2015 NCAA Tournament thread

I have no idea why more teams don't at least bring a defender up to make them pick up the ball.

 

They're afraid the guard would pick the ball up and throw it long into the area vacated by the defender for an easy three look.

 

I know that's why they don't do it, but if you snapped a trap on them at the right time -- when they are really rolling it sloooowwwly --- you'd probably have a clean steal and dunk.

I did see a HS team try it one time but the offensive player completely freaked, picked up the ball and veered sharply to the side -- directly into the path of the defensive guy trying to make the pickoff. Both players were flattened in the collision.

 

But they have two guys down there -- the passer and the receiver. You're still up a man defensively.

 

When you realize the extra 30 minutes of "game time" added to the NCAA games are pretty much there to pay off the TV contract, you have to understand the timeouts aren't going to get any shorter or less frequent.

 

Come on, folks. Unless you have to be there, put the game on dvr for an hour, and stay off your goddamn twitter. I didn't watch one commercial last weekend.

 

I do wonder if there is a "break even" point though. Like at some point, you lose viewers because games are so sluggish, or as poindexter says, you lose people's attention span for the multiple commercials and they just bypass them. If you instead make it your goal to present a brisk two-hour game, you can charge higher rates to make up for X less commercial spots.

 

The 3-point overall final between Pangos of Gonzaga and Cassandra Brown of Portland was thrilling. He scored 20. She hit her first 9, cooled down, then heated up on the last 2 racks and beat him 21-20.

And a Fighting Okra just flew over someone for a filthy lefty dunk.

 

Okra kid -- LaQuavius Cotton -- can fly.

 

A chap named Mark Titus wrote a very long (what else?) Final Four preview in Grantland, which I'm not linking to because I only want to mention one sentence. In the Duke section, he opines that Krzyzewski is the greatest coach ever. OK, that's a take. But I was struck by the following sentence. "Wooden isn't the greatest coach ever for the same reason Bill Russell isn't the greatest player."
That's some reason.

 

I guess I didn't find it that weird. He had 2 paragraphs before that to support his reasoning, during which he noted that some would claim Wooden as the best since he won the most titles. He noted why he disagreed and capped it with the line you quoted, which just points out that there's more to being the greatest ever than having the most titles.

 

Not sure you framed that fairly.