If Loyola wins . . .
- Thread starter ignazio
- Start date
The thing with Loyola is that it would take 6 wins so I might have to put them 1 if they won Saturday and Monday.
Huge. But Michigan was overrated, finished 9-4.
Stopping a streak is big (ND-OU, Owings-Gable, etc), but the titan eventually falls.
That was the first or second game of the year...not the same magnitude.
I think in just the college basketball annals the Chaminade over Ralph Sampson and UVA might be considered biggest upset. But again that is a 1 game scenario not 6 wins in a row in the tourney.
Considering they had to beat top-ten ranked UNC and UVa in their conference tourny, just to make the NCAAs, and then to add the run ... pretty impressive.
If two privates win [Loyola and Villanova] should BBCHHS77 refrain from posting for 1.65 months?
It’s impressive as heck that they have already won four games, if they were to win two more they would for sure have to be on the biggest underdog achievement list.
The key is needing to win multiple games, as they have.
The key is needing to win multiple games, as they have.
No way is it a bigger upset than 1980 Miracle on ice. A bunch of college kids playing basically a pro team from USSR? That USSR team took two out of three against the NHL all stars including game three 6-0.
Can you imagine a college football team put together for the olympics (if football was an Olympic sport) and them playing against one of the top NFL teams?
Now if Loyola takes the next two games (and I hope hey do). I think it ranks right behind the miracle on ice exactly because they had to win 6 games to do it against great competition that “they were not supposed to beat”.
Can you imagine a college football team put together for the olympics (if football was an Olympic sport) and them playing against one of the top NFL teams?
Now if Loyola takes the next two games (and I hope hey do). I think it ranks right behind the miracle on ice exactly because they had to win 6 games to do it against great competition that “they were not supposed to beat”.
Obviously, but that doesn’t mean people can’t have this conversation. Isn’t that part of the joy of being a sports fan? Talking and discussing possibilities etc? Why click on the thread and comment?
The olympic hockey game will always be #1.
No doubt that game and winning the gold was a classic and a huge achievement from a huge underdog. However, that game, and that team, evoked emotions of pride and nationalism that can't be equaled in an NCAA tournament. I think that game was made more legendary and had more widespread appeal because it pitted our national team against a national team from the "Evil Empire" at the peak of the Cold War. No comparison when it comes to chanting U-S-A against the Soviets as opposed to chanting L-U-C against another college team.
From a purely objective standpoint, it is interesting to compare the pre-Olympics odds of the US hockey team going all the way in 1980 vs the pre-tournament odds of Loyola winning it all...or even getting as far as they have.
The following link is to an article that posits that the Miracle on Ice was less miraculous than most people think. It estimates the odds of the seventh seeded US winning the gold at 1000 to 1. For that one game against the Soviets, it estimates the US was a 17 to 1 long shot, but those single game odds take into account the US performance in the olympics prior to that gold medal game.
https://vancouver2010.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/how-miraculous-was-the-miracle/
The following article says that Wynn Las Vegas had Loyola as high as 2000 to 1 odds to win it all before the tournament began.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/sport...derdog-bettors-ride-hot-streak-to-final-four/
Last edited:
Kudos for the Gardner-Karelin reference. I remember watching that match and seeing dude "retire" with his boots on the mat gives me chills now thinking about that accomplishment.
Notes about Karelin:
He dominated his opponents throughout his 13-year undefeated run, including winning world-level titles every year from 1988 to 1999.
Karelin didn’t surrender a single point in Sydney prior to the final that he lost 1-0. He had not given up a point in the six years prior.
Good stuff Ramblin.
I’m going to pull an HHS though and say (for me anyways) nothing will ever top the miracle on ice. Regardless of the data at hand and regardless of the Vegas odds and exactly for the nationalist feelings you mentioned that get evoked with the games and memories of the games.
I usually don't play the "what if" game. But I figure I'll get in here and bring some logic. These articles are garbage.
Loyola winning the NCAA tournament isn't even in the same universe as far as difficulty goes as the 1980 USA Olympic ice hockey team faced when they won the Gold medal.
Here is what virtually most people don't remember, weren't there to remember or choose not to remember. Don't believe everything you read. First of all let's get the facts straight. The USSR being referred to as the "Evil Empire" didn't exist until 1983 when Ronald Reagan coined the phrase.
The USA team wasn't even expected to reach the medal round because of the stiff competition they had in their own division. Loyola wasn't expected to reach the Final 4 either. But that's where the similarities end.
In their first game the USA played good Swedish team that won the Bronze medal. They tied the Swedes 2-2. Their next game was also difficult as they played Czechoslovakia. The Czechs has guys like Peter Stastny, who is in the NHL Hall of Fame and was second only to Wayne Gretzky in scoring in the 1980s. Milan Novy who played one season with the capitals, Jaroslav Pouzar, who played with Edmonton and won three Cups there, and marian Stastny, who played with the Quebec Nordiques and Maple Leafs in the NHL. The USA beat that team 7-3. They then beat Norway 5-1. They finished up the preliminary round by beating Romania and West Germany 7-2 and 4-2 to advance to the medal round.
In the medal round they played the USSR first and we know how that played out. But the USSR had several professional caliber players such as, Vladimir Krutov who scored the first goal of the game and played in Vancouver in the NHL for a short time. Boris Mikhailov who was 36 at the time and had played several years on the top USSR line. Sergei Makarov, who was one of the top scorers in the tournament, as were all of the others I mentioned here, and who in 1989 played for Calgary and won the Calder Cup as the top rookie. HGe also played for San Jose in the NHL. Aleksandr Golikov, who was 26 and also ended up 4th in scoring for the tournament. And of course who could forget Viacheslav "Slava" Fetisov? Fetisov is not only in the NHL Hall of Fame but was ranked the 14th best defenseman of all time in the NHL. And some feel he should be ranked higher. Then of course there was goalie Vladislav Tretiak who was considered the best goalie of the Olympics and spent time in Montreal.
The biggest coaching mistake of the entire tournament was made by USSR coach Viktor Tikhnov when he pulled Tretiak from goal at the end of the first period. Many people, including myself, think that cost the USSR that game and the Gold.
With all that said, here is what 99% of people either don't know, or don't remember. The USA, USSR game was not the last game the USA played and that win did not guarantee a Gold Medal. The USA still had to beat Finland to win Gold. Talk about pressure. If the USA had lost, they would have won Bronze and the USSR would have won the Gold because of the point system in the Olympics. If the game had been a tie the USSR and USA would have ended up with the same amount of points, but the Gold would have gone to the USSR and Silver to the USA because of the tie breaker of goal differential.
Loyola has not faced this kind of opponents talent. Not even close. The best college basketball team would get smoked by the worst NBA team. And the USSR team that played in those Olympics faced and beat several NHL teams. That was a professional team the USA beat. And the others were much better than college hockey teams.
Loyola will not see the pressure the USA team saw in that last game against Finland. We all know pressure makes winning more difficult too.
I think it would be nice to see Loyola win it all. But to actually, with a straight face, compare or even suggest Loyola's journey in the NCAA tournament is as difficult, or more difficult than the USA Olympic journey of 1980, is ill informed, misinformed and just plain ignorant to the facts surrounding the two teams.
I am old enough to remember those Olympics very well. Although I knew that we played Finland in the gold medal game, I admit I had forgotten about that when I wrote my earlier post. As for the evil empire, the fact that Reagan coined that phrase in 83 does not detract from the reality that the game pitted the two major players/powers of the Cold War...and all of the nationalism and patriotism that went with it that served to make that game, and that team, legendary.
The 1980 hockey olympics and the 2018 NCAA tournament are two very different stages, but everything is relative, including talent and pressure.
From a talent perspective, you make it sound like the USA vs the USSR in 1980 was David against Goliath. Either you forget, or choose to forget, that there were some VERY TALENTED players on that US team. According to USA Hockey, 12 members of that 1980 Olympic hockey team went on to play in 6,035 games in the NHL. The USA's top three centers on that 1980 USA squad were Neal Broten, Mark Johnson and Mark Pavelich. Those three players combined for 1,752 points in 2,123 NHL games.
In terms of the level of play, and difficulty of making an NBA team vs an NHL team, the NBA is BY FAR the more difficult to pro league to break into.
With respect to the talent that Loyola has relative to their tournament opponents, they have played three teams, each of which featured players who will almost assuredly make it to the NBA if not in 2018, then 2019. Kansas State might return their entire starting lineup next year, but there is talk about two of their starters declaring themselves eligible for the draft. Tennessee's Anfernee Simmons is projected as a top 20 pick in the 2018 NBA draft (if he declares himself eligible), and the Vols' Kyle Alexander is projected as a first rounder in 2019. Bruce Brown and Lonnie Walker from Miami are projected top 25 picks in the 2018 draft.
Loyola has nobody approaching that level of talent. Nobody. Not even close.
Last edited:
Loyola is playing against talent that is much closer to theirs than that USA team. I know very well that USA team has 16 players play in the NHL. I watch the game. It was actually 16, not 12. I remember all those guys and I didn't have to look it up. Neal Broten was a very good player for the North Stars. He alone had half of those points you talk about. He was the best of them.
Many players from other countries didn't want to leave home to play in the NHL. There weren't many European players playing in the league at that time. Not may American players playing in the league either. There is no question in my mind Mikhailov would have been a Hall of Fame NHL player. Guys just didn't come over here much back then.
What I am saying is this: While the USA had players that went on to play in the NHL, the USSR had current NHL talent. They beat NHL teams. No college basketball team could beat any NBA team at any time. Never!! No one Loyola is playing could beat an NBA team. That is the big difference. The only reason the NBA is harder to break into is because there are fewer guys playing NBA basketball. The rosters are smaller. It is a matter of math. It is harder to become an NBA head coach than it is to play in the league too. More players, fewer head coaches. Hell, it's harder to be an NBA ref than it is to play in the league too. Fewer refs too.
Let me give you another piece of information you don't know. I mentioned Sergei Makarov winning the Calder Trophy for best rookie. He won it when he was 31. Do you wonder why he was so old? Because he finally got permission from his damned country to come over here to play in the NHL! Imagine the career he would have had if he was allowed come over here six or seven years earlier. Just because some of these players didn't play in the NHL doesn't mean they weren't good enough. You have to remember where they lived. It was much easier for the USA players to access the NHL than it was for the USSR players and the European players.
Fetisov himself had a lot of trouble getting over here. He was really the first guy to come here and opened it for many of the others. Can you imagine if he had to wait till he was 31 or 32?
I am not discounting what Loyola has accomplished. BUT, they haven't won it all...yet. And if they don't our conversation will be moot. Because the USA team got it done.
I don't care what these clowns who wrote these articles say. They are just wrong. probably a bunch of Communists anyway. They are probably still pissed off.
When Loyola beats a team that has beaten an NBA team come talk to me.
Last edited:
And true. That USSR team was stacked!! And they played together year round for multiple years.
If we took a bunch of college kids from next year’s College rosters That will eventually play in the NFL and be good/great and then have them practice together for the year and then play the NE patriots - we all know what would happen. In my mind this is what I equate the 1980 us Olympic hockey teams win over the USSR team to. The win for the gold in the last game was icing on the cake.
If we took a bunch of college kids from next year’s College rosters That will eventually play in the NFL and be good/great and then have them practice together for the year and then play the NE patriots - we all know what would happen. In my mind this is what I equate the 1980 us Olympic hockey teams win over the USSR team to. The win for the gold in the last game was icing on the cake.
Disagree.
First of all, the subject line of the thread is "If Loyola wins..." Your comments about Loyola not winning it all yet are sorta silly given that thread title assumes a hypothetical Loyola championship.
Secondly, you fail to understand relativity. Talent is relative. That is to say that a talent mismatch at the pro level can be argued in relative terms with a talent mismatch at the olympic level, college level, high school level or any level. It is to say that an argument could be made for a 0-25 freshman high school basketball team beating a 25-0 freshman high school team as being a bigger upset than any of the two examples you and I are arguing about.
You keep talking about the talent level of the USSR and how they had current level NHL talent. Anfernee Simons at Tennessee (Loyola's second round opponent) is a top 15 projected pick and he is only 18 years old. Think he couldn't play in the NBA right now?
Hockey and basketball are relative only within their respective sports, and not sport to sport. You want to say that the USSR hockey team beat NHL teams but that the best college basketball team could not beat the worst NBA team. Your "point" is not even moot because it isn't a point.
Again, breaking into the NBA is WAY more difficult than breaking into the NHL. Why? Numbers. Hard data. There are roughly 500 current NBA players and roughly 800 current NHL players. There are around 5500 D1 basketball players forming the US prospective player pool for the NBA and around 800 AHL players and a forming the minor league prospective player pool for the NHL. There are way more athletes playing hoops at the immediate levels below the NBA for far fewer spots.
I know nothing about the guy from Tennessee. I have no idea if he can play in the NBA or not. A lot of college guys think they can play pro sports and then reality sets in. How many professional busts can you count? I can count a lot in all pro sports.
I realize more guys are playing basketball here. A lot of guys are playing hockey in Europe too, just as there are a lot of guys playing basketball there.
Actually my point about the USSR team and the College basketball teams beating pro teams is absolutely relevant. If you choose not to see it as a point it only means you choose not to. It doesn't mean it isn't a point.
But this is where I bow out. All this board is, is a bunch of guys arguing about a bunch of shit and nobody getting anywhere and no story getting advanced. I wasted a lot of time in a ridiculous and colossal thread that eventually got flushed. I am not going to do that again here. I see there is a different thread just like the one that got flushed going on right now. I am not going to waste time over there either.
This is exactly why I don't become a paying member. You have made your points. I have made my points. We aren't going to agree. So, in my opinion I will agree to disagree. I don't want to write something I'll regret later, so I'll let it go. No harm, no foul.
As far as I am concerned, there is only one a$$hole on this board and we all know who it is.
Pestilence!! Aka HHS. What do I win for the correct answer!!
Don’t let Pestilance get you down! We need your healthcare insurance expertise to keep him honest and not stretching the truth.
The USA did not beat the USSR in a Gold Medal Game.
From the Sporting News:
Had the United States lost to Finland on Feb. 24, 1980, the Soviet Union — yes, the same Soviets the U.S. defeated in the "Miracle on Ice" game two days prior — would have won the gold medal.
That's because in 1980, the Olympic men's hockey medal round was played in a round-robin, not single-elimination, format. Finland and the United States would have played regardless of the result two days earlier. But the U.S. still needed that 4-2 win over the Finns to win the gold medal, and they may not have won a medal at all with a loss.
Here's how the tournament worked.
— Twelve teams were divided into two groups of six. Each team played five games in pool play and received two points for a win and one for a tie. The top two teams in each pool advanced to the medal round — Sweden and the United States out of the Blue Division, the Soviet Union and Finland out of the Red Division.
— The outcome from a pool-play matchup between the two advancing teams carried over to the medal round. The U.S. and Sweden tied, giving them one point each. The Soviets beat Finland 4-2. So before the medal round even started, the standings were:
Soviet Union 2
Sweden 1
United States 1
Finland 0
— Each team then played the two advancing teams from the other bracket, no matter what. So while it's commonly believed that the "Miracle on Ice" game was the semifinal, it technically held the same weight as the United States' next game against Finland. After the U.S. beat the Soviets and Finland tied Sweden, the standings were:
United States 3
Soviet Union 2
Sweden 2
Finland 1
— Again, no matter the result of the Americans' game against the Soviets, they would have played Finland. Had they lost or tied, things would have gotten interesting. A Finland victory would have given each team three points. The Soviet Union beat Sweden 9-2 several hours later, giving it four points and the gold medal had Finland won. A U.S. tie would have given it four, but it would have been well behind the Red Army in goal differential.
Had Finland beat the U.S. by at least two goals and Sweden and the Soviet Union tied, the Americans would not have medaled at all.
The final standings:
United States 5
Soviet Union 4
Sweden 2
Finland 1
This is never mentioned in Miracle. Had the United States not climbed out of a 2-1 hole entering the third period of that game against Finland 36 years ago, it not only would have lost the gold medal, but let the Soviet Union win its fifth straight.
Similar threads
