Monday, March 19, 2007
Louisville and Kentucky, together again.
Together in the misery of first weekend elimination, that is.
Yet somehow, Louisville's fate seems much, much better than that of Kentucky.
Louisville is young and talented. They went out to a superior team in Texas A&M. A&M was the better team, beating Louisville essentially on their home court.
But what can Louisville take away from this loss? Perhaps it was the best thing that could have happened for team development. Had they made the Sweet 16 and lost, the team might have become complacent during the off-season. But they didn't quite make it, so the hunger to do better and reach a bigger stage is there.
I like what I read about Pitino taking a weeping Sosa into his office and showing him the last possession. Selfish play at key spots really hurt this team, in the Pittsburgh defeat as well as the Texas A&M game. No one is discounting Sosa's tremendous game; surely, Louisville wouldn't have even been in the game without his efforts. But as Pitino has said, if Sosa wants to become a lottery pick in the NBA, he has to learn how to run the team and make his teammates better. On every play. He needs to execute like he did getting the ball to Jerry Smith for the game winner at Marquette. Only then will Lousville reach their goals.
The players need to take this loss hard, and work during the summer to improve. Only by coming out and playing basketball at a high level early in the season can they attain a top seed and avoid playing a team of Texas A&M's caliber so early in the Tournament.
As for Kentucky, their loss couldn't have been more disheartening. Fans at most programs would justifiably hold their heads high over getting eliminated by a very strong Kansas team. But that's not how it works at Kentucky. The pride of the program was on the line, and the team didn't live up to expectations. Not only losing, but getting dominated by a rival program.
Yet somehow, Louisville's fate seems much, much better than that of Kentucky.
Louisville is young and talented. They went out to a superior team in Texas A&M. A&M was the better team, beating Louisville essentially on their home court.
But what can Louisville take away from this loss? Perhaps it was the best thing that could have happened for team development. Had they made the Sweet 16 and lost, the team might have become complacent during the off-season. But they didn't quite make it, so the hunger to do better and reach a bigger stage is there.
I like what I read about Pitino taking a weeping Sosa into his office and showing him the last possession. Selfish play at key spots really hurt this team, in the Pittsburgh defeat as well as the Texas A&M game. No one is discounting Sosa's tremendous game; surely, Louisville wouldn't have even been in the game without his efforts. But as Pitino has said, if Sosa wants to become a lottery pick in the NBA, he has to learn how to run the team and make his teammates better. On every play. He needs to execute like he did getting the ball to Jerry Smith for the game winner at Marquette. Only then will Lousville reach their goals.
The players need to take this loss hard, and work during the summer to improve. Only by coming out and playing basketball at a high level early in the season can they attain a top seed and avoid playing a team of Texas A&M's caliber so early in the Tournament.
As for Kentucky, their loss couldn't have been more disheartening. Fans at most programs would justifiably hold their heads high over getting eliminated by a very strong Kansas team. But that's not how it works at Kentucky. The pride of the program was on the line, and the team didn't live up to expectations. Not only losing, but getting dominated by a rival program.
''Who will be this year's George Mason?''
That was one of the big questions ESPN and other media analysts bandied about for the past month.
Because someone had to be.
Someone had to fill Cinderella's slippers.
I think I even heard one analyst say a Cinderella would win it all this year (okay, maybe it was Rick Pitino... But still.)
So who is this year's George Mason?
Answer: No one.
Or, if you prefer, it's UNLV, the 7 seed.
Not much of a Cinderella story, is it?
In the big picture, it's hard to look at UNLV, a team that was one of the dominant programs of the 80's and early 90's, as a true Cinderella. If they won it all everyone would just say, "Oh, UNLV's back. Duh."
Where's the 10 seed that we are so used to seeing in the Sweet 16?
How about Southern Illinois? But they're a 4 seed. It's hard to juice a team that won 27 games, beating Virginia Tech not once, but twice, as an underdog story.
This bracket looks more like the typical women's bracket in the Sweet 16. If you added up all the seeds, I bet it'd be the lowest total since the field expanded to 64 teams.Where have you gone,
George Mason, where have you gone?
Because someone had to be.
Someone had to fill Cinderella's slippers.
I think I even heard one analyst say a Cinderella would win it all this year (okay, maybe it was Rick Pitino... But still.)
So who is this year's George Mason?
Answer: No one.
Or, if you prefer, it's UNLV, the 7 seed.
Not much of a Cinderella story, is it?
In the big picture, it's hard to look at UNLV, a team that was one of the dominant programs of the 80's and early 90's, as a true Cinderella. If they won it all everyone would just say, "Oh, UNLV's back. Duh."
Where's the 10 seed that we are so used to seeing in the Sweet 16?
How about Southern Illinois? But they're a 4 seed. It's hard to juice a team that won 27 games, beating Virginia Tech not once, but twice, as an underdog story.
This bracket looks more like the typical women's bracket in the Sweet 16. If you added up all the seeds, I bet it'd be the lowest total since the field expanded to 64 teams.Where have you gone,
George Mason, where have you gone?
