2015-16 UW Badger Basketball Discussion Thread

[Kerb Hohl]

If only Happ didn't redshirt, we'd have won the championship!

I think its more likely his presence leads to Badgers failing to even make it to the championship than him being the difference in beating Duke.

Who knows what happens in any of those individual games? Maybe he commits a bad TO in the Oregon or UNC game and we end up losing... Some of those games were so tight, any small thing could have changed the result.

You make perfect sense, adding what appears to be a very quality player, often adds losses ., this team had no back up for Frank, and this was reflected on their soft defense this past season. I remember a frosh off the bench for Duke that basically led them to a championship win

It's like you and Bern don't even understand this. The entire season was perfect without him and you're saying that before the year, you'd have not redshirted the guy KNOWING that a 36-3 team or whatever they were would need 10 quality minutes from Happ, and assuredly get said minutes and he'd have pulled his own Grayson Allen and taken them to the promised land.

Could it have happened? Yeah. 2% chance. 95% chance he wastes a year of eligibility and they take 2nd place anyways. The other 3% is legit, that who knows, maybe he **** up the UNC game. That theory as just as plausible as yours.

By the way, if you want to say you thought Happ shouldn't have redshirted...fine.

It's more of this assured "told you so" angle you guys are taking with it against the ideas of, you know, Bo **** Ryan that you KNEW Happ would have won the national title game if he'd only have just listened to you.

[HaroldinGMinor]

If only Happ didn't redshirt, we'd have won the championship!

I think its more likely his presence leads to Badgers failing to even make it to the championship than him being the difference in beating Duke.

Who knows what happens in any of those individual games? Maybe he commits a bad TO in the Oregon or UNC game and we end up losing... Some of those games were so tight, any small thing could have changed the result.

You make perfect sense, adding what appears to be a very quality player, often adds losses ., this team had no back up for Frank, and this was reflected on their soft defense this past season. I remember a frosh off the bench for Duke that basically led them to a championship win

It's like you and Bern don't even understand this. The entire season was perfect without him and you're saying that before the year, you'd have not redshirted the guy KNOWING that a 36-3 team or whatever they were would need 10 quality minutes from Happ, and assuredly get said minutes and he'd have pulled his own Grayson Allen and taken them to the promised land.

Could it have happened? Yeah. 2% chance. 95% chance he wastes a year of eligibility and they take 2nd place anyways. The other 3% is legit, that who knows, maybe he **** up the UNC game. That theory as just as plausible as yours.

By the way, if you want to say you thought Happ shouldn't have redshirted...fine.

It's more of this assured "told you so" angle you guys are taking with it against the ideas of, you know, Bo **** Ryan that you KNEW Happ would have won the national title game if he'd only have just listened to you.

You are obviously a nerd that did not play sports.

[trwi7]

Dungeons and Dragons gets pretty competitive.

*pushes up glasses*

[Turk Nowitzki]

I can't believe this Happ redshirting costing us the title game thing is a serious discussion.

Then again, looking at the posters making that argument, maybe I can believe it.

[Kerb Hohl]

I can't believe this Happ redshirting costing us the title game thing is a serious discussion.

Then again, looking at the posters making that argument, maybe I can believe it.

Next, they're going to tell you exactly why the Packers lost their 2015 playoff game and how they knew it months ago (you'll have to wait until February of 2016 to hear it, though).

[HaroldinGMinor]

I can't believe this Happ redshirting costing us the title game thing is a serious discussion.

Then again, looking at the posters making that argument, maybe I can believe it.

Next, they're going to tell you exactly why the Packers lost their 2015 playoff game and how they knew it months ago (you'll have to wait until February of 2016 to hear it, though).

Obviously because Jeff Janis was not active against Seattle. Duh.

[Bernman]

Don't conflate me with XTitan because he's on a whole different level than me in terms of negativity and criticism, maybe two. I'm just a pragmatist. I view it as some things are positive and others are negative. Some worth criticism and some aren't. It's as simple as that. He's pretty one-sided and clearly going out of his way for reasons to be dissatisfied.

I can't believe it's a serious discussion that I thought if Happ and/or Hill wouldn't have redshirted, Wisconsin would have won the national championship. Talk about putting words in someone's mouth.

But I also can't believe it's a serious discussion from some that if they wouldn't have redshirted, their chances of getting over that hump, wouldn't have at least improved to some small degree, or that championship vs. finalist doesn't matter. As if that's some kind of provocative take to dispute those things. Players clearly saw a difference, depth is usually viewed as a good thing, and one of multiple reasons given for Wisconsin ultimately losing was physical and mental fatigue.

And there is no hindsight, so now I'm just complaining after the fact. Kerby even acknowledged I gave my opinion they shouldn't be redshirted beforehand, as did some others. It was viewed as an all in year.

I'm not even all bent out of shape over it or being vindictive. That's more of a projection there because insecure little HaroldGMiner made a point to bring it up before the title game about me and others saying at the beginning they should have redshirted, now the issue was brought up in passing by PGBM, and in response Harold fiercely tried to defend his original opinion by acting indifferent about a title game vs. a championship. So naturally I chimed in by pointing out the fact that he was being ridiculous, of course it matters, and Happ + Hill would have improved chances, so principally they should have played as I thought before too. But at the end of the day I don't care much because odds are we would have lost anyways and it was a great season without a championship as I even acted afterward. Then Kerby did his whole straw man thing exaggerated about something I said to stoke the fire as he often does. Now here we are and I'M the one being unreasonable.

[xTitan]

You don't take a redshirt off a guy because you think he might help you in one game at the end of the season. It's very possible UW still loses to Duke and then you end up in the exact same place but burn a year of eligibility.

You are certifiable.....you easily burn an Average season if you can win a national championship.....history remembers winners, if Happ is the competitor everyone says he is he would have easily played last year and won the title, do you think he is going to get another chance?

You guys are really good at seeing the future in retrospect. I can't explain this to you or Bernman because you lack the mental faculties to understand it. Instead, I present you with a picture of a monkey:

i

You post a selfie because like usual, your arguments are lame, I am amused you fancy yourself an intellectual.

[trwi7]

You don't take a redshirt off a guy because you think he might help you in one game at the end of the season. It's very possible UW still loses to Duke and then you end up in the exact same place but burn a year of eligibility.

You are certifiable.....you easily burn an Average season if you can win a national championship.....history remembers winners, if Happ is the competitor everyone says he is he would have easily played last year and won the title, do you think he is going to get another chance?

You guys are really good at seeing the future in retrospect. I can't explain this to you or Bernman because you lack the mental faculties to understand it. Instead, I present you with a picture of a monkey:

Actually, a chimp is an ape. As a general rule, monkeys have tails and apes don't. #nerd

[emunney]

The notion that adding a player who's better than the player he replaced is just as likely to lead to a worse result as a better result is pretty ridiculous.

If Happ does indeed show out next year, there will ALWAYS be a huge 'what if' tied to falling short in the championship game. Of course things could have gone differently in any number of ways, but let's not play the false equivalency game: adding a good player is much more likely to make your team better, and a better team is more likely to win.

But the 'what if' would be 'what if he hadn't redshirted?'

As for this suggestion of him just playing in the championship game, that also seems insane to me, but ok. You don't want a kid's first intercollegiate game to have those kinds of stakes. It's a non-starter, a terrible idea.

[emunney]

You are certifiable.....you easily burn an Average season if you can win a national championship.....history remembers winners, if Happ is the competitor everyone says he is he would have easily played last year and won the title, do you think he is going to get another chance?

You guys are really good at seeing the future in retrospect. I can't explain this to you or Bernman because you lack the mental faculties to understand it. Instead, I present you with a picture of a monkey:

Actually, a chimp is an ape. As a general rule, monkeys have tails and apes don't. #nerd

So dogs are monkeys? What is happening.

[trwi7]

You guys are really good at seeing the future in retrospect. I can't explain this to you or Bernman because you lack the mental faculties to understand it. Instead, I present you with a picture of a monkey:

Actually, a chimp is an ape. As a general rule, monkeys have tails and apes don't. #nerd

So dogs are monkeys? What is happening.

Only if dogs recently switched from being canids to primates.

[Ill-yasova]

Actually, a chimp is an ape. As a general rule, monkeys have tails and apes don't. #nerd

So dogs are monkeys? What is happening.

Only if dogs recently switched from being canids to primates.

My corgi doesn't have a tail. Dog or ape guys? I need to know for licensing purposes.

[emunney]

Actually, a chimp is an ape. As a general rule, monkeys have tails and apes don't. #nerd

So dogs are monkeys? What is happening.

Only if dogs recently switched from being canids to primates.

Yes or no, Linnaeus?

[Kerb Hohl]

Don't conflate me with XTitan because he's on a whole different level than me in terms of negativity and criticism, maybe two. I'm just a pragmatist. I view it as some things are positive and others are negative. Some worth criticism and some aren't. It's as simple as that. He's pretty one-sided and clearly going out of his way for reasons to be dissatisfied.

I can't believe it's a serious discussion that I thought if Happ and/or Hill wouldn't have redshirted, Wisconsin would have won the national championship. Talk about putting words in someone's mouth.

But I also can't believe it's a serious discussion from some that if they wouldn't have redshirted, their chances of getting over that hump, wouldn't have at least improved to some small degree, or that championship vs. finalist doesn't matter. As if that's some kind of provocative take to dispute those things. Players clearly saw a difference, depth is usually viewed as a good thing, and one of multiple reasons given for Wisconsin ultimately losing was physical and mental fatigue.

And there is no hindsight, so now I'm just complaining after the fact. Kerby even acknowledged I gave my opinion they shouldn't be redshirted beforehand, as did some others. It was viewed as an all in year.

I'm not even all bent out of shape over it or being vindictive. That's more of a projection there because insecure little HaroldGMiner made a point to bring it up before the title game about me and others saying at the beginning they should have redshirted, now the issue was brought up in passing by PGBM, and in response Harold fiercely tried to defend his original opinion by acting indifferent about a title game vs. a championship. So naturally I chimed in by pointing out the fact that he was being ridiculous, of course it matters, and Happ + Hill would have improved chances, so principally they should have played as I thought before too. But at the end of the day I don't care much because odds are we would have lost anyways and it was a great season without a championship as I even acted afterward. Then Kerby did his whole straw man thing exaggerated about something I said to stoke the fire as he often does. Now here we are and I'M the one being unreasonable.

I won't get too far into this, but nobody said "championship vs. finalist doesn't matter." Of course it matters a ton. Their point was that without him, they made the finals. They were good enough to win a title and were beaten in a coin flip game (according to Vegas). We'll see what Happ brings next year and how pissed we should be, but I think most people are saying that the team was good enough to get to the finals and lost a coin flip game...are you sure that Happ is honestly the difference in said coin flip game where you lose by 8 or whatever it was?

If one had vision into the future and had said, "Happ plays 10 minutes all year, burns a redshirt, but the Badgers beat Duke" every single Badger fan in the nation takes that one. To make the assumption that Happ is the difference in that one game is where the chasm lies, though.

You're right, you did say that some of these guys should have burned the redshirts. That's fine, I guess. I think that Bo's judgment for the most part is pretty good on this stuff, though. While Jackson was out, we grappled about burning the shirt on Hill. Turns out in 20/20 hindsight that they lost nearly none of those games and that Showalter had an incredible stretch in the tournament. Would Hill have been better? I guess we'll somewhat find out next year.

This isn't a "told you so" but I'm saying that this argument can go both ways. I respect your opinion that those guys shouldn't have redshirted, so that is all well and good. Playing the "what if" with Happ/Hill in the finals is pretty low on the totem pole of "what ifs" for me in that game, though. Nigel Hayes was a stud freshman but was pretty horrible in the Final Four the first time against Kentucky. It can go both ways, but anyways, we're good. I don't think it's a horrible take to say they shouldn't have redshirted, but being outright mad about it is a bit unjust is all I was getting at. Big leap there.

[HaroldinGMinor]

Actually, a chimp is an ape. As a general rule, monkeys have tails and apes don't. #nerd

So dogs are monkeys? What is happening.

Only if dogs recently switched from being canids to primates.

[Badgerlander]

So dogs are monkeys? What is happening.

Only if dogs recently switched from being canids to primates.

My corgi doesn't have a tail. Dog or ape guys? I need to know for licensing purposes.

[wapith]

The notion that adding a player who's better than the player he replaced is just as likely to lead to a worse result as a better result is pretty ridiculous.

I realize I'm belaboring this point, but I don't care... want to defend my opinion. I agree that adding Happ makes them a better team, but doesn't necessarily improve their odds of winning more games in the tournament. We are benchmarking against a team that made it to the championship game, so it's really hard for any one team to improve on that.

Consider it this way... you have two teams:

Team A = The Badger team as it was for last season, i.e. Happ is redshirted. They won 5 games in the tournament and ultimately lost to Duke in the championship.

Team B = Same team but Happ is available.

You are making an over/under bet on Team B's performance in the NCAA tournament. You can bet one of two options with 5 wins being the benchmark: over/push or under/push. What would you put your money on?

I'd personally go with the under/push. The bet is overwhelming likely to push, but I think there's a greater chance of being under rather than over. Team A already won the 5 games... there's no changing that, it's in the bank. Team B has to replay all of those games, with slightly different rotations. I just think the margins of victory in the Oregon/UNC/Kentucky games were so small, that any one sequence going the other way could change the result.

[buckboy]

I think if Happ doesn't redshirt, Wisconsin gets the #2 overall seed and loses in the 2nd round to NC State. So I'm glad he redshirted.

In all honesty, this discussion already happened before the season. Probably page 10 of this thread.

Edit: Page 3 of this thread.

[SpursNBucks]

Happ will start without question. He's going to be really damn good.

What can anyone tell me about his game and progression- i know people have talked him up.

Does anyone have any answers or theories as to why a team with such big success can't recruit better the last two years?

This 2015 class may be one of their best ever.

You put too much stock in the rankings. Bo Ryan gets talented players, always has.

Look - the best players currently/ and formerly on the team were highly ranked players- Nigel was top 100 on everyone's list and was recruited hard by Michigan State. Koenig was on some top ratings and recruited heavily by North Carolina. Dekker was one of the highest rated players Bo ever recruited. Kaminski was a fringe top 100.