Running 2010 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament thread

I just don't think you're going to see them get any sort of decent look on a set play. The other team will be guarding the 3 point line like crazy--it's still going to end up being a half court heave most of the time anyway.

 

He could also stay at Butler and never come close to achieving the magic of this season and five years from now become Chris Lowrey.

 

Once again - by missing the foul shot intentionally you put LOSING THE GAME on the table, which is dumb no matter how you rationalize it - particularly since they had no time-outs to set up a set play.

 

Well that is true - they will pay him and I suspect he could get into the $1.2 million per year range given what he's built and the exposure this run has brought for the program and you are right, lifestyle means a lot.

But by the same token, there is something to be said for striking when the iron is hot -- and cashing in. You only get a few opportunities in this world to cash in and when they come, you almost have to take them because the worst thing you can do is stay too long, the program gets stale -- maybe Indiana comes back and becomes a great program and pushes Butler back to the background -- and then you can't leave, which is where Lowrey is in the danger zone of being.

 

I would argue that institutional factors determine a coach's success if he changes jobs. No coach, and they've had some very good ones, has ever made a Final Four or (I think, could be wrong) won a Big Ten title at Iowa. The reasons for that are probably beyond one man's control. Oregon has no established winning tradition, and again, I think that's likely to continue whoever is coach.
The guy from Cornell just took the BC job. I predict he will have a record very much like Al Skinner's. Make the tourney more often than not, and lose in the first or second round consistently -- because that is BC basketball's identity.

 

I kind of liked the strategy. Butler didn't have any timeouts left and there wasn't much time for them to grab the rebound and get the ball up the court. If you make the free throw, Butler gets the ball out of bounds with the clock stopped and has a chance to throw the ball down court.

 

So you would rather have a guy shooting a last second shot that has a chance to beat you rather than a guy shooting a last second shot that can only tie you?

And forget about the shot - what if they call Kyle Singler for a foul when he bumped Gordon Hayward on his way up the court? By missing that shot -- you put that in play as well - an inadvertent foul putting Hayward on the line with two shots to tie the game.

 

Losing the game is always on the table.

This is a simple odds calcuation.

(Odds of losing rebound) X (odds of basket being made) = odds of losing in first scenario

(Odds of three-pointer off in-bound play) X (odds of losing overtime) = odds of losing in the second scenario.

Plug in your estimated values for each scenario and decide which one is more likely to lose for you.

 

If I think I have a 50% chance of losing in overtime, and he's less than half as likely to make the winning shot than the tying shot, then I'd rather him taking a winning shot.

 

No, tying is on the table if you make the shot - and you have a chance in overtime to overcome that shot.

If you miss the shot -- and Hayward's goes in, you go home a loser.

And you still are not adding into you equation the fact that any contact could have led to a foul being called, which, in those situations with people scrambling and trying to grab a rebound, it could very well happen - an over the back call, a blocking foul, a guy running through a screen and getting called for a foul -- none of that matters if you are up three, but up two, it does matter.