🏀 KuBuckets Archive

Anyone catch the end of game situation in the Michigan St/Florida Gulf Coast game.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/18101192/michigan-state-holds-game-ending-clock-error-spoils-fgcu-last-second-shot ↗

1.6 seconds on the clock, FGCU throws a pass length of the court and a shot is taken and missed. Seems like end of ball-game right? Not so fast as Lee Corso says!

The clock started as the ball was thrown into play, not as the guy catching the pass caught it and went up for a shot. They went to the monitor and did nothing, they let the play stand saying they couldn't do anything about it. Again, this is not correct.

Here is the statement from the Ref:

Official Bo Boroski's statement with Pool reporter Matt Charboneau (Detroit News): "A timing error occurred with 1.6 seconds remaining on the game clock. Since a timing error occurred, we are able to utilize the replay monitor. A stopwatch was used to determine if any time should remain on the game clock. Using a stopwatch, it was determined the ball was caught and released in 1.3 seconds, meaning if the shot would have gone in, it would have counted. After the miss there was no time remaining in the game, therefore ending the game. By rule the possession can not be replayed. Period."

See the problem is that the clock started early and not that the player got the shot off in time. How any of these ref's couldn't understand this is again beyond my comprehension level.

If the clock had started before the player had in-bounded the ball and the buzzer had gone off I'm sure FGCU would have had another chance. But because the clock ran while throwing the ball in they don't get another chance?

Oh lordy I feel for you Joe.

And apparently this wasn't the only clock issue in the game favouring MSU. Ridiculous.

Wow, that's really poor. I'm just a little confused however. He missed the shot, but FGCU was arguing that they were forced to throw up a shot sooner because of the timing error? Therefore, they should have been able to rerun the play?

A lot of us will remember this involving Michigan St. We benefited from it as we were losing and somehow, I forget now, Larry Brown got T-d up as a result, not Judd Heathcoat! I know MSU fans are still steamed.

The buzzer went off before the kid even got the ball. So mentally, the kid has to be wondering what the hell is going on and possibly thinking the game is already over so it doesn't even matter if the shot goes in. Just a complete mess.

Also MSU is garbage.

A lane violation can cause you to miss a free throw, but the end of game buzzer won't mess with a guy's shot? He wasn't rushed or frazzled? Tough situation for both teams. MSU shouldn't have to defend twice, but Joe's team should get a fair shot also.

Tough luck, but now they have a legitimate complaint.

@wissox

Yes the play should have been rerun. The clock started before a player had touched the ball which is not the rule. The player forcing up a shot sooner should have been deemed irrelevant to the situation. He was influenced by the buzzer.

The official in-bounding the ball is responsible for the start of the clock- not the clock operator and so its an referee error. I still don't understand how this wasn't corrected. If they can monitor how much time was on the clock how can they not monitor and see the play was not run under the rules of the game?

@BShark

Interesting I did not see anything else about other errors in the game.

This is one big mess for the NCAA. It's unfair FGCU did not get a fair shake at winning or losing.

Joe Dooley's response.

Florida Gulf Coast coach Joe Dooley said on last play against Michigan State: "Miles Bridges didn't touch the ball. Officials said they can only review it if the shot goes in. We threw the ball in at 1.6 and caught it at 0. The refs said they didn't start the clock. The table said they didn't start the clock. The refs said they could only review if the shot goes in. My guy (Antravious Simmons) heard the buzzer and shot it.''

But ref's can review how much time is on the clock. They can review when the shot clock isn't working correctly, or the official clock in general. There are a lot of things that don't add up with this situation.

@BeddieKU23 said:

@BShark

Interesting I did not see anything else about other errors in the game.

This is one big mess for the NCAA. It's unfair FGCU did not get a fair shake at winning or losing.

I wasn't watching the game tbf so I was just going off of what people were saying online and while this one was the most egregious it was apparently the third clock issue in the game.

The play should have been replayed for one simple reason - with 1.6 seconds left, Simmons could have, from where he caught the ball, taken one dribble and shot the ball within the time remaining.

Instead, he just tossed the shot up to the rim. Starting the clock early changed the play. It should have been replayed because the buzzer sounded, so he tried to get the shot up as quick as possible because he has no way of knowing in that moment that the clock started early.

Having played in tons of late game situations like that (as well as coached and scouted), I can tell you that you have an internal clock going, but you can't account for a timing error. He's thinking he can catch and either pump fake or catch and dribble once before shooting, but when he hears the buzzer, he just puts it up because at that point, if there was an error, putting it up immediately is the only way to preserve it.

The fact that the buzzer sounded changed the play completely and should have caused a replay.

Imagine. If he'd made the shot and the refs stuck to their guns!

@BeddieKU23

No one used to be surprised at fights being thrown.

No one should be surprised that basketball games are thrown.

Despite the notions of some that Big Gaming wants a "fair" sport (note: t believe they want the perception of a fair sport, not the reality of one), because they make supposedly all their money off attracting more and more bettors to bet on a fair sport so they can make their money off the guarantied percentage from balanced betting, it appears that the incentives to cheat are so enormous, given the scale of the money involved, and paucity of effective oversight preventing cheating is so apparent, there just is slim reason to believe cheating is NOT ubiquitous and big in scale.

First, let me give you the financial/risk management facts of life in enterprises that compel cheating throughout the ages.

Solvency. Minimum yield. Profit Maximization.

Solvency means you have to break even at all costs just to stay in business. You have to try to rig your business and/or its market, to guaranty solvency, even while you are taking out your management fee, or you don't stay in business and you don't eat.

Minimum yield means you have to not just make solvency, but most of the time you have to squeeze out a minimum yield to create a minimum return on equity deployed. It means its not enough to just stay in business and eat. You've got to pay the piper for the equity and debt you use in your operation. Fail to make minimum yield and, whilst you may have just had a steak, and look bucks up to some, either your equity investors or your lenders are soon likely to take your toy away from you.

Profit Maximization means you better grab as much as you can, when you can, because complexity and its unforeseen consequences are going to bring you a rainy day, when you are going to have to dip into the cash in your mattress and pay some people to get through the bad times, or take the cash from the mattress and get the hell outta Dodge and make for some place without extradition back to the angry bunch you have left holding the bills.

These are the three "rational" layers of finance taught in even ordinary business schools that must be serviced by any enterprise, public, or private, that does not have access to non traceable bail out cash from the Fed. Of course many gain that access by being willing to be cronies of the owners of the Fed but that's another story.

There is of course a fourth unwritten layer on the top of the three I just mentioned.

Greed. Greed is not just the simple kind that refers to me getting as much as I want so I can live like an oligarch. Real greed is a phenomenon of strategic environment. Greed extends beyond give me my Bugatti to being about I have to be able to take enough out of the business so I can live enough better than the other oligarchs that when they come preying on my good fortune I have friends in high places and money enough to smite the predators if they covet their neighbor's wealth, which they all do. First, rule of oligarchy. Its easier to take money than make money. Second rule. Its easier to print money than take money. This is why so many wars ar fought for control of central banks, but I digress.

Strategic greed ensures enough is never enough. Strategic greed means that in a predatory capital environment there is always a bigger predator, and if there isn't, then a whole bunch of small sharks will school up and prey on the biggest one. Capice?

Cheating is not always involved with achieving solvency, minimum yield and profit maximization (though it is often involved), but at the realm of strategic greed, well, there is a reason that meta drug cartels and meta arms traffickers, meta money laundering, and meta child sex trafficking (and other vice) persists through the centuries. These are the activities outside the pale of law and taxes, where the realm of strategic greed is attained and/or sustained.

Don't even think for a nano second that those involved ultimately in the petroshoeco-media-gaming complex are operating short of the realm of strategic greed, or at least that all of them are.

Bad apples and barrels, you know.

No insider information, of course. Just some guessing based on the recorded strategic structure of financial orders in history.

Rock Chalk!!!

@jaybate-1.0 Gangsters have bought entire police forces. Some of the largest companies ever have been complete shams.

I believe some of what you're saying is more than likely true.... Unfortunately.

Who doesn't think that Nike could pay refs under the table to prop up their teams and players?

Who doesn't think that a giant Betting company could corner a ref or two for the superbowl and offer them sums of money they could only dream of in an undisclosed off shore bank account?

Would it even be absurd to think that former Nike or big Betting employees have been "fired" and paid an unreasonable undisclosed settlement and then began a career in reffing?

I'm not normally a conspiracy theorist, but I do love reading about gangster's and guys like Charles Manson. People that evil and that smart are able to accomplish amazing things with money and blackmail. Who's to think that a major company with an evil genius at the helm couldn't accomplish something similar in the sports world?

@BeddieKU23 OMG! That is literally stupid.

@Kcmatt7

To quote myself: conspiracies are for suckers.:blush:

Few, if any, long-term sports enterprises worth doing big and effectively, would appear to be done by conspiracy, at least in my layman's humble opinion.

Why do I believe this? Two reasons, really: first, we don't have a long list of conspiracy convictions indicating it now tends (or ever has tended ) to be done this way; and, second, I don't believe conspiracies would be necessary to bring entertainment values to sports.

There appear always to be realms of game space that are not yet sufficiently instituted and that at least appear where lawlessness (or creativity, depending on your values) on a large scale could occur legally, as it were.

After my reading about sports for many years, I find it difficult to believe that the apparent Petroshoeco-media-gaming complex is involved in an act that law enforcement could reasonably charge as being conspiracy, much less win a conviction of conspiracy.

But I am a layman and fan, not an attorney. Maybe attorneys will knowledgeably suggest otherwise.

So far, though, I just don't believe conspiracy is how astute entrepreneurs at this scale of business do things, or need to do things.

Again, maybe I am wrong, but that is my opinion. If you could bring me some conspiracy cases involving the petroshoeco-media-gaming complex, then perhaps I could get on board with you and others that apparently see conspiracies in this sort of phenomena.

There may well be small time conspiracies, or even a few large ones, but I am not qualified to speak about actual conspiracies proven with facts, or about those that are not yet proven. I have just don't recall any conspiracies involving what I loosely refer to as an apparent petroeshoeco-media-gaming complex in my reading--at least not in the actual, chargeable, convict-able sense of the word conspiracy, and so I leave all that stuff to the authorities, and others, with more expertise than me.

IMHO, such organizations as Big Petroshoecos, Big Media and Big Gaming appear to be run by highly skillful persons that make use of the best professional advice available in a wide variety of disciplines regarding legal-political constraints and so are able to structure activity so that it is legal, or is in a grey area.

I believe it is somewhat naive to believe such persons are willing to, or need to, break the law to bring entertainment values to the staging of sporting events.

But i could certainly be wrong in this belief. I'm just a fan, after all.

For what little it is worth, I often used to ask myself why board rats, and other persons, appeared so drawn to referring to unexplained, anomalous phenomena as having been the result of a "conspiracy" and to sometimes counterintuitively refer to their (and others) conspiracy speculations as "conspiracy theory"?

It is a puzzling thing to do, when one stops to think about.

Conspiracy speculation, even based on some facts, frequently lacks sufficient proof to be considered a theory, i.e., proven. Its not that there are no proven conspiracies aka conspiracy theories. One can surf any number of websites and find looooong lists of proven conspiracies in government for instance. Theory, at least to me, refers to a proven, fact-based conjecture, or more specifically, to a fact-based conjecture that cannot be refuted with statistical significance, or alternatively, to a fact-based conjecture about the actions of some persons that has been found in a court of law to have been accurately characterized as conspiracy and to have resulted in a conviction.

Its my guess at this point of my thinking about this stuff that the reason "conspiracy theory" gets used so frequently, and frequently with unproven speculations, is that the intel folks reputedly started using it as a derogatory reference to persons and ideas about subjects that those intel folks preferred not to be taken seriously by the public.

It appears to have kind of muddied up inquiries by citizens into actions past, ongoing, or contemplated that the intel folks would rather not have known to be going on.

In turn, it is at least reputed by some that the intel folks kind of encouraged the use of the term conspiracy theory among many in media and government, and this caused its usage to spread.

The term "conspiracy theory" has spread into such broad usage that some look at phenomena in college basketball and see "conspiracies" triggering the phenomena.

I tend not to be among them.

"Conspiracy theory" seems a meme that encourages some folks down a slippery slope into oversimplificatied, or just flat reductive , thinking about certain subjects.

Regarding Charlie Manson, I don't see any connection between him and Joe Dooly anomalously losing a game to MSU, but since you seem perhaps to see such a connection, I have to assume you have studied about Manson and so might know more about him than I do. In turn, I cannot help but ask, if you think there is any substance to the folks that claim that Charlie Manson, Henry Lee Lucas, Ted Bundy and BTK, to name just a few, were part of a "conspiracy" of MK-Ultra scientists engaging in developing mind controlled assassins, or were they just random evil guys?

Its such an ghoulish prospect and subject that I've never read up on it much, but I wonder what you have learned about this issue? Are these psychopathic killers part of a conspiracy to develop mind-controlled killers, or just a bunch of random bad guys? Further, does it even make sense to describe a speculated upon group of scientists and Mil-Int personnel working together as a conspiracy? Wouldn't they most likely just be a group of scientists and mil-int personnel--morally bankrupt and unethical though one might think them to be--assigned to a classified intelligence project, rather than partaking in a conspiracy? Thoughts?

The Soviets would have been able to re-run the inbounds play at least 3 times. Iba is probably still losing sleep over that.

@jaybate-1.0 I feeeeel like you are talking about a theory as in scientific terms. Like the theory of evolution. Which has proven to be true essentially.

I more mean for it to be synonymous with a hypothesis. Which I believe the term conspiracy theory more correlates with when people use it. A conspiracy theory is guess that their could be a conspiracy. I am by no means saying that I believe based on the facts that shoe co or big gaming are actually changing the game. I am guessing that they could be and that it wouldn't surprise me.

To go back to Manson, he was much different than the list you gave me. Manson was a serial killer, sure. But he was much more fascinating than that. His ability to control others and manipulate any situation to his advantage was what makes him so impressive. While he did kill some of his victims, his "family" were the ones that did 99% of his dirty work. His ability to convince this "family" to commit dozens if not hundreds of crime for him was, well, amazing. He convinced them that it was for the good of the "family." And that it was God's work. I think that an organization with the strength Nike has could easily "brain wash" a person or persons into doing anything to help the "family."

Those other guys were just loonies who basically acted alone. Manson was smart and calculated with everything he did. Sure he was loonie. But all he really ever wanted was to be the center of attention. He had major fault in his personality. That is why he was always on the outskirts. There he was a star. It was why he wanted to become a famous musician. So he could be the center of attention. Had he actually been successful in music, I'm not sure that he commits all of his murders. Probably some of them still, but the majority of them, I doubt.

@Kcmatt7 said:

I feeeeel like you are talking about a theory as in scientific terms

Yes, it appears you are using the word "theory" to mean something hypothetical. If that is what you actually mean, why not just be accurate and say a conspiracy hypothesis, or a conspiracy conjecture not claimed to be proven, or my fav, a conspiracy theory not claimed to be a theory at all? 😄

Regarding Charlie, he has always apeared a very sick fellow that SOCAL benefits greatly from having behind bars.

Yet I confess it has puzzled me some in retrospect that his manipulative insanity and murderous scheming with runaways manifested at a time and place (Laurel Canyon in the 1960s/70s) when/where mil-int mind control research had subsequently reputedly been revealed to have been going on. I had always assumed the Manson phenomenon was unorchestrated beyond Charlie. It would be tidy (if still horrific) to keep it that way. But I have a hunch that over time the FOIA process will eventually reveal a more complicated context. How about you?

@BeddieKU23 wow that's terrible, couldn't be more obvious ether.

@wissox

The KU -MSU example is kind of apples and oranges, don't you think? The clock malfunction happened with over two minutes left in the game and there were many more plays before the end of the game. The call in question in this thread involved less than 2 seconds, was the last play of the game and decided the game. Other than the fact that both involve uncorrected clock malfunctions, there is no other similarity I can think.

@JayHawkFanToo I don't know, when I think of clock malfunctions and Michigan St I think of 1986. Did I say it was the same? I obviously didn't say it was the same. Sure it's apples to oranges except I didn't compare them. I just said it will remind us of another clock issue with MSU.

Look above here. They're discussing Charles Manson, evolution, the Soviet-US game, conspiracies, thrown basketball games. Call those guys out too. They're discussing something that had nothing to do with the original post. I suppose I educated some younger posters here who never heard of the KU-MSU clock problem.

@Blown The first thing that came to my mind too! USSR ... keep replaying until they score!

@wissox

The clock malfunctions a lot more often than you think. I see games being stopped all the time, both in college and in the NBA, so the refs can correct/reset the clock. If this particular last second clock malfunction reminds you of a different one, there are literally hundreds considerable better known, many even include KU, that are closer (last second) to the one discussed, that is all I was trying to convey...no malice intended as @Jaybate would say...and yes, the USA - USSR Olympic game involved an end of game clock that decided the game, unlike the KU - MSU game when the clock malfunction happened two+ minutes before the end of the game and did not decide the outcome. I don't get why when I make a comment about something you post you take it as a personal attack; half of the time I simple read the post and hit reply without really paying much attention to who the poster is. Having said that, I am sorry I made a comment about your post without knowing what is in your mind rather than your post; in the future, I will refrain from commenting on any thing you post since I really don't need to keep justifying my opinion....in a forum where the gist is to express ideas freely. Peace out.

@Barney

Me too. That was perhaps the most bizarre ending to a pivotal game ever...in the midst of the Cold War no less.