For Doug Gottlieb haters

[kochHead]

I guess I don't understand the backlash to jhfp's point. When I watched that game I thought the same thing. They basically bulldozed their way to the win with their size. Size was the difference in that one game.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I just think your argument about G being the reason for the loss is stupid. I think more factors than just G led to the loss. And how did you come up with G being 15 point margin?

1) 15 points was just my estimated opinion.

2) More factors than just G led to the loss? Um, duh. Of course it wasn't the only factor in the entire game. If you can't differentiate between ONLY factor and BIGGEST factor, we might as well be speaking different languages.

[Kel Varnsen]

I guess I don't understand the backlash to jhfp's point. When I watched that game I thought the same thing. They basically bulldozed their way to the win with their size. Size was the difference in that one game.

Yeah, I'm kinda confused as well. The fact that Harrison was about 6 inches taller than FVV allowed him to get shots off easier, and it definitely helped their guys like Julius Randle. There was also a sequence in the second half where Wessel picked up two consecutive fouls (probably within about 15 seconds of each other) trying to defend Randle. Now that we have players like Zach Brown in the program, those matchups can come a little easier.

[ShockerEngineer]

Yeah, I'm kinda confused as well. The fact that Harrison was about 6 inches taller than FVV allowed him to get shots off easier, and it definitely helped their guys like Julius Randle. There was also a sequence in the second half where Wessel picked up two consecutive fouls (probably within about 15 seconds of each other) trying to defend Randle. Now that we have players like Zach Brown in the program, those matchups can come a little easier.

I was confused by the backlash, too. Their smallest players were the Harrison twins, each at 6'6", and their front court consisted of two future NBA lottery picks. I think it's totally fair to say their size was a factor. Despite that, they had to play completely out of their minds to beat us. I also remember us missing several point blank shots (including a dunk).

[ShockdaWorld]

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.

...

[shockmonster]

Yeah, I'm kinda confused as well. The fact that Harrison was about 6 inches taller than FVV allowed him to get shots off easier, and it definitely helped their guys like Julius Randle. There was also a sequence in the second half where Wessel picked up two consecutive fouls (probably within about 15 seconds of each other) trying to defend Randle. Now that we have players like Zach Brown in the program, those matchups can come a little easier.

With FVV playing, we were ahead by 6-8 points. The he got into foul trouble. It's been a long time since that game but t think we sagged our defense more than usual on Randle because coming into the game, Kentucky's outside shooting was terrible. The fact that Harrison hit some outside shots was a surprise and more a factor of the scouting report than shooting over Fred. We actually hurt UK when we were fast breaking. Si much for athleticism.

[Steeleshocker]

I think it is reasonable to say that Kentucky's size advantage is the primary reason they won the game. Rebounding was challenging all game and they bulldozed their way into the land with regularity.

The absurdity is claiming that WSU was not athletic enough to deserve a #1 seed. That game was against THE largest and most athletic team in the tournament, who made the final four, and it came down to the final shot of the game. I can think of 3 shots (Cle's finger roll, Ron getting rejected at the rim, and Harrison's banked 3) that all went against us. It was clear this game could have been won by either team. The ball just did not bounce our way.

If anything, this proved that despite "perceived" athletic disadvantages, WSU was absolutely athletic enough to deserve a #1 seed. Any other 8/9 seed would have been shellacked in that game by us.

[OregonShocker]

I don't mean for my comments to be taken as "backlash". I simply wanted to point out that this was an opinion and very difficult to prove. Were they bigger? No question. Is that "the most important factor" in deciding the outcome? I don't think so. But, it's just an opinion as well. I meant no disrespect and understand the rationale for having that opinion.
Just an internet discussion.

BTW, Gottlieb just has the kinda face and intonation (like an arrogant b###ard) that makes me wanna pick up a Flagrant 2!

[shocksrbest]

I think it is reasonable to say that Kentucky's size advantage is the primary reason they won the game. Rebounding was challenging all game and they bulldozed their way into the land with regularity.

The absurdity is claiming that WSU was not athletic enough to deserve a #1 seed. That game was against THE largest and most athletic team in the tournament, who made the final four, and it came down to the final shot of the game. I can think of 3 shots (Cle's finger roll, Ron getting rejected at the rim, and Harrison's banked 3) that all went against us. It was clear this game could have been won by either team. The ball just did not bounce our way.

If anything, this proved that despite "perceived" athletic disadvantages, WSU was absolutely athletic enough to deserve a #1 seed. Any other 8/9 seed would have been shellacked in that game by us.

Amother was Cle's dunk attempt off the lob from Wiggins that missed, Ron got rejected twice at the rim--once on the break and other on the baseline. Plus, there were two possessions that were erroneously ruled for Kentucky that resulted in 5 points.

We played well and it took Kentucky's best game of the season to beat us.

[chitown_shocker]

I don't mean for my comments to be taken as "backlash". I simply wanted to point out that this was an opinion and very difficult to prove. Were they bigger? No question. Is that "the most important factor" in deciding the outcome? I don't think so. But, it's just an opinion as well. I meant no disrespect and understand the rationale for having that opinion.
Just an internet discussion.

BTW, Gottlieb just has the kinda face and intonation (like an arrogant b###ard) that makes me wanna pick up a Flagrant 2!

While I wouldn't say that size/athleticism wasn't THE most important factor, I would say it kept KY in the game and probably gave them the edge when it came down to the wire. I don't think they were incredibly more athletic, but they were a bit bigger. They also played very well (as did the Shocks).

That said, I still believe the Shocks were the better team and would win a majority of games in a series.

[Kung Wu]

Do you want to play a game?

[SHOXAAC]

"Want to play a nice game of chess?"

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I simply wanted to point out that this was an opinion and very difficult to prove. Were they bigger? No question. Is that "the most important factor" in deciding the outcome? I don't think so. But, it's just an opinion as well.

While I wouldn't say that size/athleticism wasn't THE most important factor, I would say it kept KY in the game and probably gave them the edge when it came down to the wire. I don't think they were incredibly more athletic, but they were a bit bigger.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. What I find interesting is that about 5 different people have said they don't think size was the most important factor, but none of them have suggested an alternative for what they think was the most important factor.

Either of you want to chime in?

[WstateU]

[Dan]

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. What I find interesting is that about 5 different people have said they don't think size was the most important factor, but none of them have suggested an alternative for what they think was the most important factor.

Either of you want to chime in?

Fred's foul trouble.