How did we get a 2 seed?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
2018 General Recruiting
- Thread starter jacobkdoyle
- Start date
Help Support BearcatTalk:
How did we get a 2 seed?
jacobkdoyle
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 17,008
How did we get a 2 seed?
We had a really good regular season.
How do we go about using it to our advantage? That's what I genuinely want to know.
We had a really good regular season.
How do we go about using it to our advantage? That's what I genuinely want to know.
I feel like every year we have a debate about the same thing, i understand your frustration I really do. But when another user posts that we are not relevant after we got a 2 seed I’m gonna have to say something.
jacobkdoyle
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 17,008
I feel like every year we have a debate about the same thing, i understand your frustration I really do. But when another user posts that we are not relevant after we got a 2 seed I’m gonna have to say something.
Understandable. And I agree that 2 seeds don't just magically happen. I just want to see us take advantage.
The fact that this is such a yearly convo is a problem. Or at least it should be at some point. Always something left to be desired. And the years just tick on by.
You need to step back from the ledge man. Things didn't go the way we wanted this year. UVA was the first team in history to lose to a 16 seed. Shit happens. Every team except Villanova and probably Loyola were ultimately disappointed by the end result to this season. It is okay to be upset, but you are attacking every single post someone makes that is at all optimistic or disagrees with your doom and gloom attitude.
Take a break. Its 2 weeks after the season and Football doesn't start up until August. Get outside and smell the roses a little bit.
Virginia got the brakes beat off them from the tip.... both were huge upsets..CATS was a choke job tho... and every aspect of what needs fixed with the program came out in said choke job.
Virginia got the brakes beat off them from the tip.... both were huge upsets..CATS was a choke job tho... and every aspect of what needs fixed with the program came out in said choke job.
Interesting that the 2 biggest tournament loses were dealt to the 2 best defensive teams (with not much offense)? Could there be something to learn from that?
Interesting that the 2 biggest tournament loses were dealt to the 2 best defensive teams (with not much offense)? Could there be something to learn from that?
What makes you say those were the two biggest tourney losses? In terms of difference in seeding, X's loss was "bigger" and arguably more of an upset/surprise. And they're an offensive team.
WAITE HOYT 2
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2012
- Messages
- 8,404
so let me understand this, Virginia who I believe was the number 1 overall seed The ACC champion got the pants beat off them by a team who was one of the last to make the field and that wasn't a choke job? Now I will never argue that we didn't give the game to Nevada away but Virginia losing was every bit as historic as our loss.Virginia got the brakes beat off them from the tip.... both were huge upsets..CATS was a choke job tho... and every aspect of what needs fixed with the program came out in said choke job.
WAITE HOYT 2
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2012
- Messages
- 8,404
Virginia had enough offense to go 17-1 i
Virginia had enough offense to win the ACC and be the number 1 seed. UC had enough to win its league and tourney, secure a 22 point lead with 11 minutes to go against Nevada. We had plenty of offense to win that game. We took bad shot after bad shot , quit guarding and turned the ball over.
Virginia had enough offense to go 17-1 in the ACC. They lost to a 16 seed UMBC in the tourney. You think them losing was a matter of them not having a good enough offense?
Interesting that the 2 biggest tournament loses were dealt to the 2 best defensive teams (with not much offense)? Could there be something to learn from that?
Virginia had enough offense to win the ACC and be the number 1 seed. UC had enough to win its league and tourney, secure a 22 point lead with 11 minutes to go against Nevada. We had plenty of offense to win that game. We took bad shot after bad shot , quit guarding and turned the ball over.
Virginia had enough offense to go 17-1 in the ACC. They lost to a 16 seed UMBC in the tourney. You think them losing was a matter of them not having a good enough offense?
Last edited:
jacobkdoyle
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 17,008
Interesting that the 2 biggest tournament loses were dealt to the 2 best defensive teams (with not much offense)? Could there be something to learn from that?
Nothing to learn. Full steam ahead baby!
jacobkdoyle
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 17,008
What makes you say those were the two biggest tourney losses? In terms of difference in seeding, X's loss was "bigger" and arguably more of an upset/surprise. And they're an offensive team.
The most historic collapse in tournament history. A team with a 99.9% win probability lost. Where would you rank it?
jacobkdoyle
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 17,008
Virginia had enough offense to go 17-1 i
Virginia had enough offense to win the ACC and be the number 1 seed. UC had enough to win its league and tourney, secure a 22 point lead with 11 minutes to go against Nevada. We had plenty of offense to win that game. We took bad shot after bad shot , quit guarding and turned the ball over.
Virginia had enough offense to go 17-1 in the ACC. They lost to a 16 seed UMBC in the tourney. You think them losing was a matter of them not having a good enough offense?
Unequivocally, yes. They scored 54 freaking points.
WAITE HOYT 2
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2012
- Messages
- 8,404
Jake so they lost to UMBC because of lack of offense but were 17-1 in the Acc with the same group. You may want to factor in they lost one of their best players to injury prior to tourney.Unequivocally, yes. They scored 54 freaking points.
jacobkdoyle
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 17,008
Jake so they lost to UMBC because of lack of offense but were 17-1 in the Acc with the same group. You may want to factor in they lost one of their best players to injury prior to tourney.
Lol. They scored 54 and lost by 20 to a 16 seed. Why are you making excuses for them?
The guy they lost was their 4th leading scorer at under 10 PPG. If we lost Broome (also 6th man and 4th leading scorer), would we not be expected to stay within 20 vs a 16 seed?
jacobkdoyle
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 17,008
Lol. They scored 54 and lost by 20 to a 16 seed. Why are you making excuses for them?
The guy they lost was their 4th leading scorer at under 10 PPG. If we lost Broome (also 6th man and 4th leading scorer), would we not be expected to stay within 20 vs a 16 seed?
Broome was actually 5th. But either way, they should've been able to win that game without their best 2 or 3 players no problem.
WAITE HOYT 2
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2012
- Messages
- 8,404
What I'm saying is they lost because they had a horrendous game not because their overall offense was bad. That was what I was responding to initially. I think you game in in the middle of a discussion. Hat I responded to was the two biggest upsets were to the best defensive teams but not much offense. In my opinion that is not a accurate statement. we had bad games. Us and Virginia did not have bad offenses. Our defenses were better but our offenses were not bad.Lol. They scored 54 and lost by 20 to a 16 seed. Why are you making excuses for them?
The guy they lost was their 4th leading scorer at under 10 PPG. If we lost Broome (also 6th man and 4th leading scorer), would we not be expected to stay within 20 vs a 16 seed?
Last edited:
jacobkdoyle
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 17,008
What I'm saying is they lost because they had a horrendous game not because their overall offense was bad. That was what I was responding to initially. I think you game in in the middle of a discussion. Hat I responded to was the two biggest upsets were to the best defensive teams but not much offense. In my opinion that is not a accurate statement. we had bad games. Us and Virginia did not have bad offenses. Our defenses were better but our offenses were not bad.
Gotcha.
Well if a horrendous game is all it takes for a 16 to beat the #1 overall team by 20, I'm not too worried about the changing landscape.
Last edited:
Virginia had enough offense to go 17-1 i
Virginia had enough offense to win the ACC and be the number 1 seed. UC had enough to win its league and tourney, secure a 22 point lead with 11 minutes to go against Nevada. We had plenty of offense to win that game. We took bad shot after bad shot , quit guarding and turned the ball over.
Virginia had enough offense to go 17-1 in the ACC. They lost to a 16 seed UMBC in the tourney. You think them losing was a matter of them not having a good enough offense?
Exactly, I’m taking in a tourney win or go home situation.
When their defense failed them, they have no answers
Jake so they lost to UMBC because of lack of offense but were 17-1 in the Acc with the same group. You may want to factor in they lost one of their best players to injury prior to tourney.
Ok now I’ve heard everything. #1 seed 17-1 in ACC but lost 1 player and it’s ok to lose to a #16 seed for the first time ever in the tournament!
Similar threads
- Replies
- 727
- Views
- 299K