I agree with Gary Williams that we played better in the zone. Sure they hit some shots, but I think we really stopped them when we went zone. Especially early in the game, they started out hot, we went zone and really slowed them down.
The problem was we couldn't score in the 1st half. It wasn't the zone.
In the 2nd half both teams started hot, Hardaway making tough shots and Minnesota making equally good plays. Didn't matter if it was zone or man, both were playing well.
The zone was certainly effective in spurts. But many guys hate playing it, I think Trey, I KNOW Trey would rather play man-to-man. And not only does he want to play man-to-man, he wants to guard the toughest perimeter player (even though I think Stu is a better perimeter defender).
Note: that isn't a knock on Burke, who I think is very good, and played EXCELLENT defense tonight. I just think Douglass is the 2nd best perimeter defender in the league behind Aaron Craft. I'd still take Burke in my top 5 though.
So to get back to it, yea...I don't think he understood the question and I think he misspoke. Like I said, it wasn't terrible just an "ahhh, noooo" type moment that hopefully will be forgotten. Nothing that he'll be disciplined on or anything, I can't say enough how tired and bored he looked. I felt bad for him even when he was answering the first questions...I was like "it's the fricking QUARTERFINALS!! Let him go be with his team!!" No reason for an ON SET postgame interview this early in the tournament.
Yep, you're correct.
Noooo. I heard him say that he and the other players got intimitated with the zone, because Minnesota was shooting threes so well. They persuaded Beilein to go back to man in the huddle and Minnesota hit some shots. Then he went on to say they probably should've stayed in zone...
Maybe I missheard but I thought it was the other way around. Burke said they were in a zone but were afraid of Minnesota's shooters so asked to switch back to man and when they did, Minnesota made a run. I think he followed it up saying maybe they should have stayed in zone.
Overall it was a great interview for a true freshman and he seemed way too relaxed for someone who played all 45 minutes.
This is what he said. He didn't throw John B under the bus at all. Unless essentially saying,"Coach was right and we were wrong" is throwing him under the bus.
the guy doing these highlights is oddly uninformed. shouldn't BTN know novak from vogrich?
rules
That game + Me =
NO WAY we're lower than a 3 seed.
If we go 0-1...we're a 3 seed.
1-1...we're a likely 3 seed, potentially 2 seed IF we get some big time help.
2-0...we're a 2 seed.
Really it doesn't matter at this point...we're away from the #1s, it's all about matchups. In the most recent Bracketology I'd actually rather be a #4 in the region we're in rather than #3.
Thank GOD for Burke. Novak and Stu need to show up tomorrow.
Syracuse goes down! (And Kansas in trouble.) I still don't think the B10 champ (whoever it is) will overtake SU for a #1 seed, but, as others have said, at a minimum we've locked up a 3 w/the win tonight.
I don't think KU going down helps us. If they lose before the final, they probably move down to a 2. Just taking up a potential 2 spot for us
I think that would be a wash. Kansas would simply swap places with the current strongest #2 seed.
Now it's time to have a great game against OSU! This team always plays well against tougher competition but they also play the teams they should beat close. This team is always exciting to watch in every game. Now it's time to drink to unwind from all the stress these horrible refs have caused me!
OSU hasn't beat Purdue yet...
Our bench just isn't good enough to make a run in the tourny. Good win, though, what seed should we get? A 2 or 3?
How are you defining "run"? Final Four?
You don't think we'll make a run in the tourney, but you think we're good enough for a 2 or 3 seed.
TV Ted (Valentine) for slowing Minnesota up at the end of the 2nd half. I think we cut it to 3/4/5 (EDIT: He cut it to 7) points, a Minnesota player got "elbowed" and Valentine blew his whistle to see if he was okay. Not a foul but the new "elbowing" rule made him do so. Anyway, it was right under 4:00 minutes and they decided to do the tv timeout. I'm not sure it really had any effect but it almost seemed like he Carmody'd Minnesota (calling a pause to the game and breaking up Minnesota's rhythm). Then Michigan mounts comeback even more-so.
EDIT: Cutting it to seven, the comeback was just underway and Valentine whistled the tv timeout. Obviously the next whistle would have been a tv timeout but who knows if that would have come right away or not; Minnesota COULD have stayed in their flow and hit a shot to go back up 8/9 pts. Thanks to TV Ted they came out of the timeout and turned it over!
It was Ed Hightower...TV Ted had the MSU game
Kudos. It was Eddie, wasn't it. I keep the idea of what happened the same (whether it was actually causation for anything or not)!
Another win for Beilein over Tubby Smith. Beilein is 7-1 against Smith since 2008-09.
That was one of the few times all year when I thought the team said, "We know we're better than you, and we're just not going to lose." They'll have to play better to win tomorrow, but this win ought to breed confidence.
Watch "Miracle" closely. That's how one of the players refers to it ("played for you at the U").
Kansas goes down!
but the effort late was much better.
"You can grub grub grub about will to win and finding ways to win and winning is for winners; I don't buy that stuff."
"To the greater point: "Found a way to win" sounds great in prose and that's about the nicest thing you can say about that phrase."
When Michigan was down 9 with 4 minutes left, these were the words I could not get out of my mind. Things like poise and senior leadership dont exist. The reason that Minnesota keeps folding like a cheap tent at "Winning time"...whoops, I guess only stupid, unenlightened people use that phrase. The reason that Tubby has not been able to perform the heimlich maneuver on his basketball team this year, and the reason that Michigan has been winning close games...
Its simply a reflection of variance. Luck. Luck repeating itself again and again and again.
God help me, I want to be intelligent like you all. I want to view sports as a series of actuarial tables, just a summation of statistics and variances.
God help me, I watch the last 4 minutes of regulation and I just cant.
I agree with the premise and that things like "winning time," "cluth genes," and "intangibles" actually do exist and play a role in each and every game. The Delivery might be a little to direct for me, but good point.