What Muffet McGraw Did... or Didn't Do

[Intpseeker]

She didn't give up. She didn't think that fouling was the best way to win. Fouling works only when the other team can't make the FTs and your players can make the three's. Well, ND could not hit 3's and UConn made their FT's. End of story.

We'll disagree.

If the clock is on, you play to win. That way you leave it on the floor and don't wonder when you're 40 if maybe, just maybe, you could have won a NC.

 

[DobbsRover2]

We'll disagree.

If the clock is on, you play to win. That way you leave it on the floor and don't wonder when you're 40 if maybe, just maybe, you could have won a NC.

Ah yup, I'm sure Shoni Schimmel tosses and turns all night fretting about how she might have won an NC if Louisville had fouled to the end down 35 with two minutes to go back in 2013, and as the clock ticked off the last 23 seconds why wasn't she fighting to the end and leaving it on the floor instead of watching UConn dribble down to the buzzer? Sure she wonders what would have happened if the Cards fought to the max to the very end. Makes perfect sense.

Playing a sport means that sometimes you do lose, and you have to learn how to cope with that so you can prepare yourself to win in future matches. Limbs, brains, and spirits can all be broken by some idiot coach telling his kids, "I don't care if we are down by 50 with two minutes to go. Get out there and give me 110% or you're all quitters and losers." Sure, I know that that's the great old American way, but it's also stupid.

 

[BigBird]

With the lone exception of Mabrey's 3-ball that cut it to ten, ND played rather awfully the last 5 minutes. Missed layups and 4-foot jumpers clanked repeatedly. On the other hand, UConn played down the stretch like a team with fresh legs and focus (a couple of turnovers, yes). So what was ND to do? Let's face it, there was NO reasonable winning strategy for ND at 1:33 to go. None.

What WAS available to runners-up was to play hard every play, all the way to the final horn. In the end, I think it wasn't about a win. It was about a core basketball principle. Others have said the same thing in somewhat differing terms. That said, Dobbs has a point.

 

[Geno-ista]

With an hour to kill before fueling up and fishing, I indulged in one of my favorite pleasures... watching UConn WBB. And beating Notre Dame. Especially in National Championship games.

Regarding NC #10, one question has long puzzled me. It even got the attention of the blockhead Dave O'Brien- Why didn't McGraw have her team foul at game's end? Down 11 with over 4 minutes to go (61-50), I get it, there's enough time left for McGraw to reasonably feel she can still win it. At that point, no need to intentionally foul, put UConn at the line and stop the clock.

- But with only 1:33 left, Mabrey's 3 pointer made it 63-53. A relatively huge ten point margin, given there's only a minute and a half on the game clock. Doesn't McGraw have to realize at that point that there's pretty much no other way to win it without fouling, stopping the clock, and hoping UConn chokes at the line, giving ND the additional offensive possessions they'd need to possibly win? But ND sat back in what was a soft-ish man, and THEY DID NOT FOUL.

- Why not foul? The game is otherwise surely over. What's to lose by fouling?

- A loss is a loss is a loss. By 10 or 15 or 20 points, what's the difference? Especially in Championship games. It's all about the "W," and though it may look better, a close final score (or a rout) really means squat. The only reason I can think of for ND NOT fouling is that McGraw sensed the game could not be won, and she preferred, at that point, to have a 'moral' victory, a respectably close 10-point game, rather than give UConn another 6 or 7 points at the line which would allow the final score to belie the actual closeness and competitiveness of the Championship.

Or perhaps there's another explanation of the ND strategy for the last 2 1/2 minutes of that game?

U hit the nail on the head with the - losing by 10 looks a lot better than 15-20 pts. IMO that's it in a nutshell- end of story! Not saying it was the right thing to do. I think that was Muppet's Motivation!

 

[Goodgood]

We'll disagree.

If the clock is on, you play to win. That way you leave it on the floor and don't wonder when you're 40 if maybe, just maybe, you could have won a NC.

Do you understand that she was playing to WIN? I think she knows the game a little better than you do, and if she thought that the best way to W-I-N is not to foul so that UConn can get more points at the line, and with all the info she had at the time, she made the BEST decision to WIN the game for her team.
Fouling doesn't mean that you are giving yourself a chance to win at all. It is just an end-game strategy with the HOPE that the other team will miss free throws and you can get the ball back and make 3's to catch up.
If the other team make their FT, then it is just a waste of time and a SURE way to lose.

 

[Intpseeker]

Is that you, Muffin?

If it is, your towel might still be on the court where you threw it.

The woman gave up.

 

[Intpseeker]

Ah yup, I'm sure Shoni Schimmel tosses and turns all night fretting about how she might have won an NC if Louisville had fouled to the end down 35 with two minutes to go back in 2013, and as the clock ticked off the last 23 seconds why wasn't she fighting to the end and leaving it on the floor instead of watching UConn dribble down to the buzzer? Sure she wonders what would have happened if the Cards fought to the max to the very end. Makes perfect sense.

Playing a sport means that sometimes you do lose, and you have to learn how to cope with that so you can prepare yourself to win in future matches. Limbs, brains, and spirits can all be broken by some idiot coach telling his kids, "I don't care if we are down by 50 with two minutes to go. Get out there and give me 110% or you're all quitters and losers." Sure, I know that that's the great old American way, but it's also stupid.

Straw Man. ND wasn't down 35 nor 50. Make an attempt to argue within the realities of the specific game

 

[meyers7]

We'll disagree.

If the clock is on, you play to win. That way you leave it on the floor and don't wonder when you're 40 if maybe, just maybe, you could have won a NC.

I don't think they had any misconceptions that they could have pulled it out. It would seem some here aren't quite dealing with reality.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Straw Man. ND wasn't down 35 nor 50. Make an attempt to argue within the realities of the specific game

We all have, just taking your absurd logic to the inevitable conclusion. Still the rant about "You're a loser and quitter unless you start fouling with 1 1/2 minutes down by 10 against an excellent shooting FT team," which makes as much sense trying to feed your twinkie to a starving lion in the hope that he won't chomp you down next. Contrarily, I would say to Muffett if she did that that she had panicked and given up if she had said, "Our only hope is that Jefferson, Stewart, and Mosqueda-Lewis miss their FTs and we hit all our 3s." That is a losing strategy that she sensibly didn't use, even if certain clueless fans have been brainwashed by ignorant announcers into thinking that's the only way to go, even if pressure defense is the only real hope. So ND did get a pretty quick miss, and then had two shots at 3s with over a minute left to cut the lead to 7. They didn't make them. They then got a turnover and tried another 3 that missed. That doesn't make them quitters, just errant shooters in the last minute plus.

As noted, there are different ways to spearhead a comeback based on the circumstances, but to call a coach a quitter and loser because she didn't follow your own preferred crackbrained strategy is pathetic. This is the real world, not some Lord of the Rings fantasy where your Hobbits deal with a pack of wargs with nary a scratch.

 

[Bestiarius]

Sometimes I wonder if the practice of desperation fouling is done because of long held practices rather than methods scientifically/statistically proven to be correct (the Moneyball effect).

But who’s to say that there isn’t a better way. First, start the desperation stage of the game a bit earlier. Put pressure on the offense and take some chances in an attempt to create turnovers without intentionally fouling. Double team, guard aggressively, etc. If a foul occurs so be it, at least it would occur during a legitimate attempt to create a turnover instead of handing a team free shots. Give the leading opponent an opportunity to make a mistake.

Being ahead by 10 seems to be stressful for the leading team since it would be embarrassing to lose such a game. This stress can cause unforced errors occur during those last minutes when the team behind isn’t fouling. In the subject game, UConn turned the ball over uncharacteristically. If ND had made their 3s, the outcome could have been different and Muffet would be considered to be a genius (in some circles).

Does anyone know of research that proves or disproves the late game fouling practice? At 500-1 odds there’s got to be a better way.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Sure, the best strategy for a comeback will merge a lot of strategies to keep the opponent guessing and confused, and if you have used pressure defense to cut a 10 point lead down to 1 with 7 seconds to go, another attempt for a steal and then a quick foul is the way to go. But to put all your marbles into a strategy like "foul every play" that may play to an opponent's strength is foolish, and to belittle a coach who chooses a different strategy is just dumb. Again, the odds are hugely against any strategy working and all successful paths require you to hit your shots, but to say that just because one strategy failed that one's own poor strategy would have been the only answer is also illogical. Fortunately, coaches like Geno and Muffett are more astute about these things than we who hang out on forum sites.

 

[lne001]

If this had been a men's game and this a men's board the idea that you would not press and foul at the end would be derided. If there is any chance, and 1/500 is a chance, you play until the end. Pro teams do it, college teams do it, high school teams do it.

I would love to know McGraw's actual reasoning. My guess is she was very happy to lose by only 10.

 

[DobbsRover2]

If this had been a men's game and this a men's board the idea that you would not press and foul at the end would be derided. If there is any chance, and 1/500 is a chance, you play until the end. Pro teams do it, college teams do it, high school teams do it.

I would love to know McGraw's actual reasoning. My guess is she was very happy to lose by only 10.

Oh sure, just like Calipari was derided by the idiots on the men's board for not fouling all over the place in the last minute with UConn having gone perfect at the FT line during the game. Sure, makes perfect sense.

Maybe Muffett was hoping to be happy with a strategy that her team could get some givebacks from UConn (which she got), and that her team would make some shots (which they didn't). We don't have to go into all the dumb stuff that's said on the men's boards to ridicule a WCBB coach.

Look, I realize that the hatred of Husky fans for Muffett generally runs from somewhere between extreme to more extreme, but it's a little pathetic to keep smearing her just because she won a bunch of games against UConn and ND has been its chief rival recently.

The Crackbrain Guide to Basketball Logic

Situation 1: Coach tells team not to foul down by 10 with 1:30 left, and they and their opponent miss all their remaining shots and the team loses by 10. Verdict: coach is a quitter and loser.

Situation 2: Coach tells team not to foul down by 10 with 1:30 left, and they go 3-5 on threes and their opponent miss all their remaining shots and the team loses by 1. Verdict: coach is a quitter and loser even if her strategy almost worked.

Situation 3: Coach tells team not to foul down by 10 with 1:30 left, and her team makes 4 threes while the opponent turns it over or misses all their remaining shots and the team wins by 2. Verdict: coach is still a quitter and loser even if her team won because she refused to do the "only thing you can do in that situation."

Situation 4: Coach tells team to foul every chance down by 10 with 1:30 left, and her team makes 4 threes while the opponent shoots their expected 75% by nailing 6 of 8 and the team loses by 4. Verdict: coach is really a winner because she did the "only thing you can do in that situation."

Situation 5 (the poor outcome for the foul method): Coach tells team to foul every chance down by 10 with 1:30 left, and her team only can hit 1-8 against the perimeter pressure defense on threes while the opponent shoots their expected 75% by nailing 12 of 16 and the team loses by 19. Verdict: again, coach is really a winner because she did the "only thing you can do in that situation."

Situation 6 (the generally normal one for the foul method): Coach tells team to foul every chance down by 10 with 1:30 left, and her team makes their standard 33% while shooting 2-6 on threes while the opponent shoots their expected 75% by nailing 9 of 12 and the team loses by 13. Verdict: once again, coach is really a winner because she did the "only thing you can do in that situation."

Situation 7 (that fantasy choker situation): Coach tells team to foul every chance down by 10 with 1:30 left, and her team goes 4-8 on threes while the opponent misses every FT and the team wins by 2. Verdict: That's the way it always happens in my PlayStation NBA basketball games, even against the best teams, so of course the coach did the right thing.

Again, November can't come soon enough.

 

[CocoHusky]

Ah yup, I'm sure Shoni Schimmel tosses and turns all night fretting about how she might have won an NC if Louisville had fouled to the end down 35 with two minutes to go back in 2013, and as the clock ticked off the last 23 seconds why wasn't she fighting to the end and leaving it on the floor instead of watching UConn dribble down to the buzzer? Sure she wonders what would have happened if the Cards fought to the max to the very end. Makes perfect sense.

Playing a sport means that sometimes you do lose, and you have to learn how to cope with that so you can prepare yourself to win in future matches. Limbs, brains, and spirits can all be broken by some idiot coach telling his kids, "I don't care if we are down by 50 with two minutes to go. Get out there and give me 110% or you're all quitters and losers." Sure, I know that that's the great old American way, but it's also stupid.

Can we start by talking about a comporable game and situation an 11 point lead is way different than 35 point. 2010 National Championship game UCONN vs. Stanford. UCONN up by 13 with 2:05 seconds left to go on the clock. Stanford starts fouling. 1 minute later Stanford is down by only 8. With :39 left the lead is down to 8. Stanford is still fouling. Wait :30 left Stanford is still fouling. What is going on? : 16 left Stanford still down by 6 and the are still fouling. :07 left Stanford down by 6 and still fouling. Stanford tried something, ND did not. I would not go so far as to say that ND "quit" but by not trying "something" ND is open to fair criticism IMO.

 

[Orangutan]

I would love to know McGraw's actual reasoning. My guess is she was very happy to lose by only 10.

The reasoning is extremely obvious. She felt (rightly or wrongly) that the game was out of reach and decided to let it reach its conclusion quicker.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Can we start by talking about a comporable game and situation an 11 point lead is way different than 35 point. 2010 National Championship game UCONN vs. Stanford. UCONN up by 13 with 2:05 seconds left to go on the clock. Stanford starts fouling. 1 minute later Stanford is down by only 8. With :39 left the lead is down to 8. Stanford is still fouling. Wait :30 left Stanford is still fouling. What is going on? : 16 left Stanford still down by 6 and the are still fouling. :07 left Stanford down by 6 and still fouling. Stanford tried something, ND did not. I would not go so far as to say that ND "quit" but by not trying "something" ND is open to fair criticism IMO.

Sure, we can all pick our games to prove our biases. I can point to games where a coach did not call for fouling on every play in similar situations and actually won the game, instead of the situation you point to where the coach called for fouling on every play and still lost without having a shot to win. So please tell me what your example proves?

Again, maybe we should just say that there are different ways to try for a comeback in extreme situations, and you shouldn't call a coach a quitter if she doesn't choose your own preferred strategy or set yourself up as a Monday morning quarterback and say that only your method could have worked. Muffet tried something and her team didn't hit their shots and they lost. Tara tried something else and her team hit some shots and they lost. Whoopie. Back in 2011 the UMiami coach tried basically a non-fouling method and it worked. Another coach might have tried an all-fouls method and see his team blow their chance to win because the opponent knocked down 1 or 2 FTs. Again, having something not work is no reason to say it could never have worked, unless you are a smug QB winning all those fantasy games on Monday.

 

[rvwsleep]

Not even close. There have been many last minute turnarounds, even last half minute turnarounds that have been fueled by steals and turnovers that probably never would have occurred if the opponent was sent endlessly to the FT line. How are you sure that their is NO chance for ND when eschewing the fouling has been a staple of many late comebacks?

Take guys game, Miami vs VA in 2011 ACC. VA up by 10 with 37 seconds left. Miami hits a 3, 2 missed VA FTs, Miami hits a 3, VA TO, Miami gets a 2, VA TO, Miami ties it with a 2, VA TO, Miami misses at end of regulation but wins in OT. So just one foul and pressure defense in 37 seconds that results in turnovers for a chance to win in regulation.

Now if old Rip Van Hurricane is sleeping at the game and wakes up with 37 seconds to go, he's yelling "Foul on every inbound!" to the Miami coach, and then who knows what happens, and maybe no comeback. So no, NO does not mean NO when talking about comeback opportunities in basketball.

But again, the big difference between 2011 men's Miami and 2015 women's ND is that the Hurricanes went 4-5 in 37 seconds, and the Irish went 0-3 in that last 1:33. Can't come back if you can't score.

I like your example. You just arrive at the wrong conclusion. Miami didn't get back into that game by watching VA dribble out the shot clock, they forced VA into turnovers. That was a totally different scenario than what happened in the ND game.

 

[rvwsleep]

The reasoning is extremely obvious. She felt (rightly or wrongly) that the game was out of reach and decided to let it reach its conclusion quicker.

Do you agree with the strategy that was used ?

 

[Orangutan]

Do you agree with the strategy that was used ?

Yes.

 

[DobbsRover2]

I like your example. You just arrive at the wrong conclusion. Miami didn't get back into that game by watching VA dribble out the shot clock, they forced VA into turnovers. That was a totally different scenario than what happened in the ND game.

They did a bunch of things, and they all revolved around making shots. If you don't make your shots in the last minute, it doesn't matter how many TOs you get. ND got the ball back a couple of times against UConn using Muffet's strategy but they couldn't turn those TOs into points.

But you miss the point. You're calling Muffett a quitter for not fouling with a more than a minute and a half to go. Miami's comeback from 10 points occurred in about 30 seconds, but you have the sagacity to claim Muffet just gave up because she didn't follow your strategy with three times as many seconds on the clock? Would you tell the Miami coach he had to start fouling if he was at the 1:30 mark down 10? So let's say UVA hits a normal amount of FTs and at the 37 second mark the gap is now 15 and the comeback is gone. Would Rip Van Hurricane then go over to Coach Haith and say, "Sorry coach, I screwed you guys all up by giving you that advice. I'll just go back to sleep and stop bothering you."?

Here's my example of a coach who obviously just quit when her team needed a big comeback, the aforementioned Pat in the 2004 NC game. Down by only 5 points with 2:22 to go against a team that had been 7-8 at the FT line, Pat hears the Vol fans screaming "You have to foul, coach! It's the only way we can win." So Pat obeys the wise minions of the Summitt and tells her players to foul every chance. So UConn goes to the line 12 times, knocks down 8, and what was a manageable 5-point deficit with more than 2 minutes left swells to 9, and UConn can just party along at the end of the game. What a loser Pat was there to choose such a dumb and wrong strategy! She was basically just quitting on setting up a comeback by going the bonehead route instead of going the smart route that would have kept things close at the end.

And how do I know this? Because I'm just as good an Monday AM QB as you.

 

[rvwsleep]

They did a bunch of things, and they all revolved around making shots. If you don't make your shots in the last minute, it doesn't matter how many TOs you get. ND got the ball back a couple of times against UConn using Muffet's strategy but they couldn't turn those TOs into points.

But you miss the point. You're calling Muffett a quitter for not fouling with a more than a minute and a half to go. Miami's comeback from 10 points occurred in about 30 seconds, but you have the sagacity to claim Muffet just gave up because she didn't follow your strategy with three times as many seconds on the clock? Would you tell the Miami coach he had to start fouling if he was at the 1:30 mark down 10? So let's say UVA hits a normal amount of FTs and at the 37 second mark the gap is now 15 and the comeback is gone. Would Rip Van Hurricane then go over to Coach Haith and say, "Sorry coach, I screwed you guys all up by giving you that advice. I'll just go back to sleep and stop bothering you."?

Here's my example of a coach who obviously just quit when her team needed a big comeback, the aforementioned Pat in the 2004 NC game. Down by only 5 points with 2:22 to go against a team that had been 7-8 at the FT line, Pat hears the Vol fans screaming "You have to foul, coach! It's the only way we can win." So Pat obeys the wise minions of the Summitt and tells her players to foul every chance. So UConn goes to the line 12 times, knocks down 8, and what was a manageable 5-point deficit with more than 2 minutes left swells to 9, and UConn can just party along at the end of the game. What a loser Pat was there to choose such a dumb and wrong strategy! She was basically just quitting on setting up a comeback by going the bonehead route instead of going the smart route that would have kept things close at the end.

And how do I know this? Because I'm just as good an Monday AM QB as you.

You've just lost all credibility. Please direct me me to my post where I was "calling Muffett a quitter for not fouling with a more than a minute and a half to go." I'll save you the trouble, it doesn't exist. You used the Miami-VA game where Miami pressured VA into turnovers at the end of the game instead of standing around watching the opponent dribble the clock out unimpeded, as happened in the ND game. As if that was supposed to somehow bolster your position.
Then there was this statement "There have been many last minute turnarounds, even last half minute turnarounds that have been fueled by steals and turnovers that probably never would have occurred if the opponent was sent endlessly to the FT line." I agree with this, but that's not what happened in the ND game. Why would you bring it up in relation to the ND game when those steals and turnovers you mention were the byproduct of a pressure defense ? Something that ND chose not to do.
And this one "How are you sure that their is NO chance for ND when eschewing the fouling has been a staple of many late comebacks?"
I would also agree with "eschewing the fouling has been a staple of many late comebacks?", but again, what does it have to do with the ND game ? Did those teams, that made comebacks without fouling, employ the same defense that ND used in the last minute and a half ? Of course not. If they just watched the other team dribble the ball without applying any pressure, there would be no comeback.
Regardless of whether the odds were 500 to 1, 1,000 to 1, or 10,000 to 1, a tactic other than watching the other team dribble the clock down without resistance should have been employed. It was, after all, for a National Championship.
Your posts on this topic tells me one more thing. You're not as good a Monday AM QB as you think you are.

 

[Bonpland]

I'm surprised to see how angry this thread has made some of our posters. Earlier in this thread I said that I thought Muffet should have "thrown everything she had" at us, but I didn't think that she had any chance of winning. Dobbs referring to an opinion that is at variance to his own as being "crackhead" seems harsh.

I don't know, or really care, what the percentages are regarding fouling in desperate situations, I just thought that ND should have gone down swinging. I wonder what this thread would have sounded like if the roles were reversed, if for some unimaginable reason we had trailed by ten with 90 seconds left and Geno had just taken a seat and let the game end.

This is an August conversation. It doesn't mean much and it shouldn't really be cause for such strong disagreement.

 

[MJL243]

 

[DobbsRover2]

I'm surprised to see how angry this thread has made some of our posters. Earlier in this thread I said that I thought Muffet should have "thrown everything she had" at us, but I didn't think that she had any chance of winning. Dobbs referring to an opinion that is at variance to his own as being "crackhead" seems harsh.

I don't know, or really care, what the percentages are regarding fouling in desperate situations, I just thought that ND should have gone down swinging. I wonder what this thread would have sounded like if the roles were reversed, if for some unimaginable reason we had trailed by ten with 90 seconds left and Geno had just taken a seat and let the game end.

This is an August conversation. It doesn't mean much and it shouldn't really be cause for such strong disagreement.

Um, saying that you think Muffet should have ND throw everything at UConn is absolutely right. But again the question is how she should have gone about doing that, and also perhaps how much her players had left in the tank for any specific strategy. The crackhead observations are just directed toward those who say she was a quitter for not following their own pet method for engineering an improbable comeback. Posters who say she was a 'quitter" or "she just took a seat" at the end of the game are certainly providing some BB material for Irish fans who can rightly point with some indignation at Husky fans like you who say their team just quit. Again, they got the ball back a few times and just missed some shots. So please tell me again what gives you the right to say that the Irish were quitters? You were in their heads with them, I take it?

I also don't know what the real percentages of overcoming a 10 point deficit against UConn with 1:33 left, but I would still leave it to an experienced coach like Muffet who has some has had some success in the past against UConn to plan the best response she could, rather than trusting the opinions of smug BY posters who make statements like "ND had NO chance of winning unless they foul every play." Just not true.

I wonder what this thread would have sounded like if the roles were reversed, if for some unimaginable reason UConn had trailed by thirteen to ND with 3:21 left and Geno had just taken a seat, put in the subs, and let the game end, and the Irish board had lit up with comments about Geno and UConn being quitters, and that you always have to play to very end or you're a loser. Well, actually that did happen back on Feb. 27 2012, as UConn did not commit one foul in the last 3 minutes of a 72-59 loss. Actually, I'm not sure that the Irish fans all called the Huskies quitters, but it's possible that some thought that. True it wasn't an NC, but it was still a big game and Geno apparently did not throw everything he had at the end against ND and go down swinging.

So again, you can play the "harsh and angry" card, and I can ask why not be a little bit civil toward an opposing coach about her endgame strategy. I certainly agree that Muffet has done some peevish mean-spirited things toward UConn in the past, but I still think she's a better coach than anyone on the BY.

 

[DobbsRover2]

View attachment 10152

Are you sure that horse is dead? I'd advise fouling it a few more times over the next few minutes, because you never know. Might still be some life in the old nag.