Why is everyone so angry?

[MU82]

Exactly ... 82 sounds like those pathetic types that piss their money away on lottery tickets ... " you can't win if you don't play."

Yes, because the odds of a good FT shooter missing a FT are the exact same as winning Powerball.

Have you never seen a game in which missed FTs by one team helped the opponent come back to win?

You must really think Wojo is a moron for instructing his team to foul with 30 seconds left.

And, as I said in an earlier post, maybe the Warriors don't even foul if they play super-aggressive; maybe they get a steal or force a turnover. Wait. That's impossible, too. I mean, no Davidson player ever has panicked and thrown the ball away before he could get fouled. Besides, the odds against coming back from down 6 with a minute to go (and down 5 with 30 seconds to go) in an NCAA tourney game are worse than winning Powerball -- especially considering Davidson was among the national leaders in FT percentage and Marquette was an awful 3-point-shooting team -- so I can't believe Buzz, Jamil, Vander & Co. even bothered trying.

"We knew the game isn't over until the clock hits zero," said Blue, who obviously forgot to consult with Heisenberg on the proper laying-down strategy.

I'm done arguing with a dude who knows for a fact that a 91% FT shooter can't miss a FT ... just one day after a 91% FT shooter missed a FT.

Later.

[Tugg Speedman]

Yes, because the odds of a good FT shooter missing a FT are the exact same as winning Powerball.

Have you never seen a game in which missed FTs by one team helped the opponent come back to win?

You must really think Wojo is a moron for instructing his team to foul with 30 seconds left.

And, as I said in an earlier post, maybe the Warriors don't even foul if they play super-aggressive; maybe they get a steal or force a turnover. Wait. That's impossible, too. I mean, no Davidson player ever has panicked and thrown the ball away before he could get fouled. Besides, the odds against coming back from down 6 with a minute to go (and down 5 with 30 seconds to go) in an NCAA tourney game are worse than winning Powerball -- especially considering Davidson was among the national leaders in FT percentage and Marquette was an awful 3-point-shooting team -- so I can't believe Buzz, Jamil, Vander & Co. even bothered trying.

"We knew the game isn't over until the clock hits zero," said Blue, who obviously forgot to consult with Heisenberg on the proper laying-down strategy.

I'm done arguing with a dude who knows for a fact that a 91% FT shooter can't miss a FT ... just one day after a 91% FT shooter missed a FT.

Later.

Again your arguing for something that has a very low change of working (causing a team to come back from 6 down with less than a minute) and getting worked up that this was a fatal error that lead to the loss.

This was not why we loss, so clam down.

[mattyv1908]

Again your arguing for something that has a very low change of working (causing a team to come back from 6 down with less than a minute) and getting worked up that this was a fatal error that lead to the loss.

This was not why we loss, so clam down.

I seem to remember the 1983 NC State team pulled 5 of these games out of their 9 game streak to win an NCAA championship.

It may not be why we lost, but it 100% contributed to why we didn't win.

[MarquetteDano]

We only had 3 team fouls. We needed to get super-aggressive and go for steals -- and if we committed some slapping fouls in the process that would have been fine, too. We needed the ball and we needed fouls so we could get them in the 1-and-1. Instead, Bucky dribbled away 30 seconds,Kaminsky hit his 3 and Duane missed another wild runner. Only then, with 30 seconds left and trailing by 8, did we start fouling. By the time we got them to the line, there were only 28 seconds left.

Not saying right or wrong, but I think Wojo was thinking that if we played aggressive and potentially foul we are giving them new shot clocks each time.  Even if only 2-3 seconds go off the clock each time that is another 12 seconds or so that are gone.

In his mind at that point, play good d and if they miss we have the ball only down 6 with about 1 minute to go.  Then we score a quick one and can start fouling if need be.

He traded about 20 seconds of clock for a one and one at that point (35- 15 for the fouling).  Which would then give us one more "one and one" later in the game as you only get three.

[Tugg Speedman]

Not saying right or wrong, but I think Wojo was thinking that if we played aggressive and potentially foul we are giving them new shot clocks each time.  Even if only 2-3 seconds go off the clock each time that is another 12 seconds or so that are gone.

In his mind at that point, play good d and if they miss we have the ball only down 6 with about 1 minute to go.  Then we score a quick one and can start fouling if need be.

He traded about 20 seconds of clock for a one and one at that point (35- 15 for the fouling).  Which would then give us one more "one and one" later in the game as you only get three.

Thanks for this ... Wojo electing not to foul was not a braincramp on his part (as Matty and 82 want us to believe), it was part of a reasonable strategy.  Yes it did not work ....

I seem to remember the 1983 NC State team pulled 5 of these games out of their 9 game streak to win an NCAA championship.
It may not be why we lost, but it 100% contributed to why we didn't win.

You had to go back 31 years to find an example!  You're making my point that fouling when down 6 is like winning the lottery.  If not, find me some examples from last weekend where fouling down 6 with less than a minute worked.  How about the week before?  Going back to a previous generation proves the point it rarely if ever works.

For it to work, four things have to go right  1) a FT miss, 2) a quick three by us, 3) a quick foul and another front-end of 1-1 miss 4) another quick 3 by us.  Yesterday we got 1 of these 4 things to happen (front-end 1-1 miss) and not the other three.  It was not going to work.

So, it did not 100% contribute to the loss yesterday.  Playing for a defensive stop was as good a strategy as this hopeless long-shot.

(Fouling when down 1 or 2 with less than a minute has plenty of examples of working, down 6 is so rare and you have to go to a previous generation to find an example).

[brandx]

Again your arguing for something that has a very low change of working (causing a team to come back from 6 down with less than a minute) and getting worked up that this was a fatal error that lead to the loss.

This was not why we loss, so clam down.

First off, a low chance of working is much better than NO chance of working.

Secondly, he didn't say it led to a loss. He said there was a slight chance that it could have led to a victory.

[Tugg Speedman]

First off, a low chance of working is much better than NO chance of working.

Secondly, he didn't say it led to a loss. He said there was a slight chance that it could have led to a victory.

The alternative is playing for defensive stop, not fouling or nothing (which is what is being suggested).  Why was playing for a defensive stop such a terrible idea?

[MUfan12]

The alternative is playing for defensive stop, not fouling or nothing (which is what is being suggested).  Why was playing for a defensive stop such a terrible idea?

Because they were getting killed on the offensive glass.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Hberg,

Even Wojo said postgame he made a mistake. You are right that Wojo didn't brain cramp, he made what he thought was a good decision. But 95% of college basketball coaches would have told their guys to foul in that situation. Looking back on it, Wojo admitted that he made the wrong decision. Happens all the time. Our coaches aren't perfect. You are right, this isn't the reason we lost, not by a long shot, but it certainly didn't help us.

[brandx]

The alternative is playing for defensive stop, not fouling or nothing (which is what is being suggested).  Why was playing for a defensive stop such a terrible idea?

I don't mean to attack you Heisenberg. As I watched the last few minutes I thought the same thing as you even though I knew the reality - a good chance they would rebound their own miss, the slim chance we would score quick back-to-back 3s against a good defensive team after watching our performance - was extremely unlikely.

There is a reason coaches almost always have their teams foul in situations like this. While it isn't successful very often, it really does give you the best odds.