[Goose]

I don't follow you.  Far from giving up, the strategy was meant to guarantee a lead, to guarantee that USC had very little time to overcome our lead, and to guarantee that we knew exactly what kind of shot USC would have to take (only a three point shot could tie.)  Given that we could not run the clock out entirely, it gave us the best chance to win.  As it turned out, Littleton had to take USC's desperation shot with Lepolo's two hands in her face.  We knew exactly what they had to do and we defended it perfectly.  The ball did not even hit rim--so we defended it a bit better than the national championship heave that Arizona made at the buzzer.


However, I do agree that the strategy should have been more nuanced, and if we had a very easy shot available with only a few seconds left on the shot clock (as turned out to be the case) we should have taken it.  We basically gave up a high chance at 2 points in order to kill 3 more seconds, and that probably wasn't the best trade.  If Iriafen passes out of that layup early in the shot clock, then I think that would have been an excellent decision--but not with three seconds.

I agree with the strategy employed, but I am not totally in agreement with the idea a shot with "only a few seconds" on the clock is a good one. The players out there have a lot of decisions to make and are real busy playing basketball. How many seconds is few enough? How sure that you will make it do you have to be? How much time is actually left? Lots of things to go wrong. If you are a great shooter and are wide open with X seconds left, do you shoot? I can certainly see the staff telling players that with less than X seconds left on the shot clock, you can shoot. I can also see the coach saying "Don't shoot it, period". I can also understand a player who technically has a green light not shooting because they weren't "exactly sure how much time was left on the shot clock". It is a more "conservative" decision, but it probably won't get you yelled at. Shooting might :-).

[Goose]

I don't follow you.  Far from giving up, the strategy was meant to guarantee a lead, to guarantee that USC had very little time to overcome our lead, and to guarantee that we knew exactly what kind of shot USC would have to take (only a three point shot could tie.)  Given that we could not run the clock out entirely, it gave us the best chance to win.  As it turned out, Littleton had to take USC's desperation shot with Lepolo's two hands in her face.  We knew exactly what they had to do and we defended it perfectly.  The ball did not even hit rim--so we defended it a bit better than the national championship heave that Arizona made at the buzzer.


However, I do agree that the strategy should have been more nuanced, and if we had a very easy shot available with only a few seconds left on the shot clock (as turned out to be the case) we should have taken it.  We basically gave up a high chance at 2 points in order to kill 3 more seconds, and that probably wasn't the best trade.  If Iriafen passes out of that layup early in the shot clock, then I think that would have been an excellent decision--but not with three seconds.

I agree with the strategy employed, but I am not totally in agreement with the idea a shot with "only a few seconds" on the clock is a good one. The players out there have a lot of decisions to make and are real busy playing basketball. How many seconds is few enough? How sure that you will make it do you have to be? How much time is actually left? Lots of things to go wrong. If you are a great shooter and are wide open with X seconds left, do you shoot? I can certainly see the staff telling players that with less than X seconds left on the shot clock, you can shoot. I can also see the coach saying "Don't shoot it, period". I can also understand a player who technically has a green light not shooting because they weren't "exactly sure how much time was left on the shot clock". It is a more "conservative" decision, but it probably won't get you yelled at. Shooting might :-).