Sooo the 3-1 Oregon argument had little to nothing dealing with basketball that it truly baffles me, so lemme get this straight for the first argument it came down to a feeling about them having “unfinished business” and the greatest competitor in the sport... https://twitter.com/espn_womenhoop/status/1245724482062385152

So she straight up disregarded the competitiveness of Kiki and zia and said because this one person is “the most competitive” that means she would have gotten a chip lol ok but anyways on to the second mess of an analysis to say why Oregon would have certain won

Apparently the PAC-12 is the best women’s basketball conference in the nation and Oregon led the nation in scoring in it! For one that is just flat out false and he knows it anybody with two eyes knew the SEC was the best all around conference in women’s basketball

But since he wanted to say that offense was sooo important and that Oregon’s dominance was unlike anything we’ve seen let’s look at what he looks at analytics, Oregon averaged 86 ppg for the year with most games being in the pac-12. @GamecockWBB averaged a whopping 82 in the SEC

So I guess that’s a monumental difference in points that SC couldn’t possibly overcome right?? But oh wait according to him the ducks hadn’t allowed over 70 in like 2 months so that means that SC wouldn’t be able to play defense right?? Oh wait @GamecockWBB gave up only 56.1ppg

And overall a whole 100+ less points than Oregon did the entire season as well as having a 25 point differential in games in the actual toughest conference in the nation so that argument is out the window as well

Oh yea I forgot he also said Oregon simply had tooo much firepower Chile please @GamecockWBB could go 9 deep while Oregon’s OvERwhlmiNg firepower was 3 people

And to top off this last person’s argument it was somehow about Oregon defense and how we’d have lack thereof with no analysis so ima kill all that and be done with this thread