The regular season is over, let’s hand out of some grades:
Non conference: C-
Conference play: B
Defense: B (at times it was A level, others it was C- or worse)
Offense: B+
Effort/Heart/toughness: C+ (last 5 min of games : A+,)
Overall: B-
3 losses separated this from being a decent season to an outstanding one.
I'm not saying I disagree with your grades. I think they're more or less fair. But given what you said at the start of conference play we did the best you thought we possibly could. So why don't your end grades reflect that? This is from your post in the conference prediction thread:
*****
"This season is a wash. I guess we could always hope for some conference tourney magic but their are 4 or 5 teams that I’d picked ahead of UC in that tourney.
Just gotta hope next year Is better. It’s all we can do.
I predicted 10-8 In the vote. But I’ll just do it game by game and see what I think hsppens:
UConn: win
@tulane: loss
Tulsa: win
@ucf: win
@memphis: loss
Ecu : win
@temple: loss
Smu: win
Houston: loss
@WSU : loss
@Uconn : loss
Memphis : loss
@ECU : win
UCF : win
WSU : loss
@Houston loss
@south Florida : loss
Temple : win
8-10
So when I do a game by game matchup I come up with 8-10 just because I think Ron hunter is going to give them hell at Tulane, and I don’t think I’ve seen enough from Brannen to say he is going to win a lot of road games.
We need win 13 games just to get to 20 wins. I just have a hard time finding 13 games we should win"
*****
Sounds like Brannen was pretty exceptionally considering what you thought...