GDT: Conquer the Green Wave

[Billiken Rich]

2 minutes ago, moytoy12 said:

Did anyone else notice that during the game Yuri went from wearing a white under shirt to no under shirt then to blue under shirt?  Not important but kind of funny.  I'm for whatever it takes as long as he keeps playing strong and draining 3s.  

Selling them as game used?

[billikenfan05]

4 minutes ago, moytoy12 said:

Did anyone else notice that during the game Yuri went from wearing a white under shirt to no under shirt then to blue under shirt?  Not important but kind of funny.  I'm for whatever it takes as long as he keeps playing strong and draining 3s.  

My guess is Tulane probably complained, he had to take it off and it took some time to find him his blue one.

[moytoy12]

1 minute ago, billikenfan05 said:

My guess is Tulane probably complained, he had to take it off and it took some time to find him his blue one.

That makes sense. 

[billiken_roy]

7 minutes ago, moytoy12 said:

Did anyone else notice that during the game Yuri went from wearing a white under shirt to no under shirt then to blue under shirt?  Not important but kind of funny.  I'm for whatever it takes as long as he keeps playing strong and draining 3s.  

i thought it was a college rule that if you wear a shirt under your jersey that shows,  it has to be the same color as the jersey?   patrick ewing rule.   did that change?

[Pistol]

5 minutes ago, billikenfan05 said:

My guess is Tulane probably complained, he had to take it off and it took some time to find him his blue one.

 

2 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

i thought it was a college rule that if you wear a shirt under your jersey that shows,  it has to be the same color as the jersey?   patrick ewing rule.   did that change?

Probably both of these. Either Tulane said something, the refs finally noticed, or both.

Regardless, it threw me off when he changed out of it. My couch is relatively far from the screen and my eyesight isn't what it used to be, so I get him and Weaver mixed up from a distance sometimes.

[billiken_roy]

29 minutes ago, Pistol said:

 

Probably both of these. Either Tulane said something, the refs finally noticed, or both.

Regardless, it threw me off when he changed out of it. My couch is relatively far from the screen and my eyesight isn't what it used to be, so I get him and Weaver mixed up from a distance sometimes.

speaking of weaver, i am surprised weaver didnt get in trouble for that long contested 3 he took early in the shot clock near the end of the game.    had he missed probably would have definitely felt some dagger speak.    regardless not a good look.  

[billikenfan05]

4 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

speaking of weaver, i am surprised weaver didnt get in trouble for that long contested 3 he took early in the shot clock near the end of the game.    had he missed probably would have definitely felt some dagger speak.    regardless not a good look.  

Are you trying to compare this to Isabells drive at the end of a game last year? 

[billiken_roy]

Just now, billikenfan05 said:

Are you trying to compare this to Isabells drive at the end of a game last year? 

no never even thought about it today.   isabell's drive at the end of the game last year wasnt good either.  

[billikenfan05]

1 minute ago, billiken_roy said:

no never even thought about it today.   isabell's drive at the end of the game last year wasnt good either.  

I don’t think there was anything wrong with Weavers shot. The game was well out of hand and it was just a heat check with the team making 62% of 3s. It wasn’t a good shot but it doesn’t deserve a “not a good look”. 

[billiken_roy]

when you are up 20+ with little time left and the shot clock has lots of time left.   we shouldnt be shooting contested 25+ foot shots.   imo it is bad sportsmanship.  

[billikenfan05]

Just now, billiken_roy said:

when you are up 20+ with little time left and the shot clock has lots of time left.   we shouldnt be shooting contested 25+ foot shots.   imo it is bad sportsmanship.  

You gave the ball back to Tulane and shortened the game. Poor sportsmanship putting them out of their misery quicker. 

[billiken_roy]

Just now, billikenfan05 said:

You gave the ball back to Tulane and shortened the game. Poor sportsmanship putting them out of their misery quicker. 

you never played sports did you?

[glazedandconfused]

In a world where margin of victory matters, I have no problem with Weaver's shot (Isabell's was different situation last year but I still don't mind it for or against us). If a losing team is going to play defense and try to score on the other end, why let up? You can make the argument for sportsmanship, but you can just as easily make an argument that holding the ball for 30 seconds or playing keep away is worse sportsmanship. It's a bunch of 18-22 year olds playing a game, let's not over litigate how they should behave or not behave. 

 

 

 

[slufanskip]

I have mixed feelings on this. Part of me says giving your opponent anything but your best at anytime is a sign of disrespect. However, I don't think I would have taken that shot. 

[HoosierPal]

6 minutes ago, glazedandconfused said:

In a world where margin of victory matters, I have no problem with Weaver's shot (Isabell's was different situation last year but I still don't mind it for or against us). If a losing team is going to play defense and try to score on the other end, why let up? You can make the argument for sportsmanship, but you can just as easily make an argument that holding the ball for 30 seconds or playing keep away is worse sportsmanship. It's a bunch of 18-22 year olds playing a game, let's not over litigate how they should behave or not behave. 

 

 

 

No. 

NCAA's NET ranking is the primary focus of the Committee. (They do view other ranking systems.)

The NET was built to create a ranking system that was as accurate as possible while also evaluating team performance fairly. To ensure fairness, certain types of data were omitted from the model. Of key importance, game date and order were omitted to give equal importance to both early and late-season games. In addition, a cap of 10 points was applied to the winning margin to prevent rankings from encouraging unsportsmanlike play, such as needlessly running up the score in a game where the outcome was certain.

[slufanskip]

3 minutes ago, HoosierPal said:

No. 

NCAA's NET ranking is the primary focus of the Committee. (They do view other ranking systems.)

The NET was built to create a ranking system that was as accurate as possible while also evaluating team performance fairly. To ensure fairness, certain types of data were omitted from the model. Of key importance, game date and order were omitted to give equal importance to both early and late-season games. In addition, a cap of 10 points was applied to the winning margin to prevent rankings from encouraging unsportsmanlike play, such as needlessly running up the score in a game where the outcome was certain.

A cap of 10 points is ridiculous. You could be in a tight game 4-6 pts all game and stretch it to 10 with f/t's or a couple of 3's late or even a 10 point game that you can't put the opponent away or you could be up 20 all game and each win counts the same or is viewed as equal quality. Imo margin of victory shouldn't be irrelevant until 20 points

[billiken_roy]

19 minutes ago, glazedandconfused said:

In a world where margin of victory matters, I have no problem with Weaver's shot (Isabell's was different situation last year but I still don't mind it for or against us). If a losing team is going to play defense and try to score on the other end, why let up? You can make the argument for sportsmanship, but you can just as easily make an argument that holding the ball for 30 seconds or playing keep away is worse sportsmanship. It's a bunch of 18-22 year olds playing a game, let's not over litigate how they should behave or not behave. 

 

 

 

i believe anything past a 15 point win doesnt help the margin of victory bump.   regardless we were up 20+ with less than a minute to play.  at least get it down to a shot clock need to shoot.  

[HoosierPal]

2 minutes ago, slufanskip said:

A cap of 10 points is ridiculous. You could be in a tight game 4-6 pts all game and stretch it to 10 with f/t's or a couple of 3's late or even a 10 point game that you can't put the opponent away or you could be up 20 all game and each win counts the same or is viewed as equal quality. Imo margin of victory shouldn't be irrelevant until 20 points

It ain't my rule.  I have no idea how much value NCAA puts margin of victory into their NET formula.  I think that is on a Need to Know basis.

[NextYearBill]

dont like getting scored on? play defense.

[glazedandconfused]

Agreed, if a losing team is going to play defense and try to score on the offensive end, the winning team should do the same. I'd be willing to bet Tulane hasn't thought twice about the Weaver shot since the game ended. It's not a big thing at all.

 

 

 

[slufanskip]

18 minutes ago, HoosierPal said:

It ain't my rule.  I have no idea how much value NCAA puts margin of victory into their NET formula.  I think that is on a Need to Know basis.

Did you think I thought it was your rule? 

In addition, a cap of 10 points was applied to the winning margin to prevent rankings from encouraging unsportsmanlike play, such as needlessly running up the score in a game where the outcome was certain.  

However, I was responding to this part of your post which was regarding the net ranking

[SLU_Lax]

4 minutes ago, glazedandconfused said:

Agreed, if a losing team is going to play defense and try to score on the offensive end, the winning team should do the same. I'd be willing to bet Tulane hasn't thought twice about the Weaver shot since the game ended. It's not a big thing at all.

 

 

 

This is the crux of the issue.  If the opponent is playing defense and extending out, then it is fine to also keep playing hard.  If the opponent has pulled back and is conceding the game, then it is bad form to take advantage of that to score easy points.  The losing team dictates when it is time to stop playing (of course I think it is fine to wait until under 5 seconds and then shoot a layup or long 3 rather than take the shot clock violation).

[slufan13]

The guys on the court should play at max effort no matter what the score/time. You can put the end of your bench in if you want, but those guys should get the opportunity to play hard and actually try to score. I'm not about sparing feelings in sports. 

[NH]

1 hour ago, slufanskip said:

I have mixed feelings on this. Part of me says giving your opponent anything but your best at anytime is a sign of disrespect. However, I don't think I would have taken that shot. 

If someone took that shot against SLU I would have no problem with it. 

[ACE]

1 hour ago, billiken_roy said:

when you are up 20+ with little time left and the shot clock has lots of time left.   we shouldnt be shooting contested 25+ foot shots.   imo it is bad sportsmanship.  

What was the problem with the shot? There was 1:12 left on the clock? It's not like it was under 30-seconds and we could have run the clock out. We were going to have to take a shot anyway.

EDIT: I suspect you are talking about the one he took at 33-seconds, even then, he wouldn't be able to run out the clock. A shot would have been taken be somebody before the game could end.