CCC cost us this one

[Purple Pile Driver]

Anyone notice that Nance, Young and Turner went 2 for 17 and Young’s turnover cost NU a chance to win the game. Nance needs to take his game to the paint. Young needs to play with the physicality needed in the Big 10. Turner was supposed to be leader off the bench and make some key baskets, but he has struggled. But the simplistic fan reaction is to blame the coaches. That will always be the case. Too bad no one realizes that players have to make the winning plays at the end of the game to win games.

Defense lost this game as much as offense. You basically win guarding the 3.

 

[haywood jahblowme]

I like looking at Bart Torvik's FUN stat, which is "fortune unexplained by numbers." We rank 351st out of 353 teams, with an actual winning % of more than 17% less what it should be based on our statistical profile. That means we should be 10-11 but are 6-15. We were 314th in this stat last year and 257th two years ago.

Torvik actually has us ranked 95th in the country overall, one spot below Bradley and one ahead of North Carolina. There's no team with a worse winning percentage than us until you get to 240th (St. Joseph's at 4-18).

As much as I want to be upbeat like Heywood, I do think coaching has let us down this year and last. These guys have played well enough to have a few more wins, and that's not even counting the Merrimack and Radford debacles.

I do share Heywood's view that we're in good shape with talent going into next year, but another season of giving away 4-5 games we should win could be the difference between being solidly in the NCAA tourney and sitting out of the postseason completely. And as another poster said in this thread, that has nothing to do with admission standards.

is it because the Big Ten is tough and the teams beating us are all pretty good? hence being 95th but with a low winning percentage?

 

[haywood jahblowme]

i don't get the argument about coaching hurting us down the stretch. with maybe a few exceptions (pardon, law, kopp?) when we play another conference team - its very rare that i would take our starter over their starter at a given position. sure this might change for a game or two - but for the most part i would generally trade our player for theirs. or even the majority of the roseter (except jordan ash!) if you agree, and thats the case - i would say its the coaching and schemes that keep us in games. or - our talent is much better than the board generally gives it credit for and the coaching staff for recruiting those kids. just seems like a circular argument

 

[GatoLouco]

i don't get the argument about coaching hurting us down the stretch. with maybe a few exceptions (pardon, law, kopp?) when we play another conference team - its very rare that i would take our starter over their starter at a given position. sure this might change for a game or two - but for the most part i would generally trade our player for theirs. or even the majority of the roseter (except jordan ash!) if you agree, and thats the case - i would say its the coaching and schemes that keep us in games. or - our talent is much better than the board generally gives it credit for and the coaching staff for recruiting those kids. just seems like a circular argument

So we’re over achieving at 1-10? Having won one game, at home, almost having choked, against a team composed of juco transfers, freshmen and transfers from mid majors?

 

[willycat]

So we’re over achieving at 1-10? Having won one game, at home, almost having choked, against a team composed of juco transfers, freshmen and transfers from mid majors?

Hey maybe the answer could be more Juco transfers! First have to check their high school grades, though.

 

[haywood jahblowme]

So we’re over achieving at 1-10? Having won one game, at home, almost having choked, against a team composed of juco transfers, freshmen and transfers from mid majors?

maybe - but i didn't say that. i am also not saying that the goal is to not win games.

just trying to figure out what it is. either our coaching is so bad that the NU guys are better than thought (because they are in a position to win despite the coaching) - or the NU guys are not great and are position to win games because of schemes and coaching. but depending on the game and the outcome i am hearing both.

because if the program really was that bad in arguably the toughest conference they wouldn't be in position to win games.

 

[GatoLouco]

the NU guys are better than thought

I can't answer for anyone but myself. And I think we have the most raw talent we ever had in the program. Better than I thought we did prior to the season starting. Young, Spencer, Buie and Beran are better than what I thought was reasonable to expect. And Kopp made a very admirable leap.

I thought we were a 3-5 win team prior to the season. I thought we were a 4-6 win team after seeing the guys on the court. And that's kind of where my mind is anchored. We should be at least 2/9 or 3/8. We would be overachieving at 4/7.

The thing about basketball at this level is that it's not that great an achievement to only have been blown out in one game. It does not happen that much. Games for kids under 15 yo, over 90% of the time the team that should win, wins. And that percentage drops as players are older. Because a bad game plan, loss of confidence during a game, and many other factors, including luck, come into play. Over the course of 100 games the numbers would average out. But "surprises"/upsets happen a lot more. That's why Nebraska has more wins than us. Not because we have less talent than them.

So we competed against:
-Indiana
-Nebraska
-Illinois
-Maryland
-Purdue

We were pesky against:
-Purdue
-MSU @ home
-OSU

We were out of the game early against:
-Minnesota
-Iowa
-MSU away

Great, we can argue that is better than anticipated. Not going to fight that. But we should have had 1, probably 2 more wins in there. In a game we got hot, the other team was uninspired, had injuries, etc. And we did not.

Even Nebraska did have such games. And if you compare the games where they competed, were pesky, out of the game early, blown out, you probably don't find a difference compared to us. They might even be better. Because that's how basketball at this level is. It's not blow outs and the obvious team always winning. Otherwise Wisconsin, with a suspended player, and another abandoning the program, does not beat MSU.

We have problems with coaching. Serious ones. But he recruits well. So, before 21-22, I will criticize, but not advocate he should go. After that, if we fail, I will think it's madness to keep expecting different results.

 

[IGNORE2]

maybe - but i didn't say that. i am also not saying that the goal is to not win games.

just trying to figure out what it is. either our coaching is so bad that the NU guys are better than thought (because they are in a position to win despite the coaching) - or the NU guys are not great and are position to win games because of schemes and coaching. but depending on the game and the outcome i am hearing both.

because if the program really was that bad in arguably the toughest conference they wouldn't be in position to win games.

Who recruited those players?