Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It'll be the greatest underdog upset since ...
1980 USA vs USSR?
Buster Douglas?
Gardner-Karelin?
Huge. But Michigan was overrated, finished 9-4.Maybe Appalachian State over Michigan?
That was the first or second game of the year...not the same magnitude.Maybe Appalachian State over Michigan?
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.1983 NC State over Houston led by Olajuwon and Drexler.
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?There is no reason to start this conversation. Loyola hasn't won the tournament.
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”.
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”.
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.It'll be the greatest underdog upset since ...
1980 USA vs USSR?
Buster Douglas?
Gardner-Karelin?
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/
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.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/
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 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.
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.
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.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.
Loyola is playing against talent that is much closer to theirs than that USA team.
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.
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.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.
As far as I am concerned, there is only one a$$hole on this board and we all know who it is.
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/