Built for the tourney

[tjreese]

ss what some talking heads will say and then follow up with another team being better, but not built for the tourney. What happens in the tourney that the better teams may not be built for the tourney? Is the court different? Are the rims height, location, and size different? Did the rules change? Did worse refs get the tourney games, but not the season games? What is the criteria that a talking head would use that team A is better than team B and yet team B is built for the tourney? Is it unrealized potential that a talking head knows will be realized once in the tourney due to something? I fully get a crapshoot, requiring some luck combined with being a good team, but would think those variables exist for all teams…not those secretly built for the tourney? Thoughts? Do they not know what else to say?

 

[Dryfly88]

What example do you have of them saying that? Did someone specifically say that about PU? If so, who were they comparing us to that we were better, but not as well built for the tourney?

 

[BoilerAndy]

What example do you have of them saying that? Did someone specifically say that about PU? If so, who were they comparing us to that we were better, but not as well built for the tourney?

Kind of a paraphrase of Laphonso Ellis' statement that Purdue doesn't have the NBA players to win it all. We have people on this board who say we don't have the guards or we use a big man in the middle. Apparently the components that build our team are not the right components, in some people's opinions.

 

[tjreese]

What example do you have of them saying that? Did someone specifically say that about PU? If so, who were they comparing us to that we were better, but not as well built for the tourney?

I really don’t know who or where because it wasn’t a single person that struck me so odd. It may have been Ellis and it may have been Purdue, but could just as easily be a different team in a different conference being discussed…and I’m kind of leaning that way as well as things I read. Still, most of us have heard the reports about freshmen guards…players that can get their own or March is for guards. I don’t know who said that, but it has been said by a lot of people.

My point, and what I thought was the point, was how is the season so different than in March other than one game can do you in? Teams are generally better with older players than younger ones. Players that can break you down exist in the season and tourney…why is it only important in the tourney? Guard play is important all season…not just in the tourney. You better have a force inside to do well as well. So I asked what is different that having success during the season can’t be duplicated in the tourney…other than a team being hotter than usual…seniors knowing it’s their last go around and juniors being loose because they are not seniors. Whatever you can imagine, it has been said and by enough it isn’t possible to point to a single source of a common theme. Unless Purdue is on a downward swing there is no reason Purdue can’t find success in the tourney with the same team that had success during the season…unless Purdue takes a spiral.

Sooooooo, I asked what is different?

 

[tjreese]

Kind of a paraphrase of Laphonso Ellis' statement that Purdue doesn't have the NBA players to win it all. We have people on this board who say we don't have the guards or we use a big man in the middle. Apparently the components that build our team are not the right components, in some people's opinions.

There are sooooooooooooo many people that repeat such nonsense to fill time that there is no ending to where it may lead. Yeah, NBA players give teams a better shot during the season as well...unless they just half a$$ try during the season. Better players make for better teams. All those things people say you need in the tourney are needed in the season as well to make the tourney. That is the point...is there some mystical fifth dimension that comes into play when the tourney starts? Every skill set...every attribute you want in the tourney...you wanted during the season as well.

 

[indyogb]

The difference is it is a single elimination tournament and, thus, luck is a huge component. Luck means you can lose even though you are a better team due to someone having an off night, an opposing player having an exceptional night, officiating style harms you more than the opponent, you might meet a weaker team that happens to just be a tough matchup for you, and probably lots of other possibilities. To me, "being built for the tournament" means having a wing player or two who can get their own shot and score when needed to even out the rough spots (Carsen Edwards and Jaden Ivey come to mind as ideal "built for tournament players"). Carsen Edwards absolutely carried us at times during that run. ...but Jaden Ivey just happened to have his worst game during the St Peter's debacle last spring, so the "built for tournament" prototype isn't perfect, either (which is probably why most 'pundits' claim you need 2-3 NBA caliber wings to win it all; probably not 'needed' but certainly makes the margin for error much larger).

Just as another example - if Purdue (or even someone like IU) played Northwestern in a best-of-seven series, Purdue (and IU) would probably win that series 4 games to 1 or 2. ...but, for now, we're 0-1 against them. It's a good thing that wasn't a tournament game.

 

[tjreese]

The difference is it is a single elimination tournament and, thus, luck is a huge component. Luck means you can lose even though you are a better team due to someone having an off night, an opposing player having an exceptional night, officiating style harms you more than the opponent, you might meet a weaker team that happens to just be a tough matchup for you, and probably lots of other possibilities. To me, "being built for the tournament" means having a wing player or two who can get their own shot and score when needed to even out the rough spots (Carsen Edwards and Jaden Ivey come to mind as ideal "built for tournament players"). Carsen Edwards absolutely carried us at times during that run. ...but Jaden Ivey just happened to have his worst game during the St Peter's debacle last spring, so the "built for tournament" prototype isn't perfect, either (which is probably why most 'pundits' claim you need 2-3 NBA caliber wings to win it all; probably not 'needed' but certainly makes the margin for error much larger).

Just as another example - if Purdue (or even someone like IU) played Northwestern in a best-of-seven series, Purdue (and IU) would probably win that series 4 games to 1 or 2. ...but, for now, we're 0-1 against them. It's a good thing that wasn't a tournament game.

I'm not sure I was very clear. All those players you want in a tourney are they not as important during the season? ARe those players you want that maybe won 70% of their games somehow better than the players that maybe won 90% of the games assuming similar competition?

We all know it is a crapshoot, but that is for all teams not just those with whatever players you desire. What mystical things take place that make teams that maybe haven't fared as well as other teams be built for the tourney. Do the odds change becasue a team has such and such rather than the actual success? Any team can get hot. Any team can get lucky. We know it is a crapshoot, but those things can happen to any team.

Do you really think a poorer team will beat a better team just because they have a 5star player or two in the tourney, but can't beat them in the season? If team A is better than team B and might beat them 7 times out of 10 is the best estimate for team A now 50-50? Sure in throwing two dice you can roll a 2 or 12 total on a given throw, but the odds are significantly better of throwing a 7. What you need in a tourney you need in the season. The game hasn't changed. The players haven't changed. Now go measure the height of the rim...yep 10 feet to borrow from a movie. The game is and has always been about execution and the team that executes the best will win a given game.

What mystical thing happens in the tourney other than the hype and it being a single elimination? You realize that Ryan's game against Tenn allowed Carsen to go off against Virginia. I'm not disagreeing with luck being involved, but trying to logically understand this line of demarcation of pretourney and tourney towards success. Does the curtain get torn moments before the first game in the tourney breaking the time into BT and AT? There is no player discription you supplied that couldn't be nice to have, but don't they have those during the season as well...just maybe without the hype of the tourney.

Purdue will have the same strengths and shortcomings in the tourney as the season. How well Purdue plays to it's strengths and diminishes its weaknesses with the same players will have a lot to say with how successful Purdue is with or without other skill sets that have not been a problem to date...

 

[indyogb]

I'm not sure I was very clear. All those players you want in a tourney are they not as important during the season? ARe those players you want that maybe won 70% of their games somehow better than the players that maybe won 90% of the games assuming similar competition?

We all know it is a crapshoot, but that is for all teams not just those with whatever players you desire. What mystical things take place that make teams that maybe haven't fared as well as other teams be built for the tourney. Do the odds change becasue a team has such and such rather than the actual success? Any team can get hot. Any team can get lucky. We know it is a crapshoot, but those things can happen to any team.

Do you really think a poorer team will beat a better team just because they have a 5star player or two in the tourney, but can't beat them in the season? If team A is better than team B and might beat them 7 times out of 10 is the best estimate for team A now 50-50? Sure in throwing two dice you can roll a 2 or 12 total on a given throw, but the odds are significantly better of throwing a 7. What you need in a tourney you need in the season. The game hasn't changed. The players haven't changed. Now go measure the height of the rim...yep 10 feet to borrow from a movie. The game is and has always been about execution and the team that executes the best will win a given game.

What mystical thing happens in the tourney other than the hype and it being a single elimination? You realize that Ryan's game against Tenn allowed Carsen to go off against Virginia. I'm not disagreeing with luck being involved, but trying to logically understand this line of demarcation of pretourney and tourney towards success. Does the curtain get torn moments before the first game in the tourney breaking the time into BT and AT? There is no player discription you supplied that couldn't be nice to have, but don't they have those during the season as well...just maybe without the hype of the tourney.

Purdue will have the same strengths and shortcomings in the tourney as the season. How well Purdue plays to it's strengths and diminishes its weaknesses with the same players will have a lot to say with how successful Purdue is with or without other skill sets that have not been a problem to date...

Maybe the better team will win during the season and maybe it won't. The point is they have a better margin for error against those times things go against them. Sure, those "NBA-caliber wings" will be valuable during the season but, yes, even they can slip up. That can happen in the tournament, but having those guys seems to give the team a better margin for error or a better chance to overcome that "bad luck" just as it would during the regular season. Teams without those "NBA-caliber wings" can succeed just as much during the regular season, but their margin for error against those "bad luck" moments can bite them during the season and during the tournament. The difference, of course, is a loss in the tournament ends the run, whereas, a great team can still win a conference title with a couple losses.

I guess, in short, the difference those players make, game to game, doesn't change in the tournament but the stakes do. I think that's really the only reason having "NBA caliber forwards or guards" is highlighted during the tournament. If the tournament was played best-of-seven every round, I don't think it would matter as much (and I think Purdue might have a title to their credit by now and we'd be playing until June, like the NBA ).

 

[spoilerdave]

I think (and I'm biased) that all the big 10 teams have an advantage in the tourney, Especially Purdue, Indiana, Rutgers, and Northwestern. Thes officiating in the big 10 is much more hands off than it is in the tourney and if the teams can stay out of foul trouble (the others more than Purdue) than the physicality will be unmatched against other divisions. This gives Purdue the biggest advantage because if ref's call it honest on Zach he will get 30 FT's a game and make 25 of them.

The crazy comparisons where most big 10 teams are equal and just beat each other into submission is true and if we truly get 9 or 10 or even 11 teams in the tourney all of them have a shot to be cinderella's except Purdue and maybe IU. Rutgers is my bet to over perform compared to everyone, they are bad ass. IU and Northwestern are both over achieving too. I wouldn't be shocked to see all four in the Elite 8. Houston is #1 but they don't impress me one bit. Tennessee and Alabama are a different story, but still they aren't challenged like Purdue, IU, Northwestern and Rutgers have been challenged.

It will be one of the most fun March Madness's ever I think. I'm super excited to see how it plays out. Big 10 will far succeed the expectations and you really shouldn't be shocked when it happens

 

[SCBoiler1]

I think (and I'm biased) that all the big 10 teams have an advantage in the tourney, Especially Purdue, Indiana, Rutgers, and Northwestern. Thes officiating in the big 10 is much more hands off than it is in the tourney and if the teams can stay out of foul trouble (the others more than Purdue) than the physicality will be unmatched against other divisions. This gives Purdue the biggest advantage because if ref's call it honest on Zach he will get 30 FT's a game and make 25 of them.

The crazy comparisons where most big 10 teams are equal and just beat each other into submission is true and if we truly get 9 or 10 or even 11 teams in the tourney all of them have a shot to be cinderella's except Purdue and maybe IU. Rutgers is my bet to over perform compared to everyone, they are bad ass. IU and Northwestern are both over achieving too. I wouldn't be shocked to see all four in the Elite 8. Houston is #1 but they don't impress me one bit. Tennessee and Alabama are a different story, but still they aren't challenged like Purdue, IU, Northwestern and Rutgers have been challenged.

It will be one of the most fun March Madness's ever I think. I'm super excited to see how it plays out. Big 10 will far succeed the expectations and you really shouldn't be shocked when it happens

It could happen but every indication is that it won't. Parity may mean that all the teams are pretty good or it could mean their just all kind of average (except Purdue). According the NET ratings, Purdue is the only B1G team who would have a top 4 seed (top 16 seed). Having 4 teams in the Elite 8 would be like drawing an inside straight flush, it could happen but its pretty unlikely.

 

[FirstDownB]

1) Crap shoot element, i.e., who is 'hot' - see Saint Peter's, etc
2) IMO some teams with NBA guys tend to dog the regular season Tuesday evening games and turn it up (especially on defense) in March. Not sure I see as many of these types this season.
3) Teams with freshmen phenoms or transients take awhile longer to gel. I can definitely see some of these.
4) Games officiated for more guard-friendly and 'NBA style' iso ball fashion for the national/casual audience

 

[depthcharge623]

1) Crap shoot element, i.e., who is 'hot' - see Saint Peter's, etc
2) IMO some teams with NBA guys tend to dog the regular season Tuesday evening games and turn it up (especially on defense) in March. Not sure I see as many of these types this season.
3) Teams with freshmen phenoms or transients take awhile longer to gel. I can definitely see some of these.
4) Games officiated for more guard-friendly and 'NBA style' iso ball fashion for the national/casual audience

I think your #2 is a big one. You see this a lot with good players/teams in the NBA. Back when Lebron was on the Cavs (he probably still does this, maybe even more so now that he’s so old, I just don’t watch NBA anymore), he would only give like 80% in a lot of regular season games and then he (and the whole team) would sort of shift into a higher gear in the playoffs.

I have no doubt many 5 star players in college do this too, especially if they have so so coaching that can’t get them motivated.

 

[tjreese]

Maybe the better team will win during the season and maybe it won't. The point is they have a better margin for error against those times things go against them. Sure, those "NBA-caliber wings" will be valuable during the season but, yes, even they can slip up. That can happen in the tournament, but having those guys seems to give the team a better margin for error or a better chance to overcome that "bad luck" just as it would during the regular season. Teams without those "NBA-caliber wings" can succeed just as much during the regular season, but their margin for error against those "bad luck" moments can bite them during the season and during the tournament. The difference, of course, is a loss in the tournament ends the run, whereas, a great team can still win a conference title with a couple losses.

I guess, in short, the difference those players make, game to game, doesn't change in the tournament but the stakes do. I think that's really the only reason having "NBA caliber forwards or guards" is highlighted during the tournament. If the tournament was played best-of-seven every round, I don't think it would matter as much (and I think Purdue might have a title to their credit by now and we'd be playing until June, like the NBA ).

fully get that. Those players that go on their own can make a shot that beats you and those players that go on their own can shoot their team out of a win. So, if I understand you correctly then there is no difference in probability to win a given game in the season...or tourney. That was the crux of what I stated. Built to win in the seeason is built to win in the tourney. It is just that the tourney with the same probabilities ends the season when those same probabilities loses. Okay, I get that...always have. So no difference other than we remember the shots that beat us and not the shots of teams that shot themselves out. It is just the magnification of the desires of the tourney that we see what we want or even need that really is there the whole time. I fully understand what you are saying. Matt will try to recruit the best players he can...whether pre conference, conference, Big, Big Tourney and NCAA tourney.

 

[FirstDownB]

I think your #2 is a big one. You see this a lot with good players/teams in the NBA. Back when Lebron was on the Cavs (he probably still does this, maybe even more so now that he’s so old, I just don’t watch NBA anymore), he would only give like 80% in a lot of regular season games and then he (and the whole team) would sort of shift into a higher gear in the playoffs.

I have no doubt many 5 star players in college do this too, especially if they have so so coaching that can’t get them motivated.

This year's Purdue team is a perfect storm of good coaching and players buying into the system from day 1. That helped separate this team from the pack early in the season. Now other more talented teams are catching up. There are a lot of expectations now for this team based on those early season wins. When you look at the last month, the resume is closer to a 4 or 5 seed. We should still get a 1 or 2 seed based on overall body of work, which should help with tourney advancement probabilities. But I'm afraid the outlook for this team is not too much different than many Sweet 16 teams of years past and it will need some help with the draw and lady luck (see #1 above) to make it to Houston.

 

[tjreese]

This year's Purdue team is a perfect storm of good coaching and players buying into the system from day 1. That helped separate this team from the pack early in the season. Now other more talented teams are catching up. There are a lot of expectations now for this team based on those early season wins. When you look at the last month, the resume is closer to a 4 or 5 seed. We should still get a 1 or 2 seed based on overall body of work, which should help with tourney advancement probabilities. But I'm afraid the outlook for this team is not too much different than many Sweet 16 teams of years past and it will need some help with the draw and lady luck (see #1 above) to make it to Houston.

Hence my comment about a possible downward trend or a team getting hot and such, but wherever that team is at the end of the season is the same as entering the tourney. It still requires some breaks and playing well. There are a LOT of coaches with everything people think are "built for the tourney" that would take Purdue's team in a second...because the odds are that Purdue is better than most. This team's advancement comes down to official bias in how they view the game, match ups, and how the execution of Purdue is compared to teh execution of the team it is playing and execution although affected by the refs and opposition is still mostly under control by Purdue.

Is there anyone alive that thinks whatever the results are of the teams in the tourney that they would be the same played a week earlier...a week later and so forth? The teams that won could very easily be a loser and that includes "teams built for the tourney" and those "not built for a tourney" whatever that means?

 

[proudopete]

I think built for the tourney would include top 25 in both offense and defense, which Purdue has.

 

[bonefish1]

The single most important part of the tourney is guard play. More specifically, guards who can get their own shot or get a score when needed in crunch time. Interestingly, last years PU team was built like that and had that player in Ivey, but forgot that they had to play St. Peters before UNC.

 

[Dryfly88]

I really don’t know who or where because it wasn’t a single person that struck me so odd. It may have been Ellis and it may have been Purdue, but could just as easily be a different team in a different conference being discussed…and I’m kind of leaning that way as well as things I read. Still, most of us have heard the reports about freshmen guards…players that can get their own or March is for guards. I don’t know who said that, but it has been said by a lot of people.

My point, and what I thought was the point, was how is the season so different than in March other than one game can do you in? Teams are generally better with older players than younger ones. Players that can break you down exist in the season and tourney…why is it only important in the tourney? Guard play is important all season…not just in the tourney. You better have a force inside to do well as well. So I asked what is different that having success during the season can’t be duplicated in the tourney…other than a team being hotter than usual…seniors knowing it’s their last go around and juniors being loose because they are not seniors. Whatever you can imagine, it has been said and by enough it isn’t possible to point to a single source of a common theme. Unless Purdue is on a downward swing there is no reason Purdue can’t find success in the tourney with the same team that had success during the season…unless Purdue takes a spiral.

Sooooooo, I asked what is different?

I've heard a lot of pundits over the years list teams that they think are suited to "win it all". A lot of those lists this year include PU. Side note: they did last year too and we know how that worked out.

Ellis made a comment that in his opinion PU may not have the guards to win it all. I don't personally think that was that crazy. I question the same thing myself. I question whether we have the guards to beat Maryland tonight. Doesn't mean we won't but I certainly question it.

When you have to win 6 games in a row and 5 of those are probably going to be against pretty good, if not very good teams you need to be able to play different ways. I think that more than anything is where the "guards win in the tourney" comes from. Guards control the ball and have more to say about how a team does against different defenses and strategies. Doesn't mean that having a 7'4" monster isn't a good thing. It just means that having great guards is better.

I really don't think the tourney is too much different. If you look at our 3 losses so far this year, Edey played well. We lost because of guard play. Either turning it over too much or not being able to hit shots or both. Tourney will probably end up the same way. If we can get 5 games in a row where the guards do well we have a good shot of winning it all. Play poorly and we will be out.

If someone has said that PU is a better regular season team than some other team, but not in the tourney, I have not seen or heard that.

 

[BoilerAndy]

The single most important part of the tourney is guard play. More specifically, guards who can get their own shot or get a score when needed in crunch time. Interestingly, last years PU team was built like that and had that player in Ivey, but forgot that they had to play St. Peters before UNC.

Last year's team could score with anybody. But they gave their opportunities to the other teams with turnovers. And because they were so good offensively, no need to play defense.

 

[bonefish1]

I've heard a lot of pundits over the years list teams that they think are suited to "win it all". A lot of those lists this year include PU. Side note: they did last year too and we know how that worked out.

Ellis made a comment that in his opinion PU may not have the guards to win it all. I don't personally think that was that crazy. I question the same thing myself. I question whether we have the guards to beat Maryland tonight. Doesn't mean we won't but I certainly question it.

When you have to win 6 games in a row and 5 of those are probably going to be against pretty good, if not very good teams you need to be able to play different ways. I think that more than anything is where the "guards win in the tourney" comes from. Guards control the ball and have more to say about how a team does against different defenses and strategies. Doesn't mean that having a 7'4" monster isn't a good thing. It just means that having great guards is better.

I really don't think the tourney is too much different. If you look at our 3 losses so far this year, Edey played well. We lost because of guard play. Either turning it over too much or not being able to hit shots or both. Tourney will probably end up the same way. If we can get 5 games in a row where the guards do well we have a good shot of winning it all. Play poorly and we will be out.

If someone has said that PU is a better regular season team than some other team, but not in the tourney, I have not seen or heard that.

The best we can hope for in the tourney is to face teams that play big or try to score in the post. A team with long athletic guards who play good physical D is going to create problems for our guards. I think what we're seeing now is the result of teams having a lot of tape on Purdue and how to attack our weaknesses. Teams like Duke, Zags, Marquette, etc didn't have that early in the year and Purdue took advantage. Painter has never been known for his in-game or even in-season adjustments, so we'll see if that happens this year.

 

[Do Dah Day]

I'm not sure I was very clear. All those players you want in a tourney are they not as important during the season? ARe those players you want that maybe won 70% of their games somehow better than the players that maybe won 90% of the games assuming similar competition?

We all know it is a crapshoot, but that is for all teams not just those with whatever players you desire. What mystical things take place that make teams that maybe haven't fared as well as other teams be built for the tourney. Do the odds change becasue a team has such and such rather than the actual success? Any team can get hot. Any team can get lucky. We know it is a crapshoot, but those things can happen to any team.

Do you really think a poorer team will beat a better team just because they have a 5star player or two in the tourney, but can't beat them in the season? If team A is better than team B and might beat them 7 times out of 10 is the best estimate for team A now 50-50? Sure in throwing two dice you can roll a 2 or 12 total on a given throw, but the odds are significantly better of throwing a 7. What you need in a tourney you need in the season. The game hasn't changed. The players haven't changed. Now go measure the height of the rim...yep 10 feet to borrow from a movie. The game is and has always been about execution and the team that executes the best will win a given game.

What mystical thing happens in the tourney other than the hype and it being a single elimination? You realize that Ryan's game against Tenn allowed Carsen to go off against Virginia. I'm not disagreeing with luck being involved, but trying to logically understand this line of demarcation of pretourney and tourney towards success. Does the curtain get torn moments before the first game in the tourney breaking the time into BT and AT? There is no player discription you supplied that couldn't be nice to have, but don't they have those during the season as well...just maybe without the hype of the tourney.

Purdue will have the same strengths and shortcomings in the tourney as the season. How well Purdue plays to it's strengths and diminishes its weaknesses with the same players will have a lot to say with how successful Purdue is with or without other skill sets that have not been a problem to date...

You included the answer in this comment. You used the word "logic." Logic has nothing to do with who wins in the tourney. Just look at how many, out of millions, come close to picking a lot of winners in bracket challenges.

Statistics a few years ago showed that most winning teams had a Senior Pt Guard. I suspect that is not valid anymore.

EMOTION (the direct opposite of logic) is the aspect that is different from the season. As you stated, a Senior's last game. An NBA prospect's last chance to prove himself. A coach's emotional speech. Did they FOCUS on the game, or on the party? Many suggest that it takes a coach experienced in handling his team at the hotels and media events to keep a team focused. FOCUS ... an emotion that may not exist during the season.

EMOTION of fans. No, N'western would not beat our Boilers or the Loosiers in a tourney game. The EMOTION and adrenaline of a huge number of fans without any opposing fans ... that never happens in March.

NOW.. Does Zach and Braden and Loyer's staying cool fit into this? We'll know more next month.

 

[Dekezar]

Maybe the better team will win during the season and maybe it won't. The point is they have a better margin for error against those times things go against them. Sure, those "NBA-caliber wings" will be valuable during the season but, yes, even they can slip up. That can happen in the tournament, but having those guys seems to give the team a better margin for error or a better chance to overcome that "bad luck" just as it would during the regular season. Teams without those "NBA-caliber wings" can succeed just as much during the regular season, but their margin for error against those "bad luck" moments can bite them during the season and during the tournament. The difference, of course, is a loss in the tournament ends the run, whereas, a great team can still win a conference title with a couple losses.

I guess, in short, the difference those players make, game to game, doesn't change in the tournament but the stakes do. I think that's really the only reason having "NBA caliber forwards or guards" is highlighted during the tournament. If the tournament was played best-of-seven every round, I don't think it would matter as much (and I think Purdue might have a title to their credit by now and we'd be playing until June, like the NBA ).

The way this season is going every team can lose the tournament this year will be wide open get hot at the end and you can go a long way

 

[tjreese]

I've heard a lot of pundits over the years list teams that they think are suited to "win it all". A lot of those lists this year include PU. Side note: they did last year too and we know how that worked out.

Ellis made a comment that in his opinion PU may not have the guards to win it all. I don't personally think that was that crazy. I question the same thing myself. I question whether we have the guards to beat Maryland tonight. Doesn't mean we won't but I certainly question it.

When you have to win 6 games in a row and 5 of those are probably going to be against pretty good, if not very good teams you need to be able to play different ways. I think that more than anything is where the "guards win in the tourney" comes from. Guards control the ball and have more to say about how a team does against different defenses and strategies. Doesn't mean that having a 7'4" monster isn't a good thing. It just means that having great guards is better.

I really don't think the tourney is too much different. If you look at our 3 losses so far this year, Edey played well. We lost because of guard play. Either turning it over too much or not being able to hit shots or both. Tourney will probably end up the same way. If we can get 5 games in a row where the guards do well we have a good shot of winning it all. Play poorly and we will be out.

If someone has said that PU is a better regular season team than some other team, but not in the tourney, I have not seen or heard that.

My whole point was not how a position may affect any games result, but that whatever is needed to be successful in the season is the same for the tourney. Purdue has already played good teams away and on a neutral court that are as good as many teams that will be in the 68 or so teams. There are teams built for success that happen to play well in the season and tourney. Those characteristics don't change. Now PGs in particular have the ball in their hands and thus eliminate needing to give it up to make a play for a win...and if after 60 possessions played and no separation then that is an advantage...and like other effective players... important before the last possession.

Playing different ways is more of an offensive consideration than a defensive one. Most teams do what they do on D and you can't make them change what they do. However, what they do on D may make adjustments on O and as always you like versatile players even if the D didn't change inside a game or by different teams...all due to adjusting to the opposition if needed and not important if they are adjusting to you. There is nothing a team will do that Purdue players have not seen at numerous times through their playing years.

What changes are the physical and basketball skills being more athletic and talented, but Match-ups, zones, man, man presses, various zone presses, run and jump and hybrids of all those are minor tweaks to fundamental understandings. There is nothing really new under the sun...just tweaks and adjustments. People say look at Maryland and what they are doing in the half as the clock winds down and they are in obvious man D...Crean was doing that his last year or two at IU. Every strength and weakness a team has goes with them into the tourney and depending on who they are playing that may or may not be an issue. There are no surprises...just execution at some level against an opponent that is a bit different than the last.

To be successful in the tourney is to need what you need during the season as well. The direction as a result may lead to different things, but what caused the result hasn't changed...just the last game...maybe losing a conference championship and so on as the results, but the lack of inside play, perimeter play and so on causes problems during the season and in the tourney.

I think there is as much if not more powerful variable in how the officials from game to game and from different positions inside a given game ,view the game, because it is really...really...really hard to prepare for that, should it happen...and that may be a big plus for the 1,2 and 3s.

 

[tjreese]

You included the answer in this comment. You used the word "logic." Logic has nothing to do with who wins in the tourney. Just look at how many, out of millions, come close to picking a lot of winners in bracket challenges.

Statistics a few years ago showed that most winning teams had a Senior Pt Guard. I suspect that is not valid anymore.

EMOTION (the direct opposite of logic) is the aspect that is different from the season. As you stated, a Senior's last game. An NBA prospect's last chance to prove himself. A coach's emotional speech. Did they FOCUS on the game, or on the party? Many suggest that it takes a coach experienced in handling his team at the hotels and media events to keep a team focused. FOCUS ... an emotion that may not exist during the season.

EMOTION of fans. No, N'western would not beat our Boilers or the Loosiers in a tourney game. The EMOTION and adrenaline of a huge number of fans without any opposing fans ... that never happens in March.

NOW.. Does Zach and Braden and Loyer's staying cool fit into this? We'll know more next month.

All that I can agree. All the desires you have for play in the season are there in the tourney, but the players ultimately determind the results. It also links into Matt being more cerebral in his approach and other coaches being more emotional. It is a crapshoot quite simply and you have to be good, lucky and get a break here and there

 

[Do Dah Day]

All that I can agree. All the desires you have for play in the season are there in the tourney, but the players ultimately determind the results. It also links into Matt being more cerebral in his approach and other coaches being more emotional. It is a crapshoot quite simply and you have to be good, lucky and get a break here and there

If emotional coaches were winners, Huggins would not be on the hot seat.

 

[tjreese]

If emotional coaches were winners, Huggins would not be on the hot seat.

He is about as unemotional coach as you could find or maybe I'm understanding you wrong. He gives the appearance of being pretty sober...Had no idea he was on a hotseat. He is a big guy and maybe he is watching his heart?

 

[Dryfly88]

My whole point was not how a position may affect any games result, but that whatever is needed to be successful in the season is the same for the tourney. Purdue has already played good teams away and on a neutral court that are as good as many teams that will be in the 68 or so teams. There are teams built for success that happen to play well in the season and tourney. Those characteristics don't change. Now PGs in particular have the ball in their hands and thus eliminate needing to give it up to make a play for a win...and if after 60 possessions played and no separation then that is an advantage...and like other effective players... important before the last possession.

Playing different ways is more of an offensive consideration than a defensive one. Most teams do what they do on D and you can't make them change what they do. However, what they do on D may make adjustments on O and as always you like versatile players even if the D didn't change inside a game or by different teams...all due to adjusting to the opposition if needed and not important if they are adjusting to you. There is nothing a team will do that Purdue players have not seen at numerous times through their playing years.

What changes are the physical and basketball skills being more athletic and talented, but Match-ups, zones, man, man presses, various zone presses, run and jump and hybrids of all those are minor tweaks to fundamental understandings. There is nothing really new under the sun...just tweaks and adjustments. People say look at Maryland and what they are doing in the half as the clock winds down and they are in obvious man D...Crean was doing that his last year or two at IU. Every strength and weakness a team has goes with them into the tourney and depending on who they are playing that may or may not be an issue. There are no surprises...just execution at some level against an opponent that is a bit different than the last.

To be successful in the tourney is to need what you need during the season as well. The direction as a result may lead to different things, but what caused the result hasn't changed...just the last game...maybe losing a conference championship and so on as the results, but the lack of inside play, perimeter play and so on causes problems during the season and in the tourney.

I think there is as much if not more powerful variable in how the officials from game to game and from different positions inside a given game ,view the game, because it is really...really...really hard to prepare for that, should it happen...and that may be a big plus for the 1,2 and 3s.

B1G does a very poor job of preparing teams for the tournament. Very little zone and very little full court pressure. We'll see both tonight, hopefully we handle them well.

 

[tjreese]

B1G does a very poor job of preparing teams for the tournament. Very little zone and very little full court pressure. We'll see both tonight, hopefully we handle them well.

first few minutes of each half will be key. We will see how well Purdue can handle the crowd and the press in just a few!!! Want to think the morph into man as teh clock winds down is of no concern. BTW, Maryland is changing that...

 

[Dryfly88]

first few minutes of each half will be key. We will see how well Purdue can handle the crowd and the press in just a few!!! Want to think the morph into man as teh clock winds down is of no concern. BTW, Maryland is changing that...

Oh I agree MD is a good test. I would just like to see more teams in the conference do it. We play a 20 game conference schedule and 16 of the games are the same thing. Iowa and MD are the exception. I watch a lot of other conference games and there is a difference. IMO, it's the main reason we don't have a championship in this conference for over 20 years.

 

[Mobes]

This year's Purdue team is a perfect storm of good coaching and players buying into the system from day 1. That helped separate this team from the pack early in the season. Now other more talented teams are catching up. There are a lot of expectations now for this team based on those early season wins. When you look at the last month, the resume is closer to a 4 or 5 seed. We should still get a 1 or 2 seed based on overall body of work, which should help with tourney advancement probabilities. But I'm afraid the outlook for this team is not too much different than many Sweet 16 teams of years past and it will need some help with the draw and lady luck (see #1 above) to make it to Houston.

I've relaxed about this season by concluding that we are a year away. Who do we lose besides Jenkins? I'm assuming that Edey comes back.

 

[krazychicagod]

Its pretty damn obvious isnt it??? We play big man post centric offense and that DOES NOT WIN in the ncaa tourney. Guard play does. Refs stop calling fouls on bigs late in the year as we are seeing yet again tonight.