Bear Down Wildcats

We talk about luck being a factor in tournament wins. Has any team been luckier than VA? They should have lost both those games. Luck is sometimes the biggest factor.

psiclist23 wrote:We talk about luck being a factor in tournament wins. Has any team been luckier than VA? They should have lost both those games. Luck is sometimes the biggest factor.

My biggest takeaway is about how different the narrative would be if their luck changed. If UVA doesn't get luck in the Elite Eight, the narrative is about how Bennett underachieves and the packline can't win the big one.

Two miracles and an OT win and they're national champs.

when I see the comment ‘shoulda won’ from the losing team I always cringe.

Managing perception is a key element of success.

I keep saying this: this tournament is so fucking stupid and fickle.

Repeatedly this team made it by the skin of their teeth. A fortunate bounce off the rim. A couple calls that go their way late. An opposing player's finger tip brushes a ball as it is poked out of bounds.

It took skill to win. Some really big plays and some great players. But goddamn if luck isn't the overarching theme of this win (and many more before it) I don't know what is.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

psiclist23 wrote:We talk about luck being a factor in tournament wins. Has any team been luckier than VA? They should have lost both those games. Luck is sometimes the biggest factor.

My biggest takeaway is about how different the narrative would be if their luck changed. If UVA doesn't get luck in the Elite Eight, the narrative is about how Bennett underachieves and the packline can't win the big one.

Two miracles and an OT win and they're national champs.

Even the Final Four win... not sure Bennett would have lived down dropping a ten point lead late in that game. Sure, he'd have hung a FF banner, but he'd have been on the doorstep to the promised land and just fell on his ass. "Choke artist" ... "cursed" ..."can't get over the hump." You can hear it how he'd have gotten dogged.

The ball bounced his way more times that not and he'll be regarded as a different person because of it.

With VA shooting the three, my thoughts most shots where “automatic”

Can’t remember the last time we had that. Salim?

97cats wrote:when I see the comment ‘shoulda won’ from the losing team I always cringe.

I agree. In Auburn and Tech's case ‘shoulda won’ would be 'shouldn't have shot myself in the foot'.

edit: in Tech's case I don't know why they didn't foul ahead by 3 with 10 seconds left.

CalStateTempe wrote:With VA shooting the three, my thoughts most shots where “automatic”

Can’t remember the last time we had that. Salim?

Trier, Markkanen, PJC, York

Not when it counted.

Tourney history 2015-2018.

Lauri and trier especially in that Xavier game.

Sure they could shot the rock but they were far from automatic.

CalStateTempe wrote:Not when it counted.

Tourney history 2015-2018.

Lauri and trier especially in that Xavier game.

Put that one on Alkins's broken hand. Shouldn't have been 4 v 5 out there.

YoDeFoe wrote:

CalStateTempe wrote:Not when it counted.

Tourney history 2015-2018.

Lauri and trier especially in that Xavier game.

Put that one on Alkins's broken hand. Shouldn't have been 4 v 5 out there.

Also, saying a bad tourney game invalidates your shooting prior...Salim ended his career shooting awfully vs Illinois. It gets lost in the collapse, but he couldn't throw a rock in the ocean that day.

Zo carried the team on his back late in the Xavier game and only missed the last shot he took. So emblematic of how perception works in college ball

Any discussion of Sean Miller and Arizona basketball can be warehoused on Wikipedia under Confirmation Bias.

prh wrote:Zo carried the team on his back late in the Xavier game and only missed the last shot he took. So emblematic of how perception works in college ball

The last two games Arizona was eliminated:

PJC vs. Xavier 1-5 FG 1-4 3pt. 2-2 FT 5 assists 27 minutes
PJC vs. Buffalo 3-9 FG 1-4 3pt. 0-0 FT 0 assists 34 minutes

ByJoveByJingle wrote:Any discussion of Sean Miller and Arizona basketball can be warehoused on Wikipedia under Confirmation Bias.

There used to be a sublink to Recency Bias, but it disappeared late last night.

“I’ll never totally understand how winning a national title clears the winning coach of any past issues.”

*some people on all boards

NCAA tournament is awesome like Vegas pool parties are awesome.

But there is zero substance to it. It is pure candy and to me it is a dogshit way to determine a true champion. So much luck is involved

I love it but hate it.

Now keep in mind, I say this as a Arizona basketball fan where the tournament seems to always be a cruel bitch

If it was not for going to U of Arizona, I would have long given up college basketball as its so stupid when you really break it down. Its essentially a 3-4 week sport. I am amazed we still draw so well at McKale. We play no big non-conference games at home anymore and PAC 12 games are meaningless, worthless, etc.

Feels like 2012 against Florida was the last real meaningful home game we played I was fired up before and after for. I mean has there been a single game since then where you could picture fans rushing the court if we won. Not even close.

The '97 cats ranked #58

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basket ... ship-teams" target="_blank

GTownCat wrote:The '97 cats ranked #58

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basket ... ship-teams" target="_blank

only team to beat 3 #1s and doesnt crack their top 50?

fuck that

PieceOfMeat wrote:

GTownCat wrote:The '97 cats ranked #58

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basket ... ship-teams" target="_blank

only team to beat 3 #1s and doesnt crack their top 50?

fuck that

It's not crazy. We had a weak regular season, and it's #58 of 81 national championship teams. Things like that will drag you down.

If we finished the job in 98 or 2001, those teams would be higher.

PieceOfMeat wrote:

GTownCat wrote:The '97 cats ranked #58

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basket ... ship-teams" target="_blank

only team to beat 3 #1s and doesnt crack their top 50?

fuck that

Right, we beat higher ranked teams, any of which would be higher ranked than us on the all-time list had they won the title. We beat them, making us victorious and beloved, and nobody gives a shit about this all-time ranking list.

That all-time list is concocted by some hack at ESPN. If that same hack was on any program's message board (like this one), their argument would be ripped to shreds.

Arizona's '97 team beat North Carolina in Springfield to start the season without Miles Simon.

The non-conference schedule was damn tough. Lost at New Mexico (Lobos made NCAA tourney as a 3-seed & exited 2nd round)

Beat Utah in Anaheim. Utes were a #2 seed in the tourney and lost in the Elite 8 to Kentucky. Yes, Utah was damn good that year with Van Horn. Even better the next year as we found out.

Beat Texas. Horns made the Sweet 16 that year.

Conference schedule: Look at how many Pac 10 teams made the tournament that year. Arizona lost at Stanford by 1. At Cal by 2. At UCLA in Overtime. And Arizona beat the shit out of everyone at home except UCLA.

Then to beat 3 number one seeds for the only time ever and that those #1 seeds happen to be the three winningest programs of all time is pretty damn impressive.

IMO, the accomplishment of the '97 was in no way a fluke. Between beating North Carolina twice, Kentucky, Kansas, Utah and the meat grinder of the Pac 10 conference shows just how good and battle tested they were.

Arizona went a combined 9-4 against all the teams in the Sweet 16 in '97. That's 13 games. Stanford, Cal, Utah, Kentucky, UCLA, Providence, Kansas, Texas, UNC.

The Pac had 4 teams in the Sweet 16.

58th? GTFOOH.

Of course, the revered ACC got so much respect. Duke was a #2 seed that year despite non-conference losses to Michigan, Indiana and UCLA and a first round ACC tourney loss to NC State. But hey, it's Duke. No way they get anything lower than a #2 seed.

And here's some context to that season. Duke was the #2 seed in the Southeast Region. They lost to UCLA in a non-conference game in February.

Agreed. Plus, if you remember, Kansas was a juggernaut that year. No one gave us any chance at all against them.

Nothing new from espn. I still remember when that 97 team didn't make the list for top 100 tournament moments, but a coach wearing a sticker did...

zonagrad wrote:That all-time list is concocted by some hack at ESPN. If that same hack was on any program's message board (like this one), their argument would be ripped to shreds.

Arizona's '97 team beat North Carolina in Springfield to start the season without Miles Simon.

The non-conference schedule was damn tough. Lost at New Mexico (Lobos made NCAA tourney as a 3-seed & exited 2nd round)

Beat Utah in Anaheim. Utes were a #2 seed in the tourney and lost in the Elite 8 to Kentucky. Yes, Utah was damn good that year with Van Horn. Even better the next year as we found out.

Beat Texas. Horns made the Sweet 16 that year.

Conference schedule: Look at how many Pac 10 teams made the tournament that year. Arizona lost at Stanford by 1. At Cal by 2. At UCLA in Overtime. And Arizona beat the shit out of everyone at home except UCLA.

Then to beat 3 number one seeds for the only time ever and that those #1 seeds happen to be the three winningest programs of all time is pretty damn impressive.

IMO, the accomplishment of the '97 was in no way a fluke. Between beating North Carolina twice, Kentucky, Kansas, Utah and the meat grinder of the Pac 10 conference shows just how good and battle tested they were.

Arizona went a combined 9-4 against all the teams in the Sweet 16 in '97. That's 13 games. Stanford, Cal, Utah, Kentucky, UCLA, Providence, Kansas, Texas, UNC.

The Pac had 4 teams in the Sweet 16.

58th? GTFOOH.

Of course, the revered ACC got so much respect. Duke was a #2 seed that year despite non-conference losses to Michigan, Indiana and UCLA and a first round ACC tourney loss to NC State. But hey, it's Duke. No way they get anything lower than a #2 seed.

And here's some context to that season. Duke was the #2 seed in the Southeast Region. They lost to UCLA in a non-conference game in February.

The list is heavily skewed towards old "dominant" or undefeated teams who really didn't have that much competition or were never as great as their records indicate. Just looking at the number of losses on a team's resume is about as antiquated as it gets when it comes to determining who the best teams in history were (that ended up winning the title). More recent champs are absurdly under ranked despite the fact that most seasons are more efficient than ever before. In 20 minutes I compiled my own list using a couple different sources and the 97' Arizona team ranked #38.

The list is BS. That '97 run, from one who lived it as a Wildcat senior, was authentically incredible. Without parallel in college hoops history.

Let me guess: "Danny and the Miracles" (Kansas '88) and Villanova '85 were the only underdog champs ESPN cared about? I'm not giving Bristol clicks.

The fact that the next year the 'Cats went 30-4 before running into the triangle and 2 showed they were no fluke.

We came one bullshit Adam Spanich shot away from being the only team to run the table in the PAC-12.

Should be higher.

Exactly this:

zonagrad wrote:That all-time list is concocted by some hack at ESPN. If that same hack was on any program's message board (like this one), their argument would be ripped to shreds.

Arizona's '97 team beat North Carolina in Springfield to start the season without Miles Simon.

The non-conference schedule was damn tough. Lost at New Mexico (Lobos made NCAA tourney as a 3-seed & exited 2nd round)

Beat Utah in Anaheim. Utes were a #2 seed in the tourney and lost in the Elite 8 to Kentucky. Yes, Utah was damn good that year with Van Horn. Even better the next year as we found out.

Beat Texas. Horns made the Sweet 16 that year.

Conference schedule: Look at how many Pac 10 teams made the tournament that year. Arizona lost at Stanford by 1. At Cal by 2. At UCLA in Overtime. And Arizona beat the shit out of everyone at home except UCLA.

Then to beat 3 number one seeds for the only time ever and that those #1 seeds happen to be the three winningest programs of all time is pretty damn impressive.

IMO, the accomplishment of the '97 was in no way a fluke. Between beating North Carolina twice, Kentucky, Kansas, Utah and the meat grinder of the Pac 10 conference shows just how good and battle tested they were.

Arizona went a combined 9-4 against all the teams in the Sweet 16 in '97. That's 13 games. Stanford, Cal, Utah, Kentucky, UCLA, Providence, Kansas, Texas, UNC.

The Pac had 4 teams in the Sweet 16.

58th? GTFOOH.

Of course, the revered ACC got so much respect. Duke was a #2 seed that year despite non-conference losses to Michigan, Indiana and UCLA and a first round ACC tourney loss to NC State. But hey, it's Duke. No way they get anything lower than a #2 seed.

And here's some context to that season. Duke was the #2 seed in the Southeast Region. They lost to UCLA in a non-conference game in February.