MBB: Duke 73, Clemson 66 Post-Game Thread

[MartyClark]

I like the development of the inside game with MPII. I think that our ultimate success this year still rides on the 3 pointer. Against a good team, whether NC or in the tournament, I think the 3 pointer is the difference maker. We don't have a lot of guys who can drive. We have several guys who, at times, can really hit the 3 pointer.

[DukieInBrasil]

Well, if you count Alex Murphy (who was supposed to be in the 2012 class but came early) we'd be a lot higher than that, and if you don't count Alex, the ranking is pretty much based on the fact that we so far only have one recruit for 2012. So I don't think it suggests anything at all.

According to RSCI, we had the #2 recruiting class in 2011 and we've had top three recruiting classes nationally in four of the last seven years (with the other three years coming in 8th, 9th, and 11th nationally). Plus we had the #1 class in the country in 2002, 1999, and 1997. So, we've been recruiting at an incredibly high level for years now and we're in the mix for the top recruits for 2012, 2013, and 2014. But more than that, I can't imagine seeing Austin benched for a couple of games (which personally I do *not* think would be a good move, but that's beside the point) would sway any of the top recruits we're seeking, one way or the other.

In the end, considering how well and consistently Coach K has recruited over the years, I just think it's way off base to say something like "lord knows we need some high level recruits."

Add to this fact that MP3 is also red-shirting and so will start to play next year and would therefore be in the same theoretical graduating class as next year's recruits. So, though we only have one recruited for that class arriving next year (since one already arrived) and 2 RS candidates, it's like we already have a 2012-arriving class of 3. How highly would the class be ranked with an MP3 and AM coming out of prep school academies like Oak Hill next year but instead better still b/c they have been practicing with NCAA varsity players on a daily basis rather than high schoolers?
How can anybody not be excited by the prospect of MP3 after seeing what his brothers are doing this year? Remember how much less exciting both other MPs were as Fr vs how they were after their Fr years? Well, that's what's happening with MP3 right now, it's just that we don't have to watch all the frustrating stuff.
So, if we do land another recruit(s) for the 2012 class, we'll have 4 (or more) in that incoming class.

[feldspar]

Question for the board.

Can anyone who still has the game DVR'd go back and look and see if the official on the Miles flagrant play makes any sort of initial signal when Tanner Smith hits the deck? If so, what is the signal?

[tommy]

Question for the board.

Can anyone who still has the game DVR'd go back and look and see if the official on the Miles flagrant play makes any sort of initial signal when Tanner Smith hits the deck? If so, what is the signal?

His initial signal was just a regular foul. Raised his right arm up, pointed "going this way" for Clemson, and that was it. Then they were showing a replay of our previous offensive play where Austin hit that very difficult shot almost over his own head, and the announcers were talking about that, and when they came back to the live shot, the refs were already at the scorers table looking at the replay. Don't know how they happened to get there.

In looking at the play again and the positioning of the referee and the involved players, I can say in defense of the ref that Smith was right between the ref and Miles, so he really had no angle to see if the elbow connected or not because Smith himself was blocking his view. But isn't that what replay is for? How did they not have the angle that showed so obviously that there was minimal, if any, contact?

[lotusland]

This is my understanding, though the ESPN explanation is a little confusing:

There are 2 separate ESPN "channels" for watching things online- ESPN3 and Watch ESPN. ESPN3 is exclusive content that does NOT appear on TV. Watch ESPN is online access to what is being shown on TV. It's confusing because they're all located in the same place.

When you look at the schedule online there's a little channel icon next to the game. If it says ESPN3 then the game will be available for replay. If it has another channel icon beside it (ESPN, ESPNU, etc) you can watch it live, but it will not be available for replay later.

Hope this helps!

ESPN didnt stream the Clemson game live either. Ive never seen them not make a replay available that available live. Occasionally games are blacked live but the replay is later available but not the other way around. It's puzzling to me how they decide what games to stream but the ESPNU games seem to get neglected the most.

[superdave]

His initial signal was just a regular foul. Raised his right arm up, pointed "going this way" for Clemson, and that was it. Then they were showing a replay of our previous offensive play where Austin hit that very difficult shot almost over his own head, and the announcers were talking about that, and when they came back to the live shot, the refs were already at the scorers table looking at the replay. Don't know how they happened to get there.

In looking at the play again and the positioning of the referee and the involved players, I can say in defense of the ref that Smith was right between the ref and Miles, so he really had no angle to see if the elbow connected or not because Smith himself was blocking his view. But isn't that what replay is for? How did they not have the angle that showed so obviously that there was minimal, if any, contact?

Tanner Smith should have gotten a technical for the phantom elbow. I cannot see how the refs dont call the rake on the arm and do not rescind the flagrant. They spent 5 whole minutes reviewing it but didnt have the guts to reverse a bad call. Why exactly did it take 5 minutes to be wrong?

[UrinalCake]

ESPN didnt stream the Clemson game live either. Ive never seen them not make a replay available that available live. Occasionally games are blacked live but the replay is later available but not the other way around. It's puzzling to me how they decide what games to stream but the ESPNU games seem to get neglected the most.

km's explanation was slightly incorrect - ESPN3 is a separate service than WatchESPN but its content is a subset of events that are aired on the other stations (ESPN, ESPN2, and ESPNU). Every week or so they decide which of the events they want to make available on ESPN3, I guess due to level of interest in the teams involved. Most of the Duke games have been covered by ESPN3 but this was one that was not. And yes, blacked out games are usually available for replay everywhere.

I find ESPN's service to be confusing for the average viewer. It's unfortunate that they can't make thing simpler and more easily available. For being the "Worldwide Leader" they lag behind other networks when it comes to online content.

[COYS]

km's explanation was slightly incorrect - ESPN3 is a separate service than WatchESPN but its content is a subset of events that are aired on the other stations (ESPN, ESPN2, and ESPNU). Every week or so they decide which of the events they want to make available on ESPN3, I guess due to level of interest in the teams involved. Most of the Duke games have been covered by ESPN3 but this was one that was not. And yes, blacked out games are usually available for replay everywhere.

I find ESPN's service to be confusing for the average viewer. It's unfortunate that they can't make thing simpler and more easily available. For being the "Worldwide Leader" they lag behind other networks when it comes to online content.

This is the first year that they've started limiting the ESPNu content for viewing online via ESPN3 since what was then known as ESPN360 first became available via almost all internet providers two years ago (it might even be three years ago, now). For whatever reason, they have decided to restrict some ESPNu games to the smaller subset of providers with which ESPN has exclusive deals (Time Warner Cable, Verizon Fios, etc.) or for any cable subscriber who pays for all of the various ESPN channels, including ESPNU. Last season I could watch every Duke game on ESPNU on replay at home with COMCAST, but this year, two out of the three (or maybe four) that were listed as exclusively ESPNU have not been available to me because I didn't have one of those networks. I have almost always been able to find a live stream of the game elsewhere, but in the case of the GaTech game (when I was on vacation and knew the final score by the time I got back home), I couldn't watch it live and was unable to find a replay stream (as much as I hate missing a game, I just don't have the time or the patience to wait on a torrent most of the time). However, as long as I plan to watch the game while it is actually being aired on ESPNU, I've been able to find streams online.

The way ESPN restricts it's content is very strange. As much as ESPN annoys me, I actually find that WatchESPN is a rather enjoyable experience now that they've updated their online player. I do not even bother with cable as my wife and I use NetFlix, Hulu, and other methods to keep up with our TV programs. A digital antenna picks up the main networks so we get CBS, ABC, NBC, and Fox plus some other useful channels. However, I still would have paid for cable if it weren't for ESPN3 just so I could watch Duke games. In fact, I am almost never able to watch games live, and am so used to skipping the commercials and half time that when I do watch a game life, it feels like it takes forever. That being said, ESPN makes it far more complex than it needs to be with whatever method they use to decide which games to make available on ESPN3 and which games to restrict. I appreciate the fact that ESPN needs to pry ever dollar it can out of whatever deals they have with Verizon, Time Warner, etc., but I just wish they didn't make it so confusing for the fans who use their site.

[-bdbd]

ESPN didnt stream the Clemson game live either. Ive never seen them not make a replay available that available live. Occasionally games are blacked live but the replay is later available but not the other way around. It's puzzling to me how they decide what games to stream but the ESPNU games seem to get neglected the most.

I couldn't see it up here in NoVA either. Frustrating. (My friends from other schools just laugh when I say I'm bummed that I couldn't watch one of our games on TV. HA! We're so spoiled!)

From those who watched, do you get the impression that this team is continuing to progress and "find themselves" as the season progresses? Honestly, I'm looking for that "identity progress" thing as much as I am for big wins at this point of the season...

[superdave]

I couldn't see it up here in NoVA either. Frustrating. (My friends from other schools just laugh when I say I'm bummed that I couldn't watch one of our games on TV. HA! We're so spoiled!)

From those who watched, do you get the impression that this team is continuing to progress and "find themselves" as the season progresses? Honestly, I'm looking for that "identity progress" thing as much as I am for big wins at this point of the season...

I think any road win in the ACC is a character building exercise. This one was important specifically because we got off to such a slow start then fought our way back into it pretty quickly. Also, Coach K seems to be managing the minutes of our 8-man rotation based on who is hot and game situations. Those are the few takeaways you might have missed, in my opinion.

[feldspar]

I cannot see how the refs dont call the rake on the arm and do not rescind the flagrant. They spent 5 whole minutes reviewing it but didnt have the guts to reverse a bad call. Why exactly did it take 5 minutes to be wrong?

It's not quite as simple as you make it out to be. According to NCAA rules, if you call a flagrant 1 and go to the monitor to review it, you can't downgrade the foul. It has nothing to do with having the "guts to reverse a bad call." Sometimes, even when officials make a mistake, they are bound by the rules and not able to correct it.

[Kedsy]

It's not quite as simple as you make it out to be. According to NCAA rules, if you call a flagrant 1 and go to the monitor to review it, you can't downgrade the foul. It has nothing to do with having the "guts to reverse a bad call." Sometimes, even when officials make a mistake, they are bound by the rules and not able to correct it.

What's the point in reviewing it on the monitor, then? They're only allowed to upgrade the call and not downgrade it? If so, that seems like a silly rule.

[feldspar]

What's the point in reviewing it on the monitor, then? They're only allowed to upgrade the call and not downgrade it? If so, that seems like a silly rule.

That's what I'm having trouble understanding from what happened during the game. By rule, you can go to the monitor if you think there was a flagrant 1 offense, but you didn't catch it and call it. Or, if you caught a flagrant 1, you can go to the monitor to determine if it was actually a flagrant 2.

Now, from what happened procedurally, it would seem that a flagrant 1 was called, then they went to the monitor to see if it was upgradable to flagrant 2. But that doesn't make that much sense from what we saw on the play. But that's the only explanation that makes the scenario make sense.

And, yes, I agree that the rule is silly. You should be allowed to amend the call after going to the monitor and realizing...well...you screwed the pooch.

[Ichabod Drain]

That's what I'm having trouble understanding from what happened during the game. By rule, you can go to the monitor if you think there was a flagrant 1 offense, but you didn't catch it and call it. Or, if you caught a flagrant 1, you can go to the monitor to determine if it was actually a flagrant 2.

Now, from what happened procedurally, it would seem that a flagrant 1 was called, then they went to the monitor to see if it was upgradable to flagrant 2. But that doesn't make that much sense from what we saw on the play. But that's the only explanation that makes the scenario make sense.

And, yes, I agree that the rule is silly. You should be allowed to amend the call after going to the monitor and realizing...well...you screwed the pooch.

If you swing your elbows above the shoulder and make contact with an oposing player, it is a flagrant 1 foul.

Miles swung his elbows above the shoulder and they called a foul for him making contact with the opposing player. If they were to not rule it a flagrant 1 they would have been saying there was no contact and therefore no foul, which they cannot do since they already called it a foul. So pretty much they were forced to call it a flagrant 1.

My guess is they went to the monitor to see if he swung his elbows above the shoulders.

[superdave]

If you swing your elbows above the shoulder and make contact with an oposing player, it is a flagrant 1 foul.

Miles swung his elbows above the shoulder and they called a foul for him making contact with the opposing player. If they were to not rule it a flagrant 1 they would have been saying there was no contact and therefore no foul, which they cannot do since they already called it a foul. So pretty much they were forced to call it a flagrant 1.

My guess is they went to the monitor to see if he swung his elbows above the shoulders.

Did they call it a regular foul or a flagrant foul before going to the monitor? Seems like they should never call a flagrant until they've gone to the monitor given the bizarre rules.

Where is Dave Cowens when you need him to run a guy over for flopping!?

[Ichabod Drain]

Did they call it a regular foul or a flagrant foul before going to the monitor? Seems like they should never call a flagrant until they've gone to the monitor given the bizarre rules.

Where is Dave Cowens when you need him to run a guy over for flopping!?

I'm pretty positive they just called it a regular foul initially, that's how i remember it and i'm pretty sure someone here confirmed it as well. I've been wrong before though.

[feldspar]

Did they call it a regular foul or a flagrant foul before going to the monitor? Seems like they should never call a flagrant until they've gone to the monitor given the bizarre rules.

Where is Dave Cowens when you need him to run a guy over for flopping!?

Well, the initial SIGNAL was a common foul. But there's no real way of knowing what was reported to the table.

[Newton_14]

I'm pretty positive they just called it a regular foul initially, that's how i remember it and i'm pretty sure someone here confirmed it as well. I've been wrong before though.

That was my take as well. I actually thought after seeing the replay myself, they were going to keep it as a regular offensive foul. I was actually surprised they upgraded it to a Flagrant 1. However, it is possible we both misread the initial call, and the called it a Flagrant 1 live, in which case they were stuck.

I am still more irritated that the ref did not call the rake of the arm to begin with. Smith clearly fouled Miles there and the ref was two feet from the play looking directly at the two players. How does an experienced ref miss that?

Feldspar, what were your thoughts on the arm rake? Opinion?

[tommy]

If you swing your elbows above the shoulder and make contact with an oposing player, it is a flagrant 1 foul.

Miles swung his elbows above the shoulder and they called a foul for him making contact with the opposing player. If they were to not rule it a flagrant 1 they would have been saying there was no contact and therefore no foul, which they cannot do since they already called it a foul. So pretty much they were forced to call it a flagrant 1.

My guess is they went to the monitor to see if he swung his elbows above the shoulders.

If that's right, and they needed to go to the monitor to see if he swung his elbows above the shoulders, then that would mean that it was NOT initially called a flagrant 1, right? Because they were not sure of one of the prerequisites for a flagrant 1. Which would make sense given the standard foul hand signal that was given.

So then when they go to the monitor and see there was little if any contact made by an elbow that was above the shoulders -- which should be irrelevant now due to there being no contact made -- then what are they supposed to do?

What they should do is rescind the foul call, but I doubt if they're allowed to do that. It just makes no sense -- they go to the monitor to determine if it's a regular fould or a flagrant, and they see that there was no foul at all, but the best they can do (and they didn't even do it in this instance) is to retain it as a regular, non-flagrant foul even though they know that it wasn't? Really dumb.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

In a way, I'm glad they called it a flagrant 1. First, it's a good reminder for Miles. And second, it did come at a crucial moment but no harm done - we won. So, we don't have to listen to everyone's whining about Duke getting all the calls. Clemson got major benefit from a flop yet we prevailed.