For Doug Gottlieb haters

[Stickboy46]

UK won in part because of size, but also because they shot out of their collective asses. They hadn't made shots like that all year. Also they won because they got to the free throw line down the stretch thanks to the refs letting them lower their heads and drive at will.

This .. they did not have more size and strength. They won because they were allowed to initiate contact and get FTs out of it. Bulldozing is the correct term, but it was illegal bulldozing.

[pie n eye]

Take away Cle, Fred, and Baker and the Shockers probably aren't an undefeated #1 seed. This thread took a turn towards the dumb.

[OregonShocker]

Had Fred's shot gone in, Kentucky's size would still have been the single biggest factor on the game's outcome. At that point, it would have been the difference between WSU winning by 1 vs by 16. No single advantage of WSU's was worth 15 points in and of itself the way Kentucky's size was.

I'm amazed by all the disagreement yet not a single alternative has been presented as a possible #1 other than Fred's shot. Fred's shot was only a potential 3 points. To call it the biggest factor is dumb. Take away Kentucky's size advantage and WSU has a double digit lead and any shot by Fred in the final minute is nearly meaningless.

So, something we had/did offset their 15 point advantage. Why isn't that factor pointed to as the "biggest factor" on the game's outcome, allowing "only" a one point victory by Kentucky? Only because FVV's shot rimmed off. Thus, Fred's shot was the difference.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

So, something we had/did offset their 15 point advantage.

Exactly! I already said, WSU did many things better than Kentucky. The sum of all those things helped to counter Kentucky's size and led to an even game. 3pt %, 2pt %, intelligence, teamwork, heart, hustle, you name it. WSU had many smaller factors that, in total, countered Kentucky's one big factor.

Why is this so hard?

[ShockdaWorld]

You are 100% right Jamar. There is no question at all that the only reason Kentucky was even in that game is because they were so much bigger than us.


Edit: I don't necessarily agree with this statement. I just want to see what you'll use to argue against it.

[WstateU]

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

You are 100% right Jamar. There is no question at all that the only reason Kentucky was even in that game is because they were so much bigger than us.


Edit: I don't necessarily agree with this statement. I just want to see what you'll use to argue against it.

I'm not sure why you need the edit. Your first sentence is true. Other than the size advantage, WSU was the better team in nearly every other area.

This is an interesting feeling. I'm all alone arguing how good that 2014 WSU team was while shockernet is telling me that they weren't as good as I think.

JH4P: WSU was better than Kentucky at A, B, C, D, E, and F. Kentucky was better at G. WSU wins easily if not for G.
Shockernet: Nope.

[OregonShocker]

Exactly! I already said, WSU did many things better than Kentucky. The sum of all those things helped to counter Kentucky's size and led to an even game. 3pt %, 2pt %, intelligence, teamwork, heart, hustle, you name it. WSU had many smaller factors that, in total, countered Kentucky's one big factor.

Why is this so hard?

Well, it becomes very difficult to quantitate. But, I'll play along; I'll say DETERMINATION was our biggest factor, and it accounted for all the little things that allowed us to overcome Kentucky's obvious superior size and be within an inch of winning. Yes, Determination accounted for 16 points, but Kentucky's determination accounted for 2, allowing them the win, ultimately. Yet, Determination was the biggest factor. :-)

[ShockdaWorld]

I'm not sure why you need the edit. Your first sentence is true. Other than the size advantage, WSU was the better team in nearly every other area.

Just checking.

[ShockdaWorld]

I'm not sure why you need the edit. Your first sentence is true. Other than the size advantage, WSU was the better team in nearly every other area.

This is an interesting feeling. I'm all alone arguing how good that 2014 WSU team was while shockernet is telling me that they weren't as good as I think.

JH4P: WSU was better than Kentucky at A, B, C, D, E, and F. Kentucky was better at G. WSU wins easily if not for G.
Shockernet: Nope.

All started with Goatlube saying that Nova,like us didn't deserve a 1 seed, because we/they weren't/aren't athletic enough. You using that game to prove him right is where the rubber meets the road. Has nothing to do with anyone here saying that team wasn't as good as you say they were.

[OregonShocker]

JH4P: WSU was better than Kentucky at A, B, C, D, E, and F. Kentucky was better at G. WSU wins easily if not for G.
Shockernet: Nope.

That's a little different spin compared to how it initially came across. It seemed to me you were saying G was the most important factor in the game, and Kentucky had it; therefore, they won the game. It didn't come across as "WSU was better than Kentucky and should have won, except for that darn G." Perhaps different phrasing would have helped clarify your position.

[ShockTalk]

Do you want to play a game?

ASSUME (this is a must) all the UK players were "Marshall" type recruits as far as BBIQ, work ethic, grit, and so forth. Also, all the UK players would have been under the Marshall system their entire college career.

Both "Marshall" teams play each other 10 times. Who wins more often and why?

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

All started with Goatlube saying that Nova,like us didn't deserve a 1 seed, because we/they weren't/aren't athletic enough. You using that game to prove him right is where the rubber meets the road. Has nothing to do with anyone here saying that team wasn't as good as you say they were.

I'm not trying to "prove Doug right". He is wrong to say that WSU didn't deserve a #1 seed. As is usual for him, he takes a legitimate viewpoint or concern and takes it too far. I was emphasizing that his general concern about size for '14 WSU and '16 Nova is reasonable. Reasonable concern does not equal definitive "they aren't worthy of a #1". That last step is where Doug goes too far.

[Hurley]

I think JH4P should only post under a thread entitled "Mindnumbing, Pointless, Sidetracking, Statistical Nerd Arguments." Then I wouldn't have to read through page after page of ridiculous diatribes trying to prove how smart he is. Exhausting.

[Cdizzle]

I think JH4P should only post under a thread entitled "Mindnumbing, Pointless, Sidetracking, Statistical Nerd Arguments." Then I wouldn't have to read through page after page of ridiculous diatribes trying to prove how smart he is. Exhausting.

But......then......what would we do with the internet?