Coaching mistake by Nevada ...

[wallycock]

... 36 secs left, down 1, Loyola has the ball. He allows Loyola guard to run almost all of of the 30 sec clock out. The guard drives, dishes out to the corner for a made 3. End result ... Nevada now down 4 with 6 secs left. They inbounded the ball and hit a 3 to get back to within 1 pt, but w/only 1 sec left. All Loyala had to do was inbound the ball 2x. Game over. They had to inbound the ball twice because Nevada have not yet reached the one and one threshold.

Coach should have allowed his defense to pressure the the ball with 36 secs left, and make them “handle the ball”. Worst case would have been a 3 (same as what happened), but perhaps with more time left ... or a 2 which would have put them down 3 perhaps with more time left ... or fouled which would have made Loyala make 2 FT’s , again with more time left. Maybe they miss 1 or both FT’s. Who knows ... or Nevada gets a turn over. I just see no advantage in allowing the Loyola guard dribble out the shot clock hoping for a missed shot. Even if the kid who made the 3 had missed, Nevada would still have needed to get the rebound, and get it up court, and score with about 4 seconds left by that time.

Terrible strategy by the Nevada coach especially in light of the fact that they still had a foul to give.

 

[king ward]

... 36 secs left, down 1, Loyola has the ball. He allows Loyola guard to run almost all of of the 30 sec clock out. The guard drives, dishes out to the corner for a made 3. End result ... Nevada now down 4 with 6 secs left. They inbounded the ball and hit a 3 to get back to within 1 pt, but w/only 1 sec left. All Loyala had to do was inbound the ball 2x. Game over. They had to inbound the ball twice because Nevada have not yet reached the one and one threshold.

Coach should have allowed his defense to pressure the the ball with 36 secs left, and make them “handle the ball”. Worst case would have been a 3 (same as what happened), but perhaps with more time left ... or a 2 which would have put them down 3 perhaps with more time left ... or fouled which would have made Loyala make 2 FT’s , again with more time left. Maybe they miss 1 or both FT’s. Who knows ... or Nevada gets a turn over. I just see no advantage in allowing the Loyola guard dribble out the shot clock hoping for a missed shot. Even if the kid who made the 3 had missed, Nevada would still have needed to get the rebound, and get it up court, and score with about 4 seconds left by that time.

Terrible strategy by the Nevada coach especially in light of the fact that they still had a foul to give.

I guess he was in rarefied air, coaching-wise.

 

[wallycock]

King, you are a knowledgeable fan. With a 6 second differential between the shot and game clock, behind 1 pt, when would it ever make sense to just let the opposing team run 25-28 seconds off the clock, then give them a shot. Yeah you hope to get a stop, but even then by time you get the rebound (IF ... you get the rebound) you then only have about 4 seconds to get the ball, go the length of the court, and score. Everything has to go perfectly to win.

 

[king ward]

King, you are a knowledgeable fan. With a 6 second differential between the shot and game clock, behind 1 pt, when would it ever make sense to just let the opposing team run 25-28 seconds off the clock, then give them a shot. Yeah you hope to get a stop, but even then by time you get the rebound (IF ... you get the rebound) you then only have about 4 seconds to get the ball, go the length of the court, and score. Everything has to go perfectly to win.

If the coach of the team I pull for were to do that, I'd go berserk. I've seen coaches foul in that situation just to have the ball at the end. I saw Driesell do it against somebody one time, even though it meant giving up the lead.

 

[Rod Dangerfield]

What was with the neon trim on Nevada's uniforms. Their colors are Navy & Silver.

 

[viennacocks]

King, you are a knowledgeable fan. With a 6 second differential between the shot and game clock, behind 1 pt, when would it ever make sense to just let the opposing team run 25-28 seconds off the clock, then give them a shot. Yeah you hope to get a stop, but even then by time you get the rebound (IF ... you get the rebound) you then only have about 4 seconds to get the ball, go the length of the court, and score. Everything has to go perfectly to win.

They were obviously betting on Loyola not hitting that shot. Hindsight is 20/20.

 

[Jon Snow]

They were obviously betting on Loyola not hitting that shot. Hindsight is 20/20.

I wasn't crazy about the decision, but it was a gamble either way...and yes, hindsight....

Nevada knew Loyola wouldn't take a shot clock violation, as that would stop the clock with 6 seconds. That means Loyola needs to take the first open shot they get with less than 8 seconds on the shot clock. If they miss, Nevada has 10-13 seconds to get the winning shot. There was a decent chance of those things happening.

Still, I probably pressure the ball and risk sending them to the line. That approach probably gives each team 2 or 3 more possessions. Nevada needs Loyola to miss a FT or two, and Nevada has to score on each possession.

 

[viennacocks]

I wasn't crazy about the decision, but it was a gamble either way...and yes, hindsight....

Nevada knew Loyola wouldn't take a shot clock violation, as that would stop the clock with 6 seconds. That means Loyola needs to take the first open shot they get with less than 8 seconds on the shot clock. If they miss, Nevada has 10-13 seconds to get the winning shot. There was a decent chance of those things happening.

Still, I probably pressure the ball and risk sending them to the line. That approach probably gives each team 2 or 3 more possessions. Nevada needs Loyola to miss a FT or two, and Nevada has to score on each possession.

Agree with you. That said, if they miss that shot and Nevada scores, Eric Musselman is a great coach with a hot wife. He'll have to settle for having a hot wife.

 

[wallycock]

The point I haven’t made I guess is that Nevada had a foul to give before they reached the 1&1. I would have pressured the ball. If Loyola could handle and take care of the ball while running 25 secs off the clock, so be it, but with a foul to give, why not go all out to force a turnover? If you foul, you simply have used up the 1 you had to give. With the clock winding down, the next foul you had to make, stops the clock and sends Loyola to the line where the worst case scenario is they hit 2 FT’s (assuming you don’t really screw up and foul on a 3pt attempt). That puts you down only 2 or 3 depending on how many FT’s Loyola makes. Then you get the ball back with more time on the clock to hit a 2 or 3 to tie or win the game.

Doesn’t that make sense?

 

[viennacocks]

The point I haven’t made I guess is that Nevada had a foul to give before they reached the 1&1. I would have pressured the ball. If Loyola could handle and take care of the ball while running 25 secs off the clock, so be it, but with a foul to give, why not go all out to force a turnover? If you foul, you simply have used up the 1 you had to give. With the clock winding down, the next foul you had to make, stops the clock and sends Loyola to the line where the worst case scenario is they hit 2 FT’s (assuming you don’t really screw up and foul on a 3pt attempt). That puts you down only 2 or 3 depending on how many FT’s Loyola makes. Then you get the ball back with more time on the clock to hit a 2 or 3 to tie or win the game.

Doesn’t that make sense?

Does make sense and I agree with you. All very valid points. Musselman was gambling they would miss on their shot attempt. Agree, not a great gamble.