2019-2020 B1G Basketball Thread

[betarhoalphadelta]

I'll cop that my team's pace probably influences that, same for the fact the best team in UW history had almost no bench to speak of, and the deepest team couldn't absorb and injury and struggled late.

This is what I always come back to: These college teams don't play all that much. You get five guys on the court at the same time, and the good ones can play a lot. Most really good teams roll about 7-8 deep in big games, give or take a few breather minutes.

Anyway, food for thought.

I wonder if it's similar to the old adage...

"If you have two QBs, you have zero QBs."

I think if you have 5 guys who all deserve 30+ minutes, you do your best to give them 30+ minutes. Last year Purdue had Carsen at 35.4 mpg and Cline at 33.9 mpg. Why? Because you're not taking them off the floor unless you have to. This year the only player averaging over 30 is Eric Hunter at 31.5. 

If you've got 8-9 guys really sharing minutes, it either means you've got 8-9 guys who are SO DAMN GOOD that they all should be on the court. More likely at the college level, though, what you've really got is 8-9 guys, none of whom can differentiate themselves from each other to the point that you don't want to take them off the court. 

I think this is especially true of programs like Purdue and Wisconsin, and less programs like Kansas and Kentucky. If you're loaded with blue chip recruits, SOMEONE is going to prove by their play on the court that they deserve 30+ mpg. If your 5* player is struggling, you've got a 5* hotshot behind him that's ready and willing to step over his grave and onto the court. If you're not, you HOPE that you get a couple of completely stalwart studs and then that their backups can at least give you spot minutes. But if your experienced players aren't producing, chances are that the 3*/4* guys behind them who may not be ready to contribute as freshmen/sophomores might be good enough to deserve minutes, but it's not because they've "won the job". It's because nobody has won the job.

[bayareabadger]

I wonder if it's similar to the old adage...

"If you have two QBs, you have zero QBs."

I think if you have 5 guys who all deserve 30+ minutes, you do your best to give them 30+ minutes. Last year Purdue had Carsen at 35.4 mpg and Cline at 33.9 mpg. Why? Because you're not taking them off the floor unless you have to. This year the only player averaging over 30 is Eric Hunter at 31.5.

If you've got 8-9 guys really sharing minutes, it either means you've got 8-9 guys who are SO DAMN GOOD that they all should be on the court. More likely at the college level, though, what you've really got is 8-9 guys, none of whom can differentiate themselves from each other to the point that you don't want to take them off the court.

I think this is especially true of programs like Purdue and Wisconsin, and less programs like Kansas and Kentucky. If you're loaded with blue chip recruits, SOMEONE is going to prove by their play on the court that they deserve 30+ mpg. If your 5* player is struggling, you've got a 5* hotshot behind him that's ready and willing to step over his grave and onto the court. If you're not, you HOPE that you get a couple of completely stalwart studs and then that their backups can at least give you spot minutes. But if your experienced players aren't producing, chances are that the 3*/4* guys behind them who may not be ready to contribute as freshmen/sophomores might be good enough to deserve minutes, but it's not because they've "won the job". It's because nobody has won the job.

I think that's a lot of it, but if you look when the chips are down, even Kansas and Kentucky roll like 7 or 8 deep in terms of people that play more than a few minutes. 

My gut is when you have good players you trust, they get trusted to play through bad moments when the chips are down. 

[Brutus Buckeye]

Heard on the radio that the Badgers are the first Big Ten Champ to ever not have a player named to first or second team all big ten.

[847badgerfan]

Yep, and that's the truth.

Also.. Potter should have been 6th man of the year.

[ELA]

Wright State secures their NIT bid

[bayareabadger]

Yep, and that's the truth.

Also.. Potter should have been 6th man of the year.

When I saw that, I kind of wanted to ask our Maryland posters, were they super amped with Wiggins?

I looked at his numbers and thought I might not be the most hyped on the kid, but I've watched him for not that many games. 

[mcwterps1]

When I saw that, I kind of wanted to ask our Maryland posters, were they super amped with Wiggins?

I looked at his numbers and thought I might not be the most hyped on the kid, but I've watched him for not that many games.

He has a ton of potential and done great as a freshman. 

He's got length, can shoot the 3, and a little drive capability. He gets a bit wild at times driving to the basket with his spin "moves", but he can get to the rim.

Next year, I believe he will be the most talented guy on the team, provided we don't pick up the transfer from Harvard. 

[847badgerfan]

Wright State secures their NIT bid

They flamed out.

[Brutus Buckeye]

Bummer

[ELA]

They flamed out.

Good for UIC.  I remember when they were the garbage program in the CCHA, UM used to beat them legitimately like 12-0 frequently.  I think they dropped hockey shortly thereafter.

[HawkFrenzy]

So this brings to the forefront something I often think about, and something that being a Wisconsin fan has probably colored my perception of to a degree: Is depth overrated?

As someone said, pace does make it a necessity so I do think that depth is more situational. Generally speaking, I've noticed that come tourney time, six or seven will own the majority of the minutes but those two non-starters will combined for maybe 20-25 minutes per game with the starters getting 35+ min each (save foul trouble or injury). Too many in the rotation jacks with rhythm and cohesion. 

I think depth is more important thru the season so he starters are not completely burnt when they are needed the most, as well as, helps with injuries/foul trouble and especially specific match-ups. If you look at Iowa over the Fran years, this (IMO) is the reason for their usual fade down the stretch. If you look at the top teams they don't go deep into their lineup, even tho they probably could. 

[MaximumSam]

Ivy League cancels their conference tourneys

[ELA]

Ivy League cancels their conference tourneys

Wow.  Ivy doesn't lose a ton probably, it's just 4 teams, and is relatively new.  But you do wonder where this is headed.

[847badgerfan]

Wow.  Ivy doesn't lose a ton probably, it's just 4 teams, and is relatively new.  But you do wonder where this is headed.

To more over-reaction?