A forgettable last minute of regulation....damn

[MU83]

After reading this post written by a bunch of people who probably never played basketball let alone coached it, I have one question;  do you really think that coaching has hurt this team this year?  Do you think Coach K would have reeled off 28 wins with this team?  Maybe Rick Pitino would have had us undefeated and ranked first in the nation.  I bet you after Jim Boehiem saw our roster, he wanted to leave Syracuse for the MU job.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and it's what makes boards like these entertaining, but whether we win or lose, some on this board consistently show they have no idea what they are talking about.

[ChicosBailBonds]

After reading this post written by a bunch of people who probably never played basketball let alone coached it, I have one question;  do you really think that coaching has hurt this team this year?  Do you think Coach K would have reeled off 28 wins with this team?  Maybe Rick Pitino would have had us undefeated and ranked first in the nation.  I bet you after Jim Boehiem saw our roster, he wanted to leave Syracuse for the MU job.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and it's what makes boards like these entertaining, but whether we win or lose, some on this board consistently show they have no idea what they are talking about.

Incredible strawman

[MUBurrow]

again, where does this "OH YEAH!?! I BET YOU NEVER EVEN PLAYED BIG EAST BASKETBALL!!!" mentality come in, and what does it have to do with anything?

some of the greatest analysts around right now never played or coached the game at a high level, and that goes across sports.  heck, some of the best coaches never played and some of the best gms never did either.

[Doctor V]

+ 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.

Whether or not you chose to foul is a matter of opinion. However, even though I think its a mistake to not foul prior to a 3 point attempt, its definitely a mistake to not foul immediately if your team doesnt get the rebound

Its seems fairly easy, actually. You tell your team to defend and not foul, but if the shot is missed and you cannot gather the rebound you foul immediately, just making sure you foul in a way that doesnt allow an and 1 situation. This eliminates the possibility for a kick out and another 3 pt attempt

[MU83]

again, where does this "OH YEAH!?! I BET YOU NEVER EVEN PLAYED BIG EAST BASKETBALL!!!" mentality come in, and what does it have to do with anything?

some of the greatest analysts around right now never played or coached the game at a high level, and that goes across sports.  heck, some of the best coaches never played and some of the best gms never did either.

My point was that whether we win or lose, there are people on here that pick the team or coaching staff apart.  Why didn't we do this in that situation, or why did this player miss that shot?  I realize this board is for anyone to post whatever they want to say (within reason), but it gets old listening to people criticize this team. By all accounts (and I'm sure any of the experts you cite would agree) this team and coaching staff has far exceeded expectations.  By indicating otherwise indicates a lack of knowledge of the game.

[MUBurrow]

if all we care about is exceeding expectations or the overall body of work, why even watch the games? your previous 20 wins dont get you a pass for your next game.  if MU goes undefeated and then loses the ND game in this way, that doesnt make the criticism any more or less valid.

[NersEllenson]

again, where does this "OH YEAH!?! I BET YOU NEVER EVEN PLAYED BIG EAST BASKETBALL!!!" mentality come in, and what does it have to do with anything?

some of the greatest analysts around right now never played or coached the game at a high level, and that goes across sports.  heck, some of the best coaches never played and some of the best gms never did either.

Based on your above comment, and the one below, my assumption is that you did not play the game at even the High School level?  Clearly, you do not seem to grasp that most teams don't go undefeated in men's college basketball - or any sport for that matter - and defeats aren't always the result of poor coaching, or even poor play by the players.  Some days you get outplayed, some days that ball bounces the other way, some days you face better talent.  The fact this team is 1 of 5 teams in high-major NCAA Division 1 (Kansas, Kentucky, Purdue, Baylor) basketball who have not lost a game by double digits speaks volumes to how well prepared, coached, etc, this team has been - as there are nights where things just don't go your way, you play a more talented opponent, etc.  The fact that you feel it is acceptable to be critical of a team even if they were to go 29 -1 (lose their last game to ND) is really short-sighted, and shows a lack of perspective.

if all we care about is exceeding expectations or the overall body of work, why even watch the games? your previous 20 wins dont get you a pass for your next game.  if MU goes undefeated and then loses the ND game in this way, that doesnt make the criticism any more or less valid.

[MUBurrow]

again, ad hominem and straw man.

But the rarity of undefeated teams doesn't mean that losses cant be examined and criticized.  I actually think this knee-jerk defense of the team at all times is remarkably defeatist and ironically pessimistic.  If we want to agree that this team CAN beat any team on any given night, why would we not discuss why they didn't on nights when they lose?

[NersEllenson]

again, ad hominem and straw man.

But the rarity of undefeated teams doesn't mean that losses cant be examined and criticized.  I actually think this knee-jerk defense of the team at all times is remarkably defeatist and ironically pessimistic.  If we want to agree that this team CAN beat any team on any given night, why would we not discuss why they didn't on nights when they lose?

My argument may be ad hominem, but that does not make it necessarily false.  You have not denied that you were not a high-school, varsity-level, basektball player.  I'm not being elitist or anything, just because I played varsity high school ball...as many people have, however, there is a reason most basketball coaches and color commentators are former players - either on the professional or collegiate level - and in few cases at very least the High School level.  There may be the occasional exception to this, but it skews in large favor to the former player - with regard to expertise regarding the respective sport they played or coach.  Also, could you explain what is "ironically pessimistic," about supporting a team even in defeat?  There is a difference between being a pessimist and realist for sure - and being a realist, one realizes it is ridiculous to expect a team such as this year's MU team to go undefeated...therefore it seems unnecessary to criticize and dissect the losses.

[Doctor V]

My argument may be ad hominem, but that does not make it necessarily false.  You have not denied that you were not a high-school, varsity-level, basektball player.  I'm not being elitist or anything, just because I played varsity high school ball...as many people have, however, there is a reason most basketball coaches and color commentators are former players - either on the professional or collegiate level - and in few cases at very least the High School level.  There may be the occasional exception to this, but it skews in large favor to the former player - with regard to expertise regarding the respective sport they played or coach.  Also, could you explain what is "ironically pessimistic," about supporting a team even in defeat?  There is a difference between being a pessimist and realist for sure - and being a realist, one realizes it is ridiculous to expect a team such as this year's MU team to go undefeated...therefore it seems unnecessary to criticize and dissect the losses.

I know you said "most" and I'm not trying to stir things up, but isn't Buzz one of those that never played the game? Just wondering. Also, I believe this 'lack' of experience of his was a huge reason many people nearly crap a brick during his signing

Am I allowed to say that? 

[pillardean]

again, ad hominem and straw man.

I like how you use the logical fallacies in an argument.  I will use one as well, non-sequitur. I will get back to this point later.

The "knee jerk" you reference stems from the argument which originally implied Buzz being a bad coach for not fouling at the end and Brey being a good coach for fouling at the end.  The "foul at end" for people came out in droves and argued the two circumstances.  "One fouled, one didn't-look at the outcome and judge for yourself.  Thus because of this, Buzz is an awful in-game coach."  

Who is committing the fallacy?  

You are taking a microcosm of the game and using it to express the whole.  You cannot deny the fallacy there.  

Perhaps I am misinterpreting or not understanding what was being said earlier.  
Perhaps you are only referencing ONLY the end of the game where Buzz may "suffer" in his in game coaching.  

If that is what you mean and you use the argument that what Brey and ND did at the end of the game on your arguments behalf to criticize the end of game coaching of Buzz you are wrong, for this is where the non-sequitur occurs.  Hell, the conclusion that Buzz should have fouled may be a correct one, but your premise that Brey and ND did it when it came to their decision and then realizing the outcome (an ND win) is wrong.  They were two completely different circumstances!  One got the ball with 16 seconds, the other 6.  One had the ball at halfcourt with under five seconds, the ball was in the air and then tapped out with under five seconds.  One could have easily shot the ball if a foul was coming, one was dribbling full speed at half court.  Completely Different circumstances.  How do you not see that?  Did you not watch the game?  

Again, this "knee jerk" stems from this unqualified argument that Brey and ND did it properly while Buzz and MU didn't.  There is no evidence to prove either way and the evidence cited is just fallacious.

I am not a proponent for the foul at the end of a game as I am not a proponent for the do not foul, I have not done enough research.  I am just stating the facts.  If you cannot see that, then your vision is skewed by your beliefs.

[MUBurrow]

i don't understand why a particular criticism has to be expanded beyond the circumstances.  the non-sequitur in your argument is that I "implied Buzz being a bad coach for not fouling at the end"

When I mentioned that we were outcoached, it doesn't come from just the fouling argument. Of course, thats a big one. But also, why did we put the best free throw shooter in the conference on the line three times in a row? I also disagreed with Buzz's timeout usage down the stretch in overtime.  These are things that just need to be better.

Why, because I disagree with the end of game management, am I "taking a microcosm of the game and using it to express the whole" ?

I really enjoy breaking down particular points of basketball games and getting into what could have been done differently and how that might have effected the outcome. Its like Bobby Knight has said, his favorite part of coaching is taking all of these different kids and essentially playing chess against the other coach. To me, one of the most enjoyable parts about sports is doing that from my couch.  Then, i get to see responses to that here.  I'm not searching to go on a crusade against Buzz. I love Buzz. I love his dances and his techs and his honesty and his recruiting and some of his decisions.  The decisions are the least personal of all these.  Hell, I thought the Saints decisions in the Super Bowl were terrible, but look where that got them.  Still fun to discuss and criticize over nachos and beer though.

[MUBurrow]

the same way that Ners cited all of those factors as to why you sometimes just lose, why can't you just sometimes get outcoached?

[pillardean]

the same way that Ners cited all of those factors as to why you sometimes just lose, why can't you just sometimes get outcoached?

Exactly and vice versa.

I said you can't take a look at the final minute to say Buzz is bad in-game coach because you forget about the previous 39.  And you may be correct in saying that Buzz isn't the best ingame coach but you can't do that by looking solely at the final minute. 

I love analyzing that is why I brought up the points I did.  People can see the same thing and come up with two completely differing answers.  And then we bang our heads against walls to try and convince the others.

I love it.

[Mike Deane's Seat Belt]

mudimitri could not be more dead on about that, the kick out was the most brutal part of all of that!\

who cares what level basketball you played,,,, some of the guys on here that feel like they have increased credibility b/c they played "VARSITY" level basketball im sure would not have played for some of the local area mps teams back in their day either. I'll give you the argument about playing high level sports in general , but just because it was basketball and not soccer or football or anything else means nothing when you are talking about the breakdown of game strategy.

[NersEllenson]

I know you said "most" and I'm not trying to stir things up, but isn't Buzz one of those that never played the game? Just wondering. Also, I believe this 'lack' of experience of his was a huge reason many people nearly crap a brick during his signing

Am I allowed to say that? 

I believe Buzz played in High School..which is certainly less than most D-1 coaches, whom have played at least college ball.  The fact there was the outcry against Buzz considering his lack of playing experience, speaks to the belief (whether right or wrong) that the more basketball a coach has played, the more he is qualified to know about the game.  I guess my defense in this is that we have armchair fans who dissect the games in hindsight, and say we should have done this/that/etc..Hindsight is always 100%.  I just feel that if Buzz did employ the foul strategy and it backfired..meaning team makes first, misses 2nd and grabs rebound and scores to tie the game...there would be outcry against that too.  To me, big-picture wise in athletics..somedays you win, some days you lose..but considering this team has yet to lose a game by double digits speaks volumes to the quality of coaching..therefore, I'm not going to dissect or be critical of the coaching..particularily not in hindsight.

[Marquette84]

I just feel that if Buzz did employ the foul strategy and it backfired..meaning team makes first, misses 2nd and grabs rebound and scores to tie the game...there would be outcry against that too.  

Not likely.  Here's why:

Think of all the times you've seen the foul/made FT/intentional miss/rebound/putback sequence.

Now think of all the times you've seen a game-winning or game-tying shot from 3 point land.

I think most fans would correctly conclude that if Buzz had called for the foul in that situation, and ND successfully executed the foul/made FT/intentional miss/rebound/putback sequence, they would chalk it up to ND being INCREDIBLY lucky--not the wrong coaching move.

The reason why people are critical of the decision is that it didn't play into the odds.  We've see MU lose several games this year already on last second shots.  I can't remember the last time we were on either end of a successful foul/made FT/intentional miss/rebound/putback sequence.

Can you?

[pillardean]

Not likely.  Here's why:

Think of all the times you've seen the foul/made FT/intentional miss/rebound/putback sequence.

Now think of all the times you've seen a game-winning or game-tying shot from 3 point land.

I think most fans would correctly conclude that if Buzz had called for the foul in that situation, and ND successfully executed the foul/made FT/intentional miss/rebound/putback sequence, they would chalk it up to ND being INCREDIBLY lucky--not the wrong coaching move.

The reason why people are critical of the decision is that it didn't play into the odds.  We've see MU lose several games this year already on last second shots.  I can't remember the last time we were on either end of a successful foul/made FT/intentional miss/rebound/putback sequence.

Can you?

This situation is completely different than the usual...should you foul with less than 10 second or whatever variable number it is, circumstance.

Why can't people see that?

When were you looking for the foul?  When they were driving down with more than 10 seconds?  After it was in the corner and Abro trapped?

WHen?

Tip back?  Who would have fouled there? 

[Lennys Tap]

Not likely.  Here's why:

Think of all the times you've seen the foul/made FT/intentional miss/rebound/putback sequence.

Now think of all the times you've seen a game-winning or game-tying shot from 3 point land.

I think most fans would correctly conclude that if Buzz had called for the foul in that situation, and ND successfully executed the foul/made FT/intentional miss/rebound/putback sequence, they would chalk it up to ND being INCREDIBLY lucky--not the wrong coaching move.

The reason why people are critical of the decision is that it didn't play into the odds.  We've see MU lose several games this year already on last second shots.  I can't remember the last time we were on either end of a successful foul/made FT/intentional miss/rebound/putback sequence.

Can you?

We have lost 3 games this year on last second shots - FSU, WVU and DePaul. All were TWO point shots so the foul/play defense  discussion is irrelevant in each case. Assuming a team has big inside players (we don't) I'd say always foul under 5 seconds.

[NersEllenson]

We have lost 3 games this year on last second shots - FSU, WVU and DePaul. All were TWO point shots so the foul/play defense  discussion is irrelevant in each case. Assuming a team has big inside players (we don't) I'd say always foul under 5 seconds.

Thanks for pointing that out..I did in a previous thread..everyone has gotten worked up about this foul/no foul thing...and it only applies to WVU and now ND to an extent.  I don't disagree with 84 that more things do need to happen for a team to tie on the foul/intentional miss/get rebound/make 2 point shot to tie..can't argue that point..and can't really argue that we didn't foul initially against ND..you can make a case for once the shot was missed..to foul anybody..immediately..hack the rebounder...BUT...you never know when a crazy referee such as Burr decides the foul is "intentional" and awards 2 shots and the ball..most likely wouldn't happen..but..it could.  Some have criticized Cooby for leaving the 3 point shooter...to be critical of that is ridiculous after a shot has been attempted.  There is almost NEVER a situation where you don't instinctually pursue a loose ball in a rebounding situation...and even more so at the end of regulation in a game like that...instincts are instincts..and Cooby actually got back to shooter and got a decent hand in his face.