2012-2013 College Basketball

[Tracy 2112]

Rooting for Syracuse but sort of would rather see Michigan play Louisville; I dunno

[ericm]

Rooting for Syracuse but sort of would rather see Michigan play Louisville; I dunno

Rooting for Cuse,and an all Big East final in their last year as a conference. Seems fitting, as it was a great BBall conference.

[capt. scotty]

Man, did Wichita St get jobbed by the refs in the 2nd half. Its like the president called the refs at halftime and said he wants Louisville to win for the Ware story. Quickest jumpball call Ive ever seen which essentially ended the game.

Hoping for a good game between Michigan-Cuse, hope whoever wins beats Louisville.

C'mon man! The refs were calling a tight game all night. This call was no different, and that being the quickest jump ball you've ever seen, seems a bit extreme, and an over reaction. Either that you haven't seen much BBall,and I don't think that is the case.

I thought WSU was getting the benefit of the whistles all night,and especially thought the game being called tight worked in their favor.  Anyone blaming the loss on this one call not going their way is just making an excuse, and I'm glad their coach and players haven't complained about it.

Oh, I dont totally blame the loss on the refs. Shockers did great against the press much of the game, and then folded at the end, so that didnt help their case and was probably the difference in the game. I give credit to Hancock and the other white Ville player that hit a couple 3s for showing up in the 2nd half, because no one else did.

I do think in the last 6-8 minutes almost all the calls went Louisville's way though. The jumpball call wasnt outlandish, but it was quick, and at that point in the game let them play IMO.

[LBSUNFLWR]

WOOHOO!!!!  CARDINALS WIN!!!

scary for a while there too. This town would have heartbroken. So glad they pulled through!! One more game!!!

[Tracy 2112]

Go ahead and give McGary the tournament MVP

One of the best Final 4's ever! A couple of low % 3 makes by Michigan, a couple of ?? calls for Michigan, and they move on. Both games could have gone either way. I really don't see any conference being a dominant power.

Looking forward to Monday, Go Cards!

[iLikeBeer]

Go ahead and give McGary the tournament MVP

One of the best Final 4's ever! A couple of low % 3 makes by Michigan, a couple of ?? calls for Michigan, and they move on. Both games could have gone either way. I really don't see any conference being a dominant power.

Looking forward to Monday, Go Cards!

Win and advance is all it's about this time of year.  I don't care how it happens!  You need a little luck this time of year and draining 3's from a different zip code is part of it.  Michigan also missed a few ft's that allowed Syracuse to even have a chance to get back in that game late so don't forget about that...

Michigan came out with a great gameplan and really attacked that vaunted Syracuse zone in the 1st half.  Credit to Syracuse for making things much more difficult for Michigan in the 2nd half, but the game was won for Michigan in that 1st half.

And lets not overlook turnovers.  That vaunted Syracuse zone only forced Michigan into 10 turnovers.  You can talk about lucky 3's and calls going Michigan's way but I would argue Michigan taking care of the basketball was a big reason they won this game!  Syracuse had been forcing more to's/game than they'd been allowing opposing fg's/game.  Not last night!  And also, how about giving the much maligned Michigan defense some credit!  They held Carter-Williams who was arguably one of the hottest players in the tournament to just TWO points and also held James Sutherland to just FIVE, 3 of which came on a 3-pointer in the last minute!  Yet another key to not turning the ball over vs. Syracuse is that it takes away their transition game and makes them have to try to score running a half court offense which they struggle with.

Oh, and I agree, if Michigan wins Monday McGary is hands down Tournament MVP!  If you would have told me before the game that Trey Burke would be held to 7 points and Nick Stauskus would put up a doughnut I would have asked you how bad Michigan lost!  But Mitch comes up with yet another double double and had 6 freaking assists to go with his stat line ( he had 18 assists ALL SEASON).

Can't wait for Monday!  It's great to be a Michigan Wolverine!

GO BLUE!!!

[ericm]

I know Burke had an off game, but if Cuse got ANY offense from Southerland, and Michael Carter Williams, they would've won.  Cuse's Defense did their part IMO, especially in the very early minutes,and then for pretty much the whole second half. They just missed so many shots. Had those guys combined for more than 7 points on 3-15 shooting, we'd have an all Big East final,IMO.  Hell even 6-15 would've done it. 

[Ruckus]

What is this woulda coulda shoulda?  I think it was clear for most of the game that Michigan was the better team.  Stauskas didn't contribute, Burke was awful, they couldn't hit free throws and made horrific turnovers at the end and they still won.  I mean what if CJ Fair didn't just go off for an incredible game.

Michigan beat the matchup zone the way it's supposed to be beat.  By hitting the offensive boards with active bodies going after every no block out 50/50 ball.  I'm so sick of hearing what a genius Boeheim is with his simple zone.  What makes it effective is the freak, quick, long athletes he recruits and the lack of experience that teams have against it.

I am thankful for Michigan as I've bet them each round and they've covered each round.  That tells me the public and Vegas continually underrate them.  They don't have a real superstar but four of their starters will be 1st round picks (McGary, Hardaway, Robinson, and Burke) and a great coach in Bielein yet every one picks against them. 

I'm cool if either team wins but give credit where credit is due.

I like Michigan +4 and think they will win outright.  They have done an extraordinary job adjusting to new defenses coming from the straight up man to man of the Big 10.  Having played VCU already will benefit them in their short preparation time for Louisville.

Michigan 73-Louisville 70

[ericm]

Well I guess my Big East rooting bias is showing. It seemed to me like the "vaunted" comment was a swipe at them, and I thought it was inaccurate. Their D was fine, and did what it needed to,but no question, Michigan did what they needed to also, and deserved the win.

I just feel that Cuse's offense cost them the game, and not their defense. I also didn't think Cuse's  poor offense was because of UM's defense, but rather their own inability to make open shots. Cuse's D did more than enough to win,and had their offense shown up, the game was there for the taking. Not meant as a swipe at UM, more a swipe at Cuse for not coming through on O.

[Tracy 2112]

Michigan beat the matchup zone the way it's supposed to be beat.  By hitting the offensive boards with active bodies going after every no block out 50/50 ball.  I'm so sick of hearing what a genius Boeheim is with his simple zone.  What makes it effective is the freak, quick, long athletes he recruits and the lack of experience that teams have against it.

If you want to call scoring 61 points "beating the zone" then go ahead; Syracuse averaged giving up 59 points a game this year, so they were right on schedule there. Michigan was held 14 points under their season average (with a little help from a couple of improbable 3's). I'd say the zone worked. It was Syracuse's inability to score (they averaged 70 a game) and/or Michigan's D that won the game.

The Syracuse zone IS that good. They held Indiana (the best team in the best conference ever) AND Marquette 29 points under their season averages. Boeheim haters will dismiss those numbers (and on what grounds other than emotion, I don't know) but in their last 3 tournament games against a 1,3, & 4, they averaged holding their opponents scoring 24 points below their season averages. Pretty amazing.

[iLikeBeer]

Well I guess my Big East rooting bias is showing. It seemed to me like the "vaunted" comment was a swipe at them, and I thought it was inaccurate. Their D was fine, and did what it needed to,but no question, Michigan did what they needed to also, and deserved the win.

I just feel that Cuse's offense cost them the game, and not their defense. I also didn't think Cuse's  poor offense was because of UM's defense, but rather their own inability to make open shots. Cuse's D did more than enough to win,and had their offense shown up, the game was there for the taking. Not meant as a swipe at UM, more a swipe at Cuse for not coming through on O.

I did use the term 'vaunted' as a swipe because like Ruckus said, I too am sick of hearing what a genius Boeheim is for running that 2-3 zone.  Like Ruckus said, its more about the athletes he recruits than it is about the defense he runs.  If it was such a great defense, why isn't he making NC runs year in and year out?

And why is it that you can't give some credit to Michigan's defense for the lack of production of Carter-Williams and Southerland.  Most of the shots those two were putting up were pretty contested from what I remember watching.  It wasn't all just about Cuse's inability to hit open shots.  Give some credit where credit is due.

Like I said in a post earlier, and as Ruckus pointed out above in reference to the oddsmakers, Michigan has been being doubted the entire tournament so far.  Hell, Jay Bilas had us losing to SDSU in the freaking opening round of the tournament.  Then it was going to be the havoc defense of VCU that would knock us off.  Then it was Kansas and Withey and their size being too much for us.  Then it was UF and their scoring defense.  Then it was the 'vaunted' 2-3 zone of Jim Boeheim and Syracuse.  Trey Burke said after the game last night that they've been hearing the doubters all season long and it's only been fueling them to prove everyone wrong.  Well, now it's on to Louisville who is yet another good defensive team I'm sure everyone and their mother will be picking to finally shut down the Michigan offense.  So far no one has succeeded (save for the 2nd half last night vs. Syracuse) so we shall see if Louisville can be the one to do it.  Due to all of the tests Michigan has already faced in their tournament run to date, I have my doubts if they can...

[iLikeBeer]

The Syracuse zone IS that good. They held Indiana (the best team in the best conference ever) AND Marquette 29 points under their season averages. Boeheim haters will dismiss those numbers (and on what grounds other than emotion, I don't know) but in their last 3 tournament games against a 1,3, & 4, they averaged holding their opponents scoring 24 points below their season averages. Pretty amazing.

Again, if the zone IS that good, why isn't Boeheim winning more NC's than he has?  The only championship he HAS won was because he had someone named Carmelo playing for him and not because of his 'vaunted' zone.  Was his zone good this year?  Yes it was, but it had more to do with him having the perfect mix of length and athleticism on his team than the scheme of the 2-3 zone...

[Tracy 2112]

The Syracuse zone IS that good. They held Indiana (the best team in the best conference ever) AND Marquette 29 points under their season averages. Boeheim haters will dismiss those numbers (and on what grounds other than emotion, I don't know) but in their last 3 tournament games against a 1,3, & 4, they averaged holding their opponents scoring 24 points below their season averages. Pretty amazing.

Again, if the zone IS that good, why isn't Boeheim winning more NC's than he has?  The only championship he HAS won was because he had someone named Carmelo playing for him and not because of his 'vaunted' zone.  Was his zone good this year?  Yes it was, but it had more to do with him having the perfect mix of length and athleticism on his team than the scheme of the 2-3 zone...

So, recruiting players that fit into your system is bad coaching? Not sure I follow your logic.

I do know, if you are recruiting for your D scheme, then scoring is going to suffer, that would explain the lack of NC's (and why they got 1 with Carmelo).

If you don't think holding 1,3, and 4 seeds to an average of 24 points below their season average is not a major accomplishment (and wow!) then I have to guess you're a Boeheim hater. Just look at the numbers. Or, Maybe Indiana, Marquette and Michigan all coincidentally had poor offensive showings against an overrated defense? 

[Tracy 2112]

Well I guess my Big East rooting bias is showing. It seemed to me like the "vaunted" comment was a swipe at them, and I thought it was inaccurate. Their D was fine, and did what it needed to,but no question, Michigan did what they needed to also, and deserved the win.

I just feel that Cuse's offense cost them the game, and not their defense. I also didn't think Cuse's  poor offense was because of UM's defense, but rather their own inability to make open shots. Cuse's D did more than enough to win,and had their offense shown up, the game was there for the taking. Not meant as a swipe at UM, more a swipe at Cuse for not coming through on O.

I did use the term 'vaunted' as a swipe because like Ruckus said, I too am sick of hearing what a genius Boeheim is for running that 2-3 zone.  Like Ruckus said, its more about the athletes he recruits than it is about the defense he runs.  If it was such a great defense, why isn't he making NC runs year in and year out?

And why is it that you can't give some credit to Michigan's defense for the lack of production of Carter-Williams and Southerland.  Most of the shots those two were putting up were pretty contested from what I remember watching.  It wasn't all just about Cuse's inability to hit open shots.  Give some credit where credit is due.

Like I said in a post earlier, and as Ruckus pointed out above in reference to the oddsmakers, Michigan has been being doubted the entire tournament so far.  Hell, Jay Bilas had us losing to SDSU in the freaking opening round of the tournament.  Then it was going to be the havoc defense of VCU that would knock us off.  Then it was Kansas and Withey and their size being too much for us.  Then it was UF and their scoring defense.  Then it was the 'vaunted' 2-3 zone of Jim Boeheim and Syracuse.  Trey Burke said after the game last night that they've been hearing the doubters all season long and it's only been fueling them to prove everyone wrong.  Well, now it's on to Louisville who is yet another good defensive team I'm sure everyone and their mother will be picking to finally shut down the Michigan offense.  So far no one has succeeded (save for the 2nd half last night vs. Syracuse and the first 36 minutes of the Kansas game) so we shall see if Louisville can be the one to do it.  Due to all of the tests Michigan has already faced in their tournament run to date, I have my doubts if they can...

I fixed your post up there  :happy:

[Tracy 2112]

we shall see if Louisville can be the one to do it.  Due to all of the tests Michigan has already faced in their tournament run to date, I have my doubts if they can...

In all seriousness, good luck tomorrow night! Michigan has definitely earned a right to be there and if they win it all, it won't be a fluke. I like your players and your coach is a stand up guy.

Go Cards!

[ericm]

Well I guess my Big East rooting bias is showing. It seemed to me like the "vaunted" comment was a swipe at them, and I thought it was inaccurate. Their D was fine, and did what it needed to,but no question, Michigan did what they needed to also, and deserved the win.

I just feel that Cuse's offense cost them the game, and not their defense. I also didn't think Cuse's  poor offense was because of UM's defense, but rather their own inability to make open shots. Cuse's D did more than enough to win,and had their offense shown up, the game was there for the taking. Not meant as a swipe at UM, more a swipe at Cuse for not coming through on O.

I did use the term 'vaunted' as a swipe because like Ruckus said, I too am sick of hearing what a genius Boeheim is for running that 2-3 zone.  Like Ruckus said, its more about the athletes he recruits than it is about the defense he runs.  If it was such a great defense, why isn't he making NC runs year in and year out?

And why is it that you can't give some credit to Michigan's defense for the lack of production of Carter-Williams and Southerland.  Most of the shots those two were putting up were pretty contested from what I remember watching.  It wasn't all just about Cuse's inability to hit open shots.  Give some credit where credit is due.

Like I said in a post earlier, and as Ruckus pointed out above in reference to the oddsmakers, Michigan has been being doubted the entire tournament so far.  Hell, Jay Bilas had us losing to SDSU in the freaking opening round of the tournament.  Then it was going to be the havoc defense of VCU that would knock us off.  Then it was Kansas and Withey and their size being too much for us.  Then it was UF and their scoring defense.  Then it was the 'vaunted' 2-3 zone of Jim Boeheim and Syracuse.  Trey Burke said after the game last night that they've been hearing the doubters all season long and it's only been fueling them to prove everyone wrong.  Well, now it's on to Louisville who is yet another good defensive team I'm sure everyone and their mother will be picking to finally shut down the Michigan offense.  So far no one has succeeded (save for the 2nd half last night vs. Syracuse) so we shall see if Louisville can be the one to do it.  Due to all of the tests Michigan has already faced in their tournament run to date, I have my doubts if they can...

I didn't give UM's D credit because I didn't think the were the reason for Southerland,and MCW missing shots. We must have a different view of contested because Southerland especially was missing some wide open shots all game.

UM was great on the boards, and that combined with McGary's great play,and Cuse's inept offense were the difference in the game,IMO.

[Ruckus]

Michigan beat the matchup zone the way it's supposed to be beat.  By hitting the offensive boards with active bodies going after every no block out 50/50 ball.  I'm so sick of hearing what a genius Boeheim is with his simple zone.  What makes it effective is the freak, quick, long athletes he recruits and the lack of experience that teams have against it.

If you want to call scoring 61 points "beating the zone" then go ahead; Syracuse averaged giving up 59 points a game this year, so they were right on schedule there. Michigan was held 14 points under their season average (with a little help from a couple of improbable 3's). I'd say the zone worked. It was Syracuse's inability to score (they averaged 70 a game) and/or Michigan's D that won the game.

The Syracuse zone IS that good. They held Indiana (the best team in the best conference ever) AND Marquette 29 points under their season averages. Boeheim haters will dismiss those numbers (and on what grounds other than emotion, I don't know) but in their last 3 tournament games against a 1,3, & 4, they averaged holding their opponents scoring 24 points below their season averages. Pretty amazing.

Holding teams below their season average as a stat is irrelevant and outdated.  Offensive efficiency and points per possession are what is relevant.  Admittedly, the zone was effective by itself but it has to be examined in the context of the entire game.  It forces teams to be patient thus shortening the game and lowering total possessions.  Additionally, it allows for offensive rebounds for garbage points to make up for the difficulty of executing on the first shot against the zone.  Plus it takes away from any offensive rhythm that Syracuse could establish by making the game so plodding ala Wisconsin.  You don't think the freakish talents of the likes of Fair and Carter Williams couldn't be better exploited in an open, up and down game with more push, drive and kick or pick and pop sets?  You see the inconsistency of Syracuse teams on the offensive end in the half court on a regular basis and some of it has to be attributed to the lack of offensive rhythm as a result of their defensive style. 

Of course recruiting for your system is good coaching but that doesn't change the fact that I can coach that defense no problem.  Just as with John Chaney in Temple, the 2-3 matchup has been effective because it is rare but Chaney's team also struggled to score at times.  Yes it helps to get a Carmelo Anthony.

[Tracy 2112]

Michigan beat the matchup zone the way it's supposed to be beat.  By hitting the offensive boards with active bodies going after every no block out 50/50 ball.  I'm so sick of hearing what a genius Boeheim is with his simple zone.  What makes it effective is the freak, quick, long athletes he recruits and the lack of experience that teams have against it.

If you want to call scoring 61 points "beating the zone" then go ahead; Syracuse averaged giving up 59 points a game this year, so they were right on schedule there. Michigan was held 14 points under their season average (with a little help from a couple of improbable 3's). I'd say the zone worked. It was Syracuse's inability to score (they averaged 70 a game) and/or Michigan's D that won the game.

The Syracuse zone IS that good. They held Indiana (the best team in the best conference ever) AND Marquette 29 points under their season averages. Boeheim haters will dismiss those numbers (and on what grounds other than emotion, I don't know) but in their last 3 tournament games against a 1,3, & 4, they averaged holding their opponents scoring 24 points below their season averages. Pretty amazing.

Holding teams below their season average as a stat is irrelevant and outdated.  Offensive efficiency and points per possession are what is relevant.  Admittedly, the zone was effective by itself but it has to be examined in the context of the entire game.  It forces teams to be patient thus shortening the game and lowering total possessions.  Additionally, it allows for offensive rebounds for garbage points to make up for the difficulty of executing on the first shot against the zone.  Plus it takes away from any offensive rhythm that Syracuse could establish by making the game so plodding ala Wisconsin.  You don't think the freakish talents of the likes of Fair and Carter Williams couldn't be better exploited in an open, up and down game with more push, drive and kick or pick and pop sets?  You see the inconsistency of Syracuse teams on the offensive end in the half court on a regular basis and some of it has to be attributed to the lack of offensive rhythm as a result of their defensive style. 

Of course recruiting for your system is good coaching but that doesn't change the fact that I can coach that defense no problem.  Just as with John Chaney in Temple, the 2-3 matchup has been effective because it is rare but Chaney's team also struggled to score at times.  Yes it helps to get a Carmelo Anthony.

I disagree that holding consecutive opponents 29 points under their season average is an irrelevant and outdated stat. Lack of offensive efficiency and points per possession equates to scoring 29 points less than your seasonal average...you're getting into chicken or egg world here. I am going to guess you're a Boeheim hater, too. So be it.

Why is it so hard to admit Boeheim is a great coach and Syracuse has a fucking awesome zone D? It's no mystery some people hate him, but don't let it cloud your discernment of the numbers.

[Ruckus]

Michigan beat the matchup zone the way it's supposed to be beat.  By hitting the offensive boards with active bodies going after every no block out 50/50 ball.  I'm so sick of hearing what a genius Boeheim is with his simple zone.  What makes it effective is the freak, quick, long athletes he recruits and the lack of experience that teams have against it.

If you want to call scoring 61 points "beating the zone" then go ahead; Syracuse averaged giving up 59 points a game this year, so they were right on schedule there. Michigan was held 14 points under their season average (with a little help from a couple of improbable 3's). I'd say the zone worked. It was Syracuse's inability to score (they averaged 70 a game) and/or Michigan's D that won the game.

The Syracuse zone IS that good. They held Indiana (the best team in the best conference ever) AND Marquette 29 points under their season averages. Boeheim haters will dismiss those numbers (and on what grounds other than emotion, I don't know) but in their last 3 tournament games against a 1,3, & 4, they averaged holding their opponents scoring 24 points below their season averages. Pretty amazing.

Holding teams below their season average as a stat is irrelevant and outdated.  Offensive efficiency and points per possession are what is relevant.  Admittedly, the zone was effective by itself but it has to be examined in the context of the entire game.  It forces teams to be patient thus shortening the game and lowering total possessions.  Additionally, it allows for offensive rebounds for garbage points to make up for the difficulty of executing on the first shot against the zone.  Plus it takes away from any offensive rhythm that Syracuse could establish by making the game so plodding ala Wisconsin.  You don't think the freakish talents of the likes of Fair and Carter Williams couldn't be better exploited in an open, up and down game with more push, drive and kick or pick and pop sets?  You see the inconsistency of Syracuse teams on the offensive end in the half court on a regular basis and some of it has to be attributed to the lack of offensive rhythm as a result of their defensive style. 

Of course recruiting for your system is good coaching but that doesn't change the fact that I can coach that defense no problem.  Just as with John Chaney in Temple, the 2-3 matchup has been effective because it is rare but Chaney's team also struggled to score at times.  Yes it helps to get a Carmelo Anthony.

I disagree that holding consecutive opponents 29 points under their season average is an irrelevant and outdated stat. Lack of offensive efficiency and points per possession equates to scoring 29 points less than your seasonal average...you're getting into chicken or egg world here. I am going to guess you're a Boeheim hater, too. So be it.

Why is it so hard to admit Boeheim is a great coach and Syracuse has a fucking awesome zone D? It's no mystery some people hate him, but don't let it cloud your discernment of the numbers.

I think he is a great college coach.  His amazing resume speaks for itself and Syracuse is arguably a national Top 7 program in prestige following Kansas, Kentucky, Indiana, Duke, UNC and UCLA and that's all because of Boeheim.  I think Jaimoe would be the first to admit though that they have underperformed relative to the blue chip talent they have consistently gotten over the last 30 years.

Doesn't change the fact that it's a fucking zone D and I'm not impressed by his coaching tactics.  I do believe he is a phenomenal recruiter.

[Tracy 2112]

Melissa McCarthy hosted Saturday Night Live this week and nailed a skit in which the show made fun of the scandal that led to Rutgers basketball coach Mike Rice being fired and athletic director Tim Pernetti resigning.
McCarthy played tyrannical coach Sheila Kelly at fictional Middle Delaware State who has somehow managed to keep her job for three years with a 3-81 record. Enjoy.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the-dagger/snl-spoofs-rutgers-basketball-scandal-hilarious-melissa-mccarthy-201507378--ncaab.html