2 for 1 possessions at end of games (or halves)

[mcmwcat]

does anyone do this in college basketball?  i know we never do - or if we do i miss it.  maybe i usually don't recognize the chance for one until it's too late.

http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/fran_dunphy_refused_to_be_the_dealer/

[1albatross]

Very rarely done in college basketball.

[sys]

does anyone do this in college basketball.  i know we never do or if we do i miss it.  maybe i usually don't recognize the chance for one until it's too late.

http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/fran_dunphy_refused_to_be_the_dealer/

i watch for it all the time, because it used to kill me that no one ever does it.  having paid attention to it for a while, it would just be hard in college bball.  with 35 seconds, there's a lot of variation in how long a possession will take.  plus turnovers, oboards, clock resets.  it just doesn't work like it does in the nba.

not to say teams couldn't take advantage more than they do.

[EMAWzified]

Denis used to do it, more at the end of the half that game. Have heard it discussed on like talk radio (not much of an authority I concede). Consensus seems to be college coaches would rather get a good shot than go for the 2 for 1.

[SlamSam]

This always goes through my head at the end of games. I feel like it's smart. If you can have all your players recognize it, then it would be huge right? If you have a quick play that your players automatically go to like a screen and either hit the roller or shoot the three then it isn't a stupid play, it's about as good as a fully run through play would be, just without the time to find a wide open shot (which isn't guaranteed). It's worth it imo to have control over the last possession of the game.

[wetwillie]

wouldn't a 2-1 be extra beneficial to a team with an outstanding oboard %?

[Cire]

nba players are much more likely to make a jumpshot, which is the most likely shot selection if you are getting something off quick.

[1albatross]

nba players are much more likely to make a jumpshot, which is the most likely shot selection if you are getting something off quick.

This.

90% of the time an NBA team has at least 4 guys on the floor that can hit a 15 footer over 50% of the time.

[Cire]

I'd argue that they hit those more than 50% of the time.  Not to mention that those for guys are much more capable of creating their own than college players.

[8manpick]

One important difference is that the clock doesn't stop in the last minute of the first half in college basketball for a made basket.  To assure yourself of a decent 2 for 1, you need to score with about 50 seconds on the clock.  Allowing for a few seconds of the ball being out of bounds before thrown in, that would likely give you about 7-10 seconds assuming the other team takes the whole shot clock.  Timing is made much easier with the clock stopping in the NBA.

[hemmy]

ku fans get mad every ksu game because of this.

[kougar24]

Frank's philosophy (and he certainly isn't alone): 1 good shot is better than 2 bad ones.

[FranklyFrankYou]

This always goes through my head at the end of games. I feel like it's smart. If you can have all your players recognize it, then it would be huge right? If you have a quick play that your players automatically go to like a screen and either hit the roller or shoot the three then it isn't a stupid play, it's about as good as a fully run through play would be, just without the time to find a wide open shot (which isn't guaranteed). It's worth it imo to have control over the last possession of the game.

Yah because with college players every pick an roll or screen play is automatically going to operate to perfection.  Seriously, this isn't the NBA.  Two for ones are just straight up impractical when dealing with lower % shooters that every team has in college...and plus by forgoing the two for one you minimize the amount of damage an opponent can do extending/decreasing the lead going into half.

[SlamSam]

This always goes through my head at the end of games. I feel like it's smart. If you can have all your players recognize it, then it would be huge right? If you have a quick play that your players automatically go to like a screen and either hit the roller or shoot the three then it isn't a stupid play, it's about as good as a fully run through play would be, just without the time to find a wide open shot (which isn't guaranteed). It's worth it imo to have control over the last possession of the game.

Yah because with college players every pick an roll or screen play is automatically going to operate to perfection.  Seriously, this isn't the NBA.  Two for ones are just straight up impractical when dealing with lower % shooters that every team has in college...and plus by forgoing the two for one you minimize the amount of damage an opponent can do extending/decreasing the lead going into half.

You obviously wouldn't do a pick like that for someone that can't shoot those shots. When you have a player such as Pullen that shoots the three well off of a screen and give him a bail out with the roll, it's not a terrible idea. It would work out about as well as any other play ran at the end of a possession if you run the clock out (in fact, a pick and roll was our go to anyway this year). Almost any play you do is a gamble in basketball. In this case, getting a shot in with a high probability of a second possession at the end of a game or half is pretty valuable imo. And must I remind you that there ARE NBA players on many college teams capable of making these plays against even lesser talent than they'll be facing at the next level.

[sys]

the idea that college teams don't run 2for1s 'cause they can't score with limited time is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).  you geniuses do realize that what they do instead is run the shot clock down to 7 and then start their play?

[michigancat]

the idea that college teams don't run 2for1s 'cause they can't score with limited time is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).  you geniuses do realize that what they do instead is run the shot clock down to 7 and then start their play?

That's different than just trying to get a good shot. But I agree with your point (which definitely applies to Temple).

[FranklyFrankYou]

A lot of times in college trying to hurry the offense and get a quick shot leads to a poor shot and a run out for the other team. Which defeats the purpose of the two for one

[mcmwcat]

A lot of times in college trying to hurry the offense and get a quick shot leads to a poor shot and a run out for the other team. Which defeats the purpose of the two for one

what if you are also getting a poor shot at the end of the shot clock?  did i just blow your mind.  sorry

[Brock Landers]

A lot of times in college trying to hurry the offense and get a quick shot leads to a poor shot and a run out for the other team. Which defeats the purpose of the two for one

what if you are also getting a poor shot at the end of the shot clock?  did i just blow your mind.  sorry

Yes, by using the word "also" too many times.

I remember alot of Anti-Woolites using the 2 for 1 talking point.....we would never ever try a 2 for 1 at the end of halves/games.  As it turns out the lack of 2 for1's was pretty far down on the list of reasons he didn't succeed.  But it was still hilarious to see people argue over the merits of the 2 for 1 strategy.

[michigancat]

I liked the "will Wooly get mad at the refs" discussions.