Collins: Stay or Go Criteria

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Rebounding is a taught skill. Yes, the players at this point know how to jump and grab a rebound, but at this level, there is so much more: 1) proper positioning at the rim; 2) Away from the rim to not let your man slip in to grab the board. Boxing out occurs all over the court. This has to be drilled into a player to become a habit; 2) The want to get the ball. If you are at the games, you can clearly see how many weak side rebounds our players get. This is a function of eliminating laziness and a demand to rebound. MSU used to drill NU on the boards. Most B10 teams did. This no longer occurs. Rebounding is a function of effort and a demand from the coaching staff. CC had definitely improved that aspect of NU's game.

Defense is a function of coaching. It is not pure effort. Anyone can defend when playing one on one in the driveway. At this level, it is being coached on a) where to funnel your player; b) where help will be, c) how to get in proper defensive position, d) proper footwork, d) how to hedge or double team up top, e) how to recover on a hedge, f) where off the ball player moves to protect the lane, g) where off ball defenders positions themselves to provide help, h) where and how you use your hands, but more importantly your legs to slide the opponent out and away from the hoop, h) how you will defend the pick and roll, i) how you will help your teammate get through screens and by screens, j) whether you go under or above a screen and k) closing out. These are all drilled into their heads. If you go to a high level basketball practice, this is what they teach. The entire team plays much more defensive intensity and success. This is a function of coaching. CC gets credit for that improvement, at least what is seen this year. If you cannot see that or do not want to see it, I cannot help you.

As to better practice, IIRC, you are the person who speaks about how good MN is. If you say 'yes' and he is the second coming, does not his presence in defending Young and Nance in practice make them better because they have to play against such a tough opponent and thereby making the practices better? I think CC has more and better depth. I don't know, but usually in life, when you compete against better foes, one normally improves. I don't think better players means better practices is a hypothesis, but something we see in every aspect of life.

I do agree with you on some of the other points. I can see saying enough is enough after this year.

There is an improvement defensively and in our rebounding. One might attribute some of that specifically to the departure of Miller Kopp, with the arrival of Roper and Audige shifting to more of a small forward position.

However, there have been several years of poor rebounding and soft defense. Recently.
So did Collins and the staff improve their coaching this year? Seems unlikely to me to be the main reason for our team's step in the right direction. Players do improve naturally from one year to the next.

Beran has improved somewhat. He was pretty bad last year. I'm happy he has improved. But, I think I am being completely fair in saying that Beran doesn't deserve to be playing more minutes than Williams or Young. The team is better with either of those 2 most of the time, especially Young. There are times when Beran provides an advantage, its just not the norm.

I'd love to watch a few of our practices.

 

[hoosboot]

Much harder to do playing in the Big Ten now with the new NIT guidelines. I remember when 14-13, 5-13, got us in back during the Ricky Byrdsong era. Wouldn't happen today even though that was a pretty good team.

I thought we were talking about whether making the NIT matters. Now you want to talk about it being hard?

Sure it's hard. That's because D1 basketball is competitive and teams want to make the post-season. They want to make the post-season because it matters. The goal being hard doesn't make the goal not worthwhile. It's what makes it worthwhile.

People who are focused on impediments rarely transcend them. Thankfully, that's not how the players and coaches are preoccupied. They're preoccupied with trying to achieve that difficult thing and more.

 

[Catreporter]

I thought we were talking about whether making the NIT matters.

No one is going to talk you out of your point of view. That's fine. Making the NIT would be nice, but's it's not a program saver or turner.

 

[peatymeanis]

No one is going to talk you out of your point of view. That's fine. Making the NIT would be nice, but's it's not a program saver or turner.

Is there a single person who is saying it is a program saver or turner?

 

[winnetkat]

Kevin O'Neill coached here 22 years ago. You have no idea if the admissions standards are exactly the same as when he coached here. Maybe they are. Who knows? Kevin O'Neill is also known as a pretty awful person so not sure anyone should believe anything he says.

By any conventional standards, I think most of us would consider O'Neill a bad person... at best, very, very "tough love." Sitting behind the bench in those days (and without the noise of any other fans there to get in the way) I overheard a number of amusing expletive-laden tirades at his players. For instance, "I don't want to see you **** shoot ever again." I think that was honestly how he felt, though he felt that way about a lot of guys, and somebody had to eventually shoot, right?

I also remember an off-court moment from prior to O'Neill's first season with the 'Cats. I was sitting at a table at the old My Bar just off campus a few feet away from O'Neill and hearing him tell the guy who was sitting with him (at the time, I assumed a friend, though in retrospect perhaps it was just some random guy who bought him a beer) that we were the **** worst basketball team that he had ever seen.

Even jaded "professionals" like O'Neill can be surprised at how hard the NU job can be.

Also, "Things you heard O'Neill say" would be an entertaining thread if someone wants to start one of those. By comparison, we have it pretty good now.

Go 'Cats!

 

[catfans5]

There is an improvement defensively and in our rebounding. One might attribute some of that specifically to the departure of Miller Kopp, with the arrival of Roper and Audige shifting to more of a small forward position.

However, there have been several years of poor rebounding and soft defense. Recently.
So did Collins and the staff improve their coaching this year? Seems unlikely to me to be the main reason for our team's step in the right direction. Players do improve naturally from one year to the next.

Beran has improved somewhat. He was pretty bad last year. I'm happy he has improved. But, I think I am being completely fair in saying that Beran doesn't deserve to be playing more minutes than Williams or Young. The team is better with either of those 2 most of the time, especially Young. There are times when Beran provides an advantage, its just not the norm.

I'd love to watch a few of our practices.

Do you go to any games in person?

 

[winnetkat]

My opinion: the results are indicative of the presence of a "silent majority" on the forum.

I will speak for myself, I am generally a Chris Collins fan. I tend not to speak up in his defense much on the forums because of how Collins supporters have often been treated by other forum members. I read and contribute to the forum because I am a Northwestern fan. I have no desire to get into heated arguments where either my intelligence or loyalty is questioned/belittled. I have no problem participating in friendly discussion and debates about different topics, but I have seen these discussions devolve into personal attacks/name-calling far too often to want to put myself out on a limb on a regular basis. Frankly, I have much better things to do with my time and energy. Hence, I often stay silent because I see no benefit in sharing my opinion or take on things. I imagine that I am not alone in this regard and I think this explains the results of the poll: the discussions that take place about CCC on the forum are often the view of the most vocal minority but not representative of the majority of forum members.

Do the same people who post hundreds of time on the same topic also vote Chicago-style in these polls?

 

[SDakaGordie]

You list a lot of problems with the substitution patterns, in-game coaching, the actual offense itself.
These are real problems, specifically attributable to the head coach.

On the positive side, you talk about things like "better practices" which are unknown, just a hypothesis, really. You talk about rebounding and defense. Defense is mainly effort and awareness. Rebounding is mainly attributable to size and effort. Most of our guys play hard. A few are not tough enough. Thats more a reflection of the players than the coaching, though coaching has some impact.

My main frustration with Collins is that his use of his players is poor and we underperform our talent. The random use of lineups makes that clear - there is no method to the madness. There is also no creativity. We have size to take advantage of and it sits on the bench while we shoot poorly from the perimeter. and lose games because our coach wants to play a style that doesn't suit his personnel.

He just isn't good enough at his job to retain.

How do you know Collins’ use of players is any better or worse than any other coach?

How do you explain that we have so much talent when our best player from last year (via your stat) is a non-impact player on another solid league team?

What other teams do you see running a more sophisticated offense?

Why, ultimately, do you think Ryan Young is a savior of our team if he played more when we give him lots of opportunities already?

And you can’t say we would do better if Young played more and then also say our defense is better solely because of the addition of Roper, who plays about the same minutes per game as Young.

All of our players are inconsistent performers, more so than other top league players. Inconsistent play is the reason why some guys are not as good as others. All of these guys have talent that shines at times, but the ones who do it consistently are the better ones. We don’t have those players, so we don’t have enough talent. It’s not the coach’s schemes or lineups that are the main reason for underperformance.

 

[hoosboot]

No one is going to talk you out of your point of view. That's fine. Making the NIT would be nice, but's it's not a program saver or turner.

Someone could convince me that my point of view is wrong, but they'd have to make an actual coherent argument. Bemoaning that a goal that everyone would like to reach is hard while insisting that it doesn't matter isn't going to get the job done.

No one said that making the NIT would be a program saver or program turner...just that it would be a step towards where they need to go and that regularly making the post season would be a massive step in the right direction. The opportunity to achieve that was there and it was missed. Now the team is desperately trying to figure out how to get that opportunity again.

Doing so is hard. It may be too difficult for some folks to even fathom. Thankfully, those are just some of the folks cheering in Evanston and not the kind coaching or playing there.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Do you go to any games in person?

Yes. I go to many games.
I also watch the games I don't attend.
I record every game and re-watch nearly all of them.
Then I go thru the play-by-play and generate the plus/minus numbers for the game, along with some other stats.

What do you do?

 

[hoosboot]

How do you know Collins’ use of players is any better or worse than any other coach?

How do you explain that we have so much talent when our best player from last year (via your stat) is a non-impact player on another solid league team?

What other teams do you see running a more sophisticated offense?

Why, ultimately, do you think Ryan Young is a savior of our team if he played more when we give him lots of opportunities already?

And you can’t say we would do better if Young played more and then also say our defense is better solely because of the addition of Roper, who plays about the same minutes per game as Young.

All of our players are inconsistent performers, more so than other top league players. Inconsistent play is the reason why some guys are not as good as others. All of these guys have talent that shines at times, but the ones who do it consistently are the better ones. We don’t have those players, so we don’t have enough talent. It’s not the coach’s schemes or lineups that are the main reason for underperformance.

I agree that PWB tries to argue against subjective opinions in one part of his post and argue in favor of subjective opinions in other parts of his post.

I would disagree though that the team gives Ryan Young "lots" of opportunities. His minutes are down year-over-year. One could reasonably argue that Nance and Boo and Audige get "lots" of opportunities. Young is 8th on the team in minutes. And I suspect that the argument PWB is making it that he should be getting substantially more opportunities (given what the numbers he likes to use say) compared to guys like Beran, Berry, and Roper. Going back to our recruiting vs. development conversation, I think it might be fair to call Young (and Nicholson) a recruiting problem because they just don't fit the way it appears CCC wants to play. They aren't bad guys or bad players and I can see why many teams would like to have them, but they don't seem to fit the NU system very well. I think your comments about Roper speak to that as well.

And I would just quibble about the idea of the team not having enough "talent". I think your argument doesn't speak to that. The team has enough talent. It just doesn't have consistent enough talent. That means that the development needs to focus on consistency. Buie's improvements are a good example of that.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

How do you know Collins’ use of players is any better or worse than any other coach?

How do you explain that we have so much talent when our best player from last year (via your stat) is a non-impact player on another solid league team?

What other teams do you see running a more sophisticated offense?

Why, ultimately, do you think Ryan Young is a savior of our team if he played more when we give him lots of opportunities already?

And you can’t say we would do better if Young played more and then also say our defense is better solely because of the addition of Roper, who plays about the same minutes per game as Young.

All of our players are inconsistent performers, more so than other top league players. Inconsistent play is the reason why some guys are not as good as others. All of these guys have talent that shines at times, but the ones who do it consistently are the better ones. We don’t have those players, so we don’t have enough talent. It’s not the coach’s schemes or lineups that are the main reason for underperformance.

"How do you know Collins’ use of players is any better or worse than any other coach?"

My criteria is that the better/more productive players/lineups should play the most minutes and the less productive players/lineups should play fewer minutes. Last year that was practically random. Thats why I keep track of all those lineup stats. Collins was quite inept when it came to giving lineups and players playing time last year. This year is not as bad. But some of what Collins does simply defies common sense. Like making his team into two teams, intentionally diluting the talent on the floor at any given time. Most coaches figure out who their best players are and ride them.

"How do you explain that we have so much talent when our best player from last year (via your stat) is a non-impact player on another solid league team?"

You should ask the coach why he played Kopp like he was his son. It is clear that Collins thought Kopp was indispensable. As for why he had the "least bad" plus/minus, thats been discussed.

"What other teams do you see running a more sophisticated offense?"

Anybody who runs back door cuts and sets screens off the ball to get their best shooters open. Lots of teams. Just watch some games that don't involve NU.

"Why, ultimately, do you think Ryan Young is a savior of our team if he played more when we give him lots of opportunities already?"

Nance and Young should be playing together much of the time. Every analyst says the same thing when they cover our games. Young plays effectively in the low post. Nance is a power forward with range and height. You want to relieve him of the rebounding burden and free him up to score. It is obvious that the offense should be designed to feature those two on the court, not Nance with Beran, who both would rather be on the perimeter. Young is not a savior. Nobody ever said that. But he is solid and a winner.

"And you can’t say we would do better if Young played more and then also say our defense is better solely because of the addition of Roper, who plays about the same minutes per game as Young."

Thats good because I never said that.

 

[AdamOnFirst]

So you’re telling me that job candidate who was a D1 athlete from Stanford is at a disadvantage for the D1 athlete who went to Northwestern? I find that really hard to believe.

There’s a nearly 0% chance that statement about NU having some strength over Stanford is true. Maybe there’s some industry Stanford struggles in, but I can’t think of one.

 

[catfans5]

Yes. I go to many games.
I also watch the games I don't attend.
I record every game and re-watch nearly all of them.
Then I go thru the play-by-play and generate the plus/minus numbers for the game, along with some other stats.

What do you do?

I try to go to each game. I probably miss one or two a year. I can't add one and one. Needles to say, statistical analysis not my forte. Thanks for your posts.

 

[SDakaGordie]

"How do you know Collins’ use of players is any better or worse than any other coach?"

My criteria is that the better/more productive players/lineups should play the most minutes and the less productive players/lineups should play fewer minutes. Last year that was practically random. Thats why I keep track of all those lineup stats. Collins was quite inept when it came to giving lineups and players playing time last year. This year is not as bad. But some of what Collins does simply defies common sense. Like making his team into two teams, intentionally diluting the talent on the floor at any given time. Most coaches figure out who their best players are and ride them.

"How do you explain that we have so much talent when our best player from last year (via your stat) is a non-impact player on another solid league team?"

You should ask the coach why he played Kopp like he was his son. It is clear that Collins thought Kopp was indispensable. As for why he had the "least bad" plus/minus, thats been discussed.

"What other teams do you see running a more sophisticated offense?"

Anybody who runs back door cuts and sets screens off the ball to get their best shooters open. Lots of teams. Just watch some games that don't involve NU.

"Why, ultimately, do you think Ryan Young is a savior of our team if he played more when we give him lots of opportunities already?"

Nance and Young should be playing together much of the time. Every analyst says the same thing when they cover our games. Young plays effectively in the low post. Nance is a power forward with range and height. You want to relieve him of the rebounding burden and free him up to score. It is obvious that the offense should be designed to feature those two on the court, not Nance with Beran, who both would rather be on the perimeter. Young is not a savior. Nobody ever said that. But he is solid and a winner.

"And you can’t say we would do better if Young played more and then also say our defense is better solely because of the addition of Roper, who plays about the same minutes per game as Young."

Thats good because I never said that.

All you said about other coaches was that they play their key guys more. It’s been discussed that likely only one of our starters would start for another BIG team. That means we don’t have the horses to keep them in the game a long time against other teams; they would be outplayed. Therefore, we must use our depth. Collins gets kudos for that.

If the Kopp answer is because he drew the best defender, that just argues for me; he was viewed as one of our better players. Collins played him because he was one of our better players.

I see us run, and announcers point out, many back cuts, double screens, baseline cuts, pick and rolls, etc. I watch other teams are our system is just fine. Just because our guys struggle with it at times does not mean it’s the system.

Playing Young more, who is consistently inconsistent in missing bunnies and goes right 90% of the time, will not markedly and consistently improve our results. He cannot compete well enough 1:1 against the best big men of the BigTen.

You complain Young does not play enough and our offense suffers. (You really do say this enough to warrant the word “savior”). But Roper plays the same minutes and you say he’s a key reason for our defensive improvement. I don’t think you can have it both ways. I agree he’s an improvement over Kopp, but the team defense has improved. And that’s due to guys all working together better under proper coaching.

 

[hoosboot]

It’s been discussed that likely only one of our starters would start for another BIG team. That means we don’t have the horses to keep them in the game a long time against other teams; they would be outplayed. Therefore, we must use our depth.

Huh? Because you think many NU starters wouldn't start for another B1G team, that means Collins must give more minutes to guys who don't start for the Cats? That does not compute.

 

[GatoLouco]

I see us run, and announcers point out, many back cuts, double screens, baseline cuts, pick and rolls, etc. I watch other teams are our system is just fine. Just because our guys struggle with it at times does not mean it’s the system.

I don’t want to dissect (though there’s ton to dissect) anything but this. If you see a staggered double screen on top of what you mentioned then it must be some space age level of sophistication. I don’t want to suggest some triple screen as probably the announcers brains would explode.

Is that how you define a “sophisticated“ offense? By how many different types of basic movements on offense a team makes?

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

There’s a nearly 0% chance that statement about NU having some strength over Stanford is true. Maybe there’s some industry Stanford struggles in, but I can’t think of one.

I don't think that was Willycat's intention.
His main point was that the NU degree does carry more weight than almost any power 5 school.
Somebody wrote that there was no difference between NU and (Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Georgetown, Georgia Tech, Stanford etc)
willycat responded, "oh yes there is."
I think he accidentally failed to make Stanford an exception.
Certainly he didn't say "NU has a better reputation than Stanford."
But NU is more prestigious than Vandy, ND, GTown and GTech, in that order.

And I can't believe I'm defending willycat!

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

I try to go to each game. I probably miss one or two a year. I can't add one and one. Needles to say, statistical analysis not my forte. Thanks for your posts.

Some would say statistical analysis is not my forte either!
But its cool that you go to so many games.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Gordie:

I think the vast majority of people on here believe (now) that Buie would be starting for most Big Ten teams, along with Pete Nance. Buie is versatile enough that he could be the PG or SG, so he'd have plenty of opportunity.

 

[SDakaGordie]

Huh? Because you think many NU starters wouldn't start for another B1G team, that means Collins must give more minutes to guys who don't start for the Cats? That does not compute.

My point is just that if you give tons of time to starters who are not as good as the other team’s, it’s a recipe for losing, all else equal. Collins has to get more out of his subs and lineups and schemes to be successful. I don’t think he’s inept at this, and I definitely don’t think he’s far worse than other coaches.

To PWB’s point below, Buie was a target of many of our frustrations (including mine) last year and now (I would agree) he’s a likely starter on other teams. I personally might not have stuck with Buie as much as Collins did, and that is to Collins’ credit.

 

[freewillie07]

Just want to say thank you to @catfans5 for the insightful posts. Some of the best stuff I’ve read on here in a while.

 

[Sec.112]

I think an NU degree carrying a heavy recruiting (key word) advantage is another NU myth with decades of proof. I'm with 7th Circuit on this one.

I don't doubt for a second an NU degree carries a heavy advantage in the real world. But we're talking about basketball recruiting. We've seen a heavy majority of high school seniors at this level obviously consider their basketball potential as important - if not more important - than the idea of post-graduate hiring potential.

And for the recruits concentrating on academics, NU is not simply battling institutions that are far-less-than-elite in the academic world. Yes, there's the usual mentions of ND, Stanford, Vandy, Georgetown and Duke. Nobody mentions the Michigan. However, there are plenty of B10 institutions and beyond offering strong academics.

Most B10 schools are not community colleges. Get a degree from Wisconsin, Illinois or Purdue, and you'll have plenty of professional, non-basketball opportunities. Then you have the winning programs, proven coaches, traditions and NBA players to go with that pitch..

And if you want to use OSU as the example of a less-than-strong academic institution, I wonder how many doors open when you're on a Final Four team.

I think the other idea that needs to be reconsidered is how much an above-average NU basketball player is concerned about leaving the basketball world. Michael Thompson, Hearn, Shurna, Crawford, Olah, Law, Pardon, Van Zegren and Lindsey are all still pounding away in the G-League and overseas. That's a long time for Thompson, Hearn and Shurna. Even Falzon is doing it with those knees. And I'm sorry, but none of these guys is going to be a longtime NBA player. They obviously find something more appealing and lucrative about the minor league and G-League life than the traditional NU post-grad world.

 

[SDakaGordie]

I don’t want to dissect (though there’s ton to dissect) anything but this. If you see a staggered double screen on top of what you mentioned then it must be some space age level of sophistication. I don’t want to suggest some triple screen as probably the announcers brains would explode.

Is that how you define a “sophisticated“ offense? By how many different types of basic movements on offense a team makes?

Gato - I am quite sure you possess a more advanced basketball mind than I, so your further input is appreciated and could prove me wrong. That being said, I think Collins’ pro-style 5-out system has a lot of sophisticated elements that many, many times get showcased successfully. He’s also able to get guys to get the ball to the low block / post very effectively when desired. Certainly, I wish we had more movement on offense at times, but I also see him imploring guys to do that more all the time. While I am one of the few who value the contributions of the announcers who’ve played college basketball, it’s been said many times that he runs good sets and often simplifies them when the team struggles to execute them. And lastly, I am naive enough to think that the son of an NBA coach has some chops when it comes to coaching. I’m sure / know others feel differently and have better tactics, certainly than me and even our coach, so have at it. Go Cats!

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

I think an NU degree carrying a heavy recruiting (key word) advantage is another NU myth with decades of proof. I'm with 7th Circuit on this one.

I don't doubt for a second an NU degree carries a heavy advantage in the real world. But we're talking about basketball recruiting. We've seen a heavy majority of high school seniors at this level obviously consider their basketball potential as important - if not more important - than the idea of post-graduate hiring potential.

And for the recruits concentrating on academics, NU is not simply battling institutions that are far-less-than-elite in the academic world. Yes, there's the usual mentions of ND, Stanford, Vandy, Georgetown and Duke. Nobody mentions the Michigan. However, there are plenty of B10 institutions and beyond offering strong academics.

Most B10 schools are not community colleges. Get a degree from Wisconsin, Illinois or Purdue, and you'll have plenty of professional, non-basketball opportunities. Then you have the winning programs, proven coaches, traditions and NBA players to go with that pitch..

And if you want to use OSU as the example of a less-than-strong academic institution, I wonder how many doors open when you're on a Final Four team.

I think the other idea that needs to be reconsidered is how much an above-average NU basketball player is concerned about leaving the basketball world. Michael Thompson, Hearn, Shurna, Crawford, Olah, Law, Pardon, Van Zegren and Lindsey are all still pounding away in the G-League and overseas. That's a long time for Thompson, Hearn and Shurna. Even Falzon is doing it with those knees. And I'm sorry, but none of these guys is going to be a longtime NBA player. They obviously find something more appealing and lucrative about the minor league and G-League life than the traditional NU post-grad world.

When you throw the word "heavy" in there (as in "heavy recruiting advantage") it distorts what most people are saying. Most people say it is an advantage. And they are 100% correct.

Does Northwestern have a massive (heavy) advantage when you compare an NU degree to Arkansas?
Absolutely.
Missouri?
Absolutely.
The Big Ten has a lot of good schools. Almost all of them are good or very good schools.
Michigan is not NU but it is a very good university. So a degree from NU is not that much better than a degree from Michigan, but it is still an advantage for NU.

That you would call this reality a "myth" is a weird use of that word.

 

[GatoLouco]

Gato - I am quite sure you possess a more advanced basketball mind than I, so your further input is appreciated and could prove me wrong. That being said, I think Collins’ pro-style 5-out system has a lot of sophisticated elements that many, many times get showcased successfully. He’s also able to get guys to get the ball to the low block / post very effectively when desired. Certainly, I wish we had more movement on offense at times, but I also see him imploring guys to do that more all the time. While I am one of the few who value the contributions of the announcers who’ve played college basketball, it’s been said many times that he runs good sets and often simplifies them when the team struggles to execute them. And lastly, I am naive enough to think that the son of an NBA coach has some chops when it comes to coaching. I’m sure / know others feel differently and have better tactics, certainly than me and even our coach, so have at it. Go Cats!

My post was a bit abrasive. So I apologize for that.

In any case my point is that, in my opinion, sophistication of an offense is not about whether you have cuts, screens, picks, etc. Or about how big your playbook is, something that commentators often referred to in the past, usually associating Brian James with that. The playbook part is just stuff fed to commentators in pre game talks, that they find interesting tidbits for the audience. I believe a commentator recently actually mentioned CC shrunk the playbook recently. Which was probably a good move.

An offense “sophistication” is, I believe, in the simplest terms, about working or not. Way more important than the sets themselves is the interpretation of the players while running them. The principles of rolling to the basket, of keeping defenders behind you when the ball rotates, cutting with purpose, changing speed, etc, etc. Equally important is running the sets that make sense for where your advantages (or lesser disadvantages) are.

I’m repeating myself, but my problem with our offense is not that the sets are bad, they are not. They are, in a vacuum, pretty good. They’re, most of the time, no Archie Miller 4 guys waiting for the ball handler to do something. They have movement, they force the defense to work in all areas of the court. But they are way too focused on creating a driving lane from the top of the 3 pt line. That requires a back court of fast and strong players that can drive to the basket. Last year it was painful to see Buie being bumped off trying to drive to the basket, or Audige finding no lane, dribbling around and jacking up a bad shot. While we all complained Nance disappeared from the game, when really he was just not involved in more than setting screens. This year it’s better, mostly because our athletic disadvantage is far reduced against the rest of the league.

The other problem I have is the “playing fast”, or the fast tempo. I have zero problems with quick good shots. But what I see is way too many rushed shots. Bad shots. And that’s driven by the style you want to implement, the encouragement to shoot early. In itself it’s not a bad thing, but the choices we make around it are subpar. Case in point, we destroy UNL with superb offense. When we face a physical defensive team like IU, we rush shots, take too many bad shots. It’s expected to struggle more, to make worse decisions, but not to the extent we did.

Go cats, let’s turn our 10% chance of winning in Champaign into a W.

 

[Sec.112]

When you throw the word "heavy" in there (as in "heavy recruiting advantage") it distorts what most people are saying. Most people say it is an advantage. And they are 100% correct.

I throw the word "heavy" in there because its obvious that's what coaches and fans try to create to overcome its lack of any basketball history. They attempt to differentiate NU from other schools and make academics THE key selling point when it often doesn't carry that much of a difference.

Just as you did in your response, for decades, NU coaches and administrators have been trying to get the discussion away from basketball.

The reality is recruits consider basketball at least on an even plane with academics. So that doesn't give NU much of any advantage in the full scope of recruiting against Arkansas or Ohio State.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

I throw the word "heavy" in there because its obvious that's what coaches and fans try to create to overcome its lack of any basketball history. They attempt to differentiate NU from other schools and make academics THE key selling point when it often doesn't carry that much of a difference.

Just as you did in your response, for decades, NU coaches and administrators have been trying to get the discussion away from basketball.

The reality is recruits consider basketball at least on an even plane with academics. So that doesn't give NU much of any advantage in the full scope of recruiting against Arkansas or Ohio State.

You are moving the goalposts.

 

[Sec.112]

You are moving the goalposts.

Yes, in the direction of reality.

 

[NJCat]

Probably too much to ask. 1 NCAA trip every 4 years would be tremendous by itself regardless of the other years. I hope for 2 NCAAs a decade with several NITs mixed in.

I'm halfway through my seventh decade of life. I'd take just one more NCAA trip before I croak.......

 

[NUChicago]

is the question still if Collins stays or goes?? I say goes, but not sure who our AD can bring in.....

 

[NJCat]

is the question still if Collins stays or goes?? I say goes, but not sure who our AD can bring in.....

Well, Derrick Gragg was AD at Tulsa when Danny Manning coached there. And Manning will be looking for a new gig at the end of this season. Just sayin'.......

 

[AdamOnFirst]

is the question still if Collins stays or goes?? I say goes, but not sure who our AD can bring in.....

Seems like the overwhelming answer is he should stay, based on the poll

 

[NUChicago]

Seems like the overwhelming answer is he should stay, based on the poll

Polls..shmolls...but I guess you leave as is and let the next AD make a decision.

 

[cometclear]

The recruiting excuse falls flat. Stanford has comparable standards. Notre Dame has comparable standards. There are about 10-15 recruits among the top 100/150 that these schools can realistically target each year. Neither are perennial winners, but they've won much more than NU.

If you doubt this, cite me a player/recruit for either program that NU would not admit. To the contrary, we consistently see common recruiting targets.

Probably the best for NU is to hire a good, proven coach on the rebound. It happens. They're out there. Anthony Grant is an example of this. I'm sure he will get a shot at the big-time again. Throw a lot of money at him. In terms of coaches with good track records who might be available after this season, two Martins, Cuonzo and Frank, might be available. Frank, in particular, did a great job at Kansas St. and the first half of his time at South Carolina. Cuonzo can recruit and knows the Big Ten well.

The Brumbaugh decision is a bad omen. A player of his caliber would not have reversed his decision the year after the NCAA Tournament appearance.

 

[Sec.112]

Well, Derrick Gragg was AD at Tulsa when Danny Manning coached there. And Manning will be looking for a new gig at the end of this season. Just sayin'.......

Oh hell! Don't tell me that.

 

[Sec.112]

Probably the best for NU is to hire a good, proven coach on the rebound.

Im in the same ballpark, and there are a few nice candidates out there so far. Grant is one of the better, more realistic ideas out here.

 

[AdamOnFirst]

I guess if you look at Stanford, they really only had much success at all under one legendary head coach, a little success for a couple years under his immediate successor, then they slowed down.

 

[cometclear]

I guess if you look at Stanford, they really only had much success at all under one legendary head coach, a little success for a couple years under his immediate successor, then they slowed down.

Still more success than NU. When a coach underperforms to this degree at Stanford, he is fired. Vandy and Wake have more latitude in terms of recruiting, but the same for them. Notre Dame has allowed Brey several Mulligans, but he has come back and gotten the team to the Tournament. NU has very low performance expectations and standards, and it shows.

 

[NUChicago]

Still more success than NU. When a coach underperforms to this degree at Stanford, he is fired. Vandy and Wake have more latitude in terms of recruiting, but the same for them. Notre Dame has allowed Brey several Mulligans, but he has come back and gotten the team to the Tournament. NU has very low performance expectations and standards, and it shows.

Could not agree more.