Wisconsin Badgers 2017-18 Season Thread

[jschligs]

MN was daring the Badgers to shoot by hard doubling Happ at the first dribble. In the first half, the Badgers shot well. For a while in the 2nd half, they didn't.

Agree with the poster above that FG droughts for the Badgers are nothing new, and for any medium/slow-paced team in college hoops, they're nothing new.

I think it's more that they are exacerbated when you have a slower paced team. Less chances to break the drought.

Exactly. They've had scoring droughts and been a good team in the past. It just looks a lot worse by the slower pace/low scoring nature their game has.

The fact that it's not new to Badger basketball is my point. I think coaching plays into how long and how frequent those droughts happen and they happen a ton with the Badger's.

[Kerb Hohl]

I think it's more that they are exacerbated when you have a slower paced team. Less chances to break the drought.

Exactly. They've had scoring droughts and been a good team in the past. It just looks a lot worse by the slower pace/low scoring nature their game has.

The fact that it's not new to Badger basketball is my point. I think coaching plays into how long and how frequent those droughts happen and they happen a ton with the Badger's.

Well, yeah, they play a slow brand of basketball and many times do not have a lot of shot-creators on the roster due to those players generally not wanting to go to UW. So you could have a 5 minute scoring drought that involves 7 or 8 empty possessions, which is not that crazy of a number of possessions to fail in a row for any team.

So if style of play is "coaching" then sure, it can happen.

Last night they just stopped hitting some of their shots for a while. I don't think I saw many bad shots/bad possessions.

[Tfence92]

It's possible but I'm not nearly as convinced as you are. I don't see any change of direction.

As someone who has rolled their ankle plenty of times, I can say that it would be quite normal for him to jump back off that foot instead of continuing to push forward.

I'm surprised they didn't call it a foul live, but after watching the replay numerous times, idk how you can for sure say he hit him.

I've had my fair share of ankles, but given his momentum, and his entire body weight moving in that direction, I don't think there was enough stability there to snap back without there being any contact. Freeze it at 3 seconds.

You can't just take still shots to justify it tho, but even when you do I don't think there's any shot that shows contact regardless.

[skones]

As someone who has rolled their ankle plenty of times, I can say that it would be quite normal for him to jump back off that foot instead of continuing to push forward.

I'm surprised they didn't call it a foul live, but after watching the replay numerous times, idk how you can for sure say he hit him.

I've had my fair share of ankles, but given his momentum, and his entire body weight moving in that direction, I don't think there was enough stability there to snap back without there being any contact. Freeze it at 3 seconds.

You can't just take still shots to justify it tho, but even when you do I don't think there's any shot that shows contact regardless.

It's not using "just a still shot" when your interpretation of the action is coupled with video evidence from "prior to contact" and "post contact."

I'd be willing to bet the GREATER majority of non-badger fans come away with a "shin contact" conclusion as opposed to an "I don't think there was any contact" conclusion. Anyone saying "no contact" is grasping onto fractions of an inch, a sliver of space for their conclusion, and AT BEST you come away with a "plausible deniability" type argument. I think you have to ask yourself when watching that video, which is the more likely scenario.

We'll agree to disagree.

[Kerb Hohl]

I've had my fair share of ankles, but given his momentum, and his entire body weight moving in that direction, I don't think there was enough stability there to snap back without there being any contact. Freeze it at 3 seconds.

You can't just take still shots to justify it tho, but even when you do I don't think there's any shot that shows contact regardless.

It's not using "just a still shot" when your interpretation of the action is coupled with video evidence from "prior to contact" and "post contact."

I'd be willing to bet the GREATER majority of non-badger fans come away with a "shin contact" conclusion as opposed to an "I don't think there was any contact" conclusion. Anyone saying "no contact" is grasping onto fractions of an inch, a sliver of space for their conclusion, and AT BEST you come away with a "plausible deniability" type argument. I think you have to ask yourself when watching that video, which is the more likely scenario.

We'll agree to disagree.

I'm not really making the "plausible deniability" argument. I really am not sure. Again, it's probably a dumb argument at this point anyways.

Also, don't feel bad for Mason:

Read on Twitter

[xTitan]

Are you use looking at the first video? There was another video in that thread from a different angle that shows BD clearly tripped him, should've been a foul,but oh well wasn't called......MN still had a chance to win in OT but they failed.

[Kerb Hohl]

Are you use looking at the first video? There was another video in that thread from a different angle that shows BD clearly tripped him, should've been a foul,but oh well wasn't called......MN still had a chance to win in OT but they failed.

I'm not really disagreeing that a foul could've/should've been called. Thing is, even if he missed him, he still had his foot there which probably deserved a foul anyways.

I don't see a definitive angle that he truly contacted his leg, though. Just saying that Mason's fall could be explained by the rolled ankle/flop.

[Tfence92]

I've had my fair share of ankles, but given his momentum, and his entire body weight moving in that direction, I don't think there was enough stability there to snap back without there being any contact. Freeze it at 3 seconds.

You can't just take still shots to justify it tho, but even when you do I don't think there's any shot that shows contact regardless.

It's not using "just a still shot" when your interpretation of the action is coupled with video evidence from "prior to contact" and "post contact."

I'd be willing to bet the GREATER majority of non-badger fans come away with a "shin contact" conclusion as opposed to an "I don't think there was any contact" conclusion. Anyone saying "no contact" is grasping onto fractions of an inch, a sliver of space for their conclusion, and AT BEST you come away with a "plausible deniability" type argument. I think you have to ask yourself when watching that video, which is the more likely scenario.

We'll agree to disagree.

I'm not saying he didn't hit him... I'm just saying that there is no way, with 100% certainty, that I can say yes he did hit him.

In fact, regardless of that, I said I'm not surprised it wasn't a foul live.

[Johnlac1]

You can't just take still shots to justify it tho, but even when you do I don't think there's any shot that shows contact regardless.

It's not using "just a still shot" when your interpretation of the action is coupled with video evidence from "prior to contact" and "post contact."

I'd be willing to bet the GREATER majority of non-badger fans come away with a "shin contact" conclusion as opposed to an "I don't think there was any contact" conclusion. Anyone saying "no contact" is grasping onto fractions of an inch, a sliver of space for their conclusion, and AT BEST you come away with a "plausible deniability" type argument. I think you have to ask yourself when watching that video, which is the more likely scenario.

We'll agree to disagree.

I'm not saying he didn't hit him... I'm just saying that there is no way, with 100% certainty, that I can say yes he did hit him.

In fact, regardless of that, I said I'm not surprised it wasn't a foul live.

I looked at a number of replays including a few from different angles, and I can't affirmatively say they made contact.
If you're a Minny fan, it sures looks like a foul, and I wouldn't have been surprised or upset to have a foul called on Davison. But even if there was definite contact, Davison is allowed to have his legs stretched out. It's just sort of a weird play that could have been called either way. The ref might have assumed, making a split second decision, that Mason ran into Davison's leg and therefore incidental contact.

[Tfence92]

It's not using "just a still shot" when your interpretation of the action is coupled with video evidence from "prior to contact" and "post contact."

I'd be willing to bet the GREATER majority of non-badger fans come away with a "shin contact" conclusion as opposed to an "I don't think there was any contact" conclusion. Anyone saying "no contact" is grasping onto fractions of an inch, a sliver of space for their conclusion, and AT BEST you come away with a "plausible deniability" type argument. I think you have to ask yourself when watching that video, which is the more likely scenario.

We'll agree to disagree.

I'm not saying he didn't hit him... I'm just saying that there is no way, with 100% certainty, that I can say yes he did hit him.

In fact, regardless of that, I said I'm not surprised it wasn't a foul live.

I looked at a number of replays including a few from different angles, and I can't affirmatively say they made contact.
If you're a Minny fan, it sures looks like a foul, and I wouldn't have been surprised or upset to have a foul called on Davison. But even if there was definite contact, Davison is allowed to have his legs stretched out. It's just sort of a weird play that could have been called either way. The ref might have assumed, making a split second decision, that Mason ran into Davison's leg and therefore incidental contact.

I don't think that would qualify as a legal guarding position, he is not allowed to have his leg stuck out there.

[HurricaneKid]

I've had my fair share of ankles, but given his momentum, and his entire body weight moving in that direction, I don't think there was enough stability there to snap back without there being any contact. Freeze it at 3 seconds.

You can't just take still shots to justify it tho, but even when you do I don't think there's any shot that shows contact regardless.

It's not using "just a still shot" when your interpretation of the action is coupled with video evidence from "prior to contact" and "post contact."

I'd be willing to bet the GREATER majority of non-badger fans come away with a "shin contact" conclusion as opposed to an "I don't think there was any contact" conclusion. Anyone saying "no contact" is grasping onto fractions of an inch, a sliver of space for their conclusion, and AT BEST you come away with a "plausible deniability" type argument. I think you have to ask yourself when watching that video, which is the more likely scenario.

We'll agree to disagree.

IF he hit him, he did so only after he rolled his left ankle, came down on his right ankle, rolled that ankle too and started to go down. That was the point where the contact is under dispute. If you believe a player going down to the ground after rolling both ankles and making contact with a defender is a foul, well we will have to disagree.

I think given the evident ankle rollS (plural) its a no call whether he barely touched him or didn't touch him at all.

[skones]

You can't just take still shots to justify it tho, but even when you do I don't think there's any shot that shows contact regardless.

It's not using "just a still shot" when your interpretation of the action is coupled with video evidence from "prior to contact" and "post contact."

I'd be willing to bet the GREATER majority of non-badger fans come away with a "shin contact" conclusion as opposed to an "I don't think there was any contact" conclusion. Anyone saying "no contact" is grasping onto fractions of an inch, a sliver of space for their conclusion, and AT BEST you come away with a "plausible deniability" type argument. I think you have to ask yourself when watching that video, which is the more likely scenario.

We'll agree to disagree.

IF he hit him, he did so only after he rolled his left ankle, came down on his right ankle, rolled that ankle too and started to go down. That was the point where the contact is under dispute. If you believe a player going down to the ground after rolling both ankles and making contact with a defender is a foul, well we will have to disagree.

I think given the evident ankle rollS (plural) its a no call whether he barely touched him or didn't touch him at all.

I quite literally acknowledged that the rolled ankles occurred before any contact might have taken place. I've never argued the validity of the foul or lackthereof. Only those disputing the notion that there's contact.

[HurricaneKid]

It's not using "just a still shot" when your interpretation of the action is coupled with video evidence from "prior to contact" and "post contact."

I'd be willing to bet the GREATER majority of non-badger fans come away with a "shin contact" conclusion as opposed to an "I don't think there was any contact" conclusion. Anyone saying "no contact" is grasping onto fractions of an inch, a sliver of space for their conclusion, and AT BEST you come away with a "plausible deniability" type argument. I think you have to ask yourself when watching that video, which is the more likely scenario.

We'll agree to disagree.

IF he hit him, he did so only after he rolled his left ankle, came down on his right ankle, rolled that ankle too and started to go down. That was the point where the contact is under dispute. If you believe a player going down to the ground after rolling both ankles and making contact with a defender is a foul, well we will have to disagree.

I think given the evident ankle rollS (plural) its a no call whether he barely touched him or didn't touch him at all.

I quite literally acknowledged that the rolled ankles occurred before any contact might have taken place. I've never argued the validity of the foul or lackthereof. Only those disputing the notion that there's contact.

I didn't mean the quote as a challenge to your opinion. I quoted to show the conversation I was continuing.

You are right that either way, Davison has NO BUSINESS putting his foot out like that. If he rolls ONE ankle instead of both it is very likely that is a foul.

[Diggr14]

http://www.forums.gopherhole.com/boards/showthread.php?81232-Slow-motion-video-of-Davison-tripping-Mason

I would not have complained if they called that foul. Personally I hate the ref montra of 'let the players decide' at the end of the games and then let the D mug the offense. In years and years of basketball watching though I've gotten used to them letting stuff like this go at crunch time so I wasn't surprised they didn't call it and it's not exactly against the way the game is normally called at crunch time. Especially since the ref has the incidental contact thing in his mind, kind of like WR/DB getting legs tangled while running. But IMO it's a foul.

But if MN fans want to wine about a meaningless regular season game just remind them to watch the last 12 mins of the Duke/UW national title game and see if they have any sympathy for us.

I think that video is on Redtube. It’s a blue devil being felated by a referee.

[Tfence92]

http://www.forums.gopherhole.com/boards/showthread.php?81232-Slow-motion-video-of-Davison-tripping-Mason

I would not have complained if they called that foul. Personally I hate the ref montra of 'let the players decide' at the end of the games and then let the D mug the offense. In years and years of basketball watching though I've gotten used to them letting stuff like this go at crunch time so I wasn't surprised they didn't call it and it's not exactly against the way the game is normally called at crunch time. Especially since the ref has the incidental contact thing in his mind, kind of like WR/DB getting legs tangled while running. But IMO it's a foul.

But if MN fans want to wine about a meaningless regular season game just remind them to watch the last 12 mins of the Duke/UW national title game and see if they have any sympathy for us.

I think that video is on Redtube. It’s a blue devil being felated by a referee.

I was there, let me know if I'm in any of the video, because I didn't sign any waivers!

[Tfence92]

The more I actually watch of Khalil, the more I like him.

Maybe it's because UW doesn't get athletes like him? Idk

[GB_Packers]

Poor Goofer fans. Still losing to the Badgers in their worst season in over a decade and having to resort to posting videos like that. What an irrelevant ass program they are

[xTitan]

The Van Vliet show! Every time Gard goes to the awful Moesch, makes me exponentially like him less

[Tfence92]

The Van Vliet show! Every time Gard goes to the awful Moesch, makes me exponentially like him less

Yea, but then AVV hits a basket and Gard extends his life as head coach by about 45 seconds.

[trwi7]

That time lapse of planes landing was cool.