PDA

View Full Version : Two for One



ZagFanInNC
12-06-2011, 07:59 PM
Why is it that college basketball coaches don't believe in going two for one at the end of the half and game? UW just had the ball with a tie and 55 seconds left, didn't go for the 2/1 and lost.

Is it just me being an idiot? Every opportunity that college coaches have to do it just aimlessely dribble the ball at the top of the key and run the clock down. Every time an NBA team has the chance they utilize it.

If i'm wrong please somebody tell me... and why.

04ZagFan
12-06-2011, 08:46 PM
I see no reason not to go 2 for 1, unless of course you didn't get a good look early and would have to force a bad shot to get the ball back again...

But correct me if I'm wrong, didn't UW turn the ball over when they had the ball towards the end?

zagzilla
12-07-2011, 07:07 AM
UW did get a 2 for 1 last night. They scored with 15 or so left and there were 6 seconds left when Marquette scored. UW rushed the ball up court and got off a poor shot at the buzzer. The better question is why Romar didn't use the timeout he had left and set up a play.

ZZ

CanadianZagFan
12-07-2011, 07:29 AM
With a 35 second shot clock it is very hard to effectively utilize 2-1. 55 seconds on the clock, when do you want to shoot the ball? Does it leave too much time and the other team also goes 2-1? I like the team to get a good possession and defend the crap out of the ball to end the game.

zagfan24
12-07-2011, 07:38 AM
2 for 1 is one of the worst pieces of convention wisdom in sports, IMO. Here is how things usually seem to go.

Team A has the ball with 50 seconds left. They take a hurried shot with the clock at about 42 seconds to secure the "2 for 1" and miss.

Team B has no option to run the clock down, so instead of dribbling at the top of the key aimlessly, they tend to run their offense and get a good look with about 6-7 seconds left.

Team A now has one more hurried possession which usually ends in a bad shot or no shot at all.

Even if they have more time left, this usually ends in the aimless dribbling at the top of the key, leaving only time for one move to the basket with no chance to pass. Most defenses can stop this easily.

Psychozag
12-07-2011, 07:48 AM
More importantly...wasn't it great watching the Huskies lose a second heartbreaker in row .

ZagFanInNC
12-07-2011, 07:49 AM
UW did get a 2 for 1 last night. They scored with 15 or so left and there were 6 seconds left when Marquette scored. UW rushed the ball up court and got off a poor shot at the buzzer. The better question is why Romar didn't use the timeout he had left and set up a play.

ZZ

It was a tie game with over 55 seconds, instead of running the offense, maybe getting a quick basket and having the last possesion they had Gaddy stand just inside of half court and dribble the ball for 15 seconds. That is really stupid in my opinion. Why not run the offense atleast.

webspinnre
12-07-2011, 08:02 AM
2-for-1 is great as long as you can run your offense to get the front half of it. It does you no good if you don't actually convert the front half tough.

ZagNut08
12-07-2011, 10:05 AM
UW did get a 2 for 1 last night. They scored with 15 or so left and there were 6 seconds left when Marquette scored. UW rushed the ball up court and got off a poor shot at the buzzer. The better question is why Romar didn't use the timeout he had left and set up a play.

ZZ

They only got the 2 for 1 because they made a shot with 15 left and put them up 1, thus Marquette had to shoot to take the lead (thus giving UW the ball back.) If UW had missed Marq would not have been forced to shoot the ball since they would have been up 1 with 15 sec left & could have let the clock run out. A true 2 for 1 will require the oponent to shoot to avoid a shot clock violation.

Like many, if the coach tells the player you have to go 2 for 1 it often results in a forced shot that is missed. But if you tell the players to take an open/good shot to get a 2 for 1 I am all for it.

sullyzag66
12-07-2011, 11:14 AM
More importantly...wasn't it great watching the Huskies lose a second heartbreaker in row .
Yes, but that's a team you don't want to face in March.