So....What are we ranked on Monday - 1/6/2025?

[PGsHeroes32]

I like it. Even though they are only two spots ahead of us, I don't think us beating DePaul (assuming we do) would be enough to pass them. They have a pretty sizeable lead in votes and losing to Virginia even at home likely doesn't cost them that much.

Agreed. They play at Duke next Wednesday tho so that's probably another loss.

Unfortunately we gotta win 3 games ourselves for that to matter tho

[SaveOD238]

Yes they do. They measure talent and compare the talent between teams.

Again, the model predicted after 40 minutes that the margin would be 1 point. Instead it was 0. That's accurate.

You don't use a service like KenPom to say that "this team will definitely win". You use it to determine a probability. The probability for this one was a coin flip. And it went to overtime, in other words, a coin flip. It was much more accurate than your eye test was on this game. Unless you expect us to believe that "KANSAS WILL WIN PERIOD" meant that you thought that they would need OT to be what you consider an obviously inferior team.

It's not worth it, man.  People just don't understand how statistics and probabilities work.  No amount of message-board yammering will get that across.  Send them a stats textbook instead.

As for me, I will trust the numbers.

[Spaniel with a Short Tail]

[CountryRoads]

Teams around MU:

Badgers lose to #11 MSU. Wonder how much higher Seth Davis will rank UW after that loss.

#5 UK absolutely robbed against LSU on a last second shot (was offensive goaltending).

[PGsHeroes32]

Teams around MU:

Badgers lose to #11 MSU. Wonder how much higher Seth Davis will rank UW after that loss.

#5 UK absolutely robbed against LSU on a last second shot (was offensive goaltending).

No it wasn't.

Plus they robbed themselves. Idiotic basketball by them late

[wadesworld]

No it wasn't.

Plus they robbed themselves. Idiotic basketball by them late

Didn't look like it from the normal camera angle, but the camera above the backboard showed the ball was clearly still on the rim. But it was a very awkward tip in/very quick so hard to make that call live, and not something you can review.

[brewcity77]

#5 UK absolutely robbed against LSU on a last second shot (was offensive goaltending).

It was absolutely not offensive goaltending. NCAA Rule 9-17.5 on goaltending specifically states "it is goaltending when the ball is touched by a player as long as it has a possibility of entering the basket ." The ball had clearly bounced off the rim away from the basket. Refs got it right, no question.

[muguru]

It was absolutely not offensive goaltending. NCAA Rule 9-17.5 on goaltending specifically states "it is goaltending when the ball is touched by a player as long as it has a possibility of entering the basket ." The ball had clearly bounced off the rim away from the basket. Refs got it right, no question.

Brew is 100% right here. The call was correct. Cal and Ky fans will cry forever about that one..but thats just being a sore loser.

[jsglow]

Michigan got absolutely 'handled' by a very bad Penn State team.  That loss is going to leave a big mark.  The bloom is definitely off that rose.

[Mike Deane's Seat Belt]

how bout that blown blowout by Lou,  man I was loving duke getting smashed but they came back and won!!!!

[StillAWarrior]

It was absolutely not offensive goaltending. NCAA Rule 9-17.5 on goaltending specifically states "it is goaltending when the ball is touched by a player as long as it has a possibility of entering the basket ." The ball had clearly bounced off the rim away from the basket. Refs got it right, no question.

How do they interpret that "possibility of entering the basket?"  In the shots from above, it definitely looked like the ball was over the cylinder when tipped.  I don't think it would have gone in because it was bouncing away from the basket, but I don't know that I'd say there was no possibility.  I always thought that if it was over the cylinder, they called goal tending.  But I'm not sure that's in the rules.  Does that mean if someone bricks a three off the back of the rim -- one of those long rebounds that is going to bounce all the way back to the free throw line -- that someone could theoretically grab it over the cylinder and put it in since you can tell by the way it bounces that there's no way it's going in?

Not trying to be argumentative, honestly asking.

[StillAWarrior]

It was absolutely not offensive goaltending. NCAA Rule 9-17.5 on goaltending specifically states "it is goaltending when the ball is touched by a player as long as it has a possibility of entering the basket ." The ball had clearly bounced off the rim away from the basket. Refs got it right, no question.

Looking at what I think is the applicable rule.  It appears clear that it is not "goaltending" because the applicable definition seems to be only a defensive violation (I didn't know that), when the ball is on a downward flight with a possibility of going in.  Since this wasn't a defensive player and since the ball wasn't on a downward flight, it couldn't be "goaltending."

But what about "basket interference?"  One of definitions of basket interference is "touches the ball while any part of it is within the cylinder that has the ring as its lower base."  Nothing in there about possibility of going in.  And it honestly looked to me like the ball was in the cylinder when touched.

All of this should be moot, though because there was also defensive goaltending on Kentucky on the initial shot.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Looking at what I think is the applicable rule.  It appears clear that it is not "goaltending" because the applicable definition seems to be only a defensive violation (I didn't know that), when the ball is on a downward flight with a possibility of going in.  Since this wasn't a defensive player and since the ball wasn't on a downward flight, it couldn't be "goaltending."

But what about "basket interference?"  One of definitions of basket interference is "touches the ball while any part of it is within the cylinder that has the ring as its lower base."  Nothing in there about possibility of going in.  And it honestly looked to me like the ball was in the cylinder when touched.

All of this should be moot, though because there was also defensive goaltending on Kentucky on the initial shot.

You are correct. In college basketball goaltending can only be committed by a defensive player. Basket interference can be called on offensive or defensive players. Looking at the replay, that absolutely was an offensive basket interference. Can't touch the ball while any part of it is within the cylinder.

I didn't see defensive goaltending on Kentucky, I did see possible defensive basket interference when Montgomery slapped the backboard on his follow through on the block attempt. To be honest, I almost never see refs call that.

What I don't know is if goaltending/basketball interference is reviewable. Could be one of those things where the refs saw the violation but couldn't do anything about it because it was a non-reviewable play.

[Spotcheck Billy]

Morrow got screwed on the goaltending call last night. The replays sure looked like he batted it against the glass before the ball had hit anything.

[StillAWarrior]

What I don't know is if goaltending/basketball interference is reviewable. Could be one of those things where the refs saw the violation but couldn't do anything about it because it was a non-reviewable play.

It is not reviewable.  All they could look at was the clock.

Actually, I probably "misspoke."  The Kentucky player arguably committed basket interference, not goaltending.  On the initial shot, he reached up through the net and rim.  But looking closer at the rule, it's not clear to me that it's a violation as long as the doesn't touch the ball and the ball is not in the cylinder.  It might not have been interference.  But someone also slapped the backboard which did seem to make it shake.  So that also could have been called interference.  Lots of potential calls that were not made on that play.  The best footage I've found is here -- starting at 0:20.

[brewcity77]

If that's basket interference, then 99% of all putback dunks are basket interference. Watching the replay the ball had no chance of going through. Kentucky fans want to complain because it cost them the game, but did they ever complain when any of their players slammed a ball back in that was clearly not going to score? Of course not.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

It is not reviewable.  All they could look at was the clock.

Actually, I probably "misspoke."  The Kentucky player arguably committed basket interference, not goaltending.  On the initial shot, he reached up through the net and rim.  But looking closer at the rule, it's not clear to me that it's a violation as long as the doesn't touch the ball and the ball is not in the cylinder.  It might not have been interference.  But someone also slapped the backboard which absolutely did send it shaking.  So that also could have been called interference.  Lots of potential calls that were not made on that play.

I saw that guy reaching through the bucket too. I honestly couldn't tell if I was actually seeing that right or if was just the crappy replay stream. I didn't catch it until watching the replay a few times

[StillAWarrior]

If that's basket interference, then 99% of all putback dunks are basket interference. Watching the replay the ball had no chance of going through. Kentucky fans want to complain because it cost them the game, but did they ever complain when any of their players slammed a ball back in that was clearly not going to score? Of course not.

I agree with you.  And, honestly, I have to say that I'm OK with the refs not making one of several calls that technically could have been made at that point. 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

If that's basket interference, then 99% of all putback dunks are basket interference. Watching the replay the ball had no chance of going through. Kentucky fans want to complain because it cost them the game, but did they ever complain when any of their players slammed a ball back in that was clearly not going to score? Of course not.

I wouldn't say 99% but yes, it doesn't get called on a lot of putback dunks. The one last night was pretty clear IMHO, over 50% of the ball was inside the cylinder. But you are absolutely right, the game did not come down to that call and the refs also missed a call on their end during the final shot. More importantly, don't put yourself in a position where one missed call loses the game for you.

LSU won fair and square. Missed calls are a part of the game. And Kentucky tears are my third favorite kind of tears behind Bucky and ND (Sucks) tears.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Here's the thing though, before the put back on the initial shot a Kentucky defender puts his hand through the hoop and touches the rim as well.

That right there is goaltending, but they weren't gonna call that one in Rupp. Hard to tell if the putback is basket interference just because of the arbitrary rules but it probably evened out at the end.

[lawdog77]

Bilas said on the radio today, the Kentucky hand through the.net would not be a goaltending because the ball was not.in the cylinder, unless the rim/backboard was wobbling

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Here's the thing though, before the put back on the initial shot a Kentucky defender puts his hand through the hoop and touches the rim as well.

That right there is goaltending, but they weren't gonna call that one in Rupp. Hard to tell if the putback is basket interference just because of the arbitrary rules but it probably evened out at the end.

It's not goaltending. He never touched the ball.

Art. 3. Goaltending

a. Goaltending occurs when a defensive player touches the ball during a
field-goal try and each of the following conditions is met: (Exceptions:
Rule 10-4.1.h)
1. The ball is on its downward flight; and
2. The ball is above the level of the ring and has the possibility, while in
flight, of entering the basket and is not touching the cylinder.
b. It is goaltending to touch the ball outside the cylinder during a free throw,
regardless of whether the free throw is on its upward or downward flight.
c. When the ball contacts the backboard and any part of the ball is above
the rim during a field goal attempt, it is considered to be on its downward
flight. In such a case, it is goaltending when the ball is touched by a player
as long as it has a possibility of entering the basket.

It's not basket interference either

2. Basket interference
a. Basket interference occurs when a player:
1. Touches the ball or any part of the basket while the ball is on or within
the basket;
2. Touches the ball while any part of it is within the cylinder that has the
ring as its lower base;
3. Reaches through the basket from below and touches the ball before it
enters the cylinder;
4. Pulls down a movable ring so that it contacts the ball before the ring
returns to its original position, and
5. Causes the basket or backboard to vibrate when the ball is on or within
the basket or the backboard and/or is on or in the cylinder.
b. The cylinder is the imaginary geometric figure that has the ring as its base
and is formed by the upward extension of that ring.
c. The ball shall be considered to be within the basket when any part of the
ball is below the cylinder and the level of the ring.
d. A player may have a hand legally in contact with the ball, when this
contact continues after the ball enters the cylinder or when, during such
action, the player touches or grabs the basket.

You can put your hand through the basket, you just can't touch the ball or make the basket vibrate while the ball is on or within the cylinder.

Now they may have gotten them on #5. Washington definitely slaps the backboard and the ball seemed to be in the cylinder when that occured. That is basket interference

[Nukem2]

MU up to 19 from 21 in NET.  Bucky down to 15 from 11.

[MU82]

Bilas said on the radio today, the Kentucky hand through the.net would not be a goaltending because the ball was not.in the cylinder, unless the rim/backboard was wobbling

Did Bilas think it was offensive interference? I did. Ball seemed clearly in the cylinder to me. But I certainly don't blame the refs for not being able to call that in real time, and replay system doesn't allow it to be overturned.

[StillAWarrior]

Bilas said on the radio today, the Kentucky hand through the.net would not be a goaltending because the ball was not.in the cylinder, unless the rim/backboard was wobbling

Actually, if you look at the video, two Kentucky players went up.  One went through the net/rim.  The other slapped the backboard which did, in my opinion, cause the backboard/rim to wobble.  Best look at it starts at about 0:20.