Bear Down Wildcats

9 point lead with (under?) a minute left. Welp, it pays to watch games on a Thursday night.

Great job Altman. And he's supposed to be this amazing wonder coach?

Every Pac-12 team is vulnerable. OSU goes 18-0.

No!!! Dozed off with 3 left in regulation. I can't believe that. P.s. I love Bill Walton.

Not a bad game between OSU-USC

Nice win Beavs. Sunday's game against UCLA should be something.

Definitely worth watching.

What a crazy year, OSU in contention so far.

Washington looked solid against the Utes last night in Utah.

BTW, they played zone for most of the game and Utah looked clueless. (Insert CSM comment here).

catgrad97 wrote:Is Chris Smith related to Eddie Smith?

I wonder how many posters here saw that game. Was it Lute's first year at Arizona?

Just not related to Frank Smith Jr.

Yeah I was around way back then.

Eddie Smith and Pete Williams - 2 players that were the building blocks for Lute's run to greatness at Arizona..

U.P. Zona Fan wrote:No!!! Dozed off with 3 left in regulation. I can't believe that. P.s. I love Bill Walton.

Such. An. Ugly. Game.

Neither team could go more than a couple minutes without doing something truly boneheaded. UCLA had like 25 turnovers, and Oregon just seemed to be playing pick-up ball. So little discernible coaching, at least on offense. Defense was different. UCLA stepped it up in the waning minutes, obviously, but Oregon too did a nice job trapping and switching for long stretches.

UCLA basically did not miss a shot in the final minute, save for FTs and a missed Wilkes three. Everything else was a swish. Moses Brown fouled the hell out of an Oregon player after a missed FT, when Smith grabbed the rebound, put it in, got fouled and could’ve won the game in regulation.

But overall, Oregon just completely collapsed and UCLA capitalized. Oregon led by 17 with only 5 or 6 mins to play. They probably could’ve used Bol.

EastCoastCat wrote:Washington looked solid against the Utes last night in Utah.

BTW, they played zone for most of the game and Utah looked clueless. (Insert CSM comment here).

Glad I’m not the only one who won’t let this die.

ByJoveByJingle wrote:

EastCoastCat wrote:Washington looked solid against the Utes last night in Utah.

BTW, they played zone for most of the game and Utah looked clueless. (Insert CSM comment here).

Glad I’m not the only one who won’t let this die.

Hey CSM went zone in like one possession down the stretch against Stanford. There is hope!

EastCoastCat wrote:

ByJoveByJingle wrote:

EastCoastCat wrote:Washington looked solid against the Utes last night in Utah.

BTW, they played zone for most of the game and Utah looked clueless. (Insert CSM comment here).

Glad I’m not the only one who won’t let this die.

Hey CSM went zone in like one possession down the stretch against Stanford. There is hope!

That resulted in an offensive rebound for the other team!

The whole “why don’t we play a zone” thing has always been a red herring. If it was so clearly a superior defense, then Syracuse would have won more than one NC with a hall of fame coach. More teams that primarily play zone would have won championships. They haven’t. Can we explain why? I say it’s because it’s not a winning defense over the course of the season.

The second part of the Miller complaint is that he can’t coach offense against a zone. First, I haven’t seen any empirical evidence that he’s any worse than anybody else. But we’ve seen plenty of anecdotal evidence to show that other coaches purportedly better than Miller have teams that have struggled against zones.

I suppose the previous two observations seem to be contradictory. But I don’t think they are. Zone defenses muddy up the game. They cause the game to slow down and give lesser talented players a chance to succeed. But in the end, over the course of a full game and a full season zone defenses are not superior to man defenses. By muddying the game, the zone creates ugly optics, no doubt. But how many times have Miller-led teams actually lost to a team because they were playing zone? I’d venture to say not many. But we’ve had plenty of ugly games that we’ve won against the zone. Zone is the equivalent of bunkering in soccer. It’s not really a winning strategy. It just means you’re only going to lose 2-0 to Barcelona instead of the 5-1 if you were playing positive soccer and not just trying to not be blown out.

The only people who have an argument are the people who say it would be nice to roll out multiple defenses as a changeup. I mean, maybe that’s true, I don’t know. But I hardly think it’s obviously true.

So we have had this debate about Miller/no zone for some time and we have heard all of the arguments from both sides.

CSM believes in his pack-line man-to-man defense and we know he doesn't want to budge. We all get it.

But when you say "we had no answer for so-and-so" which has happened numerous times this year from the little guard from UC Davis, to Barefield from Utah, to Okpala from Stanford and you didn't even try to change things up you have to scratch your head a little.

Well, at least I do.

I remember under Lute always feeling like somebody on the other team would have career games against us. Lute did change up defenses on occasion. Not sure if it had any impact on that sort of thing. But as with Miller, it was very rare that these career games by a single player resulted in the other team beating us.

Eric Murdock dropped 45 points vs. Arizona at McKale under Lute.

Allen Iverson scored 40 on the 'Cats at Madison Square Garden.

Arizona won both those games.

Lute's philosophy was about efficiency. And I think Miller is the same way. If an opponent needs 25 shots to score 25 points on you, so be it.

ByJoveByJingle wrote:The whole “why don’t we play a zone” thing has always been a red herring. If it was so clearly a superior defense, then Syracuse would have won more than one NC with a hall of fame coach. More teams that primarily play zone would have won championships. They haven’t. Can we explain why? I say it’s because it’s not a winning defense over the course of the season.

The second part of the Miller complaint is that he can’t coach offense against a zone. First, I haven’t seen any empirical evidence that he’s any worse than anybody else. But we’ve seen plenty of anecdotal evidence to show that other coaches purportedly better than Miller have teams that have struggled against zones.

I suppose the previous two observations seem to be contradictory. But I don’t think they are. Zone defenses muddy up the game. They cause the game to slow down and give lesser talented players a chance to succeed. But in the end, over the course of a full game and a full season zone defenses are not superior to man defenses. By muddying the game, the zone creates ugly optics, no doubt. But how many times have Miller-led teams actually lost to a team because they were playing zone? I’d venture to say not many. But we’ve had plenty of ugly games that we’ve won against the zone. Zone is the equivalent of bunkering in soccer. It’s not really a winning strategy. It just means you’re only going to lose 2-0 to Barcelona instead of the 5-1 if you were playing positive soccer and not just trying to not be blown out.

The only people who have an argument are the people who say it would be nice to roll out multiple defenses as a changeup. I mean, maybe that’s true, I don’t know. But I hardly think it’s obviously true.

They had Melo, they didn't need defense. They won 91 84 vs TX in the final 4 and 81 78 vs Kansas in the natty. So It's a good thing they had Melo because 78 & 84 points is what I would consider a shredded Cuse zone.

Coog turnover fest right now.

OSU just took down UCLA fairly easily. Going to be a tough test for us this week.

AZCatGirl wrote:OSU just took down UCLA fairly easily. Going to be a tough test for us this week.

From what I have seen OSU's defense does not travel well...

Anyone who beats UCLA does it with defense...

I think OSU WILL be tough, but teams that choose orange as a primary color in basketball never have my vote.

I went to school in Stillwater...they lost every game I went to.

UCLA Down 20 to USC

Dis someone say they still thought UCLA would make th3 tournament?

Alieberman wrote:UCLA Down 20 to USC

Dis someone say they still thought UCLA would make th3 tournament?

After winning @Oregon, they had a little life. Now, though...they’re done.

With each passing day it's looking like there will be new coaching hires in Pullman, Westwood and possibly Berkeley and Boulder.

Cal is a dumpster fire. The only way they steal a victory is if they knock off Wazzu in Berkeley.

So nobody will run the table this year. UDub goes down to the Scummies.

AZCatGirl wrote:

Guido is a Tucson treasure.

Not that this is news, but if UW wins the Pac tourney, this is a one bid league.

It’s really dumbfounding how weak the conference has gotten, and how quickly.

Beachcat97 wrote:Not that this is news, but if UW wins the Pac tourney, this is a one bid league.

It’s really dumbfounding how weak the conference has gotten, and how quickly.

Larry Scott cares about one thing: building an ivory tower in Walnut Creek.

The rest of the conference can rot for all he cares.

Not very dumbfounding when you look at it that way. This conference, never the strongest structurally of the Power 5, is being f*cking looted by a commissioner who doesn't care enough to make the deals, especially with TV contracts, to make it any better.

catgrad97 wrote:

Beachcat97 wrote:Not that this is news, but if UW wins the Pac tourney, this is a one bid league.

It’s really dumbfounding how weak the conference has gotten, and how quickly.

Larry Scott cares about one thing: building an ivory tower in Walnut Creek.

The rest of the conference can rot for all he cares.

Not very dumbfounding when you look at it that way. This conference, never the strongest structurally of the Power 5, is being f*cking looted by a commissioner who doesn't care enough to make the deals, especially with TV contracts, to make it any better.

What can I do to quicken the arrival of Scott’s pink slip? I’m happy to send money or knock on doors.

Beachcat97 wrote:

catgrad97 wrote:

Beachcat97 wrote:Not that this is news, but if UW wins the Pac tourney, this is a one bid league.

It’s really dumbfounding how weak the conference has gotten, and how quickly.

Larry Scott cares about one thing: building an ivory tower in Walnut Creek.

The rest of the conference can rot for all he cares.

Not very dumbfounding when you look at it that way. This conference, never the strongest structurally of the Power 5, is being f*cking looted by a commissioner who doesn't care enough to make the deals, especially with TV contracts, to make it any better.

What can I do to quicken the arrival of Scott’s pink slip? I’m happy to send money or knock on doors.

My best advice is to constantly picket Michael Crow's house.

Game on in Pullman.

Coogs had every chance.

14 minutes left in the game and Barefield has 4 fouls on his home court.

Cal just pulled off the impossible.

Since Cal beat Uw, we beat OSU and Oregon beat ASU tonight...that definitely solidifies that the only teams going to the tournament from the PAC 12 are Washington and whoever wins the conference tournament. If UW wins both we're absolutely a 1 bid league.

AZCatGirl wrote:Cal just pulled off the impossible.

This is the PAC 12, Washington was ranked this week, that loss was inevitable.

Is it me, or do these circumstances make the Pac tourney way more interesting than usual? It's a crap year in the Pac, but a ton at stake in the tourney.

Did UW really lose to Cal

Honesty Cal might have been one of the worst PAC 12 teams I can remember ever watching

Literally in one night PAC 12 tourney just got so much more interesting

Newportcat wrote:Did UW really lose to Cal

Honesty Cal might have been one of the worst PAC 12 teams I can remember ever watching

Literally in one night PAC 12 tourney just got so much more interesting

We were right there with UW at McKale and lost by 7 without BW. I think it just shows how little separation there really is between the Pac teams this year. UW's superb conference record may be disguising a rather mediocre team. It's also just possible UW got overconfident vs. Cal. Let's see how they look vs. Stanford this weekend.

If UW isn't careful, they may find themselves right there with the rest of us, needing a Pac title to punch their dance ticket.

This helps.

AZCatGirl wrote:Great job Altman. And he's supposed to be this amazing wonder coach?

How did he do tonight?

enfuego wrote:

AZCatGirl wrote:Great job Altman. And he's supposed to be this amazing wonder coach?

How did he do tonight?

He beat an 8-8 conference team without their best player . . . to boost his team's record to 8-8 in conference. Give that man a raise.

I'm just going to put this portrait of Maximillian right here and walk away.

Oregon knocks off UW at Seattle 55-47.

Altman has done a hell of a coaching job........as usual. Even though they won't get a first round bye they
have to be considered one of the favorites to cut down the nets in Vegas.

This attendance for the semi final should be giving Larry Scott something to think about when he shits on Arizona BB

Fuck Scott

Looks like a Washington St home game.