VCU's meltdown.

[swami7774]

A classic example of how the three-point shot is a badly overused weapon.

 

[aceboon]

Burgess bricked those two free throws about as badly as you can, that was the game right there. That final play to set up the 3 point shot was a great look, don't really have an issue with them going for the win.

 

[tzznandrew]

It seems that all the teams either blowing leads or getting upset are overly guard oriented and/or dependent on the 3:

Duke
Mizzou
VCU
Iona

 

[Gurleyman]

Theus might have kept driving if the help didn't come - I'm sure it was his read as to what was open. The previous play they went with a set play for a deep 3 which was a poor choice.

The biggest mistake they made was on defense - second-to-last possession. They easily gave up the whole driving lane and fouled. Not only did that tie the score, instead of leaving them up one, but there were 45 seconds left and they allowed Indiana to get a 2-for-1.

 

[tentoes4rings]

It seems that all the teams either blowing leads or getting upset are overly guard oriented and/or dependent on the 3:

Duke
Mizzou
VCU
Iona

It's why Louisville usually flames out early too, generally far too dependent on the 3. Threes can be a huge weapon in college hoops but cold game and you're history.

 

[swami7774]

VCU was something like 2-15 down the stretch. I'd guess at least 10 of those 15 shots were ill-conceived 25-footers. If they'd taken the ball to the hole, they'd have decent chances at two good outcomes: 1)a better, more makeable shot; 2)drawing a foul.
Of course, free-throw shooting is a lost art as well, so that may not have mattered.

 

[suzyq]

It seems that all the teams either blowing leads or getting upset are overly guard oriented and/or dependent on the 3:

Duke
Mizzou
VCU
Iona

VCU wasn't upset. They're a 12 seed.

 

[Prezidint]

Moving the 3 back a few years ago was the acknowledgement that the 3 was too easy and that it was having too great of an influence on the outcome of games.

Again, much like the charge/block, the 3 fundamentally changes the nature of the game and the viewing pleasure derived therefrom.

Everybody has an opinion as to what fun basketball is. All the opinions are equally valid.

My opinion is that a game where 50% of the shots are bombs from 3 is not as fun as a game where the 3 is an occasional weapon to be used by those with exceptional shooting skills.

Look at it this way - if shooting 50% from the field is considered outstanding, then shooting a mere 33% from 3 is equally outstanding. If you shoot 30% from 3, that's competitive, and equivalent to the other team shooting high 40s from 2.

So the impetus to bomb 3s is built in - if you shoot even decently - 30%, you're doing ok.

Murray State threw up 21 threes, or about 1/3 of their shots. VCU chucked up 30 - over half their shots, and they made 30%. And they were very much in the game using that strategy. Duke shot 45% of their shots from 3 losing to Lehigh. What the hell kind of strategy is that for a top program?

To me, that's not very interesting basketball - that's bombing away and hoping for the best.

If I wrote the rules, I'd put the line closer to the NBA line - make it really worth 3. Make it so only the better shooters can knock it down at a good rate, and not some 7 footer clunker at Dook hitting at 32%, spreading out the defense so that the bomb-and-crash-and-free-throw method is much less effective at keeping weaker teams in games.

I guess I'd target most teams shooting about 1 in 5 shots from 3, and no more than 1 in 4, rather than the 1 in 3 and 1 in 2 that you often see now.

 

[tzznandrew]

VCU wasn't upset. They're a 12 seed.

I know. But they blew a 9 point lead. Perhaps not "big," but still.

 

[swami7774]

VCU wasn't upset. They're a 12 seed.

Perhaps he meant "upset" in a behavioral sense.

 

[Dann]

this is why i think all the "shaka smart to uconn" stuff is just so stupid. do we really want to be a team with that type of scheme? people here want pro style, deep ncaat runs, big time games and nba pros. mid major coaches dont have that in them. thats why they don't go from mid major to bluebloodish schools. they go from midmajor to major then to blueblood/high major schools or they take there major and turn it into something. uconn is a high major/bb not a prov/illinois/ncst

 

[tzznandrew]

this is why i think all the "shaka smart to uconn" stuff is just so stupid. do we really want to be a team with that type of scheme? people here want pro style, deep ncaat runs, big time games and nba pros. mid major coaches dont have that in them. thats why they don't go from mid major to bluebloodish schools. they go from midmajor to major then to blueblood/high major schools or they take there major and turn it into something. uconn is a high major/bb not a prov/illinois/ncst

I think people said the same thing about Calhoun from Northeastern.

Yesterday, I watched the rewatched 1998 UConn-Washington game and the 1999 UConn-Duke title game (yes, I was bored and wanted some positive UConn vibes).

I few things stuck out. UConn pressed the whole Washington game and played many more bodies than he does now. In the Duke game, he did play many more bodies as well. But the press was effective in the beginning, and not as much later. Those UConn teams struggled to score in the half-court more than I remembered.

I guess a point being: Calhoun has adjusted how he played. The 1998 team played closer to his Northeastern days than even the 1999 team. But the 2004, 2006, 2009, and 2011 teams are totally different. The shift happened suddenly--but if a 1995 UConn fan watched the 2004 team, they wouldn't recognize that JC coached both. The same will need to be true for Shaka and Stevens if they want to succeed.

 

[Dann]

old uconn(not a major program) vs new uconn(high major program)

uconn wasn't a major program before jc. he developed us into one. now that were here, why would we ever wna to go backwards?

 

[swami7774]

I think people said the same thing about Calhoun from Northeastern.

Yesterday, I watched the rewatched 1998 UConn-Washington game and the 1999 UConn-Duke title game (yes, I was bored and wanted some positive UConn vibes).

I few things stuck out. UConn pressed the whole Washington game and played many more bodies than he does now. In the Duke game, he did play many more bodies as well. But the press was effective in the beginning, and not as much later. Those UConn teams struggled to score in the half-court more than I remembered.

I guess a point being: Calhoun has adjusted how he played. The 1998 team played closer to his Northeastern days than even the 1999 team. But the 2004, 2006, 2009, and 2011 teams are totally different. The shift happened suddenly--but if a 1995 UConn fan watched the 2004 team, they wouldn't recognize that JC coached both. The same will need to be true for Shaka and Stevens if they want to succeed.

The '98 and '99 squads pressed more than this year's, but didn't press nearly as much as the '90 Dream Team.

 

[Gurleyman]

We pressed more when we had a team without a superstar. When we had guys like Ray and Rip that we wanted to keep on the floor for 38 minutes, the concern was the press would wear them out and they wouldn't have the legs for the jumpers late. Plus teams got better at scouting and breaking it. After the Dream Season core moved on, we tended to press conservatively and not have the constant swarm that made 1990 so effective.

There was also the Nadav/Scott Burrell factor. You needed that "safety" at midcourt who could just read everything to make the press effective. If you don't take that pass away, you give up a lot of 3 on 2's.

 

[tzznandrew]

We pressed more when we had a team without a superstar. When we had guys like Ray and Rip that we wanted to keep on the floor for 38 minutes, the concern was the press would wear them out and they wouldn't have the legs for the jumpers late. Plus teams got better at scouting and breaking it. After the Dream Season core moved on, we tended to press conservatively and not have the constant swarm that made 1990 so effective.

There was also the Nadav/Scott Burrell factor. You needed that "safety" at midcourt who could just read everything to make the press effective. If you don't take that pass away, you give up a lot of 3 on 2's.

In that 1998 UW game, UConn pressed the entire game. Sometimes more passive, sometimes more active. Perhaps that was because Rip was sick and wasn't going to stay on the court as much anyway. But in the 1999 championship game, there was much less pressing.

I think generally your post is right on.

 

[swami7774]

We pressed more when we had a team without a superstar. When we had guys like Ray and Rip that we wanted to keep on the floor for 38 minutes, the concern was the press would wear them out and they wouldn't have the legs for the jumpers late. Plus teams got better at scouting and breaking it. After the Dream Season core moved on, we tended to press conservatively and not have the constant swarm that made 1990 so effective.

There was also the Nadav/Scott Burrell factor. You needed that "safety" at midcourt who could just read everything to make the press effective. If you don't take that pass away, you give up a lot of 3 on 2's.

True. I still think the '90 team was a much fun to watch as any of them. They maximized their potential in ways subsequent teams (<cough> 1994<cough>1996<cough>2006<cough>) didn't.