Discuss upcoming games, report scores WCLL week 5

[OAKS]

It couldn't have been a poor game by Auburn and a great game by UCSB?

Auburn beat the following ranked teams that year:

#11 A&M 14-12
#12 Cal Poly 11-9
#13 Virginia Tech 18-9, 17-6
#14 Texas 14-11
#17 Minn-Duluth 16-5
#19 Florida 19-10
#21 Vanderbilt 14-7, 14-10
#25 Tennessee 14-6


An average goal difference of 6.7 in 10 games vs. top 25 teams. Granted they didn't have any top 10 teams scheduled, but that's no cakewalk of a schedule.

[CATLAX MAN]

As I remember it, the general consensus was that Auburn was overrated at #2 that year. There was considerable speculation about that on this board before the tourney even began. UCSB was the #7 seed that year. The game was over before halftime with a UCSB lead of 10-1. They coasted in the second half. It wasn't a matter of a bad game by Auburn that day. They had no answer for UCSB. It was like men playing against boys. Sorry to be sounding harsh, but if you were there to see it, you would've seen the same thing.

[SDSULAX]

Is this a example of thread highjacking? This thread is supposed to be about WCLL week 5 games, let's get on track, if we need another thread to discuss games played long, long ago, please start one.
Thanks, Craig

[CATLAX MAN]

Is this a example of thread highjacking?

It could be. I prefer to refer to it under the politically correct term of "stream of meandering conciousness."

[byualum]

Is this a example of thread highjacking?

It could be. I prefer to refer to it under the politically correct term of "stream of meandering conciousness."

Actually, I prefer "thread evolution"...

[CATLAX MAN]

Here is an excerpt from "Flip's Journal" re the UCSB v. CSU game:

It was a lovely evening in Santa Barbara. The competition was the finest. I love the rivalry between our two teams, and I have nothing but respect and admiration for the Gaucho team that we were fortunate enough to beat tonight. UCSB does a great job of using their personnel and of playing a game that has a certain style. They are tough and by the way fun to play. They have good, well-coached players and a good plan.

For the full entry, click here:
http://www.csulacrosse.com/2006/journal/

POST EDITED....

3. DON'T VIOLATE COPYRIGHT; POST IN YOUR OWN WORDS
Do not copy and post from articles, other copyrighted sources, or comments written by someone else. The forums are for you to express your views, not someone else's. Copyrighted information should be referenced with summary, brief quoted excerpts, and/or links. Messages or parts of messages written by someone else may not be posted without permission of the original author. The exception is if you are quoting what someone else has posted. In either case, the message should be posted in such a manner that it is possible to know who author is. Quotes or some other system should be used to differentiate between the quoted part and the original part of the message.

[Dan Wishengrad]

As I remember it, the general consensus was that Auburn was overrated at #2 that year. There was considerable speculation about that on this board before the tourney even began. UCSB was the #7 seed that year. The game was over before halftime with a UCSB lead of 10-1. They coasted in the second half. It wasn't a matter of a bad game by Auburn that day. They had no answer for UCSB. It was like men playing against boys. Sorry to be sounding harsh, but if you were there to see it, you would've seen the same thing.

I agree CATLAXMAN. Won-Lost record doesnt mean that much. Washington was there that year also, with an asterisked record of 15-0 (our 21-7 loss to SFU was converted afterwards to a forfeit win) entering the tournament. We got drilled by both Colorado State and by Virgina Tech, and lost a game to Texas A&M that we might have won had we been better prepared by having had played some stronger competition during the regular season. Once you reach the tourney prior wins and losses mean absolutely nothing, nor does your poll ranking. Auburn WAS a very good team that year -- i watched them play -- but like my Huskies were simply not used to playing against such tough competition.

[3rdPersonPlural]

Thanks for posting Flip's Journal entry, Cat. Jogged my recollections.

CSU scored early - first possession - and was having it's way with SB until the well lubricated student section moseyed in. SB went on a 3 score tear, playing like the game was fun again, but then CSU scored again and the Gauchos went back to throwing the ball around the horn until someone flubbed a pass or an isolation.

SB lacks the dodgers they had last year. Their cutters had to carry the game, and off ball movement was limited to stepping into open turf when an iso bogged down to get an outlet pass. CSU's defense was good, but not that good.

The third and most of the 4th quarters were dull. Neither team managed to find the goal much, and lots of laboriously set up shots missed the cage entirely. The CSU goalie made some solid saves, but flashes of opportunity came and went without much effort to capitalize on them by either team.

SB is young, talented, and coach seems to be intent on minimizing their opportunities to err. Same with CSU, but they weren't afraid to compromise their studied cool by showing some hustle. That may have been the difference.

Fans were behind the clock so I can't tell you what the time was, but with maybe 3 minutes left CSU's defense got out of position, SB smelled blood and attacked like they meant it, and flags flew like confetti. CSU 2 men down. 1 point game. Home crowd in full throat. The rabbit was appearing over the rim of the hat.

Alas SB couldn't complete any passes that weren't merely movement passes. CSU owned the ground balls, cleared like there was no ride at all, and always seemed to have an open man. If CSU's poles had not managed to tip a few errant UCSB passes on their way out of bounds, and their attack had been careful not to step on the midfield stripe when a bad pass rolled their way, I figure that CSU would have had possession the last minute or so, shorthanded or not. I don't know if SB was rattled or if CSU was brilliant, but I've never seen a 6 on 4 fall so flat in my life.

[Danny Hogan]

what were the calls that put CSU 2 down?

[3rdPersonPlural]

what were the calls that put CSU 2 down?

Dunno. I think it was a slash and an unnecessary roughness, but everybody was standing and I glanced away when the signals were being given.

[Digginlax]

If someone would be kind enough to post the score of the Chapman/Poly game from last night....I would be most grateful. Thanks!

[Sonny]

If someone would be kind enough to post the score of the Chapman/Poly game from last night....I would be most grateful. Thanks!

Poly 13, Chapman 9 final. Check the LIVE ACTION Forum for more info:
http://forums.uslia.com/viewtopic.php?t=3866

[CATLAX MAN]

Anyone have a score on the Sonoma v. Arizona St. game?

[WaterBoy]

Finals from San Diego-

BYU 11, Michigan 10

UCSD 12 Cal Poly 7

[bste_lax]

As I reported in the live game report forum:

UCLA 16, Chapman 8