ctchamps
We are UConn!! 6 >>>1!
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 17,382
- Reaction Score
- 43,956
LOL! Wrote the same thing earlier in this thread! Great mines think alike!Well one thing is clear: there is no debating that this is a debatable topic.
LOL! Wrote the same thing earlier in this thread! Great mines think alike!Well one thing is clear: there is no debating that this is a debatable topic.
You win 3 national championships, 866 games you earn some respect when you go against the conventional wisdom. Like Belichek going on 4th down from a place nobody does...Ollie hasn't done anything to earn the benefit of the doubt when he violates the norms. If he gets to 100 wins even, maybe he earns that right. So far he's 0-1...but everyone is fine when calhoun never fouled right?
You win 3 national championships, 866 games you earn some respect when you go against the conventional wisdom. Like Belichek going on 4th down from a place nobody does...Ollie hasn't done anything to earn the benefit of the doubt when he violates the norms. If he gets to 100 wins even, maybe he earns that right. So far he's 0-1...
You win 3 national championships, 866 games you earn some respect when you go against the conventional wisdom. Like Belichek going on 4th down from a place nobody does...Ollie hasn't done anything to earn the benefit of the doubt when he violates the norms. If he gets to 100 wins even, maybe he earns that right. So far he's 0-1...
how is not fouling violating the norm when more coaches don't foul then do? You realize Calhoun didn't foul against Syracuse in the 2006 BE tourney and it cost them right? Also, last I checked we've played 13 games, not 1.
This was a situation where you foul. the Syracuse game was different I think, more like 8-10 seconds left I think. And I think most coaches would foul in last night's situation. the intentional miss is a very difficult play to pull off. My point was in response to the comment that Calhoun wouldn't foul. He's a proven winner. On occasion he doesn't follow the playbook, he isn't going to get questioned while a guy who has coached 13 games will. Ollie didn't go with the standard practice to foul in that situation and he lost.how is not fouling violating the norm when more coaches don't foul then do? You realize Calhoun didn't foul against Syracuse in the 2006 BE tourney and it cost them right? Also, last I checked we've played 13 games, not 1.
You've made your point perfectly clear. If you were coaching you would have called for the foul. I thought I read somewhere that KO called for the foul but the team didn't execute. So two questions: why the persistence of the argument? And since the game played for more than 5.6 seconds can you comment on the positive and negatives within the game?this has nothing to do with calhoun v ollie for me...i always hated when calhoun didnt do it and i would have hated not fouling regardless of whether or not the shot went in last night. ive always believed fouling is the right play based on everything ive seen whether it be math, common sense or the eyetest
It's not the norm to foul, we see these situations occur all the time with shot attempts going up to tie...and I say this as someone who is usually in the camp to foul.This was a situation where you foul. the Syracuse game was different I think, more like 8-10 seconds left I think. And I think most coaches would foul in last night's situation. the intentional miss is a very difficult play to pull off. My point was in response to the comment that Calhoun wouldn't foul. He's a proven winner. On occasion he doesn't follow the playbook, he isn't going to get questioned while a guy who has coached 13 games will. Ollie didn't go with the standard practice to foul in that situation and he lost.
Even though I know it was rhetorical, no one needs my permission for anything.mostly all positives just play da wolf as much as he can handle going forward. i think youre a good poster but u have 4000 posts and have been known to type essays so excuse me for being persistent once in a while
Outside of the first couple of minutes and the sequence you are pointing out, I thought that second half was a significant upgrade for this team. It would have been even better if DD didn't aggravate his injury.I decided to let the game sink in before posting anything. Sure, if we fouled, possibly we could have won. But then Marquette makes 2 free throws, we inbounds, get fouled, maybe make both, then the same situation is set up again.
I think a bigger problem was our offensive sets the last 2 minutes. Way too much 1 on 1 stuff by Boat. Sure he made some big shots as well, but dribbling the ball around for 25 seconds trying to find an opening before turning the ball over is not offense. It's one guy trying to win the game for us. And he failed.
No biggie as hopefully they will learn from this, but our offense the last few minutes was just as much to blame for the loss as the last second prayer that they jacked up that went in...
Exactly. And it's only paranoia if no one kills you.Geno really said it best:
"The only right decision," Auriemma said, "is if it turns out right."
I think it would make little sense to foul in that situation. First the Marquette player is a great free throw shooter. If you fouled him in the act of shooting you would dramatically increase the odds of a tie. Second, if you fouled him and he shot two, he could make the first, miss the second and hope for a put-back (We are not a great rebounding team). In either case, the odds of them tying are greater than that three point heave that went in. Marquette had not made a three all night and the ball handler was a poor outside shooter. I think the highest percentage chance for the win was exactly what happened. Sometimes "the best laid plans of mice and men oft will go awry."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.