(03-21-2021 09:12 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(03-20-2021 11:10 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  

(03-20-2021 07:02 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  A for profit university with no academic requirements

They have requirements and meet all NCAA eligibility rules. GCU has had a basketball program since 1949-50, and has been D1 since 2013.

And all those UNC players got real degrees.

Grand Canyon takes all the California kids who are too dumb to go to ASU and that’s saying something. It’s an online school who decided they want to invest big $$$ in sports so they can increase their applicant pool. They shouldn’t even be allowed to play in the NCAA. Here’s an article for you http://es.pn/2o6buEk

I was just clearing up the lies in your original post. You're welcome! Next time you'll (hopefully) do better.

(03-20-2021 11:38 PM)owlatheart Wrote:  ... The first time we went to the NAIA National Tournament we played the highest scoring team in the nation, held them to 62 points and went to the final 8. The first of 3 trips. It CAN happen at Rice with the RIGHT coach

Which school is the "we" that went to the NAIA National Tournament?

Another example of big conference bias: the fact that Loyola Chicago is an 8 seed. 9th ranked team in KenPom, 10th ranked team in NET. And now up 9 against #1 seed Illinois at the half. Even if Illinois comes back, how unfair to both programs that Loyola is an 8 seed almost purely because they don't play in a power conference. Illinois has to play a top-15 team in the second round, Loyola has to play a top-5 team in the second round.

(03-21-2021 12:11 PM)elw4796 Wrote:  Another example of big conference bias: the fact that Loyola Chicago is an 8 seed. 9th ranked team in KenPom, 10th ranked team in NET. And now up 9 against #1 seed Illinois at the half. Even if Illinois comes back, how unfair to both programs that Loyola is an 8 seed almost purely because they don't play in a power conference. Illinois has to play a top-15 team in the second round, Loyola has to play a top-5 team in the second round.

It's all about money for the P5. That always is the answer.

For those not aware of the mechanics:

Each conference receives a payment from the Equal Conference Fund, which recently has been in the approximate amount of $275,000. This is one form of "Unit".

Then, each conference's at-large teams receive a Unit from the Performance Fund.

Every round advancing earns the conference an additional Unit.

So, there is a double whammy on those not in P5 conferences (It's really P6 with the Big East included):
(1) refusal of P6 schools to schedule away games against mid-majors hurts those "other" conferences in acquiring wins and strength of schedule.
(2) The Selection Committee then looks at the poor strength of schedule in order to deny at-large berths AND to tag the ones who made it with ridiculously low seeding.

Then the occasional "upset" distracts the public from the con game the NCAA is running.

Loyola dominates Illinois. Win by 13. Game was never closer than 6 points. Again, no reason why Loyola is any different than Rice. We just have to find that coach, whether it's Pera or somebody else.

https://twitter.com/jonrothstein/status/...00803?s=21

Houston in trouble against #10 Rutgers. Down 8 early in the second half. Jarreau (who is enormously important to their offense) looks like he reaggravated a hip injury and might be done for the game.

Scratch that, Jarreau back in the game but in visible pain.

Oh boy, Rutgers with a full on choke job. Pikiell decided that he was going to go into prevent offense for the last 4 minutes of the game. Against Houston's defense. Malpractice. But about what you'd expect from Rutgers, to be honest.

And Houston wins 63-60. Like ACU yesterday, not necessarily one of the best teams in the country. But easily top 5 hardest working. Don't think they can win it all with Jarreau hurt. And, of course, not every team will put a Rutgers.

(03-21-2021 10:58 AM)Almadenmike Wrote:  [quote='owlatheart' pid='17340403' dateline='1616301516']
... The first time we went to the NAIA National Tournament we played the highest scoring team in the nation, held them to 62 points and went to the final 8. The first of 3 trips. It CAN happen at Rice with the RIGHT coach

Which school is the "we" that went to the NAIA National Tournament?


Southwestern University, prior to going D-III. Billy Tubbs was the coach my first year there

(03-21-2021 08:21 PM)elw4796 Wrote:  Oh boy, Rutgers with a full on choke job. Pikiell decided that he was going to go into prevent offense for the last 4 minutes of the game. Against Houston's defense. Malpractice. But about what you'd expect from Rutgers, to be honest.

And Houston wins 63-60. Like ACU yesterday, not necessarily one of the best teams in the country. But easily top 5 hardest working. Don't think they can win it all with Jarreau hurt. And, of course, not every team will put a Rutgers.

If Oregon State holds on to beat Oklahoma State, I think Houston's region will feature the 2nd seeded Coogs along with the 11 seed (Syracuse), and then on the other side of the bracket an 8 seed (Loyola Chicago) and a 12 seed (Oregon State).

(03-21-2021 10:12 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  If Oregon State holds on to beat Oklahoma State, I think Houston's region will feature the 2nd seeded Coogs along with the 11 seed (Syracuse), and then on the other side of the bracket an 8 seed (Loyola Chicago) and a 12 seed (Oregon State).

That region will yield an interesting Final Four participant (for a change). Yeah, Loyola made it a few years back, but that is still an underdog program. Might not be for long though.

Credit to Oregon State, but damn, Oklahoma State cannot shoot. Oregon State would have been beaten by a team with even average shooting tonight (Oklahoma State had PLENTY of good looks), so I think Loyola will take care of the Beavers. But we'll see.

Why these coaches recruit tons of guys who can't shoot I will never understand. You gotta have athleticism, sure, but the name of the game is "basketball." The ball has to go in the basket at least a few times if you want to win (unless you are Abilene Christian, I guess).

According to an earlier post by WRC, the boys from Cullen also cannot shoot, so I don't see UH being the team that gets out of the Midwest.

(03-21-2021 08:21 PM)elw4796 Wrote:  Oh boy, Rutgers with a full on choke job. Pikiell decided that he was going to go into prevent offense for the last 4 minutes of the game. Against Houston's defense. Malpractice. But about what you'd expect from Rutgers, to be honest.

I've always felt that with a lead, if you keep scoring and don't foul you can't lose. Back in the days when the SWC was good in basketball (and when there was a SWC) one thing I liked about Abe Lemons's approach at Texas was that you knew they could keep scoring, and that matchup zone they played meant that they weren't going to foul a lot. Guy V had an interesting approach, say he was up 60-45 with 10 minutes left, he would say if we can get to 85, they can't catch us.

I think the key when you are down is to get stops and the key when you are ahead is to keep scoring. If you go into a shell on the offensive end and foul on the defensive end, you are asking to choke a lead.

(03-22-2021 08:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-21-2021 08:21 PM)elw4796 Wrote:  Oh boy, Rutgers with a full on choke job. Pikiell decided that he was going to go into prevent offense for the last 4 minutes of the game. Against Houston's defense. Malpractice. But about what you'd expect from Rutgers, to be honest.

I've always felt that with a lead, if you keep scoring and don't foul you can't lose. Back in the days when the SWC was good in basketball (and when there was a SWC) one thing I liked about Abe Lemons's approach at Texas was that you knew they could keep scoring, and that matchup zone they played meant that they weren't going to foul a lot. Guy V had an interesting approach, say he was up 60-45 with 10 minutes left, he would say if we can get to 85, they can't catch us.

I think the key when you are down is to get stops and the key when you are ahead is to keep scoring. If you go into a shell on the offensive end and foul on the defensive end, you are asking to choke a lead.

Yeah, it's something 95+% of coaches do and I hate it. Like, maybe if you have an awesome star or two I can understand it. Oral Roberts' duo of Abmas and Obanor, for example. Them playing iso ball down the stretch is a bit more understandable because that's where their offense is most efficient. But other teams like Rutgers? Confounding.

Like any strategy that strays from tradition, it's a matter of doing something unconventional and being scared about what happens if it goes wrong. Like going for it on 4th down a ton. If you're up 8-10 with 4 minutes left, and you keep running your offense and taking shots with 15 seconds left on the shot clock, and you lose, the questions postgame are going to be brutal because people expect you to run 30 seconds off the clock on every possession. More people will notice that you did something different and it went wrong. Whereas if you run prevent offense, like Rutgers did, people will say you choked but only a few reporters will actually blame you for the choke job. Because it's basically what every coach does.

You don't have to be taking contested layups in transition. But I'd love for teams to just run their normal offense. If that means getting a *good* shot with 17 seconds left on the clock instead of a *bad* shot with 1 second left on the clock, give me the good shot any day of the week. Especially against a team like Houston, which you know is one of the best defensive teams in the country. You're letting them off the hook by running conservative offense, which they can defend in their sleep.

(03-22-2021 08:47 AM)elw4796 Wrote:  

(03-22-2021 08:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-21-2021 08:21 PM)elw4796 Wrote:  Oh boy, Rutgers with a full on choke job. Pikiell decided that he was going to go into prevent offense for the last 4 minutes of the game. Against Houston's defense. Malpractice. But about what you'd expect from Rutgers, to be honest.

I've always felt that with a lead, if you keep scoring and don't foul you can't lose. Back in the days when the SWC was good in basketball (and when there was a SWC) one thing I liked about Abe Lemons's approach at Texas was that you knew they could keep scoring, and that matchup zone they played meant that they weren't going to foul a lot. Guy V had an interesting approach, say he was up 60-45 with 10 minutes left, he would say if we can get to 85, they can't catch us.

I think the key when you are down is to get stops and the key when you are ahead is to keep scoring. If you go into a shell on the offensive end and foul on the defensive end, you are asking to choke a lead.

Yeah, it's something 95+% of coaches do and I hate it. Like, maybe if you have an awesome star or two I can understand it. Oral Roberts' duo of Abmas and Obanor, for example. Them playing iso ball down the stretch is a bit more understandable because that's where their offense is most efficient. But other teams like Rutgers? Confounding.

Like any strategy that strays from tradition, it's a matter of doing something unconventional and being scared about what happens if it goes wrong. Like going for it on 4th down a ton. If you're up 8-10 with 4 minutes left, and you keep running your offense and taking shots with 15 seconds left on the shot clock, and you lose, the questions postgame are going to be brutal because people expect you to run 30 seconds off the clock on every possession. More people will notice that you did something different and it went wrong. Whereas if you run prevent offense, like Rutgers did, people will say you choked but only a few reporters will actually blame you for the choke job. Because it's basically what every coach does.

You don't have to be taking contested layups in transition. But I'd love for teams to just run their normal offense. If that means getting a *good* shot with 17 seconds left on the clock instead of a *bad* shot with 1 second left on the clock, give me the good shot any day of the week. Especially against a team like Houston, which you know is one of the best defensive teams in the country. You're letting them off the hook by running conservative offense, which they can defend in their sleep.

Unconventional wisdom.

(03-22-2021 08:47 AM)elw4796 Wrote:  Yeah, it's something 95+% of coaches do and I hate it. Like, maybe if you have an awesome star or two I can understand it. Oral Roberts' duo of Abmas and Obanor, for example. Them playing iso ball down the stretch is a bit more understandable because that's where their offense is most efficient.

Provided those players can shoot free throws, because you know you are going to get fouled a lot down the stretch.

Malik Osborne is onto the sweet 16. Drew Peterson is on CBS right now as USC is battling Kansas. Peterson is a good role player for USC and certainly has had a good year. But make no mistake - USC is all about the Mobley brothers. I'm trying to think of another set of brothers who were that active for a college team. Oklahoma had both the Tisdale brothers decades ago and the Griffin brothers a bit more recently but the Mobley brothers (who are not twins like the Tisdales and Griffins) are much longer and more active type players - they remind me more of two sets of twins who were centers at Stanford - the Collins and Lopez twins.

Marcus and Markieff Morris were pretty darn good for Kansas back in the day.

They could use them right now. Kansas looks awful (USC is making them look awful but Kansas doesn't need their help either). USC doubling up the Jayhawks pretty much at the half.

(03-22-2021 09:15 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Malik Osborne is onto the sweet 16. Drew Peterson is on CBS right now as USC is battling Kansas. Peterson is a good role player for USC and certainly has had a good year. But make no mistake - USC is all about the Mobley brothers. I'm trying to think of another set of brothers who were that active for a college team. Oklahoma had both the Tisdale brothers decades ago and the Griffin brothers a bit more recently but the Mobley brothers (who are not twins like the Tisdales and Griffins) are much longer and more active type players - they remind me more of two sets of twins who were centers at Stanford - the Collins and Lopez twins.

There had to have been some overlap in the Duke Plumlee years. They weren't quite as impactful as the Mobleys, but they played massive roles for Coach K teams.