This truly has to be addressed. This would have been the second game winning one, and I believe we've had several halftime buzzers.

We gave up a three at half time at the buzzer of this gane

They were probably too eager to get to the locker room. It's no excuse especially in this league where every point matters & every mistake has a potential to cost one the game.

IvanBear said:

---

Drew has gone from someone who used to be a master at end of half scenarios back in the early 2010s. To someone who seemingly ignores it.

I've got to wonder do we really practice these scenarios?
I know there is limited practice time is this something that's just been dumped to try and address other issues.

Offensively and defensively we look lost running anything under 8 seconds.

---

in the presser last night jayden nunn says they practice end of game scenarios every week. around the 8 minute mark of the youtube video.

We don't have anyone step up to stop the ball. We let them get across half court uncontested and with a head of steam. We wait at or around the three point line and they either run past us (Texas) or pull up for a long uncontested three (buzzer beater at halftime last night).

Umm. Go back and watch it yourself. The one at the end of the game was definitely contested. The one at the end of the half was not. Sure, Nunn put his hands up, but in no way was someone on the ball making it a difficult shot. We let him get all the way past the logo with no pressure.

BearlySober said:

---

Umm. Go back and watch it yourself. The one at the end of the game was definitely contested. The one at the end of the half was not. Sure, Nunn put his hands up, but in no way was someone on the ball making it a difficult shot. We let him get all the way past the logo with no pressure.

---

We probably need to come to a consensus on what a contested shot is, then. If there is a defender in your vicinity with a hand in your face, I would consider that a contested shot. The shot before half had all those things. I agree with you that we should probably pick up the ball earlier in those situations, however.

Mitch Henessey said:

---

BearlySober said:

---

Umm. Go back and watch it yourself. The one at the end of the game was definitely contested. The one at the end of the half was not. Sure, Nunn put his hands up, but in no way was someone on the ball making it a difficult shot. We let him get all the way past the logo with no pressure.

---

We probably need to come to a consensus on what a contested shot is, then. If there is a defender in your vicinity with a hand in your face, I would consider that a contested shot. The shot before half had all those things. I agree with you that we should probably pick up the ball earlier in those situations, however.

---

I agree with your definition of a hand in the face. But that wasn't what happened. Hands up when you're five or six feet away is not contested. I would say that at no point did the ISU player feel like he was challenged with that shot. Now of course the worst thing would have been to foul there, but picking up the player earlier would have made that unlikely.

https://imgur.com/a/ZmRyTj1

This is a none issue if we can play fundamental basketball and MAKE FREE THROWS....

Mitch Henessey said:

---

BearlySober said:

---

Umm. Go back and watch it yourself. The one at the end of the game was definitely contested. The one at the end of the half was not. Sure, Nunn put his hands up, but in no way was someone on the ball making it a difficult shot. We let him get all the way past the logo with no pressure.

---

We probably need to come to a consensus on what a contested shot is, then. If there is a defender in your vicinity with a hand in your face, I would consider that a contested shot. The shot before half had all those things. I agree with you that we should probably pick up the ball earlier in those situations, however.

---

Yeah, Nunn played that well. That's exactly how you contest a long, late-half shot without risking a foul.

People are making a big deal out of a couple of lucky shots. Those same people would be screaming bloody murder if we had committed a foul and sent them to the line for the tying or winning free throws.

But I'm with you. The only thing I would change is picking them up higher up the court to make the shots longer. But at some point, you just have to tip your cap to the opponent for making a ridiculous -- likely lucky -- shot and accept it for what it is. That's basketball, and it's happened to every great coach at some point or another.

BearlySober said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

BearlySober said:

---

Umm. Go back and watch it yourself. The one at the end of the game was definitely contested. The one at the end of the half was not. Sure, Nunn put his hands up, but in no way was someone on the ball making it a difficult shot. We let him get all the way past the logo with no pressure.

---

We probably need to come to a consensus on what a contested shot is, then. If there is a defender in your vicinity with a hand in your face, I would consider that a contested shot. The shot before half had all those things. I agree with you that we should probably pick up the ball earlier in those situations, however.

---

I agree with your definition of a hand in the face. But that wasn't what happened. Hands up when you're five or six feet away is not contested. I would say that at no point did the ISU player feel like he was challenged with that shot. Now of course the worst thing would have been to foul there, but picking up the player earlier would have made that unlikely.

https://imgur.com/a/ZmRyTj1

---

Your pictures only confirms his point. Only a fool would contest a 30-foot shot at the end of the half the same way they would a standard 3-point shot in the middle of a game.

First, the odds of making that shot with no contest at all are low.

And second, the risk of a foul that sends that shooter to the free-throw line aren't worth the rewards.

Nunn played that exactly how you're supposed to play a shot just across halfcourt. The dude just hit a ridiculous shot. That happens sometimes.

I have a question: I'm hoping I am remembering this right - I'll admit I had a few pops in me and it was getting late on the east coast, but here goes:

The bizarre play at the end of the game came after the refs stopped play because the clock operator started the clock too soon. They go to the monitor and decide that yes the clock started too soon. It was after a missed free throw on our end and they had the rebound under our basket. They end up setting the clock at whatever they thought it should be and giving the ball to Iowa State with I think it was 2 seconds. Yet Iowa State had gained possession under our basket. Why did they get to in bound the ball just barely beyond half court? Shouldn't they have had to inbound under our basket or at the least on the sideline near our basket? That inbounds locations was a huge advantage to getting off a good look.

Was that a correct in bounds location? Seemed to me like an unwarranted gift for the in bounds play.

bear2be2 said:

---

BearlySober said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

BearlySober said:

---

Umm. Go back and watch it yourself. The one at the end of the game was definitely contested. The one at the end of the half was not. Sure, Nunn put his hands up, but in no way was someone on the ball making it a difficult shot. We let him get all the way past the logo with no pressure.

---

We probably need to come to a consensus on what a contested shot is, then. If there is a defender in your vicinity with a hand in your face, I would consider that a contested shot. The shot before half had all those things. I agree with you that we should probably pick up the ball earlier in those situations, however.

---

I agree with your definition of a hand in the face. But that wasn't what happened. Hands up when you're five or six feet away is not contested. I would say that at no point did the ISU player feel like he was challenged with that shot. Now of course the worst thing would have been to foul there, but picking up the player earlier would have made that unlikely.

https://imgur.com/a/ZmRyTj1

---

Your pictures only confirm his point. Only a fool would contest a 30-foot shot at the end of the half the same way they would a standard 3-point shot in the middle of a game.

First, the odds of making that shot with no contest at all are low.

And second, the risk of a foul that sends that shooter to the free-throw line aren't worth the rewards.

Nunn played that exactly how you're supposed to play a shot just across halfcourt. The dude just hit a ridiculous shot. That happens sometimes.

---

Good lord. This was never about contesting or not contesting. It was about ball pressure and not giving them a free run up the court. And my pictures show that.

Mitch took one part of my comment that was irrelevant if they pressure the ball. And yes I had already said that it would be worse if Nunn fouled.

WA Jim said:

---

I have a question: I'm hoping I am remembering this right - I'll admit I had a few pops in me and it was getting late on the east coast, but here goes:

The bizarre play at the end of the game came after the refs stopped play because the clock operator started the clock too soon. They go to the monitor and decide that yes the clock started too soon. It was after a missed free throw on our end and they had the rebound under our basket. They end up setting the clock at whatever they thought it should be and giving the ball to Iowa State with I think it was 2 seconds. Yet Iowa State had gained possession under our basket. Why did they get to in bound the ball just barely beyond half court? Shouldn't they have had to inbound under our basket or at the least on the sideline near our basket? That inbounds locations was a huge advantage to getting off a good look.

Was that a correct in bounds location? Seemed to me like an unwarranted gift for the in bounds play.

---

I wondered the same thing. That seemed like an unfair, unearned advantage to inbound the ball that far up the court.

BearlySober said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BearlySober said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

BearlySober said:

---

Umm. Go back and watch it yourself. The one at the end of the game was definitely contested. The one at the end of the half was not. Sure, Nunn put his hands up, but in no way was someone on the ball making it a difficult shot. We let him get all the way past the logo with no pressure.

---

We probably need to come to a consensus on what a contested shot is, then. If there is a defender in your vicinity with a hand in your face, I would consider that a contested shot. The shot before half had all those things. I agree with you that we should probably pick up the ball earlier in those situations, however.

---

I agree with your definition of a hand in the face. But that wasn't what happened. Hands up when you're five or six feet away is not contested. I would say that at no point did the ISU player feel like he was challenged with that shot. Now of course the worst thing would have been to foul there, but picking up the player earlier would have made that unlikely.

https://imgur.com/a/ZmRyTj1

---

Your pictures only confirm his point. Only a fool would contest a 30-foot shot at the end of the half the same way they would a standard 3-point shot in the middle of a game.

First, the odds of making that shot with no contest at all are low.

And second, the risk of a foul that sends that shooter to the free-throw line aren't worth the rewards.

Nunn played that exactly how you're supposed to play a shot just across halfcourt. The dude just hit a ridiculous shot. That happens sometimes.

---

Good lord. This was never about contesting or not contesting. It was about ball pressure and not giving them a free run up the court. And my pictures show that.

---

The guy hit a lucky, contested 30-foot shot off the backboard at the halftime buzzer. There's no systemic problem that made that more likely to happen against us than anyone else.

You guys are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Whoever started this thread thinks it's an issue. And I watched it be an issue against Texas and almost in this game. It starts as a molehill and then becomes a mountain. The point I think everyone wants to see is that it gets fixed.

BearlySober said:

---

Whoever started this thread thinks it's an issue. And I watched it be an issue against Texas and almost in this game. It starts as a molehill and then becomes a mountain. The point I think everyone wants to see is that it gets fixed.

---

Comparing either end-of-half play against Iowa State to the final sequence at Texas is absurd. They bore no similarities whatsoever.

Against Texas, two-fifths of our defense was completely out of position and we let a player go coast to coast and get all the way to the rim. That's a problem.

We defended Iowa State the same way 95-plus percent of teams would have and they hit a couple of ridiculous, lucky shots. To compare the two situations is ludicrous.

We were gifted the late release so that the made bucket didn't count.

historian said:

---

We were gifted the late release so that the made bucket didn't count.

---

And they were gifted a free timeout they didn't have and an inbounds location 25 feet past where the ball was rebounded under the basket because the clock operator screwed up.

True.

bear2be2 said:

---

BearlySober said:

---

Whoever started this thread thinks it's an issue. And I watched it be an issue against Texas and almost in this game. It starts as a molehill and then becomes a mountain. The point I think everyone wants to see is that it gets fixed.

---

Comparing either end-of-half play against Iowa State to the final sequence at Texas is absurd. They bore no similarities whatsoever.

Against Texas, two-fifths of our defense was completely out of position and we let a player go coast to coast and get all the way to the rim. That's a problem.

We defended Iowa State the same way 95-plus percent of teams would have and they hit a couple of ridiculous, lucky shots. To compare the two situations is ludicrous.

---

To not see the similarities of letting a player get the ball and move it freely up the court at the end of half/game situation shows you don't ****ing get it. And I don't know which games you're watching but most of the games I watch have some sort of ball pressure. But carry on. We are just talking in circles now.

Agree...the last second shot at UT and the halftime shot last night were two different shots ..layup vs 3 pointer but point is same...

Lack of even token pressure in both cases were disastrous..

Guy at UT covered full court in 2.8 seconds(!)..and with 2.0 seconds last night our entire team was on the other side of half court as he drove in for the shot.

I just rewatched the tape..he just casually brings it up while our entire team retreats..Nunn was nowhere near him until the shot goes up.

All were asking is for the defense to redirect them to take a few ticks off the clock and make the shot a little tougher. If they still make it..you tip your cap and move on.

BearlySober said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BearlySober said:

---

Whoever started this thread thinks it's an issue. And I watched it be an issue against Texas and almost in this game. It starts as a molehill and then becomes a mountain. The point I think everyone wants to see is that it gets fixed.

---

Comparing either end-of-half play against Iowa State to the final sequence at Texas is absurd. They bore no similarities whatsoever.

Against Texas, two-fifths of our defense was completely out of position and we let a player go coast to coast and get all the way to the rim. That's a problem.

We defended Iowa State the same way 95-plus percent of teams would have and they hit a couple of ridiculous, lucky shots. To compare the two situations is ludicrous.

---

To not see the similarities of letting a player get the ball and move it freely up the court at the end of half/game situation shows you don't ****ing get it. And I don't know which games you're watching but most of the games I watch have some sort of ball pressure. But carry on. We are just talking in circles now.

---

He didn't move it freely up the court. The ball was stopped 10 feet beyond where any coach wants his player shooting from. He hit a tough, contested shot. It happens in basketball all the time. Tip your hat and move on.

Stefano DiMera said:

---

Agree...the last second shot at UT and the halftime shot last night were two different shots ..layup vs 3 pointer but point is same...

Lack of even token pressure in both cases were disastrous..

Guy at UT covered full court in 2.8 seconds(!)..and with 2.0 seconds last night our entire team was on the other side of half court as he drove in for the shot.

I just rewatched the tape..he just casually brings it up while our entire team retreats..Nunn was nowhere near him until the shot goes up.

All were asking is for the defense to redirect them to take a few ticks off the clock and make the shot a little tougher. If they still make it..you tip your cap and move on.

---

Against Texas, we had two players in the backcourt who shouldn't have been. Dennis was checking the inbounder for no good reason and Josh blitzed a picking big -- again for no good reason.

That left two defenders guarding corner shooters and one (Love) trying to guard a hard-charging guard. It was brutally flawed design/execution.

Against Iowa State, we stopped the ball more than 30 feet from the basket and contested the shot. The dude lucked into a banked-in 3 from just beyond midcourt. It happens.

I agree with everything you said.

But you have to make the shot more difficult than a layup or a straight on wide open 30 footer.

And that's not hard to do without fouling. You can just trail along side them making the shot more off balance and making them take an extra dribble to burn clock.

It's ok to say that is something we need to get better at. Free throws in the clutch and end of half and game situations.

bear2be2 said:

---

historian said:

---

We were gifted the late release so that the made bucket didn't count.

---

And they were gifted a free timeout they didn't have and an inbounds location 25 feet past where the ball was rebounded under the basket because the clock operator screwed up.

---

That was the gift.....the clock operator. The free throw was missed. By the time you touch the ball on the rebound (clock starts), get turned around and look for someone to throw it to down court and the time it takes the ball to get to that person, then they have to turn and shoot probably from much further out than they did, the clock has run out before they even get into a shooting motion.

Prior to the free throw I thought the best chance of them not getting anywhere near a decent shot to tie or win the game was for the free throw to be missed. With it made, a substitution could be made momentarily stopping play and they are able to throw from behind our basket being able to see the entire court with five seconds to do it, versus having to do it in the mayhem after a missed free throw. Missing the free throw should have been the safest thing for us to happen......were it not for the shot clock operator screwing it up.

Stefano and Sober are right. You have to bring some very simple calculated resistance. Watched it again and it was really poor defense. The shooter literally had time and space to break down over more than a second, get his feet underneath him, take a gather step, and fire off an uncontested look.

It wasn't some crazy improbable shot. You get a look from just inside the logo (right between half court and the 3 line) uncontested with momentum, a skilled player can hit that about 20% of the time and that's being conservative for a solid shooter. Any calculated resistance brings the shot they would have gotten down to sub 5%. Its details and it matters.

Even a re-direct before mid court and they have no chance of a even decent shot.

Quinton said:

---

Stefano and Sober are right. You have to bring some very simple calculated resistance. Watched it again and it was really poor defense. The shooter literally had time and space to break down over more than a second, get his feet underneath him, take a gather step, and fire off an uncontested look.

It wasn't some crazy improbable shot. You get a look from just inside the logo (right between half court and the 3 line) uncontested with momentum, a skilled player can hit that about 20% of the time and that's being conservative for a solid shooter. Any calculated resistance brings the shot they would have gotten down to sub 5%. Its details and it matters.

Even a re-direct before mid court and they have no chance of a even decent shot.

---

Any 3-pointer that is banked in is an improbable, lucky shot. No one is ever trying to use the backboard on a 3-pointer. Both Gilbert and Momcilovic were just trying to get shots up near the rim, and both were 100 percent lucky to bank them in.

Could we have picked up Gilbert earlier? Certainly, and I agreed that we should have. But Nunn stopped the ball early enough to make the shot tough and got a hand in the shooter's face without fouling. Sometimes guys hit silly shots. Iowa State just happened to hit two. Fortunately, the last one didn't count.