DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,813
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Dec 16, 2015 10:23:31 GMT -5
It is unquestionable to me that we are on the verge of being exactly what we asked to be: a small Catholic basketball school who will be satisfied with some national name recognition, our academic success, and the occasional (and I mean really occasional at this point) special basketball season. Georgetown is not very small and not as Catholic anymore. You can't play the "small school" card when the school is larger than all but two Big East schools and has the 11th largest basketball budget in Division I.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Dec 16, 2015 10:27:03 GMT -5
Wow. Talk about return on investment (or not)...
|
|
|
Post by BubbleVisionBiff on Dec 16, 2015 10:48:02 GMT -5
At a certain point, we have to pay for the remainder of the IAC and the annual operating costs ($1M) with the season ticket revenue (which is why we're not going back to McDonough). But continued underwhelming performances before 4,000-5,000 fans make me question whether that revenue is going to be there. I sure hope Lee Reed is thinking about that.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Dec 16, 2015 11:04:21 GMT -5
We have like 23 games left this year. Last year, we came in 2nd place in the BE and lost to a top 15 team in the tourney. The end is not near... I don't disagree with you about that. I think my point is more, what is the real expectation of a team that has now lost to two inferior teams at home, and nearly blew a 25 point lead at home to a 3rd? I fully expect this team to have "success" by the time the calendar turns to March. I just think our definitions are different. And the crowd really should have nothing to do with it. Radford was a fairly full house, home opener, bobblehead day. If you as players can't get up for a game against a team that has the wins this Monmouth team has, then you're doing it wrong... I get that. I understand that people dont want to accept that we arent on the top, premier tier, but I hate to keep breaking to you guys - we arent. It's not so much about us, as it is about the nature of the sport. Top recruits want to spend 1-2 years at college. They will go to the top 10 teams in the country. It is what is. It is going to happen in perpetuity. That being said, there is absolutely no reason we cant be like Nova or Xavier. I give credit to Mack and Wright for what they have done. I am disappointed that we have not enjoyed that level of success in the 3-4 years of the BE. I know Xavier hasnt won titles, etc, but they get to the S16, and IMO, they are a legit elite 8/Final 4 caliber team this year.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Dec 16, 2015 11:05:37 GMT -5
It is unquestionable to me that we are on the verge of being exactly what we asked to be: a small Catholic basketball school who will be satisfied with some national name recognition, our academic success, and the occasional (and I mean really occasional at this point) special basketball season. Georgetown is not very small and not as Catholic anymore. You can't play the "small school" card when the school is larger than all but two Big East schools and has the 11th largest basketball budget in Division I. We have the 11th largest basketball budget in D1? Can you provide a link for that? Not calling you out, but that seems quite dubious.
|
|
H2Oya 05
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Let's go Hoyas!
Posts: 298
|
Post by H2Oya 05 on Dec 16, 2015 11:10:26 GMT -5
Georgetown is not very small and not as Catholic anymore. You can't play the "small school" card when the school is larger than all but two Big East schools and has the 11th largest basketball budget in Division I. We have the 11th largest basketball budget in D1? Can you provide a link for that? Not calling you out, but that seems quite dubious. I don't have the stats that he cited, but we had the sixth highest budget of teams in the 2015 NCAA tournament and outspent schools like North Carolina. www.buffalonews.com/assets/PDF/BN7649319.pdf
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Dec 16, 2015 11:39:21 GMT -5
I think that much of the talk in this thread about "energy" and "intensity" comes out of our own frustration with the team rather than anything else. I, for one, was intensely frustrated by last night's game. But, I don't think it was "energy" and "intensity" that lost the game. And, throwing chairs or yelling might make some fans feel good, but I don't think it would have made any difference on the court, either.
The real problem last night is that we were not very good. We had several defensive possessions that were a total mess. DSR was often out of position. We also had the one possession where we had three guys standing in the middle and Monmouth drove right through them for a dunk. That's not energy or intensity, it's executing basic fundamentals. And yes, that does fall on the players and coaching staff. If we cannot execute basic basketball defense, we won't have to worry about losing in the first round in March because we won't be playing at all.
|
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,391
|
Post by drquigley on Dec 16, 2015 11:52:33 GMT -5
Folks, from a geezer perspective what seems to be happening is that we are playing old school basketball at a time when the game is changing dramatically. Big Man U is an anachronism. This is a guards game today. Penetrate, kick out shoot 3's. Run the court. Our guys are listless because they realize that spending 25+seconds working the ball for a possibly good shot and then having to fly back down the court to defend guys who could care less about all the cuts and back doors and just want to get a guy open for a 3. They are having fun while we are working our butts off. UNC Wilmington and Monmouth are the future. They may never be national champions but they will always give teams like ours fits. Guys like Govan and Hayes are great but against teams like these they are as useful as male nipples. JT3 has to realize this and dramatically change his game plans (and personnel) when playing teams like this.
|
|
|
Post by jamaicahoya on Dec 16, 2015 11:53:06 GMT -5
Wow. Talk about return on investment (or not)... We have the 11th largest basketball budget in D1? Can you provide a link for that? Not calling you out, but that seems quite dubious. I don't have the stats that he cited, but we had the sixth highest budget of teams in the 2015 NCAA tournament and outspent schools like North Carolina. www.buffalonews.com/assets/PDF/BN7649319.pdf I am not sure about the current expense/revenue breakdown, but according to 2010 figures the return on investment reads,7.4 mill in expense; 9.4 in revenue, about 2.2 mill in profit. money.cnn.com/2010/03/18/news/companies/basketball_profits/index.htm
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,607
|
Post by guru on Dec 16, 2015 11:53:08 GMT -5
I have no idea whether that loss last night is indicative of larger problems within the program. And I am still clinging to the hope that we will actually be a very good team by later in the season - we certainly have the talent to match up with most teams, even the highly ranked ones. But I do know that was one seriously dispiriting performance that called to mind the darkest moments of our 8 year stretch of tourney ignominy - Ohio and FGCU. I don't understand how we manage to not even be competitive in those situations. It's like a really bad recurring dream.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Dec 16, 2015 12:02:15 GMT -5
A lot of the budget, presumably, is to rent a facility, which simply isn't a concern for many other high major teams. The money they've spent on their facilities isn't capitalized annually as part of their budget. Regardless, we spend a lot on basketball. The details aren't all that relevant.
Look, no one is happy about losing to a Monmouth or a Radford (or the other games we've lost so far this year). But to say that this means we aren't a big program or "elite" is asinine.
First, we aren't an "elite" program akin to Kentucky. We aren't North Carolina; we aren't Duke; we aren't Kansas. Anyone who thinks we are is deluding themselves. We just aren't. And outside of a relatively short historically blip, we haven't been. What we have been for the vast majority of the past thirty years is very, very good. Consistently. So, let's stop with the whole "elite" business if what you mean are the programs above. We're solidly in the very next tier of schools. Most programs (even most major conference programs) would be thrilled with what we've done. There aren't very many programs at all that have been in the NCAAs as consistently as we have and been to a Final Four as recently as we have. I know people want more success in the NCAAs -- so do I!! -- but even in that measure (the one where we've performed the least well), my bet is there's less than 25 programs in the whole country that have won more games in the tournament in the last decade (and it's far less than that if you count qualifying as one "win," which in any reasonable methodology would be the right way to do it).
Second, losing some early games to bad teams are not signs of anything necessarily bad. We've been spoiled in that regard over the last decade because we've played tough schedules and won a ton of the tough games. The fact that people are asking if this loss is the "worst ever" says a lot that is good about the number of bad losses we've had. The reality is that there are teams every year that take a while to get their footing, taking a lot of lumps, and improving along the way. And then they storm through February and March. That hasn't been our M.O. I'll grant you that there's certainly a possibility the season goes down the tubes, but it's not a foregone conclusion in the least. Lots of teams -- even very good programs -- take several lumps in otherwise successful seasons.
Finally, how about some respect for our opponent? Man, they were good. I don't care what it says on the front of their jersey. And if people thought it was just an "effort" issue, well, frankly that's an easy thing to say when one team just outplays the other. I don't think "trying harder" was going to accomplish anything.
I have plenty of complaints about what we've done strategically so far this year. I, too, would like to see some pressing (and not just the passive one we occasionally use, but more of the scrambling one we employed later in the game last night). And I'd like to see some creative lineups when things aren't going right. And I'm certainly not "head in the sand" about this team's overall flaws (rebounding, team offense, the ability to get to the basket off the dribble, low post strength). But I'm going to tell you that we're going to win a lot of games this year with our shooting (which was not good last night -- much of it uncontested). We're going to lose some too because of it. But I still think we have a very good chance to be pretty darned good this year.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Dec 16, 2015 12:04:17 GMT -5
Folks, from a geezer perspective what seems to be happening is that we are playing old school basketball at a time when the game is changing dramatically. Big Man U is an anachronism. This is a guards game today. Penetrate, kick out shoot 3's. Run the court. Our guys are listless because they realize that spending 25+seconds working the ball for a possibly good shot and then having to fly back down the court to defend guys who could care less about all the cuts and back doors and just want to get a guy open for a 3. They are having fun while we are working our butts off. UNC Wilmington and Monmouth are the future. They may never be national champions but they will always give teams like ours fits. Guys like Govan and Hayes are great but against teams like these they are as useful as male nipples. JT3 has to realize this and dramatically change his game plans (and personnel) when playing teams like this. My take is that we are absolutely incomptent against a pack line defense. Others mentioned this before. It's why we get our butts kicked against Xavier, and it looked like Monmouth had us scouted that way. We move our offense from the top, and we are awful at guard penetration. It's comical that some teams in the BE havent figured out this.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Dec 16, 2015 12:10:24 GMT -5
Folks, from a geezer perspective what seems to be happening is that we are playing old school basketball at a time when the game is changing dramatically. Big Man U is an anachronism. This is a guards game today. Penetrate, kick out shoot 3's. Run the court. Our guys are listless because they realize that spending 25+seconds working the ball for a possibly good shot and then having to fly back down the court to defend guys who could care less about all the cuts and back doors and just want to get a guy open for a 3. They are having fun while we are working our butts off. UNC Wilmington and Monmouth are the future. They may never be national champions but they will always give teams like ours fits. Guys like Govan and Hayes are great but against teams like these they are as useful as male nipples. JT3 has to realize this and dramatically change his game plans (and personnel) when playing teams like this. My take is that we are absolutely incomptent against a pack line defense. Others mentioned this before. It's why we get our butts kicked against Xavier, and it looked like Monmouth had us scouted that way. We move our offense from the top, and we are awful at guard penetration. It's comical that some teams in the BE havent figured out this. I think it's more that we don't do well generally against teams with overall quickness. The criticisms of our guards are absolutely fair in that regard; we just haven't had the quickest guys at those positions. And for all their strengths, an Ike, or a Paul, or a Marcus, aren't explosive to the basket either. I don't think it's a conscious decision by Coach (it's not like "quick" guys can't be good at the things he values), but it's absolutely an issue. As for the pack-line, we played Wisconsin pretty well both last year (when they were a lot better) and this year. A good shooting team should be very well suited to go up against a pack-line approach, and we frankly should be that good shooting team. But, well, we certainly weren't last night. It wasn't like we weren't getting good looks if we're being honest. They just weren't going in.
|
|
whatmaroon
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 819
|
Post by whatmaroon on Dec 16, 2015 12:39:37 GMT -5
Not for nothing, but that's laughably untrue in comparison to who we played. We started two seniors, two experienced sophmores who both started the bulk of last season and a freshmen. Monmouth started a redshirt freshmen, 3 juniors, and a senior. Our 3 main reserves were a junior, sophomore and freshmen. There's were two juniors and a soph. I'd argue (without really looking into it) that we started a more veteran lineup than most of the Top-25. A team that starts two seniors, IMO, cannot use youth and inexperience as an excuse. By KenPom's measurement of experience, which looks at all minutes played by eligibility (so Bradley and DSR are treated as equally experienced), we are the 274th-most experienced team. Monmouth is 149th. AP top 25 teams that are less experienced than us are Kentucky, Duke, Purdue (275th), Providence, and UCLA.
|
|
lurkerhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,182
|
Post by lurkerhoya on Dec 16, 2015 12:54:55 GMT -5
Look, no one is happy about losing to a Monmouth or a Radford (or the other games we've lost so far this year). But to say that this means we aren't a big program or "elite" is asinine. First, we aren't an "elite" program akin to Kentucky. We aren't North Carolina; we aren't Duke; we aren't Kansas. Anyone who thinks we are is deluding themselves. We just aren't. And outside of a relatively short historically blip, we haven't been. What we have been for the vast majority of the past thirty years is very, very good. Consistently. So, let's stop with the whole "elite" business if what you mean are the programs above. We're solidly in the very next tier of schools. Most programs (even most major conference programs) would be thrilled with what we've done. Perhaps the below chart will summarize my feelings better: UCLA 11 1964, 1965, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1995 Kentucky 8 1948, 1949, 1951, 1958, 1978, 1996, 1998, 2012 North Carolina 5 1957, 1982, 1993, 2005, 2009 Duke 5 1991, 1992, 2001, 2010, 2015 Indiana 5 1940, 1953, 1976, 1981, 1987 Connecticut 4 1999, 2004, 2011, 2014 Louisville 3 1980, 1986, 2013 Kansas 3 1952, 1988, 2008 Florida 2 2006, 2007 Michigan State 2 1979, 2000 North Carolina State 2 1974, 1983 Cincinnati 2 1961, 1962 San Francisco 2 1955, 1956 Oklahoma State 2 1945, 1946 Syracuse 1 2003 Maryland 1 2002 Arizona 1 1997 Arkansas 1 1994 UNLV 1 1990 Michigan 1 1989 Villanova 1 1985 Georgetown 1 1984 Marquette 1 1977 That list represents the entirety of the NCAA tournament winners in the modern era. You'll notice the few exceptions (Russell's San Fran teams, early Ok St and Cincy wins), and the fact is us, Villanova, Marquette and Duke are a special group. (I have discounted Syracuse, not because they are categorically the worst, but because they are the functional equivalent of a 35,000 student state school). We represent the only non-public, historically Catholic universities that have not just been "successful", but have climbed the mountain and stood out as beyond successful, national-title-winning schools. That is what has ALWAYS set us apart from the Temples, the St. Joe's, the Xaviers, our own conference-mates, and just about every other D1 playing basketball school in the country. So, I don't disagree with the assessment that we are not an elite program, I merely point out that historically we have been in a class by ourselves. Had we been able to translate that to prolonged success, we would have every reason to claim to be an "elite" program, to accept our rightful place in the hierarchy. To say that we are currently right below that level of elite is however, IMO, a total misnomer. Among the premier non-major basketball schools, we are nowhere close to the level of sustained overall success had by the teams we are most akin to. Our own conference mates in Nova, Butler and Xavier are a class above us in terms of success, and that's before you get to the Gonzagas, Wichita States, and VCUs, who seem to have cracked the code for achieving success in the modern NCAA landscape far better than we have. My only point is not that I disagree with you, but that you seem to think this has always been our normal, where I see it as a dropoff that threatens the long-term viability of the program. Sixty years later, USF is basically written off that list. Games like last night, following on the prolonged history of the last 8 years, get you in that pile quicker than you think. I urge you to consider what the state of this program will be at some point when JT3 leaves. If we're a fun, competitive mid-major, who exactly is carrying the program forward as more than a neat, 3-4 year stop with a Sweet 16 run before bolting for the next gig? That's what I foresee, and that's not a good place to be if you love this program and expect it to be there years from now as something akin to what it is now. And DFW, as for whether we are small (that's relative, but we will always be small to me relative to our supposed basketball peers) or Catholic (Vital Vittles still does not sell condoms as of my last visit for the BC soccer game (but they do sell the Maui Onion potato chips my wife loves!!!), our student body is still primarily from NE Catholic schools, and we will almost always value academic success over athletic...), the money spent only makes my point I think that there are no amount of resources that can change the fact that structurally the program may be permanently flawed under its present leadership, and that it is simply a crack in the wall that we will have to live with. The Redskins spend akin to the Hoyas, and there is no one in DC who thinks the expenditures alone cover up the fact that the entire organization is mismanaged.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Dec 16, 2015 12:59:46 GMT -5
Last night Monmouth was a very, very good team, a team that (last night) would have beaten Duke and Maryland, not to mention Radford, Syracuse and Wisconsin. They are a very good team that made a very, very high percentage of their field and foul shots on that particular night. In the same game we made considerably fewer percentages of our field and foul shots than normal. The ball bounces that way some times.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,607
|
Post by guru on Dec 16, 2015 13:21:37 GMT -5
Last night Monmouth was a very, very good team, a team that (last night) would have beaten Duke and Maryland, not to mention Radford, Syracuse and Wisconsin. They are a very good team that made a very, very high percentage of their field and foul shots on that particular night. In the same game we made considerably fewer percentages of our field and foul shots than normal. The ball bounces that way some times. They played well. They would likely not have beaten Duke and Maryland. That's being way too kind to our loss.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Dec 16, 2015 13:35:30 GMT -5
Look, no one is happy about losing to a Monmouth or a Radford (or the other games we've lost so far this year). But to say that this means we aren't a big program or "elite" is asinine. First, we aren't an "elite" program akin to Kentucky. We aren't North Carolina; we aren't Duke; we aren't Kansas. Anyone who thinks we are is deluding themselves. We just aren't. And outside of a relatively short historically blip, we haven't been. What we have been for the vast majority of the past thirty years is very, very good. Consistently. So, let's stop with the whole "elite" business if what you mean are the programs above. We're solidly in the very next tier of schools. Most programs (even most major conference programs) would be thrilled with what we've done. Perhaps the below chart will summarize my feelings better: UCLA 11 1964, 1965, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1995 Kentucky 8 1948, 1949, 1951, 1958, 1978, 1996, 1998, 2012 North Carolina 5 1957, 1982, 1993, 2005, 2009 Duke 5 1991, 1992, 2001, 2010, 2015 Indiana 5 1940, 1953, 1976, 1981, 1987 Connecticut 4 1999, 2004, 2011, 2014 Louisville 3 1980, 1986, 2013 Kansas 3 1952, 1988, 2008 Florida 2 2006, 2007 Michigan State 2 1979, 2000 North Carolina State 2 1974, 1983 Cincinnati 2 1961, 1962 San Francisco 2 1955, 1956 Oklahoma State 2 1945, 1946 Syracuse 1 2003 Maryland 1 2002 Arizona 1 1997 Arkansas 1 1994 UNLV 1 1990 Michigan 1 1989 Villanova 1 1985 Georgetown 1 1984 Marquette 1 1977 That list represents the entirety of the NCAA tournament winners in the modern era. You'll notice the few exceptions (Russell's San Fran teams, early Ok St and Cincy wins), and the fact is us, Villanova, Marquette and Duke are a special group. (I have discounted Syracuse, not because they are categorically the worst, but because they are the functional equivalent of a 35,000 student state school). We represent the only non-public, historically Catholic universities that have not just been "successful", but have climbed the mountain and stood out as beyond successful, national-title-winning schools. That is what has ALWAYS set us apart from the Temples, the St. Joe's, the Xaviers, our own conference-mates, and just about every other D1 playing basketball school in the country. So, I don't disagree with the assessment that we are not an elite program, I merely point out that historically we have been in a class by ourselves. Had we been able to translate that to prolonged success, we would have every reason to claim to be an "elite" program, to accept our rightful place in the hierarchy. To say that we are currently right below that level of elite is however, IMO, a total misnomer. Among the premier non-major basketball schools, we are nowhere close to the level of sustained overall success had by the teams we are most akin to. Our own conference mates in Nova, Butler and Xavier are a class above us in terms of success, and that's before you get to the Gonzagas, Wichita States, and VCUs, who seem to have cracked the code for achieving success in the modern NCAA landscape far better than we have. My only point is not that I disagree with you, but that you seem to think this has always been our normal, where I see it as a dropoff that threatens the long-term viability of the program. Sixty years later, USF is basically written off that list. Games like last night, following on the prolonged history of the last 8 years, get you in that pile quicker than you think. I urge you to consider what the state of this program will be at some point when JT3 leaves. If we're a fun, competitive mid-major, who exactly is carrying the program forward as more than a neat, 3-4 year stop with a Sweet 16 run before bolting for the next gig? That's what I foresee, and that's not a good place to be if you love this program and expect it to be there years from now as something akin to what it is now. And DFW, as for whether we are small (that's relative, but we will always be small to me relative to our supposed basketball peers) or Catholic (Vital Vittles still does not sell condoms as of my last visit for the BC soccer game (but they do sell the Maui Onion potato chips my wife loves!!!), our student body is still primarily from NE Catholic schools, and we will almost always value academic success over athletic...), the money spent only makes my point I think that there are no amount of resources that can change the fact that structurally the program may be permanently flawed under its present leadership, and that it is simply a crack in the wall that we will have to live with. The Redskins spend akin to the Hoyas, and there is no one in DC who thinks the expenditures alone cover up the fact that the entire organization is mismanaged. No, there aren't many Catholic, private schools (or, frankly, private schools period) that have won NCAA championships. There also aren't many that have been to Final Fours in the last decade (as we have). To me, it's just umimportant whether we're some shining city on a Catholic hill(top). I get that others feel differently. But where I depart from you is the notion that we have not been doing well or that we are somehow behind the "next tier" schools. Here are the schools you mention as ones we are "nowhere close to" or "far better" than us in terms of NCAA success, with notes on what they've done in the last ten years (a random round number) in NCAA bids, Sweet Sixteens, and Final Fours. Nova: 9; 3; 1 Marquette 8; 3; 0 Butler: 7; 3; 2 Xavier: 9; 5; 0 VCU: 4; 1; 1 Gonzaga: 10; 3; 0 Wichita State: 5; 3; 1 Georgetown: 8; 2; 1 Xavier, Gonzaga, and Villanova are the only three schools that have more appearances and sweet sixteen births, and we have more final fours than Gonzaga and Xavier. VCU and Wichita State, frankly, can't hold our jocks in terms of NCAA success. I know the numbers are worse for us if you change the amount of time (say, last five years), but even there, we've been in the tournament four times. And I'm not saying that we're dominating this particular group. My point simply is that we're not exactly on a trajectory toward the Dons. We're certainly, at a minimum, "close" to those schools -- most are better objectively, but of those, the majority just a smidge. And I would suggest we are safely in the same ballpark as them. Finally, let's not forget: this is the analysis of the very worst metric of our performance over this time frame. As for coaching, every single program that is not one of the "elite" is at the mercy of who their next coach is. Period. We fell off a cliff. Villanova had a down period. Look at every ACC school not named Duke or UNC. So, yes, if JTIII leaves, we'd be at a crossroads for sure. But that makes us no different from our peers.
|
|
beenaround
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,476
|
Post by beenaround on Dec 16, 2015 14:18:51 GMT -5
Folks, from a geezer perspective what seems to be happening is that we are playing old school basketball at a time when the game is changing dramatically. Big Man U is an anachronism. This is a guards game today. Penetrate, kick out shoot 3's. Run the court. Our guys are listless because they realize that spending 25+seconds working the ball for a possibly good shot and then having to fly back down the court to defend guys who could care less about all the cuts and back doors and just want to get a guy open for a 3. They are having fun while we are working our butts off. UNC Wilmington and Monmouth are the future. They may never be national champions but they will always give teams like ours fits. Guys like Govan and Hayes are great but against teams like these they are as useful as male nipples. JT3 has to realize this and dramatically change his game plans (and personnel) when playing teams like this. As a fellow geezer, I think this is an interesting take. Not sure if you're right...but another thing to contemplate.
|
|
SDHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,343
|
Post by SDHoya on Dec 16, 2015 14:23:07 GMT -5
I only watched about 2 minutes of the game last night (turned it on, saw the score and the way we were playing, and decided my blood pressure didn't need this one).
Were there any positives to take from this game?
|
|