A "Low-class" move?

[Olympic Fan]

Wow ... I've heard about losers complain about the winner is running up the score, but I have never before heard the winner in a 62-38 game complain that the LOSER was doing something wrong by continuing to play to the end:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9854222/mike-leach-washington-state-cougars-low-class-says-oregon-ducks-nick-aliotti

I'm not fan of Mike Leach, but was he wrong for continuing to throw the ball at the end of a lopsided game? What did the Oregon coach want -- for Leach to take his beating and run out the clock?

You can argue that leach should have pulled his regulars earlier, but that's his determination -- not Oregon's. At least that's what I hear when it's the other way around and the loser is complaining about the winning team's starters staying in the game too long.

[roywhite]

When I saw your thread title, I thought it might be about UVa FB Coach Mike London. Seemed like a really low-class move when he went for a 2 point conversion in the first half yesterday and then celebrated his 22-0 lead like he had won the Super Bowl (flying chest bump with a player, etc.).

The Karma that came his way after that stunt was just one more reason to enjoy the Duke comeback.

[Mabdul Doobakus]

I would say teams that are getting blown out do this more often than not. I would say it's standard practice. Not sure why anyone is complaining...probably just worried about the BCS computers or something.

[JNort]

I don't see an issue with it. Play to win the game.

[-bdbd]

Aliotti is an idiot. A team NEVER has an obligation to give up, until the final horn.

He just sounds like a small man who was irritated that his defensive stats were a little sullied by a "Never Say Die" team on the other side. Aliotti is 100% wrong.

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

When I saw your thread title, I thought it might be about UVa FB Coach Mike London. Seemed like a really low-class move when he went for a 2 point conversion in the first half yesterday and then celebrated his 22-0 lead like he had won the Super Bowl (flying chest bump with a player, etc.).

The Karma that came his way after that stunt was just one more reason to enjoy the Duke comeback.

We listened to the VA post game as we drove happily away from Charlottesville last night. The whole conversation with the UVa coach centered about the mental difficulties for young players who keep losing games, how much it hurts the players, the coaches and the fans. I don't remember any analysis of play. I'm not sure Duke was mentioned by name at all. In the stands during the third quarter (our seats were in the UVa priority seating surrounded by multi generations of Wahoos including some from Methuselah's class), people around us began to exclaim, "Here we go again." There seems to be a sense of being victims with no control over their own fates.

[uh_no]

When I saw your thread title, I thought it might be about UVa FB Coach Mike London. Seemed like a really low-class move when he went for a 2 point conversion in the first half yesterday and then celebrated his 22-0 lead like he had won the Super Bowl (flying chest bump with a player, etc.).

The Karma that came his way after that stunt was just one more reason to enjoy the Duke comeback.

to be fair, we've won 5/6 against them....think of how pumped we were when we were up early against UNC last year...

[Henderson]

What did the Oregon coach want -- for Leach to take his beating and run out the clock?


Disclosure: I'm from Oregon and a Duck fan.

Just to be clear: It wasn't the Oregon head coach, but the Defensive Coordinator, Nick Alliota, who made the comments. He was pissed that Wazzou was running up offensive stats against HIS defense in a game that was long over and when Oregon had its scout team in. Wazzou set an offensive record in a losing effort against the Ducks, and Alliota was jacked about that. But Alliota has been the DC for Oregon for a lot of years, and he's been criticized as the weak link in an offensively-minded football team. More recently, his defenses have performed better. I think it's a pride/chip-on-the-shoulder issue with him. Wazzou lit him up for 500+ yards of offense and 38 points. So he lost his temper at having the "stats" run up on him.

But get a life. You're #2 in the country and won by 24.

You can't blame Washington State for trying to salvage something meaningful out of a game in which they were 40 point underdogs, or out of a season that is obviously going nowhere. Winners should be gracious enough to pull their starters in a blow out, but they shouldn't be criticized if there is something they need to work on. Losers like WSU shouldn't be criticized for trying to salvage something good from a disaster. If a team isn't playing full out to the end, there has to be a reason. WSU didn't have one. Quite the contrary.

[killerleft]

When I saw your thread title, I thought it might be about UVa FB Coach Mike London. Seemed like a really low-class move when he went for a 2 point conversion in the first half yesterday and then celebrated his 22-0 lead like he had won the Super Bowl (flying chest bump with a player, et).

The Karma that came his way after that stunt was just one more reason to enjoy the Duke comeback.

I'm scratching my head. Why would UVA going for two be considered un-kosher? Our defense failed to react to their silly attempt to get a bonus point. That's on us. Who wouldn't take a low-risk point? I CAN see our players snapping out of their lethargy to come back and kick some Wahoo butt, however:) Wait, I did see that!

[OldPhiKap]

I'm scratching my head. Why would UVA going for two be considered un-kosher? Our defense failed to react to their silly attempt to get a bonus point. That's on us. Who wouldn't take a low-risk point? I CAN see our players snapping out of their lethargy to come back and kick some Wahoo butt, however:) Wait, I did see that!

I don't have a problem with it either. London was fighting for his job, and wanted to put the hammer down. I am sure he also knew that Duke has been a much better scoring team in second halves, and that it was unlikely they would hold us down forever. If it woke us up, so be it.

We ran a fake FG IIRC against Navy late in the game, and Cut explained that he wanted to break their will. Football is not a sport for those whose feelings get hurt easily.

I remember when Spurrier was at Florida, he ran the score up against UGa in Athens. The Dawg coach, Ray Goff, was incensed and challenged Steve at mid-field after the game. Spurrier's response: "I didn't see in the rule book where it was MY job to keep us from scoring."

It would be a different matter if it was late in the fourth quarter. At the time, the game was still in doubt and in retrospect UVa needed all the points it could get.

[vick]

I'm scratching my head. Why would UVA going for two be considered un-kosher? Our defense failed to react to their silly attempt to get a bonus point. That's on us. Who wouldn't take a low-risk point? I CAN see our players snapping out of their lethargy to come back and kick some Wahoo butt, however:) Wait, I did see that!

Agreed, I think it's sort of bizarre how some people are painting this as some huge slap in the face. Lots of teams are lining up in this formation now (I think Oregon's success really popularized it) and running a play if the defense is ill-prepared. It's just smart football, nothing more.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Nothing ticks me off more than when Duke is up 99-48 in a December game and the small school that we are playing against continues to shoot at the basket.

(I would have kept my guys in too....great practice/scrimmage opportunity.)

[SoCalDukeFan]

Several years ago USC was beating UCLA 21-7 Not much time left, USC had the ball around the UCLA 40 yard line and tried to run out the clock. QB takes a knee, then Neuheisel calls time out. Next play, USC play action, bomb for another TD.

USC fan behind me wanted an onside kick but did not get it.

Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4VXjyDnYs4)

SoCal

[Devil549]

This is college football play until game is over and if you are losing throw the ball as much as you want.....not real hard to understand. Also no problem with UVA going for 2 in first half up 3 TDs I think Coach London knows his team better than us and yes we faked a FG up 28-7 last week b/c Coach Cut knew we needed the points.

[Reilly]

Woody Hayes -- Ohio State scored to have 48 points, and then went for 2 to hit 50 against Michigan. When Woody was asked why he went for 2, he explained it was b/c he couldn't go for 3:

http://www.michigandaily.com/content/cause-i-couldnt-go-three-1968-1978

I have no problems with teams playing by the rules.

UVa going for 2 wasn't even a Spurrier late-game trick play or a Woody Hayes move, either. Duke beat UVa 55-48 just a couple years ago. UVa needed points. Also, relatively late in the game, UVa had a FG attempt to tie the game b/c we were up by 3 .... UVa would have had to go for a TD there if they had not garnered an extra point earlier with their well-executed 2-point conversion

[ChicagoCrazy84]

Disclosure: I'm from Oregon and a Duck fan.

Just to be clear: It wasn't the Oregon head coach, but the Defensive Coordinator, Nick Alliota, who made the comments. He was pissed that Wazzou was running up offensive stats against HIS defense in a game that was long over and when Oregon had its scout team in. Wazzou set an offensive record in a losing effort against the Ducks, and Alliota was jacked about that. But Alliota has been the DC for Oregon for a lot of years, and he's been criticized as the weak link in an offensively-minded football team. More recently, his defenses have performed better. I think it's a pride/chip-on-the-shoulder issue with him. Wazzou lit him up for 500+ yards of offense and 38 points. So he lost his temper at having the "stats" run up on him.

But get a life. You're #2 in the country and won by 24.

You can't blame Washington State for trying to salvage something meaningful out of a game in which they were 40 point underdogs, or out of a season that is obviously going nowhere. Winners should be gracious enough to pull their starters in a blow out, but they shouldn't be criticized if there is something they need to work on. Losers like WSU shouldn't be criticized for trying to salvage something good from a disaster. If a team isn't playing full out to the end, there has to be a reason. WSU didn't have one. Quite the contrary.

I grew up in Portland so I grew up rooting for Oregon football and continue to do so.

I actually don't mind Aliotti's comments. I see where he is coming from. Look at the end of the day, he is going to take pride in his defense and when someone is padding his teams stats against my scout team with 3 min left in the game, I can see him being a little annoyed. He probably just let it get to him to where he vented. Some people will say oh Wazzu was just playing until the whistle and they weren't giving up. No, the game was over and Mike Leach was just trying to pad the stats and have something to take home. Mike Leach cares about offensive stats more than anything, its his calling card so I can see it from both sides.

At the end of the day, its what Aliotti said "You can have your stats, but I got the most important one, the W"

[Ima Facultiwyfe]

Once again I quote Cutcliffe. "We will never, never go away." I expect our team to keep doing their best until the fat lady sings, no matter who's ahead.
Love, Ima

[DU82]

Woody Hayes -- Ohio State scored to have 48 points, and then went for 2 to hit 50 against Michigan. When Woody was asked why he went for 2, he explained it was b/c he couldn't go for 3:

http://www.michigandaily.com/content/cause-i-couldnt-go-three-1968-1978

I have no problems with teams playing by the rules.

UVa going for 2 wasn't even a Spurrier late-game trick play or a Woody Hayes move, either. Duke beat UVa 55-48 just a couple years ago. UVa needed points. Also, relatively late in the game, UVa had a FG attempt to tie the game b/c we were up by 3 .... UVa would have had to go for a TD there if they had not garnered an extra point earlier with their well-executed 2-point conversion

Except we went for two because the go ahead TD put us up one. If UVa hadn't scored the two, we would have kicked the extra point instead, and would have been up by the same three points.

At the game, we didn't think they were rubbing it in. We in the stands thought we screwed up by not defending the formation properly. UVa was in the same formation after their first TD, but we covered properly and they shifted to the normal extra point kicking formation.

[Reilly]

Except we went for two because the go ahead TD put us up one. If UVa hadn't scored the two, we would have kicked the extra point instead, and would have been up by the same three points.

At the game, we didn't think they were rubbing it in. We in the stands thought we screwed up by not defending the formation properly. UVa was in the same formation after their first TD, but we covered properly and they shifted to the normal extra point kicking formation.

Ah, true. OK, instead of their going for 2 putting them within a FG late in the game (as I wrote), one could say that their going for 2 put pressure on us to go for two.

It was a strategic call by Virginia, not a rub your nose in it call.

[DU82]

Ah, true. OK, instead of their going for 2 putting them within a FG late in the game (as I wrote), one could say that their going for 2 put pressure on us to go for two.

It was a strategic call by Virginia, not a rub your nose in it call.

Exactly. I don't understand the hate for Coach London here about this play. We gave them the opportunity, they took it. I get the sense that they line up in the split formation a lot, for just that reason. One of our previous coaches did the same thing, although I don't remember scoring two out of it.

[JasonEvans]

Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4VXjyDnYs4)

Best part about that clip is when the announcer says, "You get the feeling watching Rick Neuheisel coach against Pete Carroll that these two guys are going to be doing this with each other for a looooong time."

That was November of 2009. In 2 months, Carroll would be in Seattle. In 2 years, Neuheisal would be fired by UCLA. Crystal ball seems to have failed the announcer this time. Ha!

-Jason "love USC throwing that bomb. The timeout by UCLA was stupid" Evans

[brevity]

Wow ... I've heard about losers complain about the winner is running up the score, but I have never before heard the winner in a 62-38 game complain that the LOSER was doing something wrong by continuing to play to the end:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9854222/mike-leach-washington-state-cougars-low-class-says-oregon-ducks-nick-aliotti

I'm not fan of Mike Leach, but was he wrong for continuing to throw the ball at the end of a lopsided game? What did the Oregon coach want -- for Leach to take his beating and run out the clock?

You can argue that leach should have pulled his regulars earlier, but that's his determination -- not Oregon's. At least that's what I hear when it's the other way around and the loser is complaining about the winning team's starters staying in the game too long.


I would say teams that are getting blown out do this more often than not. I would say it's standard practice. Not sure why anyone is complaining...probably just worried about the BCS computers or something.

Nailed it.

The BCS rankings (http://sports-ak.espn.go.com/college-football/bcs/_/year/2013) are out, and Oregon is #3. (Florida State is #2, and #1 by average computer ranking.) Did the late-game WSU scoring make a difference? Maybe, maybe not. But we can conclude that the Oregon defense coach's paranoia comes from a very real place.

[Wander]

The BCS rankings (http://sports-ak.espn.go.com/college-football/bcs/_/year/2013) are out, and Oregon is #3. (Florida State is #2, and #1 by average computer ranking.) Did the late-game WSU scoring make a difference? Maybe, maybe not. But we can conclude that the Oregon defense coach's paranoia comes from a very real place.

The computer rankings don't take into account margin of victory. I suppose the voters could, but I'm pretty sure given what FSU did, the stats from the Oregon game didn't matter at all. But if the coach thinks they might, he can keep in his starters.

I'm shocked the UVA 2 point conversion is even being discussed. That's the equivalent of saying it's unclassy for Andre Dawkins to shoot a three pointer when Duke is up 8 points in the first half against Syracuse.

[Bluedog]

Nailed it.

The BCS rankings (http://sports-ak.espn.go.com/college-football/bcs/_/year/2013) are out, and Oregon is #3. (Florida State is #2, and #1 by average computer ranking.) Did the late-game WSU scoring make a difference? Maybe, maybe not. But we can conclude that the Oregon defense coach's paranoia comes from a very real place.


The computer rankings don't take into account margin of victory. I suppose the voters could, but I'm pretty sure given what FSU did, the stats from the Oregon game didn't matter at all. But if the coach thinks they might, he can keep in his starters.

Right, the BCS computers used to be allowed to take margin of victory into account, but the BCS made that against the rules. Many computer rankings now have an "adjusted rank" that they think is more reliable (a la KenPom's efficiency rankings) and the BCS rank that sees a 1-point victory the exact same as a 50-point victory. There' are arguments both ways to include it or not in my mind - I think they changed it one year after Oklahoma was running up the scores majorly to try to up their computer rankings and leapfrog a team in the BCS standings.

Edit: Here's an article: http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jerry-palm/24111695/sagarin-changes-formula-finally-removes-margin-of-victory

The result is that since 2002, margin of victory has not been a factor in the computer rankings used by the BCS. Two of the computer gurus dropped out instead of adjusting their formulas.

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

Exactly. I don't understand the hate for Coach London here about this play. We gave them the opportunity, they took it. I get the sense that they line up in the split formation a lot, for just that reason. One of our previous coaches did the same thing, although I don't remember scoring two out of it.
Maybe the negativity about Coach London isn't restricted to this play. He's not endeared himself to Duke during his tenure at UVa. For example, when The 'Hoos were in Wallace Wade during the Cutcliffe era, there was an incident of a UVa player mouthing off at Coach Cutcliffe along the sidelines following a play, one of the few times I've seen Coach Cutcliffe publicly show his anger at any player. London came over to join the conflict and gave the appearance of getting up in Coach Cutcliffe's face. Supposedly he was saying, "Yes, sir" and agreeing with Coach Cutcliffe regarding the disrespect his player had just demonstrated, but his body language didn't jive with those words.

Coach London's post game show Saturday night was nothing but victim speak. No stats analysis. Duke was not mentioned by name nor was Duke's play a part of the conversation. It was all about how hurt the players were, how fragile, etc. Same for coaches and fans. The last time I heard such a negative way of talking while taking no responsibility was when Carl Franks was openly criticizing and complaining about his players in all his pubic comments at all sorts of events.

[JasonEvans]

Right, the BCS computers used to be allowed to take margin of victory into account, but the BCS made that against the rules. Many computer rankings now have an "adjusted rank" that they think is more reliable (a la KenPom's efficiency rankings) and the BCS rank that sees a 1-point victory the exact same as a 50-point victory. There' are arguments both ways to include it or not in my mind - I think they changed it one year after Oklahoma was running up the scores majorly to try to up their computer rankings and leapfrog a team in the BCS standings.

Edit: Here's an article: http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jerry-palm/24111695/sagarin-changes-formula-finally-removes-margin-of-victory

It is just silly to think that a 1 point victory is the same as a 50 point one. But, I get the concern about running up the score and the sportsmanship involved in that.

The simple and logical solution is to "cap" the margin of victory component at 14 points or so. Frankly, a 14 point win is at least somewhat similar to a 20 or 30 point victory in that there was clearly one team better than the other. That is what you want to measure -- was it a tight game between fairly evenly matched teams or was it a bit of a mismatch? We can tell that while not encouraging teams to win by 25+ and embarrass their opponent every week.

-Jason "in the myriad of stupid things about college football, this is sorta low-hanging fruit" Evans

[budwom]

There was nothing wrong with what London did from a sportsmanship standpoint. However, I'm not sure it
was a wise move in that it may have awakened us from our stupor. They'd already made us look bad with
a well executed fake punt...the two point play made us look even worse....but it was their last scoring play
of the day.

[roywhite]

When I saw your thread title, I thought it might be about UVa FB Coach Mike London. Seemed like a really low-class move when he went for a 2 point conversion in the first half yesterday and then celebrated his 22-0 lead like he had won the Super Bowl (flying chest bump with a player, etc.).

The Karma that came his way after that stunt was just one more reason to enjoy the Duke comeback.


I'm scratching my head. Why would UVA going for two be considered un-kosher? Our defense failed to react to their silly attempt to get a bonus point. That's on us. Who wouldn't take a low-risk point? I CAN see our players snapping out of their lethargy to come back and kick some Wahoo butt, however:) Wait, I did see that!


Agreed, I think it's sort of bizarre how some people are painting this as some huge slap in the face. Lots of teams are lining up in this formation now (I think Oregon's success really popularized it) and running a play if the defense is ill-prepared. It's just smart football, nothing more.


Ah, true. OK, instead of their going for 2 putting them within a FG late in the game (as I wrote), one could say that their going for 2 put pressure on us to go for two.

It was a strategic call by Virginia, not a rub your nose in it call.


Exactly. I don't understand the hate for Coach London here about this play. We gave them the opportunity, they took it. I get the sense that they line up in the split formation a lot, for just that reason. One of our previous coaches did the same thing, although I don't remember scoring two out of it.


There was nothing wrong with what London did from a sportsmanship standpoint. However, I'm not sure it
was a wise move in that it may have awakened us from our stupor. They'd already made us look bad with
a well executed fake punt...the two point play made us look even worse....but it was their last scoring play
of the day.

Well, looks like many disagreed with my initial contention about the 2-point attempt being a low class move. Budwom does note that it seems to have been noticed by Duke. And London's celebration (a flying chest bump with one of the players) of the successful 2-point conversion was over-the-top at least.

Scoreboard, Coach London.

[alteran]

It is just silly to think that a 1 point victory is the same as a 50 point one. But, I get the concern about running up the score and the sportsmanship involved in that.

The simple and logical solution is to "cap" the margin of victory component at 14 points or so. Frankly, a 14 point win is at least somewhat similar to a 20 or 30 point victory in that there was clearly one team better than the other. That is what you want to measure -- was it a tight game between fairly evenly matched teams or was it a bit of a mismatch? We can tell that while not encouraging teams to win by 25+ and embarrass their opponent every week.

-Jason "in the myriad of stupid things about college football, this is sorta low-hanging fruit" Evans

Of course, if you do that, you'll get teams running trick plays instead of the victory formation to get to the coveted 14. I'm not sure what the answer is, but eliminating point differentials sure solves a lot of ugly.

[chrishoke]

There was nothing wrong with what London did from a sportsmanship standpoint. However, I'm not sure it
was a wise move in that it may have awakened us from our stupor. They'd already made us look bad with
a well executed fake punt...the two point play made us look even worse....but it was their last scoring play
of the day.

Please... Play well, but don't play too well, you may wake up the other team.

[alteran]

When I saw your thread title, I thought it might be about UVa FB Coach Mike London.

I assumed it had to be breaking news about UNC.

[vick]

Of course, if you do that, you'll get teams running trick plays instead of the victory formation to get to the coveted 14. I'm not sure what the answer is, but eliminating point differentials sure solves a lot of ugly.

I think this particular issue could be solvable, actually. The probability of a team winning given a particular situation (time, score, possession, field position, down and distance, and timeouts) is fairly well-known, at least at the NFL level, so I would imagine it could be done for the college game too. So if you want to differentiate between convincing victories and running up the score, the way I would approach it would be to base it on how long a team's expected winning percentage was very high. A concrete example would be from the Kansas City-Houston game, where KC was up 1 and recovered a fumble at the Houston 1-yard line inside of two minutes with no timeouts left--a certain victory if they kneel. Their win probability (http://live.advancednflstats.com/index.php?gameid1=2013102005) was very near 100% at this point, so if you base a "victory margin" factor on this, there wouldn't be any incentive to score here. Someone else could work out the math better than me, but I think in principle it shouldn't be that hard to algorithmically differentiate between running-it-up and plays that actually make a team more likely to win.

[wilson]

The last time I heard such a negative way of talking while taking no responsibility was when Carl Franks was openly criticizing and complaining about his players in all his pubic comments at all sorts of events.Unfortunately, I remember the Franks era all too well (he was fired during my senior year at Duke), but I don't remember this kind of stuff at all. Synopsis?

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

Unfortunately, I remember the Franks era all too well (he was fired during my senior year at Duke), but I don't remember this kind of stuff at all. Synopsis?
My recall was that during post game radio interviews, speaking to the Blue Devil Club and other such opportunities a trend emerged. As the program slid faster into the ditch, the more Carl talked about players not having the skills, not knowing how to catch the ball or how to block, on and on in a litany of complaints, all delivered as if he had nothing to do with it. When he got in that mode, he talked about others, third person sort of thing, but not about himself. He grumbled openly and publicly about one of the assistant coaches who wouldn't go along with the poor preparations and decisions. When he would complain about the players so you could identify them individually if you knew them, I don't remember hearing him talk about his responsibility for what was happening.

I was startled and embarrassed to hear a Duke coach speak this way, publicly airing a variety of matters which should have remained in the locker room, meeting rooms or coaches' offices. Students may not have been tuned in to those broadcasts, may not have attended those club meetings. I wasn't on campus then, so I can't say how Carl spoke about the team in that environment.

[OldPhiKap]

My recall was that during post game radio interviews, speaking to the Blue Devil Club and other such opportunities a trend emerged. As the program slid faster into the ditch, the more Carl talked about players not having the skills, not knowing how to catch the ball or how to block, on and on in a litany of complaints, all delivered as if he had nothing to do with it. When he got in that mode, he talked about others, third person sort of thing, but not about himself. He grumbled openly and publicly about one of the assistant coaches who wouldn't go along with the poor preparations and decisions. When he would complain about the players so you could identify them individually if you knew them, I don't remember hearing him talk about his responsibility for what was happening.

I was startled and embarrassed to hear a Duke coach speak this way, publicly airing a variety of matters which should have remained in the locker room, meeting rooms or coaches' offices. Students may not have been tuned in to those broadcasts, may not have attended those club meetings. I wasn't on campus then, so I can't say how Carl spoke about the team in that environment.

Sounds like Roy a few years ago. It's the umpteenth practice, etc.

[greybeard]

Might be less bad form than you think. Coach A is killing the other team, score out of reach, and tells his second team guys to run the thing, play very conservatively, as Coach B expects they will, and has his guys with a real chance to shut things down. But, he isn't shutting the other team down; Coach A has his second team in there and has tied their hands.

So far, Coaches A and B are behaving as you'd expect. Especially if B has his first team offense in the game and really opens it up and airs it out, the already shut down (by their own coach) second stringers have to play with their second hand tied behind their back (I'm not sure that that is an apt metaphor) but you get the point.

Coach A in that circumstance, if he wants to really give the second teamers an opportunity to actually feel good about the opportunity to play instead of getting beat by their own coach and the other guys' coach Coach A, if he wants to be true to his guys who bust it every practice would, in these circumstances, take all constraints off, on both offense and defense, and his second stringers would probably continue to run the score up against B's starters. Then, who gets hurt; Coach B's guys, only coach A gets blamed for it.

Not so easy.

I think that K generally let's the second team go for it even if the score is out of hand. He might curb them some, not particularly discernible but maybe fewer three-balls, but it seems that this can be a no win situation for everyone.

[jv001]

Well, looks like many disagreed with my initial contention about the 2-point attempt being a low class move. Budwom does note that it seems to have been noticed by Duke. And London's celebration (a flying chest bump with one of the players) of the successful 2-point conversion was over-the-top at least.
Scoreboard, Coach London.

Coach London must be taking notes from the LA Dodgers in celebrating. Now that's a bunch of "hotdogs". GoDuke!

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

One thing I don't think has been mentioned about Coach London is that the faithful at UVa are definitely losing patience with him and the lack of achievement by and within the program. I think his future there is definitely in jeopardy.

[sagegrouse]

One thing I don't think has been mentioned about Coach London is that the faithful at UVa are definitely losing patience with him and the lack of achievement by and within the program. I think his future there is definitely in jeopardy.

The question is whether the UVa boosters are willing to pony up the $8 million necessary for a buyout. Here's the Washington Post's Miake Giannotto on the subject:


If Virginia were to fire London after this season, the school would owe him approximately $8.06 million. The four assistants hired this offseason — associate head coach Tom O’Brien, offensive coordinator Steve Fairchild, defensive coordinator Jon Tenuta and special teams coordinator Larry Lewis — would cost an additional $3.12 million to buy out this year.

Uhhh... looks more like $11 million with the assistants included, although the school could hold the cost to $8 million by promoting ex-State coach Tom O'Brien, now the Assoc. head Coach, to the top position.

sagegrouse

[Wander]

Please... Play well, but don't play too well, you may wake up the other team.

I can just see it. Duke is playing a ranked Syracuse team in late February, very much in the hunt for a #1 seed. Duke's in the middle of a big run in the first half. Andre Dawkins hits a 3 pointer to put Duke up 38-30 with 4:30 left in the half. Mere seconds later, Quinn Cook double teams onto CJ Flair and pokes the ball away, then throws a perfect pass to a sprinting Rasheed Sulaimon on the other end of the court. The crowd is going nuts. It's about to one of those electric, other-team-calls-a-timeout, Vitale-screeches-like-a-howler-monkey moments. Then Rasheed thinks to himself: "you know, if I take this completely open dunk to put us up 10, the other team might get sorta mad at me and play better. I should just dribble the ball out and burn some clock instead." All the Cameron Crazies instinctively understand and watch the rest of the game in respectful silence, except for the occasional golf clap.