3/20 vs Oklahoma

[bisonaudit]

Well when your best players foul out with 10-12 minutes to go, then what? You can't go the last 10 minutes with backups and expect to win games. Games are won or lost in the last few minutes most of the time unless it's clearly a blowout. That's basketball.

But you can go 10 minutes in the middle of the first half, voluntarily, guaranteed; weighted against the possibility that they could foul out, maybe? Don't get it.

[CAS4127]

Well when your best players foul out with 10-12 minutes to go, then what? You can't go the last 10 minutes with backups and expect to win games. Games are won or lost in the last few minutes most of the time unless it's clearly a blowout. That's basketball.

Coaches are paid to make in-game decisions, not to out think themselves pre-game. Saul needs to dance with the team he brought and adjust as things play out. He's done it before and needs to just do it again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bison"FANatic"]

But you can go 10 minutes in the middle of the first half, voluntarily, guaranteed weighted against the possibility that they could foul out, maybe? Don't get it.

Yes because you can control how out of control the game could possibly get and if you need to bring your guy back in early during the first 30 minutes of the game. Basketball is managed all the time to be in position for the last half of the second half. You can do all you want and be up double digits in the early second half but if you don't have your players on the floor to stop the run at the end of the game the lead early doesn't matter. It is all about positioning yourself for the last basically 5 minutes.

Heck what was Nebraska up against Ohio State last weekend 18 or close to it and they couldn't stop the onslaught at the end and lost the game. Makes no difference that they were up big they ended up losing and thats all that counts. Basketball is a very streaky game and coaching it is all about managing those streaks.

Heck we had a huge problem with streaks last year as there were many games that we went 6-8 minutes without scoring and it seemed like it was at the end of the first half but thats beside the point. Heck the championship game last week was the same way. How long were the teams stuck tied at 48 at the end of the game. It is that situation that you want to be able to have your best player in the game not fouled out sitting on the bench. Given the choice of having your best player sitting early in the game or at the end a coach will pick him sitting early every time.

The great thing towards the end of the this year is the emergence of Aaberg as it allows us to take Bjorkland out without a major fall off. A fall off but not as much as it was at the beginning of the year when Bjorkland seemed to be getting into foul trouble often.

[bisonaudit]

Yes because you can control how out of control the game could possibly get and if you need to bring your guy back in early during the first 30 minutes of the game. Basketball is managed all the time to be in position for the last half of the second half. You can do all you want and be up double digits in the early second half but if you don't have your players on the floor to stop the run at the end of the game the lead early doesn't matter. It is all about positioning yourself for the last basically 5 minutes.

Heck what was Nebraska up against Ohio State last weekend 18 or close to it and they couldn't stop the onslaught at the end and lost the game. Makes no difference that they were up big they ended up losing and thats all that counts. Basketball is a very streaky game and coaching it is all about managing those streaks.

Heck we had a huge problem with streaks last year as there were many games that we went 6-8 minutes without scoring and it seemed like it was at the end of the first half but thats beside the point. Heck the championship game last week was the same way. How long were the teams stuck tied at 48 at the end of the game. It is that situation that you want to be able to have your best player in the game not fouled out sitting on the bench. Given the choice of having your best player sitting early in the game or at the end a coach will pick him sitting early every time.

The great thing towards the end of the this year is the emergence of Aaberg as it allows us to take Bjorkland out without a major fall off. A fall off but not as much as it was at the beginning of the year when Bjorkland seemed to be getting into foul trouble often.

This isn't the choice. The choice is between your best player definitely playing fewer minutes than he otherwise would and maybe playing fewer minutes than he otherwise would. I agree that coaches manage the game roughly as you describe. Who's on the court when and who's on the court together matters. So why screw that up just because an otherwise competent defender happens to pick up his second foul somewhat earlier than he typically does.

Coaches don't sit guys with fouls because it's the best strategy for winning, they do it because its the best strategy for not looking bad when you don't win. There's no down side for this team or this coach on Thursday so there's no reason to voluntarily sit your best players just because they pick up an extra foul early. Stick with your ideal rotation, Saul.

[GradBison]

This isn't the choice. The choice is between your best player definitely playing fewer minutes than he otherwise would and maybe playing fewer minutes than he otherwise would. I agree that coaches manage the game roughly as you describe. Who's on the court when and who's on the court together matters. So why screw that up just because an otherwise competent defender happens to pick up his second foul somewhat earlier than he typically does.

Coaches don't sit guys with fouls because it's the best strategy for winning, they do it because its the best strategy for not looking bad when you don't win. There's no down side for this team or this coach on Thursday so there's no reason to voluntarily sit your best players just because they pick up an extra foul early. Stick with your ideal rotation, Saul.

I enjoy a good debate as much as the next guy, and I respect those who think outside the box and go against the majority and are not afraid to show it. That being said, I'm going to side with the multitude of college and pro coaches practice of taking out players in foul trouble. I disagree with your assessment that it's not the best strategy to winning, if it weren't it wouldn't be a strategy that's so widely adopted.

Go Bison! Kick some Sooner butt.

[CAS4127]

I enjoy a good debate as much as the next guy, and I respect those who think outside the box and go against the majority and are not afraid to show it. That being said, I'm going to side with the multitude of college and pro coaches practice of taking out players in foul trouble. I disagree with your assessment that it's not the best strategy to winning, if it weren't it wouldn't be a strategy that's so widely adopted.

Go Bison! Kick some Sooner butt.

I thought the orginal proposition was to sit Bjorkland some in first have whether in foul trouble or not, just to ensure his presence on court at end. To that notion, I disagree with, and I believe BAudit does too, and is replying to that particular proposition.

[GradBison]

I thought the orginal proposition was to sit Bjorkland some in first have whether in foul trouble or not, just to ensure his presence on court at end. To that notion, I disagree with, and I believe BAudit does too, and is replying to that particular proposition.

Oh if that's the case then of course you don't sit him if he's NOT in foul trouble. Not sure if that's with audit meant, see below.

I wouldn't tell Bjork to play conservatively and I wouldn't take him out if he gets in "foul trouble". Stick with your rotation. It's crazy to me why coaches voluntarily sit guys when they otherwise wouldn't just because, maybe, they might foul out. Play your best players.

[Bison"FANatic"]

Coaches don't sit guys with fouls because it's the best strategy for winning, they do it because its the best strategy for not looking bad when you don't win.

I totally disagree with this statement and will leave it at that. We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

[BisonAccountant44]

I enjoy a good debate as much as the next guy, and I respect those who think outside the box and go against the majority and are not afraid to show it. That being said, I'm going to side with the multitude of college and pro coaches practice of taking out players in foul trouble. I disagree with your assessment that it's not the best strategy to winning, if it weren't it wouldn't be a strategy that's so widely adopted.

Go Bison! Kick some Sooner butt.

Group think doesn't make it correct. It's the same theory as going for it on 4th/going for 2 more often. Statistically it's a no brainer, but very few coaches make the proper choice to maximize their chances of winning. It's coaching not to lose vs. coaching to win.

[GradBison]

Group think doesn't make it correct. It's the same theory as going for it on 4th/going for 2 more often. Statistically it's a no brainer, but very few coaches make the proper choice to maximize their chances of winning. It's coaching not to lose vs. coaching to win.

I'm going to trust the experts (the coaches) on this one. Not everything can be turned into a "Money Ball" type situation, although statisticians and accountants would probably love that.