Welcome to the Friday Feedback, which resolves to stay fat and keep on smoking in 2009. It returns as it departed — the comments are carrying the content. I rather enjoyed the debate on the Alex Ruoff shot. It proved there are various ways to watch and interpret a game and rarely is any one way wrong.

Officially, though, the last word goes to Bob Huggins.

“In hindsight, you can say, ‘Yeah, go score the ball,'” Huggins said. “If Alex makes that shot, we go up by one and you’re saying, ‘Hey, that was a great play.’ That’s a shot he generally makes.”

Ruoff’s miss was rebounded by teammate Cam Thoroughman, who was fouled and missed the front end of a one-and-one at the foul line.

“So what happens if we go down and throw it in there (instead of Ruoff shooting) and we get fouled and miss the free throw?” Huggins said. “The guy who got the rebound was the guy running in the lane, if you recall. Probably in hindsight we did the right thing. We got a wide-open shot, we got a rebound and we got fouled.”

So there! Want another great debate? Who represents the NBA’s rookie class in the slam dunk contest Feb. 14? Surely you say Joe Alexander, who promises to blow your mind if given the chance.

“My game plan is not to turn it into a circus,” he said. “I never liked seeing people use props or anything weird. My goal is to only do things that are actually possible in a game. People can say what they want about how the contest has been tweaked through the years and how the rules affect this and that and how certain people get gypped, but when it comes down to it, it’s about the best dunks and I think I have those.”

Same old Joe. Fame didn’t and fortune hasn’t changed him as best as I can tell. I’m hoping he wins the vote because I really believe he has something special in reserve. Come on China!

Onto the Feedback. As always, comments appear as posted. In other words, you never know when your words will reach the world.

Birch said:

Welcome to Morgantown Mr. Carter.

Or should we say, “Welcome to the Town of Morgan, Mr. Carter.”

Should yes we.

Mack said:

I thought it was a good shot because the two teammates on the break with him were Thoroughman and Truck. Thoroughman is not going to score in that situation. Truck had just passed the ball to Ruoff and there’s no way to get the ball back to Truck in a scoring situation. The only alternative to shooting the three was to wait for the rest of the team to get up the floor and run the offense. I had no problem with the shot.

Watching the game on television, it was very clear that our guys were tired towards the end of the game. UConn was passing the ball around on offense and our guys were not getting in the passing lanes like they were before. Weren’t rebounding as well either. I thought UConn’s athleticism prevailed in the final five minutes.  

Good points. The advantage in having a 3-on-1 break is not just in scoring on the run, but scoring on a rebound if necessary. I think both teams were pretty tired, but it took a greater toll on WVU, which isn’t as big, strong or experienced. I wasn’t surprised the Huskies went to Dyson, who was somewhat fresh because of foul trouble, when they decided to spread the floor and drive.

Sam said:

Terrible decision. Go for the tie. There was enough time on the clock to get the ball back after a make or a miss – if you don’t make the 3, then you’re risking turning the game into a two possession game, and the time left on the clock wasn’t friendly toward that scenario. Besides, Ruoff wasn’t shooting very well at all, something he should have been aware of. It’s one thing if he stopped shooting altogether, but this isn’t that. It’s taking the right shot given the situation.

Nothing wrong with that, either. Ruoff’s a smart guy, so he knew the time-vs.-score scenario and surely knew he was struggling. I don’t think it was a thoughtless decision, I just think he thought he’d make it. Now, given the siuation-vs.-struggle scenario, you could easily argue he thought wrong.

latin hillbilly said:

Ruey’s gotta take that shot. I’d give it to him every time. Senior. 3-Point assasain. Overall stud. He needs to take that shot because that’s what he does. Ruey shoots the 3 (generally) w/ precision. This is only a “debate” because he missed.  

Ruey … I’ll have to let that percolate for a little. Across the board, one thing holds true: You are who you are. This is a pretty good team and Ruoff makes it that with his shooting. If he makes it, we’re debating WVU’s spot in the polls. 

suchham said:

I say take that shot in that situation. He was open and had two teammates in position for a tip-in if he missed. IF he had made it, momentum would have been ours and the place would have exploded.
Hey, we shot badly throughout the game, got crushed on the boards and still hung with those guys. We can take something from it and move on.  

Hey, were the pros and cons completely even at that one moment? I happen to think the pros were heavier than the cons. The effects are obvious if he hits. If he doesn’t, WVU still has a chance to make some stops. But yes, despite deficiencies, WVU was right there at the end.

ccteam said:

He did the right thing. He needs to score there for WV to win. He didn’t and they lost, but if he is unwilling to take that shot in that game, and future games, WV has no chance to win. He is the senior leader and shooter.  

I like it. Put it this way: What happens when WVU is in that very situation next year and Ruoff is gone?

Gordo said:

You guys are all wrong. Take the easy bucket. I didn’t see it, so I can only go on what I heard and what I’m reading, but you ask ‘what was going to be better than that’? How ’bout a layup, free throws, an electrifying dunk that gets the crowd going. It was a 3v1 break and there’s nothing better than a 3 pointer?? I find that hard to believe. There were 70 seconds left. Thats way too much time to be settling for 3’s. Besides, sometimes a shooter like Ruoff will break his slump after hitting a layup or making some easy FT’s. Even if we were down 3, I say go for the easy 2. There are plenty of possessions to be had in 70 seconds.

OK, but I’m not sure there was an easy bucket there. Cam’s not a finisher. Truck had a hard time in the lane. Neither was guaranteed to get a shot off without it being blocked, and a foul call isn’t guaranteed. Ruoff was hunting — not settling — for that shot. Out of those three players, the most likely shot to go in is probably a Ruoff 3.  

glibglub said:

I don’t want Alex thinking too much about whether he should or shouldn’t take an open shot. It was an open look and he took it. He was right to.

Re: the no-call on the intentional foul. Argh!!

Are we contributing to a Ruoff complex? Never thought of that. As for the foul in question, I wasn’t close enough to see it. I didn’t see WVU’s bench erupt and the refs were right there. I’m led to believe he had some ball. For argument’s sake, if it’s called, it’s two shots, possession and a big, big bonus for WVU.

JP said:

I have no problem with Ruoff taking that shot. The break wasn’t really well set up, Truck was likely going to get another shot blocked if he took it so he passed to Ruoff who was trailing too far behind to take it to the rack, although he may have gotten a foul out of it, and Thoroughman is not much an offensive threat to dump off to. Ruoff, as we have seen however, is no Stef Curry and he missed not only that shot but a few big shots in the second half. I hope he continues to get better in clutch situations. Have to give credit to UConn for playing good defense throughout the game though.

Did we really score 11 points in the last 12 minutes?

Truck is impressive, esp. for a freshman. I love the way he pushes the ball up the floor on a fast break and is not afraid to challenge defenders and take contact. Too bad he’s not an inch or two taller, but he seems to have a bit of an x-factor about him. I have a feeling that the experience he’s getting this season is really going to pay off in the next year or two. That said, it sure would be nice to have Mazzulla too.

I missed the first half but I didn’t see a lot out of Ebanks or Jones. I guess UConn is a step up from our previous competition.  

You weren’t the only ones who didn’t see much out of Ebanks and Jones. The hope for them now is Marquette — or anyone else, for that matter — won’t be quite as intimidating.

Alli said:

Huggins said in the post-game show that Wells isn’t using his feet, and that it’s been a two year struggle to get him to do so. Hopefully he can break his bad habits.

That was the Seton Hall postgame show, to be clear. Wellington was pretty good Tuesday night. He didn’t make any of the mistakes that normally contribute to his foul trouble, but, at the same time, didn’t look hesitant or indecisive. Promising, if nothing else.

overtheSEC said:

Those bad habits only exploit the fact the Wells is undersized for a center–even in the 3 guard Big East. With the exception of Providence and Villanova it looks like every other Big East starting lineup has at least one player 2 inches taller or 20 pounds heavier than Wells. Of course tomorrow night he’ll be giving up both to Hasheem Thabeet who’s 6 inches taller, and 30 pounds bigger than Sir Wellington.
Mike can you comment on speculation that the new scoreboard may be at risk of being damaged by the size of Thabeet’s ego?

I paid attention to Thabeet and tried as best as a far-away observation would allow to evaluate his ego. It reaffirmed what I believed before — he looks like a pretty funny guy. As for the equally likable Wells, that’s dead on. He’s a small big, but it has to work … and by and large it does. It’s often forgotten his speed and athleticism can be just as much an asset against bigger and slower guys, especially on offense. He gave UConn some trouble on a few drives where he had an angle to the basket. He’s going to have a big game sooner or later. He’s too good not to, unless his potential is just potential.

thacker said:

Ruoff put his butt and reputation on the line. He is experienced enough to know what he was doing along with the probable repercussions if he missed. There is honor in failing, too.

——-

Thoroughman’s Big Mac in right hand and shot with the left was fun to watch.

I was talking to Ruoff the other day about Cam and the way he plays and how it makes up for lacking some athleticism. Ruoff told me Cam was “secretly” athletic. I wasn’t sure what that meant until that shot.

Eric said:

Is it just me (and I was only able to watch the second half), but were the refs off their mark? I know everyone always uses that excuse … but really … We fell apart after that bogus call was made against Butler. I think I actually saw Ruoff roll out the red carpet and back away from the basket to let UCONN score.

Red carpet. Good one. It had to have been difficult to officiate that game because it was just so physical, but it didn’t seem like things were called in a very consistent manner, which is all you can really ask for when games are played like that. A call on one end should be the same at the other and — I can’t believe I’m typing this — I’m not necessarily sure that was the case in the game. As for the “bogus” call against Butler, I thought it was a decisive moment and Huggins agreed. WVU gives up an offensive rebound on a missed free throw, Butler gets caught out of position and has to guard the ball and picks up his fourth foul. Was it a picky call? Perhaps, but the lesson ought to be in rebounding a missed free throw … or at the very least boxing out the shooter!

Birch said:

OK, I missed getting to watch the Seton Hall game the other day. You guys made reference to John Flowers new foul shooting “form”. So I was excited when he got that and 1 and went to the line. Wouldn’t you know good ol’ ESPNU’s cameramen somehow managed to botch the coverage and only switch back to live action AFTER he shot the free throw? I guess I’ll have to wait until Saturday (maybe) to see his next free throw. I was looking forward to that all day yesterday. Yep, my job sucks.

I don’t have a comment, but I felt I needed to get this in. It was the least I could do for Birch. By the way, Flowers went sans headband against Seton Hall and had a great game. His Facebook page noted he was wondering wear his headband went — it was sent to me; I swear I’m not on Facebook — but he must have found it before Tuesday’s game, which didn’t go very well for Flowers.  

Josh24601 said:

Silver lining of the UConn loss: Huggins will finally change clothes.

Small victories. I just feel better when Huggins is in the pullover or the tie-less dress shirt with the top button undone. I also need to refresh a past conversation with Mazzulla, who dislikes Jonnie West’s sweater vests, but last year was waiting for a Huggins sweater vest.  

Homer said:

“Jonnie West went with a sweater and a collared shirt … and gelled his hair.”

Get this image to the sculptors for the statue to sit beside his father’s.  

Yes … and we’re paying a lot of attention to wardrobes and accessories. I couldn’t be happier.

Foul Shot said:

We had a chance to see Vanilla Sky play in Charlotte this past Saturday against the Bobcats.
He played most of the 4th quarter after the game had pretty well been decided. He played well (nine points in a short period of time.)
Too bad he could not have stuck around for one more – UConn will be tough tomorrow and WVU sure could use the post up bank shot – “a little kiss” – as Raftery says.
Anyway, Joe made the right call. $3 Million in the bank would be nice to have.  

Ya think? Also, a reminder to seejoedunk. 

thacker said:

It is part of Boston College’s culture. Personally, I would have done the same as DeFilippo and done it without hesitation or second thought.

DeFilippo put himself at the point of no return, so he had to fire Jagodzinski. Imagine if he didn’t. That said, who’s going to want to go to B.C. now knowing they’re not really permitted to look for other jobs? Face it: B.C. is not a destination job. This firing threatens to limit the field of candidates, which will probably be assistants and recycled former head coaches. Or I could be totally wrong.

Karl said:

I wonder what that AD would have done if the Jets called to interview him for their GM job   

Promoted the assistant. 

Mack said:

Isn’t it safe to say that we don’t know all of the story? WVU fired John Beilein simply because it knew it had Bob Huggins waiting in the wings. Oh wait, I’m sorry. Beilein left because he demanded too much money.  

Eh, not really, but that’s not the point. The point is the spilt with Beilein and WVU was completed behind the scenes and we have to remember we don’t everything that’s happened at B.C. The contract may have a provision that prevents Jagodzinski from interviewing elsewhere. It also appears he lied about the interview, or at least didn’t tell B.C., which found out about it in the press. So he deceives his boss, then disobeys an order. In that regard, DeFilippo made the right move. 

Shannon said:

I have no problem with what Boston College did. In fact, I wish more programs would hold coaches accountable to their contracts.  

Mike Brown would like to speak with you. 

Mack said:

What’s more likely to happen? This guy is a Rhodes Scholar and/or takes advantage of WVU’s partnership with the FBI in biometrics research . . .

or . . .

He majors in Athletic Coaching Education and shows up in a convenience store with Alvoid Mayes in five years? 

I’ve never met Tavon Austin, but I’m going with the former. That said, I spend a lot of time alone on the road and I need to occupy my time with means other than reading. Why? Well, I’m reading a book about Bill Mason, the jewel thief from Cleveland by way of Hundred, W.Va., and I sometimes find myself planning heists. Seriously. I’ll spare you the details — you don’t want to get inside my head — but if your 52-inch flat-screen TV goes missing, it’s probably because of that delay in Pittsburgh last week. So, yeah, I tend to go away from books and simply think. Yet sometimes that goes sideways and I often go back to this question: How in the hell did Alvoid Mays ended up working with Travis Garvin on a robbery. They’re from different eras and I wonder how they got to know one another. I used to think they just showed up at the same store at the same time with the same idea, but now I believe there must have been some pre-existing connection. So maybe Mays poisons the water again? Don’t do it, Tavon!

Karl said:

Austin 3:16 says I just won your 26th Rhodes Scholarship!

Enjoy the weekend!