- Aug 26, 2011
- Reaction Score
tzznandrew said:We went into the tournament on a loss, but we were still the #2 overall seed. But that's missing part of why were so so heavily regarded. The first loss was Marcus Williams' first game back. Most people just discounted that once he got his act together. The second loss was on the road to Villanova, another #1 seed which we then avenged with a double-digit loss weeks later. And the Syracuse loss looked a loss less bad once they won the BET. They were better losses than Duke's (who had lost the last two games before the ACCT), and they exposed what everyone knew about Duke: an athletic team would take them out. People didn't think that about us. We had a great PG, an AA in Gay, and the deepest (everyone thought) interior in the nation. And we went undefeated through a tough OOC largely without our top PG. Again, retrospect--and our own rationalizations, fair or now--have brought us to see this team's limitations. But I'm not shocked others didn't. Unfortunately, I can't find gambling odds, and all the old message boards don't have archives that go back that far, so I guess it is your word against mine. It's not like it's that big a deal, though.
No big deal. I might be remembering more about my own perception of the team at the time than the general one. I feared the Albany game all week - not my usual nervous Nellie stuff, but a genuine belief that we were fully capable of losing to a 16 seed. We were soundly outplayed by South Frakkin Florida for 30 solid minutes straight and they were hideous. And Syracuse was meh and outplayed us for most of the 45 minutes.
I also thought George Mason would give us a lot of problems because they started 3 guards who could create and we didn't have anyone who could guard any of them. I didn't think they'd hurt us inside as much as they did, though. That came as a surprise.