Pride_and_Joy

But there schedule is SO soft and ours is very challenging -- so I think they finish ahead of us. But they weren't a .500 team last year because they were 11-3. Maybe they were a mediocre 11-3 team, but they were, in fact, well above .500.

a .500 team? A .500 wins half their games.

there is a reasonable chance they finish ahead of us in the final ACC standings.

But I think you're right. There are a lot of good teams in the East -- several of whom have multiple true stars.

the sum of the parts. The 76ers are going to have a lot of very talented players but with the announcement that LeBron will play point guard for them, it does create some questions: First, at 41, LeBron may slow the offense and hold the ball while surveying. Do Maxey and Edgecombe too often become spectators? Second, Maxey is the only established starter who combines major three-point volume, above-average accuracy and genuine off-the-dribble shooting gravity. Brown and Edgecombe are respectable but somewhat helpable; LeBron is clearly helpable; and Embiid’s perimeter shooting comes with an opportunity cost. So while Philadelphia has several credible shooters, the composition of players can create a spacing issue. There may only be one player whom playoff defenses will be genuinely afraid to leave anywhere beyond the arc. Third, Embiid likes touches that allow him to survey and isolate. LeBron also likes to manipulate the defense deliberately. Will their combined pace become stagnant? Fourth, Brown will be required to dramatically reduce his usage (after carrying Boston last year). Will he want to do this? Finally, LeBron will initiate, but who takes the defining shot—Embiid, Maxey, Brown or LeBron? Will they have cohesion and alignment on how to handle late-game situations? Will ego or perceived status become an issue?

Not because they'll have a better football team but because our schedule is significantly more challenging.

I actually agreed with a good big of what you wrote about Lebron. But you really did horribly mis-use the word "objectively."

It's that it's more admirable to toil and struggle on the way to greatness than it is to take the easy route of joining another super team. It's as simple as that. The most rewarding things in life are those that are difficult to achieve. It's why I have more respect for Steph's first and last championships than the two he won when KD joined the Warriors. Do you have more admiration for the millionaire who grew up with nothing and built a business through blood, sweat, and tears, or the person who simply inherited their money? I realize it isn't a perfect analogy. LeBron is an all-time great -- and that's a function of his talent, genetics, and hard work -- but joining another super team is a bit like an inheritance rather than toiling to build the business.

I don't think you know what the word "objectively" actually means. I think you mean to say "I strongly disagree with this take and have good reasons to support my view." Regardless, you're right that LeBron is a physical marvel. But don't forget he plays in the era of load management. Look at how many times Jordan played 80-82 regular season games. It's insane. Nonetheless, LeBron's longevity is ridiculous. However, there is something to be said for sticking with a single franchise in the pursuit of championships (Bird, Magic, Kobe, Isaiah, Duncan, Steph, MJ (essentially)). It makes players less appealing when they are quick to jump from franchise to franchise -- always looking to join a better situation rather than BUILD the better situation where they are. There's something admirable about the toil of building a championship team. Taking your lumps, inching forward, until you're ready to win it all. This is just my opinion (not an objective fact). It's why -- as good as KD is -- he's rarely mentioned among the all-time greats (even though he is one of the most unstoppable offensive players of all-time). It's why many people roll their eyes at LeBron going to his fifth franchise in search of more rings. He's entering season 24 and still trails MJ by two rings. IDK, it just seems like maybe staying put and building a roster is better than joining another super team. Again, just my opinion.

hard-ons on a sports message board.

It’s just a discussion. I made no claims about working at USPS. I just don’t think $500k is very much money. It doesn’t mean a person is set for life. They will still need to make good decisions moving forward. It doesn’t guarantee someone will be okay or not be okay. Maybe $500k is a lot to you. But in today’s world, it really isn’t. So I just don’t think point to that amount of money to suggest someone is set is naive or shows financial ignorance — or just very different ideas of what amount of money is needed to ensure financial stability and security in the future. But again, no need to talk like a weirdo.

in college. It’ll be because he’s smart, hardworking, disciplined, and makes good decisions. Hope this helps

Seems to suggest that $500k sets him up. It doesn’t. I wish nothing but the best for MJ and hope he is successful in basketball or whatever else he pursues in life. But to suggest $500k means he’ll be okay is silly. Hope this helps.

Over 4-5 years! He may very well be okay but making $100k-$125k per year isn’t exactly a lot of money. Certainly doesn’t mean someone will be okay moving forward.

approaches to lacrosse coaching (including CLAs). Very interesting.

It is very popular in soccer and lacrosse training. Great way to teach players valuable lessons without simply telling them what to do. Great for building desirable habits and autonomous player. I’m a big fan of CLAs.

Hard to have a salary cap when there are no salaries.

into the discussion. I was merely pointing out that the WBB seems to be doing really well with recruiting. But I’ll stop — as this apparently doesn’t belong on the MBB board.

recruits! Great job by Duffy and staff!!

could pay a big return in on-court success. Glad it seems we’re doing so.

around Nashville. Like three different times I’ve pulled up to the same traffic light and he’s pulled up next to me. Lol.

It should be a fun season ahead.

Did they get a bump in NIL funding?

It doesn’t impact their next game? It is reasonable to care about the thing that impacts them.

to get that finalized. Unfair to Belgium to complete their prep and then learn Balogun will play. But glad he’s allowed to play.

They had 35 TOTAL YARDS. Thirty. Five. Total. Yards.

being inspired by a picture of an 11 year old girl? But defend him if you want.

Sweet Caroline. Grossest song ever. Can’t believe people listen to it, sing along to it, and glorify it.

I think Brian White’s hiring is a meaningful signal that Virginia Tech recognizes the next era of college athletics will be won as much through fundraising, revenue creation, donor alignment, and strategic investment as through traditional administration. White does not arrive with the résumé of a longtime Power Four athletic director, so there is legitimate reason to question how quickly he can navigate the scale, politics, and expectations of the ACC. But he has a clear background in external revenue, development, ticketing, and brand-building, and he helped lead an FAU department that raised more than $26 million in philanthropic support in 2024–25 while its men’s basketball program reached the Final Four. For football, I expect White to view a successful, nationally relevant program as the department’s essential economic engine. His task will be to build the fundraising and roster-support infrastructure that gives Virginia Tech a realistic chance to compete in the ACC—while ensuring that football investment is disciplined and tied to a credible plan for sustained winning, not simply larger spending. For basketball, White has seen firsthand what an unexpected basketball breakthrough can do for a university’s visibility, donor energy, and national brand. My expectation is that he will treat football as the largest long-term priority, but see basketball as a high-leverage opportunity: a program that can become nationally relevant more quickly, create major moments for Hokie Nation, and attract its own dedicated donor base. The most encouraging version of this hire is not “football over basketball" (though that will be the case -- because every AD knows it must be football over basketball). It is an athletic director who understands that Virginia Tech needs a bigger overall revenue base, clearer priorities, and a strategy that allows football to become the engine while basketball grows strong enough to capitalize on its easier path to national relevance.

problem that you’re rightly pointing out (that may be helpful for Flanker): Predicting low base-rate events is one of the hardest problems in forecasting and statistics because the thing you're trying to predict happens so rarely. Only a tiny fraction of high school football players will ever be drafted into the NFL. Estimates vary by year, but it's well under 1% of high school players. That creates several challenges. 1. Most predictions should be "no" Suppose 100,000 high school players exist and 200 eventually get drafted. Drafted: 200 (0.2%) Not drafted: 99,800 (99.8%) A model that predicts "not drafted" for everyone would be 99.8% accurate. This is called the accuracy paradox: a model can appear highly accurate while being completely useless for identifying the rare outcome. 2. False positives dominate Even a very good predictor can generate many more false positives than true positives. Imagine a scouting model that: Correctly identifies 80% of future NFL draftees Incorrectly flags only 5% of non-draftees That sounds excellent. But with our example: Actual Outcome Number Future draftees 200 Non-draftees 99,800 The model finds: 160 true future draftees (80% of 200) 4,990 false positives (5% of 99,800) So among the 5,150 players flagged as NFL prospects: 160 are real future draftees 4,990 are not Only about 3% of the flagged players actually make it. This surprises people because the model sounds strong, yet most positive predictions are still wrong. 3. Small differences matter enormously When outcomes are rare, tiny differences in probability become meaningful. For example: Player Draft Probability Average HS player 0.2% Strong prospect 2% Elite prospect 10% National blue-chip recruit 30% A 10% chance sounds low, but it's actually 50 times the baseline rate. People often interpret probabilities in absolute terms ("10% isn't much"), while forecasters care about them relative to the base rate. 4. Many important factors haven't happened yet A freshman's NFL prospects depend on events years in the future: Physical growth Injuries Coaching Position changes College choice Motivation Academic eligibility Competition level A model must predict not only current ability but also an entire developmental trajectory. This creates huge uncertainty. 5. Selection effects distort the data The players who reach college football are not random. For example: High school players are selected into college programs. College players are selected into starting roles. Starters are selected into combines and scouting evaluations. Prospects are selected into the draft. At each stage, the population changes. A variable that predicts NFL success among all high school players may not predict success among elite college players, and vice versa. 6. Rare events are especially sensitive to luck When outcomes are common, randomness averages out. When outcomes are rare, luck plays a larger role. Two equally talented players may have very different outcomes because: One tears an ACL. One gets recruited by a better college. One develops later physically. One enters the draft in a stronger or weaker year. For low base-rate events, chance often explains more of the outcome than people realize. 7. The "needle in a haystack" problem Most machine learning methods learn patterns from examples. If only 0.2% of observations are positive: There are relatively few successful cases to learn from. The model can easily overfit. Small quirks in the positive cases can look like meaningful patterns. This is why predicting rare diseases, financial fraud, terrorist attacks, startup unicorns, and NFL draft picks all share similar statistical challenges. A useful intuition Imagine trying to identify future NFL draftees among 100,000 high school players. The challenge is not finding someone who looks athletic. Thousands do. The challenge is distinguishing: the 200 who will eventually be drafted from the thousands who currently look almost as promising but won't make it. That's the core difficulty of low base-rate prediction: when the event is extremely rare, even strong signals leave substantial uncertainty, and most "promising" cases still won't experience the rare outcome

That’s not how prediction of human behavior works. There are way too many variables that can impact performance that sit outside the player. So what you call BS I would say is a fine process for trying to generally understand the quality of a recruit and his likelihood of success at the collegiate level. If one understands that there is variance, it isn’t that hard to accept recruiting rankings for what they are.

of recruiting rankings is high. But there is a clear correlation between the rankings and likelihood of being a contributor. It seems you have unrealistic expectations regarding degree of predictive validity.

Low. But so what? None of that means the rating services aren’t doing a good job grouping players via ratings. In fact, your analysis suggests they group them quite well. Five stars are have a higher success rate than four stars who have a higher success rate than top 25 three stars. It actually demonstrates the predictive validity of the ratings. They are definitely imperfect but seems to account for some of the variance in success rates across players. I certainly wouldn’t call them BS.

don’t matter or aren’t predictive. 100% of five stars were contributors 71% of four stars were contributors 47% of the three stars (who were top 25 in-state) were contributors That seems to suggest that star ratings and rankings within the class are correlated with likelihood of contribution. Does it get harder to predict accurately the further down into the 3 stars one goes? Of course. Predictors aren’t perfect. Ranking don’t account for 100% of the variance in college performance. But who would expect them to? There are a myriad of factors outside initial player assessments that impact performance (player development, injuries, depth chart, life events, etc.). But it seems that rankings and ratings within the top 25 do a reasonable job of predicting who will be a contributor, no? ** Edited by Pride_and_Joy at 6/19/2026, 11:27:45 AM

They have to become high-energy, defense/rebounding/finishing role players rather than featured offensive players. Lawal is explosive with elite vertical athleticism, strong rebounding, rim finishing, and some defensive versatility, but his NBA translation will depend heavily on shooting and whether he can guard NBA wings or big forwards consistently. His best opportunity is to become a rotational, energy wing/foward. He'll have to show he can defend multiple positions, crash the glass, run the floor, finish lobs/cuts, and not kill spacing. But for him to have a career, he'll need to demonstarte defensive versatility and improve as a shooter (make those corner 3's). In all likelihood, if he is drafted in the late 2nd round, he'll be a G League developmental forward. As an athletic forward with limited ability to create his own offense and modest shooting, he may get a look because of his athleticism but will need time to develop into a player who can make quick decisions, defend without fouling, and hit enough open shots to warrant playing time and add value to an NBA roster. He's probably an overseas player/fringe NBA guy. He's a bit of a “tweener forward”: not big enough to be a big, not enough handle/shooting/passing to be a wing, and not enough spacing to play next to non-shooting bigs.

It worked out well that his friend and former employee sat in the seat being offered to him. It certaintly didn't hurt our chances with Franklin that Pry was so positive about VT and the role. But VT was the obvious landing spot for Franklin. It fits his geographical footprint, is a serious football program, and had just made a major financial commitment to football. Pry saying "It's a good job." wasn't the deciding factor. But I'm glad you at least returned to the original question.

I simply responded to the original question, provided reasons why I don't think Pry being our head coach was a necessary precursor to getting Franklin as our head coach -- and you seem to want to move the goal posts. First, you changed it to "If Pry had spoke ill of VT, Franklin wouldn't have come." Now you're changing it to, "If Pry hadn't been our head coach, perhaps there would be no need to hire Franklin." It seems what you really want is for people to simply agree with you and say, "Yes, Pry being at VT was necessary for Franklin to come to VT." But if that's what you want, why not just state your opinion rather than pose a question you don't really want an answer to? ** Edited by Pride_and_Joy at 6/17/2026, 1:08:38 PM

Pry’s endorsement of VT. It was if Pry coming to VT was necessary for us to get Franklin. If pry never came to VT, then he couldn’t be pissed off and disparage VT. If Pry hadn’t come, he’d simply be irrelevant to the process. ** Edited by Pride_and_Joy at 6/17/2026, 1:08:11 PM

VT was the perfect job for Franklin after getting fired from PSU. If Pry hadn’t been our coach, it still would’ve been the perfect job. Location, football history, and the newly approved financial commitment were the keys — not his good friend.

It was a comparison of size and style of play. Of course, a player at VT is not as good as one of the best players in the NBA, the most clutch player over the past few seasons, and the MVP of the NBA Cup, the Eastern Conference Finals, and the NBA Finals.

that the NFL can signal to teams considering drafting Sorsby that there will be a suspension waiting for him upon his arrival to the NFL.