2019-2020 B1G Basketball Thread

[847badgerfan]

Wisconsin can't recruit probably 75 percent of the kids out there.

Every school in the B1G sans NU and UI can take about anyone who meets minimum NCAA standards. Things have changed since Stu Jackson roamed the sidelines in Madison. Not a chance Tracy Webster is a Badger these days.

Something to consider.

[bayareabadger]

Wisconsin can't recruit probably 75 percent of the kids out there.

Every school in the B1G sans NU and UI can take about anyone who meets minimum NCAA standards. Things have changed since Stu Jackson roamed the sidelines in Madison. Not a chance Tracy Webster is a Badger these days.

Something to consider.

I might not hammer the academics thing so much (not my nature), but UW isn't a school that gets the kids getting cash, so that puts a ceiling on some of the top-end kids.

And the demographics simply do not favor UW. In a sport whose participants are particularly diverse, UW is particularly not, in a state that is particularly not. It's in a part of the country that folks tend to leave rather than come to. So UW will pick through the kids it can get from Milwaukee, get some in-staters, snag kids from the twin cities and the Dakotas, occasionally pop into Ohio, and if you can build that into a consistent winner, I'll take it all day every day.

[medinabuckeye1]

I think I picked up on your attitude like I didn't know what I was talking about, but there was more than 2 minutes left in the game, down 16, which may seem incredible to some, but I've seen 10 points erased in less than a minute.

He just threw in the towel, sat Cowan and Fernando, and they never came back in.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1C3kUhFCxCYPqiRHxALmyodDIOOqHlcWG/view

I've been following this discussion between you and @ELA and I just don't get this particular complaint about your coach.  

Look, all of us get frustrated with our coaches sometimes and sometimes we are correct and our program should part ways with the coach and move in a different direction.  As a general issue, from my perspective, I'm not sure if I agree that Maryland is there with Turgeon.  In his nine seasons they have had one sweet sixteen.  That does seem a little low relative to Maryland's overall long-term performance but it isn't like he has been horrible.  This year will be his fifth NCAA in the past six years.  My point is that they are fielding good teams, just not great teams.  

Back to the specific complaint:
In the picture you posted Maryland is down 16 with 2:19 to go and you disagree with the decision to pull the stars.  Frankly, I don't.  The chances of coming back from that to win are remote at best.  As @ELA said above, I think at that point that the chances of one of them getting hurt are greater than the chances of Maryland pulling off a shocking come-from-behind win for the ages.  

My math:
Maryland is down 16 so if they hit a three every time they get the ball they need six possessions.  2:19 = 139 seconds and 139/6=23.17 so here is roughly what they would need to have happen in order to win (note that MSU is in Bonus+):

• Maryland makes a three in ~20 seconds to make it 56-69 with 120 seconds to go.  
• Maryland fouls MSU in ~3 seconds to send them to the line at 117 seconds to go.  
• MSU misses BOTH foul shots.  
• Maryland makes a three in ~20 seconds to make it 59-69 with 97 seconds to go.  
• Maryland fouls MSU in ~3 seconds to send them to the line at 94 seconds to go.  
• MSU misses BOTH foul shots.  
• Maryland makes a three in ~20 seconds to make it 62-69 with 74 seconds to go.  
• Maryland fouls MSU in ~3 seconds to send them to the line at 71 seconds.  
• MSU misses BOTH foul shots.  
• Maryland makes a three in ~20 seconds to make it 65-69 with 51 seconds.  
• Maryland fouls MSU in ~3 seconds to send them to the line at 47 seconds.  
• MSU misses BOTH foul shots.  
• Maryland makes a three in ~20 seconds to make it 68-69 at 27 seconds.  
• Maryand fouls MSU in ~20 seconds to send MSU to the line at 24 seconds.  
• Maryland makes a bucket in the final 24 seconds to win either 70-69 or 71-69.  

IMHO, the chances of Maryland making six straight baskets with at least four of them being threes (because 4*3+2*2=16) and all of them being somewhat rushed are remote at best.  The chances of MSU missing eight consecutive foul shots are even more remote.  In theory MSU could make two (if all six of UMD's baskets are threes) and still go to OT.  Is it throwing in the towel, well yes but it is pretty hard to argue with the logic behind it.  How many teams have ever come back from a 16 point deficit in ~2 minutes?  

I tried to google it but the closest I could come up with was a list of the 41 biggest comebacks in NCAA history.  Those are all more points (22 or more) but note that the latest in the game of those was that VCU overcame a 26 point deficit with 9:26 left at USF on February 20, 1993.  My point is that if Maryland or any team were to somehow overcome a 16 point deficit in a little over two minutes it wouldn't just be historic for that team, it would be a major historic event.  

One final way to determine this:
Years ago I read an article by Bill James on Slate
an article by Bill James on Slate that had a theory for determining when a Basketball game is over.  I found and linked the article but here is the math:

• Take the differential:  16
• Subtract three:  13
• Add a half-point if the team ahead has the ball, subtract a half-point if the team behind has the ball:  (I don't know who had the ball so I'll just assume it was Maryland:  12.5
• Square that:  156.25
• If the result is greater than the number of seconds left in the game, the lead is safe:  156.25>139 so the game was no longer in doubt per Slate.  

[SFBadger96]

BAB, you may have a much finer understanding of different styles of the swing than I am (I'm guessing so), but, man, when I look at what the swing offense is, I see what I see the Badgers do all the time (meaning almost all of the time). And the biggest weakness I see with the Badgers, particularly when they are trying to protect a lead (home against Minnesota and Illinois are two good examples, with two different outcomes) is their inability to get out of the swing and instead work the ball down low with intentional post play (as opposed to finding an open player coming off of a swing-based ball screen).

Again, maybe this is the system they need to run with the talent and skill set they have (in '14/'15 they had the size and talent to get away from it more). I'm definitely not a good judge of that.

And yes, I think we are largely talking past each other. My response re not anointing Gard is in response to the chatter about how what happened this season (when it isn't even over) proves Gard is amazing. It feels like the same people were saying two months ago that he had to go. It ebbs and flows. He's doing well. But not so well that he should have a really long leash (if that even exists anymore).

847 (side note: gonna have to change that, eh?): I don't know much about the conditioning coach and the inappropriate comment. But I agree that King didn't leave the program because of it.

King was one of the most talented players on the team, but--as you point out--he was looking for an exit. Why? Maybe it's all on him. But Gard was the guy who recruited him and convinced him that Wisconsin was the right fit (like him or not, Tyler Herro realized Wisconsin wasn't right for him). After that, something went wrong. While maybe most of it is on King, I have to believe Gard has some responsibility, too.

And the end result may have been the best one. The team is playing better without him. I have a theory about performance that includes mental state--including team mental state--as an important factor. Maybe what was happening with King was degrading the entire team's focus/performance. The results make it look that way. (To be clear, the NCAA's decision on Micah Potter may have been a substantially bigger influence; I guess Nebraska can now worry about the same thing.)

I'm not indicting Gard; he's doing a good job. I am, however, taking into account his failures, along with his success.

[ELA]

It honestly works


https://twitter.com/dayneyoung/status/1235252589253537800?s=19

[bayareabadger]

BAB, you may have a much finer understanding of different styles of the swing than I am (I'm guessing so), but, man, when I look at what the swing offense is, I see what I see the Badgers do all the time (meaning almost all of the time). And the biggest weakness I see with the Badgers, particularly when they are trying to protect a lead (home against Minnesota and Illinois are two good examples, with two different outcomes) is their inability to get out of the swing and instead work the ball down low with intentional post play (as opposed to finding an open player coming off of a swing-based ball screen).

Again, maybe this is the system they need to run with the talent and skill set they have (in '14/'15 they had the size and talent to get away from it more). I'm definitely not a good judge of that.

And yes, I think we are largely talking past each other. My response re not anointing Gard is in response to the chatter about how what happened this season (when it isn't even over) proves Gard is amazing. It feels like the same people were saying two months ago that he had to go. It ebbs and flows. He's doing well. But not so well that he should have a really long leash (if that even exists anymore).

847 (side note: gonna have to change that, eh?): I don't know much about the conditioning coach and the inappropriate comment. But I agree that King didn't leave the program because of it.

King was one of the most talented players on the team, but--as you point out--he was looking for an exit. Why? Maybe it's all on him. But Gard was the guy who recruited him and convinced him that Wisconsin was the right fit (like him or not, Tyler Herro realized Wisconsin wasn't right for him). After that, something went wrong. While maybe most of it is on King, I have to believe Gard has some responsibility, too.

And the end result may have been the best one. The team is playing better without him. I have a theory about performance that includes mental state--including team mental state--as an important factor. Maybe what was happening with King was degrading the entire team's focus/performance. The results make it look that way. (To be clear, the NCAA's decision on Micah Potter may have been a substantially bigger influence; I guess Nebraska can now worry about the same thing.)

I'm not indicting Gard; he's doing a good job. I am, however, taking into account his failures, along with his success.

So you're saying your complaint is about not just hammering the post late in games? 

If so, I don't think that's really a swing problem. It's a basic tenet of basketball problem. Intentional hammering of the post is neither particularly efficent nor particularly clean and easy to do. No one really does it. In truth, UW abandons whatever might be swing-ish down the stretch and relies on a lot of pick and pops or screen and rolls because those give guards maximum control. Hammering the post is often low upside when intentional like that (they can double you out of it and will if the matchup is somewhat favorable, plus Reuvers can be hit or miss).

In the end, that's not much on the swing. 

I think we're mostly in agreement. I'm not saying he's amazing. But I think he's pretty good, and he gets the standard leash. So 2-3 substandard seasons, two if the year before is bad, three is there's some mitigating situation. 

(I also might request an addendum, "King was perceived one of the most talented players on the team," the reality of that is still somewhat in question)

[SFBadger96]

I won't try to match basketball wits with you. The Badgers' swing offense is often one dimensional, even when that dimension isn't working, and they are bad at adjusting out of it to get the ball inside when they need to. Again, maybe a talent/skill problem. But a significant one, nonetheless.

[847badgerfan]

I think it's more to do with matchups than scheme. Minnesota and Purdue are horrible matchups for the Badgers, for example. If the staff can figure out how to work Reuvers and Potter together, look out. But, that's probably for next year.

[mcwterps1]

I've been following this discussion between you and @ELA and I just don't get this particular complaint about your coach. 

Look, all of us get frustrated with our coaches sometimes and sometimes we are correct and our program should part ways with the coach and move in a different direction.  As a general issue, from my perspective, I'm not sure if I agree that Maryland is there with Turgeon.  In his nine seasons they have had one sweet sixteen.  That does seem a little low relative to Maryland's overall long-term performance but it isn't like he has been horrible.  This year will be his fifth NCAA in the past six years.  My point is that they are fielding good teams, just not great teams. 

Back to the specific complaint:
In the picture you posted Maryland is down 16 with 2:19 to go and you disagree with the decision to pull the stars.  Frankly, I don't.  The chances of coming back from that to win are remote at best.  As @ELA said above, I think at that point that the chances of one of them getting hurt are greater than the chances of Maryland pulling off a shocking come-from-behind win for the ages. 

My math:
Maryland is down 16 so if they hit a three every time they get the ball they need six possessions.  2:19 = 139 seconds and 139/6=23.17 so here is roughly what they would need to have happen in order to win (note that MSU is in Bonus+):

• Maryland makes a three in ~20 seconds to make it 56-69 with 120 seconds to go. 
• Maryland fouls MSU in ~3 seconds to send them to the line at 117 seconds to go. 
• MSU misses BOTH foul shots. 
• Maryland makes a three in ~20 seconds to make it 59-69 with 97 seconds to go. 
• Maryland fouls MSU in ~3 seconds to send them to the line at 94 seconds to go. 
• MSU misses BOTH foul shots. 
• Maryland makes a three in ~20 seconds to make it 62-69 with 74 seconds to go. 
• Maryland fouls MSU in ~3 seconds to send them to the line at 71 seconds. 
• MSU misses BOTH foul shots. 
• Maryland makes a three in ~20 seconds to make it 65-69 with 51 seconds. 
• Maryland fouls MSU in ~3 seconds to send them to the line at 47 seconds. 
• MSU misses BOTH foul shots. 
• Maryland makes a three in ~20 seconds to make it 68-69 at 27 seconds. 
• Maryand fouls MSU in ~20 seconds to send MSU to the line at 24 seconds. 
• Maryland makes a bucket in the final 24 seconds to win either 70-69 or 71-69. 

IMHO, the chances of Maryland making six straight baskets with at least four of them being threes (because 4*3+2*2=16) and all of them being somewhat rushed are remote at best.  The chances of MSU missing eight consecutive foul shots are even more remote.  In theory MSU could make two (if all six of UMD's baskets are threes) and still go to OT.  Is it throwing in the towel, well yes but it is pretty hard to argue with the logic behind it.  How many teams have ever come back from a 16 point deficit in ~2 minutes? 

I tried to google it but the closest I could come up with was a list of the 41 biggest comebacks in NCAA history.  Those are all more points (22 or more) but note that the latest in the game of those was that VCU overcame a 26 point deficit with 9:26 left at USF on February 20, 1993.  My point is that if Maryland or any team were to somehow overcome a 16 point deficit in a little over two minutes it wouldn't just be historic for that team, it would be a major historic event. 

One final way to determine this:
Years ago I read an article by Bill James on Slate that had a theory for determining when a Basketball game is over.  I found and linked the article but here is the math:

• Take the differential:  16
• Subtract three:  13
• Add a half-point if the team ahead has the ball, subtract a half-point if the team behind has the ball:  (I don't know who had the ball so I'll just assume it was Maryland:  12.5
• Square that:  156.25
• If the result is greater than the number of seconds left in the game, the lead is safe:  156.25>139 so the game was no longer in doubt per Slate. 

Damn brother, I do appreciate what you do. 
That's way more analysis than needed, that's for sure. 

Google, "miracle minute", just for fun. I know I'll get crap for it, but this is what I grew up with, sorry.

This wouldn't be the first time games turned so quickly. Heck, you could call MSU 's win from behind at PSU a miracle. 

[847badgerfan]

847 (side note: gonna have to change that, eh?): 

Nah. I've had this phone number since 1998. Not gonna happen. 

[Abba]

I think that locks it up for IU.  Minny officially needs to win the BTT to get in.  So Purdue is our last bubble team.

[847badgerfan]

Badgers are sleepwalking through this thing. Hopefully they wake up at halftime.

[JWilly86]

I went and checked the miracle minute out, James theory holds up.

[MaximumSam]

Sounds like no Young, Gaffney or Carton still.  Bucks top 6 is good but foul trouble is eventually gonna ding them.