|
Post by blackpantheruwm on Mar 3, 2011 15:48:04 GMT -5
I think, the idea of giving the 3 and 4 seeds a single bye to go with the 1/2 double bye may be something the Horizon League would want to look at. I don't know how it would work, but traditionally the 3 and 4 seeds have separated themselves from 5-10.
That said, wherever you place the bye line, someone is going to be disappointed.
And as far as making money:
In 2002, when the host was out, the championship between Butler and UIC was played in front of 1,500 people. When Milwaukee hosted the championship game in 2003, it was played in front of 10,000. That's why the top seeds now host (MKE was #2 seed in 03).
In the end it's about two things: attendance and success in the NCAA Tournament. If you're a seed outside the top 2, winning the tournament is proof you are the best. CSU did that in 2009 and went on to destroy Wake Forest in the first round.
|
|
|
Post by jhbertram on Mar 3, 2011 16:13:12 GMT -5
We will beat Detroit. They are more beat up than Valpo and our match is in our favor
|
|
|
Post by wh on Mar 3, 2011 16:17:01 GMT -5
Look at the YSU game. Instead of playing like they deserved to be winning by a large margin, it seemed they did everything they could to help YSU come back. Quick shots, silly turnovers, ect. Earlier in the season we were trying to milk the clock when we built up leads, but taking the air out of the ball never seemed to go very well. Our FT shooting was atrocious - not just Erik, but players that shoot 75% at the line couldn't buy a FT at crucial stages down the stretch. I have to say that I much prefer our current approach of continuing to look to score on every possession. You are absolutely right that if we go into a scoring drought while trying to hang onto the lead, we're giving our opponent that many more possessions to come back. On the other hand, we are much more effective offensively when our scoring opportunities come in the flow of our normal offense. For example, a wide open back door pass to Howard Little might happen 9 seconds into the shot clock, 15 seconds in, or 30 seconds in. If we pass the ball around the perimeter for 20 seconds before we start in our sequence, the easy opportunity may never happen. Too often we end up putting the ball in Brandon's hands and hoping he can break down the defense by himself. As good as Brandon is, breaking down an opponent with one-on-one moves like a Derrick Rose crossover dribble is not his forte.
|
|
|
Post by milanmiracle on Mar 3, 2011 23:31:38 GMT -5
Look at the YSU game. Instead of playing like they deserved to be winning by a large margin, it seemed they did everything they could to help YSU come back. Quick shots, silly turnovers, ect. Earlier in the season we were trying to milk the clock when we built up leads, but taking the air out of the ball never seemed to go very well. Our FT shooting was atrocious - not just Erik, but players that shoot 75% at the line couldn't buy a FT at crucial stages down the stretch. I have to say that I much prefer our current approach of continuing to look to score on every possession. You are absolutely right that if we go into a scoring drought while trying to hang onto the lead, we're giving our opponent that many more possessions to come back. On the other hand, we are much more effective offensively when our scoring opportunities come in the flow of our normal offense. For example, a wide open back door pass to Howard Little might happen 9 seconds into the shot clock, 15 seconds in, or 30 seconds in. If we pass the ball around the perimeter for 20 seconds before we start in our sequence, the easy opportunity may never happen. Too often we end up putting the ball in Brandon's hands and hoping he can break down the defense by himself. As good as Brandon is, breaking down an opponent with one-on-one moves like a Derrick Rose crossover dribble is not his forte. I completely get what you are saying by running the offense and taking a good/easy shot when it's available. However I saw on two different trips down the court, Jay Harris and BWood put up three's less than 5 seconds into the shot clock. IF I remember, Harris's shot was contested. That's just not smart on any level. The one thing we can say is for whatever reason Valpo can not finish.
|
|
|
Post by vuweathernerd on Mar 4, 2011 23:43:10 GMT -5
Earlier in the season we were trying to milk the clock when we built up leads, but taking the air out of the ball never seemed to go very well. Our FT shooting was atrocious - not just Erik, but players that shoot 75% at the line couldn't buy a FT at crucial stages down the stretch. I have to say that I much prefer our current approach of continuing to look to score on every possession. You are absolutely right that if we go into a scoring drought while trying to hang onto the lead, we're giving our opponent that many more possessions to come back. On the other hand, we are much more effective offensively when our scoring opportunities come in the flow of our normal offense. For example, a wide open back door pass to Howard Little might happen 9 seconds into the shot clock, 15 seconds in, or 30 seconds in. If we pass the ball around the perimeter for 20 seconds before we start in our sequence, the easy opportunity may never happen. Too often we end up putting the ball in Brandon's hands and hoping he can break down the defense by himself. As good as Brandon is, breaking down an opponent with one-on-one moves like a Derrick Rose crossover dribble is not his forte. I completely get what you are saying by running the offense and taking a good/easy shot when it's available. However I saw on two different trips down the court, Jay Harris and BWood put up three's less than 5 seconds into the shot clock. IF I remember, Harris's shot was contested. That's just not smart on any level. The one thing we can say is for whatever reason Valpo can not finish. they finished fairly well tonight. it was just a stretch in the middle of the second half that was a little close for comfort.
|
|
|
Post by drewsaders11 on Mar 5, 2011 1:45:50 GMT -5
Well, 13 people were wrong. Lets see if the Crusaders can pull together another W and prove another 11 people wrong.
|
|
|
Post by jhbertram on Mar 5, 2011 9:21:24 GMT -5
I hate to say I told you so...but. Last nights win over Detroit was as expected. Although we were behind early in the game and Detroit rallied to make it close a few times, the game really was never in question. Provided Buggs's ankle injury is minor, the guys didn't look too beat up or exhausted. Tonight they will need to bring their A game and their game attitiudes as we conquer UWM by 8
|
|
|
Post by crusaderboy on Mar 5, 2011 9:47:30 GMT -5
Wait ... I'm confused. A team with 23 wins is being labeled as not being able to finish?
|
|
|
Post by valpofan56 on Mar 5, 2011 10:05:56 GMT -5
Wait ... I'm confused. A team with 23 wins is being labeled as not being able to finish? See: Ohio, Toledo, Green Bay, Milwaukee, Green Bay.
|
|
|
Post by valporun on Mar 5, 2011 11:08:15 GMT -5
Wait ... I'm confused. A team with 23 wins is being labeled as not being able to finish? By "finish", most of us think of being able to comfortably put the game away, seal the deal, walk out with that game comfortably in our back pockets. We've had a very strong inability to do that this season, explaining why we don't finish games very well.
|
|
|
Post by vuweathernerd on Mar 5, 2011 11:23:14 GMT -5
Wait ... I'm confused. A team with 23 wins is being labeled as not being able to finish? By "finish", most of us being able to comfortable put the game away, seal the deal, walk out with that game comfortably in our back pockets. We've had a very strong inability to do that this season, explaining why we don't finish games very well. exactly. the problem has seemed to be when we feel comfortable enough with the lead and time left that we try to start running clock. the offense becomes stagnant, they don't move around, and that often leads to bad or quick shots, and then affects the defense when they can't get down the floor fast enough to prevent an easy bucket in transition. and when it happens over a span of several minutes, it makes it very easy for the opponent to get back into the game and makes a lot of people very nervous.
|
|
|
Post by CO_VU_Fan on Mar 5, 2011 11:47:03 GMT -5
Well, 13 people were wrong. Lets see if the Crusaders can pull together another W and prove another 11 people wrong. I picked VU to lose in the Conference finals. I hope they prove me wrong too!
|
|
|
Post by dcvalpo on Mar 5, 2011 12:11:42 GMT -5
Wait ... I'm confused. A team with 23 wins is being labeled as not being able to finish? See: Ohio, Toledo, Green Bay, Milwaukee, Green Bay. Butler, Missouri State, Cleveland State, Oakland, Ball State, Wright State, Detroit...etc...
|
|
|
Post by valpofan56 on Mar 5, 2011 12:38:43 GMT -5
See: Ohio, Toledo, Green Bay, Milwaukee, Green Bay. Butler, Missouri State, Cleveland State, Oakland, Ball State, Wright State, Detroit...etc... The Missouri State and Ball State games were never close, so that's just stupid. Some of those other games you listed (especially Oakland and Cleveland State) should never have been close except for our inability to "finish."
|
|
|
Post by us30 on Mar 5, 2011 12:59:59 GMT -5
They finished well against Butler at home; Detroit games 1, 2, and 3. Wright State on the road especially, and just enough at home. I'd say the Milw. home game but Milw. was disinterested down the stretch. Those stand out.
|
|