Slowing down teams is what they do, no doubt. They gave up 80 points to Pitt and VT this year, so you can score on them. It's not easy, but it can be done. 60 points probably wins this game.

(03-15-2017 10:57 AM)bricksnivy Wrote:  Slowing down teams is what they do, no doubt. They gave up 80 points to Pitt and VT this year, so you can score on them. It's not easy, but it can be done. 60 points probably wins this game.

And if 60 points win the game, UVA is likely advancing. They are efficient on offense because they are methodical to find the right shot. If they are coming from behind, they become less efficient because they need points instead of waiting for points. You want the game to be in the 75+ range

(03-15-2017 10:57 AM)bricksnivy Wrote:  Slowing down teams is what they do, no doubt. They gave up 80 points to Pitt and VT this year, so you can score on them. It's not easy, but it can be done. 60 points probably wins this game.

Both of those games went to OT and Pitt was unconscious from 3 that night. If UNCW wants to win they have to be the first to 60 points. The team also can't lose focus if it falls behind by 12-15 points. Most of UVA's losses this year were from games they had a 10 point second half lead and blew. Syracuse, VT, Villanova come to mind. The only real blow out losses they suffered were UNC at Chapel Hill and Notre Dame in the ACCT. all of their other losses they were in the game late, even WVU and Duke.

(03-15-2017 10:41 AM)WMtribe17 Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 10:28 AM)bricksnivy Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 10:25 AM)WMtribe17 Wrote:  Reading the UVA bball forum, seems like they think UNCW is the equivalent of a 16 seed and think they are going to beat UNCW by 20+. I would love for nothing more than UNCW to blowout UVA.

Shoot like ya'll did against W&M in the CAA tourney and UNCW will win.

Cocky UVA fans? Surely you jest.

They are so cocky they can't even get the team they are playing right...

from alleyoop hoo
"I find it laughable that some of the talking heads question whether

UVa can handle UNC-G's fast pace. If we can slow down UNC, we can slow down any team. It's what we do best."

Where can one find such silly comments? I might need some entertainment later today

(03-15-2017 11:39 AM)dan10 Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 10:57 AM)bricksnivy Wrote:  Slowing down teams is what they do, no doubt. They gave up 80 points to Pitt and VT this year, so you can score on them. It's not easy, but it can be done. 60 points probably wins this game.

And if 60 points win the game, UVA is likely advancing. They are efficient on offense because they are methodical to find the right shot. If they are coming from behind, they become less efficient because they need points instead of waiting for points. You want the game to be in the 75+ range

I don't know that I agree. In their conference losses this year they averaged 56 points (in regulation).

(03-15-2017 11:49 AM)DBJMU2006 Wrote:  Both of those games went to OT and Pitt was unconscious from 3 that night.

Pitt shooting 13-21 from 3 and scoring 70 in regulation doesn't counter my argument. But, I agree, UNCW needs to shoot well and we can't afford to get behind by 8-10.

(03-15-2017 12:15 PM)bricksnivy Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 11:39 AM)dan10 Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 10:57 AM)bricksnivy Wrote:  Slowing down teams is what they do, no doubt. They gave up 80 points to Pitt and VT this year, so you can score on them. It's not easy, but it can be done. 60 points probably wins this game.

And if 60 points win the game, UVA is likely advancing. They are efficient on offense because they are methodical to find the right shot. If they are coming from behind, they become less efficient because they need points instead of waiting for points. You want the game to be in the 75+ range

I don't know that I agree. In their conference losses this year they averaged 56 points (in regulation).

If you play a low and slow game where the first to 60 wins, there is no plausible reason to believe UNCW wins that. UVA wants that type of game and if you give it to them or are forced to play that style, I just dont see UNCW coming out on top.

They average 66 scored for the season, so 10 points less and they lose...But you are ignoring the defense it takes to hold UVA that low. UNCW doesnt have that type of defense, no offense. Running and gunning to get them out of their rhythm early is the gameplan for victory. Or just shoot crazy lights out, but I wouldnt ever bet on that either.

(03-15-2017 02:46 PM)dan10 Wrote:  If you play a low and slow game where the first to 60 wins, there is no plausible reason to believe UNCW wins that.

Agreed. We need this game to at LEAST get into the mid-70s to have a good shot.

If we're playing fast and still fail to crack 70, we're doomed. Virginia will make use of those extra possessions and score in the 70s.

Tomorrow can't get here fast enough. 20 hours and 31 minutes until tip!

(03-15-2017 03:06 PM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote:  Agreed. We need this game to at LEAST get into the mid-70s to have a good shot.

If we're playing fast and still fail to crack 70, we're doomed. Virginia will make use of those extra possessions and score in the 70s.

Clemson and Pitt...the only teams to score 70 on UVA in regulation this year. Sounds like you guys are saying we're doomed.

(03-15-2017 03:11 PM)bricksnivy Wrote:  Clemson and Pitt...the only teams to score 70 on UVA in regulation this year. Sounds like you guys are saying we're doomed.

No one is saying that. Why does the ACC failing to score on Virginia mean we cannot? Is the ACC so superior in every way that we can't even hope to have a good day ourselves? This is the NCAA Tournament. Things happen here on a neutral court that are different than league play, where teams are familiar with each other.

We won 29 games and averaged 85.2 points per game. Only one ACC team cracked 80+ ppg this year (Duke). I get that the ACC was the top basketball league, but our pace is also faster than maybe every ACC squad, and few ACC teams can shoot from 3 as well as we can. Why would it be so surprising that we do what other teams in that league could not?

Think of it like this. 9 of the ACC's teams made the NCAA Tournament, but another 6 failed to make it, and one (Wake) is already one and done. I also think Virginia Tech was over-seeded. That makes us, basically, the caliber of a middle-of-the-pack ACC squad, even with our loss to Clemson factored in. So let's stop acting like we can't compete at that level and behave like we belong....which we do. This is our 2nd straight trip to the dance, and we played well our last time here.

The ACC worship on this board is nauseating sometimes.

(03-15-2017 03:16 PM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 03:11 PM)bricksnivy Wrote:  Clemson and Pitt...the only teams to score 70 on UVA in regulation this year. Sounds like you guys are saying we're doomed.

The ACC worship is nauseating sometimes.

I get the struggle, i used be heavily involved in the BE Vs ACC arguments. But, fact of the matter is, the ACC is worshiped because it insanely good. That said, i still like our chances

This has nothing to do with ACC worship. We won three games in the 60s this year. Virginia played the 4th toughest schedule in the nation, and gave up 70 points twice, while finishing the season as the nation's number 1 defense. Win or lose, it's going to be ugly.

I firmly believe we can score 65 points and win the game. UVA doesn't hurt you in the post, so as you said, UNCW has to guard their shooters. Namely, we have to guard three guys: SHAYOK, PERRANTES and Guy. I don't think Hall or Jerome are going to get hot and beat us.

They don't turn it over, but they can be bad from the field. Maybe, like the Cuse tournament game last year, we can turn them over. When Cuse pressed, they forced 13 turnovers and scored 10 transition points. Still, I think we have to defend in the half court and hit threes to win the game.

(03-15-2017 03:16 PM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote:  So let's stop acting like we can't compete at that level and behave like we belong....which we do. This is our 2nd straight trip to the dance, and we played well our last time here.

I wasn't suggesting we can't compete. I absolutely believe we belong. I'm sorry if that didn't come across. I'm simply stating that I think we're going to have to win a Virginia style game, like we've done against CoC.

Game day, fellas! Now, I just need to get out of hosting an international call from noon to 2:00. Let's go!

(03-15-2017 03:11 PM)bricksnivy Wrote:  Clemson and Pitt...the only teams to score 70 on UVA in regulation this year. Sounds like you guys are saying we're doomed.

Not quite but there are quite a few factors that are not pointing in UNCW's direction. What you guys see as a good matchup, I do not. I thought the draw UNCW got in the first round was quite unfortunate. Do I think they can win? Absolutely. Will it take everything you have? Absolutely. I do think the winner of this game wins another, whether it be Florida or ETSU.

Wings up.

There are no "good" matchups for 12 seeds vs. 5 seeds. UVA is ranked either #23 or #24 in the nation...for a reason. In fact, every 5 seed has that type of ranking.

So, it all comes down to HOW a 12 can beat a 5. And there is a clear path for UNCW but they will not come close to being favored, and no 12 seeds will.

UVA is known for its' pack line defense, which is a good defense but isn't widely used. Like any defense, there is a "best" way to attack it on offense. And it just so happens UNCW has the prototype offense to attack this type of defense. Will we recognize and execute the attack effectively? Who knows? But we at least START with the right style and players to score.

UNCW has enough scorers and shooters that it is hard to stop everyone. And with Cacock in the middle, we should be able to rebound and get some buckets close to the basket. If it's a low scoring game, there is always a chance since low scoring games tend to produce close games. I like our chances if the game is around five points in the final 5 minutes, and it comes down to who can get buckets or fouls.

Vegas line for 12/5 seeds

UVA: -8.5
Notre Dame: -7
ISU: -6.5
Minnesota: -1