Bear Down Wildcats

... A number one seed is about to loose to a 16 seed.

If.......the talk won't be about Arizona anymore.

Just said this....." What does the perimeter action remind you of?"

MountainCat wrote:... A number one seed is about to loose to a 16 seed.

If.......the talk won't be about Arizona anymore.

I honestly don't know what to hope for here.

This is an historic upset. My goodness I'm actually in shock.

dovecanyoncat wrote:

MountainCat wrote:... A number one seed is about to loose to a 16 seed.

If.......the talk won't be about Arizona anymore.

I honestly don't know what to hope for here.

Not hoping for anything. Just a reminder that things can get worse, just not to us this time.

Either way - enjoy this moment in history.

Wow. Total fucking wow. We are no longer the bitch of the Tourney. But the system that defines us is the TOTAL BITCH of the Tourney thus far.

They're named the Retrievers for God's sake. They don't even have a real nickname.

I'm in shock

And we beat them by 25 points back in November.

AZCatGirl wrote:And we beat them by 25 points back in November.

By the transitive property, we're now 45 points better than the overall #1 seed, so we have that going for us.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

AZCatGirl wrote:And we beat them by 25 points back in November.

By the transitive property, we're now 45 points better than the overall #1 seed, so we have that going for us.

That's sorta like sayin you can eat relative performance in the financial world.

Phylek wrote:I'm in shock

Me as well. The way Virginia played like a desperate team in the second half. The same squad that is know for discipline basketball. The 20 point loss. Yikes.

dovecanyoncat wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

AZCatGirl wrote:And we beat them by 25 points back in November.

By the transitive property, we're now 45 points better than the overall #1 seed, so we have that going for us.

That's sorta like sayin you can eat relative performance in the financial world.

Look, Buffalo would beat UVA by like 100 points. It's science.

We may have been spanked by Buffalo, but at least we weren’t a 1 losing to a 16 by 20.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

dovecanyoncat wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

AZCatGirl wrote:And we beat them by 25 points back in November.

By the transitive property, we're now 45 points better than the overall #1 seed, so we have that going for us.

That's sorta like sayin you can eat relative performance in the financial world.

Look, Buffalo would beat UVA by like 100 points. It's science.

I stand corrected.

ACC sucks!

That packline defense has sure been successful in the big dance...

Now that it's happened - The world is banned from using the term "Cinderella" anymore.

My guess - this is the beginning of the end of the 64 team....oops I mean 68 team NCAA Tourney. Between FBI scandals, the one-n-done era, and the greed of wanting parity for all, I don't think we will recognize college basketball five years from now.

Lando05 wrote:That packline defense has sure been successful in the big dance...

It's a humiliating relief.

We are the team that beat the team that beat Virginia

While Euclid is correct about things that are equal, it doesn't hold otherwise.

I don't know why, but this is making me really happy.

Weeeeeeeee!!!!!!

Spaceman Spiff wrote:I don't know why, but this is making me really happy.

Weeeeeeeee!!!!!!

About the present ... yes, I concur. But as to the future I hope for the introduction of a new factor.

dovecanyoncat wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:I don't know why, but this is making me really happy.

Weeeeeeeee!!!!!!

About the present ... yes, I concur. But as to the future I hope for the introduction of a new factor.

Right now, I just want to spin in circles until I cease moving and the world begins spinning around me.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

dovecanyoncat wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:I don't know why, but this is making me really happy.

Weeeeeeeee!!!!!!

About the present ... yes, I concur. But as to the future I hope for the introduction of a new factor.

Right now, I just want to spin in circles until I cease moving and the world begins spinning around me.

I dig it: from Euclid to Copernicus. I'm down wif dat.

Here's the thing I am thinking about...Virginia was the best defensive team BY A HUGE MARGIN according to all the analytics...

The committee had no choice but to seed them #1 based upon the criteria that they have established...

By that SAME criteria UMBC should have been seeded no higher than 16th...

We beat them by 25...they lost to fucking Stony Brook, Army, Colgate and Towson...they had TERRIBLE losses...

Now the argument can be made that they were just hot tonite, or like the Buff's "wanted it more"...

I call bullshit...

Getting hot or "wanting it more" should not translate to a 20 point win over the best seeded team in the tournament...

According to the committees metrics Virginia was the NUMBER #1 FUCKING BEST TEAM IN THE NATION...and UMBC was somewhere near the very bottom...if not the very bottom at least 3 spots from it but no higher.

If it was just this game I'd say it was a fluke...but counter in our game and trouncing we got and it points to some undeniable shenanigans going on in the metric system they are using...

Our game could have been a fluke...this game was not.

Something is waaaay off in the way they are doing this...seeding people based on who they played and nuetral sites and whatever the fuck this new quadrant system is has proven to be a clusterfuck.

And one more thing...packline defense is officially dead...the three point shot has rendered it moot and ineffective.

Lets see if Miller evolves or doubles down...

We had a slew of seniors who have probably played a TOTAL of 10 minutes of zone their entire careers...yet Duke and Calapari both use it and we might have stood a chance last night if we fucking knew more than one trick.

CatFanOneMil wrote:Here's the thing I am thinking about...Virginia was the best defensive team BY A HUGE MARGIN according to all the analytics...

The committee had no choice but to seed them #1 based upon the criteria that they have established...

By that SAME criteria UMBC should have been seeded no higher than 16th...

We beat them by 25...they lost to fucking Stony Brook, Army, Colgate and Towson...they had TERRIBLE losses...

Now the argument can be made that they were just hot tonite, or like the Buff's "wanted it more"...

I call bullshit...

Getting hot or "wanting it more" should not translate to a 20 point win over the best seeded team in the tournament...

According to the committees metrics Virginia was the NUMBER #1 FUCKING BEST TEAM IN THE NATION...and UMBC was somewhere near the very bottom...if not the very bottom at least 3 spots from it but no higher.

If it was just this game I'd say it was a fluke...but counter in our game and trouncing we got and it points to some undeniable shenanigans going on in the metric system they are using...

Our game could have been a fluke...this game was not.

Something is waaaay off in the way they are doing this...seeding people based on who they played and nuetral sites and whatever the fuck this new quadrant system is has proven to be a clusterfuck.

And one more thing...packline defense is officially dead...the three point shot has rendered it moot and ineffective.

Lets see if Miller evolves or doubles down...

We had a slew of seniors who have probably played a TOTAL of 10 minutes of zone their entire careers...yet Duke and Calapari both use it and we might have stood a chance last night if we fucking knew more than one trick.

Amen to those last couple paragraphs but jeez 8 yrs now. How stubborn can a guy be? I’m still pissed

Doesn't zone often lead to open 3s? Anyway, glad I caught the last 3 mins, looked just like us. They were down 15 ish with 3 mins and totally gave up? Don't they know refs will let them get that back, or is that just against us?

CatFanOneMil wrote:Here's the thing I am thinking about...Virginia was the best defensive team BY A HUGE MARGIN according to all the analytics...

The committee had no choice but to seed them #1 based upon the criteria that they have established...

By that SAME criteria UMBC should have been seeded no higher than 16th...

We beat them by 25...they lost to fucking Stony Brook, Army, Colgate and Towson...they had TERRIBLE losses...

Now the argument can be made that they were just hot tonite, or like the Buff's "wanted it more"...

I call bullshit...

Getting hot or "wanting it more" should not translate to a 20 point win over the best seeded team in the tournament...

According to the committees metrics Virginia was the NUMBER #1 FUCKING BEST TEAM IN THE NATION...and UMBC was somewhere near the very bottom...if not the very bottom at least 3 spots from it but no higher.

If it was just this game I'd say it was a fluke...but counter in our game and trouncing we got and it points to some undeniable shenanigans going on in the metric system they are using...

Our game could have been a fluke...this game was not.

Something is waaaay off in the way they are doing this...seeding people based on who they played and nuetral sites and whatever the fuck this new quadrant system is has proven to be a clusterfuck.

And one more thing...packline defense is officially dead...the three point shot has rendered it moot and ineffective.

Lets see if Miller evolves or doubles down...

We had a slew of seniors who have probably played a TOTAL of 10 minutes of zone their entire careers...yet Duke and Calapari both use it and we might have stood a chance last night if we fucking knew more than one trick.

Who you kidding? He's going to triple down on it.

At least it didn't happen in our region so we won't be kicking ourselves for having a free path to the FF after beating the 5 seed in our region. Oh wait. Yeah UK gets to play at worst an 8 a 12 and a 13 to the elite eight. Tough.

ChooChooCat wrote:

CatFanOneMil wrote:Here's the thing I am thinking about...Virginia was the best defensive team BY A HUGE MARGIN according to all the analytics...

The committee had no choice but to seed them #1 based upon the criteria that they have established...

By that SAME criteria UMBC should have been seeded no higher than 16th...

We beat them by 25...they lost to fucking Stony Brook, Army, Colgate and Towson...they had TERRIBLE losses...

Now the argument can be made that they were just hot tonite, or like the Buff's "wanted it more"...

I call bullshit...

Getting hot or "wanting it more" should not translate to a 20 point win over the best seeded team in the tournament...

According to the committees metrics Virginia was the NUMBER #1 FUCKING BEST TEAM IN THE NATION...and UMBC was somewhere near the very bottom...if not the very bottom at least 3 spots from it but no higher.

If it was just this game I'd say it was a fluke...but counter in our game and trouncing we got and it points to some undeniable shenanigans going on in the metric system they are using...

Our game could have been a fluke...this game was not.

Something is waaaay off in the way they are doing this...seeding people based on who they played and nuetral sites and whatever the fuck this new quadrant system is has proven to be a clusterfuck.

And one more thing...packline defense is officially dead...the three point shot has rendered it moot and ineffective.

Lets see if Miller evolves or doubles down...

We had a slew of seniors who have probably played a TOTAL of 10 minutes of zone their entire careers...yet Duke and Calapari both use it and we might have stood a chance last night if we fucking knew more than one trick.

Who you kidding? He's going to triple down on it.

"Do what we do do"

If Miller did not even attempt to try going to zone defense with this team, he will never do it going forward. Ever

This is a really good article on the advantages and disadvantages of playing slow basketball, and its strengths and vulnerabilities. It talks about the pack-line defense created by Dick Bennett (Bennett ball).

Playing slowly leaves better teams more vulnerable to upsets, said John Harris, a mathematics professor at Furman University who, with two other faculty members, has studied N.C.A.A. tournament upsets. He groups teams into “Giants” and “Killers.” The Giants are always the better team. The variable is what improves the underdogs’ chances. The answer, it turns out, is when the Giants’ giant-like qualities are minimized, because a slow pace means there is literally less basketball being played.

“Picture it in terms of an extreme case,” Harris said. “If each team had one possession, a Killer is more likely to upset a Giant. The more possessions you give a Giant, the more likely it is they’re able to separate.

“It’s the reason,” he added, “why you don’t play the World Series in one game.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/spor ... &smtyp=cur" target="_blank

JW_in_Boston wrote:Doesn't zone often lead to open 3s? Anyway, glad I caught the last 3 mins, looked just like us. They were down 15 ish with 3 mins and totally gave up? Don't they know refs will let them get that back, or is that just against us?

Yeah, like 10 years ago when that was the point of a zone. Now you can use it like Washington and try to force teams take midrange jumpers. Look at the ASU or UCLA tourney games. UCLA scored like 15 points in the 1st three minutes then the Bonnie's went zone and they scored 40 points the rest of the game. ASU got zone the whole game and didn't hit 60 points.

Catintheheat wrote:This is a really good article on the advantages and disadvantages of playing slow basketball, and its strengths and vulnerabilities. It talks about the pack-line defense created by Dick Bennett (Bennett ball).

Playing slowly leaves better teams more vulnerable to upsets, said John Harris, a mathematics professor at Furman University who, with two other faculty members, has studied N.C.A.A. tournament upsets. He groups teams into “Giants” and “Killers.” The Giants are always the better team. The variable is what improves the underdogs’ chances. The answer, it turns out, is when the Giants’ giant-like qualities are minimized, because a slow pace means there is literally less basketball being played.

“Picture it in terms of an extreme case,” Harris said. “If each team had one possession, a Killer is more likely to upset a Giant. The more possessions you give a Giant, the more likely it is they’re able to separate.

“It’s the reason,” he added, “why you don’t play the World Series in one game.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/spor ... &smtyp=cur" target="_blank

This such an obvious point that even Charles Barkely has made it.