We've all talkec about the game and the play of key players in clutch but HONESTLY! How about that VERY HIGH ARCHING MISS by BLEDSOE!!!

 

Talk about clutch and precision, he may not have got player of the game and may not make the front page of the Lexington Herald but he really should be recognized for a GREAT PLAY! Had he not done it the way he did UK would still be a #1 seed and maybe even in the same region, but due to his GREAT MISS which was obviously intentional UK has another SEC tournament championship.:dancingpa

I don't think he could have missed it any better. Tremendous focus to get it just right. Bledsoe has started to get his confidence back and the Cats are better for it!

I have no idea how he did, but it was one of the better intentional misses ever. Normally the player just launches it against the front of the rim.

Obviously it worked, but does anyone else think missing there was the wrong call? With 5 seconds left, and the way Miss St. was shooting FT's, I think I would've made it, then fouled right away. :idunno:

I have no idea how he did, but it was one of the better intentional misses ever. Normally the player just launches it against the front of the rim.

 

Which is incredibly dumb if you think about it... The odds of even hitting the rim that way are very low if you consider the physics of it. With Bledsoe's method (which I wonder if it came from him or Coach Calipari), the WORST thing that could've happened would have been that the shot went in and UK trailed by 1 point with 4.9 remaining. They would've fouled and still likely had at least an attempt.

 

Had he thrown it like a bullet and missed the rim, it would've been a turnover and likely the ballgame...:ylsuper:

I question Stansbury's decision to foul anyways. Kentucky was 4-15 from the 3-point line on the day and they are one of the nation's leading offensive rebounding teams. I think I would've played the percentages and allowed them to fire up a 3-pointer.

I question Stansbury's decision to foul anyways. Kentucky was 4-15 from the 3-point line on the day and they are one of the nation's leading offensive rebounding teams. I think I would've played the percentages and allowed them to fire up a 3-pointer.

 

:thumb: I told somebody the same thing last night after they fouled. Horrible decision.

I question Stansbury's decision to foul anyways. Kentucky was 4-15 from the 3-point line on the day and they are one of the nation's leading offensive rebounding teams. I think I would've played the percentages and allowed them to fire up a 3-pointer.

As Coach Cal was saying later on, the decision looks bad since UK won the game. I would still think the odds would show that UK had a better shot of nailing a three than hitting 1 free throw, intentionally missing the second, and putting the ball in with 4.9 seconds. 1 thing to execute as opposed to 3.

Edited March 15, 201016 yr by bugatti

As Coach Cal was saying later on, the decision looks bad since UK won the game. I would still think the odds would show that UK had a better shot of nailing a three than hitting 1 free throw, intentionally missing the second, and putting the ball in with 4.9 seconds. 1 think to execute as opposed to 3.

 

With Kentucky having Cousins and Patterson, I still think I would've took my chances on a buzzer-beating 3-pointer. I guess the odds of Bledsoe throwing up such a perfect miss were small though...

With Kentucky having Cousins and Patterson, I still think I would've took my chances on a buzzer-beating 3-pointer. I guess the odds of Bledsoe throwing up such a perfect miss were small though...

 

I was saying the same thing. Seems like every NCAA color commentator screams for the foul there in that situation. Why give them control if you are Mississippi State? Make them shoot a contested three pointer. Like you said previously. Even if Bledsoe makes both of them. KY is then down two with 4.9 to play. A quick foul might leave 4 seconds on the clock. There is a lot of time. Make them beat you with a contested three pointer.

Coach Cal learned the hard way on the repercussions of not fouling. See Mario Chalmers.

I think Stansbury made the right call. In fact, I made the comment just before that I thought Miss St should foul instead of giving UK a chance to tie on one shot. And really, he was just 1/10th of a second from everyone calling it a brilliant call.

 

Too many factors involved and they all just fell right for UK.

 

If you don't foul, UK just needs to hit a 3 to tie. If you take a chance on contesting it, you take a real chance of sending a UK player to the line for 3 shots OR if he hits it, to the line with a chance to win.

 

If you do foul, UK has to hit 1, miss the next, get the rebound and put it in OR

Hit both, get a steal and quick basket to win OR Hit both, foul immediately, hope that Miss St misses their FT and heave a 60' + shot to win.

 

Stansbury made the right call.

I think Stansbury made the right call. In fact, I made the comment just before that I thought Miss St should foul instead of giving UK a chance to tie on one shot. And really, he was just 1/10th of a second from everyone calling it a brilliant call.

 

Too many factors involved and they all just fell right for UK.

 

If you don't foul, UK just needs to hit a 3 to tie. If you take a chance on contesting it, you take a real chance of sending a UK player to the line for 3 shots OR if he hits it, to the line with a chance to win.

 

If you do foul, UK has to hit 1, miss the next, get the rebound and put it in OR

Hit both, get a steal and quick basket to win OR Hit both, foul immediately, hope that Miss St misses their FT and heave a 60' + shot to win.

 

 

 

 

Stansbury made the right call.

 

 

:thumb:

I think Stansbury made the correct call. What are the chances that the play would go down the way it did? I still can't believe it and I've watched it numerous times.

It really worked out for UK because State was soo tired and dragging butt on the court, UK was able to field the rebound easily then the rest was luck. Smart move by Eric.