The top three seeds in the BE got beat this week.
How could that happen?
The sky is falling, the sky is falling.
Can't wait till next week!
Go Warriors!!!!!!!!
ARRRRRRRRRRH!
Oh, by the way, ND sucks. Did I mention, ND sucks?
Louisville will be the favorite "team we don't want to play."
ND got their doors blown off.
Louisville simply owns us, and Buzz.
UL loves playing us as much as we love playing DePaul.
Last 13 games:
UL vs. MU - MU with 3 wins (3-10)
MU vs. DePaul - DePaul with 4 wins (4-9)
Damn. UL loves playing us MORE than we love playing DePaul.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on March 10, 2012, 08:16:39 AM
Louisville simply owns us, and Buzz.
UL loves playing us as much as we love playing DePaul.
Last 13 games:
UL vs. MU - MU with 3 wins (3-10)
MU vs. DePaul - DePaul with 4 wins (4-9)
Damn. UL loves playing us MORE than we love playing DePaul.
Given the relative strength of the teams over the last several years, our performance against L'ville is way worse than DePaul's against us.
"louisville does a better job of being us that we do of being us."
As much as I dislike Pitino, I like UL's style of play... when we beat them earlier this year, their depth was depleted by injury and they couldn't press us much. Now we are seeing the true L'ville team. Just last night, I turn it on and ND is up 15-9. Eighteen seconds later, it's 15-15.
There is a reason Pitino is a legend. He has some important, athletic pieces back. He is using them like a hall of fame coach. MU stunk on Thursday night, but at some point, you have to give Pitino/L'ville and Cronin/Cinci props for putting together a couple of nice runs.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on March 10, 2012, 08:16:39 AM
Louisville simply owns us, and Buzz.
UL loves playing us as much as we love playing DePaul.
Last 13 games:
UL vs. MU - MU with 3 wins (3-10)
MU vs. DePaul - DePaul with 4 wins (4-9)
Damn. UL loves playing us MORE than we love playing DePaul.
Louisville and Pitino are 4-2 against MU and Buzz. We've routed each pther twice and they've beaten us by 1 and 4 (just after James got hurt). Don't think you can classify that as an "own".
Crean was 1-6 in his last 7 vs Pitino - you've got something there.
You are correct, sir. Losses by a mere point or two don't really count as full losses.
Heck, when we only lose by a couple points, it's really almost as good as a win.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on March 10, 2012, 10:54:57 AM
You are correct, sir. Losses by a mere point or two don't really count as full losses.
Heck, when we only lose by a couple points, it's really almost as good as a win.
Your use of the phrase "owns us and Buzz" were what he is responding to, not whether they were losses or not. You feel that is owning, fine. But you would likely hold a narrow definition of that term.
A "narrow definition" is using wins and losses? I'm sorry, I didn't know being "owned" was judged by other categories.
Curious, what do you guys use? FG%? Who wins the rebounding battle?
I can't wait to feel better about our 3-10 record.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on March 10, 2012, 11:32:23 AM
A "narrow definition" is using wins and losses? I'm sorry, I didn't know being "owned" was judged by other categories.
Curious, what do you guys use? FG%? Who wins the rebounding battle?
I can't wait to feel better about our 3-10 record.
O k, one last time and then I will let you on with your rant.
Owned is not a one, two point loss. To you, yes. But your definition means nothing to me, quite honestly. Owned would be the consistent games like Thursday.
But, your post, your definition and your snarky responses to anyone who disagree's. Good day to you.
I apologize for the snark.
I'm truly surprised that others wouldn't view a period of 13 games where one team wins 77% of time as an owning.
So, and I'm not trying to be snarky here .. if MU were to beat DePaul 20 times in a row, but only by 1 point .. you would NOT say we "owned" DePaul over that period?
I would agree, that if you look at one game, and team X was beaten by team Y by a point, they were not "owned."
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on March 10, 2012, 12:01:26 PM
I apologize for the snark.
I'm truly surprised that others wouldn't view a period of 13 games where one team wins 77% of time as an owning.
So, and I'm not trying to be snarky here .. if MU were to beat DePaul 20 times in a row, but only by 1 point .. you would NOT say we "owned" DePaul over that period?
I would agree, that if you look at one game, and team X was beaten by team Y by a point, they were not "owned."
One more time. You say that Louisville owns us and owns Buzz. As proof for this you offer the fact that they've beaten us 10 of the last 13. I agree that 10 of 13 constitutes "owning", but Buzz wasn't the coach for 7 of those games and 6 of those losses. If you think a 2-4 record constitutes being "owned" fine. I disagree.
Gotcha, and I'd agree .. heck, had Thursday's game gone differently, it'd be 3-3 under Buzz.
Ok, I hereby rescind my UL owns Buzz statement. If it's 2-5 next year, different story, we'll revisit.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on March 10, 2012, 12:46:15 PM
Gotcha, and I'd agree .. heck, had Thursday's game gone differently, it'd be 3-3 under Buzz.
Ok, I hereby rescind my UL owns Buzz statement. If it's 2-5 next year, different story, we'll revisit.
Fair enough.
Quote from: real chili 83 on March 09, 2012, 10:42:54 PM
The top three seeds in the BE got beat this week.
How could that happen?
The sky is falling, the sky is falling.
Can't wait till next week!
Go Warriors!!!!!!!!
ARRRRRRRRRRH!
Add to this the losses by UNC and You Kaaaay. Next week is when it really counts.
By the way, I really hope USF makes the tourney. They deserve it.
Oh, by the way, ND sucks. Did I mention, ND sucks?
Quote from: real chili 83 on March 11, 2012, 02:13:05 PM
+1... so funny how that was the post that started this thread as a joke, then it actually happened.
Edit: Was trying to quote the post directly above.