Here's an
article from the Sun-Times about DePaul being robbed. The AD
Bill Bradshaw said this: "You saw the shot that beat us. And you saw the call that wasn't
made. You saw a player
who might be the Player of the Year not get a call that should have been made. Good officials make the call in that situation. That is the difference between being a good official and not being a good
official."
But Pat Kennedy said this: "I wouldn't have called (a foul) if I was out
there." Quentin Richardson said this : "Not really. I think it was a good no call."
We'll stick with the coach and the player. The fact that the guy is a
potential Player Of The Year means nothing. The call should be made on the
merits.
The writer also underestimates Nick Horvath, as a lot of people seem to
do. Coach K didn't put him in because he has a habit of banking in three
pointers. He put him in because he hits a lot of them (currently he
is hitting at .286, but that will come up - Nick is an excellent outside
shooter) - and because he is, to a lot of people, an unknown weapon. That's why
he was so open for that shot - DePaul didn't take him seriously. Now Jay
Mariotti can say that Duke got lucky, and that DePaul got robbed, but who let
Horvath get that loose? It was DePaul. It was a flashback to the FSU teams,
where there was usually a slip up of some sort that gave Duke a break. Yes, the
kid banked it in, and yes, that was a break, but that discounts the fact that he
is an excellent three point shooter who has shot probably tens of thousands of
shots from behind the line.
Was it a lucky shot? To an extent, yes. But to dismiss it as mere luck
dismisses the years he put into preparing for that shot. If Casey Sanders
or Matt Christiansen had banked a three, that would be luck, because they don't really do that shot.
If Trajan had banked one in, it's just a savvy player getting a break. We'd
argue that that's the case for Horvath, too. He's a much better
player than people realize, and an open shot from there, for him, is probably a
60-75% shot. And if you watch the play again, DePaul did not defend him. So we
ask again: is it just freak luck? Or is luck the residue of hard work magnified
by poor defense? (incidentally, Horvath is no longer an unknown weapon and won't
get open like that at crunch time again).
DePaul could have won this game and maybe should have. They are brilliantly
talented and have a bright future. But they made a poor decision, for which they
paid. And even the coach and the star said the refs made the right call on
Richardson's last shot.
The article does go on to say some nice things about Cameron and Duke, but
the complaining is kind of ridiculous. DePaul is an excellent team and they'll get even better as they gain experience, but they made a critical mistake, and they have no one to blame but themselves for that.