What was the luck? Recruiting violation?
ThanxHe decommitted from ucla because they had a lot of wing depth and the distance from home.
Then Brad Stevens left for the Celtics which was his second choice. And it lined up perfectly for Xavier. X was not his first or 2nd and maybe even 3rd choice
Jon worked at Cape Canaveral launching Delta rockets off complex 17a and 17b. 36 successful launches. A successful mission was never the product of luck. It was the result of dedication to detail and hard work.That's why it's called luck and not skill. Luck is a word that defines a chance, there is no believing or not. Lol
Jake are you taking the pointsUC -3
Jon worked at Cape Canaveral launching Delta rockets off complex 17a and 17b. 36 successful launches. A successful mission was never the product of luck. It was the result of dedication to detail and hard work.
Jake are you taking the points
Jake you know the best part was watching the process. You start with launch pad qualifications. Then you begin to stack your flight hardware. Testing each piece. Then launch. If your getting the right data back you know you did your job.Damn that's awesome.
I'll be pulling for you.I took UC -2.5 yesterday. Thinking about the Under 148.5.
I'll be interested to see how we play this game. Slowing them down technically worked for a while. But we were only up 3 at halftime in the tournament, despite doing everything we aimed for. We had to play perfect for 40 minutes to have a chance. One spurt from them and we were cooked. That's the fire you're playing with when you don't score. If we score 65 or less today and lose, I'm not going to be a happy camper. Just saying it now
I'll be interested to see how we play this game. Slowing them down technically worked for a while. But we were only up 3 at halftime in the tournament, despite doing everything we aimed for. We had to play perfect for 40 minutes to have a chance. One spurt from them and we were cooked. That's the fire you're playing with when you don't score. If we score 65 or less today and lose, I'm not going to be a happy camper. Just saying it now
I was just thinking, does anyone else think this game will be close throughout even though it will feel like we should be up 10-15 points? If this game is in the high 50's low 60's in the final two minutes I might cry.
Really would like to see Cronin use 8-10 players and keep rotating bench players in. We have so many lineup combos to keep scorers on the floor while subbing in fresh legs off the bench. But that would require Mick playing some freshman against a quality team...
When do we ever shoot well on the road tho?
Our 3 point shooting never travels, so it could be under 65 no matter what pace we play in.
You’d be happy if we dropped 81 and lost by 10 though ? If we beat them in any capacity I’ll be happy and I’ll be upset if we lose in any fashion.
And slowing them down worked all game until we stopped slowing them down. If I remember correctly ucla went on their run after we took a quick bad shot, then we didn’t get back fast enough and they hit a transistion 3. I think most of that run was because our stopped executing the game plan that was working.
That said, this isn’t the same ucla offense at all. So I’m impartial to how we manage it, as long as we win.
I feel the opposite. I’d rather UC play a short bench and let our more experienced players win this for us.
We lose chemistry when we make multiple subs at once. I don’t believe we have depth. We have depth against bad teams but against good teams we might as well be 6-6 deep. I mean, every player on ucla can score. When we put brooks, Scott, and Jenifer on the floor, they provide a disadvantage for us.
Sometimes I’ll look on the court see and just 1 guy playing who can actually score on good teams. That’s bad news in a high level must win game like today’s
That's why we keep scorers on the floor but sub in guys. It works when we play with confidence against scrubs. No reason why we can't against a team like UCLA.