Originally Posted by Widget
My two cents. Maybe it was good shooting because the coaching staff scouted URI's defense, and then came up with a game plan to exploit it and get good, open shots, thus increasing the likelihood of completions.
Also, maybe there was a good defensive game plan. Maybe the staff figured out a way to stop first or second options, forcing a poor shooting URI team to rely on jacking up threes, which they aren't good at.
I agree you certainly need talent, and you win with players performing well, but a good game plan certainly helps.
I voted for Obi.
|
Nearly every other coaching staff of a team of equal or greater talent has accomplished that same goal. Not really a ringing endorsement for the outstanding performance of the game. Just watch the game film of every other team and say "go do that".
Professor Francis Henninger taught me: don't thank people for doing their job. Game planning for a significantly weaker opponent is table stakes.
In my opinion from watching the game, URI missed their first few shots and gave up. Dayton let out our frustrations. It happens. John Wooden isn't a good enough coach to generate a 30 point difference between the 2 teams.