UrsaMajor said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

Singer playedin that game

---

But he was in early foul trouble and I believe fouled out.

---

Yes. Singer had to start and was ineffective and then picked up early fouls which meant Chauca played critical stretches of time. IRCC, those moments are when Hawaii extended its lead.

SFCityBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

SBGold said:

---

Can't blame Fox for the talent on the roster as much as you'd like to

---

i don't blame him. I do blame what looks like a bust of next year's class. He has to pick it up (as he knows) or rinse and repeat. I particularly blame farts that wax about Newell and don't understand the talent gap.

---

Newell understood the talent gap, and sometimes beat the hell out of it. On other occasions, like when Cal got blown out in the NCAA Final in 1960, by an Ohio State team with two Hall of Famers, Lucas and Havlicek, plus another who started and won championships with the Celtics, and Joe Roberts who helped kill Cal with 25 foot hook shots and played 3 years for Syracuse in the NBA, and Mel Nowell, who played in both the NBA and ABA.

Newell got overwhelmed and embarrassed by the talent of USF with Bill Russell, KC Jones, both NBA Hall of Famers, and Mike Farmer, who played 8 seasons in the NBA. Newell lost to Wilt Chamberlain and Kansas in 1957 and 1958 preseason, but went to the Regional final in both years, losing to more talented teams each time, USF in 1957 (twice), and Seattle with Elgin Baylor and Charley Brown, again more talented. In 1959, Newell lost to Kansas State with All-American Bob Boozer (who played 11 years in the NBA, averaging 15 pts and 8 rebs).

In 1959 and 1960, Cincinnati with Oscar Robertson was more talented and Newell beat them. He was to beat Cincinnati and Oscar in 1960. In 1959 Newell was able to beat a more talented West Virginia team with Jerry West.

Newell won 4 conference titles, beating the more talented (IMO) teams of UCLA and Washington. He won and NIT title in 1949 reportedly beating some teams with better talent. In 1950, Newell's USF team got blown out by 19 points by a powerful CCNY team in the first round. CCNY went on to beat Kentucky by 39 points, Duquesne by 9 and Bradley by 8. By the way, CCNY was so good, they also won the NCAA in 1950.

Is that enough waxing negative on Pete Newell for you? He was not John Wooden or Adolph Rupp or Red Auerbach who all had long winning careers. Newell was a guy who could teach skills and teach players to get better, and teach teams to get better, reach their potential and sometimes more. He was like a .300 hitter in baseball, successful about 3 times out of ten. Why I "wax" about him is because he is the only coach at Cal who ever won the Big One. He understood what Cal was and he understood the talent gap. And he understood that at Cal, there was always going to be a gap, because the Admin will not have us be known as a basketball school. If we win fine, but we will not allow the temptation of probation to sully our reputation because we bought some highly rated talent. So we are faced with landing one or two of these kids and having them for a year, and hoping we get enough very good 4-year players to support these stars, and then maybe win something. That is the way Newell recruited, and he was successful at winning. You just can't seem to come to grips with who we are. You are obsessed with winning championships, and obsessed with getting as many one-and-dones to do the job for you. What Cal is about is developing kids into men and developing their minds and their characters. My advice is enjoy watching the players develop and watching the the team develop. If this happens, we will win some games we should not win. If it doesn't happen, we need to get a new coach, but to try and change the culture into Kentucky and Calipari is a waste of time. Maybe you need to switch your allegiance to another school, before you get too depressed.

I've taken some shots at you, primarily because I don't like the way you ridicule or trash Cal players. These are young kids, and you have followed basketball long enough to know most players don't become productive until their 3rd or 4th year in college. There are only about 30 players in the nation who were good enough to be taken by the NBA after their first year. The odds of you getting 3 or 4 of them on a Cal team is zip, I'm sorry to tell you. Get five, and unless you've got a good coach, they likely won't win a championship for you anyway, IMO. You already have trashed the incoming players for next season, when the rest of us are trying to become their fans. Are you pleased with yourself? You have been trashing our new players all season (and some of the veterans) and now you want to trash players coming to Cal that none of us have even seen? You are a smart guy, but you are letting your emotions cloud your opinions. Enjoy the good points of the season, few as they may be. We are only here for a short time, and it is best to enjoy life, instead of grousing about it all the time, isn't it?

---

Whatever. You pretty much encapsulate the attitude that has allowed administration after administration to diminish athletics at Cal.

The good news is that it seems a lot fewer of your ilk have influence in Football. Or at least my fingers are crossed that they don't screw things up with Wilcox. Course I have gotten used to that happening and it is going to be hard to retain if/when the NFL ever comes calling.

Good summary

Please end the madness

UrsaMajor said:

---

Isn't it time for SCT and SFCity to stop this already? At this point, there is little (correction: nothing) new in this exchange. The longer it goes on, the more the posts are filled with personal insults. Enough already! (or at least take it private)

Both SCT and SFCity believe that to be successful you need both talent and good coaching (duh). SCT places a higher value on inherent talent; SFCity places a greater value on coaching. SFCity believes that the past has much relevance for understanding today's team and its struggles; SCT is skeptical of the relevance of anything before he was born.

btw, the talent v. coaching "argument" reminds me of an anecdote from my graduate school years. A colleague published a satirical "study" designed to solve once and for all the "mind-body problem." His "method" involved 60 albino Norwegian rats randomly assigned to one of 3 groups of 20 each. In Group 1, the rats were decapitated and the heads discarded. In Group 2, the rats were decapitated and the bodies discarded. In Group 3, the rats were temporarily anesthetized but were not decapitated. The three groups were given a maze task to learn. Group 3 learned the maze in an average of 5 minutes. None of the rats in either Group 1 or 2 ever learned the maze. Conclusion: Neither mind nor body are sufficient to produce behavior but that it was the product of the unique interaction between the two.

---

That is a great post. Since I was born in 1965 you have uncovered my benchmark for when human history begins

socaltownie said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

But hey - remember, SFBear says talent doesn't matter so it must be Fox that is missing these shots and not that USC has about 3 inches on us at every position or that Lars picked up 2 fouls in 83 seconsds;

---

that's a cheap shot and totally unnecessary (and you know it). I get it that you don't like SFCity (apparently you can't even be bothered to use his actual handle), but he never said that. He has only said that coaching is as important as talent and that you don't need a team full of 5* if you have the right talent.

---

He has denied you even need 4 stars..

---

That is a lie. Recruit rankings are most accurate for the top 30 players or so. After that the accuracy decreases markedly. What I have said is that we need very good players. I'm not gullible enough to trust the rankings of 4-stars, nor am I smart enough to rank the players I'd like to have while they are in high school. Many teams have 4-star players who did not live up to their rankings, and many have 2-star or 3-star players who exceed their rankings as college players, and even some players who were unranked making the ranking gurus look not too smart. Hawaii in 2016 was a perfect example. They had nothing. Cal had two players hurt, but if talent is the answer to everything, Rabb and Brown should have beaten Hawaii all by themselves with one hand tied behind their backs, not to mention that 3-stars Mathews and Singer helped keep Cal in the game. Without them, it's a blowout. You just can't grasp that this is a team game. It requires 7 or 8 good players and a coach to be successful, the same as it was 70 years ago. One big difference between us is your blind faith in recruit rankings. I remain skeptical of them. I'd rather see a player in action and then make up my own mind if I'd want him.

---

Again, that is just false. I have REPEATEDLY linked an article that showed a valid statistical samplying which showed that 5 stars have about a 60% chance of being drafted, 4* a 35% and 3 and below a less than 10% (by memory those precentages). This was over a big enough sample size to be fully statistically valid. Thus people whose JOB IT IS TO EVALUATE TALENT are reaching a far different conclusion to you as to skill and talent.

I too long questioned rankings. I still wonder about them in respect to football because of the lack of travel teams and the reliance on tape to try to evaluate. But increasingly with AAU ball and travel and summer tournaments the best graders are seeing these kids at least once live. And again, draft day don't lie.

---

Socaltownie my friend,

You and I need a vacation. You are really going over the edge on this, and when you continue to get personal, well, I'm half Irish and half Italian, and my tribes don't ever let anyone get away with anything. If you force me to fight, I will fight. But I am not here to fight.

But how about we try and find something we can agree on first? I think there is some correlation between the article you say you linked to, and the spreadsheet I made of the 2009 recruiting class. My spreadsheet tracked the RSCI top 100 players and their careers through 2015, to make sure they had all used up their college eligibility. The RSCI doesn't list 5-stars as such, so I went to Rivals and 247 Sports for that, and found that both of them had 25 players ranked as 5-stars. Out of those, 13 were drafted by the NBA. 52%. The next 75 players on the RSCI top 100 list were listed as 4-stars by Rivals and 247 Sports, and of those 75 players, 15 were drafted, or 20%. Now these draft rates are lower than the article you linked to, but it is possible or likely, this may have been a weak draft compared to other years. I certainly can agree that the article you linked may well be accurate. But when I read your earlier posts, you seemed to be saying that elite recruits were a much better risk, almost infallible, it seemed. Now you say that they will have about a 60% chance of success in their careers, so I may have misunderstood you. I

While being drafted is a great thing for a player, it is not necessarily an indicator of how much a player may have helped his college team. As an example, Kenny Boynton, ranked #9 in 2009, helped Florida to 4 successful seasons, including three 25-win seasons, two SEC championships, and three Elite 8s, but he was not drafted by the NBA.

When I did the spread sheet, I was trying to find out how many of these elite players had individual success in college, and how many helped their teams to success. Just using statistics (points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, etc.), I found that the 25 5-star players had 39 successful seasons, but 3 of them did not have even one successful season.

The criteria I chose for a successful team was to have accomplished one of the following: Reached the Sweet 16, won their conference title, won their conference tournament, or had a 25-win season, which I thought were reasonable goals we all might accept, for us to bother to spend the time recruiting the elite players. I found that of the 25 5-stars, 12 of them helped their original team to one of those goals for 19 seasons, or 48%. Of the 75 4-star players, 21 of them helped their original teams to one of the goals for 32 seasons, or 28%. I'm not counting the players who transferred and helped their new team, because the original team is the one who put in all the effort to recruit them, not the new team.

So we are pretty close to agreement on this now, aren't we? You say 60% of 5-stars live up to their ranking, and 35% of 4 stars. I say that in 2009, it was 52% of the 5-stars helped their teams, and 28% of the 4-stars. I never said not to recruit 5-stars or 4 stars. I believe they are not the be all to end all, not superman reincarnated. They are good players, human beings, subject to mistakes, frailties, brain cramps, and the rest of it. Once a year, enough of them get together on one particular team, maybe with a good coach, himself subject to occasional mistakes, and if they are blessed with good health that year, they will win an NCAA title.

Not at ucla.

socaltownie said:

---

......

BTW - your sad saw about the Hawaii game is BEYOND old. We lost that game not because of Rabb and Brown. We lost that because we had to rely upon Chauca - you know a 2 start - to try to run point. It was a disaster. No coaching in the world was going to make up for what he was - a kid without a handle, who couldn't shoot over folks and who couldn't guard folks to save soul. But hey, playing professionally in Manila so there is that.

You KNOW that the team was woeful without Wallace - with the losses coming when he was hurt. We win going away in that game, even without Bird, if Ty was there.

Frankly your underappreciation for that team is really really irritating - but hey , it fits your narrative that all we need to do is run a weave and worship at the god of 1960 basketball.

---

This will fit your narrative. When the team fails, never criticize the elite player, and blame the team failure on the guy with the lowest recruit ranking and least talent on the team. You make up things that didn't happen, manipulate facts, or just plain lie, to make your point, which is every bit as tiring to me, as my walls of writing on Cal's greatest era is to you.

You are actually going to blame Cal's loss to Hawaii on little Brandon Chauca, the team's least talented player, who played a total of EIGHT MINUTES in the loss to Hawaii? While his much more talented teammates played 192 MINUTES in that game? Give us a break. Do you think we are that stupid?

Cal:

Brown, 5 stars
Rabb, 5 stars
Domingo, 4 stars
Mathews, 3 stars
Singer, 3 stars
Rooks, 3 stars
Moute a Bidias, 3 stars
Okoroh, 2 stars
Chauca, 2 stars

That is an average of 3.3 stars/player

Hawaii:

Jankovic, 3 stars
Valdes, 2 stars
Thomas, 2 stars
Tummala, 1 star
Bobbit, UNRANKED
Smith, UNRANKED
Jovanovic, UNRANKED
Drammeh, UNRANKED

That is an average of 1.0 stars/player

Cal had THREE TIMES the starpower of Hawaii. Cal should have won that game by 20 points, going away, based on your belief that all that is needed to win is to have as much or more talent than your opponents. If Wallace and Bird had played, it would have been FOUR TIMES the starpower of supposedly lowly Hawaii.

Here are the reasons Cal lost, not in any particular order, and none of them is little Brandon Chauca.

1. Cal coaches and players very likely underestimated Hawaii. Hawaii played only one good team in the preseason, #3 Oklahoma, in Hawaii, and lost by 3 points. They were 27-5, 13-3 in the Big West, which is a decent conference. They were regular season champion and had lost two games to Long Beach State, but then turned around and beat them in the final to win the Big West Tournament. They were not chopped liver, despite the low ranking of their talent.

2. Both Wallace and Bird were out with injuries, and when any team loses 2 starters, they will be faced with a big challenge to pull together and make up for the loss of key teammates. I agree that losing Wallace had more effect than losing Bird, but losing both was tough.

3. Jaylen Brown played the worst game of his collegiate career, maybe of his entire life up to that point. I think he was either ill with a flu or something, or he tried to take too much on his shoulders, feeling that he would have to step up to make up for losing Wallace and Bird. He got into early foul trouble and had to sit most of the first half. He came back in the second half, picked up another foul and had to sit. He was hampered by that the whole game. He played only 17 minutes, and really looked out of sorts. He went 1-6 from the field, scored 4 points, got 2 rebounds, no assists, and had SEVEN TURNOVERS. So he did not just become a non-factor, he actually hurt the team with his play.

4. Cal could not contain Hawaii's guards. Bobbitt and Smith penetrated Cal's defense over and over, or shot over them. I thought having Singer on the floor instead of Wallace might help us, as Singer was a better defender than Tyrone, but he got in foul trouble trying to guard Bobbitt and Smith who torched all the Cal guards, for 36 points, while averaging 21 between them during the season.

5. Cal's bigs could not contain Hawaii big Stefan Jankovic, who scored 16 points, which was his season average against lesser competition, while Cal's Ivan Rabb scored 13.

6. Cal shot threes poorly, 0.214. Mathews was 3-8, but the rest of the Cal team was 0-11(Chauca 0-2). They clearly missed Bird.

7. Cal committed 16 turnovers (SEVEN by Brown, only ONE by Chauca), and let Hawaii score 77 points against supposedly one of the country's better defenses. Losing Bird and Wallace was losing perhaps the two least talented defenders of the starting five, and replacing their minutes with Singer and RMB should have helped the defense, but it did not.

8. Cal's point guard for 30 minutes, Sam Singer, did not get a single assist. Cal as a team got only 6 assists, where they had been averaging 13 per game. Wallace, if he had played, averaged 4 assists, so that still would likely have left Cal with only 10, 3 short of their average.

What Cal did well in that game was to control the boards at both ends. Rabb had 12 boards. And Cal held 2-star ranked players Valdes and Thomas, to 17 points between them, while they had been averaging 27 points between them. Mathews went off for 23 points, and Singer scored 12, a total of 35 between them, while they usually averaged 17 between them. In the end, it was Cal's inability to shut down UNRANKED Bobbitt and Smith from doing whatever they wanted, it seemed, and their inability to stop Jankovic inside. Both Bobbitt and Smith were Bay Area boys, one from Oakland and the other from Deer Valley in Antioch, the same school where Marcus Lee played. I wonder why these two boys were unranked, and I wonder if Cal coaches ever knew about them in high school.

On a personal note, I won't be reading or replying to anything else you write on the BI. It is a waste of time for both of us and everyone else. You make a very good argument for recruiting elite players, but you take personal offense at any dissent. Don't you realize that attacking other posters with hyperbole and personal ad hominem attacks just weakens your argument? I started responding to you, because you trashed Lars and the rest of the unranked newcomers and even some veterans. I'm a Cal fan, and those are not just your players, they are my players and every other Cal fan's players. I don't like the way you trash Cal teams, players, and coaches who were before your time, as if Cal history began with you. You want to be a Cal fan, then get with the program, and root for Cal, don't ridicule Cal.

Here is the box score, FYI: https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/boxscores/2016-03-18-california.html

SFCityBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

......

BTW - your sad saw about the Hawaii game is BEYOND old. We lost that game not because of Rabb and Brown. We lost that because we had to rely upon Chauca - you know a 2 start - to try to run point. It was a disaster. No coaching in the world was going to make up for what he was - a kid without a handle, who couldn't shoot over folks and who couldn't guard folks to save soul. But hey, playing professionally in Manila so there is that.

You KNOW that the team was woeful without Wallace - with the losses coming when he was hurt. We win going away in that game, even without Bird, if Ty was there.

Frankly your underappreciation for that team is really really irritating - but hey , it fits your narrative that all we need to do is run a weave and worship at the god of 1960 basketball.

---

This will fit your narrative. When the team fails, never criticize the elite player, and blame the team failure on the guy with the lowest recruit ranking and least talent on the team. You make up things that didn't happen, manipulate facts, or just plain lie, to make your point, which is every bit as tiring to me, as my walls of writing on Cal's greatest era is to you.

You are actually going to blame Cal's loss to Hawaii on little Brandon Chauca, the team's least talented player, who played a total of EIGHT MINUTES in the loss to Hawaii? While his much more talented teammates played 192 MINUTES in that game? Give us a break. Do you think we are that stupid?

Cal:

Brown, 5 stars
Rabb, 5 stars
Domingo, 4 stars
Mathews, 3 stars
Singer, 3 stars
Rooks, 3 stars
Moute a Bidias, 3 stars
Okoroh, 2 stars
Chauca, 2 stars

That is an average of 3.3 stars/player

Hawaii:

Jankovic, 3 stars
Valdes, 2 stars
Thomas, 2 stars
Tummala, 1 star
Bobbit, UNRANKED
Smith, UNRANKED
Jovanovic, UNRANKED
Drammeh, UNRANKED

That is an average of 1.0 stars/player

Cal had THREE TIMES the starpower of Hawaii. Cal should have won that game by 20 points, going away, based on your belief that all that is needed to win is to have as much or more talent than your opponents. If Wallace and Bird had played, it would have been FOUR TIMES the starpower of supposedly lowly Hawaii.

Here are the reasons Cal lost, not in any particular order, and none of them is little Brandon Chauca.

1. Cal coaches and players very likely underestimated Hawaii. Hawaii played only one good team in the preseason, #3 Oklahoma, in Hawaii, and lost by 3 points. They were 27-5, 13-3 in the Big West, which is a decent conference. They were regular season champion and had lost two games to Long Beach State, but then turned around and beat them in the final to win the Big West Tournament. They were not chopped liver, despite the low ranking of their talent.

2. Both Wallace and Bird were out with injuries, and when any team loses 2 starters, they will be faced with a big challenge to pull together and make up for the loss of key teammates. I agree that losing Wallace had more effect than losing Bird, but losing both was tough.

3. Jaylen Brown played the worst game of his collegiate career, maybe of his entire life up to that point. I think he was either ill with a flu or something, or he tried to take too much on his shoulders, feeling that he would have to step up to make up for losing Wallace and Bird. He got into early foul trouble and had to sit most of the first half. He came back in the second half, picked up another foul and had to sit. He was hampered by that the whole game. He played only 17 minutes, and really looked out of sorts. He went 1-6 from the field, scored 4 points, got 2 rebounds, no assists, and had SEVEN TURNOVERS. So he did not just become a non-factor, he actually hurt the team with his play.

4. Cal could not contain Hawaii's guards. Bobbitt and Smith penetrated Cal's defense over and over, or shot over them. I thought having Singer on the floor instead of Wallace might help us, as Singer was a better defender than Tyrone, but he got in foul trouble trying to guard Bobbitt and Smith who torched all the Cal guards, for 36 points, while averaging 21 between them during the season.

5. Cal's bigs could not contain Hawaii big Stefan Jankovic, who scored 16 points, which was his season average against lesser competition, while Cal's Ivan Rabb scored 13.

6. Cal shot threes poorly, 0.214. Mathews was 3-8, but the rest of the Cal team was 0-11(Chauca 0-2). They clearly missed Bird.

7. Cal committed 16 turnovers (SEVEN by Brown, only ONE by Chauca), and let Hawaii score 77 points against supposedly one of the country's better defenses. Losing Bird and Wallace was losing perhaps the two least talented defenders of the starting five, and replacing their minutes with Singer and RMB should have helped the defense, but it did not.

8. Cal's point guard for 30 minutes, Sam Singer, did not get a single assist. Cal as a team got only 6 assists, where they had been averaging 13 per game. Wallace, if he had played, averaged 4 assists, so that still would likely have left Cal with only 10, 3 short of their average.

What Cal did well in that game was to control the boards at both ends. Rabb had 12 boards. And Cal held 2-star ranked players Valdes and Thomas, to 17 points between them, while they had been averaging 27 points between them. Mathews went off for 23 points, and Singer scored 12, a total of 35 between them, while they usually averaged 17 between them. In the end, it was Cal's inability to shut down UNRANKED Bobbitt and Smith from doing whatever they wanted, it seemed, and their inability to stop Jankovic inside. Both Bobbitt and Smith were Bay Area boys, one from Oakland and the other from Deer Valley in Antioch, the same school where Marcus Lee played. I wonder why these two boys were unranked, and I wonder if Cal coaches ever knew about them in high school.

On a personal note, I won't be reading or replying to anything else you write on the BI. It is a waste of time for both of us and everyone else. You make a very good argument for recruiting elite players, but you take personal offense at any dissent. Don't you realize that attacking other posters with hyperbole and personal ad hominem attacks just weakens your argument? I started responding to you, because you trashed Lars and the rest of the unranked newcomers and even some veterans. I'm a Cal fan, and those are not just your players, they are my players and every other Cal fan's players. I don't like the way you trash Cal teams, players, and coaches who were before your time, as if Cal history began with you. You want to be a Cal fan, then get with the program, and root for Cal, don't ridicule Cal.

Here is the box score, FYI: https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/boxscores/2016-03-18-california.html

---

You read the box score. Fantastic. I watched the game. Having Chauca on the floor was a disaster. And if you watched the game you know that Brown's TOs were, IRC, 3 player control fouls cause that was what we had.

I too will be skipping the wall of text. Honestly I usually do cause it just grows old quick - the wall of text.

Civil Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

You make up things that didn't happen, manipulate facts, or just plain lie...

AND

You are actually going to blame Cal's loss to Hawaii on little Brandon Chauca...Do you think we are that stupid?

AND

...you take personal offense at any dissent.

FOLLOWED UP WITH

Don't you realize that attacking other posters with hyperbole and personal ad hominem attacks just weakens your argument?

---

Sigh...

---

Civil Bear said:

---

Sigh...

---

Sigh.Sigh.Sigh.Sigh.Sigh.Sigh.Sigh.Sigh.Sigh.Sigh.Sigh.Sigh.Sigh.Sigh.Sigh.Sigh.

My final plea:

I enjoy SCT's posts (except when he's replying to SFCity)
I enjoy SFCity's posts (except when he's replying to SCT)

Please, please, please both of you: JUST STOP IT ALREADY!

UrsaMajor said:

---

My final plea:

I enjoy SCT's posts (except when he's replying to SFCity)
I enjoy SFCity's posts (except when he's replying to SCT)

Please, please, please both of you: JUST STOP IT ALREADY!

---

Fair enough. I'm done. My apologies to everyone, especially to SCT.

SFCityBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

My final plea:

I enjoy SCT's posts (except when he's replying to SFCity)
I enjoy SFCity's posts (except when he's replying to SCT)

Please, please, please both of you: JUST STOP IT ALREADY!

---

Fair enough. I'm done. My apologies to everyone, especially to SCT.

---

fair enough. I don't need to add to the incivility. We just will agree to disagree (but civilly)

socaltownie said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

My final plea:

I enjoy SCT's posts (except when he's replying to SFCity)
I enjoy SFCity's posts (except when he's replying to SCT)

Please, please, please both of you: JUST STOP IT ALREADY!

---

Fair enough. I'm done. My apologies to everyone, especially to SCT.

---

fair enough. I don't need to add to the incivility. We just will agree to disagree (but civilly)

---

Aw geeze, what am I going to do with all this leftover popcorn!

socaltownie said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

My final plea:

I enjoy SCT's posts (except when he's replying to SFCity)
I enjoy SFCity's posts (except when he's replying to SCT)

Please, please, please both of you: JUST STOP IT ALREADY!

---

Fair enough. I'm done. My apologies to everyone, especially to SCT.

---

fair enough. I don't need to add to the incivility. We just will agree to disagree (but civilly)

---

Fine with me, SCT. Have a good rest of your day.

And of course, Go Bears!