2014 NCAA Tournament All Game Comments

Justns11 · Unread post by **Justns11** » 10 years ago

Rod...did I not preface and postface my post enough for you? You need to settle down. It's no wonder you've driven so many people off of posting on here.

I was literally waiting for you to overreact to this because I've seen you do it hundreds of times before...all of us have seen it.

"I know that college bball is obviously a much higher level than HS bball"

"I know it's completely different in College and beyond, but it's very difficult to compare Men's and Women's basketball."

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 10 years ago

We starting this again? Don't like my posts, don't read them. Funny, when I left, I got tons of PMs and
people posting here that they wanted me back.
To each his own.

This from Bill Reynolds, who's forgotten more about basketball than most
people know:

"WOMEN’S BASKETBALL

Is it a form of basketball sacrilege to say that the women’s NCAA championship game between UConn and Notre Dame was out of some basketball textbook? Is it sacrilege to say that both teams played the game the right way, while the men’s game between UConn and Kentucky was in many ways a glorified pickup game?

Or maybe it’s this simple:

The women’s game was played as if John Wooden and Dean Smith were the coaches, full of spreading the court and going back door and all the fundamental things that make purists smile. The men’s game is played as if it’s an AAU game on steroids, a game that’s a monument to both size and incredible athleticism."

Gonebarongone · Unread post by **Gonebarongone** » 10 years ago

rodfromcranston wrote:Just some ignorant comments here.
Talking about fucking high school JVs instead of the well conditioned,
physically capable top notch women players.
What next, you took some 6 year old girl's lunch money so you must be a stud?
Go find Serena Williams and tell her your high school tennis men can beat her.
Ridiculous.

You know what, Rod? You need to settle down. We disagree. Women's basketball stinks. It is my opinion. Yes, a low level male pro would destroy Serena Williams. My opinion. Diana Taurasi would not start on a single D1,2,3 basketball team. My opinion. If you disagree, that is fine. I know several guys who have competed against the highest level women in both sports and it's not close. They just don't have the physical skill set to compete. Are they talented, well conditioned athletes? Of course. I'm glad kids (girls, especially) have role models to looks up to. This is important. But, you are just not being honest here. These sports, hoops in particular, require athletic moves where there is a massive spread between men and women. Not to inject race into this (because it is more of an athletic thing anyway) but why do you think white guys are 5-10% of the D1 hoops and NBA rosters? Because they get murdered (I say this as a white guy) off the bounce and in the air by guys 10x more athletic. It's the nature of the sport. Britney Griner and Taurasi would have gotten obliterated in any of the past NCAA men's tournament games.

If you want to disagree with all of that, that's fine. But settle down, will you?

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 10 years ago

Obviously tennis and golf are much different than basketball. There is no direct physical competition in those sports. When I was a high school golfer I was the #2 golfer on a good team and a top-20 finisher in the state tournament. I can drive the ball 300 yards. But I went through the junior circuit in RI at the same time as the Grzebien girls, and they were clearly much, much better than me. However, I also knew two D1 girls basketball players in high school and sometimes they would scrimmage against AAU teams that I played on, and as skilled as they were they were overmatched by the strength and speed of the boys.

I'm not making a chest pounding argument here. I think at the beginning of this discussion I was a little sloppy with my rhetoric and overstated some points for effect. But based on my personal experience and what my eyes tell me from having played, coached and watched thousands and thousands of hours of basketball, there is no possible way a team even as talented and dominant as UConn's women could beat a competitive boys high school team. Just look at the roster: 5-9, 5-8, 5-8, 5-7, 5-7, 6-0, 5-7, 6-4, 6-5, 6-3 and 6-2. The starting backcourt on my high school team was as big as their forwards!

Yes, if you took the UConn's women team to the Y and had them play against a random group of five middle aged men, the women would roll. They are skilled, well coached and in top physical condition. But my real actual point, putting hyperbole aside, is that those are as good of women's players as exist on the planet, and if you took a group of average men's players with the same qualities (skilled, well coached and conditioned), the average men would beat the best women handily. It isn't a slight against the women. It's just reality. That is why women have their own league and don't play against men. I don't understand how this isn't obvious.

If you disagree, I'd love to hear you reasoning rather than just calling me a crank.

Gonebarongone · Unread post by **Gonebarongone** » 10 years ago

TruePoint wrote:Obviously tennis and golf are much different than basketball. There is no direct physical competition in those sports. When I was a high school golfer I was the #2 golfer on a good team and a top-20 finisher in the state tournament. I can drive the ball 300 yards. But I went through the junior circuit in RI at the same time as the Grzebien girls, and they were clearly much, much better than me. However, I also knew two D1 girls basketball players in high school and sometimes they would scrimmage against AAU teams that I played on, and as skilled as they were they were overmatched by the strength and speed of the boys.

I'm not making a chest pounding argument here. I think at the beginning of this discussion I was a little sloppy with my rhetoric and overstated some points for effect. But based on my personal experience and what my eyes tell me from having played, coached and watched thousands and thousands of hours of basketball, there is no possible way a team even as talented and dominant as UConn's women could beat a competitive boys high school team. Just look at the roster: 5-9, 5-8, 5-8, 5-7, 5-7, 6-0, 5-7, 6-4, 6-5, 6-3 and 6-2. The starting backcourt on my high school team was as big as their forwards!

Yes, if you took the UConn's women team to the Y and had them play against a random group of five middle aged men, the women would roll. They are skilled, well coached and in top physical condition. But my real actual point, putting hyperbole aside, is that those are as good of women's players as exist on the planet, and if you took a group of average men's players with the same qualities (skilled, well coached and conditioned), the average men would beat the best women handily. It isn't a slight against the women. It's just reality. That is why women have their own league and don't play against men. I don't understand how this isn't obvious.

If you disagree, I'd love to hear you reasoning rather than just calling me a crank.

Agree 100%. The tennis analogy was just brought up because, although there isn't direct physical competition, it requires very similar fast twitch, quick burst moves (laterally, especially). I think that is one of the big differences in basketball. I'm not putting the sport down. There are people that really like watching it because they can't go over the top. They beat you with ball movement, cutting, etc. It's just not for me.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 10 years ago

Yup those white guys from Wisconsin just got murdered all year long..

TP, repeating the same thing ad nauseum doesn't make you right. Sorry.

I've seen plenty of karate sparring and I've never seen a high belt woman
at least not hold her own in these sessions when sparring against men of the same rank.
Of course, Bruce Lee proved, size doesn't matter in martial arts.

Justns11 · Unread post by **Justns11** » 10 years ago

Rod...why don't u take some of your own advice.

"Don't like my posts, don't read them." Did I direct my first post to you in any way?

Did your reply directly mention my post? That's what I thought.

And I agree, it is ridiculous.

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 10 years ago

rodfromcranston wrote: TP, repeating the same thing ad nauseum doesn't make you right. Sorry.

This is ironic. But by all means, tell me more about karate.

If you can't answer and refute any of my points directly then I'll just assume you are arguing on nothing but emotion and consider that the end of it. Size may not matter in Karate, but basketball obviously isn't karate.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 10 years ago

Really? TP I never would have guessed.
If you want to know more, I suggest you ask Ramfan85.
He's a master and owns black belts in three different martial arts.

Justin, I wasn't replying to your post. Yet you chose to
make it personal.

Justns11 · Unread post by **Justns11** » 10 years ago

Rod, right after my post about playing JV high school basketball you said;

"Talking about fucking high school JVs instead of the well conditioned, physically capable top notch women players."

How is that not replying to my post?

I didn't want to make this personal either, which is why I didn't mention any post directly in my first post. I was just adding my thoughts.

I'm done arguing, I just wish you would settle down a little bit. When you respond the way you did it makes people like myself (who visit this forum for info on their favorite sports team) not want to add any input.

I've been going on here and the Projo board for almost ten years and I've probably posted 100 times total. I typically only post when I think I'm adding to the conversation...which is hard when I live up in NH and have very little connection (other than here!) to the team.

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 10 years ago

It's really pretty simple.

If you like watching good fundamental BB, watch the women.

If you like size, speed, and athleticism, watch the men.

It's like comparing apples and oranges.

The UConn women are the best at what they do, for their gender. I enjoy watching them, for that reason.

In some sports, depending on what is needed, women can compete with men.

In some other sports, there's no comparison.

Nothing new here.

rjsuperfly66 · Unread post by **rjsuperfly66** » 10 years ago

Why can't we accept it's simple genetics and move on?

Rhody Guy · Unread post by **Rhody Guy** » 10 years ago

This is my experience with women's basketball, not that it means much. I never played high school basketball. I didn't even play in a 5v5 game until I got to URI, but I had the opportunity to jump into a scrimmage of 5 random guys at Mackal vs the women's basketball team, and the teams were fairly evenly matched. The only 2 girls on the floor that did much of anything were Megan Shoniker and Lara Gaspar.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 10 years ago

Justin, I think your posts are very good, and you always put solid thoughts
in writing. Plus, I like you avatar.
The high school players, blah. blah blah have been throughout this thread.
I think we all should get back to posting about URI basketball.

Fly, as Bill Russell said, if you accept the genetics argument on athletics,
then you have to accept the genetics argument in all areas.
That's a road you don't want to go down.

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 10 years ago

All due respect to Bill Russell, that argument makes no sense. I see that you are obstinately dug in here so we should all move on. But you are standing athwart science and common sense here. Which is your right, I suppose.

ramfan85 · Unread post by **ramfan85** » 10 years ago

I'd like to see a high school men's team compete against a college women's team in synchronized swimming. That could get ugly.

rjsuperfly66 · Unread post by **rjsuperfly66** » 10 years ago

rodfromcranston wrote: Fly, as Bill Russell said, if you accept the genetics argument on athletics,
then you have to accept the genetics argument in all areas.
That's a road you don't want to go down.

I don't mean it as a slight. It's just my opinion that height naturally favors men. Men are typically significantly taller at that level, just look at rosters. Tina Charles was one of the most dominating centers in college basketball, and weighs in at 6'4, 198lbs. Candace Parker also did a little of everything in college (listed at every position), but is 6'4, 175. What do you think the average men's college center is? 6'9, 230? Britney Griner is the one women who really approaches the height at 6'8, but weighs 199lbs. If she played against any male center, they would likely body her out of the building, but looks physically imposing because of her competition. UCONN is one of the most gifted teams in women's college basketball, but compare them to a good male high school roster, like Oak Hill for example.

Moriah Jefferson 5'7 122 lbs -- Terrance Phillips 5'11 175 lbs
Bria Hartley 5'8 145 lbs - B.J. Stith 6'5 200 lbs
Kaleena Mosqueda-Lewis 6'0 180 lbs -- Caleb Martin 6'6 190 lbs
Breanna Stewart 6'4 170 lbs -- Cody Martin 6'6 195 lbs
Stefanie Dolson 6'5 (unknown) -- Rokas Gustys 6'9, 245 lbs
---------------------------------------------------------
Key Reserves:
Saniya Chong 5'8 (unknown) --- Shelton Mitchell 6'4 190 lbs
Brianna Banks 5'9 (unknown) -- Trevor Manuel 6'9 190 lbs
Kiah Stokes 6'3 (unknown) -- Rodney Miller 6'11 235 lbs

Can the women make up such height and weight difference by playing a more structured, technical style? I would be in the camp of that would be a very very very tough task.

Billyboy78 · Unread post by **Billyboy78** » 10 years ago

We're talking elite HS basketball here. Not many schools can run out size like that.

rjsuperfly66 · Unread post by **rjsuperfly66** » 10 years ago

Billyboy78 wrote:We're talking elite HS basketball here. Not many schools can run out size like that.

Wasn't that the initial comparison? Top-level level male HS teams vs. UCONN women? I think if you look at most of the prep ranks even here in New England, most teams have pretty good height, even if they aren't the most talented kids. The year Tilton had Seldon, Noel, and Okonoboh, I don't think they were even a Top 25 national program. Brewster was barely a Top 75 program this season, and their lineup looked something like Graham 6'1 175, Donovan Mitchell 6'3 205, Jared Terrell 6'3 215, Issac Copeland 6'9 200, and Jarred Reuter 6'8 235 and brought Kevin Zabo 6'2 185, Max Tylman 6'5 200, Traylin Farris 6'7 205 off the bench if memory serves. I'm sure most are similar around this region.

URI_IEP · Unread post by **URI_IEP** » 10 years ago

Moving away from the men v. women discussion (hopefully), and going back to the old style (fundamentals) v. new style (AAU athleticism) debate, my personal feeling is that the current style of play is superior to the old style (wait... let me finish).

I believe that ALL sports are (with-in the agreed upon rules) governed by something similar to Adam Smith's idea of the market being controlled by an invisible hand. Basically, that styles and strategies of play will adapt and evolve so that the most dominant style is the one that is largely practiced because it gives the user the highest probability of winning. This is why I believe that the current style is superior (NOT necessarily more fun to watch) to the older "fundamental" style. I believe this is why lower scoring and slower games started fading away in the early part of the 20th century after coaches (not the least of whom being Frank Keaney!) started to introduce a more up-tempo style, which gives better athletes the advantage. There is also evidence that playing in a "Havoc" style gives less talented teams an edge over more methodical, but perhaps more talented teams. But these points are neither here nor there, my main point is that if the older style was superior (e.g. giving a greater probability of winning to the user) to the newer style than we'd see it used more.

In the end, “YOU PLAY to WIN the GAME”, not necessarily to look aesthetically pleasing while doing it.

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 10 years ago

IEP, thanks for that. Hammers home the point I was trying to make when we were talking briefly about Olajuwon and Shaq.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 10 years ago

Guess nobody looked at all the low scoring NCAA tournament games.
All the new rules to help he offense don't seem to have worked.
If you're a purist like me and Bunky, today's game is foreign.

URI_IEP · Unread post by **URI_IEP** » 10 years ago

rodfromcranston wrote:Guess nobody looked at all the low scoring NCAA tournament games.
All the new rules to help he offense don't seem to have worked.
If you're a purist like me and Bunky, today's game is foreign.

I wasn't so much making an argument between 60-70 point games of today and the 80-90 point games of the early 90's, but rather comparing to the 20-30 point games of the early 1900's. There will always be ebb and flow for the average number of points scored in any given season, but the strategies (I believe) will always adjust/evolve to give the greatest probability of victory in a given environment.

Maybe it's selfish, but I would rather URI average 20 turnovers per game and make the NCAA's (if that's what it took) then average 8 and miss out. That last point is hyperbole, so please don't try to pick it apart. All I'm saying is do whatever it takes to win as long as the rules are followed and nothing immoral is done.

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 10 years ago

The point is the game evolves based on what gives teams the best chance to win. Nobody that is directly involved in how the game is played is concerned with preserving the sacred fundamentals of 50 years ago unless there is a direct correlation between doing that and winning.

Billyboy78 · Unread post by **Billyboy78** » 10 years ago

Aren't boxing out, effective bounce passes, free throw shooting, etc., fundamentals that are sorely lacking in today's game, things that help you win games?

sf2010 · Unread post by **sf2010** » 10 years ago

Billyboy78 wrote:Aren't boxing out, effective bounce passes, free throw shooting, etc., fundamentals that are sorely lacking in today's game, things that help you win games?

Your three points in order: sort of, no, and yes.

Boxing out is a helluva lot tougher than fans realize with the increased athleticism/physicality in the game today.

I'm really not sure of the fetish, for lack of a better term, that some people seem to have for bounce passes. Hitting the ground slows the ball down greatly, giving any defender much more time to react to the pass and break it up. In very limited circumstances bounce passes are effective, but especially in the post it is a really ineffective way to move the ball.

Free throw shooting should be better. By everybody. All the time. I'm with you on that one.

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 10 years ago

Billy, sure but if the people that acquire talent think that guys that can run, jump out of the gym, hit threes, etc., and not on guys that box out well, are what help you win, they're looking for those guys to fill out teams. If they find guys that do both then even better. It's a matter of selection bias, not necessarily intentionally getting those fundamentals out of the game.

URI_IEP · Unread post by **URI_IEP** » 10 years ago

Billyboy78 wrote:Aren't boxing out, effective bounce passes, free throw shooting, etc., fundamentals that are sorely lacking in today's game, things that help you win games?

The areas you mentioned are more related to in-game execution than the overall style or strategy. Everyone tries to get the rebound, pass effectively, and hit free throws. Some teams are more efficient in these areas than others, and it definitely helps win games.

Billyboy78 · Unread post by **Billyboy78** » 10 years ago

I see a lot of defenders get their hand on a pass. That is where a bounce pass should be used. It's a lot easier to steal a ball with your hand than with your foot...

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 10 years ago

Boxing out is a skill that good technique helps.
ESPN Science did a piece with Kevin Love trying to box out a sumo wrestler,
who had a much lower center of gravity and 120 more pounds.
The sumo could not get though Love's box out.
So are Love or Charles Barkley or Denis Rodman ultra super athletes?
Nope. It's technique or soild fundamentals.
Scoring? In 1965-66 your URI Rams averaged 89.3 ppg.
Wild gunners unleashed? No. the team shot 48% leand by Art Stephanson's
59%.
The year before Dennis McGovern, an great outside shooter, shot 54%.
The offense worked to get him open shots, which he knocked down.
Calverley, taught offensive skills that he learned from Frank Keaney.
Plus, it was a lot of fun to watch.
Listening to TP babble on, is similar to Jerry D saying he never taught fundamentals.
Running, jumping, "athelticism". Your man must've been Tavoris Bell. The best leaper, athlete
I've ever seen at URI.
How'd that work out for him and his team?

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 10 years ago

Rod are you not actually reading what I'm saying, or just failing to comprehend it?

sf2010 · Unread post by **sf2010** » 10 years ago

Speaking of failure to comprehend, I have no idea what Rod's post is supposed to mean...(and Dennis Rodman was a superb athlete)

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 10 years ago

Guess reading comprehension problems are catchy.
Rodman was a hideous offensive player.Had almost three times as many turnovers as assists,
shot 58% free throws, 23% from 3. He was a great rebounder and defensive player.
Let's try this again.... 49 years ago, more points were being scored with fundamentally
sound offenses, and offensive efficiency, than today's AAU driven game.
Simple. Sorry nobody got it.

Unread post by **SGreenwell** » 10 years ago

rodfromcranston wrote:Guess reading comprehension problems are catchy.
Rodman was a hideous offensive player.Had almost three times as many turnovers as assists,
shot 58% free throws, 23% from 3. He was a great rebounder and defensive player.
Let's try this again.... 49 years ago, more points were being scored with fundamentally
sound offenses, and offensive efficiency, than today's AAU driven game.
Simple. Sorry nobody got it.

The defense employed by teams was really, really different back in the day, thanks to the lack of scouting tape and not as much emphasis on size. I think guys like Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain really illustrated the value of a dominant defensive big man, and NBA teams trended in that direction in the decades after.

sf2010 · Unread post by **sf2010** » 10 years ago

One could make the argument that it was a lot easier to run "fundamentally sound" offenses when the athleticism wasn't consistently at an elite level. It's much tougher to run solid offense when there aren't elite athletes attempting to get in every passing lane, alter every shot, and harass ball-handlers on every possession.

And I'm aware of Rodman's offensive shortcomings, but you stated earlier that he wasn't a superior athlete - he was.

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 10 years ago

rodfromcranston wrote:Guess reading comprehension problems are catchy.
Rodman was a hideous offensive player.Had almost three times as many turnovers as assists,
shot 58% free throws, 23% from 3. He was a great rebounder and defensive player.
Let's try this again.... 49 years ago, more points were being scored with fundamentally
sound offenses, and offensive efficiency, than today's AAU driven game.
Simple. Sorry nobody got it.

OK, so is your premise that if we just dropped a a team from 49 years ago into today's game, that team would score the same amount of points and their modern day opponent would also score the same number of points, and therefore the team from 49 years ago would win in a blowout?

3wisemen · Unread post by **3wisemen** » 10 years ago

Shooting guards who were 6-foot-5 with 80-inch wingspans didn't exist 49 years ago. Zone defenses like the one Syracuse played all the way to the Final Four a couple years ago didn't have 6-foot-6 point guards in the high post. The floor has been squeezed over the years by players who are bigger, quicker, longer and more athletic. Advanced video scouting has made defenses monumentally better. There's not a single offensive set an opponent runs that is a surprise.
What did you see in that women's game the other night? Right. Space. Little on ball pressure. Passes thrown to open spots that don't exist in the men's game. To compare the two is apples and dump trucks. To long for the days when the men played like the women do now is to waste time. It's not happening again, and that doesn't have to mean the game is worse off for it.
And don't bother going back to that era to make a men's comparison. I'll do it here for you. The Boston Celtics gave up 100 points per game or more on average in all of Bill Russell's 13 NBA seasons. They gave up more than 110 per game or more on average six times. Russell is widely acknowledged as the best defensive center in league history. And his teams were powerless to stop the opponent at the defensive end.

Billyboy78 · Unread post by **Billyboy78** » 10 years ago

It's kind of like when you saw Harvard beating athletically superior teams in years past because they played solid fundamental basketball.

sf2010 · Unread post by **sf2010** » 10 years ago

...what about Harvard this year who was at least as athletically strong as Cincinnati?

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 10 years ago

I hate to keep posting but I've been thinking about how I can make my point easier to understand. Off the top, know that I am not advocating for turning the game into track and field. I'm just trying to offer an explanation for what you have identified as a problem.

So let's try an example. If you have two high school forwards, and one is a 6'4" and has a great mid range game, boxes out, shoots FTs at 88% and does all those fundamental things extremely well but is slow and basically nailed to the floor. The other guy is 6'7" forward who struggles to score other than on put backs and fast breaks, but is unbelievably athletic and projects as a good defender. Which guy is going to get more D1 offers? I think coaches will think the first guy will struggle to get his shot off in college and be a liability on defense and think they can teach the other guy how to become a passable offensive player, and pick the second guy every time. In fact, I think D2 is full if guys exactly like guy #1 - great high school players who just don't physically project to the D1 level.

The same basic things happen when college players are selected for the NBA. Guys like Jimmy Baron who shoots 90% from the line end up in Europe and Michael Carter-Williams ends up in the NBA even though he shoots it at under 70%.

When that effect happens over and over, thousands of times, you get a game that is generally more athletic and less fundamentally sound. Obviously, the two things aren't mutually exclusive and the very best players - the Lebrons and Kobes and Kevin Loves - are both phenomenally gifted athletes and fundamentally sound. But there aren't an unlimited number of great players and coaches mostly have to choose one or the other.

You can get mad at me if you'd like, but I'm not the one making the decisions. I'm just observing and telling you what I see. My opinion is that you can't get mad at evolution. It's just a state of nature.

Billyboy, sometimes that can happen and its awesome to see, but it is the exception not the rule. How many championships has Harvard won? No question there is more than one way to skin a cat and Harvard has maybe identified and exploited an inefficiency in the basketball marketplace. But in the macro things are the way they are because it is the best way to do it. If that is wrong, someone will figure that out too and win another way.

Billyboy78 · Unread post by **Billyboy78** » 10 years ago

I'll take the slow guys like Larry Bird

Billyboy78 · Unread post by **Billyboy78** » 10 years ago

Which leads to this question, Would Larry Bird be a great player in today's game?

Billyboy78 · Unread post by **Billyboy78** » 10 years ago

And, by the way, I'm not angry at anyone who likes today's game. I think this is a fun discussion.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 10 years ago

OK, substitute Princeton beating UCLA in Harrick's last game there.
Same principle of fundamentals over athletes.
I just think most who think today's game is wonderful are the same ones who
think URI basketball began in the Ryan Center.
In other words, people who don't have the perspective of having seen the past
game as well as the present to make a valid comparison.
Oh, and Arthur read this thread, and here's his reaction to it:

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 10 years ago

Dirk does fine and he's a reasonable facsimile. But that is a total red herring argument. No college or NBA coaches are turning away Larry Bird. There aren't a bunch of Larry Birds hanging out somewhere just wishing for a chance to play. There is no conscious decision being made by anyone anywhere to choose one style over the other. Coaches only care about winning, and they pick the players that they think gives them the best chance to do that. 19 year old Larry Bird would have a place to play in this era.

sf2010 · Unread post by **sf2010** » 10 years ago

You know the reason why Princeton beating UCLA and old Harvard beating whoever are memorable examples of "fundamentals over athletes?

Because those instances are the EXCEPTION, and not the outcome that occurs in 90% of those contests.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 10 years ago

And Cornell's Sweet 16 run a few years ago.
The Princetons and Harvards have done well in OOC over the years.
Brown beating PC a couple of years ago and almost again this year.
It's not so rare.

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 10 years ago

Rod, what is your point? You are not responding to anything anyone else saying or addressing their points. You are just spouting out random events like the conclusion we are supposed to draw is obvious. What lesson is to be drawn from those games you're referencing?

ace · Unread post by **ace** » 10 years ago

I really, really miss college basketball games.

sf2010 · Unread post by **sf2010** » 10 years ago

ace wrote:I really, really miss college basketball games.

Don't we all...this is what we're reduced to. Barely 3 days after the season ends