This is not good basketball. Each team is trying to suck a little less than the other, I guess. Clemson can't buy a wide open shot and has missed some free throws; Arizona just keeps jacking threes for no reason.
Clemson/Arizona
- Thread starter TheWerewolfFromTwilight
- Start date
What do you mean? At the moment they are shooting 18.5% on their threes. Are you saying that that is not good?
Jon Rothstein - The ACC might only get 2 bids. I guess he meant 2 teams to the Final 4.
Game went into a weird lull for like ten minutes. Luckily, for the sake of entertainment, it picked up a good bit at the end.
I thought Joe G. made a pretty risky decision passing that ball at the end as opposed to just getting fouled. If the pass is off target or Arizona somehow gets a clean block it'd have looked bad. But neither of those two things happened, obviously.
Was it bad basketball for the entire 40 minutes?
I don't think so.
Yes, they missed a lot of shots and it wasn't that fun to watch down the stretch. No argument there but if you want perfect basketball you're watching the wrong League.
I don't think so.
Yes, they missed a lot of shots and it wasn't that fun to watch down the stretch. No argument there but if you want perfect basketball you're watching the wrong League.
It was bad for a pretty decent stretch in the second half. To a point where I'm sure Arizona is going to watch that back and think they probably *shouldn't* have needlessly launched so many bricks that were not good looks. Either team could have asserted themselves in that time, but they played to a fugly stalemate.
ESPN/CBS pundits. The NCAA tourney is a one and done tourney were anything happens. It is really not a good barometer of the strength of a conference. Now a tourney before Thanksgiving which is also a one and done in front of 2200 fans in Hawaii is a true measurement of a conference.
Meh - keep in mind the OP is one of the board Eeyores and has been Pooh Poohing the ACC all year and can’t admit how foolish they now look, along with a few other board regulars…
From a team play perspective, Clemson looked like the early 80s Celtics compared to Zona. I have to admit I haven’t seen Zona play a game until tonight. If I had, my brackets would probably look a lot different.
Good for Clemson. They very much looked like the better team with the better coach.
Good for Clemson. They very much looked like the better team with the better coach.
After the ACCT I wondered how Clemson was still thought of as a 6 seed. They're proving me wrong. Rematch game ahead vs 'Bama
Same. Couple of really bad losses Dow the stretch. They obviously got their $hit together when it counts most.
Arizona played a terrible game. Just jacking up 3s all night, no ball movement, disorganized defensively, got beat to every loose ball.
Caleb Love is so selfish and lazy. He’s a disgrace.
THIS!!!!!!!!!!
I have said this before. How can you put no value on games played in sold-out arenas in mid-March to rate conference strength but put FULL value on games played in November in hotel ballrooms to determine conference strength when 75% of the teams are "new AAU teams" just learning how to play together. It makes no logical sense at all. Its ok to say that mid to late March basketball doesn't tell us anything about conference strength. But you cant ALSO say that November basketball tells us everything about conference strength.
Honestly, with the transfer portal now, they need to bring back the last 10-12-15 game metric. Pitt not making this tournament is an absolute crime. We were a legit 4-5-6 seed based on how we were playing. But we lost to Missouri in November when Jaland Lowe was still rying to figure out where his Psych class was so we couldn't go. November basketball means EVERYTHING. Which is why I say play the ACC games in November and play the all-importan non-con games in Jan/Feb when you know who you are.
Of the remaining teams one needs only to review the schedule that Alabama played this year. They played high-level teams throughout the OOC and regular season. Some wins; some losses. But that also helped them know who they were (then) and who they needed to be (now), provided they could win at a better than .500 percentage in their conference. I didn't know (until watching them play vs UNC) that they had 6 transfers this year. And both Sears and Nelson were mid-major kids (Ohio and ND State). They may have known where the Psych classes were held but they had never played together
I think that come next fall you will see the majority of the ACC teams kicking their OCC schedules up. At least I hope so (for Pitt, anyway).
Well, the 13 seed was a given for the first round; the 12 seed wasn't, and clearly that match between ALA and GCU was one of the more ugly games played this year. But my overall point is that you play tougher teams - and not just presumably tougher teams - to get battle-tested. The NCAA "season" is not like the NBA. You only get about 30 games to build your resume. I do "get" what SMF said about the final portion of the season/conference play. As many of the talking heads have said, Pitt was playing at a level equal to or greater than many of the teams that actually made the tournament. And yes, Pitt didn't know that WVU and Mizzou were going to finish their season so poorly. But 'Bama played Ohio State, Purdue, Clemson, and Indiana State, in addition to the SEC teams. We (Pitt) need to step up our OCC game/schedule.
Maybe. I guess I just don't know how much Nov/Dec scheduling matters in single-elimination basketball. I'm sure it doesn't hurt, and the team who wins it all will probably reference it often (even if 150 teams that didn't win it all did the same thing). It's such a quirky sport where anybody can beat anybody on a given night. The NCAAT is by far the cheapest (not in terms of what an individual team has to go through, but in determining the best team) crowning of a champion; it's just that it's so exciting that nobody wants to change it.
How true; I have always been one to say that matchups (good or bad) will generally come into play
That "Cinderella Story" atmosphere that the NCAA Men's Tournament gives us, year-in and year-out, is what draws so many viewers. And, honestly, there are so many good/nearly equal players spread out across scores of teams and conferences, that - as you say - on any given night an upset occurs. The Women's Tournament, OTOH, tends to be so much more chalky.
Going forward, I think that maybe the NCAA expands the Men's to 72 teams and has another set of play-in-games.
And the portal levels the playing field. There is just about 0 difference in talent between the 5th or 6th best team in the nation and the 50th. I mean we didnt make the tournament but we'd be pissed as hell if we lost to a 2 seed because we have a talent level that is fairly equal, if not better.
Similar threads
