|
Post by JohnnyJones on Feb 22, 2010 16:57:31 GMT -5
This isn't just about the Hoyas playing well. The problem with blowing games like Rutgers and USF is that it makes games that were already difficult much more of a "must win" situation than they deserve to be. The team could play very well tomorrow night and still lose. Even if the Hoyas were on a 5-game winning streak right now I think there'd be plenty of reason to fear the possibility of a loss in this game. The flip side of that is that if they do lose tomorrow it may not in fact be because the team is "choking" or "folding" or whatever, but just because they're playing an NCAA tournament caliber team at that team's very challenging arena. Not that I'd expect people around here to have such a measured reaction in the event of a defeat, but this is important to keep in mind. Again, when you have a schedule as difficult as this one, you can't lay two eggs like this team already has or you're going to be facing an awful lot of pressure to win games that you may not be equipped to win. I think it would be a mistake to act like all is lost if the Hoyas lose tomorrow night. Winning would be very big, and in my mind would lock up the Hoyas NCAA bid--they could lose the rest of their games and will still get in. Lose and the stories about choking will surface and the pressure will build such that it won't be unreasonable to say that the season may hang in the balance on Saturday at home against ND. Its a high stakes week. Nice post - exactly right IMO.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJones on Feb 22, 2010 1:26:46 GMT -5
is it me or am i the only one that feels very optimistic as a result of yesterdays game? consider, the 2 fouls on monroe (and i think vaughn) really put us on our backs. thats when cuse pushed ahead. once monroe got back in the 2nd half we dominated. i mean these guys are coming together as a team which is much more important in the long-run than the outcome of one game. the next game at louisville will be very telling. No you are not alone in feeling a lot better about the Hoyas chances in the NCAA. They have now proven that they can play with any team and any offense or defense that may be thrown their way in the NCAA tournament. And if not for missed freethrows and a missed 3pt shot they would have shown that they could beat those teams as well. Not too many teams will have faced the Princeton Offense so the Hoyas should have the advantage like Big Joghn's Hoyas of the 80's when teams had not seen the blanket pressing defense and gang rebounding of the Hoyas. Now the team just needs to play a full 40 minutes against Mr. (white suit) Pitino and gang. A win here will give the Hoyas 2 shots at home for that magical 10th win in conference. What is "magical" about win #10? That seems a bit strong to me. Win #13 would have been magical. #12 tremendous. #11 satisfactory, etc.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJones on Feb 21, 2010 22:44:52 GMT -5
The BET is one thing, but how we close out the season has a significant impact on the tourney and our chances. As recently as 8 days ago, we were a legit #2 seed ahead of WVU and Pitt. Now, we are probably barely holding on to #3, and WVU and Pitt definitely have strong cases for more favored status. If we are a #4 or #5, it's a much crappier draw. i wouldnt want to be seeing Texas or Vanderbilt in the second round of the NCAAs. Agree 100% - and finishing the last 4 strong is far and away priority no. 1. I was just noting that, once the regular season finishes, being the 6 or 7 seed in the BET might be better than being the 5 in terms of our chances of succeeding in NYC.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJones on Feb 21, 2010 21:29:57 GMT -5
As others have noted, this ignores our strong out of conference performance and overall "resume," which remains very solid. Technically, what place you finish in your conference is irrelevant to the NCAA selection committee. Exactly, and I'll double down and say it doesn't even matter for New York. Right now our path to the BET final would be Seton Hall, 'Nova, and Pitt. We're 3-1 against those teams. I'd take that. With an unbalanced schedule, if it doesn't save you a game in the BET, the seed's just a number. Agree. I would, of course, not sacrifice any Ws in the next 4, but as of right now the BET draw as the 6 or the 7 looks better than the 5 (not to mention night games, which is more convenient for those of us attending). I would like to avoid UConn on Wednesday and get Nova on Thursday if we get there.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJones on Feb 21, 2010 19:57:44 GMT -5
I would not want to finish 7th place in a seven-bid league. As others have noted, this ignores our strong out of conference performance and overall "resume," which remains very solid. Technically, what place you finish in your conference is irrelevant to the NCAA selection committee.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJones on Feb 18, 2010 23:53:18 GMT -5
I haven't seen this mentioned yet tonight, but I was also thinking about the similarity between these two games. USF and Rutgers make it impossible to feeel good about tonight's comeback. We needed the W. Last year's game went to overtime? Yes, but a huge GU comeback that come up short and resulted in a L.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJones on Feb 18, 2010 23:50:22 GMT -5
..what is the difference between tonight and last years 'comeback' that fell short in the carrier dome? I haven't seen this mentioned yet tonight, but I was also thinking about the similarity between these two games. USF and Rutgers make it impossible to feeel good about tonight's comeback. We needed the W.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJones on Feb 18, 2010 23:33:41 GMT -5
This is funny. First of all, basketball is not statistics and you exclude time and number of timeouts, both crucial. Also, Boeheim would not have fouled if he was up 3 with 30 seconds on the clock. Furthermore, you don't mention any of the other possibilities of plays like stealing an inbounds pass, turnovers, etc, that could have happened with more possessions in the game. Even if you want to use your stats only, they'd tell you that a guy who has hit all of his free throws for the night is more likely to miss his next one to regress back to his average. I'm not saying we would have won the game by fouling, but we would have had a better chance or at least more chances. We had no timeouts, so that variable was irrelevant. If Boeheim wouldn't have fouled up three (we are really talking about four, most likely), then he's an idiot. Turnovers favor them, based on the stats, and THE WHOLE EditedING POINT is that the stats are all you have to go on unless you just want just to trust your boys to go out and grow some balls and win the ball game. In which case you say, "GO GET A STOP AND PUT IN DOWN." Look, I'm sure you can find a webpage on every end-game scenario possible. Go read up. It was the right call, or at very least not the wrong call based on the probabilities, and also the right call in the sense of putting it on your guys to make plays and win the game. In summary, when you write, "we would have had a better chance or at least more chances," YOU ARE WRONG. Strong candidate for stupidest post of the year.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJones on Feb 18, 2010 22:44:36 GMT -5
This doesn't make any sense to me? I am talking about fouling with 35 seconds left in the game. So even if they make both, there is a lot of back and forth that is going to happen, so I am not sure how your percentages work. And for those suggesting this is Monday morning quarterbacking -as I noted earlier and DFW posted a link - this has happened before with our friend Esh. It was a tiny bit worse then since there was an even smaller differential (4 seconds rather than 6), but many of us are on record making clear our opinion on this exact point (extending the game in this situation). They're up one and you foul, then if they hit both, the game is more or less over. That's the 55% scenario. 45% is that they hit one shot, and then the back-and-forth commences, if you can hit a bucket off the rebound (and there was a 38%+fouls chance of that happening in tonight's game). You only really have an advantage if they miss both free-throws, and the likelihood of that happening is far lower than of getting a stop. You are missing the point. I am talking about fouling with 35 seconds left in the game. If they make both, you are down 3 with 35 seconds left - the game is far from over at that point in my opinion. I guess we will just agree to disagree on this. I feel like fouling/extending the game is a no-brainer, but apparently others feel what we did is the right approach. Sleepy - what were the other games in the JT III era when this same situation arose? This is such a distinct situation that I feel like I would have remembered, but maybe not.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJones on Feb 18, 2010 22:38:59 GMT -5
But the point is that you shouldn't foul right away. You should play super-aggressive defense—especially since the refs are loath to blow their whistles at the end of the game—and challenge them to beat you. Chances are they don't, and you get a realistic chance to beat them. This is a different point, and I agree. I would have fouled almost immediately, but if not, at least play super-agressive D to force a mistake or a shot earlier in the shot clock.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJones on Feb 18, 2010 22:27:13 GMT -5
With a 6 second differential you foul immediately and extend the game. That was awful. Just awful. Someone please try to defend that strategy. Just awful. We just talked about a few weeks ago Esh making the same decision v. UConn. Even though there were 2 more seconds tonight, it was just as awful. You extend the game. It is a no brainer. I thought you might have to foul there, too, but consider: Say you have a 55% chance of getting a stop. ('Cuse shot about 45% for the game.) If you're going to foul immediately, you need to send a worse than 74% shooter to the line or you will more often than not end up in a situation worse in every regard. Even sending the 74% shooter to the line, - about 55% of the time you'll end up down three, finding yourself in the near-impossible situation the Hoyas found themselves in anyway, where the opponent fouls you immediately and you must hit all your free-throws even to have a chance,
- about 20% of the time you'll end up down two, playing for the two-point shot to tie or three-point shot to win, rather than the two-point shot to win, plus your opponent probably gets a last-second shot to win, or
- about 6% of the time, they miss both free-throws and you have a chance to go up on a two-point bucket.
Going for the stop dominates. This doesn't make any sense to me? I am talking about fouling with 35 seconds left in the game. So even if they make both, there is a lot of back and forth that is going to happen, so I am not sure how your percentages work. And for those suggesting this is Monday morning quarterbacking -as I noted earlier and DFW posted a link - this has happened before with our friend Esh. It was a tiny bit worse then since there was an even smaller differential (4 seconds rather than 6), but many of us are on record making clear our opinion on this exact point (extending the game in this situation).
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJones on Feb 18, 2010 22:14:34 GMT -5
Thats not horrific end game strategy. Our defense got us back into the game. They trusted it at the end, it didn't work out. With the way they were shooting it from the line and they were shooting it from three, I am totally comfortable with the strategy. agreed...I don't think you foul with the way SU was shooting from the line and the way our defense was clamping down. Our D was just late on the help. Based on that strategy, the best that you can hope for is to get a rebound, with no timeouts, and 5 seconds left, and hopefully get a desperation shot off in the front court? Why not foul with 35 seconds left? Even if they make both, there is so much time left you can come down and get a 2 and foul again. Extend the game. I would have accepted playing defense like the defense that got us back in the game. Intense, pressure on them and force them to take it to the hoop early or maybe get a turnover or a charge. Instead we stood around and let them run 30 seconds off and then gave them a layup. Did you see how happy/shocked JB looked on the sideline as our chance to win the game ticked away? Just awful.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJones on Feb 18, 2010 22:01:58 GMT -5
This loss--to a superior team who should be the Big East regular season champion and a no. 1 seed--isn't really a big deal. The Hoyas fought hard when they could have quit and I'm proud of their effort. What is a big deal is losing at Rutgers and at home to South Florida. Those losses made a win tonight a lot more necessary than it should have been. But if the team fought in those games (especially defensively) like it did tonight, we'd shrug off tonight's 4th loss in conference play and look ahead to our 12-6 or 13-5 finish. Instead, you'd have to bet on 10-8, with anything from 8 to 12 wins a possibility. A Marquette win tonight probably seals any chance at a miracle run to a top 4 finish and bye, so see you on Wednesday night in the 6th or 7th spot (a Rutgers rematch?). Thanks to the Rutgers bed-crapping, we're starting at a better-than-even chance of a 3 game losing streak at precisely the wrong time of the season. This is exactly right. I had been targeting 12-6 all year, but am now hoping we can get to 10-8 and hopefully get an upset (ie we will be lower seed at a minumum) win on Thursday in NY. Our resume still looks pretty good, so I think a minumum of 11 BE wins (including BET) should still get us at least a 6 seed in NCAAs. For others that follow the list of tournament teams more closely than I do, is that right?
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJones on Feb 18, 2010 21:45:37 GMT -5
There were nine seconds on the shot clock when Clark took that shot. I had no problem with Clark's wide open 3 at that point. There are so many things to complain about with respect to this game, I am surprised anyone is really that worked up about that wide open look not going down. I also had no problem with Wright's wide open look for a 3 late at Rutgers, so maybe it is just me. I am shocked more people aren't fired up about the horrific end game strategy to not foul and extend the game - or at a minimum put tremendous defensive pressure on them to force their hand.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJones on Feb 18, 2010 21:23:08 GMT -5
greta effort. chris played great. greg needs to make those foul shots. atleast they know now to be syracuse they need to have a up tempo game Greg's FT percentage may be 65%, but his % for big shots late in games must be around 10%.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJones on Feb 18, 2010 21:18:32 GMT -5
With a 6 second differential you foul immediately and extend the game. That was awful. Just awful. Someone please try to defend that strategy. Just awful. We just talked about a few weeks ago Esh making the same decision v. UConn. Even though there were 2 more seconds tonight, it was just as awful. You extend the game. It is a no brainer.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJones on Feb 18, 2010 11:01:15 GMT -5
You're right--and that is the problem. The amount of gambling the edited who officiate participate in is sickening. It's just never brought up because media only cares about winning/losing and not the spread--so they continue to get way with cheating. What evidence do you have to back up that claim? I have no idea one way or the other, but would be curious to know on what basis you make such a strong (and damning) claim.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJones on Feb 18, 2010 10:58:21 GMT -5
If we don't continue to run the system when we are down, we are dead in the water. It is what I loved about the Providence game, and what bothered me about pretty much every game last year. Just keep running the 2007 Regional Final on a loop. Running the system when we get down can work and result in Ws, but it does require that you play good defense and get a lot of stops, which we have not been doing recently.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJones on Feb 9, 2010 16:40:16 GMT -5
Strangely, the Hoyas played at Providence only 3 times the entire last decade. JTIII was 1-0, Esherick 0-2. Overall, Georgetown has lost 7 of the last 10 games between the two teams in that building. Can anyone tell I'm terrified of tonight's game? If I recall an Esh Hoya team beat PC at the Dunk in a post season NIT game.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJones on Feb 6, 2010 20:35:28 GMT -5
Based on Warren Nolan's site (linked to DFW's front page), our RPI dropped to #8 after the USF loss. It now appears to have moved up to #7 after the Nova win. Thought it might have jumped back up more?
|
|