Rush The Court Central Command RTC Towers 28 January 2010
Even Duke RTCs Occasionally
Hey. How you doin’ out there? Good, good to hear. You know, it doesn’t seem that long ago (even though it was) that all of us here at RTC were college students. God, those were some sweet times. Lining up for tickets, going to every home game and as many road games as we could, turning a two-hour game into a whole-day event, making signs, coming up with catcalls for our opponents…ah, such wonderful years. The game was ours back then, and we’ve since turned it over to you. And we love what you’ve done with it. Fantastic job, really. It’s a great time to be a fan of the game, especially if you’re a student. Strong work.
One thing we’ve noticed in the past couple of weeks or so, though, is an increase in the number of court rushes, or “RTCs,” after wins. Oh yeah, we know how fun it is. We’ve got a few of those under our belts. But it’s that increase that we wanted to talk to you about. That’s why we’re writing. We want to talk about how it’s being overdone, and not just by a little. All the guys here at RTC, after fourfive a number of years as undergrads, we only had maybe one or two apiece. It should be that rare. Hey, calm down, we’re not trying to ruin your good time. When it’s time to rush, we want you out there. But it’s kind of like when you’re going out at night — we want you to have standards. And, like so many times AFTER going out at night, we definitely don’t want you to wake up the next day, have the memory come flooding back to you, and have that “Oh, God…what have I done?!?” moment. You know, like when you realize someone’s over there, so you roll over, turn off the camera, and…well, never mind. That’s a story for another post. Anyway, let’s get back to how this court-rushing exuberance has gotten out of hand.
Good court coverage. Extra points for usage of blimp.
You know how hard it is for us in particular to say that. But people are talking. Gregg Doyel is talking about you. Seth Davis is talking about you. Other bloggers are talking about you. Every commentator on TV is talking about you. And if you were involved in one of the recent RTCs that was obviously uncalled for, then your families, friends, and neighbors are talking about you. None of it’s flattering. You don’t want that, do you? People are definitely e-mailing and tweeting and commenting, asking us about it because of what we call ourselves around here. Again, we don’t want to spoil the fun. We know that RTCing will always exist. There’s no more chance of it going away than there is of crowds actually taking Bob Knight’s advice and chanting “Great Job!” after victories over rival teams (though we despise the “overrated” chant). It’s just not realistic to think it will ever stop. But like we said — this is all about having standards.
Doing the Charleston. Charleston 82, #9 North Carolina 79. We tweeted this during the game, but it bears saying again here: America, if you didn’t know him before, may we introduce you to Andrew Goudelock. He is a 6’2 junior guard from Lilburn, Georgia, and he plays for the Charleston Cougars. No, that’s not a minor league baseball team. Despite their 8-6 record, it’s a pretty good basketball team that knocked off the 9th-ranked Tar Heels on Monday night. We single out Goudelock for three reasons. First, when you put up 24 points on 10-20 shooting (including 4-8 from behind the three-point line) against North Carolina, you deserve a mention. Second, we had him fourth on our pre-season all-Jeff Fryer team as one of the best three-point shooters in the nation and he made us look like freakin’ geniuses. Lastly, it was his three from distance with two seconds left in regulation that forced overtime. You have to see this shot. Fading away, Ed Davis challenging, just short of 30 feet, so high we’re sure it showed up on NORAD radar. All string.
In fact, when Carolina was up by 11 at the final TV timeout, this just looked like a moral victory for Charleston. The lead was cut to eight, and Goudelock went on an 8-0 run by himself (including the long three) to close the scoring in regulation. It wasn’t like he didn’t have any help, though. Senior forward Casaan Breeden was impressive as well, adding 15/7/5 blocks, including one block of an Ed Davis shot late in regulation that must have sailed, as ESPNU color commentator Bob Wenzel said, “about 16 rows deep into the crowd.” Indeed, every single one of Charleston’s starters scored at least 13 points (they only played eight players, and got only two points from their bench), also accounting for all 13 of their threes. As for Carolina, they were guilty of poor game management late in both regulation and overtime. They waited too long to foul when they needed to foul, fouled too quickly when they didn’t need to foul, got caught sleeping on an important in-bounds which led to an easy late bucket for Charleston, and missed a couple of close, easy shots in important situations despite owning the paint for most of the game. Most intriguing, though, was the glaring disparity of threes and free throws between the two sides. Charleston was 13-32 for 40.6%. UNC was ONE FOR SIX (16.7%). Their streak of 421 straight games with a three-pointer was doomed until Larry Drew, II, hit one with a minute left in overtime. From the free throw line, UNC shot 24-34 (70.6%), while Charleston was only three for six! Charleston played a tough man defense for most of the game, but didn’t seem to be doing anything special to defend the three. It looked like UNC just didn’t want to take them. Unfortunately for them, 24 free throws simply cannot compete with 13 three pointers. There’s no doubt Carolina will recover from this, since they were playing without Will Graves and Marcus Ginyard, and life in the ACC will teach the young Tar Heels all that they need to know. They’ll be fine by March. But that shouldn’t take away from Charleston’s victory. Goudelock showed that he’s not just about the three, Charleston showed that they’re better than their 8-6 record (3-0 in the Southern Conference, by the way) and are brimming with new confidence — and the Charleston fans showed that they can rush a court with the best of them:
Chris Johnson is an RTC Columnist. He can be reached @ChrisDJohnsonn.
Expiration dates on coaching tenures vary based on a variety of different factors. Signs of positive momentum and progressive change no doubt correlate positively long coaching tenures, but there are other elements involved: Program expectations, buyout fees, revenue accumulation, recruiting success, and so on. The checklist differs at each program, which makes nailing down a hard-and-fast list of general standards practically impossible. Despite the vague criteria that define the profession, and the fundamental truth that administrators – not fans, players or boosters – make the final call on coaches’ job statuses, we enter every college basketball season with a pretty good idea of where each coach stands in his current state of employment. Perhaps the most obvious trend, the one most easily spotted across a wide sample of coaches, is the fateful decline. Win totals plummet, fan support wanes, administrators stay mum while perusing the market for a replacement – then, the rumors, the denial, the wait and, last but not least, the long-expected press release signaling the end of a coach’s time at the program. Pretty boilerplate stuff. The path to the dreaded fall is fairly predictable. What follows are six coaches (one from each of the power conferences) feeling the heat this season. All of them may or may not last the year, but there’s a decent chance at least one of these guys will get the axe by next April. To quantify this hot seat breakdown, I’ve added a meter that gauges a coaches’ “heat level” on a 1-through-5 scale. I wish these coaches well, but their inclusion here is not a positive way to begin the season.
Herb Sendek (Arizona State) Heat Meter: 4
Unless Sendek leads a major renaissance in Tempe this season, he could find himself out of a job (photo credit: Getty Images).
In most years, finishing with a 6-12 record in the Pac-12 is not a terrible result. Winning in league play is difficult, and winning in one of the nation’s better high-major conferences is even more difficult. Notching six wins won’t get you into NCAA Tournament (or even NIT) consideration, but it’s hardly a death sentence, either. The problem with this line of thinking is that last season’s Pac-12 was not the usual Pac-12. It was awful – so bad that regular season champion Washington didn’t qualify for an at-large bid. Considering the league’s top-to-bottom futility last season, managing just six wins is proof enough to raise serious questions about the direction of Arizona State’s program. Now Sendek finds himself at a crossroads: after last year’s disappointment, two of his best assistants left the program, including one, Lamont Smith, who joined Lorenzo Romar’s Staff at Washington. When you’re losing your top assistants to league competitors, job security develops a tenuous, even artificial, feel. Sendek can save his position if the Sun Devils show noticeable signs of improvement, and with highly-touted recruit Jahii Carson eligible this season, that’s a reasonable expectation to have. Another six-win league total – and this year, six Pac-12 wins won’t be as easy to come by – is a doomsday scenario.
John Stevens is a featured columnist for RTC. His columns appear on Tuesdays throughout the season.
In college basketball terms, the arrival of January means that it’s time to, as Zack de la Rocha said, “rally ‘round the family.”
Wearing red — is Zack a Louisville or Davidson fan?
(Photo credit: stereogum.com)
Ah, yes…it’s time for conference play.
The importance of conference play doesn’t have to be explained to anyone reading a college basketball blog. My personal favorite aspect of conference play is that any given team’s biggest rival is often found in their conference, but within a conference, you can make any game a rivalry game. The ACC, for example, doesn’t necessarily have to be defined by the Duke-UNC hatred. Sure, that’s the biggest ACC example but I guarantee you that Wake Forest and Clemson can find enough reasons in their history to hate each other, and when it’s time to play, those reasons will definitely be remembered. It doesn’t matter if you’re from a BCS conference, mid-major, or bottom-dweller. Take two teams from any conference in the land, put them in a gym, and it’s like putting two young blonde up-and-coming Hollywood starlets in front of a camera. The competition is fierce and ruthless. They can always find a reason to scratch each other’s eyes out.
It seems to have abated in the past couple of seasons, perhaps due to tighter security, more restraint among fans (I doubt that one), whatever; but floor-rushing has been a practice that college basketball fans have made their very own through the years. Yeah, I know fans often take over the field after a big college football win but it’s just not the same. Most fans storming a college football field have one goal in mind, and that’s bum-rushing the goal posts, or to be near the goal posts as they are upended. These days, football stadiums have the “retractable” goal posts that can be intentionally lowered by event staff if they are threatened. College basketball has no such equivalent. Plus, at a football game, it’s several THOUSAND students/fans against, at most, a few hundred security guards who aren’t about to (except for a few documented extreme cases) resort to any real physical force to keep the storm from happening. Look at a basketball arena when there’s a pending rush; there are true stare-downs happening between fans and security. None of us here at Rush The Court would ever advocate putting anyone in real danger in the name of a floor-rush, but the point is – it’s just harder to take over a basketball court. And watch it when it happens; it’s much more dramatic than that of a football game. In a football stadium, for the most part, there is an initial rush of fans and then the rest come slowly funneling out, and the whole of the field is almost never even covered. On a basketball court, it looks almost viral. The fans absorb the playing surface within seconds. It’s just cooler.
This is not the type of Rush we’re talking about.
(Photo credit: mediabistro.com)
The question is begged, then. When is it appropriate? Since this site is called Rush The Court it only seems sensible that we have an opinion on this, and it only seems sensible that we force that opinion on others in the manner of any self-appointed authority. In this case, however, I feel that the definitive work on the subject was written by ESPN.com’s Pat Forde in the beginning of this article from 2006. It’s a great set of provisions, and there’s almost nothing I’d change about it except to add Kansas to the list of schools that have at least three national titles (not the case at the time of the original article), and therefore put them under Forde’s Old Money Principle. Here’s a quick summary of Forde’s rules:
I. Old Money Principle. If your program has 3 or more titles, you should never rush a court. The only allowable exceptions apply ONLY if your team has fallen on hard times AND 1) you beat a #1-ranked and/or undefeated opponent at least halfway through the year, 2) you defeat a top-5 team at the buzzer with a shot measuring 25 feet or more, 3) you’re hammered and can’t recall how many titles your program has or your opponent’s rank, or 4) you see Ashley Judd in the stands and you’re taking the shortest route to her. Rush The Court (and probably Pat Forde) understands – but advises even MORE caution – if there is some overlap between items 3 and 4, there.
II. Upper-Middle-Class Principle. If your program has multiple national titles you may only rush the court if you defeat one of the above leviathans and only with a buzzer-beater. Exceptions: if your titles predate Texas Western’s title (1966), you can rush if you beat a top-5 team (Ancient History Exception), or if your titles came before the 3-pointer was introduced, you can only rush after a “dramatic win over a top-ranked team.” (Semi-ancient History Exception)
III. Middle Class Principle. If your major-conference program has had SOME basketball chops and “takes itself seriously,” then you can only rush after defeating a top-5; beating a truly hated, unbeaten, in-conference rival; ending a period of extended futility/frustration against a rival; or clinching a conference championship.
IV. Lower Class Principle. If you play in a mid-major or low-major conference and you beat a BCS conference team, you may rush. Exceptions are Gonzaga, Memphis, or “any other school whose program is [bigger] than its conference profile.”
V. Bottom Feeder Principle. A case of true gigantic discrepancy between programs; Forde cites an example of South Dakota State beating Wisconsin as being a permitted rush.
So far this year we are aware of two major examples where a court has been rushed. Using the Forde Protocol, we will evaluate them now.
Case 1: #4 Duke at Michigan, 6 December 2008.
Michigan does not qualify for evaluation by rules I and II because they only have that 1989 national title (note that rule II necessitates “multiple” titles), but without question is subject to rule III (Middle Class Principle). Because they defeated a top-5 opponent, we feel that Michigan’s exuberance was not in excess, and the rush was warranted. Michigan’s 12/6/08 rush is approved.
Case 2: Arkansas at Missouri State, 22 November 2008.
Missouri State is a Missouri Valley Conference team, currently ranked 8th in conference RPI at RealTimeRPI.com, only two spots below the SEC. It certainly qualifies as at least a mid-major conference and therefore puts Missouri State subject to evaluation under rule IV (Lower Class) even though I think the names of these Principles might need adjusting. We know Arkansas’ status as an SEC school, so in this regard, Missouri State’s enthusiasm was in no way overdone, and therefore Missouri State’s 11/22/08 rush is approved.
Another reason I like the Forde Protocol is that not only does it leave just enough room for discussion in some areas, but it also respects the importance of conference play in that it does not leave much room for the approval of a court-rush on a non-conference opponent. But as much as I think Syracuse should be feared this year (especially now that Devendorf has been reinstated), I HAVE to show you this video of a court rush from last season that would NEVER have been approved by the Forde Protocol or even the most liberal criteria…
This happened on February 16, 2008. It was a normal conference game against Georgetown, ranked #8 at the time, a team who already had four losses. And this was a ‘Cuse team that would go on to win 21 games. Given the chance, we would have stomped that court-rushing into a whimpering, bloody submission. This brings up another important aspect about taking over the floor – if you do it, despite the fact that you just won a game, are you not acknowledging that you are somehow subordinate to the team you’re rushing? This should definitely keep teams in the major conferences from rushing the court except in the most extreme circumstances. I have friends on both sides of the Duke-UNC rivalry who say that they would NEVER consider rushing the court after a win over the other side because they want to show that it just “isn’t a big deal” to beat the other program. Even if Georgetown were ranked 5th in the game referenced above and therefore Syracuse’s court rush should have been approved by rule III, if you’re a Syracuse fan, would you want to send that message to Georgetowners? Keep in mind, the Forde Protocol isn’t there to tell you WHEN to rush…only when it is permitted. You don’t HAVE to do it. Upon further review, perhaps rule II should include teams that have won at least a single national title.
This is the time of year when we’re more likely to see fans and students come down out of the stands in celebration, because the teams they support are fighting against their family members and the emotions run high. So enjoy conference play, and if you decide to rush your home court after a big victory in the next few months, be ready, because we’ll be watching — and more than ready to pass judgment.
(All videos: www.youtube.com. And if those first two don’t already make you fired up for March, then you have problems I can’t fix. –JS)
The WWL today began a thought-provoking series of articles about which college hoops programs have been the “best” over the last ten years. We’ll track this over the next few days, chiming in where appropriate. Their expert panel apparently consisted of Katz, Bilas, Forde, Glockner and Lunardi. Good thing that the human smegma known as Dick Vitaletrick wasn’t involved or Duke would have held all ten positions.
Duke came out on top anyway, with Michigan St. and UConn tied for second. Florida, Kansas, UNC, Kentucky, Arizona, Maryland and Syracuse rounded out the list – all eight schools who won titles during this period + Arizona and Kansas. While we tend to agree with the ten programs listed, we would re-arrange the order a bit. Our criteria for excellence is fairly set: first and foremost, NCAA Tournament success matters most. To be considered the best program, you must make it almost every year, you must win while you’re there, and you must go to Final Fours and win championships. Since every one of these programs starts each season with one primary goal – to win the national championship – that must be the foremost consideration. Here’s the ultimate arbiter – would any team’s fans trade their decade of success, however it is measured, for another championship? Of course they would, which is why UConn and Florida with two titles each have been the “best” programs of the last decade in our analysis.
Calhoun’s Huskies and Donovan’s Gators lead our list.
Multiple Titles
1. UConn – two different titles with two different teams (1999 and 2004), and they beat ESPN’s #1 Duke both times en route to the titles.
2. Florida – we pick UConn over Florida because it is harder to win with two completely different teams than a stacked one which comes back to do it again. But as of now, Florida is without question the Team of the 00s.
Now, we consider the teams with one title during this period. Sorry Kansas and Arizona, but again, their fans would happily trade all their conference titles and #1 seeds for just one Maryland 2002 or Syracuse 2003 run. Especially KU – how long has it been now – coming up on 20 seasons, right? At least Arizona just missed their 1997 title by this rather arbitrary ESPN time frame.
One Title
3. Duke – this is where the Blue Devils belong over the last decade. They have the best resume of the one-title teams, and have avoided significant “down” seasons compared with the other schools (nine straight NCAA Sweet 16s or better from 1998-2006).
4. Michigan St. – the Spartans have been to one additional F4 than Duke, but have mostly been pedestrian (three first round NCAA losses) since their glorious run from 1999-2001.
5. North Carolina – the Doherty years of 2000-2003 (one NCAA win and an 8-20 debacle) aren’t compensated enough by three F4s and one title to overcome Michigan St.
6. Kentucky – we’re talking about one F4 leading to one title in 1998, but the Cats were consistently good, if not great, throughout this period (ten straight NCAA second rounds and four elite eights).
7. Maryland – cf. with the Terps, who although they went to back-to-back F4s in 2001-02 and won their first national title in the latter, they have really fallen hard in recent years – only two NCAA wins in the last four seasons.
8. Syracuse – the other one-title teams would have a decent argument to be included in the top eight even if they’d not won a title , but Syracuse probably would not, having numerous middling seasons surrounding that magical run in 2003.
Best of the Rest
9. Kansas – this would probably have been true for almost any ten-year period throughout the 90s and 00s that you choose because they’re always very good. Kansas just cannot seem to get back over the hump and win another national title despite multiple F4s and several absolutely loaded teams.
10. Arizona – of course, if this list was created last year, Arizona probably would have finished in the top five because of their 1997 title; nevertheless, the Cats have had several excellent teams like Kansas that were good enough to win it all without a truly bad season during this period.
Others considered: UCLA (two F4s), Ohio St. (two F4s), Wisconsin, Gonzaga, Stanford, Illinois, Texas, Oklahoma St.
