quote:Originally posted by chickenboy:
(great ball movement)
if by that you mean a lot of turnovers, then your blog should make millions.
if by that you mean a lot of turnovers, then your blog should make millions.
if by that you mean a lot of turnovers, then your blog should make millions.
quote:Originally posted by chickenboy:
It was.
if Bucky plays poor defense, then yes.
if it resulted at a clean look at the hoop, then yes.
The risk is a guy going into his shooting motion and a foul being called. Free throws on a tie game is a pretty bad senerio as well.
*edit- Bo explains why
Dakich is a dick. Completely anti-Wisconsin. Fag.
quote:Originally posted by Lap-Ka-Dog:
*edit- Bo explains why
classic spin and wouldn't expect otherwise. they had numerous chances to foul before that shot. bo's face says it all in that clip.
Bruiser did foul him- but they didn't call it.
with the score tied, it's risky like Ryan said. I think the regulation play was the right call- foul if you're beaten on the dribble. But on the play at the end of OT, why not foul then? If the 3 is the only thing that hurts you, you gotta take it away. That last shot was pretty close.
with the score tied, it's risky like Ryan said. I think the regulation play was the right call- foul if you're beaten on the dribble. But on the play at the end of OT, why not foul then? If the 3 is the only thing that hurts you, you gotta take it away. That last shot was pretty close.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Music City:
with the score tied, it's risky like Ryan said. /QUOTE]
It ain't risky at all. Reach and grab. They had three to give. Dumb. Bo's still great. Dumb there however.
confusion
with the score tied, it's risky like Ryan said. /QUOTE]
It ain't risky at all. Reach and grab. They had three to give. Dumb. Bo's still great. Dumb there however.
confusion
My God 
boy, are you that dumb?
1. Bruiser did foul, the refs swallowed the whistle. Go back and look at the replay.
2. Grab and hold could be called an intentional foul. 2 shots and the ball. You gained nothing, only put yourself farther behind.
3. If you are a fraction slow it's a shooting foul which means 2 or 3 shots. Unles you are Ryan Evans you make at least one of those.
What gets to me is evey time the Badgers do something great they get upstaged. outstanding win in overtime but the Notre Dame scors 12 points in 23 seconds to tie and then goes 5 overtimes to win.
1. Bruiser did foul, the refs swallowed the whistle. Go back and look at the replay.
2. Grab and hold could be called an intentional foul. 2 shots and the ball. You gained nothing, only put yourself farther behind.
3. If you are a fraction slow it's a shooting foul which means 2 or 3 shots. Unles you are Ryan Evans you make at least one of those.
What gets to me is evey time the Badgers do something great they get upstaged. outstanding win in overtime but the Notre Dame scors 12 points in 23 seconds to tie and then goes 5 overtimes to win.
Dakich is just as annoying. He's paid to make comments and provide "analysis" but he's not that far removed from a guy like Skip Bayless. The announcer opposite him on the postgame telecast basically implied that he should shut his trap and let the real coach do his thing.
quote:Originally posted by smu86:quote:Originally posted by chickenboy:quote:Originally posted by Lap-Ka-Dog:
and have fun storming the court Badger fans, a game like that makes it just fine.
I'm from the Barry Sanders school of rushing the court. Act like you've been there before. When do you rush the court?
1. Wins over number 1 teams.
2. Wins that clinch championships.
3. Wins over top 10 teams if you are a doormat.
Note I'm not offended. Just think they are a program where these type of wins should now be expected.
Go Bucky!
1. Michigan, with a win, could have been #1 in next week's poll.
2. No championship, but a loss could have ended UW's chances at a Big Ten championship.
3. Agree.
Remember, these are mainly 18-22 year old kids who don't get chances at this very often. And I am talking about the fans, not the players. Don't judge, just let the kids have fun.
Chickenboy stole this bit from Dan Barreiro......
Guys, ease up on the "Bo Ryan is a successful coach blah blah blah..." If that is the qualifications to make a comment on th game or strategy, close the forum because none if us are qualified. That's just plain stupid.
It's not stupid to question it. It's a valid point to say that a foul in that situation to shorten the time they had to make a play to score is a good move. Just as it is a valid thing to say it's not.
The foul/don't foul thing is an age old argument. I recently heard them talk bout this on some radio show (maybe Mike and Mike?) that fouling in that situation increases the odds of winning by a significant %- like 60% or something like that.
But c-boy, you're wrong in saying that it was some sort of coaching error. The play was in place- foul if you're on the dribble and he looks like he has you beat. Bruiser did that- but the ref didn't call it. That simply not a coaching error there. It's a safe strategy to tell the guys to be wary of an official's judgement. They were told to foul on the bounce. I think it was the right call.
I still contend the mistake was at the end of OT. That's where you foul, no question. You're up 3, force thk to make a play with a short clock. Thankfully it worked out ok- they won of the most stunning games we have ever seen in Madison. It was a GREAT game both ways, and above all, they are starting to play like thy believe. Wins like this propel you come tourney time.
It's not stupid to question it. It's a valid point to say that a foul in that situation to shorten the time they had to make a play to score is a good move. Just as it is a valid thing to say it's not.
The foul/don't foul thing is an age old argument. I recently heard them talk bout this on some radio show (maybe Mike and Mike?) that fouling in that situation increases the odds of winning by a significant %- like 60% or something like that.
But c-boy, you're wrong in saying that it was some sort of coaching error. The play was in place- foul if you're on the dribble and he looks like he has you beat. Bruiser did that- but the ref didn't call it. That simply not a coaching error there. It's a safe strategy to tell the guys to be wary of an official's judgement. They were told to foul on the bounce. I think it was the right call.
I still contend the mistake was at the end of OT. That's where you foul, no question. You're up 3, force thk to make a play with a short clock. Thankfully it worked out ok- they won of the most stunning games we have ever seen in Madison. It was a GREAT game both ways, and above all, they are starting to play like thy believe. Wins like this propel you come tourney time.
quote:Tschmack:
They beat a Michigan team ranked #3 in the country in dramatic fashion.
This.
When you factor in the shot to put it into OT...
CB, you laid out a criteria, but it did not accommodate for an astonishing shot that reverts what seems a sure loss. Doesn't that tip the scales for you?
On another note, I was actually relaxing and ready to go to sleep (early, I admit) with Notre Dame versus Louisville on. I saw the player put up 12 points in the final 40 some seconds of regulation to put it into OT and so told myself, "This might be historic. I gotta watch it."
Five OT's. What an entertaining game to watch!
How about giving credit to Hardaway for making the off balance three (BTW, he was well defended AND fouled by Bruiser) and then give UW credit for drawing up and executing the inbound to Brust for making the bomb to tie it up.
It's easy to sit on a couch and say "they should have fouled" but sometimes you just need to give the players their props for making two back to back incredible plays.
I doubt Michigan was trying to let Brust beat them the way they did because the chances of any team converting that are slim to none. I'm sure some rubes are ripping the Wolverines for not fouling Brust too but again, it was a perfect pass and a one in a million shot. It happens.
We witnessed one of the best college basketball games I've seen in a while and some people would rather whine about what they could or should have done? Really? That would be like Baltimore fans complaining about not containing the 49ers in the second half instead of celebrating a great win for their team.
It's easy to sit on a couch and say "they should have fouled" but sometimes you just need to give the players their props for making two back to back incredible plays.
I doubt Michigan was trying to let Brust beat them the way they did because the chances of any team converting that are slim to none. I'm sure some rubes are ripping the Wolverines for not fouling Brust too but again, it was a perfect pass and a one in a million shot. It happens.
We witnessed one of the best college basketball games I've seen in a while and some people would rather whine about what they could or should have done? Really? That would be like Baltimore fans complaining about not containing the 49ers in the second half instead of celebrating a great win for their team.
quote:Originally posted by Lap-Ka-Dog:
]
go frickin bucky go !!!!
quote:Originally posted by ammo:
2. Grab and hold could be called an intentional foul. 2 shots and the ball. You gained nothing, only put yourself farther behind.
Man alive, of course you don't grab and hug. It's like some have never players foul to stop the clock (or in this case, waste time) before.
quote:Originally posted by Music City:
Bruiser did that- but the ref didn't call it. That simply not a coaching error there. It's a safe strategy to tell the guys to be wary of an official's judgement. They were told to foul on the bounce. I think it was the right call.
I'll give you the no call on Bruiser but they...again...had THREE to give when Michigan first had the ball for that possession (here was 30 seconds left). With 3 to give, you foul after 10 seconds or so in the back court for a side out of bounds. The throw and catch will knock off 3-5 seconds there. You then do it again...and again. It's smart strategy that you see every day.
I get the feeling would rather lose playing his strategy than win the way they did.
Typical viking fan.
Typical viking fan.
Being curious what thoughts are beyond the subset on this issue, I checked out Buckyville (a forum). Seems most lean towards being fine with Bo's strategy on this (not on Evans being in the game or even fouling at the end of OT but that isn't the topic at hand). The below is the best reasoning, IMO, that I found to support not fouling:
3. Re fouling, you are definitely right about Bruiser trying to foul in regulation. As for not fouling Burke, here's the thing -- Burke is one of the quickest players in the league and can get some star treatment from the refs. He always has his head up and his body in control. If he senses the foul coming, he's going to try to get the shot away and may get three foul shots. I'd much rather see Burke shooting a contested fall-away 3 than free throws. I'm not saying there isn't a good case to be made for fouling, but it's a close call and not the complete bone-head decision that some are making it out to be. If you have faith that Traevon knows how to make that foul in such a way that Burke can't go into a shooting motion, great, but it's tougher than some might think.
I still would have fouled. Ad far as Bo defending his strategy (or his assistants) see this quote about Evans being in the game when he bricked another free throw:
Ryan said he told Evans to “go make ’em, Ryan. I can’t him so brainwashed to believe he’s not going to make them. And plus, look at the hard cut he made. That’s why I left him in there. He’s the guy that can go get the pass. See, that was so long ago I forget he even missed that free throw.”
That is Bo covering his or his assistants back(s).
Buckyville Link
Evans Quote
3. Re fouling, you are definitely right about Bruiser trying to foul in regulation. As for not fouling Burke, here's the thing -- Burke is one of the quickest players in the league and can get some star treatment from the refs. He always has his head up and his body in control. If he senses the foul coming, he's going to try to get the shot away and may get three foul shots. I'd much rather see Burke shooting a contested fall-away 3 than free throws. I'm not saying there isn't a good case to be made for fouling, but it's a close call and not the complete bone-head decision that some are making it out to be. If you have faith that Traevon knows how to make that foul in such a way that Burke can't go into a shooting motion, great, but it's tougher than some might think.
I still would have fouled. Ad far as Bo defending his strategy (or his assistants) see this quote about Evans being in the game when he bricked another free throw:
Ryan said he told Evans to “go make ’em, Ryan. I can’t him so brainwashed to believe he’s not going to make them. And plus, look at the hard cut he made. That’s why I left him in there. He’s the guy that can go get the pass. See, that was so long ago I forget he even missed that free throw.”
That is Bo covering his or his assistants back(s).
Buckyville Link
Evans Quote
To Foul or Not to Foul
The piece uses the Michigan decision not to foul Brust, doesn't mention Bucky's decision not to.
He found that in 259 cases in the 2012-13 season through late January, as reported by sportingnews.com, the leading team played straight-up defense and gave up a game-tying three-pointer in 46 cases (18 percent of the time). The leading team purposely fouled the opponent just 20 times, but only once (5 percent) did the trailing team tie the score.
The piece uses the Michigan decision not to foul Brust, doesn't mention Bucky's decision not to.
He found that in 259 cases in the 2012-13 season through late January, as reported by sportingnews.com, the leading team played straight-up defense and gave up a game-tying three-pointer in 46 cases (18 percent of the time). The leading team purposely fouled the opponent just 20 times, but only once (5 percent) did the trailing team tie the score.
Couple other interesting comments on Buckyville:
Regarding the final possession in OT, there was no timeout where Bo could have discussed giving fouls with the team. I wouldn't expect the guys on the floor to know that on their own.
Don't agree with a Ryan team not knowing this or that the bench couldn't have communicated fouling to them somehow.
The other thing about fouling at the end of regulation is that those fouls to give are still useful in overtime, and overtime was by far the most likely outcome in that scenario. So it's not as though there was no potential downside to fouling there.
Didn't know that but I still would have fouled.
Regarding the final possession in OT, there was no timeout where Bo could have discussed giving fouls with the team. I wouldn't expect the guys on the floor to know that on their own.
Don't agree with a Ryan team not knowing this or that the bench couldn't have communicated fouling to them somehow.
The other thing about fouling at the end of regulation is that those fouls to give are still useful in overtime, and overtime was by far the most likely outcome in that scenario. So it's not as though there was no potential downside to fouling there.
Didn't know that but I still would have fouled.
Bruiser DID FOUL!!!! The refs did not call it. Why do you think each team only had 3 team fouls in the 2nd half? Were they playing patty cake out there?? NO, the refs let them play and short of tackling a guy no foul was going to be called. Everybody on this board understands this, why can't you? Oh, I know, it's the Viking fan in you coming out.
quote:Originally posted by ammo:
Bruiser DID FOUL!!!! The refs did not call it. Why do you think each team only had 3 team fouls in the 2nd half? Were they playing patty cake out there?? NO, the refs let them play and short of tackling a guy no foul was going to be called. Everybody on this board understands this, why can't you? Oh, I know, it's the Viking fan in you coming out.
Read thru the thread again. I am speaking of fouling before the last second. They had three to give. They could have burned arguably 10+ seconds using two of those fouls before then.
I've acknowledged the Bruiser non-call and Hardaway hit a heckuva a shot. But the situation might have been different if he would have used those fouls. Didn't give his team the best chance to win, IMO.
I will also mention that there often are no calls in that situation.
leading to a likely best case scenario of overtime, and you want to burn through all the fouls when the opposing team is trying to get the last possible shot.
geenyus
geenyus
The other aspect of the argument against c-boys's foul point is the fact that it wast like the Badgers have up a great look. At the end of the day, you end up with a heavily contested 3. Defensively it's about what you hope for. It was just a great shot, which was followed by an even greater one.
Just thought I'd jump on a little bit here:
First, at the end of the game, when it was tied, count me as one that doesn't buy into the foul theory. Now if you get beat, yes, but to foul just to foul doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Chances are, you're not going to get the ball back in regulation, so your best case scenario when it is tied is to make it to overtime. Why would you put the other team in the bonus (and put some of your own members in foul trouble) when they are probably still going to get off a desperation shot at some point anyway.
In overtime, I think a case can be made to foul or not to foul. Personally, I would have chosen to foul with a 3 point lead, but I understand not fouling.
As for storming the court, I don't really care when college students rush the court. You can talk about the level of the program and your rules, but students only have four years. Enjoy it. It doesn't hurt anybody, and it's not like the 65 year old alumni are storming out there. Now, can we all just enjoy this season and the rest of it to come.
First, at the end of the game, when it was tied, count me as one that doesn't buy into the foul theory. Now if you get beat, yes, but to foul just to foul doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Chances are, you're not going to get the ball back in regulation, so your best case scenario when it is tied is to make it to overtime. Why would you put the other team in the bonus (and put some of your own members in foul trouble) when they are probably still going to get off a desperation shot at some point anyway.
In overtime, I think a case can be made to foul or not to foul. Personally, I would have chosen to foul with a 3 point lead, but I understand not fouling.
As for storming the court, I don't really care when college students rush the court. You can talk about the level of the program and your rules, but students only have four years. Enjoy it. It doesn't hurt anybody, and it's not like the 65 year old alumni are storming out there. Now, can we all just enjoy this season and the rest of it to come.
yup, blowing fouls for the sake of blowing fouls when the other team has no intention of doing anything other than running the clock down to the last few seconds is stupid.
Bo's response...
Now whether or not Bo did make a mistake in strategy, I would never expect him to admit it but I do believe that isn't the case here.
Like I mentioned somewhere, I get the idea of the player forcing up a shot when the player is intentionally fouling him. I will note that doesn't happen very often.
My thought on this the whole time is I like a team to have to set up a side out of bounds play and reset their offense 2-3 times rather than being able to compose themselves and get a shot off of movement.
Note, I get the missed call on Bruiser and I get that they did force a tough shot without fouling but I think even tho it ended up good doesn't mean you still don't attempt to put the opponent in the toughest position to score.
I will also note that maybe this strategy isn't for every team. But a team as disciplined on defense as UW would cause major frustration on side out of bounds plays.
It really is an interesting discussing on strategy. It would be nice to see Knight, Phelps and a couple other guys debate this. Obviously I'm in the major minority in this forum but I'm sure there many that are thinking like I am (at least I know of one).
Now whether or not Bo did make a mistake in strategy, I would never expect him to admit it but I do believe that isn't the case here.
Like I mentioned somewhere, I get the idea of the player forcing up a shot when the player is intentionally fouling him. I will note that doesn't happen very often.
My thought on this the whole time is I like a team to have to set up a side out of bounds play and reset their offense 2-3 times rather than being able to compose themselves and get a shot off of movement.
Note, I get the missed call on Bruiser and I get that they did force a tough shot without fouling but I think even tho it ended up good doesn't mean you still don't attempt to put the opponent in the toughest position to score.
I will also note that maybe this strategy isn't for every team. But a team as disciplined on defense as UW would cause major frustration on side out of bounds plays.
It really is an interesting discussing on strategy. It would be nice to see Knight, Phelps and a couple other guys debate this. Obviously I'm in the major minority in this forum but I'm sure there many that are thinking like I am (at least I know of one).
I'd say Michigan should have put their biggest guy in front of Bruiser so he could not get off his pass so easily. To me that was their big mistake
But look how critical it was to have those 3 fouls in overtime. The Badgers could play the toughest of D and if they fouled Michigan could still only inbound the ball. Keeping Michigan off the line in overtime was the reason the Badgers pulled this out. And if Bo would have realized the Badgers were in the bonus Ryan Evans is on the bench, not in the game. That was his biggest blunder IMHO.
I don't think I am opposed to the foul idea. But in this case, not only did they foul, they also forcEd a very difficult shot without getting the call. This is a bad example of the pro-foul situation, I think.
A better example was the end of OT. That's when you should foul. They didn't and gave up a pretty decent look.
A better example was the end of OT. That's when you should foul. They didn't and gave up a pretty decent look.
fairly obvious, you should sac bunt whenever possible ...
quote:Originally posted by Lap-Ka-Dog:
just play defense
I hold my opinion on KP until I know his political leanings and what kind of relationship he has with his dog.
We may need a thread exclusive to KP and maybe one for Boris' medical jeenyus blogger as well.
Yet in the Iowa game he said he asked Evans if he wanted in at the end and he said Evans said no worries I got it. He made them that game.
quote:Originally posted by ammo:
But look how critical it was to have those 3 fouls in overtime. The Badgers could play the toughest of D and if they fouled Michigan could still only inbound the ball. Keeping Michigan off the line in overtime was the reason the Badgers pulled this out. And if Bo would have realized the Badgers were in the bonus Ryan Evans is on the bench, not in the game. That was his biggest blunder IMHO.
Another case study last night in the MSU/Indiana game.
MSU down by three, side out, 6.1 (or so) seconds left.
Magic and Vitale both say during timeout you foul 2-3 seconds in before he shoots.
Indiana waits and then fouls on the shot, giving MSU three shots. He misses.
Now, it's not clear if Indiana intended to foul or if the guy made a stupid mistake.
I will stick to the strategy that Indiana should have fouled a couple seconds into it and made them side out again with 2-3 seconds left. Much tougher to get off a good shot.
NOTE: Whether or not you believe Vitale and/or Magic are idiots, it's still a strategy used by many and an interesting debate.
MSU down by three, side out, 6.1 (or so) seconds left.
Magic and Vitale both say during timeout you foul 2-3 seconds in before he shoots.
Indiana waits and then fouls on the shot, giving MSU three shots. He misses.
Now, it's not clear if Indiana intended to foul or if the guy made a stupid mistake.
I will stick to the strategy that Indiana should have fouled a couple seconds into it and made them side out again with 2-3 seconds left. Much tougher to get off a good shot.
NOTE: Whether or not you believe Vitale and/or Magic are idiots, it's still a strategy used by many and an interesting debate.
Nice try , but the shooter was not fouled either. Even tho the refs blew the whistle the shooter was never touched. Bad call led to the 3 FT. Once again if they just played tough D they don't get a shot off. That and if the clock would have started as it should have the refs would not have had to call time out to get it right. Izzo gets not one but 2 free time outs to plan things. 
The issue is not whether he was fouled or not, it's the strategy. It did seem ticky tack (and was as I looked at it again) but it isn't crazy to think that 2-3 seconds off the clock and then putting them on the line down by three with 2-3 seconds left is good strategy. Not fouling give the offense time to get a good look...which they did.
Note if you have fouls to give...it's no-brainer...IMO...foul!
Note if you have fouls to give...it's no-brainer...IMO...foul!
It does support Ryan's point about leaving something like h end of a game up to an official's judgement. Compare the two- Bruiser hacks, gets no call. IU barely nudges, MSU gets 3 FTs.
I can understand feeling it is a risky move, I also understand the logic of trying to foul. In the case of he Badgers, he played great D and Burke hit a 3 with no room between him and he defender.
I can understand feeling it is a risky move, I also understand the logic of trying to foul. In the case of he Badgers, he played great D and Burke hit a 3 with no room between him and he defender.