|
Post by Xmassader on Nov 12, 2018 17:52:06 GMT -5
I am not suggesting and did not suggest in my previous post that the officiating was the difference between winning and losing the Michigan game. I am suggesting that, unlike a number of other games that we have played during CBC's tenure, HC (particularly Floyd, Butler and Grandison) did drive and attack the basket and was not "rewarded" for doing so in the same manner as Michigan. In many cases, the HC shot was missed without a Michigan foul or with a Michigan block. But, in a number of other cases, there was contact and HC got only 2 calls--both in the last 7-8 minutes of the game. There should not have been an 8 foul differential on contact plays in the first half. Perhaps that kind of differential is likely in an early game blowout by the favored team but we were ahead for most of the first half. Nevertheless, what we witnessed on Saturday and at Duke in '06 and Louisville in '04 is the Power 5 sway over the officials where they clearly know that a "neutral site" approach to the game will not result in another invite from Krzyzewski, Beilein, Pitino et al. On to Providence and the remainder of the season where I think this team will produce better regular season results than we've seen in quite some time. Go Cross!
|
|
|
Post by Non Alum Dave on Nov 12, 2018 18:05:36 GMT -5
By the way, the game is out there on youtube (was the live broadcast with students? These guys don't hold a candle to the WCHC guys from the past imho).
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Nov 12, 2018 18:14:07 GMT -5
If they were not allowed to say the word “great”, the announcers would have been speechless, which would have been the better alternative. ( I thought UM was a top school ?) The mute button was made for this broadcast
|
|
|
Post by WorcesterGray on Nov 12, 2018 18:24:04 GMT -5
Right, it is not always about talent. But in this case , we competed well for a half, then their far superior talent and size prevailed.Did you watch it ? Charles Matthews, their best player, began his career at Kentucky. As was pointed out, 7 players who saw action in last season’s championship game played against us. They are not No.18 for nothingWe competed for a whole game against a far superior Kentucky team (not ranked #10 for nothing) in 2001 with three non-scholarship players on the floor for much of the time. We competed for a whole game against a far superior Kansas team (not ranked #2 for nothing) in 2002. We competed for a whole game against a far superior Marquette team (not ranked #9 for nothing) in 2003. This is not ancient history.
This defeatist notion that we can't possibly beat far more talented teams is a non-starter. The only meaningful question is how to beat them, because as Bucknell and Lehigh have shown in the not too distant past, it can be done.
|
|
|
Post by dadominate on Nov 12, 2018 19:17:37 GMT -5
Right, it is not always about talent. But in this case , we competed well for a half, then their far superior talent and size prevailed.Did you watch it ? Charles Matthews, their best player, began his career at Kentucky. As was pointed out, 7 players who saw action in last season’s championship game played against us. They are not No.18 for nothingWe competed for a whole game against a far superior Kentucky team (not ranked #10 for nothing) in 2001 with three non-scholarship players on the floor for much of the time. We competed for a whole game against a far superior Kansas team (not ranked #2 for nothing) in 2002. We competed for a whole game against a far superior Marquette team (not ranked #9 for nothing) in 2003. This is not ancient history.
This defeatist notion that we can't possibly beat far more talented teams is a non-starter. The only meaningful question is how to beat them, because as Bucknell and Lehigh have shown in the not too distant past, it can be done.
and we lost all of those games, which is all that matters. nobody cares about close losses, especially after bucknell and lehigh raised the bar for the pl with actual wins in the big dance against some of the biggest names in college basketball. with the possible exception of the kentucky game, nobody was beating their chests after those close losses because they were frustrating as hell and the result of being unable to get a bucket when we needed it. i loved rw, but the fact of the matter is that his style could not get the job done in actually BEATING a ranked team, let alone in the ncaa tournament. it remains to be seen whether carmody can beat a ranked team/win an ncaa tournament game (aside from the playin game) at hc, but we know for a fact that rw could never get us over the hump and i personally don’t feel that coming close matters in almost anyone’s eyes. i have a feeling that this year’s team will at least make the pl championship game (and quite likely win it), and that we will be even stronger - a true force - when the sophomores are seniors and we will actually WIN one of those close games.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Nov 12, 2018 20:31:01 GMT -5
Dado, we usually view things with a similar eye, but believe we differ here.
I’m thinking we are a .500 team this year. Maybe slightly below that. The PL looks like it could be halfway decent, and we are a middle-of-the-pack team in this league if that’s the case. I hope I am wrong.
I think you’re being overly harsh with Willard. We are light years behind those teams, and I see no evidence that Carmody or his style is going to get us to the under four timeout with a shot at winning the game in the NCAA Tournament, which is something Willard did three times.
Counting on out-shooting teams as a means to win is a risky proposition.
What happened the circle of opportunity? That was a good recipe to give ourselves a chance against top 50 teams.
Let’s see how we perform tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by chicago77 on Nov 12, 2018 21:03:27 GMT -5
This was the first time I’ve seen HC basketball in person in over a decade. Nice to see my Wolverine wife actually nervous about the outcome for a while. A few observations about the game:
1. I thought Floyd’s second foul was the correct call, but the bigger issue was he should not have put himself in that position after he picked up his first foul so quickly.
2. Niego’s play was fantastic. Though he won’t be that hot every night, his on the court demeanor (calm, controlled, good bball IQ) suggests to me he will continue to improve and be a very strong player for HC. It was also clear that Michigan was overplaying Butler and Faw at the 3point line, they didn’t know Niego would shoot so well so he got open shots. In the second half they covered him up at the 3point line.
3. As noted by others, Michigan had greater size and quickness that HC had trouble dealing with. Early in the game there was a loose ball and Butler ended up with an open corner 3 point shot. I assumed he would nail it, but out of nowhere a Michigan player (Mathews?) blocked it. That wouldn’t happen in the Patriot league. HC needs exposure to this level of competition a couple of times a year to help the players improve their game.
4. As for the referees, I saw two definite bad calls go against HC at my end of the court and no bad calls against MI, but that isn’t why we lost the game. HC took the ball to the basket a fair number of times, they probably should have gotten more calls, but they also contributed to the lack of calls. The players were contorting themselves so much to get the shot off that they also avoided contact, rather than going hard to the hoop to get the call.
5. Someone mentioned no change in strategy from first to second half. Actually HC did a lot more post up in the second half, mostly with Floyd but some with Faw or Niego. Unfortunately, Floyd could not get his shots to fall.
6. The Michigan band was counting down the shot clock at times, and Butler was fooled once when they counted down 5 seconds ahead of the real time, throwing up a wild shot from outside the foul line. I assume the team won’t fall for that again.
7. And the most important thing I learned was that what many posters on this board refer to as “bunnies” are not what I call easy shots. When I think of bunnies, I imagine a shot with >90% expectation of going in. HC missed two such shots, one by Butler after receiving a pass wide open underneath and one by Greene after he beat his man with a nice drive he missed the wide open layup. All the other shots within 5 feet were contested by taller, stronger and quicker players, certainly not gimmes.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Nov 12, 2018 21:16:03 GMT -5
Accurate, knowledgeable analysis Thanks, 77
|
|
|
Post by crosspride on Nov 12, 2018 21:25:20 GMT -5
We competed for a whole game against a far superior Kentucky team (not ranked #10 for nothing) in 2001 with three non-scholarship players on the floor for much of the time. We competed for a whole game against a far superior Kansas team (not ranked #2 for nothing) in 2002. We competed for a whole game against a far superior Marquette team (not ranked #9 for nothing) in 2003. This is not ancient history.
This defeatist notion that we can't possibly beat far more talented teams is a non-starter. The only meaningful question is how to beat them, because as Bucknell and Lehigh have shown in the not too distant past, it can be done.
and we lost all of those games, which is all that matters. nobody cares about close losses, especially after bucknell and lehigh raised the bar for the pl with actual wins in the big dance against some of the biggest names in college basketball. with the possible exception of the kentucky game, nobody was beating their chests after those close losses because they were frustrating as hell and the result of being unable to get a bucket when we needed it. i loved rw, but the fact of the matter is that his style could not get the job done in actually BEATING a ranked team, let alone in the ncaa tournament. it remains to be seen whether carmody can beat a ranked team/win an ncaa tournament game (aside from the playin game) at hc, but we know for a fact that rw could never get us over the hump and i personally don’t feel that coming close matters in almost anyone’s eyes. i have a feeling that this year’s team will at least make the pl championship game (and quite likely win it), and that we will be even stronger - a true force - when the sophomores are seniors and we will actually WIN one of those close games. I’d rather a close loss in which you compete than a 40 point blowout to an average NCAA tournament team. This discussion all started when some blamed the refs for the FT shooting discrepancy. Seems logical to recall the same stats for recent games when HC played teams of a similar caliber, which clearly shows it’s not just refs. There are some solid PL teams this year. Other than crossing your fingers and hoping, it’s hard to say that we’ll “quite likely” win the PL when Carmody has yet to finish better than .500 in the league. I’d prefer a finish somewhere in the top of league before predicting an NCAA tournament win in <2 years. Fingers crossed though.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Nov 12, 2018 21:33:23 GMT -5
Anyone watching the Vermont game?
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Nov 12, 2018 21:45:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Nov 12, 2018 22:21:31 GMT -5
Vermont also getting the worse of the whistles. Surprise Vermont’s D was ranked 148 last season by Kenpom. Their offense was 48th. Seems that they were more offensive minded.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Nov 12, 2018 22:47:39 GMT -5
Vermont also getting the worse of the whistles. Surprise Vermont’s D was ranked 148 last season by Kenpom. Their offense was 48th. Seems that they were more offensive minded. Vermont 13 free throws to Kansas’ eight with five minutes left in the game.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Nov 12, 2018 22:58:56 GMT -5
Unfortunately Vermont lost by 16. Does not really matter how many points they got from Ft.(13-6)
|
|
|
Post by classof83 on Nov 13, 2018 0:12:07 GMT -5
Beilein's post game interview. I don't know if it has been posted.
Sounds like Michigan spent a lot of time preparing for HC
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Nov 13, 2018 8:22:55 GMT -5
Coach Beilein "Billy Carmody is a good coach and they are going to have a really good year." I guess he does not follow some posters on CROSSPORTS.
|
|
|
Post by DiMarz on Nov 13, 2018 8:51:36 GMT -5
Watched the game. Plain and simple, Michigan Out-coached Holy Cross. 2nd half UM made adjustments and we didn't. Are you sure Michigan didn’t out play HC, making adjustments with personal that HC could not do anything about. So often in games like this,the big boys step up and impose their will on the little and there is really nothing the little guy can do. Occasionally, a little guys will catch fire and every thing they toss near the hoop will go in. There are very few games of this nature where the little guy can impose their own defensive will on a big guy team...The big team is bigger, quicker, stronger and faster..All the big little upsets have the littles hitting a whole lot of shots, mostly threes. A good experience overall for the boys, move onto to Providence
|
|
|
Post by classof83 on Nov 13, 2018 9:04:00 GMT -5
Good point.
If you listen to what Beilein says in the post game it sounds like they tried to "out-think" us in first half and it wasn't working.
It sounds like in the second half the strategy was to just go out and use their size and quickness to beat us.
In BC's post game comments it sounded like he was disappointed because HC had worked on getting the ball down low and then looking to kick it out. He didn't seem to think we did enough of that.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Nov 13, 2018 10:16:28 GMT -5
Watched the game. Plain and simple, Michigan Out-coached Holy Cross. 2nd half UM made adjustments and we didn't. Are you sure Michigan didn’t out play HC, making adjustments with personal that HC could not do anything about. So often in games like this,the big boys step up and impose their will on the little and there is really nothing the little guy can do. Occasionally, a little guys will catch fire and every thing they toss near the hoop will go in. There are very few games of this nature where the little guy can impose their own defensive will on a big guy team...The big team is bigger, quicker, stronger and faster..All the big little upsets have the littles hitting a whole lot of shots, mostly threes. A good experience overall for the boys, move onto to Providence And are you sure that Michigan wasn't just sleep walking through the first half and that's the reason it was close at halftime? How can you say for sure any way? (And HC used to routinely impose their defensive will on the "big guy team" when RW was the coach. That's why many teams refused to play us, something that hasn't been the case for each of the Carmody, Brown, Kearney years.)
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Nov 13, 2018 10:27:25 GMT -5
We competed for a whole game against a far superior Kentucky team (not ranked #10 for nothing) in 2001 with three non-scholarship players on the floor for much of the time. We competed for a whole game against a far superior Kansas team (not ranked #2 for nothing) in 2002. We competed for a whole game against a far superior Marquette team (not ranked #9 for nothing) in 2003. This is not ancient history.
This defeatist notion that we can't possibly beat far more talented teams is a non-starter. The only meaningful question is how to beat them, because as Bucknell and Lehigh have shown in the not too distant past, it can be done.
and we lost all of those games, which is all that matters. nobody cares about close losses, especially after bucknell and lehigh raised the bar for the pl with actual wins in the big dance against some of the biggest names in college basketball. with the possible exception of the kentucky game, nobody was beating their chests after those close losses because they were frustrating as hell and the result of being unable to get a bucket when we needed it. i loved rw, but the fact of the matter is that his style could not get the job done in actually BEATING a ranked team, let alone in the ncaa tournament. it remains to be seen whether carmody can beat a ranked team/win an ncaa tournament game (aside from the playin game) at hc, but we know for a fact that rw could never get us over the hump and i personally don’t feel that coming close matters in almost anyone’s eyes. I agree that close losses only carry so much weight, but they are a clear indication that the program was in a great place and on the cusp of being a top Mid-Major (as clearly evidenced by our consistent rankings in the Mid-Major Top 25 during those years). We know for a fact that RW DID NOT get us over the hump, but I don't think anyone knows if he actually COULD NOT get us over the hump. The only factual data point that Carmody has provided regarding the NCAA Tournament is a 39 point drubbing against Oregon. At this point in his tenure, RW had nearly beaten Kentucky before losing by 4 and led Kansas at halftime before losing by 11. His team in Year 4 was also 25-4 before taking a Final Four Marquette team down to the wire in the NCAA tournament, finishing the year at 25-5 (KenPom #66). There is just no way an objective observer can look at Carmody's first 3+ years and have any confidence that he will get HC to a point where we have surpassed where RW had us.
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Nov 13, 2018 10:40:10 GMT -5
Agree- just don't think it will be the same defense that worked in that era. Otherwise you'd be seeing a lot of matchup zones and you don't.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Nov 13, 2018 10:46:48 GMT -5
and we lost all of those games, which is all that matters. nobody cares about close losses, especially after bucknell and lehigh raised the bar for the pl with actual wins in the big dance against some of the biggest names in college basketball. with the possible exception of the kentucky game, nobody was beating their chests after those close losses because they were frustrating as hell and the result of being unable to get a bucket when we needed it. i loved rw, but the fact of the matter is that his style could not get the job done in actually BEATING a ranked team, let alone in the ncaa tournament. it remains to be seen whether carmody can beat a ranked team/win an ncaa tournament game (aside from the playin game) at hc, but we know for a fact that rw could never get us over the hump and i personally don’t feel that coming close matters in almost anyone’s eyes. I agree that close losses only carry so much weight, but they are a clear indication that the program was in a great place and on the cusp of being a top Mid-Major (as clearly evidenced by our consistent rankings in the Mid-Major Top 25 during those years). We know for a fact that RW DID NOT get us over the hump, but I don't think anyone knows if he actually COULD NOT get us over the hump. The only factual data point that Carmody has provided regarding the NCAA Tournament is a 39 point drubbing against Oregon.
At this point in his tenure, RW had nearly beaten Kentucky before losing by 4 and led Kansas at halftime before losing by 11. His team in Year 4 was also 25-4 before taking a Final Four Marquette team down to the wire in the NCAA tournament, finishing the year at 25-5 (KenPom #66). There is just no way an objective observer can look at Carmody's first 3+ years and have any confidence that he will get HC to a point where we have surpassed where RW had us. Of course you know you are wrong: HC beat Southern University in that NCAA Tournament. That is a "factual data point" whether or not it supports your narrative.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Nov 13, 2018 11:01:30 GMT -5
I agree that close losses only carry so much weight, but they are a clear indication that the program was in a great place and on the cusp of being a top Mid-Major (as clearly evidenced by our consistent rankings in the Mid-Major Top 25 during those years). We know for a fact that RW DID NOT get us over the hump, but I don't think anyone knows if he actually COULD NOT get us over the hump. The only factual data point that Carmody has provided regarding the NCAA Tournament is a 39 point drubbing against Oregon.
At this point in his tenure, RW had nearly beaten Kentucky before losing by 4 and led Kansas at halftime before losing by 11. His team in Year 4 was also 25-4 before taking a Final Four Marquette team down to the wire in the NCAA tournament, finishing the year at 25-5 (KenPom #66). There is just no way an objective observer can look at Carmody's first 3+ years and have any confidence that he will get HC to a point where we have surpassed where RW had us. Of course you know you are wrong: HC beat Southern University in that NCAA Tournament. That is a "factual data point" whether or not it supports your narrative. OK, Carmody has proven that he can beat a 225+ SWAC team in the PIG. I would love to hear how that changes the comparison offered above in any way.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Nov 13, 2018 11:25:17 GMT -5
Just trying to help you--you often make a persuasive case for your POV, but when you choose to omit key facts it weakens your argument.
|
|
|
Post by WCHC Sports on Nov 13, 2018 12:11:58 GMT -5
Question: would the fact that HC had scholarships before the other PL schools did not only indicate that HC would be better relative to Colgate, Lafayette, Bucknell, etc. at the time, but also perhaps mean that the HC teams in and of themselves would be more talented?
What am I getting at? Let's say there are only a handful of talented players who have the academic profile or personal interest in a Patriot League-caliber school, whatever that is. Nowadays, that player is viably choosing between all schools in the PL equally (I'm being fair and taking off the purple glasses) because they can get a full ride to any of those schools. Years ago, that same player may have leaned towards HC because it was the only game in town when it came to scholarships. Obviously, the HC teams would/should be more talented than their American, Lehigh, and Colgate peers at that time (leaving out Navy and Army for the obvious reasons) based on the scholarship disparity. I'm arguing that at the same time, if HC was skimming the cream of the crop within the PL, then its own roster would be less-diluted because the pool of candidates was not so easily tapped by PL competitors. I would bet this is the reason why HC had the mid-major strength and relative competitiveness against top flight programs such as Kentucky and Kansas. PL teams have basically taken HC down a notch by competing for the same pool of athletes/students.
|
|