Roy not getting much love from the Big 10

[oldnavy]

I have to admit that reading the article linked on the front page gave me pleasure. It seems that between Tom Izzo at MSU and now the ex AD at UW, that Ol Roy isn't a very popular guy in the coaches and administration circles of the Big 10 conference.

I am just glad to see that others outside the triangle see through his act.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Looks like a lot of crying and whining to me. What I see from that article is Roy stating an opinion that slow down thug basketball is boring and bad for the game and a leader of that style got his feelings hurt when he was called out. Tell it like it is Roy!

[Highlander]

I have to admit that reading the article linked on the front page gave me pleasure. It seems that between Tom Izzo at MSU and now the ex AD at UW, that Ol Roy isn't a very popular guy in the coaches and administration circles of the Big 10 conference.

I am just glad to see that others outside the triangle see through his act.

A buddy of mine is a Wisconsin fan, and they have a huge chip on their shoulder about the ACC/Big10 Challenge. It's probably due to them being beaten like a drum for so many years; they had to find some reason other than basketball that they weren't winning. Anyway, think Gary Williams/Seth Greenberg level conspiracy theories on this one.

The general perception that Duke and UNC don't play road games in the challenge, and when they did, they were at neutral sites and against weaker Big10 teams. Meanwhile, Wisconsin was on the road at a hostile venue pretty much every year. That may have been true up until 2003, but it hasn't been that way recently. I pointed out the facts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACC_%E2%80%93_Big_Ten_Challenge) to my buddy, but he didn't care. At any rate, beating Duke in Kohl 2 years ago and winning the last 2 challenges only further validated those claims that they've been given a shorted deck until recently.

As for UNC, they have played as tough a slate as anyone in the challenge, and they've played road games 3 of the last 4 years, so they're due a home game. Ohio State would have been the best pairing, but they are also due a home game this year too. Had they paired OSU at UNC, I'm sure OSU would gripe about 2 home games in a row and playing at UNC, so if you're making the pairings you can't win. Instead of griping about a game against a top #5 team, why not embrace the challlenge? It just sounds like sour grapes to me.

[BD80]

... think Gary Williams/Seth Greenberg level conspiracy theories on this one.

The general perception that Duke and UNC don't play road games in the challenge, and when they did, they were at neutral sites and against weaker Big10 teams.

... It just sounds like sour grapes to me.

This is the former AD, not just a coach. The AD would understand that Duke and Carolina can fill big stadiums and earn big $ for their opponents. It does say something that Duke does not play its "home" games at Greensboro to generate income or get neutral court experience - but would Duke v Big 10 sell out in Greensboro in December?

My point is that the AD would understand the business end AND all of the other factors involved in the scheduling. For him to openly criticize ol' roy really means something. Something bad about ol' roy.

[fgb]

shouldn't it be unc playing oh. st., not us?

don't get me wrong, i'm glad that we're playing the best they've got in the big ten. if i were a carolina fan, though, i think i'd be sort of peeved. i always thought that the idea was to match teams up in the predicted order of finish.

[oldnavy]

Looks like a lot of crying and whining to me. What I see from that article is Roy stating an opinion that slow down thug basketball is boring and bad for the game and a leader of that style got his feelings hurt when he was called out. Tell it like it is Roy!

Really, if you don't play a running style of ball it is thug ball? How did you feel about Dean and the Four Corners? Seems to me that most UNC fans thought that Dean was a basketball genius when he played slow down ball. I just thought it was chicken excrement myself, but it was effective.

Roy likes to run, no doubt, but that is only one style of ball. A well played half court game is more fun to watch IMO than a turnover plagued run and gun game. To each his own.

[OldPhiKap]

Really, if you don't play a running style of ball it is thug ball? How did you feel about Dean and the Four Corners? Seems to me that most UNC fans thought that Dean was a basketball genius when he played slow down ball. I just thought it was chicken excrement myself, but it was effective.

Roy likes to run, no doubt, but that is only one style of ball. A well played half court game is more fun to watch IMO than a turnover plagued run and gun game. To each his own.


I hope Maryland fans are as well-adjusted as you, because they're fixin' to go from 90 mph to 45.

My bet is that they're not.

[oldnavy]

I hope Maryland fans are as well-adjusted as you, because they're fixin' to go from 90 mph to 45.

My bet is that they're not.

They may learn to love it if they get plenty of W's and deep into the tourny!

Personally, I like different styles and I like any style when it is played well. I do not mind watching a slow paced, bang it inside game in the 60's if good shots are taken and good defense is played. On the other had just because a game is played in the 90's doesn't make it fun for me to watch. Take the HS All Star games, they are about as fast as you can play, but I do not think anyone would say that they are enjoyable to watch from a basketball perspective. Maybe fun to watch to see how an individual plays, but the games are painful IMO.

[shoutingncu]

How did you feel about Dean and the Four Corners? ...I just thought it was chicken excrement myself, but it was effective.

Just so I'm clear... we're now criticizing Roy for criticizing Wisconsin for what DBR has criticized Carolina for for-I'm assuming-ever.

For a fanbase that hates Four Corners as much as this one, your team sure runs the modern version of it pretty well.

[MCFinARL]

shouldn't it be unc playing oh. st., not us?

don't get me wrong, i'm glad that we're playing the best they've got in the big ten. if i were a carolina fan, though, i think i'd be sort of peeved. i always thought that the idea was to match teams up in the predicted order of finish.

According to what I have read, UNC and Ohio State are not playing because both were due for home games in the challenge this year. And given how high both teams are ranked it might not be easy to ask one to play this game away.

[brevity]

Just so I'm clear... we're now criticizing Roy for criticizing Wisconsin for what DBR has criticized Carolina for for-I'm assuming-ever.

This was my impression as well. Duke fans would be wise to keep antagonizing UNC without trying to defend Wisconsin and the pace (http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-basketball/2011/3/11/2045645/penn-state-wisconsin-big-ten-tournament-scoring-stats-records) of Big Ten basketball. It smacks of hypocrisy.

The important thing is that the article (read it here (http://host.madison.com/sports/columnists/adam_mertz/article_dad59ac2-8184-11e0-871e-001cc4c03286.html)) is funny, and it puts some long-held regional criticisms of Roy Williams on a more national level: whiner, born on third base, less than excellent reputation for defense.

I agree with most that Ohio State would be the more appealing matchup for UNC, but Wisconsin (Marshall vs. Taylor, for those of you who insist on viewing the game from the point guard perspective) is a nice consolation prize.

[crimsonandblue]

This was my impression as well. Duke fans would be wise to keep antagonizing UNC without trying to defend Wisconsin and the pace (http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-basketball/2011/3/11/2045645/penn-state-wisconsin-big-ten-tournament-scoring-stats-records) of Big Ten basketball. It smacks of hypocrisy.

The important thing is that the article (read it here (http://host.madison.com/sports/columnists/adam_mertz/article_dad59ac2-8184-11e0-871e-001cc4c03286.html)) is funny, and it puts some long-held regional criticisms of Roy Williams on a more national level: whiner, born on third base, less than excellent reputation for defense.

I agree with most that Ohio State would be the more appealing matchup for UNC, but Wisconsin (Marshall vs. Taylor, for those of you who insist on viewing the game from the point guard perspective) is a nice consolation prize.

Born on third base is a joke. The dude was raised in modest means. Took a low (no?) paying assistant position and famously sold calendars door-to-door to make ends meet. Took over a Kansas program on probation and grew the program for years. His whole Haiti thing and issues with self-importance aside, the guy wasn't born on third base.

Anyway, Roy's teams have also been pretty solid in terms of defensive efficiency for years. And his arguments against physical play have less to do with pace than with physicality. If you want to slow it down and milk clock, fine. He'd rather be up-tempo, but I doubt he'd complain too much about that. His gripes relate to physical post play and the fairly modern defensive approach that involves strong, physical hedges, bumping cutters, physical post play, etc. that take away from the "purity" and finesse of the game as the rules are written.

Now, that last part is easy for him to say, since he's generally going to have better, more skilled players, but I don't begrudge him the position.

[oldnavy]

Just so I'm clear... we're now criticizing Roy for criticizing Wisconsin for what DBR has criticized Carolina for for-I'm assuming-ever.

For a fanbase that hates Four Corners as much as this one, your team sure runs the modern version of it pretty well.

I wasn't criticizing Roy, I was just finding amusement at the UW ex AD's comments along with Izzo's statements from a year or so ago.

As far as running the modern day version of the 4 corners, we must be pretty dadgum good at it, because we led the league in scoring and we outscored UNC by 3 points a game last year.

CONFERENCE BASKETBALL STATISTICS

SCORING OFFENSE G W-L Pts Avg/G
1. Duke 37 32-5 2993 80.9
2. North Carolina 37 29-8 2868 77.5
3. Maryland 33 19-14 2536 76.8
4. Boston College 34 21-13 2440 71.8
5. Miami 36 21-15 2579 71.6
6. NC State 31 15-16 2191 70.7
7. Virginia Tech 34 22-12 2390 70.3
8. Florida State 34 23-11 2348 69.1
9. Clemson 34 22-12 2330 68.5
10. Georgia Tech 31 13-18 2102 67.8
11. Wake Forest 32 8-24 2151 67.2
12. Virginia 31 16-15 1918 61.9

[devildeac]

I hope Maryland fans are as well-adjusted as you, because they're fixin' to go from 90 mph to 45.

My bet is that they're not.

Doesn't matter. They'll still riot:rolleyes:.

[devildeac]

Just so I'm clear... we're now criticizing Roy for criticizing Wisconsin for what DBR has criticized Carolina for for-I'm assuming-ever.

For a fanbase that hates Four Corners as much as this one, your team sure runs the modern version of it pretty well.

Thank you. Plus, I think we all know now why there is a shot clock;):rolleyes:.

And we shoot the ball and hit the rim more than once in the first half of this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRVmc6dO0g8

[uh_no]

Looks like a lot of crying and whining to me. What I see from that article is Roy stating an opinion that slow down thug basketball is boring and bad for the game and a leader of that style got his feelings hurt when he was called out. Tell it like it is Roy!

This is especially prudent after uconn won the title playing slow down basketball....and before that duke won the title playing slow down basketball ( in what many consider one of the best championship games in NCAA history)

The difference though, is slow down basketball vs a good team produces a great game, but slow down vs a mediocre team (or a team playing poorly) produces a terrible game. Fast pace basketball will produce an exciting game regardless of the quality of the teams (I don't agree, but that's the general feeling amongst fans, I think)

[Buckeye Devil]

Being from the Midwest and a longsuffering Big 10 fan (but a Duke fan first and foremost), I have to admit that UW plays an ugly style of ball that I hate to watch. I don't think they are exactly thugs, though. UW does not bring in hoodlums with character issues. They bring in decent players and I have not heard of any off-court issues from them. MSU is not exactly an experience in basketball aesthetics either. But they have carried the flag for the league very successfully on the national stage. Frankly I never liked the 4 corners and I am not a huge fan of when Coach K tries to take time off the clock by taking the air out of the ball.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Really, if you don't play a running style of ball it is thug ball? How did you feel about Dean and the Four Corners? Seems to me that most UNC fans thought that Dean was a basketball genius when he played slow down ball. I just thought it was chicken excrement myself, but it was effective.

Roy likes to run, no doubt, but that is only one style of ball. A well played half court game is more fun to watch IMO than a turnover plagued run and gun game. To each his own.

From the article....
Williams said: "Are you going to tell me you don't like this more than 19-17 at halftime? I'm not a nuclear physicist, but you make the choice. We're trying to make it a game of basketball skills, not a weight room contest."

The 19-17 reference was directed at the halftime score of the Badgers' NCAA semifinal against Michigan State the previous spring, a physical and admittedly not pretty game between two familiar foes."

In that case, Roy was commenting on one ugly played game. And the AD was just whining.
For the record, I have no problem with a well played 1/2 court game. I'd love to see a team of elite level athletes play the Princeton offense.

But we've had this discussion before, I hate to see a game where the refs "Let'em play"...a foul is a foul...call the darn fouls and if you commit too many, sit your butt down.

As for the 4 corners, I was not a big fan of that myself, but I understood why Dean did it, it was his way of making a point as to how the rules were written at the time. Innovation comes from those who think outside the box.

[sporthenry]

I find it kind of humorous that the Big 10 is being heaped into a physical conference. If you are going to call one conference out, I would assume it would be the BE on their physicality but I guess Roy doesn't play/see them enough. I don't think the B10 is ugly b/c of they foul too much, it is more ugly b/c they milk the shot clock and when you get bad teams milking the shot clock, then you get games in the 30's.

[Eternal Outlaw]

Looks like a lot of crying and whining to me. What I see from that article is Roy stating an opinion that slow down thug basketball is boring and bad for the game and a leader of that style got his feelings hurt when he was called out. Tell it like it is Roy!


From the article....
Williams said: "Are you going to tell me you don't like this more than 19-17 at halftime? I'm not a nuclear physicist, but you make the choice. We're trying to make it a game of basketball skills, not a weight room contest."

The 19-17 reference was directed at the halftime score of the Badgers' NCAA semifinal against Michigan State the previous spring, a physical and admittedly not pretty game between two familiar foes."

In that case, Roy was commenting on one ugly played game. And the AD was just whining.
For the record, I have no problem with a well played 1/2 court game. I'd love to see a team of elite level athletes play the Princeton offense.

But we've had this discussion before, I hate to see a game where the refs "Let'em play"...a foul is a foul...call the darn fouls and if you commit too many, sit your butt down.

As for the 4 corners, I was not a big fan of that myself, but I understood why Dean did it, it was his way of making a point as to how the rules were written at the time. Innovation comes from those who think outside the box.

So Dean within the rules did a style that may not be fun to watch but since it was effective he was an innovator by Dick Bennett within the rules does a style that may not be fun to watch and Roy is right to cry and whine about it and is telling it like it is. What a crock. Roy saw a style that could stifle/slow his, knows he would never use that style, and decided to cry about it. The real shame is that Williams served on the NCAA basketball rules committee for six years, chairing the committee in 2000-01 so he could take his dislike and make changes.

Calling it thug basketball is weak, there were no cheap shots being thrown. Playing tight defense is not thug basketball. Miami laid down some tough D yesterday leaving Chicago with only 75 total points and just 10 points in the 4th, they did their best to bump Rose around, was that thug basketball? Of course not and lots of NBA fans would probably rather see 24 points scored in the 4th quarter of an NBA conference final game but when two teams capable of playing defense step it up on that end, it happens. It's ok if you don't like it, just turn the channel to some And 1 exhibition game or something.

I will agree with one thing, the AD was whining. Roy whined about a style of play he doesn't like, the AD whines about Roy not liking it. Dean worked within the rules and won games, Dick Bennett worked within the rules and won games. Standing behind Dean and Roy while taking a cheap shot (thug basketball) at Wisconsin's style and AD is laughable. Both schools had coaches in place that could put game plans into place that would improve their chances to win within the rules and both the AD and Roy are whiners. Proclaiming one side right and one wrong is funny.

[darthur]

So Dean within the rules did a style that may not be fun to watch but since it was effective he was an innovator by Dick Bennett within the rules does a style that may not be fun to watch and Roy is right to cry and whine about it and is telling it like it is. What a crock. Roy saw a style that could stifle/slow his, knows he would never use that style, and decided to cry about it. The real shame is that Williams served on the NCAA basketball rules committee for six years, chairing the committee in 2000-01 so he could take his dislike and make changes.

What is the shame here exactly? Someone who is passionate about the future direction of basketball is chairing the rules committee? Sounds like a pretty good choice to me.

[brevity]

Born on third base is a joke. The dude was raised in modest means. Took a low (no?) paying assistant position and famously sold calendars door-to-door to make ends meet. Took over a Kansas program on probation and grew the program for years. His whole Haiti thing and issues with self-importance aside, the guy wasn't born on third base.

Believe it or not, I've actually read Roy Williams' book, and he was most certainly not a child of privilege. "Modest means" is a mild way to describe his upbringing.

But, as I understand it, the "born on third base" line has to do with his head coaching career, and not his personal life. While I'm not blindly advocating it -- as you stated, he did build something at Kansas, though not necessarily from scratch -- I have to acknowledge it as an enduring criticism, and one that the Wisconsin AD subtly raises.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Playing "physical" is not innovative...its a less talented basketball player/teams way of trying to keep in a game. The current rules are in place to limit excessive pushing, shoving, grabbing...which in my opinion weakens the quality of play...the refs just need to stand up and make the calls.
Playing strong, especially in the post, is a different arguement. When a player beats another to a spot on the floor, he should have the strength to hold it, and the right to not get mugged for it.

[oldnavy]

Playing "physical" is not innovative...its a less talented basketball player/teams way of trying to keep in a game. The current rules are in place to limit excessive pushing, shoving, grabbing...which in my opinion weakens the quality of play...the refs just need to stand up and make the calls.
Playing strong, especially in the post, is a different arguement. When a player beats another to a spot on the floor, he should have the strength to hold it, and the right to not get mugged for it.

So your beef is more with how the refs call the game and not as much as the style of play?

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Yea...that's pretty much my beef because if the refs would call by the rules, teams would be forced to work on improving game skills like dribbling, shooting...anticipation defense...no imatter what pace they liked to play.

It's simple to me. Call the fouls. It will open up the game and force players to improve.

[phaedrus]

I find it kind of humorous that the Big 10 is being heaped into a physical conference. If you are going to call one conference out, I would assume it would be the BE on their physicality but I guess Roy doesn't play/see them enough. I don't think the B10 is ugly b/c of they foul too much, it is more ugly b/c they milk the shot clock and when you get bad teams milking the shot clock, then you get games in the 30's.

Exactly. Wisconsin doesn't have low-scoring games because they beat people up. I've seen Duke teams take more physical abuse from Georgia Tech and Virginia Tech. Wisconsin has low-scoring games because they're working the ball around for 30+ seconds before they take a shot. Not coincidentally their offensive efficiency generally far surpasses their talent level.

[fgb]

As for the 4 corners, I was not a big fan of that myself, but I understood why Dean did it, it was his way of making a point as to how the rules were written at the time. Innovation comes from those who think outside the box.

are you suggesting that dean smith ran the four corners not as a strategy, but simply to point out a flaw in the rules? implying that he actually wanted the shot clock, and designed and ran the four corners not because he liked it or thought it was solid coaching strategy, but did so in order to finesse the ncaa into implementing the shot clock?

[OldPhiKap]

are you suggesting that dean smith ran the four corners not as a strategy, but simply to point out a flaw in the rules? implying that he actually wanted the shot clock, and designed and ran the four corners not because he liked it or thought it was solid coaching strategy, but did so in order to finesse the ncaa into implementing the shot clock?

Dean ran the four corners as a benefit to mankind.

'Cause that's the kind of guy he was.

[Indoor66]

Dean ran the four corners as a benefit to mankind.

'Cause that's the kind of guy he was.

and sharks are frisky little creatures that don't make good pets.

[Kimist]

I remember the Four Corners "offense" -

I saw the UNC/UVa NCAA tourney game that probably was the nail in the coffin for needing a shot clock, and I was present at the infamous unc behind 7-0 at halftime game in Cameron.

I saw waaaay too much of Phil Ford standing at mid-court just bouncing the ball.

It was a sorry way to "play" basketball, aside from those who spout the "genius" of Dean Smith or the "within the rules" excuse.:mad: Anything further, or more specific thoughts stated by me could create sanctions from the DBR staff.

[WiJoe]

I remember the Four Corners "offense" -

I saw the UNC/UVa NCAA tourney game that probably was the nail in the coffin for needing a shot clock, and I was present at the infamous unc behind 7-0 at halftime game in Cameron.

I saw waaaay too much of Phil Ford standing at mid-court just bouncing the ball.

It was a sorry way to "play" basketball, aside from those who spout the "genius" of Dean Smith or the "within the rules" excuse.:mad: Anything further, or more specific thoughts stated by me could create sanctions from the DBR staff.

the fans of the other blue have selective memories. Bozos.

[WiJoe]

Being from the Midwest and a longsuffering Big 10 fan (but a Duke fan first and foremost), I have to admit that UW plays an ugly style of ball that I hate to watch. I don't think they are exactly thugs, though. UW does not bring in hoodlums with character issues. They bring in decent players and I have not heard of any off-court issues from them. MSU is not exactly an experience in basketball aesthetics either. But they have carried the flag for the league very successfully on the national stage. Frankly I never liked the 4 corners and I am not a huge fan of when Coach K tries to take time off the clock by taking the air out of the ball.

Here is the difference between Wisconsin and Michigan State BASKETBALL (I'm not speaking about football); Wisconsin, if it makes a mistake and ends up with a bandit, gets rid of him before he gets on the court to play a game; Michigan State accepts and plays a felon (Zac Randolph; you can look it up, he was a felon as a prepster) and gives a guy like Korey Lucious NUMEROUS chances before finally jettisoning him (conveniently, AFTER a final four. Comparing Wisconsin and Michigan State, IMO, is apples and oranges.

[airowe]

Dean does not deserve the le el of criticism he's receiving in this thread

He didn't develop the Four Corners offense. John McClendon did.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_corners_offense

[Indoor66]

Dean does not deserve the le el of criticism he's receiving in this thread

He didn't develop the Four Corners offense. John McClendon did.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_corners_offense

I disagree. John Dillinger didn't develop bank robbery but he perfected the practice and made constant use of the technique to the detriment of many.

[BD80]

and sharks are frisky little creatures that don't make good pets.

SSOOOOO untrue!

Sharks are generally not frisky, its just that when they do get frisky ...

As pets, they are fine, as long as you only allow obnoxious guests near the shark tank.

Also, there's NOTHING cooler than having pet sharks with frickin' lasers strapped onto them!

[Duke79UNLV77]

Dean does not deserve the le el of criticism he's receiving in this thread

He didn't develop the Four Corners offense. John McClendon did.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_corners_offense

Not only that, but how was that style smart given all the talent UNC had? In the infamous 7-0 game, they were ranked in the top 2-3 teams in the country and a more talented team than Duke. Why would a team with a talent advantage want to minimize the number of possessions so drastically, not just protecting a lead at the end but from the get-go? Seems like it would increase the chances of a fluke loss. Despite tons of talent, Dean never won a championship with the Four Corners.

I'm not anti-Dean in the way I'm anti-Roy. I think they're both very good at coaching basketball; I respect Dean much more as a person. But, to me the Four Corners is more of a blemish than a high point to set Dean above other great coaches, and not just from an aesthetic perspective but from a basketball strategy perspective.

[OldPhiKap]

SSOOOOO untrue!

Sharks are generally not frisky, its just that when they do get frisky ...

As pets, they are fine, as long as you only allow obnoxious guests near the shark tank.

Also, there's NOTHING cooler than having pet sharks with frickin' lasers strapped onto them!

You DON'T want to mess with an ill-tempered sea bass, my friend. Just sayin'.


On point: there is nothing wrong with methodical basketball. There is nothing wrong with milking the clock when you're ahead by the magic margin (whatever that is). Four corners was an abomination, flat-out.

[MChambers]

Not only that, but how was that style smart given all the talent UNC had? In the infamous 7-0 game, they were ranked in the top 2-3 teams in the country and a more talented team than Duke.
I don't remember the rankings at the time, but I don't think UNC was more talented that year. It was the year after Duke lost to Kentucky in the finals and we had all of our key players back, plus Vince Taylor. Duke was very talented: Spanarkel, G-man, Banks, Dennard.

[sagegrouse]

I don't remember the rankings at the time, but I don't think UNC was more talented that year. It was the year after Duke lost to Kentucky in the finals and we had all of our key players back, plus Vince Taylor. Duke was very talented: Spanarkel, G-man, Banks, Dennard.

In the AP polls leading into the game (final regular season) Duke was #6 and UNC was #4. Duke advanced to #5 after beating UNC and fell back to #6 after losing in the ACC finals (grrrr....).

BTW, all the AP rankings on the date games are played are in the Season Database (http://goduke.statsgeek.com/basketball-m/seasons/)under basketball archives at GoDuke.com. Because it is in the "Favorites" bar on my machine it is literally only three clicks away.

sagegrouse

[Duke79UNLV77]

In the AP polls leading into the game (final regular season) Duke was #6 and UNC was #4. Duke advanced to #5 after beating UNC and fell back to #6 after losing in the ACC finals (grrrr....).

BTW, all the AP rankings on the date games are played are in the Season Database (http://goduke.statsgeek.com/basketball-m/seasons/)under basketball archives at GoDuke.com. Because it is in the "Favorites" bar on my machine it is literally only three clicks away.

sagegrouse

In other words, if your team is ranked #4 in the country, grow some. What message does that send to your team? It's not just making sure you move the ball and work for a good shot, a la Duke 2010. It's not just protecting a lead. It's saying if we play regular basketball against you, we don't think we can compete, so we need to shrink the number of possessions dramatically. I'd call that classic overcoaching. Dean was a great coach, but I don't get it when Carolina fans cite the Four Corners as why he's at another level than K and others.

[sagegrouse]

In other words, if your team is ranked #4 in the country, grow some. What message does that send to your team? It's not just making sure you move the ball and work for a good shot, a la Duke 2010. It's not just protecting a lead. It's saying if we play regular basketball against you, we don't think we can compete, so we need to shrink the number of possessions dramatically. I'd call that classic overcoaching. Dean was a great coach, but I don't get it when Carolina fans cite the Four Corners as why he's at another level than K and others.

I have outlived or outgrown my distaste for Dean Smith. He was an outstanding basketball coach. But he was one complex dude -- wow! Can't figure him out at all, even decades later.

sagegrouse

[Reilly]

..he was one complex dude -- wow! Can't figure him out at all, even decades later....

I don't view him as all that complex or made up of parts that were at odds with one another. Rather, I always saw him as singularly focused: super-meticulous, hyper-competitive, and pressing every advantage he could think of.

[SoCalDukeFan]

The 4 Corners was extremely boring to watch. It may have been invented somewhere else but its most famous practitioner was Dean Smith at UNC.

For a Dean Smith disciple to criticize any coaching style as boring is pure hypocrisy.

The overly physical style of play of many teams also leads to more boring games. The refs need to call the games like they used to.

SoCal

[uh_no]

The 4 Corners was extremely boring to watch. It may have been invented somewhere else but its most famous practitioner was Dean Smith at UNC.

For a Dean Smith disciple to criticize any coaching style as boring is pure hypocrisy.

The overly physical style of play of many teams also leads to more boring games. The refs need to call the games like they used to.

SoCal

End 1st: 7-0

[oldnavy]

I also find it a little ironic that a carolina fan complains about the refs not making the calls, especially after having suffered through four years of the Hansfloping and the Hanstraveling that was rarely whistled.

And if you want to talk about a boring game, have the refs blow the whistle every 10 seconds and call every bit of contact.... it would absoultly kill the game of basketball.

[WiJoe]

the Hansfloping and the Hanstraveling that was rarely whistled.


Rarely?

[fgb]

And if you want to talk about a boring game, have the refs blow the whistle every 10 seconds and call every bit of contact.... it would absoultly kill the game of basketball.

completely agree. there is nothing more frustrating than watching the 40 minutes of fits and starts that passes for "basketball" in a "tightly controlled" (micromanaged) game.

the game evolved. it has become more athletic. it has also become more physical. whether this is a good or a bad thing is fun to discuss, but is it a moot point.

one thing that i get tired of hearing is how every team that plays a more physical brand of ball gets called out for playing "thug" basketball, because it's the only chance they have of defeating a more talented team. first of all, there is such a thing as "thug basketball"; go back and watch the last five minutes of the last lakers game of this year's playoffs. secondly, so what if a team decides that their best chances to win is to play a more physical brand of ball? if you have three seven footers, you have fifteen fouls to use in the post; it is your prerogative to use them, and if doing so provides a path to beating a team with four first round picks in its starting lineup, you take it. it's called coaching. to call it anything else--especially to infer that is is somehow runs against the integrity of the game--is to imply that a lesser talented team really has no business trying to win in any serious, consistent way. it belies a sense of entitlement, which is in my eyes a lot uglier than a physical basketball game.

[uh_no]

completely agree. there is nothing more frustrating than watching the 40 minutes of fits and starts that passes for "basketball" in a "tightly controlled" (micromanaged) game.

the game evolved. it has become more athletic. it has also become more physical. whether this is a good or a bad thing is fun to discuss, but is it a moot point.

one thing that i get tired of hearing is how every team that plays a more physical brand of ball gets called out for playing "thug" basketball, because it's the only chance they have of defeating a more talented team. first of all, there is such a thing as "thug basketball"; go back and watch the last five minutes of the last lakers game of this year's playoffs. secondly, so what if a team decides that their best chances to win is to play a more physical brand of ball? if you have three seven footers, you have fifteen fouls to use in the post; it is your prerogative to use them, and if doing so provides a path to beating a team with four first round picks in its starting lineup, you take it. it's called coaching. to call it anything else--especially to infer that is is somehow runs against the integrity of the game--is to imply that a lesser talented team really has no business trying to win in any serious, consistent way. it belies a sense of entitlement, which is in my eyes a lot uglier than a physical basketball game.

I love this argument. I like to apply it to the circumstance of 'flopping,' whereby teams (often ours) are accused of flopping to get calls. If it provides a better chance for your team to win the game, I'm fully for it. The question is, if it is such a great boon for a team, why doesn't your team do it as well? If a coach doesn't like 'thug' basketball, why doesn't he develop a strategy to beat it instead of complaining about it? If you can't beat it, why not try to incorporate it into your own game strategy? This is like a baseball coach complaining because the other team is stealing second base all the time....its a way to play the game....deal with it.

[sporthenry]

And if you want to talk about a boring game, have the refs blow the whistle every 10 seconds and call every bit of contact.... it would absoultly kill the game of basketball.

It is a tough medium to find b/c I don't think anyone likes hwo physical the game has become as K has mentioned in the past. But like you say, if you call everything the game is terrible to watch much like these playoffs where 71 points came from the charity stripe in the first game of the OKC/Dal. game. As Van Gundy said, it was perhaps the most boring, high scoring game.

Perhaps the best way to combat the physicality would be to go through a year of bad basketball so that kids would eventually learn to adjust to the new style of officiating but I'm sure that will never happen. I attribute the problem, as I do most current problems in basketball, to the NBA where they sacrificed all integrity for more scoring. They gave the offensive player the benefit of the doubt when all contact was created to the offense so you had guys creating contact. Only now has the NBA followed suit with more offensive foul calls but the superstars seem to get the benefit of the doubt so if you are Kobe or LeBron it makes sense to force the issue b/c odds are you will get the call.

[El_Diablo]

Perhaps the best way to combat the physicality would be to go through a year of bad basketball

Roy definitely had that part covered in 2010.

[darthur]

completely agree. there is nothing more frustrating than watching the 40 minutes of fits and starts that passes for "basketball" in a "tightly controlled" (micromanaged) game.

the game evolved. it has become more athletic. it has also become more physical. whether this is a good or a bad thing is fun to discuss, but is it a moot point.

It's not a moot point. If refs call one game tighter, there will be lots of whistles, the game will slow down, and it will be boring. If they start calling EVERY game tighter, players will adapt, the fouls will go down to the same level as before, and the style of play will change.

This is precisely why it makes a lot of sense for Roy Williams to be on the NCAA rules committee, given his preferences. He believes a certain style of play is bad for the game of basketball, and instead of just complaining about it, he went to the one place where he might be able to change things.

The NBA is living proof that these rule changes really work. They tightened up foul calling over the last 20 years, and in the end, they got a more fluid and less physical game with actually fewer foul calls. Whether you *want* that kind of change is of course personal preference, but it's not a moot point.

[fgb]

The NBA is living proof that these rule changes really work.

the nba of the last ten years is the most consistently boring sport i've ever watched.

[devildeac]

Rarely?

Yes, I do believe the one travel I saw called against him in 4 years qualifies as rarely. Well, maybe two;):rolleyes:.

[fgb]

it (the nba) is also way, way more physical than college ball. it is a physical game now, and that's not gonna change. i'm not saying i like it (i don't), but it is what it is. which is why it is a moot point.

[BD80]

It's not a moot point. If refs call one game tighter, there will be lots of whistles, ...

But if the refs DON'T blow their whistles, it is a mute point ...

[m g]

i don't think duke players flop, i think they get in position to take charges

but whether you call it flopping or good defense... if dean fans are going to praise him for working within the rules with the four corners, shouldn't they admire k for this, even if it were flopping?

[darthur]

the nba of the last ten years is the most consistently boring sport i've ever watched.

Whether you like the NBA or not is beside the point. They tried to reduce the physicality of the game by tightening the rules, and they succeeded. Among other things, the number of foul calls went *down*. If the NCAA wanted to, they could absolutely do the same thing. It would take a few years for people to adapt, but it is possible.


But if the refs DON'T blow their whistles, it is a mute point ...

Funny man!

[sporthenry]

Whether you like the NBA or not is beside the point. They tried to reduce the physicality of the game by tightening the rules, and they succeeded. Among other things, the number of foul calls went *down*. If the NCAA wanted to, they could absolutely do the same thing. It would take a few years for people to adapt, but it is possible

Well this almost seems like the chicken or the egg argument. Are the fouls down or have the refs started letting them play more? As far as reducing the physicality, I think that is a bit of a misnomer. The way I remember basketball 20 years ago was that it wasn't overly physical it was rough. The difference in my eyes were that you had these fouls which would now be called flagrant as the norm. You had some bad rivalries and going to the rim was at the dribbler's discretion when playing certain teams but I don't think the contact occured as much as it does now just b/c the players are so much bigger and stronger now that the court seems small. What was it Baylor's frontcourt last year where if they stood finger to finger they covered about half the court.
And the NBA kinda sent a weird message if they were trying to cut down fouls but then subsequently gave everyone an extra foul. So if anything, wouldn't that extra foul make players more likely to foul players b/c they weren't worried about fouling out and would make them earn it from the stripe?

[darthur]

Well this almost seems like the chicken or the egg argument. Are the fouls down or have the refs started letting them play more? As far as reducing the physicality, I think that is a bit of a misnomer. The way I remember basketball 20 years ago was that it wasn't overly physical it was rough. The difference in my eyes were that you had these fouls which would now be called flagrant as the norm. You had some bad rivalries and going to the rim was at the dribbler's discretion when playing certain teams but I don't think the contact occured as much as it does now just b/c the players are so much bigger and stronger now that the court seems small. What was it Baylor's frontcourt last year where if they stood finger to finger they covered about half the court.
And the NBA kinda sent a weird message if they were trying to cut down fouls but then subsequently gave everyone an extra foul. So if anything, wouldn't that extra foul make players more likely to foul players b/c they weren't worried about fouling out and would make them earn it from the stripe?

I'm not talking college vs NBA. I'm talking old NBA vs current NBA. At least according to this, the NBA has always had 6 fouls:

http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html

Anyway, the goal was not to reduce foul calls. It was to open the game up offensively and reduce physicality, which I think it did. (Hard to put a number to that though, and if you disagree I can't really argue with you.) The reduced number of foul calls was not the original point - it just proves that players will adapt over time to rule changes.

[Kfanarmy]

... Took over a Kansas program on probation and grew the program for years. His whole Haiti thing and issues with self-importance aside, the guy wasn't born on third base...


You're not really trying to say he went through hardship at KU are you?

[oldnavy]

You're not really trying to say he went through hardship at KU are you?

The way I look at it, (and you guys know that I have my issues with Ol Roy) is that Roy didn't screw up either UNC or Kansas. Not every coach that has gone to a "Blue Blooded" program can say that. What we will never know is could Roy have "built" a program that had been down for many years or had never been a power house.

I do have to give him credit for having success at both schools, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that he rebuilt either program.