Open Shot: SEC tourney open thread

by Glenn Logan on Mar 14, 2008 3:48 PM EDT in Open Thread

Unfortunately, I have been swamped in meetings all day long and I have not had time to blog. Please forgive the absence.

In the meantime, post your comments about the afternoon games of the SEC tourney here. I promise to have some stuff up a bit later this afternoon.

A reader and I are working on a really interesting post (mostly him, by the way) which will be up either tonight late or tomorrow morning. It should be well worth waiting for.

So sit tight, and talk about the tourney. Here's a question for you -- What was that no-call on Tyler Smith mugging at the end of the Tennessee-South Carolina game all about, anyway? I understand officials not wanting to make late, game-changing calls, but really, that was just officiating malpractice.

Tweet Comment 24 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Close

That game was WAY closer than I would have ever thought it would be. I find that encouraging.

by kentuckygirl0724 on Mar 14, 2008 3:53 PM EDT reply actions

I like

the way that South Carolina nearly beat UT at their own fast paced game.

I just don't think UT will be making much of a tourney run.

by adamblowers on Mar 14, 2008 3:58 PM EDT reply actions

Speights

Anyone think Speights may go pro this season?

Personally I think he needs another year or two but if he left it would really help us out cause UF has a couple of pretty good big men coming in next season.

DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Mar 14, 2008 4:00 PM EDT reply actions

i cant place the memory

but I remember recently hearing that there is at least a chance that he could leave this year (but maybe the comment I hear or read was more saying that he still projected to go high enough in the draft that he would conceivably consider it).

by cdnWildcatfan on Mar 14, 2008 8:15 PM EDT up reply actions

South Carolina should have been at the line...

at the end of the game. This was a poorly officiated game with touch fouls called out front, blocking fouls called that should have been charging, and no over the back calls unless the action resulted in ciminal charges.

Stinky Blue

by Stinky Blue on Mar 14, 2008 4:02 PM EDT reply actions

No call

Smith should have been ejected. He acted totally with purpose. Other fouls also done poorly. SC should have been on the line. If they had gotten their foul shots in they would have won that game.
Arkansas giving Vandy all they can handle...

by CAWebb on Mar 14, 2008 5:22 PM EDT reply actions

Beyond the Smith foul/nonfoul

Vandy had 5 more FG attempts, 14 more FT attempts, and 4 fewer 3-PT attempts. They had plenty of opportunities for points in the game. They also had more steals than UT and 10 fewer turnovers. Changing that last call might have given Vandy a shot at OT, but it was certainly not the exclusive reason that UT won in regulation. The opportunities were there.

And kudos to USC for creating those opportunities and playing a tremendous game when there own beat writers were giving the team absolutely no chance to win the game. Despite the loss, Odom can be proud that the team did everything they could to make that game memorable for him.

by David Hooper on Mar 14, 2008 5:40 PM EDT reply actions

Gah.

there --> their.

That's one of my biggest pet peeves in writing, too. May I belly-flop into a swimming pool of razor blades and aftershave for that one.

by David Hooper on Mar 14, 2008 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions

...hey...

... at least you'll be septic.

The Online home of Big Blue Nation ...

by JL Blue on Mar 14, 2008 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions

...or...

...antiseptic. Geez, can I go home yet?

The Online home of Big Blue Nation ...

by JL Blue on Mar 14, 2008 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions

Given my typos,

something has to clean out whatever is gunking up the grey thingy between my ears.

by David Hooper on Mar 14, 2008 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions

Vandy?

Did I miss something?

:-)

by Glenn Logan on Mar 14, 2008 6:02 PM EDT up reply actions

No.

I just can't watch one game and comment on another, evidently.

Vandy --> USC.

I quit. ;)

by David Hooper on Mar 14, 2008 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions

I know what you meant.

I was just joshing with ya.

:-)

by Glenn Logan on Mar 14, 2008 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions

SC ...

may have had opportunities, and I don't think anyone could rationally argue that one call/no call was the reason a team lost a game.

It was just an extraordinarily bad piece of officiating in isolation that unfairly impinged upon the game, in my opinion. I have seen intentional or flagrant fouls called with less deliberate contact than that, and it was by no means incidental.

I can't really comment on the rest of the game, because I only saw about the last 30 seconds or so.

by Glenn Logan on Mar 14, 2008 6:07 PM EDT up reply actions

Can't argue that.

(Especially when I didn't see the game at all - just caught snippets on the radio.)

But it was a compliment to USC as much as anything else. They gave themselves many opportunities in that game - far more opportunities than anybody anticipated.

by David Hooper on Mar 14, 2008 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions

No call

It was a blaring, horrid no call, but I honestly thought that the way USC was shooting free throws, it was better for them to shoot the ball with 1.1 left than shoot two to tie. Still, it feasibly should have been a T, giving them 2 + ball.

Arkansas just topped Vandy. Florida and Vandy are out. . .if only Tennessee would go down. . .

Arkansas really has Vandy's number.

by blbskue on Mar 14, 2008 5:57 PM EDT reply actions

Other Kudos in the USC game.

Gametime:
Downey --> 40 minutes
Fredrick --> 38 minutes
Archie --> 37 minutes

Given the pace of the game, having played one yesterday, and hoping to play again tomorrow, you simply cannot say that those players didn't want that one badly.

by David Hooper on Mar 14, 2008 6:08 PM EDT reply actions

Play the next game.....

Georgia tonight.....win at all costs....then worry about tomorrow....with the upsets all over, we need to stay focused and get past tonight!

by Chuck Alexinis on Mar 14, 2008 7:22 PM EDT reply actions

I like Stansbury...

....but if UK is lucky enugh to win tonight, I would much rather play 'Bama than State.

'Bama is takin' it to the 'Dawgs. How that team lost double-digit games is beyond me....oh, that's right, they have Gottfried roaming the sidelines.

by Ken Howlett on Mar 14, 2008 8:24 PM EDT reply actions

Billy D Bus Toss

No class! We got the right Billy.

Tossing your kids under a bus like that today is horrible.

Eddie Munster is like Rick. Only absolute over powering raw talent wins in their "system" and it is why Rick would NEVER have won in '98 and only a true bench coach like Tubby could.

Now we have recruiting, bench and motivational guru.

by wilson452 on Mar 14, 2008 9:27 PM EDT reply actions

Sooooo....

minnesota is starting off hot vs. indiana. If they play themselves into the tourney I think it would be safe to say they are looking at an 8-9 seed.

Now with many feeling UK will end up with an 8-9 seed, do you think the commitee would pass up the chance for a 1st round UK vs. minn matchup? With the all mighty dollar certainly factoring into who plays who and what brackets teams are placed in, I don't think they would.

by wldcatsfreak on Mar 14, 2008 10:00 PM EDT reply actions

How do you figure?

I'm not sure how you could think Minn would get an 8/9 if they get the auto bid. They aren't getting in any other way... and most brackets have the last at large teams projected at the 12/13 level. I would think that a team like Minnesota would fall more in that range or lower.

by chirop1 on Mar 15, 2008 8:08 AM EDT up reply actions

If..

they play themselves in through the big 10 tournament, that would mean they would have to beat indiana (which we now know they have) and would then have to beat the winner of the wisc/mich st. game. This would give them 21 wins I think including two neutral site wins over top teams and the title of big 10 tourney champs. I think that would probably qualify them as an 8-9 seed especially if it gave the commitee a chance to pit UK v. minn. It's all speculation but I think it is possible.

by wldcatsfreak on Mar 15, 2008 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions