Bear Down Wildcats

No chat about the game?

At least psychologically, it's a big one in my opinion. We have our only Pac loss to these guys. A strong performance sends a message that it was a one off and a down game instead of indicative of larger flaws.

I tend to think it was a one off and down game, but it would be nice to confirm it by running through the Buffalos.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:No chat about the game?

At least psychologically, it's a big one in my opinion. We have our only Pac loss to these guys. A strong performance sends a message that it was a one off and a down game instead of indicative of larger flaws.

I tend to think it was a one off and down game, but it would be nice to confirm it by running through the Buffalos.

What PAC12 games do you feel this team played well in?

I'm getting ready for some anus talk.

CU is irrelevant on a national scale, however, I hate their program with a passion. Their testicle face whiny ass coach, douchy fans and players.

I hope we can finally put together a complete performance for this game. Bring the pain.

PHXCATS wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:No chat about the game?

At least psychologically, it's a big one in my opinion. We have our only Pac loss to these guys. A strong performance sends a message that it was a one off and a down game instead of indicative of larger flaws.

I tend to think it was a one off and down game, but it would be nice to confirm it by running through the Buffalos.

What PAC12 games do you feel this team played well in?

Do you actually think your passive-aggressive jabs are clever and subtle?

Not sure, and I am not sure that it matters... last I checked, we were 6-1 and sitting alone atop the Conference. Ranked #11 and trending up. Are you sad that the 'overachieving Devils' under SuperCoach Hurley have stumbled 4 times of late? I know you were really enamored with them early in the season...

It is probably not comfortable for you being the perennial power with superior talent in anything... which might start to get really uncomfortable for you in football, too. Hopefully Sumlin prioritizes walk-ons as much as the last guy to appease you... because I have a feeling our FB program will no longer be striving to be "The little engine that could". Think freight train.

You loved Rich Rod and you hate Sean Miller. 'nuff said...

PHXCATS wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:No chat about the game?

At least psychologically, it's a big one in my opinion. We have our only Pac loss to these guys. A strong performance sends a message that it was a one off and a down game instead of indicative of larger flaws.

I tend to think it was a one off and down game, but it would be nice to confirm it by running through the Buffalos.

What PAC12 games do you feel this team played well in?

We played well against ASU and Cal. The rest of the games have included very good play mixed with some ugly stretches. The very good does not come from thin air.

Don’t feed the troll.

I think this is a big game to make a statement: Arizona wants blood.

Quietly USC is winning games and is only a game back. Arizona needs to win all games to make sure the 1 seed is attained in PAC tourney considering there is only one game against both LA schools.

Oh and plus fuck Rado and their Tadley

This is the week on the calendar that I think very old, sage-like fans squint their eyes with a gleam of interest, and lean forward in their seats to look for a developing sense of cohesion. As for past weeks, those ancient watchers of the game aren't concerned with the missed potential.

USC is really coming together and is looking really good, but even last night against Stanford, they were frustrating to watch. Stanford was coffee-table-shattering-worthy.

Purdue looks like the good teams of old, but that has a lot to do with the continuity of good, returning players like the teams of old. Hopefully Arizona has a higher ceiling if they can come together a bit, as would Duke, MSU, and some others.

Come February, let's see what we're starting to get. Tonight against Colorado, I'm looking for a glimmer of hopefully what's to come.

Harvey Specter wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:No chat about the game?

At least psychologically, it's a big one in my opinion. We have our only Pac loss to these guys. A strong performance sends a message that it was a one off and a down game instead of indicative of larger flaws.

I tend to think it was a one off and down game, but it would be nice to confirm it by running through the Buffalos.

What PAC12 games do you feel this team played well in?

Do you actually think your passive-aggressive jabs are clever and subtle?

Not sure, and I am not sure that it matters... last I checked, we were 6-1 and sitting alone atop the Conference. Ranked #11 and trending up. Are you sad that the 'overachieving Devils' under SuperCoach Hurley have stumbled 4 times of late? I know you were really enamored with them early in the season...

It is probably not comfortable for you being the perennial power with superior talent in anything... which might start to get really uncomfortable for you in football, too. Hopefully Sumlin prioritizes walk-ons as much as the last guy to appease you... because I have a feeling our FB program will no longer be striving to be "The little engine that could". Think freight train.

You loved Rich Rod and you hate Sean Miller. 'nuff said...

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:No chat about the game?

At least psychologically, it's a big one in my opinion. We have our only Pac loss to these guys. A strong performance sends a message that it was a one off and a down game instead of indicative of larger flaws.

I tend to think it was a one off and down game, but it would be nice to confirm it by running through the Buffalos.

What PAC12 games do you feel this team played well in?

We played well against ASU and Cal. The rest of the games have included very good play mixed with some ugly stretches. The very good does not come from thin air.

Thank you for answering. I am not sure we played well vs Cal with all the turnovers either. I just don't think you can say it was one bad one off game when 6 out of 7 games have had major issues.

I am hoping you are right and they play motivated and clean the whole game and that spring boards to the rest of the year.

U of A will be limited by itself. I know you can say that many times but it is especially true this year.

Longhorned wrote:This is the week on the calendar that I think very old, sage-like fans squint their eyes with a gleam of interest, and lean forward in their seats to look for a developing sense of cohesion. As for past weeks, those ancient watchers of the game aren't concerned with the missed potential.

USC is really coming together and is looking really good, but even last night against Stanford, they were frustrating to watch. Stanford was coffee-table-shattering-worthy.

Purdue looks like the good teams of old, but that has a lot to do with the continuity of good, returning players like the teams of old. Hopefully Arizona has a higher ceiling if they can come together a bit, as would Duke, MSU, and some others.

Come February, let's see what we're starting to get. Tonight against Colorado, I'm looking for a glimmer of hopefully what's to come.

This. Great post LH

PHXCATS wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:No chat about the game?

At least psychologically, it's a big one in my opinion. We have our only Pac loss to these guys. A strong performance sends a message that it was a one off and a down game instead of indicative of larger flaws.

I tend to think it was a one off and down game, but it would be nice to confirm it by running through the Buffalos.

What PAC12 games do you feel this team played well in?

We played well against ASU and Cal. The rest of the games have included very good play mixed with some ugly stretches. The very good does not come from thin air.

Thank you for answering. I am not sure we played well vs Cal with all the turnovers either. I just don't think you can say it was one bad one off game when 6 out of 7 games have had major issues.

I am hoping you are right and they play motivated and clean the whole game and that spring boards to the rest of the year.

U of A will be limited by itself. I know you can say that many times but it is especially true this year.

I think you confuse good game with perfect game. You can play a good game with too many turnovers. Heck, even Oregon was probably a good game. We played well for all but about 6-8 minutes.

It isn't black and white. There's a mythical standard of the perfect game/team, but the more likely outcome is that even in the tourney, teams work through down patches and imperfect games.

Longhorned wrote:I'm getting ready for some anus talk.

broom handle time

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:No chat about the game?

At least psychologically, it's a big one in my opinion. We have our only Pac loss to these guys. A strong performance sends a message that it was a one off and a down game instead of indicative of larger flaws.

I tend to think it was a one off and down game, but it would be nice to confirm it by running through the Buffalos.

What PAC12 games do you feel this team played well in?

We played well against ASU and Cal. The rest of the games have included very good play mixed with some ugly stretches. The very good does not come from thin air.

Thank you for answering. I am not sure we played well vs Cal with all the turnovers either. I just don't think you can say it was one bad one off game when 6 out of 7 games have had major issues.

I am hoping you are right and they play motivated and clean the whole game and that spring boards to the rest of the year.

U of A will be limited by itself. I know you can say that many times but it is especially true this year.

I think you confuse good game with perfect game. You can play a good game with too many turnovers. Heck, even Oregon was probably a good game. We played well for all but about 6-8 minutes.

It isn't black and white. There's a mythical standard of the perfect game/team, but the more likely outcome is that even in the tourney, teams work through down patches and imperfect games.

No matter what you call it -- "good game" or "perfect game" -- I think the ideal comes from having watched elite NBA teams like the Warriors or the 90s Bulls, and the memory of elite college teams with 4-year future NBA players. And when your supposedly top-tier team doesn't look like that, you wonder if other top-tier teams do look like that. And then your suspicions are confirmed when you watch the ESPN highlights of those other teams' games.

I hope we curb-stomp those fucksticks.

Sorry ........ student athletes.


I hope we curb-stomp those student athlete fucksticks.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:No chat about the game?

At least psychologically, it's a big one in my opinion. We have our only Pac loss to these guys. A strong performance sends a message that it was a one off and a down game instead of indicative of larger flaws.

I tend to think it was a one off and down game, but it would be nice to confirm it by running through the Buffalos.

What PAC12 games do you feel this team played well in?

We played well against ASU and Cal. The rest of the games have included very good play mixed with some ugly stretches. The very good does not come from thin air.

Thank you for answering. I am not sure we played well vs Cal with all the turnovers either. I just don't think you can say it was one bad one off game when 6 out of 7 games have had major issues.

I am hoping you are right and they play motivated and clean the whole game and that spring boards to the rest of the year.

U of A will be limited by itself. I know you can say that many times but it is especially true this year.

I think you confuse good game with perfect game. You can play a good game with too many turnovers. Heck, even Oregon was probably a good game. We played well for all but about 6-8 minutes.

It isn't black and white. There's a mythical standard of the perfect game/team, but the more likely outcome is that even in the tourney, teams work through down patches and imperfect games.

I have a hard time saying any game is a good game when you give up multiple double digit leads. I get that you have down stretches, but losing double digit leads goes beyond a downs stretch. Same thing for when you get out rebounded by 5 when you have two 7 footers

This coming from the same guy who applies the reverse logic to football and Rich Rod. Good lord.

97cats wrote:

Longhorned wrote:I'm getting ready for some anus talk.

broom handle time

Damn skippy

Besides Villanova, Virginia, and Purdue; what team hasn't had struggles in conference play. At 6-1 Arizona is doing pretty darn well, and is trending the right way.

Hoping Arizona avenges that one loss in a big way tonight.

PHXCATS, to not quote into infinity, I'll respond here.

That's why I say you're assigning specific factors as less than good. You talk about being outrebounded. That implies you don't think we were bad offensively or defensively. You talk about giving up a double digit lead. That implies we played well in building the double digit lead.

Nitpicking has value in focusing on improvement, but I don't see the point in discussing a good game. Elevating certain factors as bars to having a good game ignores the totality of a game. It is possible to have a good game with individual aspects being not good.

What on earth is Fox Sports 1? All I know about this is it doesn't exist in Illinois.

97cats wrote:

Longhorned wrote:I'm getting ready for some anus talk.

broom handle time

I'm hoping for a new start vs the Buffs.

I imagine that the altitude will effect the Buff's. Yep, there is almost a 3000' difference in elevation between their place and ours. All that increased barometric pressure constantly pushing down on their innards is sure to wear them down late in the game.

UAEebs86 wrote:

97cats wrote:

Longhorned wrote:I'm getting ready for some anus talk.

broom handle time

Damn skippy

on the old site there was an Ewok meme that was for the ages -- the ages.

if anyone can populate here, i would be forever in your debt!

KaibabKat wrote:I imagine that the altitude will effect the Buff's. Yep, there is almost a 3000' difference in elevation between their place and ours. All that increased barometric pressure constantly pushing down on their innards is sure to wear them down late in the game.

but will the Cats wear headbands, and risk cutting off circulation to their head(s)?

↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑

and there it is!!!!!!!!!!

I have never understood the logic of the person who claims losing a double digit lead is a sign of total failure without assigning credit to the building of said lead, like ascending up the score with 2 to 5 point margins is somehow more valiant, or a sign of better play.

No one in the "one and done" era plays perfect games if the opponent is any good. No team that depends on 3 freshmen plays perfect, especially in early January.

But do we win? That is, to use a word that is overused, LITERALLY all that matters.

Are we improving? Are we winning? The first is important to feed the second, but only because the second is the only thing that matters. There are no style points. And if we keep winning, especially on the road in conference, it is a sign we are improving. But, again...winning. All that matters. Literally.

Longhorned wrote:What on earth is Fox Sports 1? All I know about this is it doesn't exist in Illinois.

FS1 is 1st tier on almost every single cable provider in America. If one doesn't have it, it is because the signal is gathered by a person holding a small satellite dish with a single cord running to your home.

Or you have the worst cable/dish provider ever.

Or you bought the "Holy Shit, I cannot afford TV...Gimme 12 channels" package.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:PHXCATS, to not quote into infinity, I'll respond here.

That's why I say you're assigning specific factors as less than good. You talk about being outrebounded. That implies you don't think we were bad offensively or defensively. You talk about giving up a double digit lead. That implies we played well in building the double digit lead.

Nitpicking has value in focusing on improvement, but I don't see the point in discussing a good game. Elevating certain factors as bars to having a good game ignores the totality of a game. It is possible to have a good game with individual aspects being not good.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and a good vs great vs bad game is subjective. I was at the Oregon game and I though UA played very well then awful then pretty good. For me that isn't a good game and that's my personal grade. I am not saying you are wrong or dumb for not agreeing or having your own personal metrics of what makes a good game.

I think we maybe saying the same thing here but I am frustrated because I know Miller and the team can give more and do better. For whatever reason that ain't happening consistently yet. Hope it comes and it starts today, but I am sure you can respect why I am not automatically thinking it will

Spaceman Spiff wrote:PHXCATS, to not quote into infinity, I'll respond here.

That's why I say you're assigning specific factors as less than good. You talk about being outrebounded. That implies you don't think we were bad offensively or defensively. You talk about giving up a double digit lead. That implies we played well in building the double digit lead.

Nitpicking has value in focusing on improvement, but I don't see the point in discussing a good game. Elevating certain factors as bars to having a good game ignores the totality of a game. It is possible to have a good game with individual aspects being not good.

I have said it before and I will say it again:

Machina denigrates excellence because it isn't perfection, while somehow embracing an adoration for mediocrity.

It makes zero sense in my world... but there is something weird going on in a psyche that rationalizes such conflicting views.

EVCat wrote:I have never understood the logic of the person who claims losing a double digit lead is a sign of total failure without assigning credit to the building of said lead, like ascending up the score with 2 to 5 point margins is somehow more valiant, or a sign of better play.

No one in the one and done plays perfect games if the opponent is any good. No team that depends on 3 freshmen plays perfect, especially in early January.

But do we win? That is, to use a word that is overused, LITERALLY all that matters.

Are we improving? Are we winning? The first is important to feed the second, but only because the second is the only thing that matters. There are no style points. And if we keep winning, especially on the road in conference, it is a sign we are improving. But, again...winning. All that matters. Literally.

I am not discounting it and saying it didn't happen. I am just not going to say it was a good game because that happened. That is all. I think you are making more out of it than it is.

Cats are 6-1 and in first and that is my far the most important thing and that is a really good thing that should push UA to a #2 in the West seeding

PHXCATS wrote:I think we maybe saying the same thing here but I am frustrated because I know Miller and the team can give more and do better. For whatever reason that ain't happening consistently yet. Hope it comes and it starts today, but I am sure you can respect why I am not automatically thinking it will

So...do you think the team is holding something back?

Because I would say...no...this is what Miller and the team can give. Faults and all. Faults being addressed, improvements being made, sometimes falling back on bad habits. But no one is giving less than their best effort.

Sports are not a precision industry. You can try really hard and fail. You can be better than someone and get beat. Team dynamics are not the same as a single person psychology, and you cannot apply the same kind of attributes of an individual performance ("he/she can do more/better") to a team. Because one player's bad game can affect four player's good games.

So, no...Miller and the team cannot give more than they have given. They have the capability to play better. Yes. They also could play MUCH worse (did you see the Bahamas?) This team has improved while learning because Miller and the team are, in fact, giving all (not more...all) and doing better.

97cats wrote:

UAEebs86 wrote:

97cats wrote:

Longhorned wrote:I'm getting ready for some anus talk.

broom handle time

Damn skippy

on the old site there was an Ewok meme that was for the ages -- the ages.

if anyone can populate here, i would be forever in your debt!

Don't be scared to punch "prepare your anus" into Google image search.

I would expect the altitude difference to hurt Colorado. Most of their shots will be short because the ball doesn't carry like it does at high altitude. That was why Sabatino Chen's shot was late, he's just used to the ball flying off his fingertips faster.

Spaceman Spiff wrote: That was why Sabatino Chen's shot was late, he's just used to the ball flying off his fingertips faster.

Time moves faster at lower altitudes, also. Something about being closer the core of the planet and gravity and physics or something.

He didn't know. Can't blame the kid.

EVCat wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:I think we maybe saying the same thing here but I am frustrated because I know Miller and the team can give more and do better. For whatever reason that ain't happening consistently yet. Hope it comes and it starts today, but I am sure you can respect why I am not automatically thinking it will

So...do you think the team is holding something back?

Because I would say...no...this is what Miller and the team can give. Faults and all. Faults being addressed, improvements being made, sometimes falling back on bad habits. But no one is giving less than their best effort.

Sports are not a precision industry. You can try really hard and fail. You can be better than someone and get beat. Team dynamics are not the same as a single person psychology, and you cannot apply the same kind of attributes of an individual performance ("he/she can do more/better") to a team. Because one player's bad game can affect four player's good games.

So, no...Miller and the team cannot give more than they have given. They have the capability to play better. Yes. They also could play MUCH worse (did you see the Bahamas?) This team has improved while learning because Miller and the team are, in fact, giving all (not more...all) and doing better.

"Life is not a game of perfect."

OUTSTANDING book by Bob Rotella, a renowned sports psychologist... for any who are interested.

EVCat wrote:

Longhorned wrote:What on earth is Fox Sports 1? All I know about this is it doesn't exist in Illinois.

FS1 is 1st tier on almost every single cable provider in America. If one doesn't have it, it is because the signal is gathered by a person holding a small satellite dish with a single cord running to your home.

Or you have the worst cable/dish provider ever.

Or you bought the "Holy Shit, I cannot afford TV...Gimme 12 channels" package.

I have Sling with the extra sports package, which includes FS1 except for Illinois, where it's blocked from the service.

that's odd. wonder why

EVCat wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote: That was why Sabatino Chen's shot was late, he's just used to the ball flying off his fingertips faster.

Time moves faster at lower altitudes, also. Something about being closer the core of the planet and gravity and physics or something.

He didn't know. Can't blame the kid.

Plus, at higher altitudes, the gravitational pull of celestial bodies will literally pull the ball from your hands faster.

Science is a complex thing. If Colorado ever played a game in the Netherlands, they might deflate like that time someone stabbed the Michelin Man.

Longhorned wrote:

EVCat wrote:

Longhorned wrote:What on earth is Fox Sports 1? All I know about this is it doesn't exist in Illinois.

FS1 is 1st tier on almost every single cable provider in America. If one doesn't have it, it is because the signal is gathered by a person holding a small satellite dish with a single cord running to your home.

Or you have the worst cable/dish provider ever.

Or you bought the "Holy Shit, I cannot afford TV...Gimme 12 channels" package.

I have Sling with the extra sports package, which includes FS1 except for Illinois, where it's blocked from the service.

Do you get P12? I wouldn't be shocked if P12N is designed to prevent the viewer from watching your favorite team on any other network.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Longhorned wrote:

EVCat wrote:

Longhorned wrote:What on earth is Fox Sports 1? All I know about this is it doesn't exist in Illinois.

FS1 is 1st tier on almost every single cable provider in America. If one doesn't have it, it is because the signal is gathered by a person holding a small satellite dish with a single cord running to your home.

Or you have the worst cable/dish provider ever.

Or you bought the "Holy Shit, I cannot afford TV...Gimme 12 channels" package.

I have Sling with the extra sports package, which includes FS1 except for Illinois, where it's blocked from the service.

Do you get P12? I wouldn't be shocked if P12N is designed to prevent the viewer from watching your favorite team on any other network.

Yeah, I get all the PAC-12 networks on that service, along with ESPN, SEC, ACC, etc.

But they block FS1 in Illinois (and Texas, I think). So I'm at a loss when our games are on that mysterious network.

Longhorned wrote:What on earth is Fox Sports 1? All I know about this is it doesn't exist in Illinois.

Thankfully, wild and wonderful WV has it. I did not get that special CBS channel and missed 2 games. Luckily, I got them later on YouTube. Hopefully, you can do the same.

Longhorned wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Longhorned wrote:

EVCat wrote:

Longhorned wrote:What on earth is Fox Sports 1? All I know about this is it doesn't exist in Illinois.

FS1 is 1st tier on almost every single cable provider in America. If one doesn't have it, it is because the signal is gathered by a person holding a small satellite dish with a single cord running to your home.

Or you have the worst cable/dish provider ever.

Or you bought the "Holy Shit, I cannot afford TV...Gimme 12 channels" package.

I have Sling with the extra sports package, which includes FS1 except for Illinois, where it's blocked from the service.

Do you get P12? I wouldn't be shocked if P12N is designed to prevent the viewer from watching your favorite team on any other network.

Yeah, I get all the PAC-12 networks on that service, along with ESPN, SEC, ACC, etc.

But they block FS1 in Illinois (and Texas, I think). So I'm at a loss when our games are on that mysterious network.

FS1 is on Sling Blue $25/mo which does not have ESPN, ESPN2 or ESPN3. The sports package for Sling Blue is $10/mo more which has the PAC-12 channels but no ESPN channels.

Sling Orange $20/mo (what I have) has the basic ESPN channels ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPN3, and I pay $5 extra for the other ESPN channels and the PAC-12 channels.

Merkin wrote:
FS1 is on Sling Blue $25/mo which does not have ESPN, ESPN2 or ESPN3. The sports package for Sling Blue is $10/mo more which has the PAC-12 channels but no ESPN channels.

Sling Orange $20/mo (what I have) has the basic ESPN channels ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPN3, and I pay $5 extra for the other ESPN channels and the PAC-12 channels.

Yeah this is what I have. But also have the separate fox sports app on roku with my dad's dish log in so i can watch FS1 games.

I fully expect Tad Boils head to implode in this game the lower altitude plus the fact that this is when the conference starts reversing early losses, they will LOSE two this week and fall below .500 in conference thus forever sealing the reality that Tad cannot coach road games worth a zit.

Chile what as well have been another planet. Dish was blocked there.

A Fox network is blocked in Texas?

That is wild.

Must be a "We Passed A Bill To Not Allow Inventive Methods of Receiving Cable Content" law in those two states to protect against cord cutters...

* protect the profits of large cable companies who need to ensure multi million dollar bonuses to execs and share holders with their monopoly.

Always get a kick out of these "low regulation" states that do such things, such as not allowing Tesla to sell cars in Texas with a regulation.

I call him "Tad Pole". I give him two minutes into game before he starts flipping out.