Tuesday, December 8, 2009

BASKETBALL: UNC vs UK (UK 68-66)

Lawrence Jordan: The Tar Heels' trip up to Lexington, KY did not have the desired result of the Carolina Faithful, but it did live up to its billing as a showcase game between two premier programs.

After jumping to a 9-2 lead early in the game and putting the UK faithful on edge, the Tar Heels surrendered a 28-2 run to the explosive cats. Carolina was just not able to surmount such a sizable lead by the end of regulation and lost by 2 points.

Which begs the question, what could the Heels have done to quell the Wildcats offensive explosion? Where could they have plugged the dam? The answer is simple and yet complicated. Roy needed to call a timeout.

This is not a new revelation. Roy's stubborn refusal to call first half TO's have haunted his teams for years. His preference to let his teams play through controversy is recorded, stamped, and dated. Roy even confronts the topic in his new book, "Hard Work," when he basically states that his players know what to do to stop these runs and it's up to them to apply what he's taught them in practice (paraphrasing).

Well, I don't completely buy that. When Roy won his first game as a head coach at Kansas, he totaled more wins that I will have in my college coaching career. He can also shine his two rings and his HOF plaque until his heart is content. BUT I can also disagree as an alumnus and a fan of the team.

I have seen the terrified look of our players after back to back turnovers or surrendering back to back 3 pointers. I have felt to excitement switch from exhilaration to fear in the Dean Dome, or, like in Lexington, watched as the opposing team becomes an unstopped juggernaut while Roy sits idly by.


There are several arguments I've heard from the UNC faithful:
  • Roy is playing and coaching for the entire season versus just trying to win this one game. (If that is so, please explain the 40-12 lead Kansas planted on the Heels at the Final Four a few years back. There were no other games after this...)
  • Roy is trying to give his young players experience and confidence by proving to them they can come back. (Wouldn't beating a Top 5 team on the road on National Television do the same thing? Wouldn't calling a TO, especially on the road, allow him to slow the momentum of the opponent and make any necessary defensive/offensive changes?)
  • The television TOs give Roy a chance to settle his team down, and give him the opportunity to use the TOs at the end of the half/game. (Teams have 5 TOs a game. The team loses a TO at halftime if none are used in the first half. Why not use a TO to stop the momentum of a big run? Why put your team so far behind you need all the TOs at the end to manage the clock while attempting a comeback?)
My post will never change Roy's mind. My post might infuriate some of my Tar Heel brethren who do not take kindly to questioning the Carolina Head Coaches. My post will allow people to discuss a hot topic amongst the Tar Heel fans.

2 comments:

  1. Ok so I'm no Tar Heel, but I don't get the Roy time out thing either. My understanding is this is rooted in Dean's old philosophy of saving TOs to the end of the game, when you might need them in the closing seconds. In Dean's day, this may have had some merit. Now we've got 5 TOs. No coach intentionally tries to lose games, or "makes his players lose" to teach them a lesson. To argue that Roy is intentionally losing is obnoxious. Whats the deal? -MS
    ReplyDelete
  2. I can understand wanting the players to "take a punch" from the other team and figure out how to "counterpunch", but when the run gets too exaggerated (ex: against Kansas (40-12) and Kentucky (28-2 run)) it becomes too much to overcome. In each respective game the Heels mounted a comeback to almost tie the game, but it was too little too late each time.
    ReplyDelete