2007 Nit
 

Anyone with any comments on the NIT games, this thread is for you.

Michigan holds on and beats Utah St. The WAC team had its chances.

Drexel is giving NC State all it can handle as it currently leads the Wolf Pack 49-46 with 6 minutes left.

NC State came back and won.

So how is it people seemed to think Drexel got shafted by the NCAA, but yet they were still seeded 3rd in their region? And, of course, they still lose their first-round game.

I've found that what happens in the NIT is not a good indicator of what a team could have or would have done in the NCAA. Teams sometimes are disappointed or don't care when they play in the NIT.

UMass/Alabama was a great game.

Alabama hits a 3 at the buzzer to force OT.
Alabama makes a put back with 9.1 left in OT to tie it.

UMass makes a FT line jumper with 1.6 left to win it.

Also there was an interesting clock issue with 24 seconds remaining in the OT. Somehow when the game went to OT and the clock was set for those five minutes the tenths of a second display went away. Since no one would know this until there was less than 1 minute remaining, the officials noticed it during a stoppage at 24 seconds and had the clock display changed to show the tenths as required by rule. 24.6 was put on the display and the game was finished.

I think you're probably right, but how could you have "found" this, when the teams can only play in one or the other? There's no way to compare what they do in the NIT with what they "would've done" in the NCAA. ;)

I once worked a sort of "consolation" tournament for D3 college teams that got bounced from their conference tourney early. It was like working a scrimmage. Our locker room was next to the losing team's locker room and there was no emotion at all at halftime when it was still a close game.

It was terrific, but I can't stay up to watch when the OT period starts at 11:40 pm. :(

Tivo, DVD recorder, VCR ???

You are old beyond your years......

You must be a Rangers fan.

I was watching in bed, and don't have any of those in the bedroom.

Don't I know it.

In these parts, the most entertaining thing has been Steve Alford whining in a press conference about Iowa being left out of the NIT. It's a pretty good clip. He begins by saying how he isn't going to make excuses and whine, then he spends the next 10 minutes making excuses and whining about how the 4th place team in the Big 10 has always been in the NIT. I guess there's a first time for everything.

No one expected Iowa to be tied for 4th in the conference, and I don't think doing so really changed anyone's mind about how good they were. I think it's funny about how after not expecting this team to do much, people are all over Alford for not making the tournament. I was on the Alford bandwagon when they hired him, but have grown less and less enamored. His post season record is even worse than his conference record, though.

I agree. He's just getting ripped because you don't often hear of a team from a big time conference crying about getting into the NIT. If he was complaining about the NCAA it wouldn't be a story. Alfor just never seems to make his players better. They look like the same player their freshman year that they look like their senior year. When they were hired, who'd have thought that Kirk would be the good hire?

I've noticed that, too. Glen Worley was a classic example. Great freshman who looked like he'd be all conference by the time he was a junior. By the time his senior year came along, he looked like a decent freshman.
I remember the hirings, too. They jumped at Alford because the impression across the state was he'd lost out on Stoops and had to settle for Ferentz. Not so incidentally, Ferentz' strength has been developing players over their time with him. Alford's weakness has been player development and retention.

I will be interested to see how Vermont fares. They already went through their low when they lost to Albany by 1 on Saturday so they actually have had some time to regain their focus. Hoping for some more of that Bob Huggins post-season magic.:D

If they don't care about playing in the NIT, then don't accept the invitation.

It possible that their institution requires them to go. Their hearts just may not be in it after failing to receive an NCAA bid.

The NIT game between Air Force and Austin Peay, which I was really looking forward to watching this evening, is being put off due to the women's tennis match going to a third set on ESPN2 right now. I am missing the entire first half. http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...flamingmad.gif

Well the tennis is finally over and I get to see the second half of the game.

With 16:14 remaining Air Force's Nick Welch picks up a loose ball in the lane and goes in for a shot. He is fouled on the arm and the ball comes out of his hands a foot or so and while still airborne he catches it again with both hands and tosses it into the basket. The officials counted the goal.

I disagree with that decision.

Did anyone find the 10-second call in the Kansas St.-Vermont game a little strange? It looked like to me that the Trail had the count, and hadn't gotten to 10 yet, when the Center comes flying from across the court toward the table with the 10-second call. Anyone know what happened?

Didn't get to see the game. Perhaps you've heard that I was stuck with my ESPN2 showing women's tennis. http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...shakingmad.gif

I'll have to look for that play on SportsCenter.

Please tell me you are joking. That's something that can get someone fired.

I wish I was joking. As I said, this is what it looked like to me. I couldn't see the Trail, as the camera angle shifted to the Center, but perhaps he had the call first and the Center just repeated it, though that seems far fetched.

The announcers and the coaches (not that they know anything about the rules) seemed fine with it, which leads me to believe that maybe I missed something. That's why I posted here, just looking to see if possibly I missed something.

Me too, if that's what happened.

The initial try ended when he grabbed the ball out of the air. The ball should have been dead then, by rule. He then put a dead ball in the basket-i.e. a second shot <i>per se</i>. Shouldn't have counted that one imo either.

Do you have any idea what the shot clock said?

Do you know why I ask and do you think it should matter? ;)

I know why you are asking, but I don't think it should matter.

This is not something that will get you fired. If you know that the shot clock started when the offensive team gained control, and you know that the shot clock now reads 25, then 10 seconds have elapsed.

Why should the violation be ignored simply because the Trail has a slow count? This is actually pre-gamed by many officials in my area.

Young ladies sweating
 

But you got to watch Daniella and her opponent. Peer is having a great year. She is moving up steadily in the rankings. Though she did brain-fart that match away. I met both those players at The Bank Of the West tournament last year.

Nevadaref, in June I am up at Incline Village and also Lakeridge tennis club for tournaments. I know lots of the tennis players from the Reno area. They are included in the Northern Cal section for USTA. Not that people care about tennis around here but I am an accomplished tennis player-for someone my age. :rolleyes:

I'm not actually sure about the shot clock deal, but now that you mention it, that could have been it. That's why I posted here. I figured there had to be a good reason for the Center to call a ten-second violation.

As to whether or not it matters, and there's an old thread about this, that depends on how much you trust your shot clock operator to get it right. Per the rulebook, though, the official's count is the only one that matters.

How much you should trust your shot clock operator? Not at all! That's why I said if you KNOW it started when control was established, etc. . .

If you have definite knowledge that the clock is an accurate measure of the time in the backcourt, then use it. If not, live and die with the Trail's count.

That's a big "if". What IF the first to touch the ball on the inbound pass was the defense and the offense didn't gain control for 1-2 more seconds?

My question. On a throw-in after change of possession does the shot clock start when a) the throw-in ends or b) when an offensive player touches the ball inbounds? On a backcourt throw-in after change of possession when does the 10-second count start when a) the throw-in ends or when b) an offensive player touches the ball inbounds?

See post directly above yours :)

On any throw-in, the shot clock starts when the ball is legally touched inbounds.

This is exactly what happened. The shot clock hit 25 while Vermont was still in the backcourt, and the center made the call. It was pretty close, as the ball was passed into the frontcourt right at the time his whistle sounded, and the clock was still at 25 when stopped.

Vermont coach wasn't happy, but then again he shouldn't have been. It was a great game to be at...Vermont was fun to watch and well-coached with excellent fundamentals. K-State was just too athletic and physical for them when they turned up the defense. Huggins won this game for K-State.

You mean the coach decided the game? How unfortunate. ;)

So my line of thinking is that maybe the defense made the initial touch which would start the shot clock but not the 10-second count.

Even if the defense didn't touch the ball this is a play the Trail has to live and die with. If the shot clock is sitting at 22-23 seconds then Trail will have to do some explaining, but as a Slot I'm not going to come in and make a 10-second call.

Well, if there's any "maybe" involved, then (as I said) the Trail's count is all that matters. But if you KNOW that control was established immediately and you also KNOW that the clock started correctly, then it's a violation after 10 seconds and somebody has to call it.

Well, if we're working together, I'd come and save your butt by making the call so that you didn't have "some explaining to do". I hope you'd do the same for me.

That's something I have to think on. I have a couple of buddies (D1 officials) who would not want that call coming from the Slot. But if you were the 'R' and that's the way you pre-gamed it I wouldn't have any problem being a team member.

I guess I would ask "Why not?" Why does it matter where the call comes from? Yes, the Trail has the count, but the shot clock is going to be more accurate. So "why not" use it if you know that it was started correctly?

Here's my one "why not" that I can think of. What if the officials count is slightly quicker than it should be. If the Trail calls a 10-second violation, then is the Center going to get him to change his call to an IW?
My thought is that at all times the Center could be trying to check the clock and then subtract ten seconds, but that's not his job. The ten-second count by the Trail should be the only count. IMO, it looks worse to have the Center running across the court with the ten-second violation while the Trail is still counting.

If the Center knows that the shot clock started properly, then I don't see any reason that the C can't give that info to the Trail. Kind of like a kicked out of bounds call. If the T insists that his count is right (perhaps because the clock was late to start), then he can go with his call. But if you KNOW the clock was operating properly and started at the correct time, it seems to me that this is relevant information to give your partner.

1) It's also not the C's job to make an out of bounds call on the endline. But if I happen to KNOW that the Lead got it wrong, I'm going to offer some information.

2) But it's not the only count. There's a little thing called the shot clock that's also keeping count. :) Why not use it?

3) Why in the world would the C come "running across the court" to make a simple 10-second violation call? Just make the call like any other.

I think the argument that you're trying to make is the same one as calling out of your area. You shouldn't be worrying about it, but if you notice it, you have to call it. And I agree with that, if the Center absolutely knows there's been a violation, then it should be called. What I'm saying is I don't think I would advocate this. The Trail can see the shot clock, and has the count, so I'm thinking just let Trail take it, and Center focus more on contact coming down the court.

If that is the way that you feel about any call out of your area, then I believe that you are mistaken.

The official may not see the whole play or may not have the best angle to see it correctly. So he probably should think "my partner has the covered" and leave it alone.

Yeah, seems very innocent and just another run of the mill inadvertent whstle, except...when the C kills the play to tell the T that 10 seconds came off the shot clock the offense gets a fresh new 10 seconds if the T disagrees. Not a can of worms you need to be opening IMO.

IOW this is NOT just another case of the C bringing new information to the T. The C had better be 138% right, and he had better expect the T to agree with him.

That's not the way I feel about any call out of my area. However (and yes, I know this is an extreme example), If I see a player walk up and slap another player in the face, and my partner misses it, I'm going to call it. Believing your partner had a better view and simply not calling it because it's out of your area are two seperate things.

My post wasn't clear about that, so, that's what I meant. My analogy was that if you absolutely know a violation occurred, you have a duty to call it.

Dan, this is not what I was talking about at all in the passage you quoted. In that post, the Trail has called a 10-second violation with 28 seconds showing on the shot clock. In that situation, the ball is already dead, so the C is not killing the play as you state.

After the ball is dead, the C might reasonably go to the Trail and say "The clock only ran off 7 seconds. Are you sure about your 10 count?" At that point, the Trail can say, "Yes, the clock started late" or "#$*%, my bad."

Do you think that's unreasonable? (Honest question, not baiting.)

OK. We can agree that *my* comments are valid, right?

Now to your play (which I agree I misread)...I gotta say if Coach A isn't up screaming his azz off that I screwed it up (as I expect he would be 99% of the time) and you come in to plead his case I'm gonna be pissed at you.

So no. MYOB.

I think so. Unless you're saying that the 10-second call should never come from the C; in which case, I disagree.

And if he is up and screaming, you already know it and you're gonna bite the bullet and go IW? :)

Reread my post and you'll see what I was saying. It's pretty clear.With the the shot clock at 28?

I'm pretty sure I won't have a 10 second whistle unless I know it's right and I can explain it. ;)

(And if you decide to come in and help the coach argue his case I'm gonna be pissed at you :) )