2014 NCAA Tournament All Game Comments

[rodfromcranston]

Maybe I should write this in crayon, because I can't tell if you're trying hard
to act dumb, you really don't understand, or you're busting balls.
Good Ivy League teams play fundamentally sound ball, mostly without great
'athletes" and they win anyway.

[TruePoint]

That is your whole point? Good for the Ivy League then, I guess. I thought maybe you were trying to make a larger point using the Ivy League as an example. My bad.

Still not sure what a couple teams pulling a handful of upsets over the course of a couple decades has to do with what I am saying, or 3wisemen or a number of others.

As long as you can go to bed every night not having had to think of anything any differently than you did when you woke up, you've had a good day. So congrats on that, I guess.

[rodfromcranston]

Thanks for the smug, condescending post.
If you're 30 years old, you don't have the perspective of having experienced anything
but today's game. You've never seen pre AAU basketball in your life.
But keep babbling about "athletes", or whatever floats your boat.

[TruePoint]

Rod, this is exactly my point. I'm not saying anything "floats my boat." If you were actually reading other posters' thoughts and not just sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling at us, you would understand that I am not expressing a preference for one thing or the other, I'm just telling you WHY it has changed.

I may not have seen old basketball live, but my father is a basketball junkie with a VHS collection of old games that should be in Springfield. I know how the game was played before. So don't give me that "you're too young to understand" bullshit.

[rjsuperfly66]

Not for anything, but where does the "Ivy League teams have good fundamentals and they win anyway" argument come from?

Yale hasn't been to an NCAA Tournament since 1962.
Princeton - Last 40 years ... 15 appearances ... 3-15 (does not include opening round games)
Cornell - 4 appearances last 40 years ... 2-4
Harvard - 2-4 all time record in NCAA Tournament
Dartmouth - Hasn't been to a tournament since 1959
Brown - 0-2 ... Hasn't been to tournament since '86
Columbia - 2-4 NCAA tournament history ... Hasn't been since '68
Penn has had the most success .... But hasn't made a Sweet 16 (made Final Four that year) since 1979 despite 16 tournament appearances ... Don't have tourney results for that time.

[ramfan85]

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:

Oh my God. Arthur ate the computer desk!!

[rodfromcranston]

I SAID TOP TEAMS. TRY READING!
So, they don't play except in post season? WTF!

85, I'd like to feed some of these people to him, too.

[TruePoint]

Let's try one more thing. See if we can't get on the same page.

Rod, what point have I made, specifically, that you think you are arguing against? And does whatever success the Ivy teams have had support your argument against me and how?

[rodfromcranston]

That even low level teams practicing sound fundamentals, with far lesser athletes,
can sometimes beat a team of high flying athletes.
If you can have a top athlete who is fundamentally sound, great.
As Seth Greenberg said during the NCAAs, basketball players beat athletes every time.
He said UConn had basketball players. Kentucky had the athletes.
In summation, fundamentals in any sport give a base for any athlete for life.
Tom Brady always talks about still having his notes on fundamentals, from high school,
used in his every day preparations for the game.

[rjsuperfly66]

So, they don't play except in post season? WTF!

Isn't the NCAA Tournament the most important games of the season? Under most circumstances I would agree with you, but don't you think the fact that the Ivy League is 8-35 (22.9%) in NCAA Tournament games since 1980 is an indictment on your argument? Penn 1-14, Princeton 3-14, Cornell 2-4, Harvard 2-3. I agree that there can be other decent teams in the Ivy's not playing in the tournament, but I would imagine that outside of a few upsets, their fate is not good against good teams.

There was one point between 1980-2009 that the Ivy League was 4-29 in NCAA Tournament games. I would actually argue teams like Harvard getting smart athletes with Amaker has helped the league, rather then running around a bunch of brainiacs.

[rambone 78]

UConn had experienced guards.

Kentucky did not.

UConn made FT's.

Kentucky did not.

Ball game!

The difference in "athletes" wasn't that much. UConn slowed the game pace down, and was able to defend in the half court. Helped because of their lack of depth too. If the game had been a track meet, Kentucky wins. Big.

Kentucky, on the other hand, did not take advantage of their size inside, and instead stood around on the perimeter passing the ball around, they were less aggressive. When they did drive the ball, and got fouled, they missed the FT's.

[rodfromcranston]

The fact that the Ivys won any games with Gerald McBoing Boings, proves that
sometimes, well drilled nerds can beat the so called elite athletes.
I saw Princeton with one great player and a cast of also-rans,
destroy PC by 40 points in an NCAA. PC had Walker and Riordan,
two future NBA players, plus Bill Blair and Dexter Westbrook.

[TruePoint]

I think by focusing on such a granular level, though, you guys are missing the larger point. Of course you want to make free throws. Nobody is consciously saying "I'm going to recruit guys that can't shoot free throws and can jump high."

Obviously great athletes that are fundamentally sound are going to succeed, but not every program has access to those players. And where coaches have had to choose between great athletes OR fundamentally sound players, they've gone with athletes.

Over time, that has tilted the game away from a focus on fundamentals to a focus on athleticism. I'm not arguing that that is good or bad.

I'm just saying that is what has happened, in response to you guys complaining that the game is generally less fundamentally sound than it used to be.

And Rod, yes you can point to some Ivy teams that have won, and I'm not arguing that teams built on fundamentals as opposed to athleticism cannot possibly win ever. I'm just saying that if other coaches thought they could use that model and win, they'd do it. I said earlier in the thread that there is more than one way to skin a cat, and you'll get no argument from me on that point. I'm just looking at the overall trend and trying to offer an explanation.

[3wisemen]

As usual Rod, you omit facts that would run contrary to your point. The Princeton team that beat Providence that year had Bill Bradley, who was named the 1965 NCAA Tournament's Most Outstanding Player despite the Tigers finishing third. He had a better NBA career than almost anyone else who played in the field.

And it's not 1965 anymore. Harvard was 3-3 against the top 100 this year. Two of those wins were against Green Bay and Boston University -- hardly power programs. They upset a Cincinnati team that was overseeded -- the Bearcats had one one of the worst offenses in the field. When Harvard played a team with future professionals -- and yes, better athletes -- they were eliminated by Michigan State.

[rodfromcranston]

Try reading, wise guy. I said ONE GREAT PLAYER. If people don't know who was on that
team, I don't care.
As usual , you miss the point of one great player and a supporting cast, vs. a team that was loaded
with superior athletes.
But you're not here suddenly after not posting all season, for any reason except to be
contrary to my POV.

[Gonebarongone]

Thus ends April 2014's version of our new favorite game show. "Rod's Right and You are Wrong!".

Tune in in May where he tells you all you are too young to remember how George Mikan played the game the right way.

[rodfromcranston]

Go take a big shit in a hat and wear it.
You only come on here to be a contrarian jerk, anyway.
Tell us again how happy you are that a PG got his release from Marquette,
and you think it's great that URI fans will be nervous.
Yeah, you're a URI fan, like Dave Gavitt was.

[Gonebarongone]

Go take a big shit in a hat and wear it.
You only come on here to be a contrarian jerk, anyway.
Tell us again how happy you are that a PG got his release from Marquette,
and you think it's great that URI fans will be nervous.
Yeah, you're a URI fan, like Dave Gavitt was.

You got me! Tell me again where I said I was happy? If anything you have been the one beating up on the staff for their recruiting lately. God forbid that was me typing it. I'd be a troll.

I think I read that Harvard confirmed the discovery of a new gospel recently. Maybe it was the Gospel according to Rod. Need to read the article again to confirm.

[Seawrightspostgame]

Any sport, maybe anything, the hardest way to defeat the opponent is when they are unpredictable.

Getting the best athlete and setting them free if they are the best is the best possible way to win in many cases. Hurry up offense anybody?(football)

Bruce Lee, style? to have no style. Highest form of competition.

Only issue is..... not everybody is talented enough to make this work. Nonetheless people try.

[rodfromcranston]

In the words of Runnin Ram:

"HaHa yeah jules, if anyone but Rod had suggested the Lithuanian connection as important, you probably would have said nothing, but of course you had to troll. If Rod says it there must be something contrary you can come up with right jules? "

[Gonebarongone]

In the words of Runnin Ram:

"HaHa yeah jules, if anyone but Rod had suggested the Lithuanian connection as important, you probably would have said nothing, but of course you had to troll. If Rod says it there must be something contrary you can come up with right jules? "

Jesus Christ could have said the Lithuanian connection was a good reason to pick a school and I would have told him he was borderline retarded for thinking it. I just happen to know you are borderline retarded so I left that part out. You have two brain cells and one is constantly fighting with someone on this board, leaving the other one to redline and sputter.

[rodfromcranston]

Clownboy, you're here just to stir up shit.
Everyone knows you're a lousy troll, and bring nothing to the table.
This thread went dark, so you and your squirrel brain decided'you had to do what you do best, and try to
shit stir from East Bumfuck, VA.
In a battle of wits, you're totally defenseless. I hear you need to drop your pants
to count to 21.

[Gonebarongone]

Clownboy, you're here just to stir up shit.
Everyone knows you're a lousy troll, and bring nothing to the table.
This thread went dark, so you and your squirrel brain decided'you had to do what you do best, and try to
shit stir from East Bumfuck, VA.
In a battle of wits, you're totally defenseless. I hear you need to drop your pants
to count to 21.

That's great. Did you drop that one on your boys in 1958 at the Woolworth's counter drinking egg creams?

[TruePoint]

Knock it off

[URI_IEP]

All this because one person prefers set shots and another on likes alley-oops *smh*. Is it October yet?

[rodfromcranston]

Who the hell ever said that?

[Running Ram]

It's funny how the troll loves to call all us 'yokles' and degrading names like 'mouth breathers' and 'borderline retards' yet we all see through the troll's transparent BS. If you're trying to out wit 'borderline retards' and can't, what does that say about you? eh jules?
Back to your cave troll.

[BFC]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketb ... or-players