Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="hoophuskee, post: 4127035, member: 3535"] But any game that is a big upset - you can always argue that they were "not prepared?" Because one can always argue if they really were prepared, they wouldn't have let an inferior team beat them. And generally UCONN is pretty decent favorite, so does this mean that the coach has been unprepared after all the losses he was favored by more than a couple of points as well as his team? If it's the whole team, then why single out the bench and not on some of the players that are more "responsible" because they are the ones you rewarded more minutes during the season because they were better than the bench players? It's the same argument with bench vs not bench. When you lose a close game, unless the bench was super, you can always say the bench didn't give them enough. Just as you can make the argument the other way. But which is true? Haven't the starters in the past struggled and UCONN still won? I saw many grind games during the Rutgers years. IMO its mostly always on certain starters. Because they are the better players usually that you have relied on all year. As a result the expectation is that they must produce. That's why they start and that's why you gave them the most minutes throughout the year. A team can't go undefeated for 5 years etc - ie they can't win every game. But if the philosophy has been to play mostly 7-8 players and it has been an extreme success - why would the most successful coach in the history of the sport stop his philosophy that's been so great? [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach

Forum statistics

Threads: 164,432

Messages: 4,396,105

Members: 10,209

Latest member: gemini*trvl