For Doug Gottlieb haters

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Fred's missed shot at the end would have been worth 3. Kentucky's bulldozing moves and rebounding was worth 15-20. The bulldozing was a bigger factor in the outcome.

[pie n eye]

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?

That game was the definition of a draw. Sure, one team had to win because that's the nature of the sport but it could have very easily gone either way. The #1 factor why we lost is they had 2 more points than us on the scoreboard when time expired.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

That game was the definition of a draw. Sure, one team had to win because that's the nature of the sport but it could have very easily gone either way. The #1 factor why we lost is they had 2 more points than us on the scoreboard when time expired.

Thank you for completely ignoring the jist of my post. Of course it was close. That's not the point. Kentucky having 2 more points is not a factor that caused Kentucky to win, it was the outcome after all factors were considered. Factors are shooting, rebounding, size, strength, intelligence, teamwork, etc. Final margin is not a factor, it is a result.

The single biggest reason that it was close, and that WSU didn't win by 15, was Kentucky's size and strength. WSU beat them in most areas and yet still lost because of that one big Kentucky advantage. Size and strength were the single biggest factor in the outcome. Still waiting to hear a legitimate argument for another factor being #1.

[shockmonster]

Thank you for completely ignoring the jist of my post. Of course it was close. That's not the point. Kentucky having 2 more points is not a factor that caused Kentucky to win, it was the outcome after all factors were considered. Factors are shooting, rebounding, size, strength, intelligence, teamwork, etc. Final margin is not a factor, it is a result.

The single biggest reason that it was close, and that WSU didn't win by 15, was Kentucky's size and strength. WSU beat them in most areas and yet still lost because of that one big Kentucky advantage. Size and strength were the single biggest factor in the outcome. Still waiting to hear a legitimate argument for another factor being #1.

Most of the people who disagree with you believe that the teams were equal so their size was negligible.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Most of the people who disagree with you believe that the teams were equal so their size was negligible.

Yes. Equal as a sum of their advantages and disadvantages. WSU was better at some things. Kentucky was better at others. To say that Kentucky's size was negligible is to downplay how well WSU beat Kentucky in other areas.

[Hurley]

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.

[Dan]

Was Kentucky big and athletic? yes.
Was WSU small and unathletic? No
Is big and athletic a criteria to get a #1 seed? No.

[Cdizzle]

Kentucky won because they banked in a 3-pointer. End of story.

[MadaboutWu]

Freds last shot was 3" to the right

In all seriousness, this is a good reply. There is a lot of variance in basketball. When looking for the key to a game determined by 3 points either way, the answer is often going to be "luck."

Not to say you couldn't ask what are WSU's advantages and what are UK's but you would want to do that not by simply looking at the game stats but the season stats.

The foul calls on FVV were also a huge key to the game. Whether the refs gave UK a favorable whistle (hard to believe) or FVV committed uncharacteristic fouls they profoundly influenced the game. Can file that under variance as well.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

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.

Vs Kentucky, WSU shot a higher % from both 2 and 3 pt range. Kentucky only shot 4 more FTs (22 vs 18) than the Shox. Neither 2pt %, 3pt %, or FTAs were the biggest factor of the game.

[im4wsu]

whichita... really?

spell check and auto correct

[Bluzrover]

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.

I agree with this although I seem to remember their bigs getting the ball more in the 2nd half. I will also say that 3G sure seems to be bringing in bigger, more talented Combo Guards who won't have the size disadvantage of their predecessors.

[OregonShocker]

Trying to point to one of their strengths and then saying they won because of it is a very myoptic and self serving statement, especially in a game as close as this. One factor didn't "win" the game in the sense of domination that we couldn't overcome. Had FVV MADE the last shot, I don't think anyone would say, "How did that happen?! Kentucky was OBVIOUSLY bigger!!!"

[OregonShocker]

Vs Kentucky, WSU shot a higher % from both 2 and 3 pt range. Kentucky only shot 4 more FTs (22 vs 18) than the Shox. Neither 2pt %, 3pt %, or FTAs were the biggest factor of the game.

I'd say, in relation to this game in particular, there wasn't a "biggest factor" other than the last shot not going in.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Trying to point to one of their strengths and then saying they won because of it is a very myoptic and self serving statement, especially in a game as close as this. One factor didn't "win" the game in the sense of domination that we couldn't overcome. Had FVV MADE the last shot, I don't think anyone would say, "How did that happen?! Kentucky was OBVIOUSLY bigger!!!"

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.