MBB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[wally_wabash]

Interesting night in the NCAC.  Solid win for OWU...really a must win for OWU.  This puts the pressure on Wabash to get one from Witt to keep pace...or get the remaining game at OWU.  Neither will be easy.  Hiram over Allegheny?  Can we officially declare the Gators in the tank?  I know they're hurting a bit, but the Gators had a pretty experienced squad coming back.  Their current standing has to be a disappointment. 

[BigRedGrad]

It looks like the Big Red just ran out of time.  Ouch!!

Credit to Coach Moore for playing his guys 1/2 the game.  Johnson could have scored 50 had they left him in.  But all their starters only played half the game.  Very classy move to pull his team off the floor.

I think frustration has certainly set in for the Big Red.  They now have NO scoring and the fact that they are about to post the worst record in 24 years in the NCAC is taking its toll on everyone.  Players and Coaches.

The real sad thing is how will they recruit anyone to the program???  Certainly no talented Ohio kid is going to go because he wants to "turn the program around".  There are too many good D3 schools in Ohio before anyone would even consider  playing at Denison.

On the flip side Ghiloni can certainly promise the kid plenty of playing time. 

This program has hit rock bottom and may stay there for a number of years.

Good win for OWU.............I still think Wooster will win out.  They are just too tough.

[David Collinge]

Congratulations to Witt's Brandon Barabino, the NCAC Player of the Week for the week ending Jan. 20.  I need not remind everyone what Barabino did to earn this trophy; all you need to know is that it involved the intersection of the phrases "career game"  and "huge in the clutch" with the word "Wooster."     Congratulations, and my apologies for getting around to this so tardily! 

[David Collinge]

From wsf's end-game play-by-play account:

Intentional foul on OWU on Witt breakaway....questionable.

Since I know how much we love to second-guess officiating in here I thought I'd weigh in on this. 

It was not a questionable call at all, but it is a questionable rule.  Here's what happened.  Game tied, 2:43 left, OWU has the ball but Witt frosh Derrick Hannon steals it from Dustin Rudegeair on the left wing.  Hannon streaks down the right side, and Casey Teeters catches up with him from the left (i.e., at a right angle) just as Hannon starts to go up for the layup.  Now, Teeters has basically three choices: he can take a vicious hack at Hannon's arms (the "Karate Kid" option), he can undercut the helpless frosh (the "Ian Pfouts" option), or he can grab Hannon with both arms in bear hug, ensuring he doesn't get a shot off and guiding him gently into the embrace of the Witt cheerleaders (the "Good Sportsmanship" option.)  Either of the first two would have resulted in a standard shooting foul, while the third, which Teeters selected, is a no-doubt-about-it intentional foul. 

It ended up being a non-event when Kyle Holliday picked Brandon Barabino's pocket on a drive during the ensuing possession.

[pennstghs]

tough loss for witt, but isn't it interesting that every game between witt, wooster, owu, and wabash so far this year has been decided by less than 6 points?? this could set up for an interesting conference tournament

[imderekpoe]

isn't it interesting that every game between witt, wooster, owu, and wabash so far this year has been decided by less than 6 points

True, but none of the games involving OWU or Wabash has been in Springfield or Wooster!  I can't speak for the Tigers, but Wooster's games in Delaware and C'ville have historically been fairly tight, whereas the games in Wooster were not nearly as close. 

[wally_wabash]

isn't it interesting that every game between witt, wooster, owu, and wabash so far this year has been decided by less than 6 points

True, but none of the games involving OWU or Wabash has been in Springfield or Wooster!  I can't speak for the Tigers, but Wooster's games in Delaware and C'ville have historically been fairly tight, whereas the games in Wooster were not nearly as close. 

This is a good time to mention that the one time Wabash has defeated Wooster since joining the NCAC happened at Timken. 

I'm going to expect close games between these four teams each and every time they square off against one another.  The Scots are clear favorites, but I wouldn't be surprised if they took another loss (at home) before this season is done.  OWU and Wabash both have the experience to play well (and win) on the road.  And for whatever reason, Witt has had plenty of success in Timken.  Things are far from settled here. 

[ScotsFan]

From wsf's end-game play-by-play account:

Intentional foul on OWU on Witt breakaway....questionable.

It was not a questionable call at all, but it is a questionable rule.  Here's what happened.  Game tied, 2:43 left, OWU has the ball but Witt frosh Derrick Hannon steals it from Dustin Rudegeair on the left wing.  Hannon streaks down the right side, and Casey Teeters catches up with him from the left (i.e., at a right angle) just as Hannon starts to go up for the layup.  Now, Teeters has basically three choices: he can take a vicious hack at Hannon's arms (the "Karate Kid" option), he can undercut the helpless frosh (the "Ian Pfouts" option), or he can grab Hannon with both arms in bear hug, ensuring he doesn't get a shot off and guiding him gently into the embrace of the Witt cheerleaders (the "Good Sportsmanship" option.)  Either of the first two would have resulted in a standard shooting foul, while the third, which Teeters selected, is a no-doubt-about-it intentional foul. 

It ended up being a non-event when Kyle Holliday picked Brandon Barabino's pocket on a drive during the ensuing possession.

You bring up an interesting point David.  I too agree that this rule is questionable at best.  I think the interpretation of the rule needs to be changed if nothing else.  Of the 3 options you described, the 3rd option is by far the least confrontational yet it is the one that will ALWAYS draw the intentional foul.  Meanwhile, the first two options are not only far more violent, they are also more likely to cause injury.  Yet, these harder fouls don't warrant an intentional foul?

[BigRedGrad]

I totally agree with you Wally. However, I get the impression you are looking past Saturday to next Wednesday.

Have you checked the schedule and see who is coming to town?? :-)

That's right.......THE BIG RED MACHINE!!!

Thank you very much!! 

[wally_wabash]

I'm not looking past anything, BRG.  I can't wait to give a first-hand chronicle of Denison on Saturday.  That, and I really need my Wabash hoops fix...consecutive road games leave me hanging for far too long.   

[woosterbooster]

At some level of hoops, a while back, there was a difference between an Intentional Foul (where the defender wanted to put the guy with the ball on the line, so he just grabbed him) and a Flagrant Foul (which was a harsh and dangerous foul).  My memory is beyond pathetic, so I can't remember if I'm even thinking NCAA or NBA.  But it seems to me that maybe that was a better system.

[David Collinge]

It's a long drive from my home to Delaware, and there a whole lot of nothing along the way.  Gives a man time to think.  One of the things I thought about last night was my game attendance patterns.  So far this season, I've seen six teams at least as often than I've seen the Wooster men.  Six!

Kenyon men: 8
Kenyon women: 6
OWU men: 5
Wooster women: 5
Denison men: 4
Otterbein men: 4
Wooster men: 4

If I keep this up throughout the season (and I might, as I plan to forego Wooster's game with Earlham Sat. in favor of Allegheny at OWU), Frank Knorr will revoke my membership in the Downtown Rebounders!  (As well he should, since I still haven't paid...)

My tally is at 41 games now (23 men's) and have seen 37 different teams (19 women's).  It's been a good year so far, even if there's been a paucity of Scots in it.

[wally_wabash]

I think the confusion arises from the fact that the terms "flagrant foul" and "intentional foul" get used interchangeably.  The referee's hand signals are the same for each, the penalty is the same for each (two free throws and possession of the basketball)...on the bottom line, they're the same thing.  

I have no dog in this hunt, but I think a fourth option is available to Mr. Teeters: concede that you just gave up a layup because you didn't take care of the the ball.  If you're late enough to the party that you can't actually guard the shooter and your only options are to whack the airborne shooter hard (and possibly cause injury to the shooter or yourself as well as possibly being whistled for flagrancy) or man-hug the guy thus surely giving up two shots and the ball, it might be best to concede the layup here.  

[David Collinge]

I have no dog in this hunt, but I think a fourth option is available to Mr. Teeters: concede that you just gave up a layup because you didn't take care of the the ball.  If you're late enough to the party that you can't actually guard the shooter and your only options are to whack the airborne shooter hard (and possibly cause injury to the shooter or yourself as well as possibly being whistled for flagrancy) or man-hug the guy thus surely giving up two shots and the ball, it might be best to concede the layup here. 

Agreed, but I'm not sure the trajectories and speeds of the two players would have easily permitted that option.  Anyway, it's a spur of the moment decision, in a key conference game, last 2 minutes or so and your opponent is about to go ahead;  I think Teeters was thinking "I have to stop this shot."  Afterward, he spent a good amount of time discussing it with the ref, so I'm not sure he expected the call he got.  (He should have.)

[Mr. Ypsi]

I think the confusion arises from the fact that the terms "flagrant foul" and "intentional foul" get used interchangeably.  The referee's hand signals are the same for each, the penalty is the same for each (two free throws and possession of the basketball)...on the bottom line, they're the same thing. 
I have no dog in this hunt, but I think a fourth option is available to Mr. Teeters: concede that you just gave up a layup because you didn't take care of the the ball.  If you're late enough to the party that you can't actually guard the shooter and your only options are to whack the airborne shooter hard (and possibly cause injury to the shooter or yourself as well as possibly being whistled for flagrancy) or man-hug the guy thus surely giving up two shots and the ball, it might be best to concede the layup here.  

I thought a flagrant foul also meant ejection from the game.  Am I mistaken (or perhaps that is NBA)?