..."NOBODY could've beaten..."
"It was just THEIR night."
1) Butler in 2003
2) Xavier in 2004
2) Auburn 2010.
Who am I missing?
"It was just THEIR night."
1) Butler in 2003
2) Xavier in 2004
2) Auburn 2010.
Who am I missing?
This is my favorite excuse....
- Thread starter DowntownDawg
- Start date
..."NOBODY could've beaten..."
"It was just THEIR night."
1) Butler in 2003
2) Xavier in 2004
2) Auburn 2010.
Who am I missing?
"It was just THEIR night."
1) Butler in 2003
2) Xavier in 2004
2) Auburn 2010.
Who am I missing?
I think the odds that your going to run into a hot team 1.25% of the time is accurate. (I used 30 games/year as just a round number)
What was that huge white guys name who kept draining threes from the logo? That excuse doesn't work for the others, though. We would have had to have played a really good game last night, but they were by no means unbeatable.
We lost that game because we couldn't shoot for ****, even though we were getting wide open good looks at the basket all night.
For Xavier 2004, that's not an excuse. It's a fact. They were as hot as any team in the country at the end of that season, and they were never hotter than the day they played us. They beat undefeated and #1 St. Joe the week before and had Duke beat the week after until their best player "fouled out."
For Auburn 2010, that excuse just doesn't fly. They shot the ball well, but we played ****** defense and gave them a lot of easy shots.
For Xavier 2004, that's not an excuse. It's a fact. They were as hot as any team in the country at the end of that season, and they were never hotter than the day they played us. They beat undefeated and #1 St. Joe the week before and had Duke beat the week after until their best player "fouled out."
For Auburn 2010, that excuse just doesn't fly. They shot the ball well, but we played ****** defense and gave them a lot of easy shots.
....I don't care how hot they were. We're a 2 playing a 10.
Just like last night, when a team shoots 70% against you, it has something to do with your defense.
And yes, people have used that about Butler.
The one I'll give Rick is Texas in Dallas. That was BS.
The bottom line is that when somebody is lighting you up, figure out a way to stop it.
Just like last night, when a team shoots 70% against you, it has something to do with your defense.
And yes, people have used that about Butler.
The one I'll give Rick is Texas in Dallas. That was BS.
The bottom line is that when somebody is lighting you up, figure out a way to stop it.
I don't think it takes a complete sheep to think that about Xavier (and I don't think people say that about Butler. If so, that's dumb. The score was in the 50's). But last night?
Yes, they hit some tough threes. They also had a lot of wide open threes. But most of all, they made a lot of layups in the first half. Uncontested layups at that. We were horrible defensively in the first half last night.
In the second half, after coming back, we went 7 straight possessions where we shot threes between the last two media timeouts. The first two were good looks. The following five were not. At all.
The idea that we played well but just ran into a buzzsaw last night is completely stupid. We were lazyfor the whole first half and played stupid down the stretch.
Yes, they hit some tough threes. They also had a lot of wide open threes. But most of all, they made a lot of layups in the first half. Uncontested layups at that. We were horrible defensively in the first half last night.
In the second half, after coming back, we went 7 straight possessions where we shot threes between the last two media timeouts. The first two were good looks. The following five were not. At all.
The idea that we played well but just ran into a buzzsaw last night is completely stupid. We were lazyfor the whole first half and played stupid down the stretch.
the last couple of years. Maybe the common theme in that is whatever our defensive strategy is against them, we need a new one.
They got screwed into that 10 seed and we got screwed as the 2 that had to play them. So did Louisville as their 7.Pretty sure they were top 25 but I could be wrong. Either way they were playing as well as anyone in the country as was evident when theybuzzed through the A-10 tourney including St. Joe. Nobody but a 1 seed was going to beat them and Duke only did it by 3.
...I agree they were hot.
I just get sick of the "nobody could beat" team x whenever we lose to them. We could've and should've beaten Auburn last night. We should've given more effort on defense or had Turner or Stewart in Waller's face all night. Instead, we can't stop em in man, and so we shift to the zone, and the same thing happens. Basically, if we can't stop you in man to man or the 2-3 zone, we're done.
I just get sick of the "nobody could beat" team x whenever we lose to them. We could've and should've beaten Auburn last night. We should've given more effort on defense or had Turner or Stewart in Waller's face all night. Instead, we can't stop em in man, and so we shift to the zone, and the same thing happens. Basically, if we can't stop you in man to man or the 2-3 zone, we're done.
I don't think there's too much shame in us losing to them too. That really is the only game I can think of (I didn't see the Bama 98-44 game) that excuse applies to. In general that excuse is just an excuse for not doing your job. Despite your complaining about that excuse, I don't think it really gets used all that much. You're the only person in my life I've heard even mention it for the Butler game. And there are only a couple of people using it for last night. The vast majority of us knowAuburnwasn't that hot last night.
and see what you damn percentage is.
If someone thinks we didn't underachieve this year (to this point in the season), that someone is either:
1. full of ****.
2. a moron
3. both 1 and 2
If someone thinks we didn't underachieve this year (to this point in the season), that someone is either:
1. full of ****.
2. a moron
3. both 1 and 2
If we won half of the losses that were definitely "should have won" games, we wouldn't care about the "no one could have beaten them that night" losses.
The point is: WE HAVE UNDERACHIEVED MULTIPLE TIMES UNDER STANS AND WE HAVE NEVER EVER OVERACHIEVED. You could argue last years team overachieved, but we also lost several games in the year that we shouldn't have. Win those games and you don't have to "over achieve".
The point is: WE HAVE UNDERACHIEVED MULTIPLE TIMES UNDER STANS AND WE HAVE NEVER EVER OVERACHIEVED. You could argue last years team overachieved, but we also lost several games in the year that we shouldn't have. Win those games and you don't have to "over achieve".
"nobody could've beaten them on that night" is just an expression for a team that seemingly can't miss for one game.It'shyperbole.Xavier was just agreat team that got ****** seeding for different reasons. They didn't get hot for one game. They got hot for a month. Anyone who watched the St. Joe game knew we were not facing your average 7 seed.</p>
...that Xavier team was not a "great" team.
They went 26-11 and 10-6 in the A-10. Besides losing to us, Indiana, and St. Joe's, they lost to Ball State, Iowa State, Duquesne twice, Richmond, and George Washington.
They played (play) in the A-Freaking 10. Come on. Great team? My Gosh. Revisionist History at its finest.
And really, I could give two ***** what the pundits said about that St. Joe's team. They also played in the A-10. Might have something to do with that winning streak.
The point is, we're a 2, they're a 7. Both teams deserved the seed that they got. We just didn't hold up our end of the bargain.
They went 26-11 and 10-6 in the A-10. Besides losing to us, Indiana, and St. Joe's, they lost to Ball State, Iowa State, Duquesne twice, Richmond, and George Washington.
They played (play) in the A-Freaking 10. Come on. Great team? My Gosh. Revisionist History at its finest.
And really, I could give two ***** what the pundits said about that St. Joe's team. They also played in the A-10. Might have something to do with that winning streak.
The point is, we're a 2, they're a 7. Both teams deserved the seed that they got. We just didn't hold up our end of the bargain.
G
Goat Redux
Guest
Maybe "great" was strong, but they were a very good team that was on fire at the time. If you didn't realize how good they were you weren't paying atttention at the time.Which, judging from your reputation here, wouldn't surprise me.</p>
G
Goat Redux
Guest
...they were not a great team and they did not get screwed with their seeding. Here is an A-10 team that lost 10 games, man. 10 games. And they got a 7. I'd say that's being fairly generous.
can be totally different from the team you saw in December and January. In 2004, Xavier started the season 10-9, then went 16-1 in their next 17 games (including the win over St. Joe) before losing by 3 to Duke in the Elite 8. So yeah, at the time we played them, they were a damn good team.</p>
...that they got screwed in their seeding and were a "great team." For the last time in this thread, they deserved every bit of that 7 seed they got, and no 26-11 team is a "great team" unless win #26 is the national championship.
I have no problem understanding that they were hot, and that they were a different team when they played us. They were not a great team, and they deserved a 7 seed or worse based on going 10-6 in the A-10 and losing 10 games overall.
I have no problem understanding that they were hot, and that they were a different team when they played us. They were not a great team, and they deserved a 7 seed or worse based on going 10-6 in the A-10 and losing 10 games overall.
about us playing a hot team that no one could have beaten that particular night. If you wish to change the subject to underachieving then you might want to start a new thread. This particular one was about us losing to teams and players that have career type nights against us. I happen to think 1.5% of games over the last 8-10 years is about right for facing teams that are unbeatable. I actually think a great example of us was playing UK in the SEC tourney the final four year run. No one in the country could have beaten us that day.
Xavier shot 68.4% (13 of 19) from 3 point land.....no way we could have won that game.
http://statsheet.com/mcb/...-89-mississippi-state-74
http://statsheet.com/mcb/...-89-mississippi-state-74
Latest
-
01
Maroon and White Basketball
Xavier 81-63 Mississippi State: Distance shooting hurts Bulldogs in Greenbrier defeat
-
02
Maroon and White Football
Kickoff Time Change: Mississippi State vs. Auburn
-
03
Maroon and White Football
Mississippi State Keys to Victory vs. Auburn
-
04
Rivals Basketball Recruiting
4-star center Chris Brown commits to Mississippi State
-
05
Maroon and White Football
Mississippi State Week 11 Preview: Auburn Q and A