You heard it here first Uconn will have only 3 losses all year | Page 2 | The Boneyard

You heard it here first Uconn will have only 3 losses all year

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nailed it

printcomp.aspx
 
With the two losses we've already had, the 3 described by the OP would give us 5 on the season. If we somehow pull off a 3 loss season with 5 losses, he'll really be able to tell us to put it in our pipes and smoke it.
 
a loss to florida
a wtf loss
and a late season loss either in aac or ncaa tourney

I will resurrect this thread in April to say I told you so
3 loses ugh?? To Yale was you counting that loss or did you have that game as a win??
 
a loss to florida
a wtf loss
and a late season loss either in aac or ncaa tourney

I will resurrect this thread in April to say I told you so
After the Yale loss, you are right on the money. Congrats!
 
I don't know what everyone's so upset about; I'm pretty excited to know that we're now going to run the table en route to #5.
 
time to run the table baby
 
Well, I was way off in my prediction for the Huskies but was right about SMU doing nothing despite returning their veteran team. I said they'd have a successful regular season but do nothing in the NCAA's and got ripped for saying it. At least I have that. Misery loves company.
 
Well, I was way off in my prediction for the Huskies but was right about SMU doing nothing despite returning their veteran team. I said they'd have a successful regular season but do nothing in the NCAA's and got ripped for saying it. At least I have that. Misery loves company.

I mean, they got boned by an absurd application of the goaltending rule, but don't let that slow you down.
 
In the OP's defense I take the crown for worst prediction of the season. I said we had a 50-50 chance to repeat. Whoops.
 
I mean, they got boned by an absurd application of the goaltending rule, but don't let that slow you down.
They did still throw the ball away to give them the chance for that call to be made and did have a chance to win right. They also allowed Alford to hit 8 or 9 threes or does that not count? I guess the goaltending call is the single reason they lost, huh?
 
They did still throw the ball away to give them the chance for that call to be made and did have a chance to win right. They also allowed Alford to hit 8 or 9 threes or does that not count? I guess the goaltending call is the single reason they lost, huh?

So what's your point? That unless you play a perfect game, you deserve to lose? Nobody said SMU was perfect, but if the refs didn't just give 3 points to UCLA there, SMU wins the game, and your idiotic proclamation is proven wrong.
 
They did still throw the ball away to give them the chance for that call to be made and did have a chance to win right. They also allowed Alford to hit 8 or 9 threes or does that not count? I guess the goaltending call is the single reason they lost, huh?

"Allowed" Alford?

Maybe Alford is nearly a 40% 3PT shooter? Maybe teams face good players who shoot well? Nice job brazenly defending your prediction, but Alford's shooting performance wasn't solely a function of bad defense. As much as I'll get slapped around for admitting this about a UCLA player, he's good.
 
So what's your point? That unless you play a perfect game, you deserve to lose? Nobody said SMU was perfect, but if the refs didn't just give 3 points to UCLA there, SMU wins the game, and your idiotic proclamation is proven wrong.
So I said they'd nothing in the NCAA Tourney. Do you consider winning one game in the NCAA Tourney 'something'? Maybe in SMU'S world that's a great season. Now they have no wins.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
33
Guests online
1,289
Total visitors
1,322

Forum statistics

Threads
164,003
Messages
4,378,173
Members
10,170
Latest member
ctfb19382


.
..
Top Bottom