February 27, 2007
Virginia Is For Leaders
Bob Lipper of the Richmond Times-Dispatch has a great article today on Virginia and Virginia Tech and their big game coming up on Thursday.
Not only is this by far the most important game in the history of their basketball rivalry, it might the be only important one ever. Let's face it, until a couple of years ago, UVA didn't really care much about this basketball rivalry. Tech wasn't in the ACC and they just weren't good enough to get fired up about. Cavalier fans were much more concerned about Carolina, Duke and Maryland. On the Hokie side, they just didn't really care that much about hoops at all. Sure, they always enjoyed beating UVA because they knew that hurt the Cavs, but if they lost, it didn't matter.
This could be one of the few really good things about ACC expansion - Virginia Tech might start caring about hoops and their rivalry with UVA might blossom.
Regardless, right now it's a hell of a big game and that's pretty amazing.
Comments
Does Lipper mention the all-time record in the Virginia/Virginia Tech series? I skimmed the article yesterday. I believe it is 71 wins for Virginia against 46 wins for VPISU.
It's not Duke/Carolina in terms of sizzle factor. And it won't be for 20 years and that would take a ridiculous run of success from BOTH schools--unlikely.
FSU's first year in the ACC, they swept Dean Smith. They haven't done much since. Virginia Tech's long-term viability in the conference isn't easy to know. Virginia's lack of sustained success outside of the Sampson era is pretty pathetic.
Virginia Tech fans are fired up just to be in the ACC. Virginia fans are trying to learn to like Dave Leitao. Get back to me in a few years and we'll see how this rivalry is brewing up.
It's not Duke/Carolina in terms of sizzle factor. And it won't be for 20 years and that would take a ridiculous run of success from BOTH schools--unlikely.
FSU's first year in the ACC, they swept Dean Smith. They haven't done much since. Virginia Tech's long-term viability in the conference isn't easy to know. Virginia's lack of sustained success outside of the Sampson era is pretty pathetic.
Virginia Tech fans are fired up just to be in the ACC. Virginia fans are trying to learn to like Dave Leitao. Get back to me in a few years and we'll see how this rivalry is brewing up.
from TechSideline.com
"The History:
UVA holds a 77-47 all-time hoops edge. But for a +30 overall outcome margin in the win-loss column, the average historical score is only 60-57 in favor the Hoos."
and yes, outside of Sampson at UVA they are actually somewhat similar in history
"The History:
UVA holds a 77-47 all-time hoops edge. But for a +30 overall outcome margin in the win-loss column, the average historical score is only 60-57 in favor the Hoos."
and yes, outside of Sampson at UVA they are actually somewhat similar in history
I'm not sure I agree that UVA and VT are similar in their histories, with or without the Sampson years.
Nonetheless, I am very excited about tonight's game and that's the first time I could ever say that about a Virginia - Virginia Tech game. It has a way to go to really be a true rivalry game, but maybe we're headed there.
Nonetheless, I am very excited about tonight's game and that's the first time I could ever say that about a Virginia - Virginia Tech game. It has a way to go to really be a true rivalry game, but maybe we're headed there.
I know that VPI beat Carolina twice, but I remember the Redskins beat the Cowboys twice the last time the Cowboys won the Super Bowl. I think that it is kind of a fluke involving match-ups, in the same way that NC State blasted Tech twice. They may beat UVa again and tie for first but it will be the same kind of fluke as Wake winning in football this year, when VPI actually had the best team.
I mean, really. VPI lost to Marshall and Western Michigan and GW and as impressive as the wins are over Carolina, the losses to State basically rub them out.
UVa only had to play Carolina and Duke once and while they did beat Maryland twice, it was before Maryland caught fire. They beat State twice without Engin Atsure. Recently, they lost to Miami, whom Wake beat twice. They lost to the Mountaineers, no not WVU, but Appalachan State University. I do not see any impressive UVa victories at all this season, with the exception of the wins against Maryland. Squeezing out a victory against Duke at home, after trailing the entire game is not particularly impressive.
So, I must dissent from all of this self-contratulatory chest-thumping in the Commonwealth and remind everyone to remember that we no longer have the round robin format and you are all comparing apples and oranges.
Or, to put in the statistical analysis of the great Pomeroy, himself a VPI grad:
Tonight's game pits number #24 VPI versus #44 Virginia. Ho-Hum
I mean, really. VPI lost to Marshall and Western Michigan and GW and as impressive as the wins are over Carolina, the losses to State basically rub them out.
UVa only had to play Carolina and Duke once and while they did beat Maryland twice, it was before Maryland caught fire. They beat State twice without Engin Atsure. Recently, they lost to Miami, whom Wake beat twice. They lost to the Mountaineers, no not WVU, but Appalachan State University. I do not see any impressive UVa victories at all this season, with the exception of the wins against Maryland. Squeezing out a victory against Duke at home, after trailing the entire game is not particularly impressive.
So, I must dissent from all of this self-contratulatory chest-thumping in the Commonwealth and remind everyone to remember that we no longer have the round robin format and you are all comparing apples and oranges.
Or, to put in the statistical analysis of the great Pomeroy, himself a VPI grad:
Tonight's game pits number #24 VPI versus #44 Virginia. Ho-Hum
No one's arguing that these are great teams, but they are doing great things this year nonetheless. OK, maybe not "great," but UVA hasn't even thought about contending for the ACC regular season championship since 1995.
It's a big deal.
It's a big deal.
I am not against them. I will watch it before the GPI-UNC game. There just have been a lot of articles in the DC area about how the DC area teams are better than the North Carolina teams, which first of all, is not even necessarily true, and second, the failure by sportswriters the entire nation all over, to recognize that only the Pac Ten still has a round robin, really is annoying. We hear over and over, that so-and-so team is better than some other team because they edged them one time while playing at home, or because they are one game ahead in the standings but haven't played each other twice or the same teams in conference.
It is a forgotten point now, but one of the original reasons for the Southern Conference tournament and the ACC tournament was to decide the champion in circumstances when they did not play complete round robins. The tournament then made it fair since you were no longer comparing apples and oranges. Once the ACC went to the round robin format for good, this reason was no longer a valid one, but would be today, if it weren't for the fact that so many teams already get into the NCAA's. I would like to see conferences limited to 4 teams. Honestly, if you aren't in the top four of your conference, then you don't belong in the tournament anyway. When was the last time a team finished fifth or lower and won it all? Has it ever happened?
But with respect to Virginia, which state I can see from my backyard in Maryland, let me just say this. When the Commonwealth of Virginia has 3 teams in the Final 8, like North Carolina did in 1977, or two teams in the Final Four, like North Carolina did in 1977 and 1991, or when it has 9 national tournament titles like North Carolina does, then they can compare themselves to their neighbor to the south. Right now, only California and Kentucky can do so.
It is a forgotten point now, but one of the original reasons for the Southern Conference tournament and the ACC tournament was to decide the champion in circumstances when they did not play complete round robins. The tournament then made it fair since you were no longer comparing apples and oranges. Once the ACC went to the round robin format for good, this reason was no longer a valid one, but would be today, if it weren't for the fact that so many teams already get into the NCAA's. I would like to see conferences limited to 4 teams. Honestly, if you aren't in the top four of your conference, then you don't belong in the tournament anyway. When was the last time a team finished fifth or lower and won it all? Has it ever happened?
But with respect to Virginia, which state I can see from my backyard in Maryland, let me just say this. When the Commonwealth of Virginia has 3 teams in the Final 8, like North Carolina did in 1977, or two teams in the Final Four, like North Carolina did in 1977 and 1991, or when it has 9 national tournament titles like North Carolina does, then they can compare themselves to their neighbor to the south. Right now, only California and Kentucky can do so.
Booya! It was a bit ragged at times, but Virginia got the big win. It's hard to really understand how this team has gotten to 11 wins, but there they are. Very well done tonight. They kept the Hokies at arm's length for the entire second half and never really allowed a run.
Yeah. They may have done UNC a favor, although UNC may not take advantage of it. I honestly don't think that UVa can make it past the second round, but who knows. UVa almost went to the finals the year after Sampson graduated and that team was 6-8 in conference and really not impressive at all.
Yeah. They may have done UNC a favor, although UNC may not take advantage of it. I honestly don't think that UVa can make it past the second round, but who knows. UVa almost went to the finals the year after Sampson graduated and that team was 6-8 in conference and really not impressive at all.
Yeah. They may have done UNC a favor, although UNC may not take advantage of it. I honestly don't think that UVa can make it past the second round, but who knows. UVa almost went to the finals the year after Sampson graduated and that team was 6-8 in conference and really not impressive at all.
Yeah. They may have done UNC a favor, although UNC may not take advantage of it. I honestly don't think that UVa can make it past the second round, but who knows. UVa almost went to the finals the year after Sampson graduated and that team was 6-8 in conference and really not impressive at all.
| william wrote: |
| Error, Will Robinson. Error. |
Sorry, the site can be a bit flaky!
Now that you mention it, this team is a bit reminiscent of the '84 squad. That team also had two excellent small guards in Othell Wilson and Ricky Stokes. It had a young Olden Polynice though and a few other key players like Rick Carlisle.
Let's just say that I won't be picking this squad to make the Final Four though.
| william wrote: |
| Olden Polynice sure was good at steals. |
Nice.
He just wanted a look at the inside of a police car.
| william wrote: |
| Carolina choked. Will Wake upset the Wahoos? We shall see. |
As much as I would like to chalk it up to the theory of "Running into a Hot Team at the right time", I'm completely agreeing with you. Oy vey. That being said, I'd rather these mishaps happen now instead of two weeks from now.
| SuperJew wrote: | ||
As much as I would like to chalk it up to the theory of "Running into a Hot Team at the right time", I'm completely agreeing with you. Oy vey. That being said, I'd rather these mishaps happen now instead of two weeks from now. |
Don't discount the Hot Team theory. Maryland is playing great ball right now and Tech was hot last night and really needed the win. That said, it might have been a good idea to actually keep a hand in guys' faces last night. Someone should show Carolina a picture of Thaddeus Young - look, here's the guy hitting every shot he takes; why don't you try staying with him, OK?
I don't think the Tech upset of UNC was a total shock. Tech is an excellent team at home, they had been playing very well lately, and Carolina had not been. Also, UNC only seems to play defense when their backs are against the wall. Their defense the last 5 minutes was better in every way compared to the rest of the game. This seems to be their pattern, as a number of their wins this season have been comebacks from decent sized deficits. I'm pretty doubtful this will change before the end of the season. I think it comes out of how youthful the team is. Regardless of their talent, it's hard to pick Carolina going deep in the NCAAs because of that.
It's strange. Carolina is ranked 3rd nationally in defensive efficiency, but I guess they are inconsistent. Some of those three's last night had eyes though.
I remember when Ga Tech bounced Carolina out of the tournament in 2005 and they looked great and were hitting everything and then the next day against Duke, it was clang, clang, clang....
I think that Pomeroy says and that we would all agree that the difference between a team making 7-21 three's in a game and making 10-21 three's in a game can often be imperceptible as to cause, but those extra nine points have a huge impact on the outcome of the game.
But you also know, that some of the cranks on the Carolina boards are going to state emphatically that it was because of bad defense. Maybe so, maybe not.
People talk about the Laettner shot, but I am not sure I agree with that criticism of Pitino regarding the defense of the shot at all. Laettner simply took a great throw and made an excellent shot.
Who knows what might have happened had Laettner not made that shot. Maybe Duke lets Coach K go in 1995. It wasn't without precedent. State forced out Valvano. But thanks to that lucky/excellent shot, Coach K had become bigger than life having won back to back titles.
Anyway, the luck factor is extremely important when analyzing the results of any given game as opposed to a series of games. It always surprises me that announcers and sportswriters are loathe to admit it.
Let's face it, Carolina could very easily have lost all four of the title games they won in 1957, 1982, 1993 and 2005 and were fortunate to win all of them.
Donald Williams had never shot like he did in the last three rounds of the NCAA tournament in 1993 and he never would again. But he could not miss during the Final Four that year, making 10-14 of his three's in New Orleans. I remember the guy calling the game with Billy Packer, marvelling about Williams and saying "they never even seem to touch the net."
Other great Carolina teams in 1977, 1984, 1987, 1991, 1997 and 1998 seemed to be clearly as good as the eventual national champion those years but the ball just did not bounce right.
I remember when Ga Tech bounced Carolina out of the tournament in 2005 and they looked great and were hitting everything and then the next day against Duke, it was clang, clang, clang....
I think that Pomeroy says and that we would all agree that the difference between a team making 7-21 three's in a game and making 10-21 three's in a game can often be imperceptible as to cause, but those extra nine points have a huge impact on the outcome of the game.
But you also know, that some of the cranks on the Carolina boards are going to state emphatically that it was because of bad defense. Maybe so, maybe not.
People talk about the Laettner shot, but I am not sure I agree with that criticism of Pitino regarding the defense of the shot at all. Laettner simply took a great throw and made an excellent shot.
Who knows what might have happened had Laettner not made that shot. Maybe Duke lets Coach K go in 1995. It wasn't without precedent. State forced out Valvano. But thanks to that lucky/excellent shot, Coach K had become bigger than life having won back to back titles.
Anyway, the luck factor is extremely important when analyzing the results of any given game as opposed to a series of games. It always surprises me that announcers and sportswriters are loathe to admit it.
Let's face it, Carolina could very easily have lost all four of the title games they won in 1957, 1982, 1993 and 2005 and were fortunate to win all of them.
Donald Williams had never shot like he did in the last three rounds of the NCAA tournament in 1993 and he never would again. But he could not miss during the Final Four that year, making 10-14 of his three's in New Orleans. I remember the guy calling the game with Billy Packer, marvelling about Williams and saying "they never even seem to touch the net."
Other great Carolina teams in 1977, 1984, 1987, 1991, 1997 and 1998 seemed to be clearly as good as the eventual national champion those years but the ball just did not bounce right.
George Mason and UVA have each made it to the Final Four? Has any other Virginia school?
| william wrote: |
| George Mason and UVA have each made it to the Final Four? Has any other Virginia school? |
No other schools. I'm not sure why this is relevant. No one is saying that this season means that Virginia - the state or the school - is suddenly on par with North Carolina - the state or the school. It means simply that - that Virginia won the 2007 regular season (we'll find out if it's outright or not in a couple of hours).
Given UVA's recent history, that is a big deal and reason for celebration.
I know that some morons in the media have written articles about the balance of ACC power shifting north, but that's just their typical shortsighted ways to sell papers. I started this site in no small part to counteract that sort of myopia.
No, I know that.
I am just curious because we had UNCC (now known as Charlotte), who just missed meeting Carolina in the 1977 Finals by a hair, on a very controversial call, to Marquette. They were a very similar crew to last year's GMU(disclosure: I am an alumnus of GMU Law) team, that had real verve and seemed to love to play together. Their best player was Cornbread Maxwell, who now announces Celtics games on the radio and was a pretty decent NBA'er for a decade or so.
My father is a W&L grad and he always telling me about how good W&L used to be in sports when they were in the Southern Conference. I didn't think they had ever made the Final Four.
Here are some other Virginia schools that I can remember things about:
VPI won the NIT in 1973, which was quite a big deal then, and VMI made it to the Final 8 in 1976, advancing further than UVa, which was ACC champion.
People move more now and the like, but states like Indiana, Kentucky, Kansas and North Carolina always want to tout their achievements. Virginia is always claiming to be the first this and that in U.S. history. I thought the WaPo article was trying to be provocative but the triangle has eight national titles in basketball. That is pretty amazing. You just aren't ever going to see a permanent shift because basketball is too ingrained down there.
UVa (and Maryland) can't make up its mind whether it is a football school or a basketball school, which usually is a recipe for mediocrity. SI has a listing of football and basketball budgets and pretty much the only schools able to compete at a high level in both are the huge state universities like Michigan, Florida and Ohio State. Look at Duke, Kentucky, UNC, Indiana and UCLA. Each has won multiple basketball titles in the last 50 years but no football titles.
This is why I warn my Wake friends. Be careful switching your focus to football. One reason why recruits have gone to Wake is that they didn't have to compete with football for attention. Basketball was the focus as soon as practice started. My prediction is that Wake is headed towards mediocrity in both football and basketball.
Posted by Dave at February 27, 2007 11:35 AM
| TrackBack
I am just curious because we had UNCC (now known as Charlotte), who just missed meeting Carolina in the 1977 Finals by a hair, on a very controversial call, to Marquette. They were a very similar crew to last year's GMU(disclosure: I am an alumnus of GMU Law) team, that had real verve and seemed to love to play together. Their best player was Cornbread Maxwell, who now announces Celtics games on the radio and was a pretty decent NBA'er for a decade or so.
My father is a W&L grad and he always telling me about how good W&L used to be in sports when they were in the Southern Conference. I didn't think they had ever made the Final Four.
Here are some other Virginia schools that I can remember things about:
VPI won the NIT in 1973, which was quite a big deal then, and VMI made it to the Final 8 in 1976, advancing further than UVa, which was ACC champion.
People move more now and the like, but states like Indiana, Kentucky, Kansas and North Carolina always want to tout their achievements. Virginia is always claiming to be the first this and that in U.S. history. I thought the WaPo article was trying to be provocative but the triangle has eight national titles in basketball. That is pretty amazing. You just aren't ever going to see a permanent shift because basketball is too ingrained down there.
UVa (and Maryland) can't make up its mind whether it is a football school or a basketball school, which usually is a recipe for mediocrity. SI has a listing of football and basketball budgets and pretty much the only schools able to compete at a high level in both are the huge state universities like Michigan, Florida and Ohio State. Look at Duke, Kentucky, UNC, Indiana and UCLA. Each has won multiple basketball titles in the last 50 years but no football titles.
This is why I warn my Wake friends. Be careful switching your focus to football. One reason why recruits have gone to Wake is that they didn't have to compete with football for attention. Basketball was the focus as soon as practice started. My prediction is that Wake is headed towards mediocrity in both football and basketball.
BrightCar Car Maintenance Software - Software To Manage Your Car Maintenance Schedule
