Oh so close...

If you saw last night's NIT quarterfinal basketball game between Auburn and Baylor, you wouldn't have had to watch ANY of Auburn's previous games to understand what the season was like. 

What I mean by that is this: that game was a microcosm of Auburn's season in every way. Falling behind early. Mounting a furious second-half come-back. Falling short because the team can't hit crucial free throws. Not only does that describe several of Auburn's losses, but also the season as a whole.

We all knew it would come down to free throws, one way or another - whether it be last night or the next game or the finals. Quite simply, you can't win a championship if you can't hit free throws. And if you can't rebound to boot, forget about it.

That said, Auburn players played their hearts out last night, at least, that is, in the second half of the second half. The team did a good job keeping it close the entire game and played well in the first half, answering each Baylor run with an equal and opposite run. Then appeared to just coast through the first ten minutes of the second half.

I can't count the number of Auburn players I didn't see in the paint going for offensive rebounds. If you're Jeff Lebo, that has to be infuriating. I know I was yelling at a few players. Guys would pull up and shoot a three, then back off like they knew it was going in - the only problem was that most of them didn't go in. Which brings up another problem: why couldn't Auburn feed the ball into the paint for some inside scoring?

Now, I know Baylor played great defense last night and their 2-3 zone gave Auburn fits. But the way to beat that is to drive to the basket. Where were Frankie Sullivan, Dwayne Reed and Rasheem Barrett early in the second half? These are guys that have to have a presence. Especially Sully and Reed when the play PG. Drive the basket and if there's no shot, kick it out for the open three.

Now let's talk specifics.

The last three minutes of that game were some of the most exciting that i've seen in Auburn basketball. To be down by seven that late and come back to have the chance to win the game on it's final shot - without fouling - was spectacular. 

Quantez Robertson earned his defensive reputation in the final 30 seconds.

I believe Reed played very well when the game was basically on the line (save for his two missed free throws with 8 seconds left that would have tied the game). The way he drove the basket and put Auburn within 2, then drove again, drawing the foul to give himself that opportunity... that was awesome. I'll bet you nobody spends more time this offseason shooting free throws than Dwayne Reed. If it were me, that sort of things could change my whole career. Just think if someone with his ability to make plays could be accountable at the charity stripe.....

This brings us to the final two possessions. 

Who would have thought Auburn would force two turnovers, capitalize on one to bring the game to within 1, then have a Baylor guard who shoots 87 percent from the line miss his final shot to give us a chance to win? Certainly not me.

Robertson got the rebound on that miss, drove the court and dished to Barret, who stepped around Robertson and another guy who created a screen, to finally put up a potential game-winning three. Of course, he missed. But you have to give him a little credit for taking the shot. After all, he was the hottest guy on the court in those last five minutes. Not one whole minute before that shot, he brought the Tigers to within three when he sunk a three.

But here's my question: wouldn't you like to have seen him try to get inside and pull one of his classic "jump inside, stop, jump and fade away" shots from the free throw line? I just know he would have made it - as usual - and it would have sent the game to OT. 

Do I like our chances in OT? Yes. After Auburn got going and began playing like we know we all know they're capable of, there would have been no stopping them. I think just the accomplishment of sending that game to OT would have sparked the team to greatness.

But that's all moot. Plus, how much can you expect of a team when they only have 6 seconds to get the ball down the court and get off a shot?

All-in-all, I'm very proud of this team. I just hope they take it upon themselves to develop some consistency in shooting free throws during the offseason.

I stole this directly from Philip Marshall at AuburnUndercover.com... It sounds like a great idea for a change to the NCAA tournament:

The Marshall Plan

By Phillip Marshall, Senior Writer
Posted Mar 12, 2009
Copyright © 2009 AuburnUndercover.com

Is it time for a change in the NCAA Tournament? I say it is, and I didn’t just start saying that this season.

And I have a plan. Call it the Marshall Plan.

I think the mid-majors are a very important of the tournament. Some of the more memorable moments in tournament history have come from relatively unknown teams knocking of highly seeded powerhouses. I would not advocate taking them out of the picture.

What I would do is have 96 teams in the field. I would give the top eight seeds in each region first-round byes. The remaining 64 teams would play on the home courts of the higher seeds. When that was done, you’d have 64 teams left.

Bottom line: You’d be adding one day to the tournament, creating even more excitement, you wouldn’t leave out major conference teams that clearly have the potential to win games and even more mid-major teams would get in.

NEVER trust a 'free' trial

Did you really think it was going to be free? I did. I’ll take it from the top:

As most of you know, I’m an avid Auburn Tigers fan and college football recruiting season is football season’s little brother here in the South. A month and a half ago, I took out a seven-day “free” trial from Scout.com, a recruiting service Web site, so that I could keep up with recruiting around national signing day.

Anyway, I read all the fine print and found that I would need to cancel my “free” trial at least 48 hours prior to the seven-day mark. So I called Scout.com four days – FOUR - into the trial and did exactly that. The girl on the phone asked me why I wanted to cancel, then offered me a “free” three-month trial. So I asked a few questions and made her tell me that if I accepted her offer, my seven-day trial would be canceled – with my account NEVER being charged – and a new trial would begin – again, with my account NEVER being charged.

She absolutely assured me that as long as I canceled the three-month “free” trial at least 48-hours prior to it’s completion that my account would NEVER be charged. So I took down her name and a cancellation confirmation number and stupidly accepted the offer.

Well, a month down the road – March 2 – I checked my bank account on the Internet and low-and-behold, there was a $9.95 charge from Scout.com. I was livid.

So I called Scout.com with my cancellation confirmation in hand and reached a very nice girl named Morene. I explained what happened and she assured me that Scout would NEVER offer three-month trial, but went on to also tell me that they did, in fact, have record that the girl I talked to previously had told me that she would cancel my trial, but never did it. She said she would take care of it and refund me my $9.95.

Granted, I was a bit confused because I was quite sure I hadn’t simply made up my previous conversation, but I hung up happy that I would at least get my money back – after all, I don’t really read Scout.com anyway.

Now, here comes the complication: before Scout.com refunded me the money, their charge posted to my account and caused an overdraft fee of $35.00. So at this point Scout.com has cost me nearly $45 for a “free” trial. I called them back and told Morene my situation and she agreed that the bank should refund my money.

The bank did not agree. 

The lady at the bank told me unless it is a bank error, she cannot refund my overdraft fee. And she's right - this was clearly not a bank error. So I called Morene back and told her what the bank said and she proceeded to tell me that she cannot refund me more than the $9.95 they originally charged. I asked for her supervisor. Guess what? MORENE IS THE SUPERVISOR. She did, however, offer to hold a conference call between herself, me and the bank, where she promised me that she would beg for my money back – so I am not mad at her, just her employer.

Needless to say, I've also cancelled my debit card and ordered a new one - just in case. After all, I'd hate for that "three-month 'free' trial" to suddenly rear its ugly head in the future.

I have not yet held said conference call, but rest assured, I will. I guess at only 26 years of age I'm just young and naïve, but the bottom line is this: I’m the idiot who ended up paying $45.00 for a “free” seven-day trial.