NEWSLETTER #15 - 2005-06 TO FOUL OR NOT TO FOUL "Team A is up 3 with 15 seconds remaining. Team B has the ball. Both teams in bonus. If you are team A do you foul, and send them to the line?"

The question to foul or not to foul at the end of the game has been posed several times this year. Most recently, a head varsity coach from Strasburg, Illinois posed the question after he was taken to OT in 3 of his last 4 games on late shots. Xavier has also had bad luck in the same situation over the past 2 years. Most unforgetable was last year at the University of Miami (FL). Miami in bounded the ball with 13.8 left on the clock. With 8 seconds to go, Robert Hite hit a 3 with to tie the game and send it to overtime. Fortinuatly for us, we outscored the Canes 18-5 in OT and escaped Florida with a big win.

Recently, Jay Bilas from ESPN.com did a great piece on this endless dilema on his online blog.

. Opinions vary on fouling late in games http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/insider/columns/story?columnist=bilas_jay&id=2324605&univLogin02=stateChanged

The strategy of fouling in late-game situations, when one team is ahead by three points and its opponent has the ball with a chance to tie, has long been debated. Some say, without reservation, that it is a no-brainer to foul when up three points … but many are not as certain as to when the "cut line" is on the clock. Others, like me, believe it is more complicated, and a team had better be well-drilled in exactly when to foul and exactly how to foul.

The strategy seems simple. When up three points and it's the opponent's possession, if you foul and send the other team to the line, they can only score two points before you get the ball back, thus eliminating their chance to tie and send the game to overtime.

The logic for fouling is straightforward. If you foul when up by three late in the game, too many improbable things need to happen in order for the score to be tied or for the team with the lead to lose. Your opponent, down three, needs to hit the first free throw, miss the second, get the rebound and hit a shot, all on a short clock. Of course, it is unlikely that your opponent would be able to do all of those things correctly, which favors fouling.

The fear of the team that is ahead by three is that the opponent has a chance to tie. Not to win, but to tie. Well, consider this question, which takes a premise to the extreme in order to make a point: In a late-game situation, why not foul when ahead by two? In that situation, being tied is not the issue, losing is. If fouling is such good strategy when you are ahead by three, why is it not even considered when you are up two, which would give you the chance to get the ball back to win the game at the other end? Why would you rely on your defense, which you would fear to be porous enough to be tied when up three points, to win the game when you are up by only two points? Arguably, it is more difficult to defend when up two, because you are trying to take away opportunities inside and outside of the 3-point line, whereas when you are up by three, you need only take away 3-point opportunities.

Xavier University - Men's Basketball - 3800 Victory Parkway - Cintas Center - Cincinnati, OH 45207 - (513) 745-3417 - (887) WE ARE XU TO FOUL OR NOT TO FOUL CONTINUED Most reasonable basketball people would dismiss out of hand the thought of fouling when up by two points with your opponent in possession of the ball. They would simply rely upon their defense to make a stop, and take their chances, even with losing as part of the equation. My only question is this, why not rely upon your defense when you are up three points, defend with intelligence and without fear? If you would consider fouling, why not defend with the confidence that even if you were to commit a common foul, you would still be in pretty good shape to win the game? All things being equal, my preference would be to guard without fear of fouling, and take away 3s without concern for penetration and help defense. You would never leave your man, and never allow an uncontested catch or 3-point opportunity.

Of course, there are many variables to take into account. A team's ability to survive and win in overtime is a factor, as is a team's ability to hit free throws. As a coach, you know your team better than anyone else, and what that team is capable of, especially in late-game situations. Not every team can execute every late- game situation with a high basketball IQ.

The major keys are time and your team's mental ability to execute such late-game strategy. I believe that fouling is only a good strategy if there are less than 5 seconds on the clock, and the foul to be committed is clearly a common foul and nowhere near a player that can get into his shooting motion while you are attempting to foul. Any foul with 5 seconds or more allows your opponent to score two points without time going off the clock, set up a press and attempt a steal, and then foul you with enough time for another opportunity to tie … or win. If you foul when up three, with too much time on the clock, your opponent has the chance to send you to the line to shoot two free throws just to get back to the same position you were in, and a healthy chance to shave a point or two off of your lead by making you hit two pressure free throws.

A few games from recent weeks provide some great examples of late game-situations and the decisions that have to be made. Let's take a look at some of them, and decide what may be the best way to approach things:

Georgetown at Notre Dame The Irish made a furious comeback against the Hoyas in South Bend, and trailed by four points with possession of the ball, out of bounds, underneath their own basket with less than 3 seconds to go in regulation. Notre Dame freed up Colin Falls in the right corner for a look at a 3-point shot. Brandon Bowman tried to contest and fouled him on the attempt. The shot went in, and Falls stepped to the line to tie the game with a four-point play.

There is no way that any Georgetown player should have been close enough to Falls to foul him. You don't want to give away a 3, but you certainly don't want to foul when you are up by four. Just a mental mistake by a young player in a tense situation on the road -- it happens.

Xavier University - Men's Basketball - 3800 Victory Parkway - Cintas Center - Cincinnati, OH 45207 - (513) 745-3417 - (887) WE ARE XU TO FOUL OR NOT TO FOUL CONTINUED N.C. State at Clemson The Wolfpack, down three, had the ball with under 10 seconds remaining and quickly moved it up court without a timeout at their disposal. Even with a timeout, going against a defense that was scrambling and not set was a good thing for State. The Wolfpack dribble-penetrated and a Clemson defender, who should have been glued to his man beyond the 3-point line, came off of Cameron Bennerman to give help on a drive. In a late clock situation like that, there is no reason to guard anything inside the 3-point line, because two points gets N.C. State nowhere. The penetration caused the defense to react instinctively to help, and left open a good 3-point shooter. In that situation, a foul would have been good strategy. The problem is communication. It is difficult to communicate a fouling strategy in that situation, especially when your team is on the run. Clemson was at home and relying upon its defense was not bad strategy. The defense didn't execute very well, however.

Oklahoma State at Texas Tech Down three points, Texas Tech had possession of the ball under its own basket, and Jarrius Jackson dribbled the length of the floor. Oklahoma State tried to foul him in the backcourt and could not catch him. Then JamesOn Curry attempted to foul him in the frontcourt by wrapping his arms around Jackson and could not grab him to get the call. The problem for Oklahoma State was, if a foul had been called, it was likely to have been an intentional foul because Curry was not making a play on the ball. That would have been two free throws and possession of the ball for Texas Tech, and a chance to win the game, rather than tie it. Jackson hit a 3-point shot to send the game into overtime, and Texas Tech ended up winning. Fouling with less than 5 seconds to play would have been a good strategy, but not the way it was executed.

Washington at Stanford This one was tough to swallow for Washington. The Huskies were up three with less than 3 seconds on the clock. Stanford had the ball underneath its own basket, and had to go the length of the floor to tie the game. There were multiple timeouts used by both teams before the last play, and they both had ample time to go over strategy. Stanford inbounded the ball with a long pass near midcourt, and the receiver's defender was trailing him and could not get close enough to foul him before he executed a touch pass to Chris Hernandez, who was streaking down the right sideline. Justin Dentmon was defending Hernandez, and got up too high and was above him when the inbound pass was made, and he was then behind Hernandez on the play. Dentmon, just a freshman, compounded that error by fouling Hernandez as he went up for an off-balance and contested 3. Hernandez hit the three free throws, and Stanford won in overtime.

Notre Dame at Louisville Louisville had possession with just under 11 seconds, and Notre Dame was up by three at Freedom Hall. The Cardinals brought the ball up court, and Taquan Dean broke off a play and received a ball screen from David Padgett outside the 3-point line. Torin Francis was just a tad late hedging off of the ball screen, and Dean had a relatively clean look, which he nailed. In that situation, Mike Brey chose to rely upon his defense, and that was not a bad call. Notre Dame should have defended the ball screen better because there was no issue with the roll. The only concern was taking away an open 3.

Xavier University - Men's Basketball - 3800 Victory Parkway - Cintas Center - Cincinnati, OH 45207 - (513) 745-3417 - (887) WE ARE XU TO FOUL OR NOT TO FOUL CONTINUED What I would do (Jay Bilas) Here are my thoughts on fouling when up by three points late in the game. I would only foul if there were less than 5 seconds on the clock and I was confident that my players could execute the late-game situation. If it's more than 5 seconds, I would rely on my defense, and the emphasis would be on taking away the 3 with our heels on the 3-point line. I would have the players face guard and switch every screen and close exchange. If there is more than 5 seconds on the clock, I would instruct the players to defend without fouling, but to commit a common foul -- if, and only if -- they could do so without allowing the ball handler to get into a shooting motion.

My preference would be to rely upon my defense. While we see over and over again on TV the late-game 3s that go in and tie the game, we never see the majority of 3s that miss, or are never launched, because that is not a good highlight. Far more often than not, good defense in a late-game situation will win the game for you.

Hey, reasonable basketball minds can differ on this -- and they do. But while you are contemplating this strategic dilemma, think about this: The advent and use of the 3-point shot has dictated an odd strategy. Now, coaches are contemplating purposely committing a foul when they are ahead. That is an odd twist in the game, indeed.

REBOUNDING: "Assume every shot is going to be missed." The importance of offensive rebounding to the outcome of the game cannot be over emphasized. Over 50% of field goal attempts and 35% of free throws are missed. Very rarely will a team ever win a game getting one shot per offensive possession. Offensive and defensive rebounding also vary in techiques and mental attitude. Offensive rebounding requires taking the inititive with anticipation, agility, and aggressiveness as compared to strength and size on defense. Rebouning is a mindset. No different than a swarm of bees, an attacking mentality is key for successful TEAM rebounding. 2006 SEAN MILLER TEAM CAMP Each summer, Xavier's team camp is one of the strongest in the Midwest. This year our team camp will be held on Thursday and Friday, June 29 and 30. PAST TEAM CAMP CHAMPIONS: For information contact: 2001 - Winton Woods High School (OH) Xavier Assistant Coach 2002 - Pike High School (IN) Chris Mack 2003 - Pike High School (IN) 2004 - Muncie Central High School (IN) (513) 745-2851 2005 - Hughes High School [email protected] If any member of our staff can be of any help, please feel free to contact us. We look forward to any and all feedback and questions! Mario Mercurio [email protected]

Xavier University - Men's Basketball - 3800 Victory Parkway - Cintas Center - Cincinnati, OH 45207 - (513) 745-3417 - (887) WE ARE XU ZONE OFFENSE - BALLSCREEN - BROWN 2 2 5 5

4 3 3 4

1 1

A B

1 passes to 3. 3 passes back 4 sets a ballscreen for 1. 1 uses the to 1. 2 begins to cut through the ballscreen as 5 screens and posts, 2 lane. cuts into the corner.

ZONE OFFENSE - BASIC CONTINUITY THROWBACK

3 3 5 5 2 4 2 4

1 1

A B

2 passes to 1 after 1 and 4 Instead of 1 reversing the ball to 4, interchange. he "throws back" to 3 for a shot by 3 or a post up by 5.

ZONE OFFENSE BARDONECCHIA, Italy -- Moments that define an Olympic career may run no longer than the 90 seconds it takes to complete a snowboardcross race. But those that go awry last much longer in replay.

Even if she wanted to erase Friday afternoon's final from her memory, Lindsey Jacobellis will relive it every time she does an interview or toes a start line. Don't be surprised if Jay Leno and Conan O'Brien have something to say about her. If you never expected to hear a snowboarder in the same sentence as Bill Buckner, well, get ready.

Jacobellis, the defending world champion and star of a Visa ad campaign, built a healthy lead in the frenetic final of the snowboardcross. The jostling behind her seemed to confirm her place as the queen of the field, except that this queen has also sought a different crown in her athletic career. Jacobellis also competes in the halfpipe, an event in which big airs and board grabs are as customary as snow. What a perfect time for Jacobellis to pay tribute to her other event.

Coaches and snowboarders sometimes justify stylish grabs at the end of races as strategic precautions against contact. So in a gesture she fancied as pomp and ceremonial afterthought, Jacobellis leapt up and tried to grab her board about 20 meters from the finish. She caught the board on the way up but lost her footing on the way down. Jacobellis fell and spun off the course just long enough for Switzerland's Tanja Frieden to beat her across the finish line.

Hubris got the better of Jacobellis and she settled for silver In this context, Jacobellis can undo a lot of that by taking the high road. She has an opportunity to do more for her sport in defeat than she ever could have achieved in victory. Grace in the face of good effort isn't that tricky, but grace in the face of self-inflicted humiliation is awfully difficult.

This was gratuitous hot-dogging, the modern-day hare striking a victory pose as the tortoise crawls past to win the race.

But late Friday, Jacobellis was already off to a good start with an explanation that was honest and thoughtful. "I went for the jump because I was having fun," she said on a conference call. "Snowboarding is fun, and I wanted to share that with the crowd. ... I was caught up in the moment and forgot that I had to race. At least everybody didn't pass me."

The questions will get old and the jokes won't likely let up, but neither will the appreciation for her and the up-and-coming sport if she handles it with the same class she displayed on Friday.