Jump to content
O's are Legends

Live upset thread!

Recommended Posts

It was a great shot, and his dive onto the floor after it is almost more famous of an image than the shot itself. But nobody is talking about Valpo-Ole Miss in a "Best Tournament Games Ever" list. It was a fun first round upset, but nothing more than that.

Fact is, the further along in the tournament, the bigger the game. Thus, if there is a great game later on in the tourney, it's a bigger game.

I'm not sure how that's even debatable.

I would argue any game in the first weekend would have to be pretty epic to make a Top 20 Tournament games list. Maybe even Top 50.

There are plenty of first round games that are considered "Top 20 or 50" tourney games. Princeton-UCLA, Princeton-Georgetown, Ole Miss-Valpo just to name a few off the top of my head. They may not have been as meaningful, but were great games nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are plenty of first round games that are considered "Top 20 or 50" tourney games. Princeton-UCLA, Princeton-Georgetown, Ole Miss-Valpo just to name a few off the top of my head. They may not have been as meaningful, but were great games nonetheless.

I definitely agree they were great games, but definitely not Top 20 games.

Maybe Top 50, and I'd say the only one that fits that is maybe, maybe Princeton-UCLA.

Most first round games that are buzzer beater, great ending type games just aren't played at the high level of games later in the tournament.

It would be interesting to try and put together a list of greatest tourney games ever. As I'm coming up with some in my head, I've got a TON already, and they are all Regional Finals- on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are plenty of first round games that are considered "Top 20 or 50" tourney games. Princeton-UCLA, Princeton-Georgetown, Ole Miss-Valpo just to name a few off the top of my head. They may not have been as meaningful, but were great games nonetheless.

I think part of the reason why some people don't think of early round games among the all-time best is because they are mostly shown regionally and many people only get to see highlights or a few minutes of it. When a team like Princeton plays well enough to keep up with the defending champ in UCLA, and then beats them with the game on the line at the very end, I find it hard to argue that they didn't play at a high level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think part of the reason why some people don't think of early round games among the all-time best is because they are mostly shown regionally and many people only get to see highlights or a few minutes of it. When a team like Princeton plays well enough to keep up with the defending champ in UCLA' date=' and then beats them with the game on the line at the very end, I find it hard to argue that they didn't play at a high level.[/quote']

It's because most of the time when that happens, it takes the higher seeded team playing poorly to lose.

When you get later in the tournament, you can have two great teams both playing very well. Usually (again, not always) for a big upset in Round 1 or 2 to happen, the better team has to play poorly.

Has nothing to do with the regionally televised thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's because most of the time when that happens, it takes the higher seeded team playing poorly to lose.

When you get later in the tournament, you can have two great teams both playing very well. Usually (again, not always) for a big upset in Round 1 or 2 to happen, the better team has to play poorly.

Has nothing to do with the regionally televised thing.

I think it absolutely does. Would you think as highly of yesterday's game if you barely even got to view it, if at all?

And as for your first statement, why do you assume that early round upsets are the result of the higher seeded team playing poorly? Why isn't it about the lower seeded team playing better than anyone could have expected? I think that is the beauty of the NCAA Tournament and what makes the best games IMO. To me, the #1 and #2 all-time best Tournament games are the NC State/Houston and Villanova/Georgetown games, respectively......and yes, I do see the irony since I'm advocating for early round games and both of those were championship games. ;) But if I really gave it some thought I'm certain that there would be several early round games in my Top 20.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it absolutely does. Would you think as highly of yesterday's game if you barely even got to view it' date=' if at all?

And as for your first statement, why do you assume that early round upsets are the result of the higher seeded team playing poorly? Why isn't it about the lower seeded team playing better than anyone could have expected? I think that is the beauty of the NCAA Tournament and what makes the best games IMO. To me, the #1 and #2 all-time best Tournament games are the NC State/Houston and Villanova/Georgetown games, respectively......and yes, I do see the irony since I'm advocating for early round games and both of those were championship games. ;) But if I really gave it some thought I'm certain that there would be several early round games in my Top 20.[/quote']

To each his own I guess. I just think the best games are played when the stakes are the highest, and to me, that's later in the tournament.

I'm not sure what I would consider the best game in tournament history. I'd have to pick one I personally saw, as I wasn't even alive for the GTown-Nova or Houston-NC State games. I was really too young to remember Duke-Kentucky (which if I could include games I don't personally remember would have to be #1.)

The game I most remember watching and thinking how awesome that just was was either Arizona-Kentucky in the '97 title game, UCONN-Duke in the '99 title game....Those are two of the best I can remember. This would be a fun thread, to try and go back through the years and come up with say the best 5 games from each tournament, then come up with a Top 50 or something.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about Gonzaga/Arizona 2OT a couple years ago? Final was like 94-92? I thought that was a pretty sick game, not too deep in the tournament though.

2nd round of the '03 tournament, Arizona was a 1 seed and escaped, eventually losing in the Regional Finals to Kansas and Roy Williams in another great game.

That game would be considered for sure, a great one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To each his own I guess. I just think the best games are played when the stakes are the highest, and to me, that's later in the tournament.

I'm not sure what I would consider the best game in tournament history. I'd have to pick one I personally saw, as I wasn't even alive for the GTown-Nova or Houston-NC State games. I was really too young to remember Duke-Kentucky (which if I could include games I don't personally remember would have to be #1.)

The game I most remember watching and thinking how awesome that just was was either Arizona-Kentucky in the '97 title game, UCONN-Duke in the '99 title game....Those are two of the best I can remember. This would be a fun thread, to try and go back through the years and come up with say the best 5 games from each tournament, then come up with a Top 50 or something.

That's understandable. Which I think lends credence to my point that a regionally televised game probably keeps early round games from being mentioned by a lot of people. If you don't personally see the game, then it's not going to be etched in your memory as one of the best ever. Thanks for making me feel old, though.

Just an addendum to the NC State/Houston game. NC State barely got out of the 1st round that year (not to mention that they barely got in the tournament at all, but that's another matter). But I still remember watching them play Pepperdine in the first round and NC State made a remarkable final minute comeback to force OT. They actually wound up going to a 2nd OT before NC State won it. Not sure it would make my Top 20, but I'd at least give it some consideration. Another one that comes to mind was in 1995 when Tyus Edney drove the length of the court to make a layup at the buzzer to beat Missouri. I think that was a 2nd round game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






  • Posts

    • Boston are had many key events in American Revolutionary war so I Think the deserve to use the name patriots.  All I can remember about DC is them deserting the city and  letting the British burn it to the ground during war of 1812.  
    • I recently watched a few:of the Dean Martin roasts. They were terribly racist.  
    • 😂😂 it definitely does, but it's really easy to use so it's not a PIA
    • American society's relationship with Native Americans and its use of their culture is a distinct issue.  It's akin to why no team in the Bundesliga is named the "Shofars": namely the Soviet and American armies. Instead of getting executed for international war crimes, our perpetrators of genocide got memorialized and their victims got made into mascots. In a broader sense, racial/ethnic/religious /socioeconomic based humor is now dead...the Trevelers, Celtics,  and organizers of the Hillbilly Classic just haven't gotten the memo yet. I say that with a bit of wistful sadness. I have heartily laughed at and made (bad ones) such jokes. But humans being what they are, those types of jokes are always tainted by the inequities of power. And that is corrosive. Someone is always being laughed at in such jokes....not laughed with. You can argue that is a core element of humor (and I would not disagree). I suspect after the first fart joke: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-joke-odd/worlds-oldest-joke-traced-back-to-1900-bc-idUSKUA14785120080801 the second joke was about someone being different. But, I think,  we can evolve to be better. Sammy Davis Jr. had to do a routine every night in Vegas with his "friends" Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra where a chunk of the jokes were about Sammy being black. Most of those jokes were only "funny" because America was racist...and the joke was that Sammy was nevertheless allowed to be on stage with them. There is, of course, lots of nuanced ambiguity. But mascots, team names, and theme nights, are probably poor places to have fun with that ambiguity.
    • DirecTV/Sunday Ticket is worse than a blackout.
    • If the reason the Orioles sign Puig is based solely on return via trade, then it is very risky, for sure. But no one can declare that the unknown is a "poor risk." There were unknowns when we went to the Moon, but that didn't mean that trying to go was "probably (not) a good idea" and "a poor risk." I'm not saying that it is probable that Puig would return value beyond the salary the Orioles pay him. But since we can't guess at the variables, we can't confidently project the risk probabilities. The only variable that we can predict with confidence is that more players will see their seasons come to an end because of Covid-19 this season than last season. And that variable may increase teams' desperation to acquire talent through trades. Besides whatever possible trade value there may be, there could be other motivations to sign Puig. Engaging the fans with a star may have value. Fans were excited when the Orioles signed Vlad, even though he was over-the-hill by that time. Tony Clark was buzzing last year about the Orioles constructing a lineup in bad faith; maybe they aim to hush him up with this signing and Iglesia's. Or maybe it's just an advertisement to current Cuban players: "Hey, we're the Orioles, if you haven't heard of us. We got Puig. You might like to join our team some day." Might be worth every penny right there.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...