Yes that is true but crappy turned into a fckn blow out..........that dont happenVirginia relies too much on its defense. This is the kind of thing that happens when you have no offense, if you let crappy teams hang around eventually they will find a way to beat you, see our football team the last 8 years for a prime example of this.
I watched the 2nd half and there is no way to put other than it was an embarrassing performance by UVA. Not losing per se, but the listlessness, etc. in which UVA played. As much as I admire Bennett and think he is a great coach, I do not think he used his team's size advantage to try and exploit the opponent. UMBC made every shot and that can happen and I don;t sway my views on 1 game versus an entire season or multiple seasons, but UVA and Bennett were totally awful. You see it in the tourney where these bigger name teams like UK, UVA, Mich St. (a few years ago) struggle against teams that play small ball from small conferences and they do not have to account for all 5 players behind the arc. Congrats to all those small teams and a great regular season by UVA has become pointless b/c they laid a zillion eggs in the tourney. Have to come to play in one and done and all they did was just show up!
This. Too much emphasis on defense. Barkley said it best. It's hard to hold 6 elite teams to 54 points in a tournament setting. I'd imagine Bennett BEING THE GREAT COACH THAT HE IS, will figure it out now. I don't doubt that he is stubborn, most great coaches and players are, but this one stings way deep. As far as him being the Muschamp of college basketball, I dont remember Muschamp winning the SEC championship or ever being ranked number 1. This team beat Duke at Duke, Carolina twice. They beat Clemson twice and FSU....both beat us and had we played UMBC last night the way they we're playing I doubt we would have won. I'm pissed because they probably just gave UK and F4 spot and blew up my bracket but to say Bennett is a horrible coach a joke.
As a team UMBC shot 54% from the field and 50% from the 3. Lyle was 9-11 fg% and 3-4 from 3 pt.
And the conference champion, and the overall #1 seed losing to the overall last seed....Awesome...I like that it was the ACC, the so-called b-ball conference, which had the first team to lose to a 16 seed.
Yes. I read somebody bet approx. $800 and won approximately $16,000. You also had the opposite...one bettor laid $20,000 to win $870 and needed Virginia to just win. That didn’t work out well for him.Wonder if anyone bet on UMBC?
Should have won more than that. 134/0 before the game? Should have won 80,000.Yes. I read somebody bet approx. $800 and won approximately $16,000. You also had the opposite...one Bettie laid $20,000 to win $870 and needed Virginia to just win. That didn’t work out well for him.
http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/i...l-2nd-largest-ncaa-tourney-point-spread-upset
Should have won more than that. 134/0 before the game? Should have won 80,000.
Not doubting you know your odds, but that raises the question of why was umbc the last seeded team?Article said they were 25/1 to win outright and that many sports books weren’t taking the bet. The book that did take it was offering 20/1 odds on them winning outright.
Not doubting you know your odds, but that raises the question of why was umbc the last seeded team?
I was just expressing what seemed to me to be reasonable odds in view of the fact that the first 134 times a 16 seed played a 1 seed, they lost. So it seemed to me that fair odds should be at least 100 to 1. I will leave serious betting to those of you who know more about it.Just edited my post after you replied so you may not see it. Maybe the 134/1 odds you mentioned were on them winning the whole tournament? 134/1 seems too high to win just one game IMO. They were 20 point underdogs, certainly longshots to win but not an impossibility in the eyes of the bookies.
I would imagine this is Bennett’s wake up call that his style of play is not conducive to success in a single elimination tournament.