Again, I posted nothing negative about Connecticut or any other team for that matter - I posted in a thread about USC, and my comments - which are factual - were attacked:
I was responding to the poster named Bigpetunia (I quoted his/her post in my responding post), who questioned USC's ability to "win in the big contests when the stage is biggest and the lights are brightest."...and if USC were "true warriors" as Notre Dame was, even though USC only lost to ND by one single point when they (USC) had the final shot to win the game, but missed it. That typically is not an indication for rational people of a lack of playing well in big games or not being true warriors: it's actually more indicative of a damn pretty even matchup between 2 teams where one had to win and one had to lose. I made the comparison between the final four teams and the FG%, regardless of whther they played 5 or 6 games. I also included MD who played 5 gms in the mix. So whether USC was 1st out of the four or 2nd to only CT in FG%, it doesn;t disprove my point in response that USC isn't a team that wilted under the program-first advancement to a NCAAT Final Four, but rather it stepped up and met the challenge. Again, it wasn't a negative towards CT, it was about USC, but of course CT posters here get all sensitive and butthurt about anyone implying that another team can be better at anything that CT is, and they all came storming in with pitchforks raised. To my point, what does it matter?
Again.....it was the Final Four. It was in response to the question about USC playing in big games with the brightest lights. I'm sure there were other teams in the NCAAT who fell out earlier but who perhaps had even better FG% than USC. But that wasn't my point, and it wasn't Bigpetunia's point either, that I was responding to. A 1st rd or 2nd rd game can't be considered as bigtime as a Final Four game, can it?
And no, I didn't "bop" from there to nd2tty's post. I bopped from the 5-6 previous posts from posters trying desperately to twist my initial post, and to argue inaccurate stats and info against my comments. nd2tty's post was rightfully only seen by me as the next in a long line of pointless responses that had little to do with my post, and this thread's primary topic. So of course I was frustrated by the unnecessary pattern of responses.
Irregardless of anything Connecticut in a USC thread....(sigh).....my point again was not to make everything about CT (If I am not mistaken, Bigpetunia is not a CT fan, but a Notre Dame fan?). This place has all of you to do that. Yes, MD had a low FG% against CT - they had a lower one versus Tennessee a round earlier. But this thread isn't about Tennessee is it, it's about Connecticut. Oh wait....
Every basketball game has a loser. Losing a basketball game doesn't necessarily have to mean the team that lost hasn't the ability to win those games in the future, or that one game can tag and label a program. That's what Bigpetunia was implying. Even the posters here proclaimed that the loss to Stanford would be the catalyst for CT to win it all in the end. But losing by 1 pt to ND and having either the best or 2nd-best FG% (doesn't matter) of the 4 Final Four participants isn't supposed to mean that USC can improve from their performance this season? Of course I will continue to be attacked here as it's the very obvious nature of this board, but I still say bull...
