I just want us to go 1-0 four more times
The Sweet 16
- Status
I just want us to go 1-0 four more times
Yes. Ton of people dismissing it all season.
I’m as tired of Izzo’s Tactics as much as anybody…and I hate Fears; but I could probably live with Michigan State.
I could probably live with most anyone but Michigan. Which has a very good chance of happening; sadly.
AND not Iowa. For very different reasons.
We can’t have our dorky sniping step brother landing the prettiest girl in the school can we? I AM stoked they beat Golden & Florida…but they need to lose pretty soon.
At the same time…I’m torn because 25 years is far too long not to have a B1G natty champ.
This occurred right after a timeout, just like our UCLA game. Happens to others too….
Go back to the postgame threads after losses lol.
The gamble by Fland is absolutely ridiculous. And he wasn't particularly close to deflecting it either.
Stirtz had either a wide open three option (which happened) or if he kept going a shovel pass layup to Banks.
That’s even weirder:
Foul up 2? And Stirtz who’s 84% ?
Foul up 2? And Stirtz who’s 84% ?
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
Apparently Golden has a whole thing about fouling up 2. That's customary in Europe, fwiw. Don't risk a 3, don't risk an and-1, maybe they miss a FT, but worst case scenario you've got the ball and last shot, which if you trust your offense more than your defense is a net plus.
That getting in position to foul leaves you vulnerable to that sort of play leading to a 3 is an interesting wrinkle in those probabilities.
Poor excuse...On Hindsight , he knew he F*% up..
is this the college basketball version of letting the other football team score to have the ball last? seems really risky would love to see how they come to that decision
I don’t understand why Condon gets a technical here:
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
I mean it kinda depends on general offensive efficiency and a bit on the actual time on the clock, right?
Under, say, 5 seconds, you aren't leaving yourself enough time.
(Also, can you advance the ball with a timeout in Europe? That matters too)
But in a world where the offensive efficiency level is high, and you're selling out to make sure no one shoots a 3, the chances you're giving up 2 points via some means is pretty high, and there's still that 3 point play risk.
Fouling (assuming you actually foul successfully) essentially eliminates any risk of losing in regulation, and gives you the ball with a chance to win it.
In the 2005 Big Ten where nobody could make a shot, those probabilities don't add up, just play defense. But in the much more efficient modern game?
foby
- Bonnaroo Land
Flung him to the ground after the whistle blew.
The announcers had no idea what they were talking about lol. No punch thrown, no punch thought to be thrown.. Condon tugged him down and he was getting his balance. lol SEC bias is crazy.
Kind of. I'd say it's really more about minimizing risk. The thinking is that at worst, the game will go to overtime and theoretically, the longer a game goes on, the more likely it is that the superior team will win. (That logic hasn't played out in our favor this year.)
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
Yeah, Golden's argument would be that it's more like kicking an extra point with zeroes on the clock to go to overtime rather than risking a 2 point conversion to try and win it right there.
(Which the Bears should have done against the Rams, but I digress)
Didn't look like a punch to me? Was wrapping his right arm around the top of the ball to rip it away... if it was a punch, he missed by about a foot and a half
That felt gross coming to the defense of an Iowa player though, so... it was a punch
He chose to flip/body slam the Iowa player. Very apparent at a certain camera angle. He physically slammed another player to the floor. They both earned the T.
Indeed: https://kenpom.com/blog/the-guide-to-fouling-when-leading-or-tied/
"others have wondered if there are some advantages to fouling when leading by one or two late in the game
...
for the most part, anyone entertaining the viability of these approaches must do so in a theoretical way. That is, until last season when San Francisco’s coaching staff, led by head coach Todd Golden..."
Interestingly, KenPom's analysis says they shouldn't have fouled given they were favored to begin with (so overtime would be in their favor). He doesn't consider offensive efficiency (just pre-game win probability), and offenses have become more efficient since his analysis, but the curves would have to shift a lot to say they should foul Stirtz.
Wow, Florida was trying to foul up 2?
I can't believe they allowed a three... give Stirtz a free layup and go to overtime.
I can't believe they allowed a three... give Stirtz a free layup and go to overtime.
It looked like a punch to me at first, just not to the face- maybe trying to hit the ball?Didn't look like a punch to me? Was wrapping his right arm around the top of the ball to rip it away... if it was a punch, he missed by about a foot and a half
That felt gross coming to the defense of an Iowa player though, so... it was a punch
After watching a few more times, I have no idea what he was doing. His hand wasn't clenched for a punch nor open like he was trying to grab the ball. Maybe he started to punch, then thought better of it and went for the ball. Looked very awkward either way
Odd looking but I am guessing he was trying to pop the ball loose.
Bigtex
- DFW
If you are a good offensive team it makes sense to me. Foul in first couple of seconds, pressure free throws for the shooter. If he makes both, tied with a chance to win it or go to OT. Eliminate some risk
Last edited:
Should of been a flagrant
- Status