Please remind me to never fall into the Pitt and UL hype

[mviale]

These guys choke every year - I dont care how much talent these teams have, they definitely have crunch time issues.  At Least MU had legitimate excuse this year with the loss of their PG.

[VegasWarrior77]

As an alum I obviously hope he pans out but I'm really concerned that Junior is compared to Fields at Pitt.  He and MO are our "QBs" next year.

[chapman]

I don't find "we lost our point guard" to be a legitimate excuse to choking away five games.  I'd also take a lot of hype and an elite eight "choke" as opposed to being lucky to win one tournament game.

[MilWarrior]

I don't know why there would be any objection to Junior being the next Levance Fields. Did you see him single-handedly win the Xavier game? A very clutch player.

[gjreda]

As an alum I obviously hope he pans out but I'm really concerned that Junior is compared to Fields at Pitt.  He and MO are our "QBs" next year.

Yea, I'd never want a PG who averages 7.5 assists and has a 3.8 A/TO ratio.

[wermarquette]

As an alum I obviously hope he pans out but I'm really concerned that Junior is compared to Fields at Pitt.  He and MO are our "QBs" next year.

Are you crazy? Fields is great

[Norm]

Yeah, Fields is pretty good - and a clutch shooter. I thought he was compared more to Khalid El-Amin from UConn though.

[Tom Crean's Tanning Bed]

Fields consistently delivered in crunch time for Pitt.  If Junior can have a career like Fields' at MU, I will consider it to be an overwhelming success. 

[bamamarquettefan]

My gosh, was Fields the best assist to turnover man in the country?  I know he was for a big stretch of Big East play.  What more could he possibly have done in the Xavier and Nova games?  Down to the end, the incredible job he did drawing the foul to hit the tying free throws.  My gosh, he actually almost put in that 70-footer at the end of the game.  I am a huge Dominic James fan, and wouldn't have trading the excitement of watching him play for anything, but Fields is the only PG in the Big East that was more important to his teams success than DJ.

Yeah, a strong guy scoring a layup isn't as exciting as Dominic throwing down a ridiculous alley-oop, but the man could flat out play.

As for overestimating Lville, I knew they weren't going Final Four before the tournament started.  Way too sloppy, and no way they would have beaten us at Lville if DJ had been healthy.  I'll always root Big East, but they were going to go down in one of their four games.

[willie warrior]

If Mo is our QB next year or half a QB as the post suggests, we are in for a world of hurt. He is not a BEAST PG. He is too small, can't play D, cannot penetrate, and cannot shoot.

As much as I hate Louisville and Pitino, they had a great year--winning both ends bof the BEAST and making the Elite 8. I am glad they did not make the final 4--I had MSU in that bracket.

[Joe Thompson]

These guys choke every year - I dont care how much talent these teams have, they definitely have crunch time issues.  At Least MU had legitimate excuse this year with the loss of their PG.

So, when you say Louisville chokes every year I imagine there is a valid reason for excluding their 2005 Final Four berth they clinched by beating West Virginia in crunch time?

[MUUSC]

Choke?  Since when is finishing in the Elite 8 a choke?

[ecompt]

I don't either Pitt of Lville choked. Villanova was playing great ball in the tournament and won with a last-second shot. Lville took advantage of a relatively easy BE schedule and went as far as it could, considering a complete lack of discipline. 

[79Warrior]

These guys choke every year - I dont care how much talent these teams have, they definitely have crunch time issues.  At Least MU had legitimate excuse this year with the loss of their PG.


/quote]

Yeah, What a bummer. Losing in the Elite 8. give me a break.

[CTWarrior]

Up until this year, I always had Pitt losing earlier than their seed would indicate.  In the tournament, I like teams that can score the ball if stuck in a half court game.  Pitt traditionally did not fit that bill, but this year with Fields, Young and Blair as the leads of a balanced attack they could really score in the half court so for the first time I had them going to the Final Four.  I did not like Louisville's half court offense so I didn't have them advancing far.  So I was half right this year on them, and screwed up enough elsewhere to not be a factor in the pools I was in.

I'm starting to think Pitt is like those old Gene Keady Purdue teams that would do so great in the regular season but not so well in the NCAAs.  My theory then, and I think it applies to Pitt, is that they play the season in max intensity top gear and don't have another level to go to when the tournament starts.  In the tournament when other teams know it is win or go home, they match Pitt's intensity and it becomes talent vs. talent, and Pitt isn't as talented as a team with regular season resume might indicate.  Not a slam at all on Dixon or Keady, both of Whom who I think get the most out of their teams.

[Marquette84]

These guys [Pitt and UL] choke every year - I dont care how much talent these teams have, they definitely have crunch time issues.  At Least MU had legitimate excuse this year with the loss of their PG.

I wonder where these "always choke" comments come from?

#1 seeds should make the final four
#1 and 2 seeds should make the Elite eight
The top 4 seeds should make the Sweet 16.
etc.

As #1 seeds, UL and Pitt SHOULD have made the final four.  That is THIS year.  I think we need to look back over a few years to see if the "always choke" comment has merit.

Pittsburgh:
2002:  Pitt is a 3 seed, made the Sweet 16.  Played to seed
2003:  Pitt is a 2 seed, made the Sweet 16.  Underachieved by one round.
2004:  Pitt is a 3 seed, made the Elite Eight.  Overachieved by one round
2005:  Pitt is a 9 seed, lost 1st round game.  Played to seed
2006:  Pitt is a 5 seed, lost in 2nd round.  Played to seed
2007:  Pitt is a 3 seed, made sweet 16.  Played to seed
2008:  Pitt is a 4 seed, made Sweet 16.  Played to seed.
2009:  Pitt is a 1 seed, made Elite Eight.  Underacheived by one round.


Louisville is less consistent--with two NITs in the last eight years.  Still, of six NCAA tournaments, they overachived in two of them, underachieved in two, and played to seed in two.  That's hardly the definition of "always choking"

2003:  UL is a 4 seed, lost in 2nd round.  Underachieved by one round
2004:  UL is a 10 seed, lost in 1st round.  Played to seed.
2005:  UL is a 4 seed, made final four.  Overachieved by two rounds.
2007.  UL is a 6 seed, lost in 2nd round.  Played to seed
2008:  UL is a 3 seed, made elite eight.  Overachieved by one round
2009:  UL is a 1 seed, made elite eight.  Underachived by one round.

Now, perhaps one feels that UL and Pitt are typically jobbed when it comes to NCAA tournament seeding, therefore underachiving what some think they SHOULD have received.  For example, UL received a 3 seed last year.  Perhaps some thought they deserved a #1, therefore an elite eight would be underperforming.  But for a #3 seed to make the elite eight, it's not a choke--it's actually overperforming their seed.  Losing in the first round when you're a 9 or 10 is not a choke--it's performing to expectations.

I don't see Pitt and UL as perennial chokers.