Tennessee vs. Iowa Round of 32 NCAA Tournament

You live in your hypotheticals, I'll live in mine I guess.

 

If Admiral shot that shot spefically for a 2 for 1, then it was a bad shot. We were always going to get the ball back because Iowa would be down, at least, 2 and they won't run down the shot clock to try and tie the game. They would look to tie the game as soon as possible while having time left over to foul or whatever, if they missed. We should've gone for a good shot, instead, by going inside to Grant.

Teams don't really run a 2 for 1 at the end of games. Those are different scenarios.

 

I agree, I just think it wasn't a decent shot.

 

This was a very good scenario fora 2 for one because it gave us two chances to ice the game instead of one. I don't understand the difficulty with this concept.

 

I

I'm not sure you are using "hypothetical" correctly.

 

That's a debatable point. I didn't mind it, partially bc he's hit so damned many if those.

 

Because we were always going to get another possession, no matter what. The 2 for 1 is an idea at the half (or quarter) when teams are just running their offense and will use all of the shot clock. The end of the game is different because the team which is behind needs to score ASAP, unlike at the end of the half.

 

Hadn’t scored since the 13:08 mark. Only had 2 points in the second half.

Like you said, it’s debatable. I’d prefer for us to feed Grant.

 

100% hpothetical to say we were always getting another possession without the 2 for 1.
Iowa could call a timeout and go for the dagger 3 at the buzzer. Or rebound a miss. Maybe get an and1 or another 3 off a long rebound. Both of those scenarios put us down with a couple seconds left.

 

You are mistaken. When you can use the clock and shotclock to get an extra posession up two at the end if the game, you do it. We could, we did, and it was right.

I have no idea why you seem to think this is some trick only available at quarters and halfs. We had two chances to finish them instead if one. That's better than having only one.

 

Why would they wait until a few seconds left to take a shot when they are down 2? You don't gamble on just one final shot when you are losing.

 

The thing that happened is not hypothetical.

 

There have been plenty of coaches and teams over the years go for a game ending 3. Especially teams looking for an upset, and, spent from a big comeback. The point is the 2 for 1 takes away that particular option.

 

I don't know why this is so difficult for you to understand that the point of doing a 2 for 1 is getting a second possession, but, in that scenario, we were always going to get a second. Iowa was not going to wind the clock down to make sure we didn't get the ball again. They had to score and they would do it as soon as they could. We were getting the bask back anyway, nullifying the need for a 2 for 1. The only 2 for 1 you do in this scenario is in a tie game.

 

No, they wouldn't. Stop. No coach, down 2 with 30 seconds left in the NCAA tournament is going to run the clock down to get one last second shot to win. This is just silly. You give your team a s many chances to win as possible.

 

Barnes needs to use more timeouts to chew ass when other teams go berserk.

 

2 for 1 does exactly what you mentioned...give the team more chances to win.
As far as "no coach would...", thats an assumption and hypothetical. "Go for the 3 and the win on the road", especially as a dog, happens weekly.

 

I feel like some of you must have felt in the 1 vs .99999... debate. I get it, but I just don’t care.

 

I think you might be thinking of going for 2 and the win, rather than kicking the extra point for OT.

 

They weren't on the road. This isn't a regular season game, it's the tournament.

Your scenario is not plausible for today's situation. Iowa was not going to hold the ball down 2 under 30 seconds to go.