A forgettable last minute of regulation....damn

[Doctor V]

I disagree with the part I put in red..because in this season..who are the 8, 9 and 10 guys?  Forzena, an injured Mbao, and Junior and Erik Williams?  Williams has Fulce in front of him, and Fulce has shown to be the best alternative to either Lazar or Jimmy.  Junior, we all know the story.  I also disagree that Buzz didn't utilize his bench well last year..who did he have after James went down?  Acker played well last year, just as he has this year.  Cooyb?  Coming off of 2 shoulder surgeries..and did you really want him out there instead of one of the Big 3?  Jimmy Butler developed nicely last year and gave the team a contribution, just as Joe Fulce has done this year.  I think we are really nit-picking at this point regardin gBuzz's coaching..and..there is nothing a coach can do when his team is ahead late in games, and can't close it out due to missing free throws.  Furthermore, how do you think this board would react if Buzz employed the foul strategy, and got burned on it?

I think Buzz would have been attacked by some for fouling, but most here seem to agree that this is the correct move so i dont think it would be as bad as not fouling

About the #7-10 guys, we can agree to disagree. I just havent seen Buzz handle these players well up to this point in his tenure. You can look at last year and say that Otule and Fulce were hurt, but they were back and had a good portion of the season. Fulce especially, by this point this season, should be more of a contributor. Butler should have been trusted sooner last year and allowed to play more, same with acker at 16mpg and cubillan at 9mpg. Instead you had 35, 34, 32, and 32 mpg average for the big 3 and lazar, and I believe that cost MU at the end of the season, but thats of personal opinion.

This season, you've got 6 guys averaging above 25mpg, and this includes Cubillian and Buycks, not james, mcneal, matthews, or hayward. You've got Williams, mbao, and fulce basically as non-factors early in the season. Fulce plays a bit now and thats good, I just wonder how good he would be if he played more sooner. You bring back Cadougan for basically no reason.  This is not to mention those that say as a head coach you have to find a way to make maymon, and the entourage that you knew about and brought in, happy because you know you need the low post help

I know the maymon thing will get criticism, but all this is encapsulated within managing #7-10 on your team

[bma725]

This is not to mention those that say as a head coach you have to find a way to make maymon, and the entourage that you knew about and brought in, happy because you know you need the low post help

I know the maymon thing will get criticism, but all this is encapsulated within managing #7-10 on your team

Those that say that about Maymon are f'n idiots and there's no other way to put it. 

[Doctor V]

Those that say that about Maymon are f'n idiots and there's no other way to put it. 

Sorry BMA, but some would say that those that bring him in are f'n idiots to begin with, and theres no other way to put it

I dont think either are idiots. I think if you make the mistake to bring him in, you have to make the extra effort to make him work, atleast through an entire season. At that point, you realize and admit you made a mistake and let him go

[Doctor V]

Those that say that about Maymon are f'n idiots and there's no other way to put it. 

Also, you being the recruit guru, should be the first to admit that a coach made a mistake on a talent with "issues"

That said, whether or not you make a mistake, you have to be man enough to do your best to try and make it work

[wojosdojo]

Good call.

On another note, I saw the replay on tv of the game and when Abromitous (spell?) Took his 3 to cut it to three he was set in front of the 3 pt line, picked up his dribble, and hopped on back behind the line. Oh did I mention the reff was right behind him.

I know we all want to forget this game and focus on the BET but it just gets me mad how that call could have changed the game and momentum moving forward.

[Daniel]

Notre Dame did it right.  Up 3, they don't even let us take it to tie it.  I hate Notre Dame

+1.  Especially the last 4 words.

[bma725]

Sorry BMA, but some would say that those that bring him in are f'n idiots to begin with, and theres no other way to put it

I dont think either are idiots. I think if you make the mistake to bring him in, you have to make the extra effort to make him work, atleast through an entire season. At that point, you realize and admit you made a mistake and let him go

No, anyone who says that you have to make it work with JMay is an idiot, sorry there's no two ways about it.  The only thing that would have made him stay was to make him a perimeter player at all times both on offense and defense, and run the offense through him to the detriment of everyone else on the team.  It would have completely blown up the chemistry of the team and been one of the worst moves in the history of coaching.  There's no other way to put it.  Anyone who thinks it was a fixable situation doesn't know what was going on.

Also, you being the recruit guru, should be the first to admit that a coach made a mistake on a talent with "issues"

That said, whether or not you make a mistake, you have to be man enough to do your best to try and make it work

I don't deny it was a mistake, but when you make a mistake, the most important thing to do is recognize it and fix it, not compound it.  Doing your best to make it work with J May compounds the mistake and essentially kills the season.  The coach has to think about the best interests of the team as a whole.  Sometimes that means that you have to part ways with a talented kid.

You don't placate malcontents, under any circumstances, if you want to be a head coach for very long.

[NersEllenson]

I think Buzz would have been attacked by some for fouling, but most here seem to agree that this is the correct move so i dont think it would be as bad as not fouling

About the #7-10 guys, we can agree to disagree. I just havent seen Buzz handle these players well up to this point in his tenure. You can look at last year and say that Otule and Fulce were hurt, but they were back and had a good portion of the season. Fulce especially, by this point this season, should be more of a contributor. Butler should have been trusted sooner last year and allowed to play more, same with acker at 16mpg and cubillan at 9mpg. Instead you had 35, 34, 32, and 32 mpg average for the big 3 and lazar, and I believe that cost MU at the end of the season, but thats of personal opinion.

This season, you've got 6 guys averaging above 25mpg, and this includes Cubillian and Buycks, not james, mcneal, matthews, or hayward. You've got Williams, mbao, and fulce basically as non-factors early in the season. Fulce plays a bit now and thats good, I just wonder how good he would be if he played more sooner. You bring back Cadougan for basically no reason.  This is not to mention those that say as a head coach you have to find a way to make maymon, and the entourage that you knew about and brought in, happy because you know you need the low post help

I know the maymon thing will get criticism, but all this is encapsulated within managing #7-10 on your team

I'll agree to disagree on the above analysis..and leave it at that.

[Doctor V]

No, anyone who says that you have to make it work with JMay is an idiot, sorry there's no two ways about it.  The only thing that would have made him stay was to make him a perimeter player at all times both on offense and defense, and run the offense through him to the detriment of everyone else on the team.  It would have completely blown up the chemistry of the team and been one of the worst moves in the history of coaching.  There's no other way to put it.  Anyone who thinks it was a fixable situation doesn't know what was going on.

I don't deny it was a mistake, but when you make a mistake, the most important thing to do is recognize it and fix it, not compound it.  Doing your best to make it work with J May compounds the mistake and essentially kills the season.  The coach has to think about the best interests of the team as a whole.  Sometimes that means that you have to part ways with a talented kid.

You don't placate malcontents, under any circumstances, if you want to be a head coach for very long.

Since you know what is going on, shouldnt Buzz also have known? I mean in the end something so dramatic in a player and fathers thought process, compared to the head coach's should be known, so as to not waste a scholarship. Also, when there are differences in opinion sometimes it needs to be worked out, or attempted to be worked out. The kid didnt do drugs, cheat, or break the law, he had a different idea of his role.

In the end Im happy Buzz told him he was the coach and he makes the decisions, but it is still a strike on the coach's recruiting resume and theres no way around it.

Also, this doesnt change my original argument that Buzz hasnt done well with players #7-10 on his roster to this point

[bma725]

So you think Buzz should have been able to predict the future then.  Because there is no way that he would have known that it would get to the level it did back when he was recruiting JMay without having some sort of crystal ball.  Yes his dad had acted like a fool on the sidelines, but there were no indications that it would get as bad as it did until it actually happened.  Lots of recruits have overbearing people around them and never have situations like that arise in college.

Also, when there are differences in opinion sometimes it needs to be worked out, or attempted to be worked out.

The only time you try to work things out are when there are workable options for that player and the rest of your team.  This was not one of those times.  You don't try to work out a situation to the detriment of the rest of your team and your program.

In the end Im happy Buzz told him he was the coach and he makes the decisions, but it is still a strike on the coach's recruiting resume and theres no way around it.

Didn't say it wasn't.  But doing as you suggest and trying to work it out would have been an even bigger strike on the resume, and one that could possibly have turned into a career killer.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Notre Dame did it right.  Up 3, they don't even let us take it to tie it.  I hate Notre Dame

The voices in the Bars of the 3rd Ward agree.  This one was on Buzz.  Great, great season with a couple of tourney runs to come, and our coach will continue to learn from all these incredibly close games.  He gives his team energy and emotion--and absolutely the alums are lovin' him.  His assistants need to step in and remind him of the situationals, though.  Definitely a missed opportunity in a bed of thorns.

[karavotsos]

"with our current team...with as many grind-it-out games as we've been a part of, I'm not going to bet on the come bet. I'll just play on the pass line and put odds on the back."

Part of Buzz's explanation on not fouling from the Rosiak blog.  He's thought about it.  I don't mind that explanation.  I thought we would win in OT.  I'm not a craps player, though.  Maybe the come bet is the superior bet.

Maybe, the bigger point is that when you let games get close in the final minute, its craps, and that longview:

"I just told them I think it was God's way of showing us one more time before we left the Bradley Center that if we're not going to be exactly who we have to be on both ends of the floor, then we get beat. It doesn't matter who we play, where we play, what time we play -- if we're not us, we will lose. And if we are us, then I like our chances."

It's tourney time.  Don't care what seed MU is, we're in.  For Zar I hope they go to Buffalo.

[mu_hilltopper]

From Rosiak:

You've never shown the inclination to foul in those situations. Mike Brey did. Where do you stand on that: "Anytime if we're up by three with less than nine seconds to go in the game, and we're in the bonus, not the double bonus, philosophically I would foul. But not when whoever it is that we would foul, when we go to the free-throw line..if I can't see the top of our guys' heads, I'm not going to foul. But I think if they're in the 1 and 1 there's a little bit of added pressure because now you have to make the first one, miss the second one, get an offensive rebound and a putback. But it's going to be with less than nine seconds left. But with our current team...with as many grind-it-out games as we've been a part of, I'm not going to bet on the come bet. I'll just play on the pass line and put odds on the back.

Anyone care to interpret that?

[gumbyandpokey]

From Rosiak:

You've never shown the inclination to foul in those situations. Mike Brey did. Where do you stand on that: "Anytime if we're up by three with less than nine seconds to go in the game, and we're in the bonus, not the double bonus, philosophically I would foul. But not when whoever it is that we would foul, when we go to the free-throw line..if I can't see the top of our guys' heads, I'm not going to foul. But I think if they're in the 1 and 1 there's a little bit of added pressure because now you have to make the first one, miss the second one, get an offensive rebound and a putback. But it's going to be with less than nine seconds left. But with our current team...with as many grind-it-out games as we've been a part of, I'm not going to bet on the come bet. I'll just play on the pass line and put odds on the back.

Anyone care to interpret that?

Well, now I understand why MU looks so confused at the end of games....

[ecompt]

He's learning. He already has the dancing part diown

[romey]

nm

[Big Papi]

He's learning. He already has the dancing part diown

He is learning but his logic behind fouling or not fouling is not what he needs to learn.  Its worked before and it will work again much like it go bad again.  Thats basketball.  What Buzz needs to learn is (1) tone down his antics on the sideline.  That technical was huge and this coming from a man who believes and stresses that every possession is so important for this team.  (2) we need better shots at end of game possessions.  The Lazar fadeway from 3 was a very bad shot.  Need to start working the play before there is only 8 seconds on the shot clock with this team.

We lost for a whole lot of reasons(besides the two above, we couldn't hit our perimeter shots and too many second chances off of misses from ND).  Why everyone gravitates to the foul/don't foul call especially when there is no legit consensus from most Division 1 coaches is beyond me.  Frankly I am surprised someone hasn't brought up free throw shooting again seeing that Lazar's second free throw attempt was almost an airball. 

As far as the last play goes, Abromitis took just an awful shot.  A shot that I would give every time.  Off balance, body twisting sideways fall away shot.  The ball just bounced the right way for ND and Cooby went on instinct towards the ball and there you go.  Bad outcome.  It happens.

[ChicosBailBonds]

From Rosiak:

You've never shown the inclination to foul in those situations. Mike Brey did. Where do you stand on that: "Anytime if we're up by three with less than nine seconds to go in the game, and we're in the bonus, not the double bonus, philosophically I would foul. But not when whoever it is that we would foul, when we go to the free-throw line..if I can't see the top of our guys' heads, I'm not going to foul. But I think if they're in the 1 and 1 there's a little bit of added pressure because now you have to make the first one, miss the second one, get an offensive rebound and a putback. But it's going to be with less than nine seconds left. But with our current team...with as many grind-it-out games as we've been a part of, I'm not going to bet on the come bet. I'll just play on the pass line and put odds on the back.

Anyone care to interpret that?

Top of guys heads? 

He seems to have answered the question with two conflicting answers

[Lennys Tap]

Top of guys heads? 

He seems to have answered the question with two conflicting answers

How so?

[karavotsos]

I took it to mean that with future teams he is not opposed to fouling in the last 9 seconds up 3.  There are two reasons he has not fouled in that situation this year.   One, MU is small.  If you look at the rebounders lined up at the free throw line from the opposite coaches' box you cannot see our guys heads because they are that much shorter than the other team.  If they were equal height or taller you could see the top of their heads.  He believes giving up the rebound is a risk with this team.

Two, Buzz has confidence in his team that they will continue to play solid defense on the final possession and won't give up a good three.  And if the game is tied with a three, he has confidence that his team will do a better job of grinding in overtime and win the game.  

That's how I read it.  He believes the foul is a gamble and he doesn't want to lose on a coaches' decision, and he'd rather play straight-up because he has confidence in his team to play it straight up.  

[ChicosBailBonds]

How so?

Read what he said.

Anytime we're up by 3 with less than 9 seconds and in the bonus...he would foul.....but then he back tracks about some comment about seeing the top of guys heads and says he wouldn't foul.

Then reverses himself again and says if it's a 1 and 1, he would foul due to the added pressure of making the first shot of the free throw, missing the second, getting the rebound and making the putback.....but then he reverses himself again and says "but with our current team" he'd just bet on playing the odds (makes a Craps reference).



He went back and forth, basically, four times in that sentence.  At least the way I read it.  Perhaps others read it different.    Based on the fact the previous games we also didn't foul, well I have to believe he just doesn't believe in fouling in that situation and wants to play the odds, so I'm not sure why he said everything else.

I don't agree with the strategy but coaches have differing viewpoints on it.  I'd foul when the clock gets down around 4 or 5 seconds.

[MUBurrow]

I don't mean to dig up old news, so if this is talked about elsewhere, just let me know and my bad. But, I am curious as to whether or not Buzz has put a lot of work into this part of his strategy. We all know what a huge numbers guy Buzz is, and he seems to reference concrete surrounding circumstances (1-1 vs double bonus; 9 seconds or less vs. 10 seconds +)  I wonder if there is some reason for his delineating those circumstances?

Earlier in this thread I mentioned that we were outfoxed yesterday, and i still think thats true. Certainly doesnt mean I would rather have Brey or any other blah blah blah.  But after a year full of of heartstoppers, I'm curious how much of Buzz's clear preference not to foul is based on our lack of height and how much of it is something that will continue.

The main reason I am pro-foul is because you can play great defense and still allow a guy to get an okay look at a 3 to tie. He might be a couple steps off the line or drifting to one side, etc, but you cant both assure a nonfoul play and play completely lock down on the perimeter. At least if you foul you put the game back into your own hands - you need to get a rebound, you need to inbound and make a FT, etc.

[Lennys Tap]

I took it to mean that with future teams he is not opposed to fouling in the last 9 seconds up 3.  There are two reasons he has not fouled in that situation this year.   One, MU is small.  If you look at the rebounders lined up at the free throw line from the opposite coaches' box you cannot see our guys heads because they are that much shorter than the other team.  If they were equal height or taller you could see the top of their heads.  He believes giving up the rebound is a risk with this team.

Two, Buzz has confidence in his team that they will continue to play solid defense on the final possession and won't give up a good three.  And if the game is tied with a three, he has confidence that his team will do a better job of grinding in overtime and win the game.  

That's how I read it.  He believes the foul is a gamble and he doesn't want to lose on a coaches' decision, and he'd rather play straight-up because he has confidence in his team to play it straight up.  

This is also how I read it. Pretty simple and straightforward, but I guess not to everyone.

[Big Papi]

The main reason I am pro-foul is because you can play great defense and still allow a guy to get an okay look at a 3 to tie. He might be a couple steps off the line or drifting to one side, etc, but you cant both assure a nonfoul play and play completely lock down on the perimeter. At least if you foul you put the game back into your own hands - you need to get a rebound, you need to inbound and make a FT, etc.

You do put it back in your hands but the only time we could foul and be under 10 seconds was when Abromitis had the ball in the corner.  He is a 89% FT shooter and a good 3 point shooter who was struggling.  Now he was doing some dipsy doing there in the corner and we have 3 problems here.  The first is you don't want to foul him on a shot where he is in a difficult situation to get off a good shot.  Two, you don't want to foul him taking a 3.  At that point in time, you are putting the game in your hands but the ref.  What if the foul is just a 1/2 second late and ref calls a shooting foul.  What if he crazily hits it and its a 3 and one.  Third, Hayward almost airballed his last free attempt.  How comfortable do you feel us hitting the front end of the 1 and 1?  I think there is a better chance we miss the front end and ND has the ball down 1 with 6 seconds left and brings those painful WV memories back.  Also a foul by DJO would have given him 4 fouls in the game.  Hayward had 4 and Butler might have had 4.  So our 3 best players could all have had 4 fouls going into OT.  I don't know but I don't think it is as clear cut as everyone makes it seem around here.

[NersEllenson]

You do put it back in your hands but the only time we could foul and be under 10 seconds was when Abromitis had the ball in the corner.  He is a 89% FT shooter and a good 3 point shooter who was struggling.  Now he was doing some dipsy doing there in the corner and we have 3 problems here.  The first is you don't want to foul him on a shot where he is in a difficult situation to get off a good shot.  Two, you don't want to foul him taking a 3.  At that point in time, you are putting the game in your hands but the ref.  What if the foul is just a 1/2 second late and ref calls a shooting foul.  What if he crazily hits it and its a 3 and one.  Third, Hayward almost airballed his last free attempt.  How comfortable do you feel us hitting the front end of the 1 and 1?  I think there is a better chance we miss the front end and ND has the ball down 1 with 6 seconds left and brings those painful WV memories back.  Also a foul by DJO would have given him 4 fouls in the game.  Hayward had 4 and Butler might have had 4.  So our 3 best players could all have had 4 fouls going into OT.  I don't know but I don't think it is as clear cut as everyone makes it seem around here.

+ 1, good analysis..I've reversed course on the idea of fouling vs. not fouling..and probably would side on the side of fouling...however, it also is a lot more difficult to execute when ND inbounds the ball with 16 seconds and pushes the ball upcourt...as opposed to when MU fouled DJO when they were up 3 in overtime.  We inbounded the ball with basically 7 seconds left in the game..DJO gets fouled as he gets to halfcourt with 5 seconds left...much easier scenario to pull off..than what we faced when Abromistis launched with 6 seconds left..meaning the smart time to foul was essentially the time when Abormitis was shooting the ball..which of course we wouldn't want to foul him in the act of shooting the 3.