Dendy was one of the players I was most looking forward to seeing play for Hoiberg. Anyone saying he is only talented enough to play for grand view is a complete moron.
Dendy to Kentucky?
- Thread starter Tpups21
- Start date
The shot clock is completely misguided.
Dean Smith caused it all by being afraid to go at Ralph Sampson because Dean only had 5 or 6 future NBA guys on his squad. Couldn't take the chance that those guys could play basketball. That was the beginning of the end, watching NBA talent stand around sucking their thumbs.
Dean Smith caused it all by being afraid to go at Ralph Sampson because Dean only had 5 or 6 future NBA guys on his squad. Couldn't take the chance that those guys could play basketball. That was the beginning of the end, watching NBA talent stand around sucking their thumbs.
Personally, I think we should go back to having a jump ball after every made basket...now that was real basketball!
Yes! And they need to go back to being true "cagers".
I'm not disappointed that Dendy is leaving. What part of his game will help a Kentucky or other premiere program? Taggart and Wes Johnson were a far superior players that found a better fit for their styles at Memphis and Syracuse, respectively. He is a poor shooter, struggled to finish for us around the rim and seems to have a lot of off-the-court baggage. He is not the type of player that helps win championships. He is the type of player that you pick up in a last-minute recruiting scramble, which is what McDermott was doing his whole tenure at Iowa State.
Does anybody think that Hoiberg wanted to get rid of him? I wouldn't rule this out. Dendy will not land at another major program. I think he is clearly going to playing at a lower level institution. Why would he want to sit an entire year to for only 1 more year of eligibility? He is either not that bright or Hoiberg wanted him gone.
Does anybody think that Hoiberg wanted to get rid of him? I wouldn't rule this out. Dendy will not land at another major program. I think he is clearly going to playing at a lower level institution. Why would he want to sit an entire year to for only 1 more year of eligibility? He is either not that bright or Hoiberg wanted him gone.
I couldn't stand him as a coach,and after living here 20 years I like him even less. Can you imagine Johnny, Tim Floyd, LE, with half the talent UNC usually has? I think that's why a lot of Cyclone fans are so passionate. We make the most of limited talent,appreciate the effort of players who give 110% to beat better teams,and embody a work ethic that doesn't exist here.
Most of the differences rest in entry not retaining eligibility. The SEC is not great, but the Big 12 isn't exactly at the top.
Oh look a basketball purist. Where is Cowherd when you need him? How have either of those hurt the game? They speed the game up, they create more excitement toward the end of the games. You have to play more of the game. You can't just build a lead and run clock. They have also given more teams more avenues to winning.
You can call me a purist all you want but lets look at some of your statements. The shot clock speeds the game up? 100% wrong. The shot clock slows the game....to..............a..............crawl.
There is excitement at the end of games if they are close. What difference would it make if there was a shot clock or not? So, some of Todd Lickliter's 41-39 specials are "exciting" because they are close. Tell that to all the empty seats.
Teams build a lead and run the clock now, just in 35 second intervals, which lead to foul-athons at the end of games.
They are more avenues to winning (and there should be) without the artificial appeal of shot clock and three point shot.
The shot clock was put in to stop something that actually occurred fairly rarely, that a team would hold the ball for the whole game or large chunks of it. That, it works for, everything else is a big negative. Those rules turned the game into a colossal bore.
The next move may be a line at 30 feet and if you make a shot behind it you get 4 points and a free hot dog.
Without taking a side in this debate, I'm curious how you think the shot clock actually slows the game down? The only thing I can think of is near the end of a game -- the team that's behind may try to defend the entire shot clock and get a turnover (shot clock violation) instead of taking chances for a steal or going for a quick foul. Which you could then argue is even more foul-athon. I've never spent time thinking about it, though . . .
What about the 10 second half-court rule? In the women's game, I think there's much less full-court press because there's no 10 second rule. (Of course, their shot clock is only 30 seconds.)
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
Without the shot clock, I would think that the team leading the game would be running down a lot more time than the shot clock, if they can get away with it (just like running it down, getting a rebound, and running it down again). There's at least an incentive to keep things moving with the shot clock.
So let's say a team is down 15 with 5 minutes left. The 3 point shot and the shot clock give them a greater chance at making the game exciting. You absolutely cannot argue that. How do you figure the shot clock slows a game down? It isn't even possible. Are you going to tell me that teams take longer to get a shot up because there is a clock? It has to speed it up. How often during a game is a shot taken within the last 5 seconds of the shot clock. A lot. Where are the different avenues to winning games without a shot clock or three point line. There have most certainly been games basically won from three point range. Smaller teams are able to keep in games from shooting the three well. That fact brings more depth to the viable division 1 player pool and therefor brings depth to college basketball as a whole.
I'm not sure how old you are but I remember back in the late 70s when the Big 10 seemed to have a bunch of teams that liked to stall...games with a first half score of 8-6 and the like. Now that was exciting...wasn't it?!
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
I guess we could all get into timing the kids getting up and down the ladder to the peach basket.:wink:
I think the guy just wants to be grumpy. I don't know why, but that seems to be his deal.
So putting a time limit on possessions slows the game down? Makes sense.
Does the term 4 corners ring a bell?
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
So putting a time limit on possessions slows the game down? Makes sense.
Does the term 4 corners ring a bell?
It brings a yawn. Does that count?
Good player except for the free throws. I personally think that he started the disaster of the 2009 Mens Bball season. If you remember, he took the bad shot vs. UNI when we were winning and he took a bad shot at the beginning of the shot clock. If he didn't take the shot we would hold on to the ball and UNI gets the ball with little to no time on the game clock
