Final Four Predictions and Discussion Thread

[Steven43]

What an incredibly sad view of basketball and life. I feel sorry for you.

You don’t have any idea what my view is of basketball and certainly not of life. This is a hypothetical discussion that has nothing to do with my personal view of basketball. And I certainly do not need you feeling sorry for me. Condescending much?

[CDu]

You don’t have any idea what my view is of basketball and certainly not of life. This is a hypothetical discussion that has nothing to do with my personal view of basketball. And I certainly do not need you feeling sorry for me. Condescending much?

I won’t condescend, but I will restate that we have exactly one national title in seasons when we failed to play the maximum number of ACC tourney games. Four of our titles came after we made the ACC Final. So, given that we are way more likely to make the Final Four and way more likely to win the title after we reach the ACC Final, why would you think that playing fewer ACC games would increase our chances?

[Steven43]

I won’t condescend, but I will restate that we have exactly one national title in seasons when we failed to play the maximum number of ACC tourney games. Four of our titles came after we made the ACC Final. So, given that we are way more likely to make the Final Four and way more likely to win the title after we reach the ACC Final, why would you think that playing fewer ACC games would increase our chances?

I believe you may have misread my comments. I didn’t say playing fewer ACC games WOULD increase our chances. I said it MIGHT. In some of those years where we made the Final Four but did not go on to win the National Championship we may have been better served by playing fewer games in the ACC tournament and thus saving our energy and mental focus — as well as save wear and tear on the body and have less risk of injury and more time to heal nagging injuries — for the NCAA Tournament. The results of that may have been an additional National Championship or two. Who knows? It could be completely implausible. I’m just throwing it out there as something to think about and as a sort of defense for what HBCK said.

[CDu]

I believe you may have misread my comments. I didn’t say playing fewer ACC games WOULD increase our chances. I said it MIGHT. In some of those years where we made the Final Four but did not go on to win the National Championship we may have been better served by playing fewer games in the ACC tournament and thus saving our energy and mental focus — as well as save wear and tear on the body and have less risk of injury and more time to heal nagging injuries — for the NCAA Tournament. The results of that may have been an additional National Championship or two. Who knows? It could be completely impossible. I’m just throwing it out there as a possibility.

I won’t say that much in this world is impossible. But the evidence seems pretty strongly suggesting the other way. Duke teams that reached the ACC Final have been way more likely to make the Final Four and way more likely to win the whole thing than those that didn’t. So it seems unlikely - not impossible, but highly unlikely - that playing fewer ACC tourney games would lead to better NCAA success.

What I think is much MORE likely is that people remember any examples of failures and conflate a trend when there really is none there.

[Wander]

If we don't make the ACC Final this year, we don't get the overall #1 seed and get bounced in the Sweet 16 by Auburn.

[BobBender]

You're welcome B o b b y

I have to ask, was as thrilling as UNC's game against Villanova just 3 years ago in 2016? Short memory? I think not, a game going to OT and the team's scoring better than people though they would didn't necessarily make it a "classic" game, but sure it was more watchable than expected. The only narrative that the media is trying to push is that this is some miracle turn around by UVA. Good for UVA for finding redemption of some sorts, but them winning just kinda shows the deterioration of college basketball.

This isn't due to a lack of "blue blood" success, it's the fact that the NCAA is corrupt and a horrible organization. Once the NBA fixes the one and done rule, I fear we are gonna get A LOT of teams in the mold of this UVA team, or physical teams like the Big Ten bunch, and while these teams find success - hell UVa just won the chip! I'm not saying it isn't successful, I'm just saying that basketball in the NBA currently undergoing a legitimate Golden Era, and college basketball is getting thrown back into the Stone Ages in terms with how a successful team plays and the general talent level of the kids.

I already don't watch as much college basketball as I used to, but once the NBA figures out a better feeder system for its eventual talent, I'm afraid college basketball is going to be a glorified rec league pick up game. Sure, players will always develop, but interest in college basketball has been dying on the vine over these past few years, and I think that's evident with how much Zion talk there was. There isn't going to be another Zion, and if there is I highly doubt he'll play in college.

This is a complicated conversation, but I think it could be argued that the top college players from 15-20 years ago were better. That's not the case in the NBA. That's a serious problem for college basketball, the talent quality and lack of (major) progress for players who do stay is just pretty rough.

I’m not sure when CBB became entertainment for the masses. Perhaps it was the Jordan era at UNC, or that that the Big East came to maturity in the UrbanCenters of the Northeast. Whatever the cause, CBB has always been about alumni bases and regional interest, not for the guy who bases his allegience to where he resides, as pro sports does.
I understand that ESPN attempts to shape the rooting interest of a lot of people who have never set foot on a college campus. That has never been more evident than this year. But I don’t accept that the playing style of a Texas Tech or Virginia is hurting the game. Do I really care if Nielsen ratings for the NCAA final are 13.8 or 12.6.? He’ll no, if you like the game , you’ll watch. If you don’t watch because teams emphasize defense, I’d guess you probably think the San Antonio Spurs were unwatchable ten years ago.

[JDNC64]

You don’t have any idea what my view is of basketball and certainly not of life. This is a hypothetical discussion that has nothing to do with my personal view of basketball. And I certainly do not need you feeling sorry for me. Condescending much?

Just calling it like I see it. I find the tone of your posts to be generally unpleasent.

[Steven43]

Just calling it like I see it. I find the tone of your posts to be generally unpleasent.

Well, I’m not the most congenial person nor am I trying to be popular. I like to stir things up for fun, often playing devil’s advocate on a point of view that I don’t even hold. And I’m definitely not a message board cheerleader for Duke Basketball. If I’m happy about something related to Duke I don’t often post about it. I’m usually motivated to post about things with which I’m frustrated or unhappy. As a consequence most of my posts are going to come across as fairly unpleasant. But like Will says to the arrogant Harvard punk in the classic bar scene in Good Will Hunting “If you have a problem with that we can just step outside and figure it out.”

[Utley]

I had a question about the UVA Auburn game. When Jerome got fouled with 1.5 seconds left - it seemed he was at center court and possibly even back court. Why did UVA get to inbounds the bound around their free throw line to see up the corner three look for guy. That extra real estate was huge and something I wasn’t expecting.

[KandG]

I had a question about the UVA Auburn game. When Jerome got fouled with 1.5 seconds left - it seemed he was at center court and possibly even back court. Why did UVA get to inbounds the bound around their free throw line to see up the corner three look for guy. That extra real estate was huge and something I wasn’t expecting.

Pretty sure the foul was called after Jerome crossed halfcourt, about halfway between halfcourt and the three point line, as he appeared to be getting ready to launch a desperation shot (or maybe a lob?).

Some people were giving Auburn flak for giving the foul there, because Jerome wasn't really in a position to take a good shot or threaten the Auburn defense in a substantial way with less than 2 seconds left. This of course came after the infamous non-call on the double dribble when Jerome dribbled the ball off his back heel and had to retrieve the ball.

So the position where the ball was inbounded to Guy may have been mildly generous, but it was close enough to where the foul occurred.

[Steven43]

Pretty sure the foul was called after Jerome crossed halfcourt, about halfway between halfcourt and the three point line, as he appeared to be getting ready to launch a desperation shot (or maybe a lob?).

Some people were giving Auburn flak for giving the foul there, because Jerome wasn't really in a position to take a good shot or threaten the Auburn defense in a substantial way with less than 2 seconds left.

Truthfully, Jerome would have had to take a desperation heave far from the basket on the run while guarded. Almost zero chance he makes that. It would seem Auburn overthought this in trying to manipulate the outcome by fouling simply because they could...and it ended up backfiring on them. That decision may have cost them a National Championship.

On a side note, I’m surprised UCLA didn’t take a run at Bruce Pearl. The guy has a bit of a checkered past, yes, but he gets good results and seems to have the type of personality and presence that would fit well with Los Angeles. By comparison I’m not feeling this Mick Cronin hire at all. I doubt that’s going to be a good fit.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Truthfully, Jerome would have had to take a desperation heave far from the basket on the run while guarded. Almost zero chance he makes that. It would seem Auburn overthought this in trying to manipulate the outcome by fouling simply because they could...and it ended up backfiring on them. That decision may have cost them a National Championship.
.

I think this in bold is exactly right. You can't really blame Auburn...because a foul with 6-7 seconds to go is one thing and a foul with 2-3 is another. But yeah, maybe over thinking it, and it backfired - but if they do the same exact thing, they win 9 of 10.

UVa crushed the odds against them in three closing sequences. Destiny.

[CDu]

Truthfully, Jerome would have had to take a desperation heave far from the basket on the run while guarded. Almost zero chance he makes that. It would seem Auburn overthought this in trying to manipulate the outcome by fouling simply because they could...and it ended up backfiring on them. That decision may have cost them a National Championship.

I don't think they overthought it. I think they did everything right in that situation... up until they fouled Guy shooting a 3. If they don't commit that foul there, they played it perfectly: bled the clock out, forced UVa to get the ball in bounds multiple times, almost forced a turnover, and left UVa with barely any time to run a good play. It was perfectly executed... right up until the guy ran into Guy's leg on the shot.

That shooting foul could have just as easily happened had they not bled the clock like they did.

[Steven43]

I don't think they overthought it. I think they did everything right in that situation... up until they fouled Guy shooting a 3. If they don't commit that foul there, they played it perfectly: bled the clock out, forced UVa to get the ball in bounds multiple times, almost forced a turnover, and left UVa with barely any time to run a good play. It was perfectly executed... right up until the guy ran into Guy's leg on the shot.

That shooting foul could have just as easily happened had they not bled the clock like they did.

I do not concur. I think Guy ended up with a better look and a closer, more comfortable shot than Jerome would have had. Those sideline threes are by far the easiest threes to make.

[CDu]

I do not concur. I think Guy ended up with a better look and a closer, more comfortable shot than Jerome would have had. Those sideline threes are by far the easiest threes to make.

Sideline threes are the easiest to make... in the NBA. But that's because in the NBA the 3 is ~2 feet closer. In college, the 3pt line is the same distance all the way around. Thus, it is no easier to make a corner 3 in college than a top of the key 3 or any other 3 from the same distance.

[Steven43]

Sideline threes are the easiest to make... in the NBA. But that's because in the NBA the 3 is ~2 feet closer. In college, the 3pt line is the same distance all the way around. Thus, it is no easier to make a corner 3 in college than a top of the key 3 or any other 3 from the same distance.

Hmmm, I did not know that. Interesting.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

I don't think they overthought it. I think they did everything right in that situation... up until they fouled Guy shooting a 3. If they don't commit that foul there, they played it perfectly: bled the clock out, forced UVa to get the ball in bounds multiple times, almost forced a turnover, and left UVa with barely any time to run a good play. It was perfectly executed... right up until the guy ran into Guy's leg on the shot.

That shooting foul could have just as easily happened had they not bled the clock like they did.

They did what would've worked 90% of the time or more, so in that case, it's hard to criticize. However, not fouling was probably also a 90% plus option. It comes down to a Jerome runner from maybe 30-35 versus Guy in the corner...and remember Guy had just buried one from the opposite corner. Fouling him was a mistake, and it was the correct call, but Guy in the corner was always a very risky situation for Auburn in this case. And of course we'll never know if Guy would've made the shot un-fouled. The contact did appear to impact the shot. Nor will we ever know if Jerome would've gotten something done without that foul on him.

[CDu]

They did what would've worked 90% of the time or more, so in that case, it's hard to criticize. However, not fouling was probably also a 90% plus option. It comes down to a Jerome runner from maybe 30-35 versus Guy in the corner...and remember Guy had just buried one from the opposite corner. Fouling him was a mistake, and it was the correct call, but Guy in the corner was always a very risky situation for Auburn in this case. And of course we'll never know if Guy would've made the shot un-fouled. The contact did appear to impact the shot. Nor will we ever know if Jerome would've gotten something done without that foul on him.

Yeah, I think it is fair to say that either strategy (letting Jerome shoot from top of the key extended OR fouling and letting them try to get an inbounds 3) was a high-percentage win.

But remember (and this isn't so much a statement to you but to Steven) that it's not that they "just gave Guy a corner 3". They forced UVa to make another inbounds play and a catch-and-shoot situation. No guarantee that UVa gets it in bounds, and no guarantee that they get it to their best shooter in the corner for a 3. A confluence of things had to happen just right for Guy to get that look in the corner. They happened to do so. But as you said, both situations were incredibly highly likely to result in an Auburn win... right up until they committed the foul on Guy.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Hmmm, I did not know that. Interesting.

There's a school of thought that the easiest three in college is the top of the key - dead straight away. I tend to agree with that school for most shooters. Grant Hill and some others have mentioned that recently. Simply, the sight lines are symmetrical and better from the top of the key for most eyes. That said, there are certainly shooters who prefer the corner and those who prefer the elbow to the top of the key.

I think from unofficial observation over the years, shooters who don't shoot a lot of threes tend to be more comfortable at the top for the occasional three. High volume three point shooters have their favored spots....often not from the top.

[DarkstarWahoo]

On a side note, I’m surprised UCLA didn’t take a run at Bruce Pearl. The guy has a bit of a checkered past, yes, but he gets good results and seems to have the type of personality and presence that would fit well with Los Angeles. By comparison I’m not feeling this Mick Cronin hire at all. I doubt that’s going to be a good fit.

With Pearl in particular, there may be people who won't hire him because of the Deon Thomas thing. I don't know if anyone at UCLA has Illinois connections, but all it takes is one person in the right position to scuttle the idea.