For Doug Gottlieb haters

[Blackmag]

Yea he really isn't worth listening too. He played at Okie State so he thinks he is a part of a fraternity, and he thinks he is above any Shocker type player. He couldn't carry anyone's jock on the Shockers. Really anyone who knows basketball knows Whichita State has the athletes. He is an idiot, and most people know that and know he has a bug up his ass toward the Shocks....

[pogo]

whichita... really?

[ShockerPrez]

Indiana, KU, Pitt, Ohio St, and probably Kentucky would say our atlethes stack up just fine.

And OU, from what I've seen is a perimeter shooting team, not an inside power. I'm sick of this notion that all P5 schools have better athletes.

Its ignorant bullshit.

[molly jabali]

whichita... really?

first laugh of the day...thanks!

Actually, I'm not that anti- Gottlieb...his job is to stir up points of view, and he certainly did it here...not much different than any other talk show guy...and on some subjects I agree with his POV....but NOT on WSU.

[Dan]

By that rationale, you could pick any #1 seed that got beat before the Sweet 16 and say they didn't have the athletes and didn't deserve to be #1. Our loss to UK was hardly the shining example, it's happened many many times before. I don't see why he has to single WSU out, you can tell he's still bothered by us.

[shockmonster]

first laugh of the day...thanks!

Actually, I'm not that anti- Gottlieb...his job is to stir up points of view, and he certainly did it here...not much different than any other talk show guy...and on some subjects I agree with his POV....but NOT on WSU.

I agree with some things that most if not all talk show hosts say. But Gottlieb is an elitist, P5 point of view host who looks down his nose at all non-P5 teams and therefore all P5 schools have better athletes. He looks at stature instead of merit. For example, he'd say WSU would be bottom half at best Big 12.

[molly jabali]

I agree with some things that most if not all talk show hosts say. But Gottlieb is an elitist, P5 point of view host who looks down his nose at all non-P5 teams and therefore all P5 schools have better athletes. He looks at stature instead of merit. For example, he'd say WSU would be bottom half at best Big 12.

Well, I agree with the elitest thing...which makes it odd that he does not support non P5 schools since HE was nowhere near elite!

[jdshock]

Well, I agree with the elitest thing...which makes it odd that he does not support non P5 schools since HE was nowhere near elite!

The only thing non-elite P5 schools can cling to is their status as a P5 school. Of course they don't want to give credit to elite non-P5 schools.

[bleed yellow]

What's strange about Gotleib is, regarding his Oklahoma State affiliation I've never ran across a Oklahoma State fan that looks down at WSU.. They dislike OU in a hidden tone mainly because OU has dominated them in everything historically. KU seems to be their main hatred though. That is why Gotleib is just odd. He acts like someone that came from Notre Dame or Duke.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Focusing specifically on the Kentucky game, does anyone here think that Kentucky beat WSU for any reason besides their size advantage? WSU shot a better % from 3, had fewer turnovers, and more assists, but the Shox were outrebounded by 9 and seemed to get bulldozed numerous times due to simply being outsized.

I don't like Gottlieb and am not looking to defend him. I'm just interested in the specific concept he was discussing. Does anyone disagree that size/athleticism was the biggest factor as to why the Shox fell short vs Kentucky? If so, what other factor do you think was #1?

[jdshock]

That is why Gotleib is just odd. He acts like someone that came from Notre Dame or Duke.

On the off chance this wasn't on purpose, Gottlieb did go to Notre Dame for a year. That's where the credit card fiasco occurred.

[ShockerPrez]

Focusing specifically on the Kentucky game, does anyone here think that Kentucky beat WSU for any reason besides their size advantage? WSU shot a better % from 3, had fewer turnovers, and more assists, but the Shox were outrebounded by 9 and seemed to get bulldozed numerous times due to simply being outsized.

I don't like Gottlieb and am not looking to defend him. I'm just interested in the specific concept he was discussing. Does anyone disagree that size/athleticism was the biggest factor as to why the Shox fell short vs Kentucky? If so, what other factor do you think was #1?

I dont have the stats, but didnt UK also shoot well above their 3 pt% average? I guess one could say because they were shooting over shorter less athletic players. But if the 3 pt shooting was a difference, that isnt generally something I would attribute as an athleticsm and size advantage.

[shockmonster]

Focusing specifically on the Kentucky game, does anyone here think that Kentucky beat WSU for any reason besides their size advantage? WSU shot a better % from 3, had fewer turnovers, and more assists, but the Shox were outrebounded by 9 and seemed to get bulldozed numerous times due to simply being outsized.

I don't like Gottlieb and am not looking to defend him. I'm just interested in the specific concept he was discussing. Does anyone disagree that size/athleticism was the biggest factor as to why the Shox fell short vs Kentucky? If so, what other factor do you think was #1?

We make one more shot and they don't beat us. The Kentucky team had bigger athletes than us but they didn't out athlete us. But they had bigger athletes than UCONN and every other team they played that year. A 6'6" point guard and a 6'9" 250 lb. PF is unique. Other than that we matched up pretty well. At least as good as anyone else. We didn't have a Center who blocked shots as well as Willie (center), but our three headed monster 250 lb. Centers held their own and Rabdle had to come away from the basket to guard Early. Early had a good game.

[Dan]

UK had a size advantage but it wasn't necessarily due to their posts. We had Lufile and Coleby who are both 6'9" and provided enough size to compete underneath. Their real size advantage were 1-3, where they were all around 6'5"-'6'7". Even then, that doesn't mean we weren't deserving of a #1 seed. Not many teams are loaded with 7 footers and that shouldn't be a requirement for a #1 seed.

[jdmee]

Focusing specifically on the Kentucky game, does anyone here think that Kentucky beat WSU for any reason besides their size advantage? WSU shot a better % from 3, had fewer turnovers, and more assists, but the Shox were outrebounded by 9 and seemed to get bulldozed numerous times due to simply being outsized.

I don't like Gottlieb and am not looking to defend him. I'm just interested in the specific concept he was discussing. Does anyone disagree that size/athleticism was the biggest factor as to why the Shox fell short vs Kentucky? If so, what other factor do you think was #1?

Freds last shot was 3" to the right