Tweet
Re: Minnesota
IMO, AJ is qualified but would probably not be considered for the job because of how the athletic department is structured at UM.
Originally posted by NightHawk78
-
“I used to be with it. But then they changed what it was. Now what I’m with isn’t it, and what’s it seems scary and wierd. It’ll happen to you.” — Abe Simpson -
Re: Minnesota
My two cents on the AJ going somewhere else theory. This has likely been metioned on this board before and if so this is just a reiteration.
One thing working in SDSU's favor is that AJ is male. With all the Title IX buzz running through college athletics, an institution is going to have to think long and hard before going after a male coach to fill their head women's BB position. That is the marquee position for women's athletics and therefore some institutions, especailly ones considered above us in the ranks of college athletics, will not consider AJ simply based on his gender.
Now while this is fortunate for us, this is clearly unfortunate for AJ. As much as I want to keep AJ here I'm all for seeing one of our coaches go somewhere more reputable and keeping up their level of success. Take Bill Self (men's BB) for example, he started out at Oral Roberts and now he's leading the #5 ranked Kansas Jayhawks on a possible title run this year. While some of us would spite AJ for leaving I'm sure we'd all be very proud of him if something like this were to happen to him.
I'm sorry if this post is a little off topic, just my thoughts.Comment
-
Re: Minnesota
Link below connects to story on KSTP-TV story about the Gopher appeal on Sunday game. Nothing earth shattering, but just another piece of info to add to the list
http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S21263.html?cat=7
GO RABBITS!Comment
-
Re: Minnesota
I think UofM coach, Borten, has handled this thing in a prettly classy way. She could have went ballistic about the call, but has stated that the gophers did not lose the game because of a bad call, but rather poor play.Comment
-
Re: Minnesota
I agree. I think she has been real professional about it. I was just told by a source who spoke to AJ and the referees did rule incorrectly. It does not change the outcome of the game though.Originally posted by SD-STATEComment
-
Re: Minnesota
What they need to do at the appeal is figure out what the rule is saying
The rule :
Section 7, Art. 2. Each period shall end when the red light or LED lights has become activated. When the light fails to operate or is not visible, each period shall end with the sounding of the game-clock horn.
b. In games with a 10th of a second game display and where an official courtside monitor is used, the reading of 0.00 on the game clock is to be used to determine whether a try for goal occurred before or after the expiration of time in any period. When the game clock is not visible, the officials shall verify the original call with the use of the red/LED light(s). When the red/LED light(s) are not visible, the sounding of the game-clock horn shall be utilized. When definitive information is unattainable with the use of the monitor, the orginal call stands.
According to this photo, Williams Arena only goes to 00.0 not 0.00 so the LED lights would be correct by lighting 0.09 seconds after the 0.0 on the shot clock.
The thing about the rule is that 0.00 is not a 10th of a second, so the rule conflects it's self. So if you read the rule quickly and see the 0.00, and then using the LEDs, then it was correct. If you go by the 10th of a second, 0.0, then the ruling was incorrect. If we go by the assumption that the ball was not out of her hand at the 0.0 on the clock and it was out before the LED came on. Being the rule is unclear then the original call stands.
But I'm guessing that the ruling shoud state 0.0 because they also misspelled original, and who ever typed it up thought 0.01 was a 10th of a second, not 0.1.Go State! Go State!
Comment
-
Re: Minnesota
Let's stop the talk of AJ going elsewhere. I have it on good authority he is locked up here for a while and doesn't want to leave here. Unless anyone else can prove otherwise it's just Fans of other schools speculating that he isn't happy.Comment
-
Re: Minnesota
Can you explain how he's locked up here for a while when State employees are on one year contracts???Originally posted by thebluehatmanI updated my signature for the first time in six years.Comment
-
Re: Minnesota
Can you explain how he's locked up here for a while when State employees are on one year contracts???[/quote]Originally posted by CatchEmAll
I would have to 2nd that qeustion. Also, I don't believe anyone here thinks AJ is unhappy here. There are just greener pastures out there he might be interested in pursuing.Comment
-
Re: Minnesota
Originally posted by SDSU_TUBAWhat they need to do at the appeal is figure out what the rule is saying
The rule :
Section 7, Art. 2. Each period shall end when the red light or LED lights has become activated. When the light fails to operate or is not visible, each period shall end with the sounding of the game-clock horn.
b. In games with a 10th of a second game display and where an official courtside monitor is used, the reading of 0.00 on the game clock is to be used to determine whether a try for goal occurred before or after the expiration of time in any period. When the game clock is not visible, the officials shall verify the original call with the use of the red/LED light(s). When the red/LED light(s) are not visible, the sounding of the game-clock horn shall be utilized. When definitive information is unattainable with the use of the monitor, the orginal call stands.
According to this photo, Williams Arena only goes to 00.0 not 0.00 so the LED lights would be correct by lighting 0.09 seconds after the 0.0 on the shot clock.
The thing about the rule is that 0.00 is not a 10th of a second, so the rule conflects it's self. So if you read the rule quickly and see the 0.00, and then using the LEDs, then it was correct. If you go by the 10th of a second, 0.0, then the ruling was incorrect. If we go by the assumption that the ball was not out of her hand at the 0.0 on the clock and it was out before the LED came on. Being the rule is unclear then the original call stands.
But I'm guessing that the ruling shoud state 0.0 because they also misspelled original, and who ever typed it up thought 0.01 was a 10th of a second, not 0.1.
SDSU_TUBA:
You are absolutely correct! No one has noticed that a zero is missing from the game clock except you and the refs.
Watch this video as Gopher news tries to make their case. It's really funny to watch as they compare the actual rule while showing the game clock and hear him state 0.00 when the game clock clearly shows 00.0
http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S21263.html?cat=1
(click the bar below the picture for the video)
If there is not clear evidence that the on court call was wrong, it stands. Correct call was made because the rule book is contradictory. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;DComment
-
Re: Minnesota
Info on future games with UofM from Terry's blog:
As for the 30 seconds that were left on earlier in the game, I think that is not valid reasoning to bring up. Had it happened in the last minute it would be different. If they would have reversed that 30 sec. early in the game it would have made a completely different outcome and we do not know how that would turn out.The Jacks and Gophers don’t meet again until the 2008-09 season. That game will be in Minneapolis, and indications are that Minnesota won’t make the trip to Brookings anytime soon.
However, I totally agree that they took too much time off for the inbounds. But, just like the 30 earlier, it is what it is and so is the final decision.
I'm dissapointed that Minnesota would appeal this decision and feel they won't get what they want.
Overall great exitement to add to this matchup and the program.Comment
-
Re: Minnesota
I think each team and its coaches have handled this well. Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot, we would all be complaining in a similar fashion to the Minnesota fans. Tough way to lose a very hard fought battle. I prefer to look at it as a draw. I hope a rematch occurs later this year at Frost.Originally posted by SD-STATE
We are here to add what we can to life, not get what we can from life. -Sir William Osler
We do not see things as they are, we see things as we are.Comment
-
Re: Minnesota
I have no problem calling this game what it is, a win, and feeling good about it. As I said before if the Minnesota fans want to say that the Refs. got it wrong, I agree. The Refs. that the University of Minnesota provided got a lot of things wrong during the entire game (on many occasion, as has been well documented, their management of the game clock was less then what one would hope for). In most cases those little slip ups won't really affect the outcome of a game.
I too understand how some Minnesota fans could feel robbed if they only look at the last play. I feel slightly robbed myself, with this review of a single play. If they want to review, review the whole game. Look at the inbounds play just before the last play. Look at the play when the clock didn't start. Look at everything and then tell me who won. This of course would be ridiculous and why even though their review says the last shot wasn't good they didn't change the outcome.
With all that said, the Ref. are human and I think they did the best that the could.
Bottom line, the Gophers had every chance to win that game and they didn't. In my mind the team that deserved to win won given the circumstances of the whole game. Hold your heads up high ladies you beat the Gophers on their home floor with the Ref. they provided!
Finally, I too would love to see a WNIT rematch of this game it would be a good one!
Go State!
Comment
-
Re: Minnesota
Can you explain how he's locked up here for a while when State employees are on one year contracts???[/quote]Originally posted by CatchEmAll
Ditto, SDSU has yet to offer a 2 or more year contract. I do believe the successful coaches including AJ have incentives in their contracts which will result in more compensation. The incentives are hardly a lock though.Comment
-
Re: Minnesota
Just for the record, I thought I would post Terry's story on this thread also (since someone may read this months from now and wonder).
http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs...701180351/1002
Review says game-winning shot was invalid
Jacks' win won't be overturned, but officials have been reprimanded
By Terry Vandrovec
tvandrovec@argusleader.com
Published: January 18, 2007
The outcome of the game will not be reversed, but a review by the Women's Basketball Officiating Consortium has determined that officials misapplied NCAA rules in deciding to count the final shot in South Dakota State's 59-58 victory at Minnesota on Sunday.
Coordinator of officials Patty Broderick said Maria Boever's layup - a shot that appeared to have come after the game clock reached 0.0, but before the red LED lights attached to the backboard lit up - should not have counted because the clock is the determining factor.
The officials - John Morningstar, Ron Applegate and Amy Bonner - determined that the shot was good at the time it happened. They then reviewed the play on a courtside monitor, allowing Jackrabbits coach Aaron Johnston access to the replay before ultimately allowing the shot.
That was another miscue by the officials, according to Broderick.
"They didn't procedurally handle the review of the video properly," she said. "Obviously coaches aren't supposed to be around. It was one mistake after another. They got caught up in the emotion of it." . . .
For their misunderstanding of the rules, the officials have been privately reprimanded, said Broderick. Possible disciplinary actions range from a written or verbal censure to a suspension.
"When they reviewed the monitor, they looked for the red light to see if the ball was out of her hands - but it's 'triple zeroes' that determine whether a shot should count or not," explained Broderick, adding that the outcome of a game cannot be overturned once the officials leave the court. "They misapplied the NCAA rule, so we have to level disciplinary action at the three officials."
However, "triple zero" can mean different things depending on where the decimal point is placed.
In the 2007 NCAA basketball rule book, Part B of Rule 5, Section 7, Article 2 states: "In games with a 10th of a second game clock and where an official courtside monitor is used, the reading of 0.00 on the game clock is to be used to determine whether a try for goal occurred before or after the expiration of time in any period."
There is a difference between 0.0 - as the clock at Williams Arena read - and 0.00.
The NCAA women's basketball office did not return a call seeking comment. Broderick said that beginning this season, each school is required to have a clock that counts 10ths of a second.
It's her understanding, then, that the game ends at 0.0. When asked about the contradictory wording within the NCAA rule, she said, "I don't even know if that's ever been brought to their attention."
That lack of clarity is a problem, according to SDSU's coach. . . . (read more)
Go State!
Comment
Comment