PDA

View Full Version : A Common Denominator- 3 items



NYC Duke Fan
03-24-2007, 09:15 PM
After watching all 8 teams in the Elite 8, I feel that there are 3 things that they all have in common.

1- An Athletic Team

2- A penetrating point guard

3- A shot blocker or intimidator

Duke had none of these and I'm not sure that they will next year. I think that college basketball has changed from several years ago. All the 8 teams in the Elite could have lost a game and college basketball is such that there are so many teams from all conferences both power conferences and mid-majors that could beat anyone. Teams are just so atheltic, and there are so many high school players who might never make the McDonald's AA list who are terrific players. Did anyone ever hear of the young man from VCU whose last second shot beat Duke?

dukie8
03-24-2007, 09:20 PM
After watching all 8 teams in the Elite 8, I feel that there are 3 things that they all have in common.

1- An Athletic Team

2- A penetrating point guard

3- A shot blocker or intimidator

Duke had none of these and I'm not sure that they will next year. I think that college basketball has changed from several years ago. All the 8 teams in the Elite could have lost a game and college basketball is such that there are so many teams from all conferences both power conferences and mid-majors that could beat anyone. Teams are just so atheltic, and there are so many high school players who might never make the McDonald's AA list who are terrific players. Did anyone ever hear of the young man from VCU whose last second shot beat Duke?

huh? ucla doesn't have anyone who is a shot blocker or intimidator. mcbob averaged 2.5 blocks/game. what do you call that? i do agree that you need athletes and a penetrating pg if you want to get to the final 4. we had neither this year and the jury is out whether we will next year (my guess is that we won't).

hurleyfor3
03-24-2007, 09:20 PM
4 - They all played a hell of a lot better basketball than we did at any point in the year

CDu
03-25-2007, 10:06 AM
huh? ucla doesn't have anyone who is a shot blocker or intimidator. mcbob averaged 2.5 blocks/game. what do you call that? i do agree that you need athletes and a penetrating pg if you want to get to the final 4. we had neither this year and the jury is out whether we will next year (my guess is that we won't).

What you've said is only partially correct. We definitely had a shotblocker and we definitely didn't have a penetrating PG. But we do have athletes: Nelson, Henderson, and Thomas are very athletic. Next year, we add Smith, who is also very athletic (and may be able to attack the rim). Really, the only thing we didn't have this year was a PG who could consistently penetrate.

We aren't a predominantly athletic team, but it wasn't athleticism that beat us this year: it was the lack of a penetrating PG and the difficulty in handling an opposing penetrating PG.

Next year, we won't have a shotblocker, but we add another athlete, and we'll hopefully see improvements from Henderson, Scheyer, and Thomas. And we add a more diverse scoring option on the perimeter.

With regard to the original, not all of the teams met the criteria described. G'Town doesn't have a lot of athletes, or a PG who can penetrate. They win with defense and an imposing interior. So you CAN win without 2 of the 3 things you listed. And I believe that Oregon, like UCLA, also has no interior shotblocking presence.

Sixthman
03-25-2007, 12:38 PM
IMO the common factor among the teams advancing this year is the ability to rise to, respond to or take advantage of the more physical game which the refs allow during the tournament (particularly compared to the ACC regular season). The tournament is called this way because it is is an equalizing factor for disparities in raw athletic talent and, perhaps, it is more appealling to not have free throw shooting or star players in foul trouble decide games. There are, of course, different ways to capitalize on this, UNC players, for example, do not respond very well to a physical game. However, they have smartly (particularly against USC) used their depth to punish other front lines, eventually physically draining them or drawing them into foul trouble. Unfortunately, our Blue Devils could not have responded worse to physical play this year. I believe the impression was created that Duke could be "punked" -- effectively taken out of its game with physical play. When Greg Paulus responded to VCU's physical play we a little very minor message I was right there with him cheering him on. Unfortunately, I suspect that's also when the VCU bench knew they had us.

dukie8
03-25-2007, 12:48 PM
IMO the common factor among the teams advancing this year is the ability to rise to, respond to or take advantage of the more physical game which the refs allow during the tournament (particularly compared to the ACC regular season). The tournament is called this way because it is is an equalizing factor for disparities in raw athletic talent and, perhaps, it is more appealling to not have free throw shooting or star players in foul trouble decide games. There are, of course, different ways to capitalize on this, UNC players, for example, do not respond very well to a physical game. However, they have smartly (particularly against USC) used their depth to punish other front lines, eventually physically draining them or drawing them into foul trouble. Unfortunately, our Blue Devils could not have responded worse to physical play this year. I believe the impression was created that Duke could be "punked" -- effectively taken out of its game with physical play. When Greg Paulus responded to VCU's physical play we a little very minor message I was right there with him cheering him on. Unfortunately, I suspect that's also when the VCU bench knew they had us.

speculating that there is a conspiracy amongst refs not to call fouls in the ncaat is a bit much. moreover, oden and hibbert, probably the 2 best bigs in the tournament, have been in foul trouble for much of the tournament (both have fouled out of games). duke's problems this year were much more extensive than merely being "punked" by a mid-major. the bottom line is that talent wins a lot of games by itself. talent plus great coaching wins a lot more games. we have the great coach but didn't have the talent this year. anyone who has watched the games in the sweet 16 should be able to see that the teams that have made it this far are not full of slow plodding guys who make smart plays. add to the fact that our under-athletic team couldn't do the things that don't require being a great athlete -- like shoot foul shots or protect the ball -- we were doomed.

Sixthman
03-25-2007, 01:39 PM
Gosh, i don't think its fair or accurate to turn my observation into a conspiracy. I think it is a generally accepted truth that different conferences call games in a different manner. This is less true than it used to be, as most refs work multiple conferences and everyone watches games from all over the country. Still, watch an ACC regular season game and then a Big Ten game and the difference is unmistakable. This is not a conspiracy. Rather, it is a choice that each conference is entitled to make. Most people who follow the ACC believe that the way ACC games are worked makes for a better brand of basketball. in turn, it is also not a conspiracy when the NCAA, faced with running a tournament with teams from almost all conferences, chooses the standards by which NCAA games will be worked. It quite literally has to be done, as the option would allow the philosphy of indiividual officiating crews to influence the outcome of the tournament. I have heard more than one coach make the observation that NCAA tounament games allow more physical play than average. It is also generally understood that this is one of the reason that many higher scoring teams score less in the tournament. In fact, until now, I have never heard any one question this notion.

dukie8
03-25-2007, 01:47 PM
Gosh, i don't think its fair or accurate to turn my observation into a conspiracy. I think it is a generally accepted truth that different conferences call games in a different manner. This is less true than it used to be, as most refs work multiple conferences and everyone watches games from all over the country. Still, watch an ACC regular season game and then a Big Ten game and the difference is unmistakable. This is not a conspiracy. Rather, it is a choice that each conference is entitled to make. Most people who follow the ACC believe that the way ACC games are worked makes for a better brand of basketball. in turn, it is also not a conspiracy when the NCAA, faced with running a tournament with teams from almost all conferences, chooses the standards by which NCAA games will be worked. It quite literally has to be done, as the option would allow the philosphy of indiividual officiating crews to influence the outcome of the tournament. I have heard more than one coach make the observation that NCAA tounament games allow more physical play than average. It is also generally understood that this is one of the reason that many higher scoring teams score less in the tournament. In fact, until now, I have never heard any one question this notion.

so what you are saying is that refs, who ref different leagues, say to themselves before each game "ok, i am officiating a game in x conference so i have to adjust my calling accordingly." you also ARE suggesting that there is a conspiracy amongst the ncaa and refs to call games looser in the ncaat. what else would you like to call it? if this is the case, then why had oden, the most widely known big man in college, been in foul trouble for what seems like the entire tournament and why has he been called for several phantom or ticky tack fouls? the same goes for hibbert, who probably is the second best big in the ncaat.

it is NOT generally understood a conspiracy to call less fouls in the ncaat is the reason why games are lower scoring. please substantiate that if you truly believe that to be the case. you probably have never heard anyone question that notion before because so few people also believe it. much more plausible explanations are (1) that the teams are better so there are fewer 100+ point blowouts against rpi bottom dwellers to pull the average up and (2) the play is much more deliberate given how much more important the games are than the regular season games.

Sixthman
03-25-2007, 03:09 PM
Your choice of the word conspiracy suggests bad intentions or that that perhaps there is something covert about it. As I said in my last post, it is a fact that different conferences have different styles they expect of their refs, different points of emphasis and difference philosophies as to how they expect games to be managed. I invite another visitor to this thread to comment on this point. I don't think it is subject to dispute. As for why Oden is having more fouls called on him in this environment I can only speculate, but I offer the following: 1) he is playing better competetion (this is a tough call, as the big ten regular season was surely tough) 2) he is being asked to do more; 3) he is a freshman making mental mistakes in the face of a high pressure environment; 4) the refs have a subconscious bias in favor of the under dog; 5) he is playing more minutes (I havn't looked this up -- just a guess) 6) more physical play on the perimeter puts a premium on the inside game and he is being forced to make more defensive plays; and 7) the physical play that is allowed in the tournament is away from the ball, on plays that don't result in tournovers or influence shots. Oden is not involved in covering guys bringing the ball up court, trapping in the back court, in he perimeter on half court, and therefore, he is not himself the beneficiary of the more physical play (except perhaps on rebounds, where the refs appear to let more go during the tournament than in many conferences: 8) Ohio State is playing more half court and less transition (a common occurance during tournament time), resulting in more foul opportunities for a big man.