You can’t foul them with 10-12 seconds in the game. Reeves had great defense on Hubbard, Ugo just needed to get out on the handoff but instead he stepped back which gave Hubbard just enough room to get the tough shot off. The turnover by reed put us in that position otherwise we are likely still up 2 after that made 3. Not blaming reed at all either by the way, we only won because of him, just bad timing for a bad play by him.
Yeah, fouling the shooter up three always works. Surprised Cal didn’t remember the 2010 SEC tournament final between the same two teams.
You could ask every single D1 coach if they were fouling with that much time left and every single one of them would not have fouled.
I disagree, and not every single coach has a TERRIBLE approach toward three point defense.
You are aware it is statistically better not to foul, right? This has been proven. Your chances are better if you don’t foul.
These people combine irrational hatred of Cal with colossal ignorance of the game of basketball. It’s ugly.
This is awful coaching. What other coach would let their big man foul and allow an and 1, let Hubbard push off and hit a step back contested 3, let Hubbard dribble down and drill a deep Steph Curry 3, then not foul with 12 seconds to go to extend the game and let Hubbard hit a deeper contested off balance 3.
No never extend the game when you are ahead unless there is 5 or 6 seconds left. Statistically, it just doesn't work.
SO Cal MADE UGO foul ? He is one powerful man, I have to give it to him. To be able to control a 7 foot / 250 pound human while he is out on the court and he is on the sidelines. Amazing abilities Cal has. Maybe he can MAKE a player hit shots, we will NEVER lose if he can adopt those powers along with making players foul.
I agree. I was equally disappointed that we let that game get as close as it did. I am very sad that we almost lost. You're not wrong.
Yeah, this is the answer. Fouling is a poor approach. But if Ugo hedges hard and lets the big he's guarding go free (as you say, a 2 is meaningless) and Reeves works harder to prevent that handoff and is closer to the play, Hubbard can't get the shot off or at least the shot is nearly impossible to make.
You absolutely foul if the other team is dumb enough to have the ball in the hands of their sub-50% free throw shooter and NOT in the hands of their NUCLEAR shooter- a guy that hit EVERYTHING he threw up that night. Or at the VERY least you run their shooters off the 3 point line. Or double Hubbard, or SOMETHING to disrupt what they are trying to do.
I made a comment on the KSR Sources Say show on Thursday night I said the same thing I said it was great Reed hit the game winner but it should never came to that you can't blow an 8 point lead with 57 seconds left and you want to know what someone in the chat said to me ?
You do realize who won the game, right? If we would have fouled with 11 seconds left, the outcome could have ended up differently with the way they were hitting everything they threw up. And all it would have taken was a missed free throw. I think the right decision was made and it worked out.
This is SUCH a poor argument. You do realize that most successful coaches make smarter decisions that end up choking out teams rather than letting them keep it close, right? Smart coaches double a shooter that's absolutely TORCHED them for the entire game. Or they intentionally foul abysmal free throw shooters that are mistakenly left on the floor. Or they run other good shooters off the three point line. Or run zone when teams are repeatedly smoking them back door all game.
you always let your hate skew your view of what is going on during games ,but you can keep your hate view and I'll enjoy the ball games
You can call it a poor argument if you want.. I honestly couldn't care less. Your initial point was that he should have fouled with 11 seconds left. Now you are adding in all the other stuff. That game is in the books and we won. Time to move on to today's game.
