maybe you should go back and read some of sbee's comments about what role fatigue plays and how it affects teams before you imply there's any kind of majority or plurality of opinion on your side. So far it's you and Johnny. Hardly a brain trust of sports knowledge (refer to my comments above about how much weight that carries, in my opinion).

I think all of us (sbee included) have agreed that fatigue will change the performance of teams. Each team differently in fact. But I don?t see sbee agreeing with you or endorsing your point that MSU benefitted from playing UM in the last round. It seems that?s what you are implying and I just don?t see it.

Your conclusion is again clever, but again pure spin. You tell me to own my comments when in the very comment you were quoting I explicitly said "I won't deny that - it is EXACTLY what I said and I stand by it." At the risk of pulling a classic Redeemerkid, what you're really saying is you want me to own your spin on my comments. You want to accuse me of backpedaling because I reject your spin of my comments, go ahead.

No I just think if your actual verbatims in and of themselves didn?t contradict eachother, you?d have a leg to stand on. It?s not anything I fabricated or spun. I have quoted you directly and verbatim.

 

[RedeemerKid]

you seem to be the one with the problem here, always getting in long circular arguments that never go anywhere, editing posts, or replying long after everyone else has left the thread. It's time to look in the mirror and admit you are the problem, not "everyone else." This is the first step to better understanding the world around you, and learning to live in peace with your fellow internet posters.

may allah have mercy on you.

Well, Mack isn't really a big Spartan fan it seems. He stirs the pot at times, looking to marginalize things MSU has going for themselves.

He will say repeatedly that the MSU/UM B10 championship game would have been a different game if it were played earlier in the tourney with fresh legs. Will say that UM would have made it a closer game. But when I paraphrase that he feels MSU was fortunate, or benefitted to some degree from playing UM in the final rather than in the first round, he gets indignant and says I am putting words in his mouth. Quite amazing.

He once stated that Dantonio is winless against ND/Brian Kelly. I pointed out the "Little Giants" game which MSU won in OT. After a few messages back and forth, he finally admitted that MSU technically did in fact win that game but in his mind it wasn't a win.

He also has said that Dantonio is a mediocre coach simply hiding in a bad conference.

There are probably more examples of this, but I have neither the time nor energy to collect them. I just know what I am dealing with when I see his posts.

 

[Michchamp]

There's the validation I was looking for. Typical michchump, jumping in and getting the facts completely wrong. Funny that you accuse me of "replying long after everyone has left". take a look at the timestamps doosh. Who waited 24 hours? The whole time lapse point is a stupid argument but I find it funny and worth mentioning how you are constantly contradict yourself. Personally, I don't really care that people take their time to respond or if they edit their posts because I assume, like myself that most people here have jobs and lives outside of DSF - other than you of course, if you're not beating off to Rachel Maddow, you're trolling on DSF. You are one pathetic loser.

and for the record, I don't consider you, johnny2x2x, gulo or redeemerkid to be my "fellow internet posters" nor do you 4 collectively add up to "everyone else". your need to belong is understandable, but i have no problem disagreeing with others or others disagreeing with me - having those conversations is how you learn to understand the world around you. You can enjoy the comfort of conformity, you probably need it as you're clearly in over your head.

All that is true? Oh. I feel so ashamed.

 

[Spartanmack]

Shenanigans. You said ” my belief (is) that michigan makes it a better game if both teams are fresh”
And “that game is not representative of what would happen if that game was played in the first round and not the final”
And when I called you out for being negative and taking away from a nice perfromance and eventual win you said “I am in no way suggesting MSU was fortunate to have played them in the third game”
That is contradictory. Backpedaling. And in no way am I spnning these comments. These are verbatims. Own them.

Again, these are verbatims. Things you actually said. Word for word.

I do own them. You keep saying verbatim this and verbatim that but those quotes are not explicit statements. They are pretty vague (although they have now been explained ad nauseam). What you're clearly missing is "how much" better of a game or "how different" the result would be. I didn't say it would be a great or even good game, I said it would be a BETTER game. That game was terrible - great result, but really ugly game, especially the second half and uglier for michigan but we did not play great all the way through either. The range of possible better outcomes is massive but to you, in your simple world, it's binary - either an ass-kicking or 50/50 game down to the wire. I've made it clear that I think we win that game at least 70% of the time but with both teams fresh, it probably takes longer than 25 minutes to put them away.

Quoting them verbatim doesn't make them mean what you say they mean. If you want to stubbornly insist I meant something other than what I've said, go ahead. I'm done beating this dead horse.

I personally do own that. I believe that, but when I characterizing what “I and others” have suggested in the thread, I broaden the message as to make applicable and a fair representation of whet everyone has said that has collectively disagreed with you.

reedermerkid and johnny2x2x, that's some collective.

Yep. I have consistently said that I personally believe that an earlier matchup would have benefited MSU.

See if I were you, I might interpret this statement as you saying that playing a team that is fresh is better than playing them when they're fatigued. You could have meant just that, I mean you come off as someone dumb enough to think that. But you didn't explicitly say it so I would just be speculating that you're an idiot - it wouldn't be pure speculation though, there's significant evidence to support it.

I think all of us (sbee included) have agreed that fatigue will change the performance of teams. Each team differently in fact. But I don’t see sbee agreeing with you or endorsing your point that MSU benefitted from playing UM in the last round. It seems that’s what you are implying and I just don’t see it.

There you go again. I never said sbee took my side but his and MSUMatt's (or was it Spartans23) comments definitely aren't an endorsement of your nonsense, yet you claim there is some grand consensus when it's just your dumbass and the homerest of homers who disagree - with something I never actually said, of course.

 

[RedeemerKid]

OK. So you no longer deny that you believe MSU was fortunate to play UofM in the finals rather than the first round. Understood. Was that so hard?

It was never suggested that you felt UofM would have won the game. It was a matter of you feeling that UofM would have kept the game closer. A few others disagreed with you. Not a ?collective? as a noun. But a few others ?collectively? (as an adverb) disagreed. Not one person agreed as you have tried to suggest.

I might interpret this statement as you saying that playing a team that is fresh is better than playing them when they're fatigued.

Quite the opposite actually. But I see now you have again lost sight of the fact that a third round meeting doesn?t mean one team playing against a fatigued team. It means two fatigued teams playing eachother. Of course anyone would rather play a fatigued team over a well-rested team. But that isn?t what we?re talking about. We?re talking about two teams playing in their third game in three days.

Reading back, there are posts where people disagree with your basic premise. None that agree with it. I never said anyone was in lock step agreement with me, simply that there are posters who collectively (verb not noun) disagree with you that an earlier matchup would have benefited UofM in some way.

 

[Spartanmack]

OK. So you no longer deny that you believe MSU was fortunate to play UofM in the finals rather than the first round. Understood. Was that so hard?

Where did I say that? You're taking spin to a whole new level with this one.

It was never suggested that you felt UofM would have won the game. It was a matter of you feeling that UofM would have kept the game closer. A few others disagreed with you. Not a “collective” as a noun. But a few others “collectively” (as an adverb) disagreed. Not one person agreed as you have tried to suggest.

Collectives do things collectively. I wasn't quoting you, I was laughing at what you think is a consensus - basically, a 2 man collective of dunces. And nice backpedal, but here's your quote verbatim...

I broaden the message as to make applicable and a fair representation of whet everyone has said that has collectively disagreed with you.

was everyone, now it's just a few (didn't realize 2 was a few).

Quite the opposite actually. But I see now you have again lost sight of the fact that a third round meeting doesn’t mean one team playing against a fatigued team. It means two fatigued teams playing eachother. Of course anyone would rather play a fatigued team over a well-rested team. But that isn’t what we’re talking about. We’re talking about two teams playing in their third game in three days.

you can go back to page 6 or 7 where I talked about both teams being fatigued and it favoring msu. But of course, you missed the point altogether. I don't actually think that is what you were saying. That was a hypothetical example of what it's like to argue with someone who puts words in your mouth - a turning of the table. I thought that was pretty clear when I said "See, if I were you I might interpret this statement..."

Now shoo fly, go have an argument about things nobody said with muchchump, he'd really good at that.

 

[RedeemerKid]

No one said consensus or collective. I said there were people that disagreed with you. That group of people, regardless of how big or small, collectively disagreed with you. That is an inarguable fact.

And I think you should understand that ?everyone? is a word that means a large all inclusive group. I never said ?everyone disagrees with you?.

By contrast, ?everyone that has collectively disagreed with you? is a subset of everyone. It would be a group of people (more than one) made up specifically of the people that indeed disagreed with you. Which if you count that number up, and subtract the number of people who agreed with you, you would have the same number. Because with X being the number of people that disagreed with you, we know that X - zero = X.

In reference to your quotes that I suggested you own and quit denying, specifically:

?my belief (is) that michigan makes it a better game if both teams are fresh?

?that game is not representative of what would happen if that game was played in the first round and not the final?

You replied:

?I do own them?

How refreshing. So by embracing these words as your own, you finally admit to your belief that MSU benefited from (in some way, big or small), or was fortunate (in some way, big or small) to have played UofM in the finals.

Because ?Michigan makes it a better game if both teams are fresh?, and ?that game is not representative of what would happen if that game was played in the first round and not the final?.

It?s odd though when you ask me to cite where you said stuff. Because it seems when I read it once it says something, but by the time I reply, it?s edited and says something a bit different.

 

[Spartanmack]

No one said consensus or collective. I said there were people that disagreed with you. That group of people, regardless of how big or small, collectively disagreed with you. That is an inarguable fact.

And I think you should understand that “everyone” is a word that means a large all inclusive group. I never said “everyone disagrees with you”.

By contrast, “everyone that has collectively disagreed with you” is a subset of everyone. It would be a group of people (more than one) made up specifically of the people that indeed disagreed with you. Which if you count that number up, and subtract the number of people who agreed with you, you would have the same number. Because with X being the number of people that disagreed with you, we know that X - zero = X.

Someone did say "collective" - it was me. Recall the aforementioned "collective of dunces" in response to your implication that there's some great consensus. And didn't we already solve for x? The answer is X=2. but of course, "everyone" sounds so much bigger than "2".

I do think it's funny that you're arguing nobody said consensus or collective and explaining what you meant but refuse to accept that I didn't say or mean the things you're sure I said or meant.

In reference to your quotes that I suggested you own and quit denying, specifically:

”my belief (is) that michigan makes it a better game if both teams are fresh”

“that game is not representative of what would happen if that game was played in the first round and not the final”

You replied:

”I do own them”

How refreshing. So by embracing these words as your own, you finally admit to your belief that MSU benefited from (in some way, big or small), or was fortunate (in some way, big or small) to have played UofM in the finals.

Because “Michigan makes it a better game if both teams are fresh”, and “that game is not representative of what would happen if that game was played in the first round and not the final”.

It’s odd though when you ask me to cite where you said stuff. Because it seems when I read it once it says something, but by the time I reply, it’s edited and says something a bit different.

I owned them 2 or 3 pages ago. I actually NEVER denied any of it. I simply rejected your misinterpretation of them. I asked you to cite where I said we were fortunate - you have yet to do that because I never said it. Again, this all hinges on your interpretation of what "better" and "different" mean. With tremendous room for improvement for that game, better can still mean we put them away with 8 minutes left or even 5 minutes left. That doesn't mean we were fortunate to have played them in the 3rd round where we put them away w/ 15 minutes left. You can insist that it does until you're blue in the face, but those are your words, not mine. I've made it clear that I think the probability of michigan beating us with those lineups with fresh legs is pretty low.

 

[JScottWriter]

Hey did you guys know the NCAA Basketball Tournament has started? Who cares about the BTT anymore?

 

[Spartanmack]

Hey did you guys know the NCAA Basketball Tournament has started? Who cares about the BTT anymore?

Ha. if only we were actually arguing about the BTT...

 

[Spartan23MSU]

Lock thread

 

[gotime909]

Who invited Jr over here?

 

[Spartan23MSU]

Who invited Jr over here?

I figured he would have migrated here but he didnt (maybe he didnt know) :yay: