Their players stood around like statues--there was no movement on offense.Zona did not score a point for the 4:45 of that game.
No, it was UCLA they beat in 1996. It was a 13-seed over a 4-seed.Didn't Princeton beat Georgetown as a #15 seed back in the 90s? Maybe they are the 1st team to win as a #15 seed twice?![]()
That was nearly the upset of all time. Princeton had the ball for the last play against the Alonzo Mourning’s Hoyas and never got a shot off.No, it was UCLA they beat in 1996. It was a 13-seed over a 4-seed.
They once were a #16 seed that lost 50-49 to #1 seed Georgetown (1989)
Man…I just looked at the play by play, didn’t watch. But what you say sounds right because they only took jump shots over that span.Their players stood around like statues--there was no movement on offense.
I knew they won before as a low seed to a blue blood type high seed.No, it was UCLA they beat in 1996. It was a 13-seed over a 4-seed.
They once were a #16 seed that lost 50-49 to #1 seed Georgetown (1989)
It does none of that, actually. But hey, keep typing.Just goes to prove once again that all of this NET garbage and computer models with quad this and quad that are just not reliable indicators of how far a team will advance in the tournament, or if they even deserve to be there. The computers don't take into account human nature, desire and guts. Or plain smarts. I'm so sick and tired of hearing about these quad whatevers and NET's. The sooner they get rid of them, the better.
This is a game played by human beings, not computers. If you want the computer models, make some android robots and let them play the games.
No, doesn't PROVE that, but these NET and computer models are pretty much BS.It does none of that, actually. But hey, keep typing.
It does none of that, actually. But hey, keep typing.
It does none of that, actually. But hey, keep typing.