…to lifting Butler to the national championship, over mighty Duke, in Indianapolis, on a halfcourt buzzer-beater, in the greatest moment in NCAA Tournament history, bar none — never to be surpassed if they keep playing the tourney for 500 years — and one of the greatest moments in American sports history?
(Hat tip: Danny Pilz.) … [Bumped. -ed.]
Horse shoes and hand grenades.
If you want an object lesson in how a slight degree or slight change in ball speed can drastically affect results, try playing golf.
And if Tom Watson had failed to win the British Open — a similarly transcendent feat to Butler beating Duke in Indy for the national flippin’ championship — because he had a potential hole-in-one on the par-3 18th* that just barely cupped out, it’d be basically the same scenario. As things stand, the emotions are a bit different because Watson basically choked, as opposed to just missing what would’ve been an incredible shot. But the similarity lies in the transcendence and unspeakable awesomeness of the feat that was nearly accomplished (and if I’m being honest and objective, 59-year-old Watson winning the British Open is ahead of mid-major/hometown darling Butler beating mighty/evil Duke on this score), and the empty feeling left behind when it just barely doesn’t happen, because the alternative (Stewart Cink winning, Duke winning) is just so freakin’ mundane by comparison. (The empty feeling left by Butler’s loss approaches or surpasses the empty feeling left by Watson’s loss, despite the above-mentioned Watson > Butler analysis, because of The Shot). Oh, and also, one more similarity: if you were rooting against either Tom Watson or Butler, unless you’re either a Duke alum or a member of Stewart Cink’s immediate family, you’re a God-damn filthy communist.
*I realize the British Open doesn’t actually have a par-3 18th, this is just a hypothetical.
Good God, that video is excruciating.
What might have been……
Only a God-damn filthy communist would insist that a viewer must take sides in a competition. Winning and losing is the players’ problem; I’m here for the enjoyment of the spectacle.
As Russell Crowe once said, “ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?” I can honestly answer, Yes, I was very entertained!
Only a dirty hippie would refuse to take sides in the National Championship game. It’s SPORTS! What are you, worried about the poor Dookies’ self-esteem? Should everyone get a trophy for being the most special player? LAME.
Perhaps the closest ‘playoff ending’ analog to an improbable Butler victory, had Hayward’s shot gone in, would be the Immaculate Reception. You’ve all seen the Immaculate Reception several times. Unless you’re someone like B. Minich, for whom the Immaculate Reception signalled the beginning of a dynasty for a favorite sports team, you probably aren’t too interested in watching it again.
This is because, similar to AML above, sports are about the entertainment of the event itself. They aren’t really to be relived. How painfully the NFL has learned this lesson by devoting an entire network to reairing great games of the past, a conceit that no football fan wants to endure, no matter how much said fans enjoyed the games the first time.
So while the outcome would have been somewhat greater if Hayward’s shot had gone in, the entertainment of realizing that it might was nevertheless pretty damn good. Returning to the Watson example, when he hit that second shot past the hole on 18, leaving a ticklish return chip (and then long par putt back uphill), leading by 1 and the tournament on the line, that was also pretty damn entertaining. That Watson failed, as you figured he would, doesn’t inherently change the fact that it was quite fun to watch.
In summary, I think I disagree with the insinuation in the open that Hayward missing rendered that moment “not great”. “Less great”, yes, but still pretty damn great. As a way of comparison, I’m sure all of you have watched Hayward’s shot several times (thinking each time, as celiazul said, that this time it would go in). Let’s say that the average fan has watched about five times.
If the shot had gone in, let’s say that the average fan would have re-watched it, I don’t know, about seven times. In that case, you could argue that a made shot would have been about 7/5 as great as the actual, missed one.
In any event, disagree with the numbers, but I think it is quite wrong to argue that this is an either/or: if he makes the shot its a great moment, if he misses it, it isn’t. It was awfully entertaining as it happened. That’s pretty great.
“They aren’t really to be relived”
Seriously? Do you know how many times i’ve watched replay clips of the Boise St. vs Oklahoma Fiesta Bowl? Sure i haven’t watched the whole thing, but those amazing plays? I’ve lost count, and they are awesome every single time.
David –
Like Hayward’s missed shot, we’ve all seen the Boise statue of liberty play several times. That said, if you flip over to ESPN classic and its midway through the third quarter of that game, you’re highly likely to flip the channel back to Two and a Half Men – maybe you return when the signature plays might be getting close, but really you don’t have much interest in rewatching the whole thing.
Even the signature plays have limited shelf life, as you no doubt realized as you considered whether to click through to the Immaculate Reception and thought “Nah. Seen it a dozen times. That’s enough”.
Actually i just recently watched “The Play” again the other day. And now that you mention it i think i will go watch the Immaculate Reception again, plus I can’t get enough of the Immaculate Interception 🙂
I’m with you, David. I wasn’t even alive at the time of the Immaculate Reception – but I LOVE that play. The one thing I wish is that it would have been filmed in today’s NFL, with its multiple camera angles. But man . . . what a play!
The Bettis fumble/Big Ben tackle/Mike Vanderjact “he missed it” series of plays is the best I’ve seen in my lifetime. Quickest roller coaster of emotions I’ve ever experienced. Watching that game never gets old.
I root against whatever team Brendan is rooting for, unless he is rooting for USC. Then I approve. 🙂
One thing pundits use to compare teams is to ask what would happen if they played 10 times; you know, while Any Given Sunday anyone can beat anyone else, what would happen if they played a lengthy series?
Where Butler and Duke were concerned, here’s what might be different over the course of a 10-game series:
1) Howard wouldn’t quite have the hands of stone early (or wild play generally)
2) Veasley makes more than a measly 1 out of his 14 shot attempts
3) Hayward is wayward on fewer than 12 out of his 14 attempts
And then to be generous, Duke makes a few more than 10 out of 16 FTs, maybe generally shoots a bit higher than 44% from the floor.
Still, Butler is a small-ish team whose guards combined for a woeful 3-28 from the floor on Monday night. That stat is likely the most noticeable outlier if there were a 10-game series.
All of which is a long-winded way of saying that you don’t have to be reading a Kyle Whelliston fanzine to realize that the over/under on Butler wins in a 10-game series with Duke is arguably 5, and maybe…heaven forfend…something like 5.5???
And really, that’s where the Watson comparison breaks down. Watson’s potential victory at the British Open is a bizarre story for the aged, er, ages. 09/10 Butler may beat 09/10 Duke at least as often as they would lose to them.
This is because, similar to AML above, sports are about the entertainment of the event itself. They aren’t really to be relived. How painfully the NFL has learned this lesson by devoting an entire network to reairing great games of the past, a conceit that no football fan wants to endure, no matter how much said fans enjoyed the games the first time.
No, there is a market for reliving games. It’s called ESPN Classic. Now, the first chunk of the reairing of an old game may not be appointment TV, but you come across it while channel-flipping, think “ooh, it’s Fifth Down,” and watch for 20 minutes. (Or is that just me?) And, because I’m a huge nerd, I enjoy trying to pinpoint the year/decade of the sporting event within the first five minutes based on the graphics and/or players.
The NFL Network’s problems are that it is too narrow in its scope of “great games” because it’s limited to one category of one sport, and it wants to charge providers an excessive amount for the privilege of being carried.