Hewitt was on the hot seat this season - 'til he got an extension a few days ago. Sigh...

Spivey, I absolutely think Ali's shot was the right play. But it isn't one that is taught and it is one that would have been roundly criticized had he missed it. But, yes, given that it was likely the only open shot they'd get - and they had to shoot - and their trouble handling the ball and KU's defensive pressure it was the right play. But, still, damn.

Cornell does look good. I couldn't believe Tech beat Ok. State, though I'm biased.

Robin, I'm starting to think Cal will nip Duke today.

I can't imagine how awesome it would be to be a Cornell alum today.

Oh, it is. It would be even better if they put it on one of the two CBS broadcasts here. Thank goodness for the the live stream online.

Granting that this is probably the best 30 minutes of basketball that Cornell has ever played, but they'd beat anyone in the country playing like this.

There's a lot of luck involved in building a team like this in the Ivy League (not the least of which is sort of stumbling into a serviceable 7-footer), but this is still amazing to watch. The Cornell front line isn't just big, it's athletic.

Thanks Cornell, for putting the nail in my bracket's coffin.
***
Durant having a lousy day v. Indiana today - probably his lowest scoring game in 3 months.

Granting that this is probably the best 30 minutes of basketball that Cornell has ever played, but they'd beat anyone in the country playing like this.

They played awfully well in both games. However, I don't think this level of play can carry them to the Final Four - not that I won't be cheering for them.

I definitely thought Kansas needed to press earlier. NIU had huge problems with the UNLV pressure on Thursday. Collins really seemed out of control; like he was really forcing the ball.

What a terrible loss for MD. Great comeback, and to lose like that? Wow.

Cornell. That is all.

I definitely thought Kansas needed to press earlier

If I were Kansas (or another similarly big-time program that can press well), against teams like NIU I would press to start the game every time, try to build up a big lead in the first 5-10 minutes, and then lay back and protect for the next 30. It's clear that if Kansas had put on that press earlier in the game, they would have won it going away. If you press early and it works, then you never find yourself in a situation in which you feel like you would have won a game if only you had put on your toughest defense earlier. If it's not working early, you can always call it off. But if it is, lay it on thick till you have a big lead and don't worry about it. If KU had started that game pressing, they probably would have been up 15 or 20 early in the first half, and won the game with no problem.

NIU had huge problems with the UNLV pressure on Thursday.

I have a question: How many people does a program like KU employ to do advanced scouting like this? I mean, obviously the coaches can watch tape and everything, but with games packed this tightly together and many teams playing simultaneously, it seems like a team who has one or two dudes physically present at its next opponent's game, and/or analyzing tape long before the main coaching staff has time to get to it, would be at a big advantage. Is it possible that KU's staff just didn't know how much trouble NIU had with the press in the recent past? It seems unlikely but distinctly possible, given the time crunch of the first two rounds of the tournament.

You have to think if Lucas isn't back next week that NIU can beat Michigan State. Even without Lucas, echoing Voxter's thought above, MSU should be pressing hard from the start.

I'm of the opinion that teams press too infrequently, though you could argue that:
* the Kansases of the world don't need to engage in high variance strategies,
* the Northern Iowas of the world know that trying to press Kansas probably won't work too well
* teams adapt to the press w/in the game, reducing its effectiveness later on "when you might need it"
* it's a good way to get into foul trouble from the get-go

Just sayin'...

What a great first 2 rounds. And now we get extra play instead of 60 minutes!

Also I think given the fact this is a weak year, that UNI and Cornell could both make the final 4. And both have solid 7 footers too, which is huge.

Why is there the possession arrow and not real jump balls in college?

Great win by Purdue. Sloan was a total non-factor. JuJuan Johnson didn't look like he had a prayer against Davis, which convinces me he has no NBA future, but it was a great all around team effort to pull that one out without Hummel.

JuJuan Johnson didn't look like he had a prayer against Davis, which convinces me he has no NBA future

i've been really intrigued so far by what i've seen of johnson. he's got a little less length, but he reminds me a lot of anthony randolph. randolph had mediocre rates (shooting % and rebounding) during his 1 season at LSU, but his length made him a premium defender, and he's looked really good for stretches playing in golden state's high tempo system.


johnson is not as good a rebounder, and his lesser length means he's not as close to elite on the defensive end, but i think he could be a fit as an athletic 4 in a similarly high paced system.

Spivey, because refs suck at throwing the ball up. And did, even when they did it a lot.

Spivey, because refs suck at throwing the ball up. And did, even when they did it a lot.


Yes, I asked this outloud when I posted it and my dad said the same thing. Still, seems like something good refs should be able to do. Though even NBA refs seem to let guys jump way too early on jump balls, so maybe it is for the best.

I have a question: How many people does a program like KU employ to do advanced scouting like this? I mean, obviously the coaches can watch tape and everything, but with games packed this tightly together and many teams playing simultaneously, it seems like a team who has one or two dudes physically present at its next opponent's game, and/or analyzing tape long before the main coaching staff has time to get to it, would be at a big advantage. Is it possible that KU's staff just didn't know how much trouble NIU had with the press in the recent past?

As strange as that sounds, I suppose it could be true, but I'm not sure how likely it is. I forget the order, but I believe the NIU game was right before the Kansas game on Thursday night, so you'd have to think someone on the staff would have seen the end of the game.

As for the pressure strategy; I just think when you are playing an underdog who is trying to slow the game down, and who doesn't thrive against pressure, as the favorite you need to do what you can to speed the game up. As an SU fan, I go back to the 2005 Vermont game, which was about a 69 possession game, and they played an extra session. All Vermont wanted to do was milk the clock on every possession, and for much of the game, we sat back in the zone and let them do it. (We did press a little, but we should have done it for a much longer period.) The Vermont starters played 45, 45, 43, 43, and 40 minutes in that game. We had the better athletes. If we opened that game up a little more I don't think they could have kept up.

Yes, I asked this outloud when I posted it and my dad said the same thing. Still, seems like something good refs should be able to do. Though even NBA refs seem to let guys jump way too early on jump balls, so maybe it is for the best.

I don't disagree that they should be able to, but it has been shown that they can't. I'd prefer a system that had a tip at the start of both halves and each OT and then awarded tie balls to the team that was most recently on defense. Tie goes to the defense, as it were.


Robin, sorry about your Bears. I thought they did all they needed for their honor and that of the Pac-10. It's telling that Cal got the poor shooting night they needed from Scheyer and that the most recent Duke teams would lose if their guards shot like that. But I guess the pundits are right that this Duke team isn't so 1-dimensional.

My new Final Four: NIU, Butler, Kentucky and Duke. Kentucky will win two not very close games for the title. I have Syracuse out against Butler, but I think the best final we could hope for, in terms of pure talent, is Syracuse v. Kentucky and it would be nice for someone to stop Calimari.

And yes, Self should have started pressing sooner.

I think a lot of the big conference teams should do this. If you have a huge athletic advantage, which KU did over NIU, you have to use it. That means pressing the hell out of them. I also think Kentucky should employ this strategy against Cornell. Just make them work to get the ball over half court. If you slide back to your normal D after that, fine, but use your athletic advantage. K-State did this really well against BYU.

JuJuan Johnson didn't look like he had a prayer against Davis, which convinces me he has no NBA future

Mind you, he's the only guy over 6'8" on the floor for Purdue. He's getting doubled and pounded trying to get him in foul trouble. He's an awesome shot blocker, though.

St. Mary's is for real. They have two guys who will get minutes in the NBA, and that's hard to beat.

Man, the Big East sucks.

Sherron Collins and Travon Hughes will be discussing their second round foibles in this tournament in the NBDL.

St Mary's: Who? Samhan might - I like him, but he's older and not great on defense. As for McConnell and Dellavedova, I don't think it'll happen.

St Mary's: Who? Samhan might - I like him, but he's older and not great on defense. As for McConnell and Dellavedova, I don't think it'll happen.

Samhan will get a shot. Big guys with skill always do. Geez, Aaron Gray's been in the NBA for how long?

Dellavedova will get a look. Someone will take him and he'll bounce between the D and the Association.

Robin, sorry about your Bears. I thought they did all they needed for their honor and that of the Pac-10. It's telling that Cal got the poor shooting night they needed from Scheyer and that the most recent Duke teams would lose if their guards shot like that. But I guess the pundits are right that this Duke team isn't so 1-dimensional.

I am actually a UCLA grad and fan. I underrated Duke. I thought Cal's quickness would offset Duke's size, but I was mistaken. I thought Cal should have pressured the ball more, but in any case, Duke was the superior team.

Are we counting summer league invites? Both are/will be worthy of that - yeah.

I really do like Samhan (who's only 21 - I thought he was a year or two older - that helps), he can do a lot of things offensively and a bit more athletic than who I'm about to mention. But the West Coast has produced a few centers who were really good college players who never got a real look from the bigs, like John Bryant (too slow), Brad Millard (too hurt)...
Going into the tourney, draftexpress had him as the #36 senior. It's likely that this tournament has raised his stock but he's still the same guy he was going in and, as a senior, should be an known quantity.
If I were a betting man, I'd bet he'll eventually make an NBA roster, yes. But he's no lock.

I don't like Dellavedova at all. Granted, he's young, but he's simply not an NBA talent, between the below average athleticism and shot that, while strong from three/the line, needs a makeover (that dip is part of why he's less than a 40% guy from two ... in a mid-major league).

I like commas, apparently.

With all that said, Der K, I still think St. Mary's is dangerous just because of Samhan. Baylor doesn't have anyone that can cover him, Purdue doesn't, and Zoubek and Singler will have their hands full. Samhan destroyed Nova.

Robin, geez, sorry about that. I thought I'd seen you refer to "my Bears" but now I can't find that and, pretty clearly, a UCLA grad would only make that reference if he actually owned a few Cal alums as slaves. And I seem to recall you're anti-slavery, but I'm not sure how you come down on that for Cal grads.


Yes, I had worked myself into a worry about Cal. Given Purdue's troubles, I think Duke probably makes the FF this year. But I have a feeling they'll get well and truly hammered by Kentucky.

Am I the only Duke fan in here? The Plumlees, Zoubek and Lance Thomas aren't very good, but at least there's a lot of them and they can grab some rebounds. Singler, Smith and Scheyer have something like 70% of the team's points this season.

I like their chances for the Final Four, but they will get creamed by Syracuse or Kentucky.

Am I the only Duke fan in here?

You are admitting that? Wow.

I like their chances for the Final Four, but they will get creamed by Syracuse or Kentucky.

Really overlooking Baylor and/or St. Mary's that much, huh?

To be clear NCAA <> NBA. I had St. Mary's in the Sweet 16 in my bracket (rare thing I did right) - they're a heck of a club.

I like Duke's shot at the F4 as well - don't think Baylor matches up well with them (not good at stopping the three) and St. Mary's isn't good enough. Apparently, we don't even need to discuss Purdue. ;)

Baylor doesn't have anyone that can cover [Samhan].
Guess you're not keen on Udoh. Granted, his lack of physicality is a problem, I think, but he's going to be a first round pick - it's probably the toughest (and def. the best for Samhan's pro prospects, imo) matchup remaining for him in that region.

No overlooking them at all--Baylor and St. Mary's are both legitimate top 25 teams who have played great in the first two rounds--but I think Duke would be the favorite against either team. From what I saw yesterday, I'm a little relieved that Duke is playing Purdue rather than Texas A&M;.

There is no way that Dellavedova gets a real look in the NBA. As Der K alluded to, his weird-looking shot, almost a set shot, won't play in the NBA -- you can't have a jump shooter whose shot is so easily blockable, it doesn't work. And there is no way he can come close to defending an NBA-caliber athlete.

I still think, as I belabored earlier, Samhan just needs an opportunity and could be a very useful player in the NBA. I don't think there are 15 guys in this draft who I would take over him.

Udoh vs Samhan is going to be a very interesting and telling matchup for both of them. I'm really looking forward to watching that game. Did anyone happen to see the Kansas-Baylor game earlier in the season? How did Udoh look vs. Aldrich (and vice versa)? The box score is not kind to either of them from that game (Udoh 10/4/3, 4 fouls in 29, Aldrich 10/4/2, 3 fouls in 27). Was that because of good defense or were each of them just having an offnight?

Duke's the #1 seed, and the #1 team in the country by, eg, Pomeroy--can he not like their chances to make the Final Four? Personally I like nothing about Duke, but.....seriously, I don't get the Dook skepticism here and elsewhere. Smells a little like wishful thinking. Cal was gonna destroy them with their superior quickness and athletes, remember? Duke has exactly the right personnel to slow SamIam, and Baylor is the 3rd best team in the Big 12. They could easily provoke Cousins into foul trouble, win that game and then--no, no, I can't bear it--

Oh, and Duke definitely got the most favorable draw of any #1 seed, despite being the least deserving (in my opinion, West Virginia and Ohio State were at least as worthy, if not moreso).

Cal was gonna destroy them with their superior quickness and athletes, remember?

No, because Cal's a pretty average team. I had Duke winning that one, and I really didn't think it'd be much of a challenge. I think the teams left are much more formidable. Well coached, experienced teams.

But, we always hear about how Duke is awesome and they'll do well, and then they go out and get eliminated by someone not as talented as them.

Baylor is the 3rd best team in the SEC

Except they're in the Big 12. They'd be the 2nd best team in the SEC.

(in my opinion, West Virginia and Ohio State were at least as worthy, if not moreso).

I'm still not impressed with WVU. Maybe it's because Purdue embarrassed them in January, or maybe it's because they got fat on a Big East schedule, but I'm still not a huge buyer.

To bring this back to the NBA, Golden St. fans, your dream has come true. The Warriors are for sale, and Larry Ellison is going to bid on them.

Robin, geez, sorry about that. I thought I'd seen you refer to "my Bears" but now I can't find that and, pretty clearly, a UCLA grad would only make that reference if he actually owned a few Cal alums as slaves. And I seem to recall you're anti-slavery, but I'm not sure how you come down on that for Cal grads

.


Well, I said "My Bruins" but that is a minor distinction to those out there on Tobacco Road.

Re. Kentucky: I think that freshmen, particularly ones that have NBA bodies like Wall and Cousins, are often playing at a different level by tournament time. So, teams built around super-gifted frosh are often peaking right about now, in ways older teams aren't. UK will have a scare or two, but it is hard for me to picture them losing.

WRT Duke: Obviously, after Maggette and Brand bailed, it seems K made a conscious decision to recruit second and third-tier guys who would actually stay at Duke and for whom playing at Duke was a primary goal, rather than a twelve-month stepping-stone en route to the primary goal. That is not to say no Duke guys can play in the NBA, but I didn't see guys whose games said "definitely will be a good NBA player" yesterday. After all, it's not like K is going to get fired. But, having seen them for the first time since November, (I watch very few regular-season college games--although I do try to catch UCLA) this current group of those types is better than the recent ones. I have seen Baylor only once and have not seen St. Mary's, but I do see Duke making it to the FF. I will be interested to see if Ben Howland tries to do this at UCLA as well, with his having seen so many guys leave early for the NBA over the last 3-5 years. Howland, of course, does not have K's job security, but he is generally well thought-of.

Looks like the Blazers are looking to can Pritchard:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-trailblazers032210&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Pritchard's antics are odd, as reported in the article, but this is a pretty clear hatchet leak from someone. I'd imagine that there are a lot of teams that could add him as a GM. He's done a great job in Portland.

My new Final Four: NIU, Butler, Kentucky and Duke.

FYI: it's UNI, not NIU. University of Northern Iowa, Class of 2004.

Not trying to pick nits, but this is the Cedar Valley's moment in the sun. Show some respect!

STILL CANNOT BELIEVE WE BEAT UK!

STILL CANNOT BELIEVE WE BEAT UK!

Nice. Just twist the knife, there.

No overlooking them at all--Baylor and St. Mary's are both legitimate top 25 teams who have played great in the first two rounds--but I think Duke would be the favorite against either team. From what I saw yesterday, I'm a little relieved that Duke is playing Purdue rather than Texas A&M;.

This is where I am. I don't think any of the three teams left in that region with Duke are bad, nor would I be surprised if any of them got to the FF. But Duke is a step ahead of them all (and, yeah, look where that got Kansas). FWIW, I, too am a proud Duke fan. And I'm definitely relieved not to be playing A&M;in Houston. Anyway, Duke ought to win that region, especially now that it's been culled a bit.

WRT Duke: Obviously, after Maggette and Brand bailed, it seems K made a conscious decision to recruit second and third-tier guys who would actually stay at Duke and for whom playing at Duke was a primary goal, rather than a twelve-month stepping-stone en route to the primary goal. That is not to say no Duke guys can play in the NBA, but I didn't see guys whose games said "definitely will be a good NBA player" yesterday. After all, it's not like K is going to get fired. But, having seen them for the first time since November, (I watch very few regular-season college games--although I do try to catch UCLA) this current group of those types is better than the recent ones. I have seen Baylor only once and have not seen St. Mary's, but I do see Duke making it to the FF. I will be interested to see if Ben Howland tries to do this at UCLA as well, with his having seen so many guys leave early for the NBA over the last 3-5 years. Howland, of course, does not have K's job security, but he is generally well thought-of.

That is pretty much dead on. But, really, he's never produced super pro players. Duke players that make it in the NBA tend to be of the solid contributor sort. They make a nice career for themselves but they're not superstars. K has a very different system and uses it well to win college games. I think now the college game has moved on and it's hard to be one of the best teams in the nation, certainly on a regular basis, without dipping into the 12 month wonders. The inside guys may not be that good, but at least they exist this year, as opposed to years past. But, yeah, I don't see this Duke team matching up with a UK team that has so many great pro prospects.

FYI: it's UNI, not NIU. University of Northern Iowa, Class of 2004.

Not trying to pick nits, but this is the Cedar Valley's moment in the sun. Show some respect!

STILL CANNOT BELIEVE WE BEAT UK!

Well, it's KU then, not UK. You won't beat Kentucky should you be lucky enough to get them. Anyway, I was talking about Northern Illinois. :)

STILL CANNOT BELIEVE WE BEAT UK!

I see bunyon caught this, and it is kind of funny in context.

UK v. KU - I laughed.

Duke's region was culled the moment the brackets were set.

Pritchard: This story has been building for awhile ... it's been alleged that some associated w/ the org think Pritchard and co. have too much independence from Allen (which is why Penn's gone) and that that could be why he might be let go, but - I dunno - that doesn't make much sense.

Well, it's KU then, not UK. You won't beat Kentucky should you be lucky enough to get them. Anyway, I was talking about Northern Illinois. :)

Right, give KU their proper acronym. They're the University (K) of Kansas (U). Um, check that.

I'm just surprised that the only BTF handle inspired by a member of the Wu-Tang is owned by...a UNI alum?

Well, which is it, Jimmy? University or Kansas?

Well, damn you for that edit! :)


Anyway, yeah, that's what they are. Much like OU is the University of Oklahoma. I've never seen Kansas identified as UK. Is it a Lawrence thing?

Anyway, yeah, that's what they are. Much like OU is the University of Oklahoma. I've never seen Kansas identified as UK. Is it a Lawrence thing?

No. It's what people with sense would call them.

Well, it's KU then, not UK. You won't beat Kentucky should you be lucky enough to get them. Anyway, I was talking about Northern Illinois. :)

This was my attempt at sarcasm/humor.

This was my attempt at sarcasm/humor.

I actually considered that. My apologies for not going that way.

That is pretty much dead on.

I disagree. After Maggette, Avery (most people forget him) and Brand, K went after Jason Williams. This was definately a player that looked to be one and done (even though he stuck around for a few years), even moreso than the previous three. When recruited, Duhon and Randolph also didn't seem to be players that were likely to stay for a full term. The fact that they went Dexter Strickland (ie kind of sucked based on expectaions) on K was really not foreseen.

Even this last season, K made a strong run at John Wall (which I discuss earlier in this thread), who is the epitome of one and done.

I would seriously doubt that K would rather have one of the Peachey brothers over a Derrick Favors or DeMarcus Cousins. He just has trouble recruiting the one and done athlete for his system. Likewise, I don't think K would mind at all having Wall run the offense and move Scheyer to a wing.

But, really, he's never produced super pro players.

I seem to say this in every basketball thread. People forget how good Grant Hill was before he hurt his ankle. Even now, his entire career likely makes him a HOFer. Likewise, Brand is a legitimate multi-time all pro post player. Boozer is also a legitimate Olympian and among the better pro players around. Finally, I'd urge some caution, because you may be dogwhistling the Shane Battier fans to remind you of his underratedness.

(I should also mention that the Alaskan Assassin may have put together a HOFerish or at least Hall of Mo Cheeksish career over in the Euroleague).

How many other schools can put together that depth of talent over a single active coach's career. Of course, Wooden and Smith have got the bona fides, but they are retired. Izzo? K stands up to him; Deputy Dawg? Do we think Raef Lafrentz is that much better than Laettner. I guess maybe if you have a Gutherdowilliams and let Ol' Roy keep his jayhawks, they would win; Lute? -- Is he even active? What have you really got outside the hibachi? ; Pitino?; Mon Calipari?

and K went after, and almost got, Harrison Barnes, Draft Express's current projected #1 in the 2011 draft....

I disagree. After Maggette, Avery (most people forget him) and Brand, K went after Jason Williams.

He also went hard for Kobe and the one kid that tore his knee up playing for the Clips. I believe he also went after Wall, but dropped out when Wall was leaning toward Calipari. Also, Josh McRoberts was like this - remember, he was projected to be a top 10 guy out of high school.

I would seriously doubt that K would rather have one of the Peachey brothers over a Derrick Favors or DeMarcus Cousins. He just has trouble recruiting the one and done athlete for his system.

I think he'd not like Cousins, but I agree with your point. Also, as is noted, Duke's academic standards are a tad bit higher than Memphis' and UK's. Duke's potential pool is bit smaller.

I do agree with the point that Coach K may not be able to get through to the one-and-done guys as much. Or, maybe they see the depth and don't want to sit. If you know you are one-and-done, going somewhere where you'll be sharing time isn't economically beneficial to you.

I seem to say this in every basketball thread. People forget how good Grant Hill was before he hurt his ankle. Even now, his entire career likely makes him a HOFer. Likewise, Brand is a legitimate multi-time all pro post player. Boozer is also a legitimate Olympian and among the better pro players around. Finally, I'd urge some caution, because you may be dogwhistling the Shane Battier fans to remind you of his underratedness.

All true. Brand, and maybe Hill, are not HOFers, but they are both All-Stars.

Much like OU is the University of Oklahoma.

So we have NU, CU, OU and KU. Did the Dust Bowl produce a dyslexia outbreak?

Who among current coaches have the longevity that Krzyzewski has? I think Izzo, Roy Williams, Gary Williams, Bill Self, Billy Donovan, and Jim Calhoun are the only other current coaches that have won titles at their current schools. Self and Roy Williams only have 5-6 years tenure.

I'm trying to think of any other major college coaches with 10+ years at one school--Rick Barnes? Al Skinner? I'm struggling here....

I would seriously doubt that K would rather have one of the Peachey brothers over a Derrick Favors or DeMarcus Cousins. He just has trouble recruiting the one and done athlete for his system. Likewise, I don't think K would mind at all having Wall run the offense and move Scheyer to a wing.

Wall, I think, would be an exception.

As to the rest, maybe, but it doesn't seem to make sense that guys looking to go pro quickly would want to avoid playing for a guy who coached the 2008 US Olympic Team and is supposedly admired by the NBA's top stars. There is also no evidence that playing at Duke hurts anybody's draft position: Brand, Hill, Williams, Maggette and Laettner all went very high.

I am sure K still talks to the big dogs, but in any case, his teams have changed since the time of Maggette, Brand, and Avery.

K made a conscious decision to recruit second and third-tier guys who would actually stay at Duke and for whom playing at Duke was a primary goal, rather than a twelve-month stepping-stone en route to the primary goal

I'm not saying you're wrong, but this seems to be what fans say in justification after they lose out on a couple of blue-chippers. I recall KU fans saying this after the 1997 collapse, and it got us Ryan Robertson and Billy Thomas and a few years of being a #8 seed.

I'm trying to think of any other major college coaches with 10+ years at one school--Rick Barnes? Al Skinner? I'm struggling here....

Baldheim. Don't forget him or the Syracuse contingent will be all over you faster than you can say Johnny Flynn.

Ernie Kent just went down after 13 seasons.

Phil Martelli should count.

Then you have the wanderers

Tony Bennett has had a few stops
Tom Penders just resigned
I think Lefty Drisell is still coaching somewhere
Is Dave Odom still around?
Bruce Pearl
Bruce Webber
Bo Ryan
Thad Motta
Leonard Hamilton
Fran Dunphy
Huggiebear Huggins
Ben Howland

EDIT: Jay Wright is coming up on Year 10 at 'Nova

I'm not saying you're wrong, but this seems to be what fans say in justification after they lose out on a couple of blue-chippers. I recall KU fans saying this after the 1997 collapse, and it got us Ryan Robertson and Billy Thomas and a few years of being a #8 seed.

Yeah, but Duke is different than Kansas or Kentucky or UNC or Arizona in some ways. Jimmy is right about the academic thing; that may play a role. But Duke is also the closest thing NCAA basketball has to the New York Yankees, so I tend to think K could get a few of the really top-level guys if he wanted them badly enough. And like I said and as 9069 notes, Krzyzewski is one of the few big-time D1 power-conference coaches who will never get fired, barring scandal. He doesn't NEED DeMarcus Cousins the way a guy like Calipari does.

Huggiebear Huggins

I would kind of like to see Calipari v. Huggins in the NCAA Final

I'm trying to think of any other major college coaches with 10+ years at one school--Rick Barnes? Al Skinner? I'm struggling here....

Bo Ryan's at 9. Lorenzo Romar's at 8. Paul Hewitt's at 10 (figure that out).

I am sure K still talks to the big dogs, but in any case, his teams have changed since the time of Maggette, Brand, and Avery.

Yes, they changed twice. The first change was when K went Mon Calipari and let Jason Williams have his way with the entire offense.

but it doesn't seem to make sense that guys looking to go pro quickly would want to avoid playing for a guy who coached the 2008 US Olympic Team and is supposedly admired by the NBA's top stars. There is also no evidence that playing at Duke hurts anybody's draft position: Brand, Hill, Williams, Maggette and Laettner all went very high.

On this one, I agree with Jimmy P. Its the prospect of not getting the minutes that is the problem. K can do some weird-ass things with talent. When Laettner was a freshman, he was a third string center for most of the year. It was only multiple injuries in the UNC game, that got him playing time.

If you are planning to be one and done, you do not--I repeat do not--want to go in the draft as a backup to some scrub like Erik Meek.

If K is changing his ways, IMHO, its also more based on what was pointed out by Jimmy P. It was Shaun Livingston that broke his heart. He might have had another championship if he could have even got him for a single year.

I think Lefty Drisell is still coaching somewhere

I guess Lefty finally retired in 2003.

Dave Odom is out of basketball.

But Duke is also the closest thing NCAA basketball has to the New York Yankees, so I tend to think K could get a few of the really top-level guys if he wanted them badly enough.

The Yankees miss out on free agents from time to time too.

FWIW, after listening to Coach Self, I kinda get why they didn't press earlier. Pressing takes their best defensive player - Cole Aldrich - out of the game. I can see why you don't want him on the bench the last 12 minutes.

I've been swamped at work, and then was out all weekend watching the games. I was hoping to get a post on every page of this thread, but missed out on the last one. Oh well.

---

I picked Ohio St to come out of that bracket, and it's now set up really nicely for them. I actually have all my final 4 teams still alive (UK, Cuse, and Baylor). And UK taking the whole thing. I'm not sure which team I've been most impressed by so far - Kentucky, Syracuse or Cornell. I think after all the thinning out, most of the favorites should cruise this weekend. Thinking as a gambler here, I only see 2 close games this weekend: Mich St/UNI and Xavier/KSU. Otherwise, I like the favorites by a lot in each matchup.

Omar Sahman is a lot like both Patrick O'Bryant and Aaron Gray. There's a lot of simalarities with all 3, so whether or not he succeeds depends on expectations and then motivation. Gray is a legit 7 footer, and he's going to play for 10 years (this is only his 3rd season, Jimmy). Sahman is probably better than him right now, but I have more weight concerns with him. If Sahman goes in the 2nd round, I think he'll have a Grayesque career. If he's a first rounder, he'll be done in 3 years.

I've very disappointed Lucas got hurt, because I would have enjoyed seeing Izzo get another Final Four; I have no question he would have gotten there with KU out of the way.

I don't know why - well, I do, but I don't think it's logical - but I really enjoy seeing Self lose again. Damn him and that championship, I like picturing him as a choker. I also enjoying watching the Big East crap itself - only Cal lost to a higher seeded team, and that was a Pac 10 team in an 8/9 game. Since this is my "hate" paragraph, I don't know where I can realistically expect Duke to lose. I would have no problem picking (IOW, betting on) any of Tennessee, Butler, Mich St (even w/o Lucas), or Xavier were any of them their matchup in this next round. I'll bet on Baylor, if that's the matchup. I guess I don't "see" the difference between this Duke team and other years; I just see lesser opponents and an easier league and path in the tourney.

(this is only his 3rd season, Jimmy)

It felt like he was on the Bulls for 10 years. Yuck.

I don't know why - well, I do, but I don't think it's logical - but I really enjoy seeing Self lose again

Agreed. I used to have a rule about picking brackets that was "Never pick Bill Self to survive the first weekend." It worked well for me when he was at Illinois and early Kansas, but I thought he was over that. Now, I'm going to reinstitute it, along with "Always pick ND and IU to lose in the first round."

I'm of the opinion that teams press too infrequently, though you could argue that:
* the Kansases of the world don't need to engage in high variance strategies,
* the Northern Iowas of the world know that trying to press Kansas probably won't work too well
* teams adapt to the press w/in the game, reducing its effectiveness later on "when you might need it"
* it's a good way to get into foul trouble from the get-go

Another issue: to press well, you need to give significant practice time to it. Just saying, "we are going to press this game," is probably not a good way to go most of the time. There are so many hours in the day, and most teams don't want to spend a ton of time working on the press.

In Kansas' case, they have enough talent that they might have been able to throw out a press that they don't run very much to help them beat someone in the tournament. But the strategy could also backfire. You don't want to try things in big games that you don't practice very much, at least until you get desperate.

.............

Syracuse has looked good so far, but I have a hard time believing a zone defense team is going to win it all. I guess Syracuse won it all in 2003, but other than that I can't remember a team that primarily ran zone defense winning the tournament. It seems like it is just too hard for most teams to defend the 3 point line and rebound out of the zone. Syracuse has the athletes to do it, I guess. Maybe K-State gives them some trouble. K. State is physical, hits the glass really hard, and has some good shooters. I think that they give Syracuse a run for their money. (Of course, if you look at my bracket right now, you might think twice before listening to me on this; I also thought Wisconsin was poised to give Kentucky trouble, but that won't be happening any time soon.)

It seems like it is just too hard for most teams to defend the 3 point line and rebound out of the zone.

I think its just that most (nearly all?) teams attack the zone with 3's, and if teams are shooting 3's against you that's inherently going to mean that the offensive performance of teams that you face is going to be high variance. To maximize your chances of winning 6 consecutive games, you need to be (a) better than everyone else, but, on a finer scale, you need to (c) minimize variance; both yours and the other team's and (b) maximize pace, such that the absolute margin between your superior team and your opponent is maximized.

I think the rebounding is as big of a factor as the 3's when you play a zone. Maybe a bigger one. Let's look a Syracuse this year. Kenpom's Syracuse page. Obviously Syracuse is very good at a lot of things (they have even defended the 3 pretty well). But Syracuse is not a very good defensive rebounding team. They are only pulling down about 65% of the available defensive rebounds, which is really bad. Of course, it hasn't cost them that much so far, because they are so good on offense.

Now we can look at K-State. I hadn't looked at their Kenpom page, but it is interesting that the numbers jive with what I have seen watching them this year. They are just devastating on the offensive glass, getting 38% of the available rebounds. They seem like the worst case scenario for Syracuse.

Your link goes to Kansas, but K-State is even more impressive, 41% OReb%.

I think the rebounding is as big of a factor as the 3's when you play a zone. Maybe a bigger one.

I get why a zone kills your rebounding in general; what I don't believe is that rebounding makes a zone team less likely to win in the tournament than a team that plays man with an otherwise equivalent body-of-work.

I presumed that 9081 was implying that zone teams are worse in the tournament, relative to their regular season strength, than man teams.

@9028 and @9031, I don't think the refs "sucking" at throwing up the ball is the reason why. I think they changed the rules in the late 60's, early 70's, maybe a few years after they outlawed dunking. I think the concern was that really big, skilled men, like Lew Alcindor and Elvin Hayes could have too much influence on the game. Having Alcindor win the jump at the beginning of the game AND the beginning of the 2nd half seemed unfair (especially since UCLA was likely more talented anyhow). I suppose they could have just had alternating possession at halves (like football), but I think the rule was expanded to all jumps because it seemed unfair when a 6-9 guy tied up a little point guard. That's my recollection.

What I am saying is zone teams are bad at rebounding, and Syracuse is not an exception. Syracuse has to win four games in a row against top teams. If they have a cold shooting game, the rebounding can become a problem.

Of course it is hard for anyone to win six in a row against top teams, but I think it is a little harder for a zone team, because they usually give up so much on the glass.

Syracuse has to win four games in a row against top teams. If they have a cold shooting game, the rebounding can become a problem.

Is it true that poor defensive rebounding teams have a higher game-to-game variance in points per possession than good defensive rebounding teams? I think that's something you could measure.

Of course, other than Syrause, very few top programs still play zone. Maybe this is just due to biases, or maybe it is because it is harder to win playing zone.

Zop,

I agree that you could probably measure it, but it might be tricky to control for all the factors. I would suspect that teams that consistantly handle the defensive glass are more able to absorb a bad night shooting the ball, but I freely admit I have nothing to back this up with.

Here is another not so well thought out idea. Maybe the best way to get through the tournament is to not have big weaknesses in any area. Because it seems likely that you will eventually meet a team who's strengths line up with your weaknesses.

And maybe Syracuse will just shoot the hell out of the ball the rest of the way and none of this will matter.

One other theoretical advantage of the zone is that it conserves energy relative to playing man to man. Especially for a relatively shallow team like this year's Orange (I suspect this is not a coincidence, i.e. I suspect that Boeheim de-emphasizes depth for recruiting, etc.), this could be quite important indeed.

I can't see any way to quantify the effect of that on, say, offense, but I wonder if you analyzed the tape what the ratio would be between steps traveled by offense vs. steps traveled by defense, in both zone and man.

Off-topic but loosely related: Kareem is the guest programmer on TCM tonight. His 4 movies are:
The Big Sleep
The Maltese Falcon
The Shootist
Stagecoach ('39 version)

One other theoretical advantage of the zone is that it conserves energy relative to playing man to man. Especially for a relatively shallow team like this year's Orange (I suspect this is not a coincidence, i.e. I suspect that Boeheim de-emphasizes depth for recruiting, etc.), this could be quite important indeed.

This is definitely true. Boeheim has had basically a 7 man rotation this year. In close games, Wes and Andy each play close to 40 minutes, Kris will play 32 or 33 (usually comes in 4 or so minutes into each half and finishes the half; seriously he had an 8 game stretch where his minutes went 33, 33, 32, 33, 32, 31, 31, 32) with AO and Rick splitting the rest of the time at center and Triche and Scoop at PG. Obviously that has changed with AO being out.

Another advantage of the zone is it keeps you out of foul trouble. SU is 6th in the country in fewest free throws allowed per FGA this year. So you get to keep your guys a little fresher because they aren't expanding as much energy, and there isn't as much foul trouble, so your starters can play more. And also there are very few teams that play a zone like SU, so you may garner an advantage from teams unfamiliar with it.

As for the rebounding; yeah that has always been a problem. In 2003 we were even worse on the defensive glass than we are this year, and we had 2 NBA players at forward that year. Generally, the zone results in lots of 3's, pretty good field goal defense (SU usually has lots of long players so we always do pretty well in blocking shots), few forced turnovers, few free throws allowed, and lots of offensive rebounds allowed. We've generally down a good job defending the three; a lot of teams don't continue to work at penetrating the zone and they end up settling for lots of long 3 pointers. Yeah, sometimes a lot of them fall, but most of the time they don't, and they miss a lot of shots. In the long run, I think the math is in favor of the team playing the zone, if they play it well and are active, but obviously there can be a lot of variance in it. What makes the defense so effective this year is that we're better at forcing turnovers than we usually have been.

As an SU fan, I'm really worried about a potential matchup with KSU. They aren't a great shooting team, but they will crash the glass all day long. If AO isn't playing, we're really in trouble because they're gonna kill us on the glass and probably get Rick and Riley in foul trouble. And they do a good job forcing turnovers. A really bad matchup for us.

I agree that you could probably measure it, but it might be tricky to control for all the factors. I would suspect that teams that consistantly handle the defensive glass are more able to absorb a bad night shooting the ball, but I freely admit I have nothing to back this up with.

My ideas (that I also have nothing with which to back up):

I think your idea is generally right except for a zone team like Syracuse. In general, defensive rebounding and offensive rebounding correlate. A team that does better with offensive rebounding, I suspect, probably has a lower variance of offensive points per possession, because I suspect that variance in FG% (or eFG%) declines as the average distance of the shots from the basket decreases. A team that gets lots of offensive rebounds shoots more putbacks and generally has more (and/or better) bigs than the average team; thus a higher percentage of their shots are from close to the basket and their offensive variance is lower. This same team will tend to be better at defensive rebounding as well.

But now, consider the team that plays zone. Their defensive rebounding will be, in large part*, uncorrelated to their offensive rebounding because their inferior defensive rebounding is determined by scheme, not talent. So if anything, Syracuse's defensive rebounding problems should be LESS likely to increase the variance of their offensive performance than a "typical" team.

*unless 'Cuse is recruiting inferior rebounders b/c they play zone. I don't watch enough Big East basketball to know if they do or not.

Ilgauskas has been in Cleveland for at least the past week working out at a suburban gym and staying in shape until he was eligible to rejoin the Cavaliers.

His return means Cleveland acquired Jamison, a two-time All-Star with nearly 17,000 points, for a 2010 first-round pick and the rights to Emir Preldzic(notes), a second-round pick last year.

_________________

Good for him and for the Cavs' fanbase; if they win it, he should be part of it. But not good for the league.

Re: Jump Balls

Jump balls used to be used after every made field goal. This changed to being used only on starts of periods and held balls. The NBA used its modern system of using alternating possessions on starts of quarters in the MID 1970s. The NCAA did not change to alternating possessions until 1981. That was more than a decade after Alcindor; more than a decade after dunk shots were made illegal; and four years after dunk shots were allowed back in the college game. Commentators in the late 70s definately lamented officials ability to be able to throw a fair jump ball. Even if they did not, they should have. College officials particularly sucked at not throwing the ball toward a particular direction.

Re: Zone defenses

I agree that a zone is susectable to a team attacking the weak spots of the zone in both their offense AND IN OFFENSIVE REBOUNDING. Unfortunately, that has lead to the canard (most often promoted by Vitale) that players "forget to block out". Most major college players don't forget to block out; they just may not be in position to block out a person that attacks the soft area from the weak side (which will depend on the type of zone). Since, the zone is likely to produce more long jump shots, and 70% of long shot rebounds go to the weak side, this compounds the problem.

Nevertheless, many teams have been plus rebounding squads when using their zones. They just emphasize zone rebounding skills and usually have the girth to keep a tight coverage around the rim. The Dean Smith Heels rebounded very well when they ran their Point-Zone look. Tark's teams always rebounded well out of that 1-1-2-1 Amoeba thingy. I don't recall any significant drop off in their rebounding efficiency when they switched out of man-to-man to their zone packages.

The issue with the 'Cuse is that Boeheim plays the 2-3 almost exclusively. I can't think of many coaches other than Chaney and Heathcote that are/were that exclusive with the zone. Maybe Hewitt use to run that 3-2 variation of the 1-2-2 when he started, but now, he seems to be more man to man than anything else.

Most teams (even the die hard man to man teams) have some semblance of a 2-3 package if they are getting killed in the middle and corners or a 1-3-1 like set if they are getting killed on the wings. They may also move into those looks to change pace, move off traps or hide foul problems in a weak area. Those packages may be flukey (like the UNC Point zone) and they may even match up like Syracuse to get more ball pressure, but the teams can switch the look to protect against other teams "hot spots". Hell, even under the old NBA illegal defense rules, the Showtime Lakers had a bit of a 2-3 package they would run. They just matched up to avoid the violation.

Of course Syracuse can win b/c they are a good team; yet, the fact that they can't rotate to other looks can be a draw back if they run into someone that is effectively attacking there zone. Also, Syracuse is legitimate in running their defense. Its not like Majerus breaking out a box-and-1 as a trick or that god-awful gimmicky offense that Wisconsin runs.

So, I'm trying to go to the Sweet 16 game, assuming that I get a ticket, I would also have a ticket to the Elite Eight game, which I can't attend. Would anyone be interested in that ticket?

nice post, bl

Baldheim. Don't forget him or the Syracuse contingent will be all over you faster than you can say Johnny Flynn.

Someone told a story about how they were interviewing Boeheim in Hawaii during some charity golf event and they asked him where he was going to live after he retired. Hawaii, they asked? No. Florida? No. Arizona? No, he said, I'll live in Syracuse, and he was seriously confused why anyone would think anywhere else was better or it was even a question. Just insane.

My ideas (that I also have nothing with which to back up):

I agree that offensive rebounding makes it easier for a team to go through cold shooting, as a team that gets a lot of offensive boards doesn't need to shoot as well.

I was specifically talking about how being able to limit opponent shots could also help get a team through a game when their own shots aren't falling. A zone team has one less thing to fall back on. Of course, as Conor points out, one advantage that Syracuse has is that they don't foul very much, which not only keeps their guys out of foul trouble, but also makes them more effective on defense. And Syracuse probably plays 2-3 zone better than anyone else out there.

.........

Backlasher's post was nice. I remembered the UNLV zone, where they basically were hanging out trying to jump the passing lanes (a sort of gimmick defense), but had forgotten UNC playing zone. These were change of pace defenses, that were being run between 1/3 and 1/5 of the total possessions. Both Tark and Smith primarily were man-to-man coaches. A fair number of teams will switch to zone for a possession or two, or run zone to defend underneath out-of-bounds plays.

Some other teams that use zone:

Pitino has also always played some zone, and seems to play a lot more these days. It is easier to fall back into a zone when you are pressing. Louisville also isn't so great on the defensive glass, either.

I am a Texas guy, and Rick Barnes has had years where he was zone heavy on defense (mostly 2-3), and didn't give up a ton of rebounds. He generally does this with teams where he has a lot of size (not this year, for sure). Still, most years he is primarily a man-to-man guy.

Beilein is known for his 1-3-1 defense (more of a half-court trap), which he runs quite a lot. Michigan runs this pretty well, but it is a bit of a gimmick, and as teams figure it out Beilein will switch out of it.

Unfortunately, that has lead to the canard (most often promoted by Vitale) that players "forget to block out".

And, yes, this is total nonsense. The problem often lies in finding a man to block out. The guy underneath the basket in a 2-3 zone often has two guys that he may have to choose between when the shot goes up. Shots from the corner are particularly tough, because one of the forwards is defending the shot, leaving the center and the backside forward as the two primary rebounders against what are usually 3 offensive players crashing the glass. The center probably has the strong side post guy, the forward has to find and block out someone from the weak side, and a guard has to find the guy at the high post to box out. Ideally, the other guard goes to the weak side as well, as that is were the trouble often is. The guards in the zone really need to go hard on rebounding to make this work.

Of course Syracuse can win b/c they are a good team; yet, the fact that they can't rotate to other looks can be a draw back if they run into someone that is effectively attacking there zone. Also, Syracuse is legitimate in running their defense. Its not like Majerus breaking out a box-and-1 as a trick or that god-awful gimmicky offense that Wisconsin runs.

This is true, especially this year. Usually in the past few years we have been primarily a zone team, but have played some man to man when the time called for it or to mix things up. Once the regular season started this year, however, I don't think we've played a possession of half court man to man defense. I think this years team is especially well suited to play zone (our starting guards aren't really quick but they are both pretty long, so they can disrupt the passing lanes) but it would be nice to be able to play man at least for a few possessions in a game, if for no other reason than to mix it up.

I really think the key to the zone is that, at least in college, some teams aren't disciplined enough to attack it. I mentioned it before, but there are some times that teams seem perfectly happy to pass the ball around the perimeter and take a 3, without attempting to penetrate at all. That's exactly what SU wants you to do. I sometimes think the best thing that can happen for SU is for their opponent to make a couple of 3's in the first 2 minutes; that will make it more likely for them to settle for 3's as the game goes on.

I know a good deal less about basketball - especially recruiting - than most of you guys. I do know Duke "talks" to the one and done type player, but they don't get them. I think it's probably because, as BL has put very well, you don't spend your one year being a backup for a guy who can't get drafted. I think K either is honest or not very good at covering the fact that he doesn't favor freshmen, as a rule, no matter how talented and that he wants guys to buy into his system and stay for 4 years. It makes it a much tougher sell. Yes, K is admired in basketball circles and you'd have a good chance of playing for a title if you spent a year there, but there are many other admired coaches and every year at least 4 teams go to the Final Four.

I also didn't mean to imply Duke players haven't been good NBA players. I guess the impression is that they're better NCAA players than NBA players, though I simply don't follow the NBA close enough to know if that is always true.

every year at least 4 teams go to the Final Four.

Sometimes more though.

As mentioned in 9102, most teams just don't know how to attack a zone. Especially one with the length of this Syracuse zone. It takes quick decisions, in situations where guys aren't used to - because most teams don't run zone offense as much as they run offense intended to be vs. man to man.

It's one thing to say "attack the weak spots". It's another thing to actually catch the ball in those weak spots (which are not normal offensive setup spots in vs. man offense), where you are getting doubled by guys with length in about 1 second because there are defenders all around you.

I also think with good length on the wings and active guards at the top it can really help to stop good low post players from posting up. That said, someone like Cousins could still get like 10 offensive rebounds in a game against it.

Agreed. I used to have a rule about picking brackets that was "Never pick Bill Self to survive the first weekend." It worked well for me when he was at Illinois and early Kansas, but I thought he was over that. Now, I'm going to reinstitute it, along with "Always pick ND and IU to lose in the first round."

Well, he survived the first weekend 2 of his 3 years at Illinois - only losing in the 2nd round his 3rd year. They lost a round earlier each year he was there - elite 8, then sweet 16, then 2nd round. I felt like each of those teams could have won those games they lost, but in reality the only real good team was the 1 seed that lost to Arizona. Kinda hard to win when 4 guys foul out and the other team shoots 60 FTs.

Off-topic but loosely related: Kareem is the guest programmer on TCM tonight. His 4 movies are:
The Big Sleep
The Maltese Falcon
The Shootist
Stagecoach ('39 version)

Another Rating:

Of the all time greats, Kareem has had the most interesting post-basketball career.

Another Rating:

Of the all time greats, Kareem has had the most interesting post-basketball career.

I think the Dipper should also get some consideration on this topic.

He opens a nightclub, starts racing thoroughbreads, becomes a Hall of Fame volley ball player, funds women's sports prior to Title IX, runs a few marathons, and almost kicks Schwarzenegger's ass in Conan. (Not to mention all of his other off-the-court action).

Would you consider Isiah an all-time great? Because I think "interesting" is pretty well covered.

Would you consider Isiah an all-time great? Because I think "interesting" is pretty well covered.

This.

I think Dikembe could really give everyone a run here in the next 10-20 years.

And Antoine Walker.

Shaq is already on his way to a fascinating post-basketball career.

Yo, BL, I was in your neck of the woods Saturday. Caught a Sharks game. I thought of you when I noticed that some sections were tarped over. It's a more intimate setting at the Centrum than it is at the Hartford Civic Center.

Toughest opponent faced by an Inner Circle Center, movie division. Conan vs. Bruce Lee. Discuss.

Dave Bing is pretty interesting, too.

Antonie Walker (and Starbury) are both short of HOF-consideration, but I like the use of the Crudale meme.

Yo, BL, I was in your neck of the woods Saturday. Caught a Sharks game. I thought of you when I noticed that some sections were tarped over. It's a more intimate setting at the Centrum than it is at the Hartford Civic Center.

Cool. I think the Sharks are going to make the playoffs so I might get to another game soon myself. We have the NCAA hockey regionals at the DCU nee Centrum this weekend: BC, Yale, Alaska, and North Dakota. I was going to try to go, but I think my kids social schedules are all booked up.

Well, he survived the first weekend 2 of his 3 years at Illinois

That junior year kegger got him?

Did you watch any of the Kent game last night. I saw some of the second half on e360. Do you like their chances in the NIT? IMHO, it has been a better tournament this year than past years. Many times, it seems they have teams that just can't score. Its a decent quality of play this year.

Dave Bing is pretty interesting, too.

I guess Bill Bradley could get in under that criteria too.