[JohnR34231]

What made this season [and at least the last 2 as well] so difficult for me as a fan is the inconsistency -- from game to game and even within games.  When you have no idea whether last Sunday's team or last night's team is going to show up from game to game, there is a natural tendency to fear the latter rather than anticipate the former, which makes the whole experience less enjoyable -- or, at least, reduces the length of the enjoyable experience -- even for those games when "good" Stanford shows up.  Similarly, during games --given our penchant for going on 15-2 runs, followed almost immediately by 4-23 runs -- I found it impossible to get unreservedly pumped during the former, because I just knew the latter was inevitably coming.  After a while, the emotional scar tissue builds up to such a degree that the good wins don't build upon each other to produce increasing joy; instead, they just provide a temporary sense of relief that "well, this time, at least, we didn't let it slip away."  And, at the end of the season, my feeling isn't "Man, that was great!"; it's more "Whew, that was tough!"

There was a lot of talk in the post-game comments about this team's "legacy."  All wholly to be expected and perfectly appropriate, and I certainly don't begrudge any of the seniors -- or Dawkins, for that matter -- the opportunity to promote that legacy as much as they are able.  I hope they are 100% correct.  But, I think it may be a few years before the true nature of that legacy can be determined.  If this turns out to be the first of many consecutive trips to the Big Dance, history will likely be kind to this team. 

It seems to me that the "legacy" of the M.onty teams is that they overachieved during the season and then finally went down when they got to the tourney and faced teams that were clearly better.  Right now, I'm afraid the "legacy" of this team is that it underachieved during the season, got lucky during the tourney, and then lost to a team that played better, but was not clearly more talented.  If we don't go back to the tourney next year, I think that sticks.  It's obviously not fair to this year's seniors, who aren't in a position to affect it, but I think that's what happens.  As I watched Minnesota [2012-NIT runner-up; 2013- NCAA #11 seed with big upset win; 2014-NIT Final Four] beat SMU on Wednesday to make it back to MSG for the NIT final four, I wondered whether I was watching our future-- just good enough to be perpetually on the bubble.

Which is worse, being inconsistent and never knowing whether a performance is going to be good or bad, or knowing you are almost always going to be able to beat mediocre teams but also realizing the moment you get up against someone really good (as you will in the tourney) you will most likely go down? I think it is debatable.

[JohnR34231]

What made this season [and at least the last 2 as well] so difficult for me as a fan is the inconsistency -- from game to game and even within games.  When you have no idea whether last Sunday's team or last night's team is going to show up from game to game, there is a natural tendency to fear the latter rather than anticipate the former, which makes the whole experience less enjoyable -- or, at least, reduces the length of the enjoyable experience -- even for those games when "good" Stanford shows up.  Similarly, during games --given our penchant for going on 15-2 runs, followed almost immediately by 4-23 runs -- I found it impossible to get unreservedly pumped during the former, because I just knew the latter was inevitably coming.  After a while, the emotional scar tissue builds up to such a degree that the good wins don't build upon each other to produce increasing joy; instead, they just provide a temporary sense of relief that "well, this time, at least, we didn't let it slip away."  And, at the end of the season, my feeling isn't "Man, that was great!"; it's more "Whew, that was tough!"

There was a lot of talk in the post-game comments about this team's "legacy."  All wholly to be expected and perfectly appropriate, and I certainly don't begrudge any of the seniors -- or Dawkins, for that matter -- the opportunity to promote that legacy as much as they are able.  I hope they are 100% correct.  But, I think it may be a few years before the true nature of that legacy can be determined.  If this turns out to be the first of many consecutive trips to the Big Dance, history will likely be kind to this team. 

It seems to me that the "legacy" of the M.onty teams is that they overachieved during the season and then finally went down when they got to the tourney and faced teams that were clearly better.  Right now, I'm afraid the "legacy" of this team is that it underachieved during the season, got lucky during the tourney, and then lost to a team that played better, but was not clearly more talented.  If we don't go back to the tourney next year, I think that sticks.  It's obviously not fair to this year's seniors, who aren't in a position to affect it, but I think that's what happens.  As I watched Minnesota [2012-NIT runner-up; 2013- NCAA #11 seed with big upset win; 2014-NIT Final Four] beat SMU on Wednesday to make it back to MSG for the NIT final four, I wondered whether I was watching our future-- just good enough to be perpetually on the bubble.

Which is worse, being inconsistent and never knowing whether a performance is going to be good or bad, or knowing you are almost always going to be able to beat mediocre teams but also realizing the moment you get up against someone really good (as you will in the tourney) you will most likely go down? I think it is debatable.