There are times when the offense really flows due to Dakota's passing. He and Spike appear to be the best passers as far as great passes. PJ has made a lot of smart passes that necessarily didn't set someone up in some fashion only to make a great pass. "IF" Dakota gets really effective with his shot to go with his in-between game...the offense will flourish.
A line-up that I would like to see is Spike, CE, Mathias, VE, and Swanigan, with Swanigan setting a lot of ball screens for the three guards. I think that would put Spike and Dakota in a great position to exploit their passing and shooting ability, as well as allowing Carsen to gain an advantage attacking the rim, The shooting and passing ability in that line-up should make it very difficult for defenses to adjust and bring help.
I expect to see that. Course they will be smaller and the problems associated with that...and defensive questions...but I expect to see that some
Oh, I know you weren't. My comment was referencing someone earlier in the thread who questioned Keady's decision to redshirt Matt. They obviously did not understand the circumstances. Keady did the right thing to support an obvious decision for the young man's future.
I thought it looked like a well executed close out against a much taller, right handed player, but I'm fine with you seeing it differently.
many...many coaches force "baseline" to try to cut the court in half. Here Dakota attacks his "shooting hand" as well as making it difficult for the big guy to put it on the floor since he is right handed. I too have no issue with the close out and actually prefer it over a straight up square in this situation. Purdue was very unfortunate in many of the shots that UALR made and this was another. What none of us know is the scouting report where UALR was reviewed as a "team" and "individually" which almost always has different rules for different players. I imagine their coach thought they shouldn't have doubled down with Dakota's man on AJ seconds before when Dakota hit a big one. I do NOT think Dakota was taught specifically to close out the way he did on that man personally, but as a general approach towards baseline and shooting hand comparison...a lefty capable of driving he might have closed out more square. Again, we do not know the scouting report and many teams (Purdue does) push to the sideline and give up baseline (with AJ...this year?). A slower, big guy that may not be quick enough to get to the basket was a time that Dakota made an attack on the shooting hand... preferable I would think in this situation. UALR made some pretty unlikely baskets that if one missed Purdue wins. Not sure I would want the have the team paired with Purdue in the tourney this year.
Yep Purdue should have won, but make no mistake there were several unlikely difficult shots that went against teh odds for UALR which is usually what happens in a perceived upset. NO question on the panic either as that always favors the underdog with nothing to lose in the final seconds. I do not think that will be an issue this year, but the first NCAA game...maybe first two usually have a lot of perceived upsets. Only one person on TV I was aware picked UALR as the upset of the tourney before play.
prayer after prayer 3 pointer answered. None of those were high percentage shots. That shot against dakota was more than a foot off the mark. Just garbage luck. only thing i question is why pj was left in the game on defense on that last shot in regulation. wtf coach...put some size in there, you know it has to be a 3.
yes...and so why is that? There appears to be a bias somewhere in the seeding attempt. Doesn't it make much more sense to see the 8/9 followed by the 7/10 and then the 6/11 in upset frequency?
It's because the #5 seed is usually a Power 5 school that didn't win their conference or conference tournament. The #12 seed is usually a very good team not in a Power 5 conference. Whether it's truly an "upset" or not can be debated, but not very surprising that many of the #12's have won.
Yez, but the facade is that teams are seeded as much as possible by how good they are. since a 5/12 may have more upsets than a 8/9 it agrees with my original post that so.etching was going on and you provided a plausible reason. going further it suggests more opportunity to seed teams on things other than strength of the team. I think most could see this, but the data tends to support this and you provide one sound reason
Purdue always seems to be under-seeded in the tourney, either way we were in a position to to advance in a winnable game, hopefully 2016-2017 produces better results.
I think that 5-12 upsets are so frequent for a couple reasons.
My response was not specific to the PU/ALR game. It was about 5/12 match ups throughout the tournament since 64 team format was implemented.
Good point. I also keep seeing talk about Purdues defense being the problem in the ALR game (I.e. A better close out by Dakota, etc.). Nonsense. In each of the last two years the games were lost on the offensive end in the last four minutes. That Is why this team will be better than last years. This team will be able to score when it has to and I am so anxious to tip it off.
the whole point of this...of what I said is that observed results are not in line with expected results. Consequently, seeding is not an accurate measure of a team's ability or we would see the upsets go down relative to the 8/9 seed and that more upsets "should" take place in that game than a 5/12. Your statement just basically reaffirms what I said outside empirical evidence..and you are right...it isn't an upset per se because of the error (deliberate or not) of seeding.
I want to add to this a bit. If computer simulations, regression and mathematical models have error as noted by upsets in the 5/12 more than an 8/9 and everyone agrees that there are errors in seeding (whether deliberate for the $ or just errors), how many errors are there in more subjective measures like player star rating. Both Computers and star ranking can pick the elite teams and players, but is there error in player ranking between 50 and 100? When do the star power rankings become more inaccurate? No point in any of this except to amp up the potential for error in player ranking and team ranking past the elite status.
What do you see that is greatly unexpected?
This bears out what was said earlier. The 5/12 is the only one that is "off" from what would be expected. I listed the reasons I think that is the case and I'm sure there are others. On the whole, the committee does an accurate job of assigning seeds.
Right
