UVA looks like the better team on paper, but I'm taking the hot team, Texas Tech for the upset. Nice to see two state teams battling it out.

I imagine this is a booth, but Virginia is #1 in giving up 55.5 Pts/Game. Texas Tech is #3 with 58.8.

I rooting for TT in a squeaker......30 to 27..

First time championship game for either team, first time playing each other. This is good for college hoops. NCAA should be happy it got a change-up. Should be a great game.

SHould be a nail bitter. I figure teams stay within 5 most of the way. Every possession and score will have significant meaning given how both teams try to slow the pace. First one to 50 will win. Be interesting to see how (casual) fans react to that.

am a fan of transition bball. this final could be a "sleeper".

I'm going to revise my predited score:

TT 56 UVA 51


Of course it still may be an extremely low-scoring game.

ACC vs. Big 12. Just like the women's championship game...Notre Dame vs, Baylor.

we need better athletes who can make shots.

wifeisafurd said:

---

UVA looks like the better team on paper, but I'm taking the hot team, Texas Tech for the upset. Nice to see two state teams battling it out.

---

I think UVA may be less dependent on scoring in the paint than either Gonzaga or MSU were and will be less susceptible to the swarming interior defense that was decisive for Tech in those earlier matchups. And will Tariq Owens be 100?

Tony Bennett is gonna Wisconsin Green Bay'em like his Pop!

Solid, fundamental basketball. Monty would approve of this game.

Overtime!

That reversed call in OT turned the tide. Shouldn't have been reversed: in all the history of basketball before ultra slow speed high def cameras that would have been Tech ball. In fact there are a boat load of plays all game long like that which are not reviewed and it's always off the guy who poked it out.

NVBear78 said:

---

That reversed call in OT turned the tide. Shouldn't have been reversed: in all the history of basketball before ultra slow speed high def cameras that would have been Tech ball. In fact there are a boat load of plays all game long like that which are not reviewed and it's always off the guy who poked it out.

---

I wonder how many players on either team could have gotten admitted to Cal? How many will graduate from either school? How many were recruited without "bending" the NCAA recruiting rules?

I do know you can't have it both ways: either you go after the very best players available, using whatever tactics you can get away with, or you go after the best recruits you can find who will take academics seriously. Extremely rarely are players members of both groups.

i don't think our recruiting is going to get any better with fox at the helm.

Bear19 said:

---

I wonder how many players on either team could have gotten admitted to Cal? How many will graduate from either school? How many were recruited without "bending" the NCAA recruiting rules?

I do know you can't have it both ways: either you go after the very best players available, using whatever tactics you can get away with, or you go after the best recruits you can find who will take academics seriously. Extremely rarely are players members of both groups.

---

I am not sure I am on sound footing here, but don't you think the general player at UVa is academically of the same quality as a Cal player....My understanding is the Cal, UVa, and U of Michigan are the three top academic public schools in America....It is hard for me to imagine, with their reputation of academic excellence they can dip too far down in academics on their sports teams, much like Cal.

I was pulling for Tech as the underdog but nice to see Tony Bennett win it with his dad there, a hoops lifer and his son, another lifer.

re: Cal, defense first, a decent system and getting recruits who will stay for 4 years and grind it out is the way go. If there's a key to that beside academics, need to project (and deliver) to parents their kids will be taken care of, build a program around that. It's one way to slow the transfer mania...that and winning.

Duke had 3 probable lottery picks and another probable draftee, Neither UVA nor TT had a one-and-done nor a probable first round pick. This was as close to a COLLEGE basketball game as you can get. Not an audition for the NBA. UVA is a Jay Wright (Villanova) kind of team and I bet most, if not all, will graduate. Duke won't graduate many, if any.

DeAndre Hunter is projected to go in the top 5 overall in this year's NBA draft.

oski003 said:

---

DeAndre Hunter is projected to go in the top 5 overall in this year's NBA draft.

---

Plus, Ty Jerome is projected as a late first round pick if he comes out and Kyle Guy as a possible end of second round pick.

UVA had the number 7 overall recruiting class in 2016, which was composed of Guy, Hunter, and Jerome, all top 50 players that have stayed multiple years. Diakite was recruited in 2015 as a top 30 player ranked nationally. This is the core that won the championship. Their recruiting since 2016 has been average, which explains their incredibly low bench scoring. It is harder to recruit in the top ten when you retain your top starters, and they have taken a step back. Their first round exit last year likely didn't help.

Tony Bennett will be losing some very good players. However, Diakate, despite being a top 30 recruit, redshirted his first year and can return next year.

Bear19 said:

---

I wonder how many players on either team could have gotten admitted to Cal? How many will graduate from either school? How many were recruited without "bending" the NCAA recruiting rules?

I do know you can't have it both ways: either you go after the very best players available, using whatever tactics you can get away with, or you go after the best recruits you can find who will take academics seriously. Extremely rarely are players members of both groups.

---

Out of UVA's top 3 players, we offered one of them and the other was offered by Columbia and Princeton.

And the point guard was headed to UC Davis until Tony Benmett decided the intangibles meant more than him being 5'9"

hoop97 said:

---

And the point guard was headed to UC Davis until Tony Benmett decided the intangibles meant more than him being 5'9"

---

They have three guards with Jerome their primary ball handler. Clark, a low rated recruit, was committed to UC Davis until he started getting some attention from larger schools. He was visited by UCLA and UVA and committed to UVA shortly after. He's a good player but is only their 6th best or so, averaging 4.5 points and 2.5 assists per game.

I am struck by the lack of size for UVA. Many argue that Cal's lack of size is crippling to the program. Maybe with a lack of size the team needs to play differently than a team with bigs. Also, I have to think that the kid who was going to Davis would have been Cal Bear if offered early. An important aspect of success is identifying unsung talent. UVA shows one doesn't need "one and dones" to compete.

NVBear78 said:

---

That reversed call in OT turned the tide. Shouldn't have been reversed: in all the history of basketball before ultra slow speed high def cameras that would have been Tech ball. In fact there are a boat load of plays all game long like that which are not reviewed and it's always off the guy who poked it out.

---

Totally.
But there was a play before that where Guy bumped into Diakite (his teammate), tripped and lost the ball. The ref was right there, but called it a foul on the trailing TT Italian named kid. Total phantom foul. TT was winning by 4 I think, and Guy's two FT's allowed Virginia to stay close. Bigger call than the stupid replay overturn. Like, it barely grazed. As you said, IN ALL THE HISTORY OF BASKETBALL.....

All that said, I was rooting for Virginia. My daughter won her 7th grade pool with them winning. And I had nothing to do with her picks.

bearchamp said:

---

I am struck by the lack of size for UVA. Many argue that Cal's lack of size is crippling to the program. Maybe with a lack of size the team needs to play differently than a team with bigs. Also, I have to think that the kid who was going to Davis would have been Cal Bear if offered early. An important aspect of success is identifying unsung talent. UVA shows one doesn't need "one and dones" to compete.

---

Their backcourt is 6'7, 6'5, 6'2. That's not small. Front court goes 6'9, 6'10, also not particularly small. When they run 4 perimeter players, the 4th guy is 6'8. The packline also helps quite a bit.

You forgot Clark who is 5'9 and gets 26 minutes per game. You are right though that they have more front court depth than we did this past season. The difference is Salt.

UVA's starting group went 5'9", 6'2", 6'5", 6'7" and 6'9". UVA,s size is comparable to the Bears last year.

bearchamp said:

---

I am struck by the lack of size for UVA. Many argue that Cal's lack of size is crippling to the program. Maybe with a lack of size the team needs to play differently than a team with bigs. Also, I have to think that the kid who was going to Davis would have been Cal Bear if offered early. An important aspect of success is identifying unsung talent. UVA shows one doesn't need "one and dones" to compete.

---

Big difference between "roster height" and "competitive height". UVA's "intermediates" (Hunter, Diakite, Key) are far more athletic than Kelly, Anticevich, Gordon, Sueing et al (and Hunter has a disproportionate wingspan). Thus, they play bigger than roster height and our guys play smaller.

Well, that doesn't explain Clark. My view is that Cal has adequate talent to be competitive (not saying National Champions) if the system is designed to allow the players to maximize their abilities. UVA exhibits as much hustle in 10 minutes as Cal shows in half a season. THAT can be remedied by coaching.

bearchamp said:

---

Well, that doesn't explain Clark. My view is that Cal has adequate talent to be competitive (not saying National Champions) if the system is designed to allow the players to maximize their abilities. UVA exhibits as much hustle in 10 minutes as Cal shows in half a season. THAT can be remedied by coaching.

---

But hustle isn't a system. And didn't Jones start off having this group playing the up tempo style? It failed because they don't play defense, among other things.

I was struck by two things last night, both coaching related.

UVA went into a slow down offense with about 4 minutes left in the game and gave up their 10 point lead as a result.

Tech had no semblance of any offense in OT. Everything they did was 1 on 1 isolation stuff, maybe a single high screen to initiate the ISO. UVA already plays good D. Not moving people or the ball just makes it that much easier on the D.

bearchamp said:

---

Well, that doesn't explain Clark. My view is that Cal has adequate talent to be competitive (not saying National Champions) if the system is designed to allow the players to maximize their abilities. UVA exhibits as much hustle in 10 minutes as Cal shows in half a season. THAT can be remedied by coaching.

---

Clark was one player. The other 4 starters were highly rated players who had all in been the system for multiple years. Again, Clark averaged 4 points and 2 assists a game. Their veteran star players, one of which will be a top 5 NBA pick, carried the load, NOT Clark.