[quote="fordham96" post=294013][quote="Chicago Days" post=294011][quote="Beast of the East" post=294000][quote="fordham96" post=293996]OMG did someone say beating a 5-13 Georgetown team in the BE Tourney is comparable to making the NIT. There is no way that is a serious comment. No way.
So by definition since Lavin's last team lost to Providence in the BET and then San Diego St in the NCAA's last year's team was comparable to that team because get ready for it folks, they beat a 5-13 Georgetown team in the play in round of their own conference Tourney.
And evidently that is a serious poster.[/quote]
Of course you can't take that seriously. But what you can't deny is that last season's undermanned team played competitively nearly the entire schedule, never gaveup, and learned how to win after losing 2nd best player with an already thin rotation,
They should have and could have beaten Georgetown 3 times, but it was still an accomplishment to finally prevail over them in the BET.[/quote]
Very true, Beast. It was an agonizing and frustrating year--because it could've been much more. Losing LoVett was monumental, but the team--as undermanned as it was--did not quit. Three - four games could've gone our way.
Hopefully, a very good sign that Mullin's teams do not quit--and next year, very deep in talent, watch out.
Should be a very exciting season in a conference that doesn't look all that 'down' to me.
Nova is still Nova and some teams like Xavier and the Hall may have lost some talent, but others like us and Marquette have reloaded, and Providence and Butler still look tough.[/quote]
No I dont give him points for that either in terms of competitiveness. That works both ways.
Look at their 4 wins. EASILY could have lost 3 of them. Easily. Butler choked the game away at Carnesecca. DePaul had a lead late before Ponds got hot. I thought they outplayed Nova but still that was a 1 point game with less than a minute.
The only league game they won last year where you can argue they clearly outplayed and felt comfortable with a minute was Marquette at home. The fact is they were closer to being 1-17 then say 9-9. So 4-14 was about right.
The year before I have stated this a dozen times they finished 7-11. Look at the 11 losses, they were totally NON competitive in all of them. I believe they trailed at halftime in everyone of those games and trailed by double digits in the second half in EVERY loss. Meanwhile a couple of their wins were very tight. Could have finished 5-13 easily.
The fact is his 12-42 League record could actually be a lot worse...[/quote]
I agree Fordham, that we could’ve been 1-17 last year instead of 4-14–both dismal—but the spectrum swings the other way to for a team that didn’t quit.
We could’ve been anywhere from 7-11 to 8-10 to a ‘magical’ 9-9 as well.
The point I was trying to make is the team weathered that horrific losing streak and never quit, so I respect that piece of a lousy and frustrating season.
So by definition since Lavin's last team lost to Providence in the BET and then San Diego St in the NCAA's last year's team was comparable to that team because get ready for it folks, they beat a 5-13 Georgetown team in the play in round of their own conference Tourney.
And evidently that is a serious poster.[/quote]
Of course you can't take that seriously. But what you can't deny is that last season's undermanned team played competitively nearly the entire schedule, never gaveup, and learned how to win after losing 2nd best player with an already thin rotation,
They should have and could have beaten Georgetown 3 times, but it was still an accomplishment to finally prevail over them in the BET.[/quote]
Very true, Beast. It was an agonizing and frustrating year--because it could've been much more. Losing LoVett was monumental, but the team--as undermanned as it was--did not quit. Three - four games could've gone our way.
Hopefully, a very good sign that Mullin's teams do not quit--and next year, very deep in talent, watch out.
Should be a very exciting season in a conference that doesn't look all that 'down' to me.
Nova is still Nova and some teams like Xavier and the Hall may have lost some talent, but others like us and Marquette have reloaded, and Providence and Butler still look tough.[/quote]
No I dont give him points for that either in terms of competitiveness. That works both ways.
Look at their 4 wins. EASILY could have lost 3 of them. Easily. Butler choked the game away at Carnesecca. DePaul had a lead late before Ponds got hot. I thought they outplayed Nova but still that was a 1 point game with less than a minute.
The only league game they won last year where you can argue they clearly outplayed and felt comfortable with a minute was Marquette at home. The fact is they were closer to being 1-17 then say 9-9. So 4-14 was about right.
The year before I have stated this a dozen times they finished 7-11. Look at the 11 losses, they were totally NON competitive in all of them. I believe they trailed at halftime in everyone of those games and trailed by double digits in the second half in EVERY loss. Meanwhile a couple of their wins were very tight. Could have finished 5-13 easily.
The fact is his 12-42 League record could actually be a lot worse...[/quote]
I agree Fordham, that we could’ve been 1-17 last year instead of 4-14–both dismal—but the spectrum swings the other way to for a team that didn’t quit.
We could’ve been anywhere from 7-11 to 8-10 to a ‘magical’ 9-9 as well.
The point I was trying to make is the team weathered that horrific losing streak and never quit, so I respect that piece of a lousy and frustrating season.
