What Muffet McGraw Did... or Didn't Do | Page 3 | The Boneyard

What Muffet McGraw Did... or Didn't Do

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sure, the best strategy for a comeback will merge a lot of strategies to keep the opponent guessing and confused, and if you have used pressure defense to cut a 10 point lead down to 1 with 7 seconds to go, another attempt for a steal and then a quick foul is the way to go. But to put all your marbles into a strategy like "foul every play" that may play to an opponent's strength is foolish, and to belittle a coach who chooses a different strategy is just dumb. Again, the odds are hugely against any strategy working and all successful paths require you to hit your shots, but to say that just because one strategy failed that one's own poor strategy would have been the only answer is also illogical. Fortunately, coaches like Geno and Muffett are more astute about these things than we who hang out on forum sites.
 
If this had been a men's game and this a men's board the idea that you would not press and foul at the end would be derided. If there is any chance, and 1/500 is a chance, you play until the end. Pro teams do it, college teams do it, high school teams do it.

I would love to know McGraw's actual reasoning. My guess is she was very happy to lose by only 10.
 
lne001 said:
If this had been a men's game and this a men's board the idea that you would not press and foul at the end would be derided. If there is any chance, and 1/500 is a chance, you play until the end. Pro teams do it, college teams do it, high school teams do it.

I would love to know McGraw's actual reasoning. My guess is she was very happy to lose by only 10.
Expand ...
Oh sure, just like Calipari was derided by the idiots on the men's board for not fouling all over the place in the last minute with UConn having gone perfect at the FT line during the game. Sure, makes perfect sense.

Maybe Muffett was hoping to be happy with a strategy that her team could get some givebacks from UConn (which she got), and that her team would make some shots (which they didn't). We don't have to go into all the dumb stuff that's said on the men's boards to ridicule a WCBB coach.

Look, I realize that the hatred of Husky fans for Muffett generally runs from somewhere between extreme to more extreme, but it's a little pathetic to keep smearing her just because she won a bunch of games against UConn and ND has been its chief rival recently.

The Crackbrain Guide to Basketball Logic

Situation 1: Coach tells team not to foul down by 10 with 1:30 left, and they and their opponent miss all their remaining shots and the team loses by 10. Verdict: coach is a quitter and loser.

Situation 2: Coach tells team not to foul down by 10 with 1:30 left, and they go 3-5 on threes and their opponent miss all their remaining shots and the team loses by 1. Verdict: coach is a quitter and loser even if her strategy almost worked.

Situation 3: Coach tells team not to foul down by 10 with 1:30 left, and her team makes 4 threes while the opponent turns it over or misses all their remaining shots and the team wins by 2. Verdict: coach is still a quitter and loser even if her team won because she refused to do the "only thing you can do in that situation."

Situation 4: Coach tells team to foul every chance down by 10 with 1:30 left, and her team makes 4 threes while the opponent shoots their expected 75% by nailing 6 of 8 and the team loses by 4. Verdict: coach is really a winner because she did the "only thing you can do in that situation."

Situation 5 (the poor outcome for the foul method): Coach tells team to foul every chance down by 10 with 1:30 left, and her team only can hit 1-8 against the perimeter pressure defense on threes while the opponent shoots their expected 75% by nailing 12 of 16 and the team loses by 19. Verdict: again, coach is really a winner because she did the "only thing you can do in that situation."

Situation 6 (the generally normal one for the foul method): Coach tells team to foul every chance down by 10 with 1:30 left, and her team makes their standard 33% while shooting 2-6 on threes while the opponent shoots their expected 75% by nailing 9 of 12 and the team loses by 13. Verdict: once again, coach is really a winner because she did the "only thing you can do in that situation."

Situation 7 (that fantasy choker situation): Coach tells team to foul every chance down by 10 with 1:30 left, and her team goes 4-8 on threes while the opponent misses every FT and the team wins by 2. Verdict: That's the way it always happens in my PlayStation NBA basketball games, even against the best teams, so of course the coach did the right thing.

Again, November can't come soon enough.
 
DobbsRover2 said:
Ah yup, I'm sure Shoni Schimmel tosses and turns all night fretting about how she might have won an NC if Louisville had fouled to the end down 35 with two minutes to go back in 2013, and as the clock ticked off the last 23 seconds why wasn't she fighting to the end and leaving it on the floor instead of watching UConn dribble down to the buzzer? Sure she wonders what would have happened if the Cards fought to the max to the very end. Makes perfect sense.

Playing a sport means that sometimes you do lose, and you have to learn how to cope with that so you can prepare yourself to win in future matches. Limbs, brains, and spirits can all be broken by some idiot coach telling his kids, "I don't care if we are down by 50 with two minutes to go. Get out there and give me 110% or you're all quitters and losers." Sure, I know that that's the great old American way, but it's also stupid.
Expand ...

Can we start by talking about a comporable game and situation an 11 point lead is way different than 35 point. 2010 National Championship game UCONN vs. Stanford. UCONN up by 13 with 2:05 seconds left to go on the clock. Stanford starts fouling. 1 minute later Stanford is down by only 8. With :39 left the lead is down to 8. Stanford is still fouling. Wait :30 left Stanford is still fouling. What is going on? : 16 left Stanford still down by 6 and the are still fouling. :07 left Stanford down by 6 and still fouling. Stanford tried something, ND did not. I would not go so far as to say that ND "quit" but by not trying "something" ND is open to fair criticism IMO.
 
lne001 said:
I would love to know McGraw's actual reasoning. My guess is she was very happy to lose by only 10.
Expand ...

The reasoning is extremely obvious. She felt (rightly or wrongly) that the game was out of reach and decided to let it reach its conclusion quicker.
 
CocoHusky said:
Can we start by talking about a comporable game and situation an 11 point lead is way different than 35 point. 2010 National Championship game UCONN vs. Stanford. UCONN up by 13 with 2:05 seconds left to go on the clock. Stanford starts fouling. 1 minute later Stanford is down by only 8. With :39 left the lead is down to 8. Stanford is still fouling. Wait :30 left Stanford is still fouling. What is going on? : 16 left Stanford still down by 6 and the are still fouling. :07 left Stanford down by 6 and still fouling. Stanford tried something, ND did not. I would not go so far as to say that ND "quit" but by not trying "something" ND is open to fair criticism IMO.
Expand ...

Sure, we can all pick our games to prove our biases. I can point to games where a coach did not call for fouling on every play in similar situations and actually won the game, instead of the situation you point to where the coach called for fouling on every play and still lost without having a shot to win. So please tell me what your example proves?

Again, maybe we should just say that there are different ways to try for a comeback in extreme situations, and you shouldn't call a coach a quitter if she doesn't choose your own preferred strategy or set yourself up as a Monday morning quarterback and say that only your method could have worked. Muffet tried something and her team didn't hit their shots and they lost. Tara tried something else and her team hit some shots and they lost. Whoopie. Back in 2011 the UMiami coach tried basically a non-fouling method and it worked. Another coach might have tried an all-fouls method and see his team blow their chance to win because the opponent knocked down 1 or 2 FTs. Again, having something not work is no reason to say it could never have worked, unless you are a smug QB winning all those fantasy games on Monday.
 
.-.
DobbsRover2 said:
Not even close. There have been many last minute turnarounds, even last half minute turnarounds that have been fueled by steals and turnovers that probably never would have occurred if the opponent was sent endlessly to the FT line. How are you sure that their is NO chance for ND when eschewing the fouling has been a staple of many late comebacks?

Take guys game, Miami vs VA in 2011 ACC. VA up by 10 with 37 seconds left. Miami hits a 3, 2 missed VA FTs, Miami hits a 3, VA TO, Miami gets a 2, VA TO, Miami ties it with a 2, VA TO, Miami misses at end of regulation but wins in OT. So just one foul and pressure defense in 37 seconds that results in turnovers for a chance to win in regulation.

Now if old Rip Van Hurricane is sleeping at the game and wakes up with 37 seconds to go, he's yelling "Foul on every inbound!" to the Miami coach, and then who knows what happens, and maybe no comeback. So no, NO does not mean NO when talking about comeback opportunities in basketball.

But again, the big difference between 2011 men's Miami and 2015 women's ND is that the Hurricanes went 4-5 in 37 seconds, and the Irish went 0-3 in that last 1:33. Can't come back if you can't score.
Expand ...

I like your example. You just arrive at the wrong conclusion. Miami didn't get back into that game by watching VA dribble out the shot clock, they forced VA into turnovers. That was a totally different scenario than what happened in the ND game.
 
Orangutan said:
The reasoning is extremely obvious. She felt (rightly or wrongly) that the game was out of reach and decided to let it reach its conclusion quicker.
Expand ...

Do you agree with the strategy that was used ?
 
rvwsleep said:
I like your example. You just arrive at the wrong conclusion. Miami didn't get back into that game by watching VA dribble out the shot clock, they forced VA into turnovers. That was a totally different scenario than what happened in the ND game.
Expand ...
They did a bunch of things, and they all revolved around making shots. If you don't make your shots in the last minute, it doesn't matter how many TOs you get. ND got the ball back a couple of times against UConn using Muffet's strategy but they couldn't turn those TOs into points.

But you miss the point. You're calling Muffett a quitter for not fouling with a more than a minute and a half to go. Miami's comeback from 10 points occurred in about 30 seconds, but you have the sagacity to claim Muffet just gave up because she didn't follow your strategy with three times as many seconds on the clock? Would you tell the Miami coach he had to start fouling if he was at the 1:30 mark down 10? So let's say UVA hits a normal amount of FTs and at the 37 second mark the gap is now 15 and the comeback is gone. Would Rip Van Hurricane then go over to Coach Haith and say, "Sorry coach, I screwed you guys all up by giving you that advice. I'll just go back to sleep and stop bothering you."?

Here's my example of a coach who obviously just quit when her team needed a big comeback, the aforementioned Pat in the 2004 NC game. Down by only 5 points with 2:22 to go against a team that had been 7-8 at the FT line, Pat hears the Vol fans screaming "You have to foul, coach! It's the only way we can win." So Pat obeys the wise minions of the Summitt and tells her players to foul every chance. So UConn goes to the line 12 times, knocks down 8, and what was a manageable 5-point deficit with more than 2 minutes left swells to 9, and UConn can just party along at the end of the game. What a loser Pat was there to choose such a dumb and wrong strategy! She was basically just quitting on setting up a comeback by going the bonehead route instead of going the smart route that would have kept things close at the end.

And how do I know this? Because I'm just as good an Monday AM QB as you.
 
DobbsRover2 said:
They did a bunch of things, and they all revolved around making shots. If you don't make your shots in the last minute, it doesn't matter how many TOs you get. ND got the ball back a couple of times against UConn using Muffet's strategy but they couldn't turn those TOs into points.

But you miss the point. You're calling Muffett a quitter for not fouling with a more than a minute and a half to go. Miami's comeback from 10 points occurred in about 30 seconds, but you have the sagacity to claim Muffet just gave up because she didn't follow your strategy with three times as many seconds on the clock? Would you tell the Miami coach he had to start fouling if he was at the 1:30 mark down 10? So let's say UVA hits a normal amount of FTs and at the 37 second mark the gap is now 15 and the comeback is gone. Would Rip Van Hurricane then go over to Coach Haith and say, "Sorry coach, I screwed you guys all up by giving you that advice. I'll just go back to sleep and stop bothering you."?

Here's my example of a coach who obviously just quit when her team needed a big comeback, the aforementioned Pat in the 2004 NC game. Down by only 5 points with 2:22 to go against a team that had been 7-8 at the FT line, Pat hears the Vol fans screaming "You have to foul, coach! It's the only way we can win." So Pat obeys the wise minions of the Summitt and tells her players to foul every chance. So UConn goes to the line 12 times, knocks down 8, and what was a manageable 5-point deficit with more than 2 minutes left swells to 9, and UConn can just party along at the end of the game. What a loser Pat was there to choose such a dumb and wrong strategy! She was basically just quitting on setting up a comeback by going the bonehead route instead of going the smart route that would have kept things close at the end.

And how do I know this? Because I'm just as good an Monday AM QB as you.
Expand ...

You've just lost all credibility. Please direct me me to my post where I was "calling Muffett a quitter for not fouling with a more than a minute and a half to go." I'll save you the trouble, it doesn't exist. You used the Miami-VA game where Miami pressured VA into turnovers at the end of the game instead of standing around watching the opponent dribble the clock out unimpeded, as happened in the ND game. As if that was supposed to somehow bolster your position.
Then there was this statement "There have been many last minute turnarounds, even last half minute turnarounds that have been fueled by steals and turnovers that probably never would have occurred if the opponent was sent endlessly to the FT line." I agree with this, but that's not what happened in the ND game. Why would you bring it up in relation to the ND game when those steals and turnovers you mention were the byproduct of a pressure defense ? Something that ND chose not to do.
And this one "How are you sure that their is NO chance for ND when eschewing the fouling has been a staple of many late comebacks?"
I would also agree with "eschewing the fouling has been a staple of many late comebacks?", but again, what does it have to do with the ND game ? Did those teams, that made comebacks without fouling, employ the same defense that ND used in the last minute and a half ? Of course not. If they just watched the other team dribble the ball without applying any pressure, there would be no comeback.
Regardless of whether the odds were 500 to 1, 1,000 to 1, or 10,000 to 1, a tactic other than watching the other team dribble the clock down without resistance should have been employed. It was, after all, for a National Championship.
Your posts on this topic tells me one more thing. You're not as good a Monday AM QB as you think you are.
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised to see how angry this thread has made some of our posters. Earlier in this thread I said that I thought Muffet should have "thrown everything she had" at us, but I didn't think that she had any chance of winning. Dobbs referring to an opinion that is at variance to his own as being "crackhead" seems harsh.

I don't know, or really care, what the percentages are regarding fouling in desperate situations, I just thought that ND should have gone down swinging. I wonder what this thread would have sounded like if the roles were reversed, if for some unimaginable reason we had trailed by ten with 90 seconds left and Geno had just taken a seat and let the game end.

This is an August conversation. It doesn't mean much and it shouldn't really be cause for such strong disagreement.
 
.-.
dead horse.jpg
 
Bonpland said:
I'm surprised to see how angry this thread has made some of our posters. Earlier in this thread I said that I thought Muffet should have "thrown everything she had" at us, but I didn't think that she had any chance of winning. Dobbs referring to an opinion that is at variance to his own as being "crackhead" seems harsh.

I don't know, or really care, what the percentages are regarding fouling in desperate situations, I just thought that ND should have gone down swinging. I wonder what this thread would have sounded like if the roles were reversed, if for some unimaginable reason we had trailed by ten with 90 seconds left and Geno had just taken a seat and let the game end.

This is an August conversation. It doesn't mean much and it shouldn't really be cause for such strong disagreement.
Expand ...
Um, saying that you think Muffet should have ND throw everything at UConn is absolutely right. But again the question is how she should have gone about doing that, and also perhaps how much her players had left in the tank for any specific strategy. The crackhead observations are just directed toward those who say she was a quitter for not following their own pet method for engineering an improbable comeback. Posters who say she was a 'quitter" or "she just took a seat" at the end of the game are certainly providing some BB material for Irish fans who can rightly point with some indignation at Husky fans like you who say their team just quit. Again, they got the ball back a few times and just missed some shots. So please tell me again what gives you the right to say that the Irish were quitters? You were in their heads with them, I take it?

I also don't know what the real percentages of overcoming a 10 point deficit against UConn with 1:33 left, but I would still leave it to an experienced coach like Muffet who has some has had some success in the past against UConn to plan the best response she could, rather than trusting the opinions of smug BY posters who make statements like "ND had NO chance of winning unless they foul every play." Just not true.

I wonder what this thread would have sounded like if the roles were reversed, if for some unimaginable reason UConn had trailed by thirteen to ND with 3:21 left and Geno had just taken a seat, put in the subs, and let the game end, and the Irish board had lit up with comments about Geno and UConn being quitters, and that you always have to play to very end or you're a loser. Well, actually that did happen back on Feb. 27 2012, as UConn did not commit one foul in the last 3 minutes of a 72-59 loss. Actually, I'm not sure that the Irish fans all called the Huskies quitters, but it's possible that some thought that. True it wasn't an NC, but it was still a big game and Geno apparently did not throw everything he had at the end against ND and go down swinging.

So again, you can play the "harsh and angry" card, and I can ask why not be a little bit civil toward an opposing coach about her endgame strategy. I certainly agree that Muffet has done some peevish mean-spirited things toward UConn in the past, but I still think she's a better coach than anyone on the BY.
 
Orangutan said:
There's a 1-in-500 chance the horse is still alive.
Expand ...
I think you gotta look in the horse's mouth to determine the exact odds. I could go to 1-in-450 if I squint at the teeth a certain way and tell myself that there's always some chance until you hear the Grim Reaper's final buzzer.
 
.-.
Sonny44 said:
Pride? She didn't want her team to look foolish or desperate at that point. She said several times that the pressure was on UCONN and that ND was not even expected to be here. So she chose to lose with dignity. I can see that.
Expand ...


I think giving up - which is what she did - is far from dignified.
 
rvwsleep said:
You've just lost all credibility. Please direct me me to my post where I was "calling Muffett a quitter for not fouling with a more than a minute and a half to go." I'll save you the trouble, it doesn't exist. You used the Miami-VA game where Miami pressured VA into turnovers at the end of the game instead of standing around watching the opponent dribble the clock out unimpeded, as happened in the ND game. As if that was supposed to somehow bolster your position.
Then there was this statement "There have been many last minute turnarounds, even last half minute turnarounds that have been fueled by steals and turnovers that probably never would have occurred if the opponent was sent endlessly to the FT line." I agree with this, but that's not what happened in the ND game. Why would you bring it up in relation to the ND game when those steals and turnovers you mention were the byproduct of a pressure defense ? Something that ND chose not to do.
And this one "How are you sure that their is NO chance for ND when eschewing the fouling has been a staple of many late comebacks?"
I would also agree with "eschewing the fouling has been a staple of many late comebacks?", but again, what does it have to do with the ND game ? Did those teams, that made comebacks without fouling, employ the same defense that ND used in the last minute and a half ? Of course not. If they just watched the other team dribble the ball without applying any pressure, there would be no comeback.
Regardless of whether the odds were 500 to 1, 1,000 to 1, or 10,000 to 1, a tactic other than watching the other team dribble the clock down without resistance should have been employed. It was, after all, for a National Championship.
Your posts on this topic tells me one more thing. You're not as good a Monday AM QB as you think you are.
Expand ...
Again, you have slid in with the crowd that is calling Muffet a quitter because as you state, you think that ND just let UConn dribble the clock away to end the final minute and a half.

I'll also save you the trouble of having to explain what he odds are, because no one knows. But there many types of defensive pressure that can be used at the end of a game, and likely Muffet didn't think she had players at the end of the game who had the legs left to chase MoJett around the floor. The defense that was used may not have been a big pressure-D, but it got the ball back from MoJeff twice in plenty of time if they could hit some threes. They didn't, and the Irish lost. Sure, after the UConn givebacks and the ND misses and a minute ran off the clock and there's 37 seconds left with the margin still at 10, you can say the strategy didn't work and do anything like fouling everyone in sight if that makes you happy, but most sensible people can read the odds there.

I know there are some fans who worship the pressure D, but it is also a highly risky D that is easy for a great team like UConn to exploit when they expect it to come at them. They do a lot in practice to get prepared. The pressure-D also can make already tired defenders even more exhausted, leading to clankers on those threes. Again, I'd trust Muffet to have a greater insight into the game and as to what both her team and UConn were capable of in that final 1:33 than me, you or any BY poster, but if you feel otherwise I would be happy to asses your credibility level and give it the proper rating.
 
Wally East said:
Maybe poke it with a stick to see if it will turnover?
Expand ...
Actually, I'd pressure the dumb brute to get up, because you can't expect to win in life if you just lie there waiting for the end. Never say quit on life's great game of H-O-R-S-E.
 
Maybe it's the heat (outdoors if not indoors), but this thread has been borderline for a while.

Too much sarcasm, too much disrespect for others' views. Too much verging on getting personal, one post now gone that went over that line.

Let's see if the heated rhetoric, which seems strangely out of sync with the subject matter, can cool down. If not, we'll have to flip a switch or two.
 
JS said:
Maybe it's the heat (outdoors if not indoors), but this thread has been borderline for a while.

Too much sarcasm, too much disrespect for others' views. Too much verging on getting personal, one post now gone that went over that line.

Let's see if the heated rhetoric, which seems strangely out of sync with the subject matter, can cool down. If not, we'll have to flip a switch or two.
Expand ...
In the spirit of peace and harmony, I'd be happy to go part way with RVWsleep on the pressure-D argument that uses Muffet's overall strategy and doesn't paint her as a loser and quitter, names that do a disservice to a top coach and provide BB material for the Irish. In general the idea of trying to pressure the top passing and least TO prone team in college seems a little dubious, especially when it is at the end of the game and they are expecting it and daring you to try while wearing yourself out more, but let's use the 2011 men's Miami-UVA game as part of a strategy. Obviously no comeback works unless you hit your shots, so here's a scenario (500-to-1 long shot) that succeeds because the Irish do hit their shots.

---Basically same sequence as really happened, with ND at first playing a more conservative D. ND gets the ball back on MoJeff's miss, but Allen nails her 3 at 1:08. Same sequence proceeds, and after MoJeff turns the ball over with 31 seconds left, and Loyd hits her 3 with 22 seconds left. Okay, now ND is only down 4, and by all means unleash the dogs for 22 seconds to pressure UConn and try to come up with some takeaways and foul if nothing happens right away.

Once you get the margin down to 4, you have a shot, even with only 20 seconds left against the best team in WCBB. But as it happened, ND did not hit its shots, and Muffet was never in position to use the pressure-D in any way that had a reasonable chance of working. If you have ever played a full game of basketball against good opponents and tried to go full-out pressure-D for a minute and a half and lived to tell about it, kudos to you, for you are truly a marvel.
 
.-.
Dobbs, the primary objective of my post was to point out a game that was similar in Magnitude ( National Championship) and score with time remaining on the clock where the coach chose to do something different than McGraw because the example you cited UCONN vs. Louisville (35 Point margin) was simply not. When you respond with words like "Monday Morning Quarterback" and " Paint her as a loser and quitter" - When I specifically stated that Muffett was NOT, I see that I have missed my primary objective and see no rational reason to continue.
 
CocoHusky said:
Can we start by talking about a comporable game and situation an 11 point lead is way different than 35 point. 2010 National Championship game UCONN vs. Stanford. UCONN up by 13 with 2:05 seconds left to go on the clock. Stanford starts fouling. 1 minute later Stanford is down by only 8. With :39 left the lead is down to 8. Stanford is still fouling. Wait :30 left Stanford is still fouling. What is going on? : 16 left Stanford still down by 6 and the are still fouling. :07 left Stanford down by 6 and still fouling. Stanford tried something, ND did not. I would not go so far as to say that ND "quit" but by not trying "something" ND is open to fair criticism IMO.
Expand ...

did Stanford win?
 
CocoHusky said:
Can we start by talking about a comporable game and situation an 11 point lead is way different than 35 point. 2010 National Championship game UCONN vs. Stanford. UCONN up by 13 with 2:05 seconds left to go on the clock. Stanford starts fouling. 1 minute later Stanford is down by only 8. With :39 left the lead is down to 8. Stanford is still fouling. Wait :30 left Stanford is still fouling. What is going on? : 16 left Stanford still down by 6 and the are still fouling. :07 left Stanford down by 6 and still fouling. Stanford tried something, ND did not. I would not go so far as to say that ND "quit" but by not trying "something" ND is open to fair criticism IMO.
Expand ...


The difference isn't that Stanford fouled and ND didn't. It's that Stanford made shots and ND didn't.

The problem here is stemming from the idea that some people believe that not fouling = not trying. That's simply not the case as the video Nan posted shows. There are different ways to come back.
 
For those who are interested in UConn's own end-of-game strategies when down in big games like an FF, looking at the 2012 OT loss to ND might be instructive about what Geno will try. Obviously in the earlier Feb 2012 big loss to ND, he did not think it worth it to throw everything at the Irish and go down fighting late in the game when behind by double digits. In the 2012 FF he did try something different at the end of the game that did involve fouls, but I don't think you can really call it a "quick foul every play" strategy, and the initial margin was much smaller.

Down 4 with a minute to play in OT, Faris turns the ball over and she subsequently fouls, but only after 16 seconds had ticked off the clock. With the lead at 5 with 42 seconds left, UConn missed a quick shot and four more seconds went off the clock after the rebound before Hartley fouled. With the lead now up to 7, after a KML miss, 7 more seconds ticked away after the rebound and another UConn foul with 22 seconds left. In the remaining time there was one more UConn foul and the lead swelled to 10 before Hayes cut it back down to 8 with a late layup.

I would interpret Geno's strategy as some version of pressure-D in the last minute with some fouls thrown in when they couldn't get the ball. But ND hit 7-8 FTs and what was a manageable 4 point deficit before the fouls became 10 with 9 seconds to go. During the last minute, UConn made 1 FT before Hayes' meaningless basket at the end (except that it kept UConn from losing by double digits). Should Geno have just ordered immediate fouls in the last minute against an ND team that hit 74.1% of the FTs during the game? Maybe, but likely not. Could UConn have made up the 4 point difference if it didn't foul? Maybe, who knows? Geno used the strategy he thought best, but as with ND in the 2015 NC game, the Huskies just couldn't put the ball in the basket at the end.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
167,982
Messages
4,548,235
Members
10,431
Latest member
TeganK


Top Bottom