Rock Chalk Championship, Indeed: KU 75-68
College Basketball April 8th. 2008, 12:14am
Not a bad line from Mr. Nantz. Tremendous game … unless you’re a Memphis fan, in which case you have some questions for Coach Calipari, who choked down the stretch, primarily because he didn’t order a foul when up three with less than 10 seconds left, setting the stage for the most clutch Championship shot since Indiana’s Keith Smart sank Syracuse in ‘87. (Actually, CBS, can we see just one replay for the three to see if Mario’s foot was behind the line?) Poor CDR, who was outstanding, except when he gagged at the foul line in the final two minutes. Let’s start the Bill Self to Oklahoma State talk, shall we?
29 Responses to “Rock Chalk Championship, Indeed: KU 75-68”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
April 8th, 2008 at 12:15 AM
Mario Chalmers has just supplanted Jeff Boschee as my favorite Jayhawk ever.
April 8th, 2008 at 12:16 AM
In Cal’s defense, he just said they tried to foul, but it wasn’t called …
April 8th, 2008 at 12:23 AM
Although CBS didn’t show a replay of the Chalmers shot, from what I could see during the one shining moment, it appears both his feet were clearly behind the line. BTW, I love how they snuck in a clip of Curry’s mom in there. Ahhhhh Niiiiiiice!
April 8th, 2008 at 12:27 AM
I only comment on posts with more than 500 comments.
April 8th, 2008 at 12:42 AM
I love how One Shining Moment was basically, WKU, San Diego, BJ Raymond against WVU, and then a minute and a half of Stephen Curry since those were the only exciting things that happened in the last three weeks.
Also, how about his scenario? Self turns down Okie St., Gillespie (and his still unsigned contract) bounce out of Lexington for a cool 4 million a year, and Coach Cal sets up his dirty shop at the shadiest basketball school of them all: The University of Kentucky.
April 8th, 2008 at 12:45 AM
Hey, I used that picture/headline first.
I’m pretty sure Chalmers’ foot was behind the line, but I would like to see a replay. And Calipari may have wanted to foul, but there was no foul committed, not even close. I didn’t even think of that at the time, it happened so fast.
April 8th, 2008 at 12:51 AM
Cal is just saying all that to take the choke label off CDR’s missed free throws. It’s actually the right thing to do.
Kid’s only a jr. … he probably wants him to hang around another year, or at least not feel like Webber
April 8th, 2008 at 12:57 AM
Cal is packing his bag to come to Lawrence when T. Boone gives Self his first born, arm, and leg. Oh and all those millions.
April 8th, 2008 at 12:59 AM
ESPN: Chalk and Awe
SI.com: Rock Chalk, Championship
CBS Sportsline: Rock Chalk of Ages
Fox Sports: ‘Hawks Rock
Yahoo Sports: Mario and the Miracle
Yahoo wins by virtue of not having “rock” or “chalk” in their headline.
April 8th, 2008 at 1:01 AM
I would say that Kansas has more class than to hire Cheatin’ Cal. Then I remember that Larry Brown had a stint in Lawrence. Not even Cal can hold a torch to the Larry Brown, King of Cheat…
April 8th, 2008 at 1:02 AM
First of all, can we all agree Pendergrass’s version is infiniately better than Vandross’s version?
Secondly, everyone will be talking about free throws tomorrow, but come on, there’s no way to predict how someone will shoot these when the game is on the line in a title game. Should Calipari recruit only great free throw shooters, that didn’t work so well for UC Davis, who led the country in free throw percentage. Every team works on free throws, just seems that it’s a luck thing down the stretch of games.
April 8th, 2008 at 1:11 AM
Seems like every analyst, writer, fan, blog commenter, and any and all second guessers are all big proponents of the “foul when up 3 during the last seconds.” Everyone except coaches that is. And here’s my explanation as to why coaches (rightfully) don’t foul.
Simply put, the worst case scenario for not fouling when up 3 is the opposing team hits a 3 and game goes to overtime. Worst possible scenario for fouling is that you can LOSE THE GAME.
Let’s take today’s game as an example. Collins from Kansas dribbles up the court and is fouled with 6 seconds left. Now, if he misses 1 or both free throws, Calipari looks like a genius and Memphis wins. BUT… so many other scenarios can quickly happen in which Memphis can LOSE. What if Collins makes the first, misses the second, offensive rebound Kansas, 3 for the win? Or more realistically, Collins make both, Kansas down 1, six seconds left. The ensuing inbounds pass for Memphis is never a sure thing; 5 second violation, offensive foul (illegal pick), steal by Kansas….all which can cause Memphis to lose. Not fouling? A safer bet, let the game play out, and if the Kansas guy hits a monster clutch 3, so be it, you tip your hat and go to overtime.
Long story short, coaches don’t foul up 3 because if they did, it would open the window of possibilities to actually lose the game right then and there in regulation. Not fouling = no chance of losing, overtime at worst.
April 8th, 2008 at 1:13 AM
Yippeee. Booze.
Kevin Stallings.
April 8th, 2008 at 1:21 AM
anyone who thinks hes close to the line is a retard
April 8th, 2008 at 1:22 AM
Well, I can’t find the article right now, but Ken Pomeroy has written on several different occasions about how it is a much better idea to foul in that situation than it is to let them get a three of. A team vastly improves its chances of winning by employing that strategy.
April 8th, 2008 at 1:22 AM
@cursedcleveland – no way, it’s all Luther Vandross. Especially in the 2005 version. Mix some Luther and a lot of Gus Johnson, and it’s all good.
April 8th, 2008 at 1:31 AM
That version was different from this year’s version… how in the hell is Luther churning out newer versions??? Is he the Tupac of obscure sports montage songs??
April 8th, 2008 at 1:33 AM
You *can* lose, sure. But that scenario is extremely unlikely, especially if you foul Collins coming up the court, where there is no chance he gets a shot up and thus three free throws. Fouling is absolutely the correct strategy.
And DMan is right, I think Pomeroy wrote an article proving this. Sure you can’t lose in regulation if you don’t foul, but you sure can lose in OT, and what’s the difference?
April 8th, 2008 at 2:10 AM
I’m not saying that not fouling will necessarily increase the chances of winning, and I don’t know if some stat geek has found a formula breaking it all down into percentages, I’m just trying to explain the coaches’ logic and pointing out that it is the more conservative approach.
Kinda like in football when some guy wrote did a study showing that mathematically, coaches should go for it on 4th and short EVERY SINGLE TIME inside the 50 yd. line, and most other times regardless of where the ball is, but most coaches still punt. Same thing with basketball. Most coaches still wont foul.
So why do an overwhelming majority of basketball coaches in both college and NBA still not foul?
April 8th, 2008 at 2:10 AM
As a fan of both singers, I gotta go with Pendergrass on this one.
April 8th, 2008 at 2:16 AM
I am with The Goose. I don’t understand all the fervor over not fouling when you’re up 3 with like 10 or so seconds left.
In the Marquette-Georgetown game earlier this year Marquette fouled a Georgetown player on a three at the buzzer. The G-Town player hit 3 free throws and the game goes into overtime.
It was a little different situation, but I would worry that guys would accidentally foul a 3 point shooter who is taking a wild 3 and just give him 3 free throws instead of making him hit a tough shot.
I also think it’s pretty girly like to employ this fouling strategy. Play the game out like a man!!
Finally, I feel bad for Douglas-Roberts. I think he kind of lost his composure late in the game. Missed the free throws and just wasn’t thinking at times.
I also think he and Rose were getting pretty tired. Rose was amazing at times. I wanted Memphis to win, but it was just really fun to watch such an entertaining game.
April 8th, 2008 at 2:17 AM
Because they only bring it up afterwards when a crazy three pointer is hit in the clutch.
So, you foul, 5 seconds left, Kansas hits 2 foul shots. Down 1, foul Memphis and now have a chance to win in regulation. It’s silly to foul in that situation because all of a sudden you introduce the chance of your team losing in regulation. If you don’t foul, then you’re forcing them into a 3 pointer just to tie, that’s probably 35% at best to be hit, hell, since they know a 3 pointer is coming, 35% is on the high side.
It’s silly how the strategy of fouling always gets brought up after situations like this, but the reality is he hit a crazy shot just to tie, you’ll absolutely be able to live with that. But, giving the chance a team to win when they didn’t have one before is something you can’t win.
April 8th, 2008 at 2:18 AM
“can’t live with” instead of “can’t win”…amongst other mistakes in that debacle of a last sentence.
April 8th, 2008 at 2:28 AM
Joboo:
Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? Cause that sounds like the exact point I’m trying to make.
April 8th, 2008 at 2:34 AM
Agreeing.
April 8th, 2008 at 8:35 AM
To bring the song into the 21st century, I’d like to see T-Pain tackle One Shining Moment.
/blasphemy
April 8th, 2008 at 8:49 AM
Coach Pearl would have fouled him. He’s the only coach I know of who consistently uses that strategy, and it always works.
As for the “this guy choked, this coach choked” nonsense, can’t anyone just win a game anymore without the other team and its players choking? Sometimes you just lose the game. You don’t always choke. Yeah, Rose hits that free throw and it’s over, but he didn’t. I don’t think he “choked.” They were up 3. Chalmers just made a ridiculous shot.
April 8th, 2008 at 8:51 AM
Here’s the Pomeroy piece everyone is referencing.
Because coaches are astonishingly risk-averse and extremely resistant to change. If they happen to lose a game, they want to be able to point to doing something “by the book,” so they can say, “hey, I did what we’ve always done in that situation.” They don’t want to risk losing by doing something that would be deemed controversial, even if that “controversial” strategy in fact significantly increases their odds of winning. Coaches would rather make the “safe” play and have a 50% chance of winning than the unconventional play that would give them a 70% chance of winning.
April 8th, 2008 at 8:55 AM
The problem is, that Pomeroy article is about fouling when leading by 2, which is a whole different case. He probably has done the study on fouling when up by 3, because he references that situation briefly by saying, “The vast majority of coaches refuse to give a foul on the last possession when they’re up by three, which is a strategy that vastly improves the leading team’s chances of victory.” I just can’t find it.