dylans said:
@jaybate-1.0 Nova shot horriblily against TexasTech, 33% from the field and won. They got lucky that Tech wasn’t ready for the big stage. Otherwise the whole narrative changes.
Like so many that became conditioned to view events too often through the lens of "conspiracy" apparently because of the government's (or perhaps just the Deep State's imbedded agents in government, media and the academy, it is still hard to say which) long term propaganda/psy-op campaign of meming with "conspiracy theory", you appear to be becoming conditioned to view this event through what could turn out to be the government's (or Deep State's) psy-ops campaign of meming with "narrative".
Regardless, I SEE NO "NARRATIVE" HERE.
We are two persons discussing a Villanova basketball team's historical accomplishments. They really happened. They are not a narrative spun that can change.
What we infer from what happened, i.e., what Villanova accomplished, could be treated disingenuously as a "narrative" to be spun to fool you, or I, but I, at least, can assure you that that is NOT my intent. I am not trying to fool you with a narrative. I am exchanging posts with you about a real event and I am really trying to understand the drivers of its occurance. To reiterate for emphasis, there is no narrative here based on my actions. NONE.
Let me go a little further and add: ""narrative" seems increasingly to be for suckers" to my other epigram, i.e., "conspiracy IS for suckers, unless proven" and then generalize both as "psy-ops are for suckers in general." :-)
The above noted, NO offense/defense scheme can guaranty victory under all conditions. NONE. Not even John Wooden's, who on top of having won 10 NCAA championships in 11 years, also had FOUR undefeated seasons!!!!!! Wooden's UCLA teams were tripped up a number of times, even during his 11 year stretch of greatest success. But it would be silly to say that the narrative would be different, if he his team had shot poorly against a better team instead of the teams it shot poorly against. Right? The point is Wooden's coaching emphasized through endless indoctrination with the Pyramid of Success that a player had to be at his best when he needed his best and he had to strive to achieve competitive greatness regardless of how well, or poorly, things were going. Maybe Jay Wright, a .600 coach until recently, studied Wooden, or Self, a bit recently, and combined the insights gained with some savvy combining of complementary offensive and defensive strategies to produce a team that could beat another good team on a night that it shot only 33%, and to produce a team that could shoot much better against even better teams when that was needed? Maybe?
Either way, there is no need to assume, or inject, the concept of a "narrative" here.
That clarified, you appear to be misinterpreting the meaning of what NOVA accomplished with 33 percent shooting.
Their combination of offense and defense apparently made them (again without resort to narrative) so tough that they were able to beat TTech, a solid team that gave many good teams fits, EVEN when Nova shot ONLY 33 percent. Isn't that the accurate insight, when the talk about narratives is paired away?
The very fact of Nova's modest 33% shooting you sight refutes your own logic IMHO.
It appears to me that NOVA held such a huge edge in the number of proficient three point shooters and such a huge edge in inter-reinforcing offensive and defensive philosophies, given that edge in three point shooters, that it could find enough shooters that could make enough shots to win shooting only 33%, on another night when a team with only 2-3 trifectates might have fallen to 25%, because there just weren't any other trifectates to resort to.
I lack hard statistics for the following assertion, so I will couch it anecdotally: in my experience, often when teams that depend heavily on a particular kind of offensive productivity are denied that kind of offensive productivity, they are beaten by better, equal, and not infrequently by lesser teams, especially in the Carney. We see it in the early round upsets. A lesser team shoots lights out and a better team shoots under its average in its preferred scoring mode (i.e., inside, or outside scoring), and that combines with substandard FT performance (or a lack of fouls called generating below average FTAs) to yield an upset.
And, regardless, NOVA being beaten by TTech would hardly have been classified as an upset. TTech was pretty good, despite Self showing everyone how to beat TTech in KU's rematch with TTech that lead them to be much less successful than they had been earlier in the season after that exposure.
Here is the thing: Nova had sooooo many > 39% trifectates, including two that force opponents to have to pull their bigs at least 23 feet from the basket, that Nova was, game in and game out, able to:
a.) find at least a couple guys that could make a decent percentage from trey (remember 33% is about 50% standardized to 2-point shooting);
b.) shoot a large enough number of treys relative to its opponent to offset its own relative inaccuracy of 33%; and
c.) erode the opponents defensive rebounding (something TTech relied heavily on) by pulling its bigs out of the paint to guard Nova's bigs threatening to take any open look treys.
