You are NOT being objective. You believe you are right and Matt is wrong without understanding Matt's approach. FWIW, there are many times I would prefer to go under, but Matt does NOT believe Purdue gets beat by long 2's...and he has been right a lot more times than wrong. You appear very myopic in your view showing your lack of understanding what Matt is doing. Then you continue to post the same things with caps as though yelling makes more believers when to them it shows you have little control of your emotions during a game that is stressful to others that have a better grip. Purdue's lack of execution was a bigger fault in staying in some bad switches than getting in them the first place. FWIW, Purdue has been in that situation a LOT this year and somehow they switch back in time much better than today. Course Gonzaga is suppose to have a good offense and if so...that wasn't by accident.
Now do what you want. I'm not a policeman of the board, but trying to help you not only get along a bit better in the forum, but perhaps expand your understanding a bit when you start to reflect there are sound reasons for Matt doing what he does even if you disagree...and I say that with myself wishing sometimes Purdue went under more often than not...but I don't get on here and repeat that because I see a LOT of other things than just that. Now, when Johnson and Lusk
keep the same base rules in the defense it is easier to make subtle adjustments inside those general rules that makes it more effective. Enjoy the ride, this is a special team and if you don't heed my advice that is okay I just tried to explain to you what many are saying in a round about way. It's your choice...I'm not a policeman