1st round upset shocker

[gbpfan1231]

awesome win for UNI and all the little schools - just fantastic all around! the little guys pull up 3 with 30 seconds left on the shot clock was a stone-cold killer

 

- UW opened a can on UNM and made them look like a high school team - a few things from that game - I can't ever remember an 11 seed FAVORED over a 3 - EVER and where was this team all year? so talented

 

- Syr or WVU could cut down the nets, but the Big East was overrated all year - not impressed with the showings by GT, Lou and Nova at all.

 

- UK is gonna be tough to beat

UK looked unbeatable.

 

On a side note - where do these guys get all the money for all those tats? Man some of these dudes are all paint!!

[BeeR]

Lot of people using their picks to wipe their butts with now

[bushwacked]

What an awesome tourney thus far. Please Lord, don't let this come down to Kentucky and Duke.

[gbpfan1231]

Lot of people using their picks to wipe their butts with now

With the way my different pool sheets look I could eat at Taco Bell 4 days in a row and still be "covered"

[SLAYER]

UK looked unbeatable.

 

On a side note - where do these guys get all the money for all those tats? Man some of these dudes are all paint!!

 

I was thinking the same thing watching that game. I mean we are talking thousands of dollars worth of ink

[T_bone65]

My Wildcats of UK are looking tough right now, Wake was no slouch to beat by 30 points. This is the time to separate the men from the boys, and Cousins sure is all man and Wall even hitting some 3's now.

[Jackass]

My Wildcats of UK are looking tough right now, Wake was no slouch to beat by 30 points. This is the time to separate the men from the boys, and Cousins sure is all man and Wall even hitting some 3's now.

 

Actually Wake was a tremendous slouch.

[gilthorp]

"The whiteys taught the ghetto boys how to play real basketball"

 

This is an interesting statement.

[bushwacked]

"The whiteys taught the ghetto boys how to play real basketball"

 

This is an interesting statement.

 

Who said that?

[keggerz]

The whiteys from Northern iowa taught the ghetto boys how to play real basketball. Those guys can shoot and play some good D.

 

 

Who said that?

look up

[gbpfan1231]

"The whiteys taught the ghetto boys how to play real basketball"

 

This is an interesting statement.

When you have a team that has a lot of white guys you get a different style of basketball. It is more the style of what basketball used to be. You get hard tough stifling defense and offense that takes time off the clock and looks for a good open shot. The other style tends to be be run and gun and basically is just athleticism as opposed to what I call "real basketball".

 

One of the reasons I don't watch NBA anymore - there is no defense and is all about trying to get on Sportscenter.

[Jackass]

When you have a team that has a lot of white guys you get a different style of basketball. It is more the style of what basketball used to be. You get hard tough stifling defense and offense that takes time off the clock and looks for a good open shot. The other style tends to be be run and gun and basically is just athleticism as opposed to what I call "real basketball".

 

One of the reasons I don't watch NBA anymore - there is no defense and is all about trying to get on Sportscenter.

 

So you enjoyed the NBA when Jerry West was playing?

[gbpfan1231]

So you enjoyed the NBA when Jerry West was playing?

Don't remember.

[Gopher]

When you have a team that has a lot of white guys you get a different style of basketball. It is more the style of what basketball used to be. You get hard tough stifling defense and offense that takes time off the clock and looks for a good open shot. The other style tends to be be run and gun and basically is just athleticism as opposed to what I call "real basketball".

 

One of the reasons I don't watch NBA anymore - there is no defense and is all about trying to get on Sportscenter.

Technically, "real basketball" didn't include a three-point line. So, as long as we're using blatant stereotypes, the "white players" are just as guilty of getting away from what you probably consider to be good basketball, since many of them add nothing more to the game than standing around the arc, waiting for an open shot. Not trying to start an argument with you, just playing devil's advocate. I actually agree with some of what I THINK you are trying to say... I'm just not sure using terms like "whiteys" and "ghetto boys" is the best way to make your argument.

 

And, for what it's worth, some of the most technically sound (and best defensive) basketball players in the world happen to not be white, while some of the best athletes in the NBA are. Not going to get into the NBA vs. college argument... been there, done that.

[gbpfan1231]

Technically, "real basketball" didn't include a three-point line. So, as long as we're using blatant stereotypes, the "white players" are just as guilty of getting away from what you probably consider to be good basketball, since many of them add nothing more to the game than standing around the arc, waiting for an open shot. Not trying to start an argument with you, just playing devil's advocate. I actually agree with some of what I THINK you are trying to say... I'm just not sure using terms like "whiteys" and "ghetto boys" is the best way to make your argument.

 

And, for what it's worth, some of the most technically sound (and best defensive) basketball players in the world happen to not be white, while some of the best athletes in the NBA are. Not going to get into the NBA vs. college argument... been there, done that.

I hear what you are saying. I just can't stand the style of basketball that is now being played. Yea I may have put it wrong but the style of play now is what I call ghetto style. It is all about flash and sure does not seem like it is a team style game anymore.

 

There is a major difference of style when you get a team that is made up of a lot of white guys compared to the the big time schools where the majority of players are not white. I would much rather watch that style than what you get for a typical NBA game.

[Gopher]

I hear what you are saying. I just can't stand the style of basketball that is now being played. Yea I may have put it wrong but the style of play now is what I call ghetto style. It is all about flash and sure does not seem like it is a team style game anymore.

 

There is a major difference of style when you get a team that is made up of a lot of white guys compared to the the big time schools where the majority of players are not white. I would much rather watch that style than what you get for a typical NBA game.

Fair enough, and I agree with some of what you have said. I just don't think it's as simple as just a white vs. non-white thing, as there are a lot of other factors involved. I agree that there are players out there, in the NBA and college, that seem to be more concerned with getting on Sportscenter than they are with winning the game. But, I can pretty much assure you that that had ZERO to do with why Kansas lost yesterday. NIU had nothing to lose, and played a much more loose/care-free game, and it paid off... plain and simple. Not sure if Kansas players are "ghetto" or not, as I don't follow any of them closely enough to make that observation (not to mention, I don't have the slightest clue what you consider ghetto or not).

 

I've stated in other threads that I definitely prefer the college game (and this tournament in particular) over the NBA. I watch the NBA, but mainly because I participate in fantasy leagues and such... the games themselves are not that exciting to me, at least not until the post-season. I know others here have a different opinion on this, and that's fine with me. The main problem I have with the NBA is that the season is too long, and too many teams make the playoffs. Most of the teams that have any chance at winning in June/July, know they are realistically going to be in the playoffs by January/February... that means that there are approximately 2-3 months, for some teams, of meaningless basketball games being played. Shorten the season, or even better, put less teams in the playoffs. Playing an 82-game season, and then allowing over half of the league to continue in the playoffs, is absurd.

 

As far as the college game goes, I really don't have too many problems with it. Expanding the tournament would be ridiculous. If they do anything at all, I actually like Steve Lavin's idea. Since the city of Dayton, OH has done such a tremendous job of creating a tournament-like atmosphere for the play-in game on the Tuesday before the tournament starts, make the play-in game on Tuesday a play-in "day" in which there are four games instead of one. That would essentially add six teams to the tournament... bumping all of the 15 and 16-seeds into the Tuesday games, and thus adding six more at-large bids to the Thursday/Friday sessions. To me, that makes much more sense than adding 31. It would also keep the NIT alive, something that expanding the NCAA tournament would absolutely kill. And, I don't care who you are a fan of... The NIT tournament is a pretty well-run tournament, especially compared to the lowly CBI and CIT tournaments, which are a joke. Teams that participate in the NIT are glad to be there, and once they get over the disappointment of not making the NCAA, they actually take it pretty seriously. Ask UConn, Illinois, and UNC fans... they may SAY that it's no big deal, but the crowds showing up for those games says otherwise. As a Minnesota fan, I know first-hand... the Gophers have played in the NIT plenty.

 

As far as the college game itself, I think the whole offensive-foul (charge) thing is a problem, but I don't think it's got as much to do with the absence of a semi-circle line in the lane, as I think it has to do with the inconsistency of the calls themselves. I've seen dozens of calls in this tournament go the wrong way... charges that are called blocks, and blocks that are called charges. It seems as though, any time a defender recognizes an offensive player with an open lane to the basket, they might as well step in front of the driver, whether they have time to get "set" or not... either way, it's a 50% chance that they stop the opponent from scoring, which is a heck of a lot better than letting the driver just go by and score. The officiating is as much to blame as anything else, as the calls have been nowhere close to consistent.

 

The other thing I have a problem with is that college basketball has become far too "three-point-oriented," in my opinion. The game revolves too much around the three-point basket. I don't think that's going to change, though, as it is the primary factor that causes so many upsets in the tournament... Essentially, march "madness" is a result of the three-point line. Inferior teams, overall, are able to beat superior teams, simply because they're better shooting teams from behind the line. The NCAA is probably not going to change that any time soon, at least not significantly. Sure, they moved the line back by a foot a year or two ago... that's not enough of a change to make a difference. If the college game adopted the NBA line, however, I think you would see a fairly significant decrease in three's being hoisted, and an increase in fundamental offensive basketball... teams would have to focus more on the mid-range jumper (a lost art, really), as well as low-post/high-post offense.

 

Think about it... the story of the entire tournament, so far, has been about a player who essentially passed up a 2-on-1 (almost guaranteed) layup, for an open three-point shot, with 30 seconds left on the shot clock, a one-point lead, and under a minute to play. As much as Northern Iowa has been a great story so far, there's something wrong with that picture. I'm not saying he shouldn't have taken the shot, or that his coach should have been upset with him for taking the shot. I'm saying that the three-pointer has become a little bit too easy, for college players, and consequently plays too big of a role in the college game. Move it back, and there are still going to be players that shoot 50% from behind that line, but there will be far fewer of them.

[Jackass]

Think about it... the story of the entire tournament, so far, has been about a player who essentially passed up a 2-on-1 (almost guaranteed) layup, for an open three-point shot, with 30 seconds left on the shot clock, a one-point lead, and under a minute to play. As much as Northern Iowa has been a great story so far, there's something wrong with that picture. I'm not saying he shouldn't have taken the shot, or that his coach should have been upset with him for taking the shot. I'm saying that the three-pointer has become a little bit too easy, for college players, and consequently plays too big of a role in the college game. Move it back, and there are still going to be players that shoot 50% from behind that line, but there will be far fewer of them.

 

I wouldn't say that was a guaranteed two at all. And he still had to make the shot under a tremendous amount of pressure.

 

I'm not totally opposed to what you're saying . I think moving the 3 back maybe another foot or so would be ok. But still think it's good for the college game to have it a fairly big part of the game.

[Gopher]

I wouldn't say that was a guaranteed two at all. And he still had to make the shot under a tremendous amount of pressure.

 

I'm not totally opposed to what you're saying . I think moving the 3 back maybe another foot or so would be ok. But still think it's good for the college game to have it a fairly big part of the game.

Maybe not guaranteed, but I'd say that, as fundamentally sound as NIU is, they should be able to convert a 2-on-1 into a made layup about 80% of the time, at least. That's really not the issue, though... I honestly wasn't expecting them to drive for a layup. What teams do 95% of the time, in that situation (with the lead, under a minute to go, and 30+ seconds left on the shot clock), is try to run as much time off the clock as possible, before being fouled or taking a quality shot (usually with the shot clock down to inside of ten seconds). Kansas' biggest enemy at that point was the clock... Less than a minute to go, and NIU has a full shot clock to burn. Plus, I believe Ali What's-His-Name is pretty automatic from the FT line... 86% to be exact... So, if they do foul, you're most likely getting two points. Either way, you're talking about a nearly 80% chance at two points, or worst case, taking 25-30 seconds off the clock, and possibly increasing the lead. Instead, they shoot a three less than five seconds into the shot clock. Of course, he made it, so nobody is talking about what the consequences would have been, had he missed.

 

Like I said, I don't have a problem with him taking that shot. I just think it's one example of how the three-pointer has become a bit too easy in the college game, and as a result, plays slightly too big of a role. I love the three-point basket, and am not in any way saying that there shouldn't be one. But, when you see, time and time again, teams passing up open 8-10 foot jumpers for a contested three-point attempt, something is wrong. Too many teams look for the three first (even a contested three, or even a shot from 6-8 feet behind the line), and then "settle" for a two if they can't take a three. Moving the line back by 2-3 feet isn't going to change anything drastically, but I think it would make enough of an impact to correct what is, in my opinion, an imbalance in college basketball.

 

I love the college game, so I'm not saying there is anything drastically wrong with it. But, if I had to find something wrong with it, those would be my two issues... offensive fouls being too inconsistent, and the three being too easy. Moving the line back will take care of the three-point issue. As for the offensive foul, like I said, adding a semi-circle might help, but I would like to see them change the way it's called. Give the offensive player the benefit of the doubt. In other words, the defender doesn't get the call unless it's blatantly obvious that they were set before contact. Right now, officials don't do that... it's a 50/50 situation, more often than not. That's why you see SO MANY of those calls in a college game... defenders know that they have just as much of a chance at getting the call, as the guy with the ball. If you give the ball-handler the "right of way," and don't call charges unless they're blatantly obvious, defenders aren't going to be so quick to jump in front of somebody, and we won't have to see 10-15 of those calls in an average college game.

[Big John]

Maybe not guaranteed, but I'd say that, as fundamentally sound as NIU is,

Just to make college initials clear:

 

NIU = Northern Illiinois University

UNI = University of Northern Iowa

[Jackass]

Maybe not guaranteed, but I'd say that, as fundamentally sound as NIU is, they should be able to convert a 2-on-1 into a made layup about 80% of the time, at least. That's really not the issue, though... I honestly wasn't expecting them to drive for a layup. What teams do 95% of the time, in that situation (with the lead, under a minute to go, and 30+ seconds left on the shot clock), is try to run as much time off the clock as possible, before being fouled or taking a quality shot (usually with the shot clock down to inside of ten seconds). Kansas' biggest enemy at that point was the clock... Less than a minute to go, and NIU has a full shot clock to burn. Plus, I believe Ali What's-His-Name is pretty automatic from the FT line... 86% to be exact... So, if they do foul, you're most likely getting two points. Either way, you're talking about a nearly 80% chance at two points, or worst case, taking 25-30 seconds off the clock, and possibly increasing the lead. Instead, they shoot a three less than five seconds into the shot clock. Of course, he made it, so nobody is talking about what the consequences would have been, had he missed.

 

Like I said, I don't have a problem with him taking that shot. I just think it's one example of how the three-pointer has become a bit too easy in the college game, and as a result, plays slightly too big of a role. I love the three-point basket, and am not in any way saying that there shouldn't be one. But, when you see, time and time again, teams passing up open 8-10 foot jumpers for a contested three-point attempt, something is wrong. Too many teams look for the three first (even a contested three, or even a shot from 6-8 feet behind the line), and then "settle" for a two if they can't take a three. Moving the line back by 2-3 feet isn't going to change anything drastically, but I think it would make enough of an impact to correct what is, in my opinion, an imbalance in college basketball.

 

I love the college game, so I'm not saying there is anything drastically wrong with it. But, if I had to find something wrong with it, those would be my two issues... offensive fouls being too inconsistent, and the three being too easy. Moving the line back will take care of the three-point issue. As for the offensive foul, like I said, adding a semi-circle might help, but I would like to see them change the way it's called. Give the offensive player the benefit of the doubt. In other words, the defender doesn't get the call unless it's blatantly obvious that they were set before contact. Right now, officials don't do that... it's a 50/50 situation, more often than not. That's why you see SO MANY of those calls in a college game... defenders know that they have just as much of a chance at getting the call, as the guy with the ball. If you give the ball-handler the "right of way," and don't call charges unless they're blatantly obvious, defenders aren't going to be so quick to jump in front of somebody, and we won't have to see 10-15 of those calls in an average college game.

 

A couple problems with your analysis. First of all, no guarantee that Ali G is the one shooting the free throws. Second, even if he was taking them, the chance that an 86% free throw shooter makes both free throws is 74%. If it's a 70% shooter, that goes down to 50%.

 

Kansas had all the momentum at that point. I'd say if they fouled with 30 seconds left, whether down by 2 or 3, they would've had a decent chance to win the game. You can certainly argue the merits of whether it was a good idea to take the shot at that point, and sure if he missed it, the decision would be criticized. I guess my point is, i'm not sure that's the best argument as to why the 3 point shot is not working.

[Gopher]

A couple problems with your analysis. First of all, no guarantee that Ali G is the one shooting the free throws. Second, even if he was taking them, the chance that an 86% free throw shooter makes both free throws is 74%. If it's a 70% shooter, that goes down to 50%.

 

Kansas had all the momentum at that point. I'd say if they fouled with 30 seconds left, whether down by 2 or 3, they would've had a decent chance to win the game. You can certainly argue the merits of whether it was a good idea to take the shot at that point, and sure if he missed it, the decision would be criticized. I guess my point is, i'm not sure that's the best argument as to why the 3 point shot is not working.

I'm aware of the math involved with the free throws, so yes, 80% might be slightly high (I was rounding). I still maintain that most good teams can convert a 2-on-1 at least 80% of the time. So, if extending the lead was the #1 priority, I'll take a 2-on-1 break over an open three-point shot, any day of the week. More importantly, that one shot is not the basis of my "argument." That shot was just one example of why I think the three-point shot has become too easy. And I never said the three-point shot wasn't "working." Today's players have greater range than they did 20 years ago, overall. Sure, there are exceptions to that... Dennis Scott was one of the great long-range bombers of all-time, in terms of the NCAA tournament. But, the range he had, at that time, was unmatched. Today, there are a half-dozen players in each conference with that type of shooting range... We've seen at least a dozen of them in this tournament alone.

 

Another example would be Loyola-Marymount... Twenty years ago, they were known for shooting as quickly as possible, on every possession... usually taking a shot within the first ten to fifteen seconds of what was then a 45-second shot clock. They were also known for shooting far more three's than two's in many games. At the time, noboby else played like that, or even close. Now, granted, there hasn't really been a team since them, who has played with quite as much of a frenzied pace, at least not successfully. But, teams shooting more three's than two's in a game is no longer unusual... happens pretty frequently, really. To me, that takes a little bit away from what was originally designed to be a "bonus"... make a shot from behind this line, and you get an extra point. If there are more "bonus" shots being taken in a game than "regular" shots, maybe the "bonus" line should be extended SLIGHTLY.

 

That's all I'm saying... Never meant to turn this into an argument. I love the college game, and this tournament is by far the best sporting event on the planet, in my opinion. There is nothing about it that is "wrong" or "not working" to the point where I feel passionately that it should be changed. But, if I was forced to pick a thing or two to change about college basketball, my first choice would be the charge rule, followed by extending the arc as choice #2.

 

Edit: Before John corrects me, I realize that rounding 74% would not make it 80%, so let me re-phrase... I was rounding UP to the nearest 10%.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Gopher

[Gopher]

Just to make college initials clear:

 

NIU = Northern Illiinois University

UNI = University of Northern Iowa

I knew that, too... My bad.

[Gopher]

Of course, as I stated earlier, the 3-pointer is what makes the tournament so unpredictable, and I realize that extending the line might decrease the number of upsets. I'm fine with that. Let the best, most well-rounded teams advance.

[Big John]

Of course, as I stated earlier, the 3-pointer is what makes the tournament so unpredictable, and I realize that extending the line might decrease the number of upsets. I'm fine with that. Let the best, most well-rounded teams advance.

They did extend it 2 years ago.

[TimC]

I had Kansas going all the way in my one entry for Russ' pool.

 

Fork please.