In basketball and football, it is usually impossible to discern the difference between poor play and lack of effort. If, by effort, you mean physically exerting oneself to try to make plays. (Because if you mean by effort making the right play consistently, then we do have a lack of effort but you're defining effort by what I or you want them to do, as opposed to what they think is best, which strikes me as a poor use of the word). Same for "heart." If winning teams have heart and losing teams don't, then we don't have heart but if you mean by heart the players are trying to achieve what they think they are supposed to be achieving or each individual play, then I don't know whether this team does or doesn't.
I don't think the bulk of this team's problem is "effort" or "heart." I think the bulk of this team's problems are lack of confidence, lack of basketball IQ and lack of having any feel whatsoever for how the team as a whole is supposed to be playing, as opposed to individual roles.
That having been said, did the first half look like Marquette just wanted to win more than we did? Heck yes. But I still don't believe that is the primary reason for our underachievment.
And, without doing the research (so forgive me if I'm wrong), as I recall the discussion you were telling me individual players who had rings didn't have "heart" and weren't playing with "effort." And, given evidence to the contrary (i.e., the rights), I still believe that. I think the problem is still that these players don't function as a team. But that Roscoe or AO or Shabazz isn't consciously willing to sacrifice for the good of the team -- I have trouble accepting that because we wouldn't have won last year.
