It was tough but...its not like in football where it is some big devastating thing. I think these guys are who we thought they were...not in a bad way.

They have some silliness to work out though.

Welp. That one hurt.

This team played with so much heart and intensity, though. Damn tough to mount that comeback and sustain the energy like they did in the second half. Yeah, the shot clock violation and the 3 after the obvious travel in the first half stung, but we have to close out better. Hit the free throws. Don't commit ridiculous fouls. Etc.

Overall, this is a good team, and it will be better in March. Going to be a fun season.

So many things Mizzou could have controlled to win this game.

In the last four minutes alone the shot selection was terrible, English was the biggest issue. Missed free throws, Dixon getting a stupid foul and English not being able to come down with the rebound on that ball he threw back to G-Town.

It was obvious our man D was not working great but we kept going back to it when the 2-3 zone was stopping them. Way to many offensive boards for G-Town.

A bogus three pointer in the first half did not help as well.

All those things being said we still played well enough to beat a very good team.

Exactly.

This felt like a tournament game to me, and the players played like they felt the same way. Sure, it would be better if they'd won, but they'll learn a lot from this experience. They played their asses off. They just need to correct the dumb mistakes, and bring that same effort every game.

Honestly, I think the crowd support helps this team a lot. They feed off that energy more than your typical team. I think Mizzou's gonna be a beast at home during conference play.

Must have forgotten about all of those Final 4's and National championships MU's been a part of.....my bad.

Yawn.

In all honesty, it'd suck to be on the other end of that loss. Gtown was turning the ball over, they were getting tired, credit to MU's defense.....but there were a couple of Gtown players that would not miss and bailed them out on a few occasions, esp w/ that 3 at the end.

When MU got down a lot early, I didn't think they'd come back. Anderson's style of play creates a lot of risk w/ the reward. You beat his press, and it's easy pts for the opposing team because that teams playing 4 on 3, 3 on 2 (numbers) and so on. BUT, you can create turnovers and it can wear a team out if they're not deep on the bench. You clearly were able to see that this game. A lot of easy buckets early on from Gtown, and towards the end they got a little tired and careless w/ the ball, MU created some turnovers and got some momentum on their side. But Freeman just killed MU all game long. That bucket was the size of a dumpster for him.

Best post of the day!

yeah, it's getting late.

This is my friend Owen. It was his first Mizzou game. He already got to see Missouri play Colorado. The kid has the making of quite a true son of Missouri.

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-...8_470443_n.jpg
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-..._3414666_n.jpg
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-..._3373432_n.jpg
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-...3_717769_n.jpg
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-..._8035008_n.jpg

Good article on how Anderson's system is risky. How it can be good and bad at the same time.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...son/index.html

In sports, it's usually not a compliment to be called a "system team." From the triple option to the Princeton offense, teams identified by the systems they use often are masking a lack of individual talent.

That's what makes Missouri's open embracement of its "Fastest 40 Minutes of Basketball" mantra so refreshing, even if it doesn't exactly pass truth-in-advertising standards. Missouri actually was only the fourth-fastest team in the Big 12 last season, and at just over 71 possessions a game, wasn't even one of the nation's 50 highest-tempo teams last season, according to kenpom.com.

Those are just small details, though, to coach Mike Anderson, a devoted implementer of the high-octane system cribbed from Nolan Richardson, his former boss at Arkansas, and used to good effect at UAB prior to arriving in Columbia, Mo., in 2006.

"I love uptempo," Anderson said. "Kids enjoy it and I think you get a lot of the energy that you need and you get guys who play with instinct. I like instinctive guys. Guys get a chance to showcase their God-given talent with what we do."

Sounds like a compelling recruiting pitch. So why don't more programs feature the approach?

"There's risk in what we do," Anderson added. "You can't be halfway committed to it, but I think the key is our guys trust one another."

The most easily identifiable trait of the system is its full-court pressure, a prime reason why Missouri annually is among the nation's leaders in forced-turnover percentage. Painting Anderson's system solely with that brush, though, sells it short. Missouri's defense also features a healthy dose of half-court traps and zones that help confound opponents who get the ball across the timeline. In a nutshell, Missouri wants to create all sorts of different levels of discomfort.

"Even if we're not getting a lot of steals or turnovers," said junior guard Kim English, the team's leading scorer last season at 14.0 points per game, "if we're speeding teams up, making guys who aren't used to handling the ball handle it, making guys who are used to shooting drive, making guys who are used to driving shoot, then it's being effective."

Less trumpeted, but equally important, is a complementary offensive approach which emphasizes balanced scoring and extreme ball security. Missouri's surprisingly low turnover rate, when combined with the large number they cause, helps the Tigers carve out five or six "free" possessions a game. That's an enormous advantage against most opponents, especially when some lead to runouts with numbers.

Missouri's is not an easy system to operate well. As English notes, an open shot in Missouri's offense is different than one for most other teams because you may have to take and make a long jumper after multiple full-court sprints, and the team's balanced approach tends to sublimate stars. However, after spending his first two years reshaping the roster to his liking, Anderson has won 59 games in his last two-plus seasons while his Tigers post gaudy efficiency numbers and solid shooting percentages.

Still, as the ninth-ranked Tigers enter their first real test of the season tonight against No. 16 Georgetown in Kansas City, they continue to fight a perception of being a "bully program," one that feasts on overmatched opponents but gets exposed by comparable teams with experienced backcourts and/or size in the frontcourt. There's some merit to the debate. Against teams that finished the season in Ken Pomeroy's top 50, Anderson is just 24-34 at Missouri and only has a winning record against that group in one of his first four years.

The system clearly can win at a high level. Richardson won the 1994 national championship with the Razorbacks and Anderson barely missed a Final Four two seasons ago when Missouri fell by seven in the regional final to top-seeded Connecticut. What it comes down to is the seemingly annual question of whether Missouri has the right pieces to be something more than just paper Tigers.

Missouri's Elite Eight team in 2008-09 was fueled by an athletic, efficient frontcourt tandem of DeMarre Carroll and Leo Lyons, two big, physical guards in Zaire Taylor and J.T. Tiller, and a dangerous three-point marksman in Matt Lawrence. Last season, the Tigers were breaking in a new frontcourt and three of their highest-frequency shot-takers were very inefficient scorers, so they struggled in comparison, despite finishing with a 23-11 record and a second-round NCAA appearance.

Which version will the 2010-11 Tigers more closely resemble? The best way to evaluate the last two teams' relative strengths is in their play against those comparable opponents.

The chart below breaks down some of Missouri's most telling stats in games against teams that finished the season in Ken Pomeroy's top 50.

Median Performances vs. Top 50 Opponents
Adj. Off. Eff. Adj. Def. Eff. Def. TO% Def. eFG% Reb% Allowed
2008-09 107.6 104.1 22.5% 48.9% 36.2%
2009-10 101.3 107.3 28.5% 51.5% 45.7%
*Rates calculated from kenpom.com stats

Last year's issue seems pretty obvious. Despite a markedly higher turnover rate forced, Missouri's relative inability to stop anyone or rebound misses with any competence made it a much worse defensive team. That, in turn, helped compromise the Tigers' offense, which had fewer opportunities to run and create cheap baskets. An eye-opening example came at Kansas last January, where the Jayhawks easily overcame 23 turnovers (while forcing only five from Mizzou) to win 84-65 because of the simple chances they got in transition and through dominant margins in the paint and on the offensive glass. Not surprisingly, Missouri went 5-8 in KenPom Top 50 games last season after finishing 12-6 the year before.

If those numbers are telling, then 2010-11's team has a chance to be quite good. There's additional quality depth in the backcourt, including an infusion of speed with highly touted point guard Phil Pressey, but the Tigers' fate likely rests in the evolution of its frontcourt. So far, an extra year's development for Justin Safford and Laurence Bowers has been a plus, but the biggest change may be the arrival of physical forward Ricardo Ratliffe, a juco transfer who is averaging almost 10 rebounds a game in under 23 minutes an outing.

Missouri's system, which emphasizes versatility and quickness over physicality and size, sometimes exposes its bigs and limits the Tigers' effectiveness on the glass, but Anderson knows they have to be able to successfully close out more opponents' possessions, whoever ends up corralling the missed shot.

"When we talk about the rebounding, it's important to what we do," Anderson said. "Even if we can stay even, stay right there in the ballpark [on the glass], that hopefully puts us at an advantage."

Anderson has faith that his system gives his team an advantage. How the Tigers fare against the guard-heavy Hoyas will give us the first idea of just how well this year's pieces may work within it.

He needs his mustache back....seriously.

Just got back from a Greek League basketball game, saw the first half and missed the second. I've heard how we lost the game but can I get a brief synopsis of how we played/who sucked who showed up in the second half?

Hahaha.

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-..._4685054_n.jpg