Well, that didn't go well.
Well, that didn't go well.
Still a great season considering how it started off. Some wins in the NCAA would be nice.
A summer watching a bad Reds' team, is still a pretty good summer.
Despite the fact that I'm disappointed by the fact that they lost, I was impressed to see them fight back from 16 down with under 10 to play. A lot of teams would have checked out, they fought back but couldn't find a way to win.
I'm looking forward to seeing where they end up being seeded.
I barely saw it until about 28 seconds to go and it was 48-44? Did these teams forget how to shoot? That's horrible.
Last edited by jmac; 03-11-2012 at 12:40 PM.
That was a tough one. It was a game we should have won, Louisville did not play particularly well. I don't know if it was tired legs or nerves, but they were just out of sorts.
Just getting there is quite an accomplishment for these guys, but man that game was there for the taking.
Regroup, get ready for Thursday or Friday...hoping we can get a couple of good matchups and make the Sweet 16.
Not a bad draw for the Bearcats. You'd like to get an easier round 1 than texas, but FSU in the second round is probably better than most had hoped for.
Grape works as a soda. Sort of as a gum. I wonder why it doesn't work as a pie. Grape pie? There's no grape pie. - Larry David
I'm pretty pleased with that draw. Texas has some talent, but is exactly the type of team that UC carves up. FSU is tougher, gonna probably need to win ugly in that one.
And look who they could play in the sweet sixteen...
Watching the Bracketology show I think two different guys picked FSU going to the final four. Isn't this the same team who lost to Boston College a month ago?
Clearly, when they show up they can be a good team (wins over UNC and Duke), but this team just doesn't look like a #3 seed to me. For as long as I can remember, whenever the brackets came out (and UC was in it), I have never liked our draw. Be us drawing UCONN in round 2, or UCLA in round 2.... I just never liked how we got seeded against other teams. This year, I feel pretty good, which clearly means that we are going to lose in the first round.
That said, as a UC fan I like the way the bracket sets up. As long as the good UC team shows up, they should be able to beat Texas and I think FSU is the most vulnerable of the #3 seeds. Ohio State is good, but I'd rather face them than Missouri or Kansas.
All things considered, I think the committee was pretty fair with UC.
As the resident FSU guy, let me explain their season:
FSU has a rep for being great defensively and hit-or-miss on offense. Defensively, they're superb. They were #4 in field goal percentage defense in Division I, after leading the nation the two years prior. They're big, athletic, fundamentally sound and they play their tails off. On offense, they don't take care of the basketball and the big guys aren't great finishers. They were near the bottom on turnovers and probably close to the bottom if there was a category for missed chippies. As a result, they often had prolonged offensive outages, hitting rock bottom when they scored ten -- yes, ten -- points in the first half against Princeton... and they managed to lose to Harvard too. They also stunk it up against Michigan State and Florida. In short, they just weren't good on offense through the non-conference part of the schedule.
After Ian Miller returned mid-year from academic suspension, Leonard Hamilton decided to junk his big lineup and went to a three-guard alignment. It didn't take immediately (a blowout loss to Clemson to open the ACC schedule, at which point most FSU fans were predicting an NIT berth) but then the offense started flowing. Besides Miller regaining his form, the extra floor time for Michael Snaer led to his taking a big step up and playing at an all-ACC level. Miller and Snaer can both put the ball on the floor and create a shot as well as shoot the three, so with the three-guard lineup, FSU had a lot fewer prolonged cold streaks in the second half. And even though turnovers are still a problem, it's not quite as horrific now that the ball is in the bigs' hands less.
The huge win against UNC (the first one, the 90-57 game) can't be emphasized enough, either. They realized, hey, we have it in us to be way better than we've been. A coach can preach it but sometimes it has to be seen to be believed.
The Boston College loss you pointed out is instructive as well, because a glance at their schedule would lead you to believe they play up and down to the level of competition. That's true, but it's not a question of focus so much as style. Simply put, they play fast much better than they play slow, and most good teams like to play fast. Tournament matchups are going to be a big factor for these guys.
Not all who wander are lost