2 for 1

[NUdiehard]

I have been a bit dismayed to see that even coach Miles does not seem to grasp the importance of a 2 for 1 opportunity.  I have not seen it intentionally utilized a single time this year, and last game (vs. Iowa) Miles called a TO with 55 seconds left in the 1st half, and I was very disappointed to see us WALK the ball up the court with no sense of urgency whatsoever and it was clear that the opportunity for a 2 for 1 was not even on the radar. 

 

I don't get it.  Never will get it.  Very frustrating to me as it seems like it should be coaching 101.  But I guess it just is the way it is.

[FredsSlacks]

I have been a bit dismayed to see that even coach Miles does not seem to grasp the importance of a 2 for 1 opportunity.  I have not seen it intentionally utilized a single time this year, and last game (vs. Iowa) Miles called a TO with 55 seconds left in the 1st half, and I was very disappointed to see us WALK the ball up the court with no sense of urgency whatsoever and it was clear that the opportunity for a 2 for 1 was not even on the radar. 

 

I don't get it.  Never will get it.  Very frustrating to me as it seems like it should be coaching 101.  But I guess it just is the way it is.

doesn't matter when you lose by 10

[trickey]

 

I have been a bit dismayed to see that even coach Miles does not seem to grasp the importance of a 2 for 1 opportunity.  I have not seen it intentionally utilized a single time this year, and last game (vs. Iowa) Miles called a TO with 55 seconds left in the 1st half, and I was very disappointed to see us WALK the ball up the court with no sense of urgency whatsoever and it was clear that the opportunity for a 2 for 1 was not even on the radar. 

 

I don't get it.  Never will get it.  Very frustrating to me as it seems like it should be coaching 101.  But I guess it just is the way it is.

doesn't matter when you lose by 10

 

But it sure does when you lose by 3, 2 or 1...and we are getting closer to the day!

[throwback]

I remember Coach discussing 2 for 1s recently, perhaps on the most recent TV show in response to a Twitter question? Anyway he says they try to take advantage of that situation whenever possible, they even have a special call they make when the clock is in that 50-55 seconds range to hurry to try to get the 2 for 1.

 

I believe in the Iowa game at the end of the first half when NU took the time out at 55 seconds, I have to think the 2 for 1 was at least discussed. Then wasn't there a Herky foul called with 41, 42 seconds left that may have screwed up NU's efforts at a 2 for 1 on that possession? I don't remember the play on which the foul was called, whether it was on a drive or what was happening.

 

I would agree it seemed like NU was taking a bit too long to ensure a 2 for 1, but I think the foul may have caused a problem there with the timing of it.

 

It's also possible that during the time out Miles may have just decided to not go into hurry up mode there, since NU hadn't scored a field goal in something like 6 or 7 minutes, so he may have wanted to be a little more deliberate to set something up. 

 

I don't remember specifically about 2 for 1 opportunities earlier in the year, whether NU went for it or not. For me the Iowa one was memorable because of the comments he had just made.

[NUdiehard]

There was a foul, but I thought it was closer to 38 or 39 seconds left, and Shavon wasn't even shooting (it wasn't a shooting foul). 

 

In order for a 2 for 1 to work the shot must be taken with about 45 seconds remaining.  That leaves a minimum of about 10 seconds for you to get your second shot opportunity.  This means NU would have had to get its shot off in about 10 seconds on the first possession out of the TO.  There is no way this was the intent, b/c Tai was slowly walking the ball up the court on the inbounds and, again, Shavon wasn't even shooting w/ about 39 seconds remaining.

 

I would expect players to understand the 2 for 1 concept on their own during a game (simple clock management).  But this one really stuck out to me b/c it was right after a TO.  Miles had an entire TO to draw up a 2 for 1 and it clearly was not addressed IMO.

[ajb5856]

There was a foul, but I thought it was closer to 38 or 39 seconds left, and Shavon wasn't even shooting (it wasn't a shooting foul).

In order for a 2 for 1 to work the shot must be taken with about 45 seconds remaining. That leaves a minimum of about 10 seconds for you to get your second shot opportunity. This means NU would have had to get its shot off in about 10 seconds on the first possession out of the TO. There is no way this was the intent, b/c Tai was slowly walking the ball up the court on the inbounds and, again, Shavon wasn't even shooting w/ about 39 seconds remaining.

I would expect players to understand the 2 for 1 concept on their own during a game (simple clock management). But this one really stuck out to me b/c it was right after a TO. Miles had an entire TO to draw up a 2 for 1 and it clearly was not addressed IMO.

The 2 for 1 makes all the sense in the world. But...when things just aren't going right, such as the case with the Iowa game that night (we shot 26% in the first half), does it ever make sense to just try for 1 good look? Coaches? I know what the numbers say. 2 for 1. Obviously it's 2 chances at a score versus 1 for the opponent. NBA? Yes. Always. Better shooters, better, more efficient offenses run by better players. But is it always the automatic decision in the college game? To take 2 rushed attempts, one with 45-55 seconds left and the other right up against the buzzer while giving the opponent a full, relaxed possession at their disposal in between? Again I know the numbers make sense, but I think what is done by the team is that they go into that possession with the idea of a 2 for 1 in mind. But you're still looking for that good look. If it doesn't materialize in time, it doesn't mean you didn't go for it or recognize the situation or whatever. It just didn't happen. At that point when the game clock is ticking down 45, 44, 43, 42....you're not going to just close your eyes and throw it at the rim just so you can say you went 2 for 1. You tried, it wasn't there, and at that point it was better to get 1 good look with the opponent slightly rushed on their final shot than it was to take a bad heave just so you could get it back and take another bad heave. 1 higher percentage opportunity rather than 2 low percentage heaves. Of course, once the team settles for the 1 everyone assumes that the idea of 2 for 1 wasn't there and that the coach is dumb and didn't want it. Thoughts? No basketball coaching/strategy expert here.

[tcp]

2 for 1's mean two very short possessions, and when you're not shooting for crap--and Iowa was our worst shooting game of the season--short possessions might not be in your interest. This seems like an Xbox kind of thing, where it's ideal for a controlled and predictable environment. But I'd rather have my team take the time to try and get a quality shot on a single possession than rush for two empty possessions, which also leave your opponent with a full clock to try to score on their terms.

[cozrulz]

Considering high school teams run 2 for 1 effectively not sure why college teams can't.  Come to think of it a lot of college teams are just bad at the end of the clock.  Maybe it has something to do with just playing halves?

[ajb5856]

Considering high school teams run 2 for 1 effectively not sure why college teams can't. Come to think of it a lot of college teams are just bad at the end of the clock. Maybe it has something to do with just playing halves?

Do high school games have a shot clock now? If not then this doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[HuskerFever]

I have been a bit dismayed to see that even coach Miles does not seem to grasp the importance of a 2 for 1 opportunity.  I have not seen it intentionally utilized a single time this year, and last game (vs. Iowa) Miles called a TO with 55 seconds left in the 1st half, and I was very disappointed to see us WALK the ball up the court with no sense of urgency whatsoever and it was clear that the opportunity for a 2 for 1 was not even on the radar. 

 

I don't get it.  Never will get it.  Very frustrating to me as it seems like it should be coaching 101.  But I guess it just is the way it is.

 

I wish I could give you the specific game, but I don't know it right off. However, I do recall at least one instance where we've had a 2 for 1 and converted it. But, to your point, that's only one example of executing it.

[cjbowbros]

Even if you throw the ball backwards from half court with 45 seconds left it's still better than not going two for one. And if you go two for one you can just call a time out when you get the ball back with like ten seconds left or set up the play on your first possession and then remember it (for like 45 seconds) and run it on your second possession. I also wonder how we can have all that practice time and not learn a play that we can just call without taking a timeout because the players already know it.

[cozrulz]

 

Considering high school teams run 2 for 1 effectively not sure why college teams can't. Come to think of it a lot of college teams are just bad at the end of the clock. Maybe it has something to do with just playing halves?

Do high school games have a shot clock now? If not then this doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

 

Not in Nebraska.  But they should.  I would think most teams practice it anyway but in more of a foul situation.  California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Dakota, South Dakota, Rhode Island and Washington have shot clocks.