So, Jim says we barely win against a weak team Saturday. That weak team, SF, beat SM tonight. So, our win means we aren’t that weak.
Here is what I’ve said for years. Teams peak at different times. It’s all about peaking. I don’t think we have but St. Mary’s May have 
Ok. If we peak and win at the tournament, great. Otherwise this is still all about our lack of consistency.
St Mary’s losing to USF is a big deal. If we lost to Pepperdine tonight everyone would just roll their eyes. If we lost to bad teams as rarely as St zags, I would have much less to complain about.
We all need to lay off the anecdotal evidence and look at trends. @JCoug and I tend to agree on several issues regarding strategy, though he’s a bit more dire than I. I would venture that our main gripe isn’t that the team can’t beat good teams (29-1), it’s our surprising ability to lose to anyone.
This is my biggest problem because it is an ongoing issue. Yes, St. Mary’s lost to USF but that is an anomaly. It rarely happens. BYU loses to teams like that in the wcc every season… and more than once. It happens with regularity.
That game last night went to OT and BYU was lucky to escape… and that team is a lot worse than USF, whom BYU beat in OT because of biased officiating. The reason USF beat St. Mary’s is because they knew they were robbed vs. BYU and that they are good enough to beat them. The reason BYU almost lost to Pepperdine is because they knew they stole one against USF.
BYU can’t keep winning games like this and feel confident about their potential. But this is on the coach… his reliance on one or two players along with his inability to develop talent is the biggest problem right now. The team never “peaks” as grasshopper suggests. They just slogg along in mediocrity, season after season.
watched the highlights of the SF game last night and saw the angle Hardnett took to the basket…I was wrong. Hardnett drove to the side of the SF player, who in turn tried to move into Hardnett. Clearly called right. Eli’s mugging of the player to get the ball, also looked to be a clean take away.
We just outplayed them down the stretch. BTW, the SMC loss is a disaster.
There were 3 critical calls at the end of the game that allowed BYU to win, in spite of the fact that they were playing so poorly they didn’t deserve to.
-
Bryant and Childs on the USF player in the backcourt when the officials allowed them to grab the ball away. 9 out of 10 that is whistled as a foul long before the ball was taken away. If not a foul, at the very least it was a held ball as both players had possession before Bryant ended up with it. I don’t know who had possession arrow but it was a held ball before it was a takeaway.
-
The ensuing drive by Hardnett was a no call all the way. Not only should the officials not whistle that as a foul, there was way more contact on so many other plays that weren’t whistled, it was just a bad call, followed up by another bad call.
-
The reach in foul against USF that put Haws on the line with 4 seconds to go was poor. First, there was no foul or contact by the USF player. Second, Haws brushed the hand away before there could be any contact. Third, a decent official NEVER makes that call in that situation unless he is trying to give one team the advantage or he is trying to appease a coach. That is the only rationale… the ref was trying to appease Rose. Terrible call in that situation. The only time a foul should be called is if a player is going to the basket and he gets absolutely, no doubt, hammered.
Clearly BYU had no business winning that SF game being down 6 with seconds to go and the bone headed turnovers Haws had in the last minute or so.
But I credit Hardnett and Eli for their cool heads Especially Eli, love his entire game.
I agree mostly with you. Jim goes along for a while okay but then it all comes back to conspiracies. Sometimes I think he believes Trump or Bush is behind our 3rd place finishes 
We are inconsistent. We have 2 mostly consistent impact players, Childs and Bryant. Hardnett is consistent but not super productive. Good on defense. Haws has potential and it shows sometimes. Not enough.
Nixon and Worthington work hard but don’t produce much on offense. We have no others that can come in and produce off the bench. Dastrup does a few things at times but then becomes a liability if he’s in too much. We have a problem with focus and that is what causes the inconsistencies.
1 Like
All three are your observations and wrong. Childs didn’t have a hold of the ball long enough. There was no contact. Bryant reached in and got all ball.
There was a foul on Hardnett down low.
There was body contact on Haws.
But it always goes back to conspiracy 
Thank you. Incompletely agree. Childs also didn’t have full control of the ball to call a jump ball. And no conspiracy.
We keep saying the coach doesn’t develop talent. But we have Childs and Bryant. We have Worthington playing above his potential. Nixon playing much better than thought he could coming back from a mission. So, what is Dastrup’s problem? I believe it’s on Dastrup. He just doesn’t appear to be super serious. He may not be back if Andrus is ready to go.