I didn't go to Duke, so my math skills are a little rough around the edges. Maybe someone can explain how Clemson got off a three-point basket and Duke called a subsequent timeout in just .6 seconds. Let me recap for those who didn't see the Clemson-Duke game: Clemson is down by 5 with time running out. The Tigers hit a lay up with :05 on the clock to cut the lead to 3. Duke inbounds the ball directly to a Clemson player and the clock doesn't start. He jumps in the air and releases the shot and the clock doesn't start. Shortly in the ball's flight, the clock finally starts. The ball falls through the net, tying the game at 66 with 3.8 seconds (or so) on the clock. Duke collects the ball and calls timeout, which was granted with 1.8 seconds on the clock. Sensing a timing error, the officials gather and change the time on the clock to 4.4 seconds. Duke inbounds, hurries the ball up the floor and hits the winning shot just as the buzzer goes off. And if that just isn't Duke in a nutshell, I don't know what is. I've never seen a team get so many things to break in their favor. For a minute I thought I saw the '72 Soviet Union on the floor. Red Devil. Blue Devil. Whatever. To put 4.4 seconds on the clock is to say the whole shot from Clemson, complete with the request for timeout, blowing of the whistle and stoppage of the clock took just .6 seconds. NASCAR should be so fast. Here's a question for those smart Duke kids--is it physically possible for a ball to soar 19 feet 9 inches and fall through a net in just over a half a second? Even in normal time, two solid seconds ran off the clock before Duke got a timeout. Best case, there should have been 3 seconds on the clock, assuming the shot took absolutely no time whatsoever, assuming that Duke had inbounded the ball directly into the basket, having made contact with someone only enough to actually start the clock in the first place. I would say there should have been at least a half second elapsed to jack the shot up in the first place, maybe as much as a second for the shot to go in, and two seconds for the timeout--that gives you 1.5 seconds and even that seems excessive. 1.8 seconds, which was the original amount left on the clock, seemed more than fair. Even if Duke argued it called timeout immediately and wasn't heard in the hoopla--which is a non-point, becuase reviewed time adjustments consider the timeout not when it is called, but from when the ref blows the whistle and raises his hand--the very best they should have had should have been 3.8 seconds, and that's calling and granting the timeout almost while the ball is still in the net. But like I said. I'm not that good at math. Glad to see I'm not alone.