POSTGAME THREAD: Now, we wait

by Jeff Nusser on Mar 12, 2009 10:30 PM PDT

Well, that certainly didn't go the way we hoped.

At halftime I proclaimed there was reason to hope that we could claw back into this thing in the second half -- in looking at the Four Factors, only our eFG% was out of line with our season numbers. Everything else was as good (or better) than a typical Cougar performance, so it figured that our shooting would have to regress to the mean and allow us to make a game of it in the second half.

Obviously, that never happened. Was it tired legs? Man, you hate to second guess, but when everything else looks good except for your eFG% ... let's just say that doesn't usually happen unless a team's shooting legs have left them. One has to openly wonder why all of our important players played about five minutes longer than they needed to last night.

Give a lot of credit to UCLA, too. It was clear they were fired up and ready for this thing from the tip. But we absolutely matched their energy early -- the offensive reounds were evidence of that. Had we not blown about 52 layups in the first eight minutes, we might have been able to match the energy on the floor with results on the scoreboard. But once we fell behind, we just didn't seem to have the energy to make the comeback happen.

So now, we wait. Will the call come on Sunday for the NIT? Or is the final time we'll see Rochestie, Baynes, Forrest and Harmeling. I don't know about you, but I don't want to think about that yet.

I don't care if it's the NIT and not the NCAA Tournament. I just want another game with these guys.

Tweet Comment 11 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

final plus/minus

Harthun 25
Harmeling 15
Capers 3
Casto -1
Forrest -3
Koprivica -3
Baynes -5
Rochestie -9
Thompson -31

Witches of Eastman

by BigWood on Mar 12, 2009 10:34 PM PDT reply actions

No shock with Klay on that one

He was positively terrible. Six points, 2 of 13 shooting, 4 turnovers … just awful. We’re not Washington. We can’t survive that kind of night from one of our big three.

C’mon, NIT.

CougCenter

by Jeff Nusser on Mar 12, 2009 10:36 PM PDT up reply actions

I don't want to end the season like this....

Hope the NIT gives us a shot.

by SW WA Coug on Mar 12, 2009 10:35 PM PDT reply actions

Last year-

CAL was a 4 seed in the NIT with a 15-14 (6-12) record, They lost 8 of 10 going in. They didn’t beat anyone great non-conf. I know the pac-10 was better last year, but we are clearly better than that.

FSU was a 3 seed, 19-14 (7-9) losses to Providence, Clev. St, South Florida.

I think if these teams are in the top half of the field, we have to make it.

by peaty411s on Mar 12, 2009 10:44 PM PDT reply actions

Cal was 16-15 actually

by peaty411s on Mar 12, 2009 10:45 PM PDT up reply actions

We need low major reg. season champs to pull through

in their conference tourneys.

by J.J. FeKl on Mar 12, 2009 11:01 PM PDT reply actions

It's going to be a long weekend

Ugh.

This is where per game statistics go to die.

CougCenter

by Craig Powers on Mar 12, 2009 11:04 PM PDT reply actions

Nuss

Hypothetically, if the NIT passed on the Cougars (which I don’t think they will) do you really think that they would decline a CBI bid?

http://www.spartyandfriends.com/

by thecassino on Mar 12, 2009 11:06 PM PDT reply actions

Probably

The CBI is a pay to play tournament, schools have to foot their own bill. Our AD said earlier that with the state budget as it is, and the school having to make cuts, it may not be prudent to spend a significant amount of money for a one or two game tournament. We’ll have to see.

by 02Coug on Mar 13, 2009 6:07 AM PDT up reply actions

It's a lot of money

I think it’s about $50,000 just to play. And if you want a home game, I think you’ve got to be willing to guarantee even more than that. Declining the CBI isn’t as far fetched as it might seem.

Besides, the CBI just feels like playing in the Insight.com Bowl when you’re 6-6. If there’s anything good about it, it seems to have raised the profile of the NIT …

CougCenter

by Jeff Nusser on Mar 13, 2009 6:51 AM PDT up reply actions

I think Wazzu has to say no to the CBI....

I like the idea of getting to play another game or two but not at that cost. It’s not financially responsible to have that mentality.

The thing that comes foremost to mind is SB 6116, the Husky stadium issue. If you vote no on that I think it follows, you have to vote no on the CBI. Back up what you believe in. Just saying….

by SW WA Coug on Mar 13, 2009 11:06 AM PDT reply actions