St John's thoughts

[forgetful]

I'm sure there are many feelings you can't shake...that's on you. 

Nothing I said was inaccurate about that finish in regulation, absolutely NOTHING.  If MU had won, Buzz would have said we were lucky....just as he has in the past.  OK for Buzz to say, not ok for an objective fan to say it.

Go figure.   There is nothing trollish at all about what I said, its just you don't have the ability to separate reality from fandom.  Some of us do.  It's ok, many fans can't do it.  They feel anything that leads to a win is 100% because of their team, and anything that leads to a loss is because the refs jobbed them or something else. 

Chico's your tone on issues like this do come off as trollish, I personally don't think that is the intention as you are incredibly consistent on these issues whether for or against MU.

I do have an issue though with the term lucky.  On the key inbounds play, MU played superb defense to deny the ball to any player putting the person inbounding the ball into a crisis.  Through it away,  (call timeout if possible) or try to throw it off the defender.  He chose the latter.  Reality in that case is great defense by MU, not fandom, not St. John's screwing up.  We were lucky that the ball stayed in bounds and ended up in Derricks hands, but it was set up by a great defensive stop. 

Also in regards to officials.  In many cases you are correct the officials do not decide the game, what you fail to acknowledge though and then defy your supposedly rational left brain approach to separating reality from fandom is sometimes the officials do decide the outcome of the game.  Life is not left brain or right brain, black or white it is always a gradient. 

I do feel that a rational analysis of the end of the game will reveal far more no calls against St. Johns that did impact the final score in this case against us.  Examples.

Baseline drive with Jamil in position offensive player pushes off on a step back.  Foul called on Jamil, should be a no call or offensive foul...significant impact on outcome.

Baseline drive by St. John's.  Player hooks defender and takes too many steps...scores 2 points.  Missed calls...offensive foul for hooking defender, travel.  Again significant impact.

Last play in OT, Mayo is fouled twice (first blocking foul, then a reach that caused a TO) and the St. John's player travels with 2 s left all no calls.  Again significant impact on the outcome.

Not all calls are created equal, sometimes mistakes don't balance out and in a 2-OT game, one unbalanced call does decide the outcome.

[Lennys Tap]

Sentence one = correct except actually Davidson made 3 mistakes, but who is counting...Buzz said we were lucky...go figure.

Made 3-4 free throws, 75% is not perfect but not a mistake. Made a basket on their other possession down the stretch, not a mistake. Committed a turnover on their last possession, a mistake.

In further addressing your negativity which you pass off as objectivity, consider this. When a call or a bad bounce goes against MU in the waning moments, you invariably say it's not the reason we lost. Unlucky? No way. Each team get 65 possessions, all equally important, calls balance out over the course of a game, blah, blah blah. So that last Davidson TO is NOT why we won, it's NOT lucky. It just SEEMS that way to the uneducated fan who doesn't realize that games are NOT won or lost in the final possessions but in the aggregate of equally valued possessions over 40 minutes. You fall all over yourself in contradiction trying to ensure you give MU the least amount of credit possible for all possible combinations and permutations and pass it off as objectivity. Pretty obvious to those of us who pay attention.