No foul up 3, again!

[Its DJOver]

Again, no one has said that fouling will work 100% of the time, so I'm not sure why an example of when a team fouled and won is being brought up.  Cowan is a 80% ft shooter and Nebraska has a 44% three point shooter on their team (with a solid sample size of over 3.5 attempts per game too).  Survey says, put the ball in Cowan's hand's and don't even let the 44% three point shooter get a chance to tie it. 

Side note; solid game for Haani.

[94Warrior]

He didn't shoot at 8 seconds either.  If you don't believe in the strategy that is fine, but you don't have to embellish the clock to make your point.  No shot takes 4 seconds. 

Simply stated we lost that game because of poor execution, and would have lost the X game for the same reason, if not for Koby and Sacar's heroics.  Time to move on.

[We R Final Four]

Hes always been on board with it.

Providence was not a botched opportunity. They started the possession with like 20 something seconds left. And the dude launched the prayer with like 12 seconds left.

It happened to go in.

Why do you say 12 seconds when he didn't even receive the pass til under 6 seconds??

[94Warrior]

Why do you say 12 seconds when he didn't even receive the pass til under 6 seconds??

That's what I'd like to know.

I point out that the shot goes through the net at :04, and the response is:  hmmm?  perhaps the shooter released the ball with :08 on the clock, as :12 just wouldn't make sense.   

Whatever , I'm just glad Wojo dedicated some practice time to it prior to the DePaul game.  Wish he would have  done so sooner, but at least he identified the problem and corrected it.

[MU82]

So ... we have concluded that Bruce Pearl and Pat Chambers are just plain wrong then, yes?

[94Warrior]

So ... we have concluded that Bruce Pearl and Pat Chambers are just plain wrong then, yes?

In most coach's eyes, YES!

You can agree with them if you like, you are entitled to your opinion.

[MU82]

In most coach's eyes, YES!

You can agree with them if you like, you are entitled to your opinion.

I think it's a case-by-case deal, FWIW. If I am playing a team that doesn't shoot the 3 well, and our defense is really playing well, I don't foul up 3. If I am playing a team that knocks down lots of 3s, I probably foul up 3. That's how Calipari does it.

I would like to see a survey showing what most college coaches do. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just like to see the survey. I believe KenPom said it was close which strategy gives the best mathematical chance of winning, with a slight edge to not fouling?

[We R Final Four]

6.7 seconds and holding the ball at the top of the key...hasn't passed yet.

[MU82]

6.7 seconds and holding the ball at the top of the key...hasn't passed yet.

Thank you for providing this visual evidence. It definitely was way less than the folks in denial had been saying. We had ample opportunity to foul there had Wojo chosen to do so.

Like Wojo (and Pearl and Chambers and Majerus and many others), I wouldn't have fouled there.

Providence ended up with an extremely low-percentage shot -- a contested 3 by a 23.6% 3-point shooter who was fading away from the basket, a guy who had attempted only 3 shots all game to that point and had missed his first two attempts from deep.

[We R Final Four]

Hindsight is certainly 20/20.

I wonder if Wojo forced his defense to allow PC's 25% shooter to shoot the ball OR did Cooley draw up a play for Duke (I believe) with staggered screens SPECIFICALLY to get him a shot?
Why in the world would Cooley draw up in the last few seconds to get his 25% 3 point shooter, who was 0-2 on the night, the game tying shot?
Yet, he did.
It wasn't a terrible shot as you want to make it out to be. It was a desperation heave. It was a designed play and it worked.
Not fouling in this situation stole defeat from the hands of victory, and I am thrilled that Wojo has improved his coaching style and approach.

[MU82]

Hindsight is certainly 20/20.

I wonder if Wojo forced his defense to allow PC's 25% shooter to shoot the ball OR did Cooley draw up a play for Duke (I believe) with staggered screens SPECIFICALLY to get him a shot?
Why in the world would Cooley draw up in the last few seconds to get his 25% 3 point shooter, who was 0-2 on the night, the game tying shot?
Yet, he did.
It wasn't a terrible shot as you want to make it out to be. It was a desperation heave. It was a designed play and it worked.
Not fouling in this situation stole defeat from the hands of victory, and I am thrilled that Wojo has improved his coaching style and approach.

Yep, the old "results prove it" model. I guess that means fouling in the exact same situation stole defeat from the hands of victory for UNC.

Look, I acknowledge that there are arguments for both strategies, as reflected by the fact that many good coaches choose one strategy while many other good coaches choose the other. The only thing you acknowledge is: "Nope. I'm right. Any coach who chooses not to foul up 3 is wrong."

So there's no need for us to keep going on this. You can have the last word if you want. Have a nice day.

[cheebs09]

The part of the Providence game that makes me ok that we didn't foul is the players would have to keep an eye on the clock and the action. The MU bench is on the other side of the court, so I'm not sure how easily they could yell to foul. Plus, the player with the ball has a heads up to shoot for a 3 pt foul.

I'd rather the players have a single focus in mind to play defense. I would foul if it is between 3-8 seconds and the team has to go full court. Then you can say, fouls once they cross half court.

[We R Final Four]

I'm just impressed that you knew the 3 pt % of the PC players on the floor in the last few seconds and were OK with Duke shooting that shot PRIOR to the shot. You knew he was 25% BEFORE he shot, you didn't learn that after the shot? Wow-Good job.
That would certainly not be a "results based model" then.

Your "nope I'm wrong, your right" statement is comical.