Does Valley Conference Play Prepare a Team for the NCAAs?

[Ace Happy]

On the flip side, doesn't a 2 week layoff also reenergize tired legs from conference and tournament play? Perhaps it should be seen as an advantage.

[Wufan]

It's always easier to blame someone or something other than yourself.

Plenty of MVC teams have had NCAA success, so placing blame on the league competition is a petty cop out. Own up to the fact that you got out-coached and out-played.

The reality is that when one team comes prepared from the start and executes, they tend to win. That is what happened.

Don't hold yourself up as superior, lay an egg, and blame others.

This question wasn't about blaming anyone. It's not about whether or not teams have had success. You just rewrote the question and provided your own answer. The question is whether or not The Valley prepares teams to play against up-tempo, physical defensive teams. The answer is no! With the disappearance of floor-burn U, there isn't a physical defensive team in this league. There are teams that guard and hand-check, but not like VCU (in fact there aren't many in the country). What this league prepares you for is intelligent teams that execute offensively. It's not better or worse, just different. The match-up with VCU was a bad one for the Shockers, and as was pointed out, the Shockers didn't handle it well and didn't make shots that we normally make. That's not on the league, that's on the Shockers. It still doesn't change the question and it's answer. This is a relatively unathletic league when compared to it's relative success.

[Wufan]

To add to my previous post, the precision offense that Valley teams run helps you to prepare against other well coached teams. Conversely, it doesn't help prepare you against physically superior teams in general. It's just different than what the Shockers matched-up against. Tough break, but WSU had it's chance and didn't make it happen.

[3ontheway]

perhaps, but going off this year with wsu and cu playing pretty terrible first halves my argument may have been applicable this year. another example was cu against central michigan which was the rustiest most pathetic half of bball by far they played that year, think they were down 15-20 at half. dane watts and kyle korver going about 2-24 from three in tourney first round games (against Nevada and Iowa respectively) with almost all of those WIDE OPEN 3s. perhaps just for cu the layoff has adversely effected them. these kids are in great shape 5 days off is enough for them to rest, going on 12 days of rest is overkill imo.

[valleychamp]

This question wasn't about blaming anyone. It's not about whether or not teams have had success. You just rewrote the question and provided your own answer. The question is whether or not The Valley prepares teams to play against up-tempo, physical defensive teams. The answer is no! With the disappearance of floor-burn U, there isn't a physical defensive team in this league. There are teams that guard and hand-check, but not like VCU (in fact there aren't many in the country). What this league prepares you for is intelligent teams that execute offensively. It's not better or worse, just different. The match-up with VCU was a bad one for the Shockers, and as was pointed out, the Shockers didn't handle it well and didn't make shots that we normally make. That's not on the league, that's on the Shockers. It still doesn't change the question and it's answer. This is a relatively unathletic league when compared to it's relative success.

There are no physical defensive teams in the league? Give me a f'n break, lol. That's basically what this league is! There is plenty of athleticism in this league, there is plenty of defense in this league, and there a lot of good teams in this league.

Anybody that makes any of these types of excuses is truly a loser. If we played in a finesse run-and-gun league, people would complain that we are not prepared for physical teams. If we played the conf tourney later, people would complain that we don't get as much rest as others.

Its called basketball, sometimes you don't play well. In one game scenarios anything can happen, its hard to win when you are playing good teams, especially in the NCAA tournament.

[valleychamp]

perhaps, but going off this year with wsu and cu playing pretty terrible first halves my argument may have been applicable this year. another example was cu against central michigan which was the rustiest most pathetic half of bball by far they played that year, think they were down 15-20 at half. dane watts and kyle korver going about 2-24 from three in tourney first round games (against Nevada and Iowa respectively) with almost all of those WIDE OPEN 3s. perhaps just for cu the layoff has adversely effected them. these kids are in great shape 5 days off is enough for them to rest, going on 12 days of rest is overkill imo.

Yeah, nice theory. If you can pick and choose when you want to apply that theory, its a pretty convenient excuse.

SIUx2, Wichita, Bradley, and UNI have all made Sweet 16 runs in the past decade with the same exact layoff.

[Wufan]

This question wasn't about blaming anyone. It's not about whether or not teams have had success. You just rewrote the question and provided your own answer. The question is whether or not The Valley prepares teams to play against up-tempo, physical defensive teams. The answer is no! With the disappearance of floor-burn U, there isn't a physical defensive team in this league. There are teams that guard and hand-check, but not like VCU (in fact there aren't many in the country). What this league prepares you for is intelligent teams that execute offensively. It's not better or worse, just different. The match-up with VCU was a bad one for the Shockers, and as was pointed out, the Shockers didn't handle it well and didn't make shots that we normally make. That's not on the league, that's on the Shockers. It still doesn't change the question and it's answer. This is a relatively unathletic league when compared to it's relative success.

Anybody that makes any of these types of excuses is truly a loser.

Why would you quote my post and make this statement?

[valleychamp]

I quoted your post to respond to a statement you made, which I did in my first paragraph.

[3ontheway]

making the sweet 16 eventually is not applicable to my argument that the first half of the first game in the tourney, after a layoff that is longer than probably 80% of teams in the field (at least for CU on multiple occassions), tends to be bad basketball. I thought I remember a UNI game against G'Town maybe where they had about 14 points in the first half and were down 10-15 points and made a great run in the 2nd half. I couldn't care less that you think it is completely irrelevant. I do, i'm fine with agreeing to disagree.

[Wufan]

I quoted your post to respond to a statement you made, which I did in my first paragraph.

So the statement that I quoted was just a general rambling since NO ONE HAS USED THIS AS AN EXCUSE AND YOU JUST MADE THAT UP AND THREW IT OUT THERE FOR NO REASON?

Got it.