Coach Jankovich

[The Falcon]

Needed a shot with about 40 seconds left in our last full possession. We should have had the ball for the last shot.

Jank tried to call a time out but the players didn't hear him. I agree with - "we needed to have
the ball for the last shot." There was another way to do that.

I know most on this thread will disagree with me, but I favor having the ball, being on offense
and not on defense, with the clock running out. Since we didn't call time out, and we didn't take
a shot with 40 seconds left, I would have fouled them immediately on their last possession.
I would chance them missing one or both free throws. If they score, we still have a chance to
tie or win with about 10 seconds remaining -that way the win or the loss is on us.
That leads to one of three options - we go into overtime with a tie or we score and win
the game or we lose - but at least we have something to say about the outcome.

[SMUstang07]

You want to go from being tied to being down with fewer than 30 seconds left in the game? Hell, if the guy shoots 71% we can score 2 when we get the ball back and in most cases that still only gets us to overtime.

[SMU_Alum11]

That's what I was saying to my wife at the game that they should have just fouled them. I'm pretty sure temple's shooting percentage was like over 50% so they had a great chance to make one bucket. Had we fouled them, they would be force to make a clutch shot twice. Had they only made one, we would have plenty of time to setup down the court to finish off with a dunk or something. Totally different outcome. We all have different perspective and Jank took the majority rule here that he made the call not to foul.

[RI Stang]

That's what I was saying to my wife at the game that they should have just fouled them. I'm pretty sure temple's shooting percentage was like over 50% so they had a great chance to make one bucket. Had we fouled them, they would be force to make a clutch shot twice. Had they only made one, we would have plenty of time to setup down the court to finish off with a dunk or something. Totally different outcome. We all have different perspective and Jank took the majority rule here that he made the call not to foul.

This has to be tongue in cheek. Is there a sarcasm font that I'm missing?

[Stallion]

This board would have exploded with criticism if SMU had intentionally fouled. This ain't Football when it sometimes makes sense (at least to some) to concede a TD when down by 1 or tied and the opponent is on 1 yard line with under a minute to play. There's probably an 95% chance a kid can kick what essentially is an extra point FG to win the game. But there is probably only a 35% chance a kid can hit a last shot on the Road in hostile atmosphere

[mustangxc]

I agree with not fouling. I disagree with letting Temple drain the clock and start the play with 8 seconds left in the game.

[SMU_Alum11]

That's what I was saying to my wife at the game that they should have just fouled them. I'm pretty sure temple's shooting percentage was like over 50% so they had a great chance to make one bucket. Had we fouled them, they would be force to make a clutch shot twice. Had they only made one, we would have plenty of time to setup down the court to finish off with a dunk or something. Totally different outcome. We all have different perspective and Jank took the majority rule here that he made the call not to foul.

This has to be tongue in cheek. Is there a sarcasm font that I'm missing?

No maybe, Stallion's right with maybe thinking too much like football. I'm just saying that time was going to expire on Temple's possession. No disagreement there. We are a slow moving offense that generally needs most of the shot clock to do well. Temple was hitting hire percentage shots despite the hostile atmosphere. Now, if there's a strategy without fouling to not allow Temple run down the clock then I would take that option first. I rather us try to score to throw it into overtime than trying to keep them from making it and putting it into overtime. Again, maybe football minded and I'm confusing our football defense for basketball. Anyways, XC while you say "disagree with letting Temple drain the clock", how do you do that without fouling?

[Charleston Pony]

no guarantee that you won't get whistled for a foul but I agree that we should have at least pressured the ball and not let Temple hold the ball until 8 seconds are left and then run the play they want. Have to give Brown credit for making that drive and left handed shot over one of our best defenders, so when all is said and done you really have to hand it to Temple for coming into Moody and breaking the streak. As Jank said in presser, even though he hasn't talked about it, you know it was in our guys heads and that brings added pressure. With at least THAT pressure eliminated, will be interesting to see how our guys respond. Certainly a chance to get blown out early at WSU (like Houston did) which could really hurt our guys confidence finishing out this season.

[mustangxc]

Like CP said you pressure the ball and hope you do not get whistled for a foul. Then hopefully Dunphy did not plan for that and the Temple kids get nervous and make a mistake and possibly turn the ball over.

[The Falcon]

This is not a new argument. I have heard many coaches over the years say that they would
foul in this situation with probably more saying they would not.

There wasn't a way for anyone to know that Temple would hit the game winning shot but
there was a chance that they would.

I guess I am a control freak. I would rather be in charge of how the game ended rather than
letting Temple control how the game ended. If we foul early it gives us a chance to win or
move the game to overtime. They melted the clock, took the last shot, and they won.

[smitty329]

This is not a new argument. I have heard many coaches over the years say that they would
foul in this situation with probably more saying they would not.

There wasn't a way for anyone to know that Temple would hit the game winning shot but
there was a chance that they would.

I guess I am a control freak. I would rather be in charge of how the game ended rather than
letting Temple control how the game ended. If we foul early it gives us a chance to win or
move the game to overtime. They melted the clock, took the last shot, and they won.

Wouldn't the same philosophy hold true for Temple? And given they were shooting much better from the line than us, it would fall more to their favor to have the foul/free throw battle. Knowing this, we had to take the risk that they miss the last shot.

[DanFreibergerForHeisman]

This is not a new argument. I have heard many coaches over the years say that they would
foul in this situation with probably more saying they would not.

There wasn't a way for anyone to know that Temple would hit the game winning shot but
there was a chance that they would.

I guess I am a control freak. I would rather be in charge of how the game ended rather than
letting Temple control how the game ended. If we foul early it gives us a chance to win or
move the game to overtime. They melted the clock, took the last shot, and they won.

Wouldn't the same philosophy hold true for Temple? And given they were shooting much better from the line than us, it would fall more to their favor to have the foul/free throw battle. Knowing this, we had to take the risk that they miss the last shot.

Definitely. If we foul early and they make one or two free throws, they could just foul us back and know we wouldn't make both.

[sadderbudweiser]

The crazy gets strong here sometimes.

I can't add much because I did not get to see the game. The only thing I wonder about (based on presser and what's here in this thread) is why we didn't pressure the ball sooner instead of letting Temple dictate the entire final shot sequence. If you foul by mistake pressuring then at least you get the ball back with some time on the clock. If you can pressure without fouling you've at least made them work to keep the ball and the final shot most likely becomes more contested.

No way do you GIVE Temple points at the foul line intentionally when you have (supposedly) the solid defense we do. So maybe you call timeout, show a zone and see what they do. Dunphy calls time and sets up a play. You come out of Dunphy's timeout (or maybe he doesn't call one but you do the following anyway) still showing zone but you switch to man on the inbounds and make them work harder for that last shot.

When we lose at the end of a game like we have in both NCAA games and this game, folks here tend to focus on the final play of the game. Needless to say, that's the one that counts. But in most instances (certainley these three) you can point to things that should have been done differently earlier in the game or free throws that should have fallen. I prefer NOT to have it go down to the last shot if I can.

[mrydel]

The mistake was not getting 2 for 1. Coach says the players could not hear him calling for time out. They should have known without one.

[DanFreibergerForHeisman]

The mistake was not getting 2 for 1. Coach says the players could not hear him calling for time out. They should have known without one.

True.

Or we need an intelligent leader on the floor who would look to see if coach wanted one. Seems like that should be drilled in to Shake or Ben by now.