MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: CTWarrior on March 19, 2013, 07:27:30 AM
-
No. 14 Davidson over No. 3 Marquette
The feeling coming out of the Big East tournament is that after Louisville, there's a long drop in the caliber of the top teams in the league. Marquette coach Buzz Williams squeezed what he could out of this team, but after looking lifeless against Notre Dame in New York it's reasonable to surmise the Golden Eagles won't make a long run. Away from the Bradley Center, Marquette has been mediocre. Davidson has NCAA tournament experience, an elite coach in Bob McKillop and two stars in Jake Cohen and De'Mon Brooks who are capable of a Steph Curry-type game. With Marquette not a long-term threat, this is a worthy upset play for your pool.
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/-college-basketball-mens-tournament/news/20130318/ncaa-tournament-upsets/#ixzz2NzJfD0cc
-
Oh man, unlike Davidson, MU doesn't have NCAA Experience or an "elite" coach.
-
Oh man, unlike Davidson, MU doesn't have NCAA Experience or an "elite" coach.
Man, first we had to fight off the "legendary" Stew Morrill, now the "elite" Bob McKillop.
Honestly if you google up pre-game articles from BYU last year, they were saying much of the same things.
-
Different year. Same crap. I'm done commenting on this garbage.
Clearly, MU doesn't have a chance on Thursday.
-
I think I am going to take my afternoon off, get drunk and watch soap operas instead.
-
From the same Pete Thamel that wants to Bludgeon the C7 before the new Big East even starts. The same Pete Thamel that brought us the infamous Manti Teo story.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1206734/index.htm?eref=sisf
-
Motivation. diss us some more.
-
They have to write about something (or simply find and replace). It took me about 2 minutes to find the following from last year. Not only is it essentially the same people writing the same articles, they're writing them about the same teams...
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1100166-ncaa-bracket-2012-most-likely-cinderellas-of-march-madness (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1100166-ncaa-bracket-2012-most-likely-cinderellas-of-march-madness)
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/page/tcmen12seedsupsets/belmont-davidson-long-beach-state-poised-pull-ncaa-tournament-upsets-year-upset-brackets (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/page/tcmen12seedsupsets/belmont-davidson-long-beach-state-poised-pull-ncaa-tournament-upsets-year-upset-brackets)
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/blog/eye-on-college-basketball/17789313/our-team-of-writers-pick-the-four-most-likely-upsets-of-the-round-of-64 (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/blog/eye-on-college-basketball/17789313/our-team-of-writers-pick-the-four-most-likely-upsets-of-the-round-of-64)
I'm sure Davidson has a nice team (as does Belmont, Bucknell, etc.), and they have a reasonable chance of winning on Thursday, but none of it means a damn thing. Here's all the analysis that is necessary, Marquette is either going to win, or they're going got lose. That's it. Seeds, sites, conference tournaments...none of that matters anymore. These games will come down to who has the better team, and/or who has the better day. upsets make the tournament exciting and interesting, and people are going to write about it...and write about it, and write about it.
-
but they have the nations longest win streak (17 games) against the powers of Elon, Wofford, Furman and the Citadel...
be very scared...
-
What did SI say that wasn't true?
-
(http://icanhasinternets.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/haters14.jpg)
-
So there is this 'thing' called the SI Cover curse.....but in this case MU is on the cover as a 'upset' victim.....so would that then create a double negative thereby negating the SI "curse"......here's hoping
-
If you're Davidson do you like all this attention?
I know at the end of the day they're still the 14 seed, but it almost seems like there's just a little bit of pressure or expectations on them with all the attention they're getting.
-
put all of it on the bulletin board. buzz is way more successful when his teams play with a chip. i'm fine with all of it if it lights a fire under the team.
-
If you're Davidson do you like all this attention?
I know at the end of the day they're still the 14 seed, but it almost seems like there's just a little bit of pressure or expectations on them with all the attention they're getting.
I would guess there is as much impact on them from all this (positive or negative) as there is on Marquette...little or none.
-
What did SI say that wasn't true?
I *highly* doubt that their stars are Steph Curry-esque, for example. If they were, Davidson wouldn't have had 6 non-conference losses.
On that note, their "stars" shoot 39 and 20 percent respectively from 3. Anyone know what Curry shot from downtown his final year at Davidson?
Also:
"Davidson has NCAA tournament experience"
Yeah, ONE game last year. While not untrue, it is somewhat misleading to the average reader who may think that they're perennially good.
-
Man, first we had to fight off the "legendary" Stew Morrill, now the "elite" Bob McKillop.
Honestly if you google up pre-game articles from BYU last year, they were saying much of the same things.
BYU was the first team I thought of when they announced Davidson as the opponent. MU should be very familiar with this type of first round "threat".
Should also mention that these media "experts" point to MU's lifeless performance in the Garden as an indicator they'll be upset without including that MU has reached the Sweet Sixteen the last two years after complete flameouts in the Garden.
-
I *highly* doubt that their stars are Steph Curry-esque, for example. If they were, Davidson wouldn't have had 6 non-conference losses.
On that note, their "stars" shoot 39 and 20 percent respectively from 3. Anyone know what Curry shot from downtown his final year at Davidson?
Also:
"Davidson has NCAA tournament experience"
Yeah, ONE game last year. While not untrue, it is somewhat misleading to the average reader who may think that they're perennially good.
In '08, when they made the Elite 8 run, Curry shot 43.9% from 3 and averaged 26 pts a game. His percentages dipped his senior year after the talent around him decreased a bit. On this year's Davidson team, their best 3 point shooter by percentage, Cohen, shoots 38.7%, but on less than 3 attempts per game. To compare, Curry took 369 3 pointers in '08 in 36 games... or OVER 10 TIMES A FREAKING GAME; still making it at a higher than 40% clip. No one on their current roster touches the level of talent that Curry had. It's easy to say that someone has the potential to get hot; anyone has the potential to get hot. But its not accurate to compare their current shooters to one of the best 3 point threats since the 3 pointer became a thing.
For an MU point of reference, in Novak's senior year, he shot 46.7% from 3, and averaged 17.5 on a little over 8 3's a game.
-
BYU was the first team I thought of when they announced Davidson as the opponent. MU should be very familiar with this type of first round "threat".
Should also mention that these media "experts" point to MU's lifeless performance in the Garden as an indicator they'll be upset without including that MU has reached the Sweet Sixteen the last two years after complete flameouts in the Garden.
Lazy journalism... welcome to America.
-
What did SI say that wasn't true?
I'll start here:
"two stars in Jake Cohen and De'Mon Brooks who are capable of a Steph Curry-type game"
-
Man, first we had to fight off the "legendary" Stew Morrill, now the "elite" Bob McKillop.
Honestly if you google up pre-game articles from BYU last year, they were saying much of the same things.
I'm hoping we perform a little better against McKillop than Morrill. We won that game by 1 point...I'd like a bit more breathing room.
-
I'll start here:
"two stars in Jake Cohen and De'Mon Brooks who are capable of a Steph Curry-type game"
Not to mention that Curry is an NBA player that averages 22 ppg. I don't think either Cohen or Brooks are quite at that level. I wish they would just stop the hyperbole. They very well could beat MU, but it won't be because either of these players goes off for a Curry-like performance.
-
But its not accurate to compare their current shooters to one of the best 3 point threats since the 3 pointer became a thing.
Exactly my point, which is why I was curious about Steph's last year at Davidson. Can't be capable of a "Steph Curry-type game" if you don't shoot the long ball.
-
I'm hoping we perform a little better against McKillop than Morrill. We won that game by 1 point...I'd like a bit more breathing room.
Only because The Legend couldn't drag his good-hearted traditionals across the finish line. Coaching can only take you so far.
-
What did SI say that wasn't true?
Not necessarily what's true/untrue, more that the summary is full of baseless conjecture and innuendo. "It's reasonable to surmise?" That's a euphemism for "take my word for it." What's left out is any attempt to examine Marquette's recent tournament experience; meanwhile, he takes significant liberty by calling McKillop "elite," and playing up Davidson's "experience."
-
Only because the legend couldn't drag his good-hearted traditionals across the finish line. Coaching can only take you so far.
Players play. We got damn lucky that game, especially at the end, but I'll take it. Down 6 with 4 minutes to play, it was chewing nails time.
-
Players play. We got damn lucky that game, especially at the end, but I'll take it. Down 6 with 4 minutes to play, it was chewing nails time.
I know...by only the Grace of God did we manage to pull that one away!!!
-
Players play. We got damn lucky that game, especially at the end, but I'll take it. Down 6 with 4 minutes to play, it was chewing nails time.
Why was MU lucky?
What occurred during that game that convinces you the result was "luck," as opposed to simply the better team finding a way to win on a day its two best players - Matthews and McNeal - were way off, combining to shoot 6-for-26?
If anyone was lucky, it seems, it was the Aggies. Matthews and McNeal play their normal games that day and it's not close.
-
Why was MU lucky?
What occurred during that game that convinces you the result was "luck," as opposed to simply the better team finding a way to win on a day its two best players - Matthews and McNeal - were way off, combining to shoot 6-for-26?
If anyone was lucky, it seems, it was the Aggies. Matthews and McNeal play their normal games that day and it's not close.
USU went cold in the last 4 minutes. They had big MO, up by 6 points with about 4 minutes to go. They didn't score again until under 30 seconds. They missed one wide open three and another contested one. Maybe fortunate is a better word. MU, to your point, clearly the better team and better players. On that particular day, however, we dodged a bullet. Credit to us for pulling it out....it was nervous time, just like the Holy Cross game.