Thoughts . . .

[Strummer]

Tough loss, but . . .

Louisville has owned us since Thabeet shut them down waaaay back when. The Siva years were bad. Smith is running with the torch.

The problem with Loiusville, from our perspective, is that Pitino always fields the same sort of team - quick athletic guards, tall athletic players everywhere else, and lots of ball pressure. We just never seem to match up well against them. As for their ranking of 18 in the country, I'd be surprised if they didn't finish closer to 10 than 20.

10 minutes into the game I felt as though we were hanging around, but close to having them pull away. Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but the game felt like a loss from soon outta the gate, including, but not limited to, the put back dunk to start the affair.

In the end, we were killed on the boards - difference of 15 and 8 on our end. They had 16 offensive rebounds. Additionally, they had, it seemed, a half dozen and-one lay up plays that just killed us. I guess I think that the difference in this game was rebounding and defense, neither of which I thought we did well.

Regarding the officiating, I don't think there was as much of a discrepancy between the two teams as many on here seem to think. Regarding the conspiracy theories, come on guys. Really? There were at least two posts that suggested that the NCAA or ESPN or somebody had actively influenced the officials to favor Louisville. Really? Whining about officials is generally bad form and should be reserved for non-contenders. Claiming that the game was rigged is a whole nother level of delusion.

The no-call on Giffey was not as bad as it looked. They implemented a rule change this year that you can't jump into a defender who is in the air to draw the call. If you look at the Giffey play, Giffey did lean to his right - slightly - to create the contact. In any year prior to this year that is a foul on the defender. This year, however, the refs have been told to no-call that type of play. That written, I thought the call should have gone our way, because Niels didn't lean much, and it's arguable he was naturally moving in that direction. Later in the game a Ville player pumped our guy in the air in the lane and leaned into him, creating contact, and there was no call. It was a much more obvious example of the same concept.

Overall, I did not think that the officiating was that one-sided. Russ Smith is good. So are some of the other players on LVille. The final tally was 24 to 19. Is that really that lopsided?

Fact is, LVille came into our house and put a beat down on us. They were pulling away the whole game, and we were hanging on, it seemed to me. The officiating may have been dicey, but it's not the reason we lost, and I trust Ollie will be the first to acknowledge that.

Simple. We need to do a better job on D, not giving up easy lay-ins and and-ones, and we need to rebound the basketball better. Simple. We do those two things, and we win last night, notwithstanding the calls.

This was a good learning game for our guys, and, while I have little hope that we beat them in Kentucky, because we match up poorly against them, we can learn from playing them and use what is learned to improve our team.

 

[CTBasketball]

The refs were against us from the tip. Sure we got outrebounded, but its hard to win when the refs put UL in the bonus with 17:00 to go in each half.

 

[upstater]

Eh, they have owned us, but on the other hand, I recall a Big East tourney championship, a F4 and a national championship. It really happened.

And to think Rick Pitino complained about the refs??!!

I still want to know what (r)ick coach left Kemba Walker off the All-Big East team.

 

[60'sfan]

I agree with Strummer, I don't think the game was rigged. We would have lost this game if the refs were rigged for us. We were out rebounded, out hustled and played really poor help defense. Our one solid front court player didn't show up for some reason.

The call on Giffey was bad but even worse was the two instant technicals on Ollie. I don't think I have ever seen two T's called so quickly. I also agree with Dukie V who said that the ref has to use some judgement in that situation and walk away. He didn't and he was lucky that a riot didn't ensue. I think the commissioner ought to have a talk with that ref and take steps to make sure that he knows he was way out of line.

However, the bad call and the T's did not cost us the game.

 

[UConnSwag11]

I agree with Strummer, I don't think the game was rigged. We would have lost this game if the refs were rigged for us. We were out rebounded, out hustled and played really poor help defense. Our one solid front court player didn't show up for some reason.

The call on Giffey was bad but even worse was the two instant technicals on Ollie. I don't think I have ever seen two T's called so quickly. I also agree with Dukie V who said that the ref has to use some judgement in that situation and walk away. He didn't and he was lucky that a riot didn't ensue. I think the commissioner ought to have a talk with that ref and take steps to make sure that he knows he was way out of line.

However, the bad call and the T's did not cost us the game.

We were down 9 when that happened. They got Ollie thrown out when your head coach gets thrown out it changes the game, they made 2/4 fts, napier got his third foul. That changes the mentality of the team immensely as well as the game as a whole

 

[mauconnfan]

Their pump fake our guy went straight up so Hancock had to go out of his way to initiate contact so therefore did not get the call. To even think the Giffey non-call wasn't as bad as it looked is a reach, maybe worst than it looked actually. And the T was putrid, as Dicky V said you know you blew the call do not add to it with your rabbit ears and overreacting. Did KO deserve a T, yes? 2 and a toss - no only a stiff like Stuart would make that happen and so quickly to top it off!

But I agree with the rest - the real factor to me were the 50/50 balls which didn't just end up with possession but usually real easy baskets. Those continued to take the air out of the crowd as they looked for some momentum.

 

[upstater]

We were down 9 when that happened. They got Ollie thrown out when your head coach gets thrown out it changes the game, they made 2/4 fts, napier got his third foul. That changes the mentality of the team immensely as well as the game as a whole

Besides the 2/4 fts though, Giffey should have been at the line, AND Ville got the ball and scored after the techs. So, what was potentially an 8 point swing ended up being either a 5 or 6 point swing depending on whether Giffey would have hit 1 or 2 FTs.

 

[uconnell]

It looked to me that Giffey took a step to the left to avoid the flying UL player, at the speed the Ul player was coming at him Giffey would have been knocked into the stands. Maybe then a call would have been made.

 

[60'sfan]

Besides the 2/4 fts though, Giffey should have been at the line, AND Ville got the ball and scored after the techs. So, what was potentially an 8 point swing ended up being either a 5 or 6 point swing depending on whether Giffey would have hit 1 or 2 FTs.

We had lots of opportunities to get back into the game but we couldn't stop Louisville from scoring whenever they wanted to. When bad things happen you are supposed to put them behind you and get back into the game. Blaming the refs is a weak excuse for a poorly played game. I heard someone say (and it might have been a Denver coach), bad circumstances don't determine who you are, they reveal who you are.

 

[upstater]

bad circumstances don't determine who you are, they reveal who you are.

They are a team not good enough to beat Louisville when the refs make bad calls.

 

[Hume]

Tough loss, but . . .


The no-call on Giffey was not as bad as it looked. They implemented a rule change this year that you can't jump into a defender who is in the air to draw the call. If you look at the Giffey play, Giffey did lean to his right - slightly - to create the contact. In any year prior to this year that is a foul on the defender. This year, however, the refs have been told to no-call that type of play. That written, I thought the call should have gone our way, because Niels didn't lean much, and it's arguable he was naturally moving in that direction. Later in the game a Ville player pumped our guy in the air in the lane and leaned into him, creating contact, and there was no call. It was a much more obvious example of the same concept.

The no-call on Giffey was every bit as bad as it looked. The Louisville player launched himself into the air from 3 feet inside the three point lane to land on Giffey outside the three point line. The player did not close out, he leaped. At the time he leaped Giffey took a step to his right and then pulled his foot back to his left. The player came down on Giffey's right side and shoulder. Giffey did not create the contact and did not lean into him. If anything he was moving away so that he could even throw up the shot after contact. If you rewatch the play you will see Giffey's shoulders dip to his left (away from the lunging player). The comparison to someone giving a head fake to a player closely guarding him and then dipping into that player to create contact is not even close to what happened. The very fact that the player propelled himself 3 feet in the air and then made contact made it an obvious foul.

 

[uconnfan68]

It looked to me that Giffey took a step to the left to avoid the flying UL player, at the speed the Ul player was coming at him Giffey would have been knocked into the stands. Maybe then a call would have been made.

Yup, we tend to only do enough to avoid getting fouled or foul. Can't believe I had the good fortune to see a charge called last night.

 

[Strummer]

Giffey did not create the contact and did not lean into him.

To be clear, I think it was a foul, but if you look at the slo-mo, it's clear that Giff throws his ass/hips out to the right just before contact. Not enough to eliminate the foul, but that could be what the ref was seeing.

 

[uconnfan68]

The no-call on Giffey was every bit as bad as it looked. The Louisville player launched himself into the air from 3 feet inside the three point lane to land on Giffey outside the three point line. The player did not close out, he leaped. At the time he leaped Giffey took a step to his right and then pulled his foot back to his left. The player came down on Giffey's right side and shoulder. Giffey did not create the contact and did not lean into him. If anything he was moving away so that he could even throw up the shot after contact. If you rewatch the play you will see Giffey's shoulders dip to his left (away from the lunging player). The comparison to someone giving a head fake to a player closely guarding him and then dipping into that player to create contact is not even close to what happened. The very fact that the player propelled himself 3 feet in the air and then made contact made it an obvious foul.

Well, obvious to all but 3 people.

 

[Hume]

He stepped back to his left and leaned away, that fact as a result of that his but turned that way didn't really matter as the player came down on his arm and shoulder, which was part of his upper body that was actually leading away from the player.

 

[mauconnfan]

To be clear, I think it was a foul, but if you look at the slo-mo, it's clear that Giff throws his ass/hips out to the right just before contact. Not enough to eliminate the foul, but that could be what the ref was seeing.

Looked to me like he was trying to get out of the way moreso than that…...

 

[60'sfan]

They are a team not good enough to beat Louisville when the refs make bad calls.

I think to beat Louisville, you have to play better than them. Louisville had a huge margin in rebounds (45-30), out shot us from the field (46% to 35%), had more assists and more blocked shots. Toward the end of the game, Louisville was pulling away. The refs did not have anything to do with that. I agree that there were bad calls and the double technical on Ollie was ridiculous but we were outplayed and that is what cost us the game. Hopefully they will bring energy to their next game just as they did in Memphis.

For what is worth, I think that part of the reason that Ollie went ballistic after the bad call was that he was frustrated with the way the team was playing.

 

[ctchamps]

UConn did not play it's A game. Louisville did. There was very little contribution from the front court. In spite of this there was a chance to go down five with about 3 minutes to play.

No way of knowing how that sequence involving Giffey and KO impacted the final outcome. It certainly increased the odds of a UConn loss. I'm not sure anyone can say with certainty that it was the reason for the loss or that UConn loses anyways if the call wasn't made.

Bottom line is that UConn does not have the ability to win against better opponents unless it gets contributions from both the front court and back court. There is very little room for error.

 

[David 76]

He was coming down on Giffey no matter how he leaned. It might have been more his legs instead of his hips. His right foot was planted in the trajectory of the defender.
The only way to avoid contact was to travel. It was a horrible no call because it was such a collision. It may have been worse than what immediately followed.

Now it's history. Let's get Temple.