|
Post by centercourt400s on Mar 11, 2014 21:26:02 GMT -5
If nothing else these stats call for III and staff to sit down with someone in power in the NCAA officiating world during the offseason to examine some examples of just how this happened. Not in an accusatory way but just in a "we need to understand" way. They need to know what really caused this huge discrepancy and try to address it. Seriously, these fouls, both on the road and at home, meant a good 4 or 5 games in the loss column and obviously made a huge difference in the outcome of the regular season.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,518
|
Post by DanMcQ on Mar 11, 2014 23:10:18 GMT -5
...and people complain this place is a wasteland with no legit basketball discussion going on...
s m h
|
|
chep3
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,314
|
Post by chep3 on Mar 12, 2014 10:43:00 GMT -5
Yeah, but as FL said, boy are we bad at defense. It's been clear since Oregon that this team doesn't talk on the court as much as the last one did, and as a result, our rotations are terrible (just think of how many times against Nova Nate rotated to the guy above the break in transition, leaving a guy at the corner entirely undefended). We are also lazy defensively, at least on the interior, so no one does their work early, gets into a bad position, and then decides that they can solve it all by taking a blind swipe at the ball. Okay, but do you actually think that the Hoyas communicated less, moved their feet worse, were less capable of staying in front of opponents and all-around less intelligent than players on all the other teams in D1? Because that's essentially where we are headed in terms of an explanation. Point taken, and it's hard for me to say that we have to be the worst team in the country at those things. But, I think plausible for three reasons. First, this roster was created with an eye toward rugged defending in the Big East. Guys like Nate and Jabril have always used their hands to defend, which is no longer possible. I'm not sure either of these guys would be as valued as defensive prospects if they were in high school now. Second, because of the loss of Josh and Greg, we were only able to generate offense while going small (in some cases, really small), which negated our ability to play an effective zone this year. That, coupled with the absence of anything resembling a rim protector, leaves us susceptible to dribble penetration, which puts a lot of pressure on defenders under the new rules. Third (and maybe this goes to ref "bias"), because of the first two, I think we have a reputation for being a bad defensive team that's foul-prone, and refs don't give us the benefit of the doubt. But we just also haven't adjusted at all. Jabril will look around like he barely touched a guy (which he did), for a foul that's been called all year. Hopkins will wildly contest and then wonder why he's getting called. Nate will ole his guy to the basket and then just rake the dude over the arm. It's clear they've gotten frustrated with the rule changes, but they haven't adjusted enough. By contrast, Aaron has become an improved defender in my opinion because the rule change makes his quickness a bigger advantage.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Mar 12, 2014 11:53:38 GMT -5
Okay, but do you actually think that the Hoyas communicated less, moved their feet worse, were less capable of staying in front of opponents and all-around less intelligent than players on all the other teams in D1? Because that's essentially where we are headed in terms of an explanation. Point taken, and it's hard for me to say that we have to be the worst team in the country at those things. But, I think plausible for three reasons. First, this roster was created with an eye toward rugged defending in the Big East. Guys like Nate and Jabril have always used their hands to defend, which is no longer possible. I'm not sure either of these guys would be as valued as defensive prospects if they were in high school now. Second, because of the loss of Josh and Greg, we were only able to generate offense while going small (in some cases, really small), which negated our ability to play an effective zone this year. That, coupled with the absence of anything resembling a rim protector, leaves us susceptible to dribble penetration, which puts a lot of pressure on defenders under the new rules. Third (and maybe this goes to ref "bias"), because of the first two, I think we have a reputation for being a bad defensive team that's foul-prone, and refs don't give us the benefit of the doubt. But we just also haven't adjusted at all. Jabril will look around like he barely touched a guy (which he did), for a foul that's been called all year. Hopkins will wildly contest and then wonder why he's getting called. Nate will ole his guy to the basket and then just rake the dude over the arm. It's clear they've gotten frustrated with the rule changes, but they haven't adjusted enough. By contrast, Aaron has become an improved defender in my opinion because the rule change makes his quickness a bigger advantage. Agree with just about all of this. I'd go ahead and point out though, that the reason why you see the look of bewilderment on some guys' faces when they get called for a touch foul on the road is because the same isn't being called when we're at home. We're allowed to play physically at home against Xavier and Creighton, but then all of a sudden we go to Marquette and can't touch anyone. We attack the rim all night at home against Nova and end up -20 at the FT line because other teams aren't facing the same road fouling issues we are. It's hard to know what to adjust to when the consistency of what's a foul and what isn't varies by such a large degree from game to game. At the end of the day, a foul should be a foul no matter where you are. Yes, we make a lot of mistakes defensively, but the original point is that home court shouldn't be that significant of a variable in determining when those mistakes are ignored/acknowledged.
|
|
rambis
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 113
|
Post by rambis on Mar 12, 2014 11:54:00 GMT -5
Maybe the answer involves a different type of bias. What we have observed throughout the years is that III does not get on the refs. He does not yell much. He does not work the refs for an advantage. But most Big Each coaches do. Perhaps what we're seeing is not any sort of predetermined bias. What if the absence of defending your team/challenging the calls is subconsciously perceived by the refs as acquiescence or agreement with the calls?
I sat behind the Creighton bench for the game at Verizon and found that McDermott shares some of III's qualities. He doesn't really yell at the officials much. He did have them look at tape and he sidled up behind a ref to chat him up. But he wasn't really aggressive the way the rest of the Big East coaches are. And that game was called more balanced. Someone mentioned Michigan State. That was at the Garden in New York where the crowd is loud and there are a lot of Hoya fans. And that game was remarkably balanced on fouls.
Are Big East refs conditioned to expect yelling when they do something wrong? Maybe when they're only hearing it from one side during the game they unwittingly perceive the game differently.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 12, 2014 12:16:41 GMT -5
Maybe the answer involves a different type of bias. What we have observed throughout the years is that III does not get on the refs. He does not yell much. He does not work the refs for an advantage. But most Big Each coaches do. Perhaps what we're seeing is not any sort of predetermined bias. What if the absence of defending your team/challenging the calls is subconsciously perceived by the refs as acquiescence or agreement with the calls? The problem with this theory is that John Thompson III's approach to the referees has been the same throughout his career, yet fouling is a huge problem this year and it has not been in the past. I really think more is made of getting on the officials than is warranted. Does getting on them affect calls? Sure, I am sure it does have some effect, but ultimately, I think the officials are going to call the game the way they want regardless.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,423
|
Post by MCIGuy on Mar 12, 2014 12:52:15 GMT -5
Maybe the answer involves a different type of bias. What we have observed throughout the years is that III does not get on the refs. He does not yell much. He does not work the refs for an advantage. But most Big Each coaches do. Perhaps what we're seeing is not any sort of predetermined bias. What if the absence of defending your team/challenging the calls is subconsciously perceived by the refs as acquiescence or agreement with the calls? The problem with this theory is that John Thompson III's approach to the referees has been the same throughout his career, yet fouling is a huge problem this year and it has not been in the past. I really think more is made of getting on the officials than is warranted. Does getting on them affect calls? Sure, I am sure it does have some effect, but ultimately, I think the officials are going to call the game the way they want regardless. But III's teams throughout the years have routinely gone to the FT line less than his BE foes, even the inferior ones. We have discussed before some of the reasons for this (lack of driving to the hole),but perhaps III's calm approach has the effect of taking any pressure off the refs to reward the Hoyas by sending them to the FT line. If so it is also possible under these new rules that the refs are not being bullied into giving the Hoyas a break and the benefit of the doubt.
|
|