another example of fouling up 3 gone bad

[MerrittsMustache]

It's funny, in listening to the game on the radio, the analyst on Sunday for Pitt vs Xavier was Pete Gillen (former Xavier coach)....he said to foul when Xavier was up 3 on Pitt.

Last night's game on the radio, not sure who the analyst was, but another former coach, also said to foul.

Both games on the Westwood One Radio Network

Go figure.

Xavier chose not to foul...but they won anyway.

I think it's become pretty clear that there's no right or wrong way to handle that situation. It's the coach's preference. If MU had come away with the errant shot they forced at the end of the ND game, this thread probably wouldn't exist.

[jmayer1]

So did someone else that hasn't exactly impressed many of late....

Really?  I thought there was a pretty strict no politics rule here.

On point: I am in favor of fouling but it clearly is not a cut and dried case as some make it out to be.  I would have to guess it is close to 50/50 in terms of college coaches who foul and college coaches who don't. 

It seems like more coaches foul in the NBA but I would think that's the result of having so many great shooters. 

Of course, I have no hard data to back up either of those guesses.

[NersEllenson]

The best part of the strategy failing KState was the reaction of Frank Martin.  Put him in a class with Bobby Gonzalez as the MOST ANNOYING coach in High-Major Ball.  Not surprised he's a Huggins disciple.  That guy just screams..DOUCHE.

And yes, Len Elmore was annoyingly in favor of KState last night....it actually shocked me in some ways that he was so pro-KState.

[cheebs09]

Well Frank is in a class by himself now because our buddy Gonzo is no longer a high major coach.

I think this just shows that there is no one set of rules. We might not always win playing straight up defense, but also not everyone wins when fouling. I like Buzz's reasoning of us not being the greatest rebounding team. The part of the fouling strategy is you can lose the game as we saw with Mississippi State when Wall almost won the game on a 3 pointer. I just think that making the team come down and rush quickly to try to find a 3 point shot, leads to many rushed, contested shots or sometimes not even getting a shot up. The problem with us is that not only were our rebounders small, but the guys guarding the 3 were also small so when Acker and Cooby would contest the 3's, the shooter still was able to get a decent look off them.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Xavier chose not to foul...but they won anyway.

I think it's become pretty clear that there's no right or wrong way to handle that situation. It's the coach's preference. If MU had come away with the errant shot they forced at the end of the ND game, this thread probably wouldn't exist.

I think I've said something similar....two schools of thought....neither one is a slam dunk case....some coaches like it and some coaches don't.  I prefer to foul, others do not.  I've shown two studies that suggest fouling is the way to go.  Someone else presented a study that said the opposite.

[muhoosier260]

Incorrect.  The team wanted to foul.  They executed that plan.  They have no control over whether or not the ref decides to properly call the foul.  The ref failed his job and missed the foul before the shot.  That's not a "stupid play" on KSU's side. 

Its a bonehead play b/c as the clock ticked down and xavier got closer to the three point line, its obvious he's going to attempt a three. I realize the amount of time between when the first 'foul' wasn't called and when xavier attempted a three was mb 1 or 2 seconds, but at that point when the foul wasn't called, JUST PLAY DEFENSE. That is stupid.
They didn't execute the plan, b/c the plan was not to send xavier to the line for a chance to tie the game, it was to foul to send them to the line for 2. If I'm Frank Martin and I make up my mind that I'm going to foul, I'm doing it right at half-court, not at the hash mark which is what happened...even if it puts an extra two or three seconds on the clock. Then I tell the team, if you can't foul them at half-court, play straight up and make xavier hit a tough shot. Admittedly, hindsight is 20/20, but that is what these guys get paid to do.
By fouling and not playing defense, you're putting the game in the hands of the ref. It doesn't make sense to me why you would want to do that.

[mu_hilltopper]

Its a bonehead play b/c as the clock ticked down and xavier got closer to the three point line, its obvious he's going to attempt a three.

They didn't execute the plan, b/c the plan was not to send xavier to the line for a chance to tie the game, it was to foul to send them to the line for 2. If I'm Frank Martin and I make up my mind that I'm going to foul, I'm doing it right at half-court, not at the hash mark which is what happened...even if it puts an extra two or three seconds on the clock. Then I tell the team, if you can't foul them at half-court, play straight up and make xavier hit a tough shot. Admittedly, hindsight is 20/20, but that is what these guys get paid to do.
By fouling and not playing defense, you're putting the game in the hands of the ref. It doesn't make sense to me why you would want to do that.

Disagree.  The coach can only control his players, not the ref.  The players executed the plan.

And I'm not sure where you're getting that they weren't playing defense, like they had just laid down.  5 guys were on the court, they were defending -- and fouled the opposition twice -- and they did, as you say "make xavier hit a tough shot" .. as witnessed by the fact that they did NOT hit a shot at all.

Oh, and gosh.  The winning coach agreed with that strategy, and called exactly that.

[Fullodds]

I thought that refs were the worst I've seen in the tourney/Sweet 16 in a long time. Xavier caught a break but they got hosed throughout the game in my opinion.

Also, Jacob Pullen has really come a long long way. His progression from a junior in high school to a senior in college reminds me of Jerel's progression. Excellent game overall.

[muhoosier260]

Disagree.  The coach can only control his players, not the ref.  The players executed the plan.

And I'm not sure where you're getting that they weren't playing defense, like they had just laid down.  5 guys were on the court, they were defending -- and fouled the opposition twice -- and they did, as you say "make xavier hit a tough shot" .. as witnessed by the fact that they did NOT hit a shot at all.

Oh, and gosh.  The winning coach agreed with that strategy, and called exactly that.

If you gleaned that I said they laid down then you missed my point. After the initial no call they should've played defense which they didn't do b/c they fouled on the three. agree to disagree i guess.

[mu_hilltopper]

If you gleaned that I said they laid down then you missed my point. After the initial no call they should've played defense which they didn't do b/c they fouled on the three. agree to disagree i guess.

Sorry to belabor the point, but that's just not what happened. 

 "After the initial no call they should've played defense which they didn't do because they fouled on the three."??  .. The initial no-call was 1 .. maybe 2 seconds prior to the 3 attempt.    They didn't stop doing anything in those 1-2 seconds.  And how do you get "not playing defense" from "because they fouled on the three"?    Contesting (and touching) a guy shooting a 3 does not equal "not playing defense."

[muhoosier260]

in that situation the way i see it is you either foul, or play defense, and thus not foul. they fouled after the initial no call when they should not have, thats all i'm saying. i know it was 2 seconds after, i watched the replay before posting days ago, and its hard to make the perfect defensive play in that circumstance, but ksu made about the worst play.