[sweetnahmah1]

Davidson beat Loyola Maryland 78-48.

Stephen Curry scored 0 points and went 0 for 3 from the field. Just saw the highlight on SC, they double teamed him the entire time he was in (32 minutes). And they still lost by 30, someone was wide open the whole game. Steph's average dropped from 35 to 29 ppg. I think he'll bounce back from this, unless everyone decides to double team him.

[blwall1416]

That was a d-----bag move by the coach. He essentially put his team at a disadvantage playing 3 on 4. Plus, he bragged about holding him scoreless as his team gets waxed by 30. Idiot.

[Cider Jim]

So his little brother scored 26 more points than he did last night

[ToTheLeft]

That was a d-----bag move by the coach. He essentially put his team at a disadvantage playing 3 on 4. Plus, he bragged about holding him scoreless as his team gets waxed by 30. Idiot.

Yeah, I thought this was nothing more than making a joke out of a college basketball game. What a stupid move.

[kingaling42]

ESPN article recapping the game http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=283302166

I really can't believe that Loyola's coach Patsos is this much of a clown or has a tremendous ego.. I'm all for trying something different with a guy like Stephen Curry but when you're playing 4 on 3 and you're still down 22 at halftime- you should change your strategy to give your team the best chance of winning (which is his job!)

Also recall, Patsos is the coach who handed the reigns to his assistant coach after receiving a technical foul vs Cornell (pre-season NIT)- he then proceeded to pout at the end of the bench & eventually made his way into the stands before the end of the game.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3713452

Why would any player want to play for this guy??

[prototype]

I couldn't disagree more. I have been in many games where teams play a triangle in two. If someone your playing is that good - maybe you stand a better chance to win. What happens if they have 3 other really good players - might be a different story. The mistake the coach made was playing his best player on Curry - when he should have recognized Stephen was just going to stand at half court anyways.

The only reason this is a story is because Curry stood at half court the whole game - when this has happened in the past - the player still tries to get involved in the offense.

[kingaling42]

I couldn't disagree more. I have been in many games where teams play a triangle in two. If someone your playing is that good - maybe you stand a better chance to win. What happens if they have 3 other really good players - might be a different story. The mistake the coach made was playing his best player on Curry - when he should have recognized Stephen was just going to stand at half court anyways.

The only reason this is a story is because Curry stood at half court the whole game - when this has happened in the past - the player still tries to get involved in the offense.

If that was little brother Seth occupying 2 guys- you would probably say it was an excellent basketball mind by Curry to let his TEAM play 4 on 3..

So you don't think that Patsos should've adjusted his strategy at least in the second half to how the game was being played out & being down 30 points?? Wow- I'm not sure you really believe that.. That's like continuing to shoot & miss 3 pointers all game long instead of doing anything different- I think we both know how that worked for LU vs UNCA last week..

It's one thing to have a game plan but you simply have to adjust & if you're playing a better team and you're trying to help YOUR team get better you let them play in the second half when you're already down 22 at half- he never tried anything different even late in the 2nd half..

Plain & simple Patsos just wanted to show he could keep Curry from scoring- or he (or associates) betted big in Vegas on the under point total for Curry & made some money!! May be good for his ego but it's a disgrace to his players not to trust that they could do the job..

[ToTheLeft]

The only reason this is a story is because Curry stood at half court the whole game - when this has happened in the past - the player still tries to get involved in the offense.

I would stand at half court, too, if it meant I was keeping TWO defenders with me! Keep them out of the play and let my team play 4 on 3!

[olldflame]

Kingaling, there is really no comparison between what LU did against Ashville and what this coach did. It's real easy to say that if you are not hitting your 3s you need to take it to the hole. Doing it, when the defense doesn't respect your perimeter shots because you have been missing, is another matter. You have to make some of those outside shots, and then you can take it to the hole when they contest the perimeter. This is what LU did against UVA.

For this guy to stubbernly keep 2 players guarding Stephen at half court, and play 3 against 4 when he is losing big, is making a mockery of the game.

Proto.... it may be true that other teams and their stars have not done what Davidson did when faced with similar defensive strategy. Could it be because their coaches weren't as smart as Bob McKillup, and their stars weren't as selfless as Stephen Curry?

I would also add that this is totally different from a triangle and 2. In a triangle and 2, the opponent's 2 biggest offensive threats are played man to man with the other 3 playing a triangle zone. If your opponent pulled the 2 players being manned up outside, it would still be 3 on 3.

[kingaling42]

Kingaling, there is really no comparison between what LU did against Ashville and what this coach did. It's real easy to say that if you are not hitting your 3s you need to take it to the hole. Doing it, when the defense doesn't respect your perimeter shots because you have been missing, is another matter. You have to make some of those outside shots, and then you can take it to the hole when they contest the perimeter.

True... Which is exactly my point (although not the same- it was to illustrate) when Proto said that he disagreed with me.. My point is that you wouldn't keep doing the same thing that wasn't working.. LU wasn't making open shots, which were 3 point attempts- UNCA's defense didn't make LU shoot 3's all game long- our tallest guy is 6'6" (of who played the game)- Curry drove many times, making layups, drawing fouls, etc against us.. LU settled for jumpers against us. A good coach would've said "Hey- what are we doing? This isn't working- let's do something else".. So Patsos should have tried something else as well- the triangle & 2 which as you pointed out is typically applied when you man up on 2 offensive weapons of a team and then play a 3 man zone against the rest- Patsos defended Curry 2 on 1 and allowed his team to play the other guys 3 on 4.. SERIOUSLY?? You think that was coaching at any level in the second half?? Surely you jest..

So far as Stephen Curry is concerned.. he earned so much more respect from me for being selfless (as it was his idea to stay in the half court corner from what I hear) & letting his team win.. I'm sure he would take that matchup any game- I was already a huge fan of his, now even more so!!