A Friendly Correction for those Man-Haters who Delve to be Single

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Again, I have the same type of frustration about the way Wisconsin plays the game - packing the lane, slowing the pace, a lot of cheap contact of the type that doesn't get called - it's frustrating and boring and makes things less fun to watch.

But it's also smart, helps them win and within the rules until there's a consensus to change them. Same with flopping. It's annoying, but how can you be outraged or say it's unfair? The other guys can copy them if they want.

Wisconsin played that way when they were not so good. I agree it is frustrating to watch them play a team I like (I like 1 team), but this year they did move away from that since they had players that can move. The typical Wisconsin team is a bunch of slow white guys.

They do not turn the ball over. They do not miss free throws. And they do not get fouls called on them. You can speculate why- but T's point is not that Duke doesn't get fouls called, they do. It's just the other teams get way more called. Wisconsin plays in a way where fouls on them are limited. Duke plays such that fouls on the opponents are maximized. Big dif.

[Hank Chinaski]

Why Mr R has not been around?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Resume pro-tip: If you are going to list areas of specialization at the top of your resume, cut the list down from twenty.

Especially if you're five years out of law school.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I assume you'll stop wanting to discuss [income inequality/racism/conservative morons/insert any topic discussed on this or the politics board on any given day] any minute now too?

Have I told you lately that I love you?

I have nothing to add to this discussion -- other than noting my visceral dislike of Duke (based in part on the idea that, as beautiful as Durham is, one can't really be snobbish about going to a school in the Confederacy) (or any school, really) (I have an old girlfriend who went to UVA - that school may get a pass on the southern part of my point) (but not the snobbish part) and my general admiration for land-grant institutions of higher learning. Plus, IIRC, Richie, Potsie, and Ralph Malph went to school in Madison.

AoN, the NHL playoffs are getting ready to start. Not Bob thinks that the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim (not their name anymore, but it amuses me to use it still) win the Cup in six games over the Rangers. Alas.

Carry on.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Fair point - he wasn't found responsible. Yet I'm sufficiently skeptical of the whole enterprise to think he knew nothing about these activities, unless he consciously avoided the knowledge. There's a lot of looking the other way in college sports.

No argument here. But if this is the standard, there isn't a coach at a big time program that can withstand scrutiny.

I just looked up Camby's story. He took $1,000 through his friends from a Hartford lawyer who wanted to be his agent and then another few thousand from some other scumbag who wanted to represent him. I simply cannot accuse Calipari for looking the other way on something like that. That simply does not meet the "should have known" standard coaches should be held to. Hell, I don't even blame Camby. Every single person around these guys is trying to get paid off of them, from their friends to their high school coaches to their parents. And they all do, some of them just for exerting influence on the player's decisions. If you're a kid and your friends throw you a few bucks from some sucker who's willing to give it to them in the hope that they convince him to sign, that's really only wrong in the NCAA's eyes.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Wisconsin played that way when they were not so good. I agree it is frustrating to watch them play a team I like (I like 1 team), but this year they did move away from that since they had players that can move. The typical Wisconsin team is a bunch of slow white guys.

Bo's magic trick this year was doing the same stuff but making it feel different. But statistically, they were still among the slowest in pace of play in college basketball. They scored a lot more than usual by being very efficient (helps to have guys who can shoot) but they weren't doing anything different in terms of scheme. Kaminsky is just a whole lot better than anyone else he's had in that role.

Wisconsin plays in a way where fouls on them are limited. Duke plays such that fouls on the opponents are maximized. Big dif.

I mean, different, yeah, but both are annoyingly manipulating the way the games are called.

The 2 fouls against Wisconsin in the first half should be just as big of an outrage as any perceived extra calls Duke got in the second half. Both are refs not doing their job right (although aside from that one flop, I'm not sure there were really any extra calls in the second half).

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Hell, I don't even blame Camby.

I don't really ever blame the kids. The system is a horrible mess that exploits them. How can we expect each and every one of them resist temptation?

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

It really is a problem. And Coach K is a good enough Xs & Os coach to not have to teach it. It's not fun to watch either. I don't know why it's tolerated.

By the way, the Winslow elbow that resulted in a blocking call is here: http://uproxx.com/sports/2015/04/duk...-championship/

TM

Isn't K just gaming the system re: flopping just like he and Calipari are with one-and-dones? They are playing the cards they are dealt with and using every advantage given to them to win. I agree that it sucks, but shouldn't the blame be on the NCAA for failing to have some type of anti-flopping agenda? It seems to have somewhat worked for soccer (maybe someone who watches more soccer than I do will refute this).

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

Nope, but you're doing a good job of arguing. The call was correct according to the way college basketball is officiated. I started down the rule book rabbit hole to demonstrate that the practice matches the rule, but that thing is a total mess.

And yeah, if the offensive player throws an elbow or pushes off exceptionally blatantly (but not hooks, that never gets called), then the offensive player can sometimes get a whistle while a defender is moving. But a guy going up to shoot is not going to get called for contacting a defender who is going up for a block. Doesn't happen. Isn't how the college rules work in practice.

I'm getting the strong sense that you think the college rules should be more like the NBA rules. Maybe so, but that doesn't change the fact that this play was not an offensive foul in college ball.

Everything you just wrote is a joke. You have no idea what you're talking about. The fact that you tried to go look up the rule to back up your argument ("See? Look at clause (ii) of subsection (b) of rule 136!") tells me you're a lawyer who doesn't really understand the issue, but thinks he can teach himself enough to win an argument.

Originally Posted by Adder

Nope. If the defender is stationary and vertical, it's generally a no-call. If the defender is not, it's going to be on the defender absent an thrown elbow or a blatant push off. This was neither.

Everything you just wrote is a joke. You have no idea what you're talking about.

If we were talking about contact, you'd have a point. Winslow led with his elbow. Purposefully. Once again, I would love to show you how this works. I've done it to asshole players. And I've had it done to me. If the ref knows what he's doing, they make the proper call.

Originally Posted by Adder

Again, I have the same type of frustration about the way Wisconsin plays the game - packing the lane, slowing the pace, a lot of cheap contact of the type that doesn't get called - it's frustrating and boring and makes things less fun to watch.

66% of what you just wrote is a joke. You have very little idea what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by Adder

But it's also smart, helps them win and within the rules until there's a consensus to change them. Same with flopping. It's annoying, but how can you be outraged or say it's unfair? The other guys can copy them if they want.

Look, Adder, I think you like basketball. I don't think you've ever played it in any significant way. I'm not going to say you can't have an opinion on it. I've met lots of people who truly understand the game without having played beyond pick up. You don't understand the game. And it shows.

"They can copy them!" This is so fucking stupid that it's hard to respond to. Yes. Everyone in the NCAA can fall over on every other possession and hope the ref has been fooled into calling a bullshit foul. That's not basketball. That's the entire point. In football, defensive lineman can pretend like they're being held on every play and move the other team back 10 yards on each blown call. In soccer, if you get breathed on in the box, you can act like you've been shot in hopes of being rewarded with a bullshit penalty kick. None of that is about playing the sport. It's not gamesmanship. It's about fooling the ref into making a mistake. It's all bullshit. The fact that you think it's smart tells me all I need to know.

Most of your complaints about Wisconsin above are ridiculous. They pack the lane? They slow the pace? So fucking what? Other than the fact that you don't like to watch that style of basketball, you've said absolutely nothing.

I've watched them a few times and I honestly don't know what you mean by "they create cheap contact that doesn't get called." Are you saying they body people? They're more physical than other teams? They get away with fouls that should be called because they're more physical? I've played against physical players. It's annoying and sometimes frustrating. But the contact isn't necessarily illegal. If you said something that made sense like, "they foul so often that they get away with more than their fair share of fouls because no ref is going to foul out every player on the team," I might listen. Hell, my beloved and deeply flawed 90s Knicks lived on that style. But I don't think you're saying that.

I honestly don't think you understand the game well enough for me to respect your criticism. Based on the fact that you are comparing Wisconsin's style of physical play to Duke's style of pretending to be fouled in order to fool a ref as strategy, you don't really deserve that respect.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Resume pro-tip: If you are going to list areas of specialization at the top of your resume, cut the list down from twenty.

What if one of the specialties is compiling areas of specialization?*

TM

*Come on. If that was the last one on the list, you wouldn't at least give the person a call-back?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Isn't K just gaming the system re: flopping just like he and Calipari are with one-and-dones? They are playing the cards they are dealt with and using every advantage given to them to win. I agree that it sucks, but shouldn't the blame be on the NCAA for failing to have some type of anti-flopping agenda? It seems to have somewhat worked for soccer (maybe someone who watches more soccer than I do will refute this).

The NCAA should be blamed for a lot of things, one of the least of which is flopping.

Actually, it's probably the Big-5 conferences that should be blamed for everything because with respect to basketball and football they are calling almost all the shots.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Explain that to GGG about what he claims on PB?

See, Hank, I don't know much about Basketball, and am happy to admit it, but still have two wins in the March Madness sweeps to my name. And you?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Isn't K just gaming the system re: flopping just like he and Calipari are with one-and-dones?

I don't see the two things as comparable. Trying to fool a ref into making the wrong call and bringing kids into your program who are so good you know they're going to the NBA as soon as they can really isn't the same thing.

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

They are playing the cards they are dealt with and using every advantage given to them to win. I agree that it sucks, but shouldn't the blame be on the NCAA for failing to have some type of anti-flopping agenda? It seems to have somewhat worked for soccer (maybe someone who watches more soccer than I do will refute this).

I'll explain it like this: I'm sure you've played pick-up. Every once in awhile you get that guy who calls a foul every single time he misses a shot. When he's on defense, he fouls you every single time you touch the ball. He does it because he really, really wants to win. But he's not really playing basketball. Sure, everyone else could call a foul every time they miss. And you could all just foul the shit out of whoever was about to shoot. But that is not the point of why you're there. It's not basketball, like I said. He goes home feeling satisfied because he won the games he was in. Everyone else on the court knows he's delusional and, if he becomes a regular, they start looking for a new run somewhere else.

They should absolutely address the flopping in the tournament. In the ACC, where everyone knows Duke flops all the time, the refs and the other teams have adjusted somewhat. The other teams flop too (to my chagrin, I'm looking at you, UNC!) and the refs either spend way too much time calling it or the good ones tell those sorry bastards to get up. The refs in the NCAA tournament come from conferences where people are not constantly trying to fool them. So, when they see a player's body react like they've been fouled, they tend to call it. Coach K knows this and uses it to his advantage. Some people think that makes him smart. Should the NCAA call in all of the refs and tell them not to fall for his bullshit? Yeah. Will they? No.

TM

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Resume pro-tip: If you are going to list areas of specialization at the top of your resume, cut the list down from twenty.

You may have missed out on a true renaissance man, like Danny Devito's character in Renaissance Man.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

What if one of the specialties is compiling areas of specialization?*

TM

*Come on. If that was the last one on the list, you wouldn't at least give the person a call-back?

Careful!

I've hired a few out of an interview that was motivated simply so I could see the person who did such a dumb resume. They never work out.