Give the coach this loss

[zls44]

If getting off a shot and making it is two different acts the first time, it should be the second.

If you don't make the first, you can still kick the rebound out to tie it with a three. Or you make the first, the rebound could go out of bounds your way, and then you could set up a baseline o/b play to tie or win.

Or you could hit both, steal the inbounds pass, and make a 3. That's happened to us too.

Which one of the three scenarios seems most likely?

When is the last time you saw a team foul and have it blow up in their face?

Teams hit buzzer beaters several times a week.

 

[Point6]

Here is why it is not a debate.


OPTION 1: Foul. He has to hit the first FT. He has to miss the second on purpose. Marquette has to get the offensive rebound. Has to get off a shot. And make it.

That's five acts that all...ALL...have to occur.

OPTION 2: He makes a three to tie.

That's one act.

Five. Vs one.

unless the foul gets there late and while the offensive player is jacking the 3 - then you can lose on the +1 foul shot

 

[ctchamps]

Obviously it's debatable since some coaches don't foul and some do in these situations. I don't see the debate about debatability. What I do see is that if some of us pundits were coaching we would be as varied in how we handle this situation as what plays out at the Div I level of coaching.

The beauty about being a fan is there is no way to prove we are wrong, so we're always right! I'll take this option any day over a million$ plus contract and having to defend my position against wannabe coaches.

 

[housekeys]

if youre a uconn fan and we're down 3, even if we had our best rebounding team ever, can you honestly say youd rather have the opponent foul us as opposed to letting shabazz take a 3 to tie? i doubt a single fan would prefer that yet it seems many think the point is debatable

You make a good point. To me it is kind of moot and I take the sides of what our coaches did. It all depends on how the play is executed, anyway. In the flow of a hectic end it may not be easy to foul someone (being out of position to do so). And if that is the plan, to make sure you do not foul someone who is launching a 3, because then they have 3 foul shots. You just do not know. It is way too easy to make the call now. Given he hit the 3, we definitely should have fouled, and there is no debate in that case.

 

[Gurleyman]

if youre a uconn fan and we're down 3, even if we had our best rebounding team ever, can you honestly say youd rather have the opponent foul us as opposed to letting shabazz take a 3 to tie? i doubt a single fan would prefer that yet it seems many think the point is debatable

Depends on personnel. I'd rather have Boone and Okafor go for a putback than Taliek shoot a 3, yes (Pitt 3 in the BE title game notwithstanding). Put the ball in Ben's hands and give him a good look, and I'd want to go for the three.

I was actually hoping we wouldn't foul tonight in real time, because I feared having to depend on a rebound, but I wanted to see better D. When the shot went up, I didn't feel good at all about how we played it.

I personally think JC was wrong to not consider situations/personnel. We gave Redick a great look to tie when we had Oak and Boone to box out against Nick Horvath. That was one where I think we dodged a bullet by not fouling. But at the same time I can live with a coach who has their philosophy and sticks to it. If KO looks at this tape and decides he will never allow that to happen again and foul every time, that's ok with me too.

The one positive to telling a team to play straight up every time is you take the guesswork out of it. You can foul too soon (with 5-6 seconds left, the other team can make both and then foul you - if you don't make both, you can lose), which wouldn't have been a factor tonight, or make it too clear you're going to foul and allow the other player to read it and get in the act of shooting. If you decide you're going to foul in that situation, you need to practice it and be good at it -- to make sure you do it under four seconds and clearly on the dribble.

 

[ctchamps]

You make a good point. To me it is kind of moot and I take the sides of what our coaches did. It all depends on how the play is executed, anyway. In the flow of a hectic end it may not be easy to foul someone (being out of position to do so). And if that is the plan, to make sure you do not foul someone who is launching a 3, because then they have 3 foul shots. You just do not know. It is way too easy to make the call now. Given he hit the 3, we definitely should have fouled, and there is no debate in that case.

Exactly. Some of these guys are putting the cart in front of the horse. If a UConn player goes for the foul and a Marquette player recognizes the act, he takes a shot and gets three free throws. He makes the free throws and there will be a host of people who will complain about the choice to foul. Or if a foul is made before the ball is inbounded and the guy makes the first, misses the second but Marquette gets the rebound, kicks it out and Marquette makes a three for the win, (something like James for Miami) people will complain. The only way there are no complaints would be to have events played out where UConn wins. And even then there is always someone who thinks they could have done things better.

I complain about things as much as the next guy. But when it's said and done I'm typing away at a computer instead of proving myself at the college coaching level. I recognize my limitations.

 

[Gurleyman]

Which one of the three scenarios seems most likely?

When is the last time you saw a team foul and have it blow up in their face?

Teams hit buzzer beaters several times a week.

Teams hit buzzer beaters in tie games, up one and up two when you can't foul, so that's not really telling you anything.

With teams at schools I've worked for, I've had the game go overtime on a putback -- although we clearly got pushed under the basket with no call. I've seen us give up a wide, wide open 3 to win which was an airball (a "whew" moment). I've had the ball go out of bounds off our hands, and a baseline o/b play turn into an open 10 footer. And I saw us foul on purpose with seven seconds left and they made both, we hit one of two, and they missed a great look at a 3 to win.

There was a tourney game in our conference when the rebound went out of bounds to the offensive team. They ran a back screen and made a layup, got fouled and won in regulation.

In UConn's case, we've been burned by the tying 3 enough times that I'd be ok with fouling if KO goes with that philosophy. I know McNamara got us in the BET, but that might have been between 5-10 seconds when it was still too soon. Rashad just backed off him for some reason. There was a Florida State 3 to tie in the NIT semis back in Rip's freshman year.

But remember - in the biggest moment in this scenario that we ever had - Trajan Langdon fell down. If we had bailed him out with a foul, we would have given them a chance that they never got.

 

[ctchamps]

Depends on personnel. I'd rather have Boone and Okafor go for a putback than Taliek shoot a 3, yes (Pitt 3 in the BE title game notwithstanding). Put the ball in Ben's hands and give him a good look, and I'd want to go for the three.

I was actually hoping we wouldn't foul tonight in real time, because I feared having to depend on a rebound, but I wanted to see better D. When the shot went up, I didn't feel good at all about how we played it.

I personally think JC was wrong to not consider situations/personnel. We gave Redick a great look to tie when we had Oak and Boone to box out against Nick Horvath. That was one where I think we dodged a bullet by not fouling. But at the same time I can live with a coach who has their philosophy and sticks to it. If KO looks at this tape and decides he will never allow that to happen again and foul every time, that's ok with me too.

The one positive to telling a team to play straight up every time is you take the guesswork out of it. You can foul too soon (with 5-6 seconds left, the other team can make both and then foul you - if you don't make both, you can lose), which wouldn't have been a factor tonight, or make it too clear you're going to foul and allow the other player to read it and get in the act of shooting. If you decide you're going to foul in that situation, you need to practice it and be good at it -- to make sure you do it under four seconds and clearly on the dribble.

That was my only complaint - that RB didn't start guarding until just before the three point line. He had been playing full court defense the rest of the game so I believe they discussed this situation at some point with the players either during this game or during practice. Marquette was in the double bonus. So as much as I'm second guessing a tighter defense coming down the court, the situation could have ended worse with a four point play in the last five seconds by a missed second free throw and a three pointer. It's easy to second guess these situations.

 

[zls44]

But remember - in the biggest moment in this scenario that we ever had - Trajan Langdon fell down. If we had bailed him out with a foul, we would have given them a chance that they never got.

You don't foul until they cross half court.
Langdon did so while falling over.
Joyously.

 

[3uconn]

I really wanted Boatright to put on full court pressure on Cadougan. That would have cut another 2 or 3 seconds off the clock. Then it would have been truley a desperatation 3. I am perfectly fine with not fouling. Marquette hadn't made a 3 all game yet and the way it was going with Cadougan not making one and him having to make it from 2 or 3 feet out. You say that people make the game tying 3 at the end of regulation all the time but they don't. It may happen a few times a week but that shot is missed way more. Sportscenter only shows the games where it goes in, who wants to see the highlight of a game tying 3 being missed?They only show that when its a ranked team missing and losing.

 

[61cygni]

Well one thing is clear: there is no debating that this is a debatable topic.

 

[pepband99]

I'm sure just as many blowhards would declare the crappyness of the "old refs" in the Big East (Higgins et al) as "undebateable."

...and I give you Karl Hess. STFU.

 

[Palatine]

Why was Wolf under the basket and not at the three point line? Bazz too BTW.

 

[freescooter]

Foul end of regulation and it's a win

Forget it, geohusky. Nobody will ever admit Ollie made a mistake. It ruins the image they've painted as themselves of Kevin Ollie as Jim Calhoun II. But the right play was to foul him. Even Napier said as much in the post game. Oh well. Its one game. These things even out over the course of the season.

 

[zls44]

unless the foul gets there late and while the offensive player is jacking the 3 - then you can lose on the +1 foul shot

When is the last time you saw that. Ever. Any level.

 

[Jimdish255]

I think the odds of MU getting the first FT and the put back were a whole lot higher than any player from MU hitting their first 3 of the game, not to mention a real deep one.

3's happen all the time. FT and putback with about 3 seconds left happens how often? I will NEVER understand how so many coaches allow another team to go the length of the floor with under 10 sec to go and get off a 3 point shot down by 3. It keeps happening and they keep getting burned. Especially with these putrid refs you should have been able to get a foul by breathing on the guy. Geeeze!

 

[nelsonmuntz]

When is the last time you saw that. Ever. Any level.

I agree, low chance of that call. On the other hand, Cadougan is going to chuck it up the instant he senses contact, so the possibility of a 3 shot foul is not insignificant. I have also seen refs call a foul on an inbound intentional.

I tend to agree with those who say foul in that situation, but I don't think it is as clear cut as most believe. Marquette was not just missing from 3, they were missing badly, all game. Cadougan took a contested 3 from 25 feet out. 9 times out of 10, that will go our way.

 

[zls44]

I tend to agree with those who say foul in that situation, but I don't think it is as clear cut as most believe. Marquette was not just missing from 3, they were missing badly, all game. Cadougan took a contested 3 from 25 feet out. 9 times out of 10, that will go our way.

Even for an Okafor team, if the shoe was on the other foot, is there ever a time when you would have rather had UConn at the line? Ever?

 

[Marty Jackson]

three days later we have our first insane comment on Ollie's coaching.
The team did everything to stay in this game. I like the way Ollie coaches, makes adjustments, and shows patience during stretches. There is a learning curve for Ollie as well, but right now, even with the loss, I don't see how you can blame Ollie. It was very clear the rebounding, or lack of cost the game.

I think everyone really played a solid game. Marquette is just deeper.

I was really impressed with Wolf. The team was definitely better with him on the court than Olander.
Not sure if that's always the case, but it seemed that Marquette went around Olander for a layup at will. With Wolf, it seemed we would get on a roll at both ends.

Overall, we knew there would be some tough games especially with our lack of depth in the front-court.

This is a top 10 team next year if everyone stays.

 

[Vuce]

If he misses it I hope we don't foul. If he makes it I wish we did. Guaranteed win every time

 

[mauconnfan]

Thanks Vuce.....voice of reason!!

 

[upstater]

Shaka Smart would have had this team crapping its pants after going down 10 twice.

 

[Waquoit]

This loss isn't the least bit on Ollie.

 

[HuskyBballFan]

If he misses it I hope we don't foul. If he makes it I wish we did. Guaranteed win every time

I think the correct play is to foul and I'm willing to assign a certain percentage of the blame to Ollie even though there was no timeout. He could have called timeout himself and/or the team could have been more aware of what to do in that situation.

Having said that, if that shot clangs off the backboard (which it would 90+ percent of the time) then nobody would be questioning Kevin Ollie and the Marquette board would be having a meltdown over the fact that they had to settle for a 30 footer by a bad 3 point shooter because their coach failed to call timeout.

 

[Gurleyman]

The best case scenario is for the other team to not get a shot off at all. Or a complete prayer (which this was not). So there is something to be said for trying to play D for a few seconds, even if you believe in fouling. If, say, Giffey had come with a hard trap near midcourt, we might have been able to force Cadougan into picking up his dribble or a bailout pass resulting in a 40-footer. If they are clearly in trouble (ala Langdon in 1999), don't bail them out and give them a chance.

I also think anything over 5 seconds is too soon to foul (which wasn't a factor in this case). The other team can then just make both, foul you immediately, and if you don't make both, you're in the exact same situation a few seconds later. Only instead your lead is two, you can't foul, and you can lose at the buzzer.