In honor of my favorite sporting event, I'm posting this video of Princeton's upset of UCLA in the 1996 NCAA Tournament. Although I'm no Princeton fan, it's these type of upsets that make the NCAA Tournament the funnest sporting event to follow. Anyone can win on any given day...
nelson [email] said at 5:01 PM 03-24-2007: I'm going with either Florida or Kansas (although if Memphis can comeback against Ohio State, I'd say they have a damn good chace, too).
andrew [email] said at 5:50 PM 03-24-2007: not to be a sore thumb but anybody can beat anybody when you walk the ball up the floor, stall as much as possible, and keep the score in the 40s. thats a recipe for a first round upset, and its not surprising that it works every now and then, but its far from championship basketball by any means. its like playing horse and shooting only layups for two hours. some guys will do that. i'm boycotting the tournament anyway this year since lsu played like a bunch of bums. i'd rather watch nate robinson and the knicks.
ed [email] said at 8:56 PM 03-28-2007: Dean Smmith's "four-corner" "offense" against Kentucky in the 70s and early 80s used to drive me absolutely batshiat crazy.
I have ZERO respect for any team that employs such a tactic.
Including my very own High School team that once lost a game to a Super-Powered arch-rival by the score of 12 to 7 because of such a strategery.
nelson. said at 6:23 PM 03-24-2007: I don't agree that "anybody can beat anybody when you walk the ball up the floor." UCLA's athleticism was on a much higer level then Princeton's. Princeton doesn't even give athletic scholarships to their players. It is a remarkable feat for a team of complete amateurs to beat a souped-up machine like UCLA. Like Jim Valvano used to say, in the NCAA Tournament, it's all about surviving and advancing. For a bunch of short, scrawny Ivy Leaguers to beat a tier-one basketball team on such a grand stage takes great coaching and some of the best performances of the players on Princeon's lives. You don't always have to have the prettiest game to be a winner. There are a ton of atheletes in all sports that have ugly games but use strategy and competitiveness to get victories.
Look at an over-the-hill Jimmy Connors advancing to the US Open semifinals in 1991, or the mid-80's LSU Basketball teams going to the Final Four.
andrew [email] said at 6:35 PM 03-24-2007: lsu actually played 5 straight games of modern basketball. 43-41 is more like a score from the women's tournament. princeton played every game that way. they probably still do. they don't deserve athletic scholarships.
nelson [email] said at 6:46 PM 03-24-2007: Actually, LSU only played 4 games before they lost in the semifinals to Louisville in 1986. I don't know how well you remember this era, but their game was far from professional. They relied mostly on the Freak Defense; a defense strategy that constantly switches to "freak-out" the opposition.
Their players were mostly forgettable guys who never went onto anything in the pro's. Dale Brown was a great motivater who made the most out of what he had (which was a helluva lot more then Pete Carril, Princeton's coach, ever had). Pete Carril knew that he would not attract serious talent to Princetown (with no scholarships), so he came up with a style that would give his guys a chance to beat the big boys.
Regardless, you're just focusing on Princeton's offense. Their defense was the real story in this game. They held UCLA to 41 points. The shotclock was 35 seconds in 1996. That means that Princeton could not hold the ball for minutes on end; UCLA had plenty of chances to score. Princeton's defense did an amazing job at shutting them down. The real point is that they won the game. The ultimate sore-loser argument is "Yeah you won, but the way you played is lame-o"!. It's not like they were cheating or anything. They came up with a style that worked form them. UCLA, with extraordinary advantages in size, athleticism, and talent, should have been able to overcome it, but they couldn't on this day. Just give credit where credit is due.
andrew [email] said at 7:02 PM 03-24-2007: jerry reynolds and john williams both had decent runs in the nba in the 80s. even ricky blanton played a few years.
i did see georgetown vs princeton soon after the prineton/ucla game, princeton used the exact same strategy and the media went crazy like they were watching basketball geniuses. princeton always plays that way. they won one game in the ncaa tournament. big deal. its a stupid way of playing the game.
nelson [email] said at 10:15 PM 03-24-2007: Ok, the fact that a team scored less points against team A then they did against team B does not in any way shape or form mean that team A was playing better defense. They won that game against Yale handily; they could have put subsitutes in. I seriously doubt that Yale, an atrocious basketball team, played better d. against Princeton then UCLA did. You would need to see the game itself to be able to make that determination.
The reason that Princeton played their slow-down offense was to give themselves a chance against teams like Georgetown or UCLA. Again, they did not have the size/talent/athleticism/strength of a major team like Georgetown/UCLA. Therefore, they came up with an offensive strategy to put them on equal grounds with these teams. The fact that Princeton, with no players even anywhere close to the level of the players on Georgetown's bench, almost beat the Hoyas and did beat the Bruins is a testament to this strategy. I agree that it would be stupid for Georgetown/UCLA to play like this, but they don't have to. They have legitimate stars. In competitive sports, you have to what you have to do to win. Following your logic, they would have played "professional basketball" and tried to run with these teams and they would have been destroyed. A key to winning in any sport is playing to your advantages, and not your weaknesses.
nelson [email] said at 10:15 PM 03-24-2007: Ok, the fact that a team scored less points against team A then they did against team B does not in any way shape or form mean that team A was playing better defense. They won that game against Yale handily; they could have put subsitutes in. I seriously doubt that Yale, an atrocious basketball team, played better d. against Princeton then UCLA did. You would need to see the game itself to be able to make that determination.
The reason that Princeton played their slow-down offense was to give themselves a chance against teams like Georgetown or UCLA. Again, they did not have the size/talent/athleticism/strength of a major team like Georgetown/UCLA. Therefore, they came up with an offensive strategy to put them on equal grounds with these teams. The fact that Princeton, with no players even anywhere close to the level of the players on Georgetown's bench, almost beat the Hoyas and did beat the Bruins is a testament to this strategy. I agree that it would be stupid for Georgetown/UCLA to play like this, but they don't have to. They have legitimate stars. In competitive sports, you have to what you have to do to win. Following your logic, they would have played "professional basketball" and tried to run with these teams and they would have been destroyed. A key to winning in any sport is playing to your advantages, and not your weaknesses.
nelson [email] said at 7:41 PM 03-24-2007: Jerry Reynolds was not on the 1986 LSU team. Ricky Blanton was one of the worst NBA players of his time. He only played two games. In one of these two games, he missed four lay-up's in a row, signaling the end of his professional career. John Williams was the lone player from that '86 team who did perform well in the pros.
andrew [email] said at 8:35 PM 03-24-2007: only a handful of players make it into the nba each year. most second round draft picks get cut in training camp. considering the number of ncaa players, thats a very small percentage.
nelson [email] said at 8:46 PM 03-24-2007: The point is that John Williams was the Tigers only bonafide weapon.
Besides him, LSU had role players who overachieved as a result of a good defensive strategy and coaching.
If you look at most teams who make the Final Four, their percentage of players who play a full year in the NBA is much higher then the single digit percentage that the Tigers had in '86.
andrew [email] said at 9:25 PM 03-24-2007: ok look at last year. tyrus thomas played decently this year for the bulls, but not stellar. glen davis is projected in the second round and may or may not make it. george mason will have no players in the nba. as far as florida and ucla goes- they may have two or three each if they're lucky. with more and more high school players going straight to the nba, and the best college players staying less two years or less, not to mention the influx of international players, future nba players are increasingly nowhere near the final four. it was pretty cool last year when lsu made it, but in general the ncaa is falling way behind the nba. when teams use gimmick strategies like jacking up 40 threes a game, walking the ball up the court like its the 1950s, and playing zone defense all night doesn't help. its cute but it really isn't a high level of the game. otherwise more nba teams would do it.
in 86 anthony wilson and don redden were both excellent shooters.
nelson. said at 9:45 PM 03-24-2007: The fact is that LSU had two NBA caliber-players on thier team last year. Florida will certainly have Horford and Noah, and there's another guy on Florida (whose name I cannot remember) who will probably make it as well. UCLA will definitely have three players going to the NBA.
It's funny that you bring up George Mason, because they're the LSU of last year, and a huge exception. George Mason is the only other 11th-seeded team, besides the '86 LSU team, to make it to the Final Four. That only happens, oh, once every twenty years.
Anthony Wilson and Redden were good, not great players. It's extremely rare that a team gets to the Final Four with only one great player. Great players get their chance in the NBA. They might not perform well there, but they get the chance. Anthony Wilson and Redden shot great in the tournament, but were both inconsistent throughout the regular season (which is part of the reason LSU was only a 11th seed going in).
Of course, college basketball does not nearly have as high of a level of play as the NBA.
It's not professional basketball. You could have just said from the beginning that you prefer NBA basketball instead of slagging on a Princeon team that played an excellent game in pulling one of the biggest upsets in NCAA tournament history. Personally, I prefer college basketball because the players' hearts seem to be much more in the game then in the pro's. Yeah, it's "cute" to see the pro's talk about how much they love their teams, and then watch them jump ship to get $8 million a year instead of $7 million a year, but I like following teams/players who are playing for the love of the game. Most college players will never make the NBA, and the tournament is their one chance to shine. I think it makes for an interesting/fun format, as opposed to the bowl games in college football. Boise State was a huge exception in being a mid-major getting on a national bowl game(and also played probably the most exciting college football game in decades). In college basketball, that happens every year. I don't need to see players executing idyllic form to enjoy seeing a sport played.
andrew [email] said at 10:15 PM 03-24-2007: Princeton basketball sucks.
NBA players don't talk about how much they love their team. They strangle the coach. They punch out fans. They're professionals who love the game. Get over it.
andrew [email] said at 10:15 PM 03-24-2007: Princeton basketball sucks.
NBA players don't talk about how much they love their team. They strangle the coach. They punch out fans. They're professionals who love the game. Get over it.
andrew [email] said at 10:15 PM 03-24-2007: Princeton basketball sucks.
NBA players don't talk about how much they love their team. They strangle the coach. They punch out fans. They're professionals who love the game. Get over it.
andrew [email] said at 12:53 AM 03-25-2007: there's no guarantee davis will make it in the nba. he's too small to play center, and questionable as a power forward. his vertical leap is not that great. i wish him the best, but there are no guarantees.
nelson [email] said at 12:56 AM 03-25-2007: If he had gone pro at the end of the 2006 season, he certainly would have been drafted. The fact that he was hurt this year plus LSU's poor performance is what's making him a question mark now.
andrew [email] said at 1:17 AM 03-25-2007: that's basketball. it doesn't matter if you play for the lsu tigers, the miami heat or on a ymca team with three sissies and a girl. there's no guarantees.
nelson [email] said at 1:32 AM 03-25-2007: I never said there were any guarantees. The only reason I made this point that he could have gone pro. in 2006 was due to our earlier debate on how many potentially professional players most Final Four teams have.
nelson [email] said at 10:19 PM 03-24-2007: I could care less about Princeton basketball. I'm still waiting on you to make one valid point in this thread.
andrew [email] said at 10:46 PM 03-24-2007: I've made quite a few excellent points.One being that Princeton beating UCLA in the 1996 tournament is not a big deal.
nelson. said at 11:40 PM 03-24-2007: Whether it's not it's a "big deal" depends on your appreciation of college basketball but it certainly was a tremendous upset. At the risk of being redundant, a team that has no athletes on scholarship who beat the defending national champions is quite a feat. It's not something that happens often in college basketball, and this game is frequently ranked as one of the greatest upsets of NCAA tournament history.
andrew [email] said at 12:05 AM 03-25-2007: a minor upset but not even close to villanova upsetting georgetown in the finals. the announcer would love you to believe it though. sportscasters are also salesman. "guys hitting shots from all over the court, that they've never hit before." ok fine, but they only scored 43 points. it's not like your watching the celtics and the lakers. alcindor, walton, magic, isaiah, bird, worthy, perkins, ewing, you used to see that caliber players in the ncaa finals but not anymore. so they give you this overly-sentimental david/goliath stuff.
nelson. said at 12:23 AM 03-25-2007: A minor upset??!!
This was a team filled with non-scholarship players; none of which could even dream of playing in the NBA. Villanova defeating Georgetown was one of the biggest upsets of all time. No doubt about it. However, Villanova was a good team that year. Ed Pinckney played for Villanova and he went onto a long career in the NBA.
Princeton had no one near the caliber of Pinckney. Seriously, it's silly to act like this wasn't a major upset. If you don't like college basketball, that's fine, but don't act like it was inevitable that UCLA was going down to Princeton. I don't buy into the sportscaster's over-dramatization, but I do give credit where credit is due.
The LSU teams of the '80's didn't have an alcindor/jordan on their team, but they won through good coaching and playing as a team. For this game, Princeton did the same. Here's an ESPN page and their ranking of this game in the overall upset picture:
andrew [email] said at 12:41 AM 03-25-2007: nope, not buying it. lsu has more class than to do the the 40 point trick. princeton always plays like that because they suck. its not good coaching. thats the only way they can play. they lost in the next game. they won 1 ncaa game total. dale brown won at least 12 tourney games in the 80s, he was a much better coach than pete carril. it doesn't matter if princeton had scholarships. they made a few lucky shots and won a first round game. big deal.
nelson [email] said at 12:46 AM 03-25-2007: First of all, you're wrong about them winning one NCAA game total. They also won in 1983 against Oklahoma State.
If you really don't think that the right to grant athletic scholarships plays any part in how good a team is, you're just delusional. Regardless, I'm over this discussion. I'll be watching the tournament tomorrow.
abby [email] said at 11:30 AM 03-25-2007: sports! jolly the baskets-ball into the wicker! lambast the man who fails his sporting-fellows, who so shames his committed institutions!
andrew [email] said at 10:38 PM 03-26-2007: i have pretty strong opinions for the game. no apologies. i played for a high school team that was number one in the state and in the top 20 in the nation, in an aau national championship tournament and ncaa basketball. it's not like i get my info from internet research. a guy from my high school played for georgetown when i was there. implying that a princeton coach had more effect on georgetown basketball than john thompson jr. is somewhat ridiculous and offensive if you know the game. or that ucla was still a powerhouse in the 90s. it as if i posted erroneous information about coding, photography or movies, you would try to correct it. its human nature.
nelson. said at 12:06 PM 03-27-2007: UCLA had won the national championship the year before and had several of the same players on their team in 1996.
They were a solid team in 1996.
I never said that Caril had more influence on G'town basketball then John Thompson, Jr. However, John Thompson III himself has said that he borrowed a lot of the strategies he uses now from his days of coaching/playing at Princeton. I didn't post anything erroneous in this thread, but you have posted a bunch of wrong things here. You thought that Ricy Blanton played for several years in the pro's, and that Jerry Reynolds played for the '86 yeam. You said Princeton only won one game in the NCAA Tournament, etc. You also said that just because Princeton scored two less point against Yale(in a victory) then they did against UCLA that Yale played better defense. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The weakest point you made was that the lack of athletic scholarships do not affect a coach being able to field a good team.
That is devoid of logic. The best players are not going to go to any school that they don't get to attend for free. Simple as that. If you don't believe me, look at where all of the best basketball players have attended college. PLACES THAT AWARD ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS! Therefore, teams, like Princeton, have to fend with third-rate basketball players. I played basketball as a kid, and followed it for years. If you really know the game that well, then you would realize that a team with little to offer in size, athelticism, or talent has to come up with a different strategy to be able to beat the best college teams.
John Thompson, Jr., when Princeton almost beat him in the early '90's, did not slag on their style. He gave credit where credit is due, and praised Caril for almost pulling the biggest upset in the history of the tournament. Only sore losers say "the way you play the game sucks." Finally, I think it's hilarious that you're "offended" by a debate about college basketball on Killoggs.
Relax, it will all be okay.
andrew [email] said at 8:40 PM 03-28-2007: absolutely my last post on this subject:
---here's an excerpt from an article about jt 3's final four press conference:
Some of the questions pertained to the Princeton offense, since Thompson played for Pete Carril, spent five seasons as a Princeton assistant and another four as head coach before coming to Georgetown in 2004. Some asked how he got his players to buy in to the offense; others asked how he applies it to star players like center Roy Hibbert and forward Jeff Green. You got the sense that he thinks too much is made out of the storyline about the Princeton offense, known for its slow and patient pace, back-door cuts and low-scoring games.
“The discussion about the Princeton offense,” he said after another question on the subject. “What it is is having unselfish players that are willing to help each other, that are skilled. So you can look at what we do and try to put it in the pigeonhole. … But it’s just getting five unselfish guys that want to play together. The way we’re doing things this year, it is dramatically different from how we did things last year, but the line of questioning about the Princeton offense is the same.”
----
Georgetown has always played highly disciplined intense and sophisticated basketball. In the 80s their full court press alone was more effective and elaborate than the Princeton offense. Georgetown pioneered NBA style basketball in college. Sports writers would love to think that geniuses at Princeton figured the game out for everybody else to follow, but that's not true. There isn't anything that Princeton followed under Pete Carril that Georgetown wasn't doing more athletically in the 80s. Aside from walking the ball up the court.
Am I upset because of a Killoggs debate? No. Maybe little disappointed. It isn't really surprising that an upset by an ivy league team seems to be overly-reveered. I don't agree. John Wooden, John Thompson, Bobby Knight, and Dean Smith were coaches who could consistently dominate the game. Pete Carril was not on that level.
And apparently, Ricky Blanton had a run with Chicago in 1992. The point is LSU teams were loaded with talent almost continuously from 1980-1995. Dale Brown was a great recruiter, and he never gave up and played 40-50 point basketball. A program like Princeton just isn't on that level. To give credit to one game, especially one first round upset is not my style.
nelson. said at 12:53 AM 03-29-2007: My final thoughts:
Pete Caril never had anywhere near the level of skilled or talented players that Wooden/Thompson/Knight/Smith had.
Who knows how successful he would have been if he had? It is important to judge coaching in context. Dale Brown had scholarships to use for recruiting. Pete Caril did not. Ricky Blanton played two games for the Bulls in '92. Princeton won many Ivy League titles and had other upsets besides this one.
nelson. said at 6:58 PM 03-25-2007: Eh, I wasn't worked up; just surprised that someone could think that an ivy league team with no scholarship players beating one of the premier teams in college basketball with several future NBA players doesn't qualify as a major upset. It's all gravy, though.
nelson. said at 8:30 PM 03-25-2007: "In the definition of basketball irony, Georgetown has advanced to the Final Four using a version of the same offense that nearly took the Hoyas out in what would have been the greatest upset in NCAA Tournament history in 1989. " - This article is referring to Princeton's near upset of Georgetown in 1989. John Thompson III, Georgetown's coach, put his own spin on the backdoor offense used by Princeton (where Thompson played and coached) and upset the Tar Heels with this strategy.
I guess Georgetown basketball sucks too.
nelson. said at 11:37 PM 03-25-2007: It went to overtime.
Georgetown's offense is definitely more fast-paced, but the fundamentals of Carill's offense
(backdoor lay-up/three point option; elaborate zone defenses) is still there.
brianbibbly [email] said at 8:44 AM 03-27-2007: Wow, over 40 responses and only 2 Rage Against The Sports Machine snide remarks from nerds. Interesting. I had no idea that Killoggs could support something so "establishment."
