[BostonCard]

Good points, Goose.  I don’t know if there is a correlation between the ability to continue to expand the lead in a blowout against an overmatched team, and the ability to hold a close lead or come back from behind.  In sports, winning by 1 point counts as much as winning by double digits (except in a few instances where it can be used as a tiebreaker), so the latter scenarios are a bigger deal than having an awful fourth quarter against a team you had a 20 point lead on.

To the extent one worries, it’s around two questions... was the fourth quarter predictive of what could happen in a closer game?  Had our lead been single digits after three, we would have lost with a fourth quarter that bad (but maybe we don’t have a fourth quarter that bad), and is there a chance that you completely choke a game well in hand.  We did have a small (2 pt) lead going into the fourth quarter against Colorado in Boulder, but we were trailing going into the fourth against UCLA.

BC

[BostonCard]

Good points, Goose.  I don’t know if there is a correlation between the ability to continue to expand the lead in a blowout against an overmatched team, and the ability to hold a close lead or come back from behind.  In sports, winning by 1 point counts as much as winning by double digits (except in a few instances where it can be used as a tiebreaker), so the latter scenarios are a bigger deal than having an awful fourth quarter against a team you had a 20 point lead on.

To the extent one worries, it’s around two questions... was the fourth quarter predictive of what could happen in a closer game?  Had our lead been single digits after three, we would have lost with a fourth quarter that bad (but maybe we don’t have a fourth quarter that bad), and is there a chance that you completely choke a game well in hand.  We did have a small (2 pt) lead going into the fourth quarter against Colorado in Boulder, but we were trailing going into the fourth against UCLA.

BC