It was a great defensive game. B/c of the great defenses, the teams offensively never got in sync and there was no real flow to the game. Oh, and Texas is a little more athletic then Duke so it should make for a better game. I don't see why LSU couldn't beat them though.
Going to the original post, I totally disagree. I've seen several articles and the ESPN talking heads ALL credit LSU with playing a fantastic game defensively. Dickie V said Temple defended Redick the best he's ever seen anyone do. But neither team shot very well -- Duke had a few open looks from players other than Redick, and they didn't hit them. None of Duke's "other" players stepped up and hit shots, so to some extent it is true that Duke played poorly. But again, I've seen the media giving credit to LSU... so there's no cause for the resentment.
It's the NCAA tournament...win or go home. The most dramatic, gut-wrenching, entertaining sports spectacle on earth. If its points that define a "better game" for you, then you just have no appreciation for college basketball. I don't care if its 100-99 or 40-39, it doesn't get any better, regardless of what two teams are playing.
now thats not nice. But, its not completely false either. The show stinks a lot more than it doesnt. There is a lot more work to do before I'd even consider it a decent show. I'm not going to sit here and defend it if I dont think its that good either .I know its not. I know im not as good as I want to be yet. I have a lot of work to do. I understand all the negative talk b/c the bottom line is, I'm not that good right now. There is still work to do.
And if the media "dook played bad" schtick lures TX into a false sense of security, then I don't mind at all. But my guess, every one knows that LSU kicked ass and made dook look bad.
