Do you remember … the 21st night of November?
They were changin’ the minds as pretenders … while chasin’ old clouds away.
So said the talking heads, “They’ll be favored in all their remaining games.”
Apologies to Earth, Wind & Fire, but that was Nov. 21, just after Purdue’s back-to-back wins over North Carolina and Villanova … destined to be two of the NCAA’s final Elite Eight.
Both wore down against Purdue’s depth, shown in the decisive runs in the last 10 minutes. That’s when Purdue was starting its one and only Indiana Mr. Basketball and actually playing 10 deep, which kept legs fresher and confidence shared while compensating for the general lack of speed and athleticism and the overlooked deficits in length for the three 6-5 wings/forwards.
Defense generally remained subpar, but, as the bench’s minutes were cut in Big Ten play, Purdue shooters instead showed wear and tailed off. In their last 10 games against league foes, Stefanovic sagged badly (22 of 75 overall for 29 percent) with Ivey also misfiring his set shots (16 of 68 threes for 24 percent) when not busting dishes with crashes into walls (32 turnovers vs. 28 assists). Also dropping below season averages in that span were Gillis (5.3 vs. 6.4 ppg), Thompson (1.2 vs. 4.2 ppg), Morton (1.7 vs. 2.4 ppg), Furst (1.8 in 8 games vs. 4.1 ppg) and Newman (3.5 in 4 games vs. 4.6 ppg). Only Hunter rose (8.9 vs. 6.2 ppg), aside from Edey and Williams, who continued splitting their 40 minutes per game and thus continued to produce. As a whole, Purdue shot 45.5 percent in its last 10 Big Ten games vs. 49 percent for the year.
The tightened rotation led to tighter throats and team-wide chokes, allowing a succession of lesser opponents to stick around for freak-show finishes and four fadeout losses in those last 10, six for the season, followed by yet more late lapses for losses in the league tourney final and the NCAA’s Sweet Sixteen.
All as the favorite.
This “Final Four material” was ranked between No. 7 and No. 1 all season … until it really mattered in March, when seeds are planted. Instead of late momentum, Purdue lost two straight to fall out of the polls’ Elite Eight and lose the Big Ten title after a hard climb to first from 1-2.
The team once ranked No. 1 in the nation finished only No. 3 in its league, then No. 2 in the league tourney, then lost as a low 3 seed against a 15 seed in the NCAA … all in step with the slices in bench minutes that shredded confidence, conditioning and all the anticipated banners.
Gotta dance with who brung ya, but not ’til they drop. Then shots don’t drop and the team does, leaving a big zero in the trophy case and dust in the rafters.
They were changin’ the minds as pretenders … while chasin’ old clouds away.
So said the talking heads, “They’ll be favored in all their remaining games.”
Apologies to Earth, Wind & Fire, but that was Nov. 21, just after Purdue’s back-to-back wins over North Carolina and Villanova … destined to be two of the NCAA’s final Elite Eight.
Both wore down against Purdue’s depth, shown in the decisive runs in the last 10 minutes. That’s when Purdue was starting its one and only Indiana Mr. Basketball and actually playing 10 deep, which kept legs fresher and confidence shared while compensating for the general lack of speed and athleticism and the overlooked deficits in length for the three 6-5 wings/forwards.
Defense generally remained subpar, but, as the bench’s minutes were cut in Big Ten play, Purdue shooters instead showed wear and tailed off. In their last 10 games against league foes, Stefanovic sagged badly (22 of 75 overall for 29 percent) with Ivey also misfiring his set shots (16 of 68 threes for 24 percent) when not busting dishes with crashes into walls (32 turnovers vs. 28 assists). Also dropping below season averages in that span were Gillis (5.3 vs. 6.4 ppg), Thompson (1.2 vs. 4.2 ppg), Morton (1.7 vs. 2.4 ppg), Furst (1.8 in 8 games vs. 4.1 ppg) and Newman (3.5 in 4 games vs. 4.6 ppg). Only Hunter rose (8.9 vs. 6.2 ppg), aside from Edey and Williams, who continued splitting their 40 minutes per game and thus continued to produce. As a whole, Purdue shot 45.5 percent in its last 10 Big Ten games vs. 49 percent for the year.
The tightened rotation led to tighter throats and team-wide chokes, allowing a succession of lesser opponents to stick around for freak-show finishes and four fadeout losses in those last 10, six for the season, followed by yet more late lapses for losses in the league tourney final and the NCAA’s Sweet Sixteen.
All as the favorite.
This “Final Four material” was ranked between No. 7 and No. 1 all season … until it really mattered in March, when seeds are planted. Instead of late momentum, Purdue lost two straight to fall out of the polls’ Elite Eight and lose the Big Ten title after a hard climb to first from 1-2.
The team once ranked No. 1 in the nation finished only No. 3 in its league, then No. 2 in the league tourney, then lost as a low 3 seed against a 15 seed in the NCAA … all in step with the slices in bench minutes that shredded confidence, conditioning and all the anticipated banners.
Gotta dance with who brung ya, but not ’til they drop. Then shots don’t drop and the team does, leaving a big zero in the trophy case and dust in the rafters.
