~2017-18 Big Ten Basketball Thread~

[ELA]

There was a pretty good article in one of the Detroit papers a week ago about how 13 months ago UM fans were calling for Beilein's head, and he recognized he had to change.  He gave his players more freedom, and he made this home run hire, and deferred to him on what he knew.

Fast forward, now it's time for Izzo to do the same.  The things he built his program on don't work anymore.  You need bigger guards.  You need to be able to run clean offensive sets.  You can't bully teams with bigs down low.  MSU's rebounding numbers still look good, but it's not because they are a great rebounding team, it's because teams don't send guys to the offensive glass against them.  They drop back, and are willing to give MSU the board, in exchange for not giving up transition points going the other way, because if you get MSU into a half court game, they are going to struggle.  Like Beilein brought in a defensive guru, it's time for Izzo to do the same with his offense.

[HailHailMSP]

Yaklich has been a dream hire. That combined with a PG that embraces the defensive end of the court with each possession have really turned the tables. Matthews is a fantastic defender too, just in his versatility. He matches up with the 1 - 4 positions on the court.

Yaklich might also be directly helpful this week. Coming from Illinois State he game planned Loyola 8-10 times over the last five years. The same goes for Saddi Washington on staff as well

Denzel Valentine's brother may also be helpful for Loyola. He was a student manager with Izzo and coached at Oakland. I am sure he has a good basis for Michigan's system as an up and coming assistant too.

Having some assistant turnover from time to time might be a good thing for programs. I was thinking about that as I saw the same old faces on Duke's bench on Sunday, as the zone was getting ripped to shreds. Do any of those guys bring creativity to the table or feel they have the ability to own a part of the game plan or provide input?

[ELA]

Having some assistant turnover from time to time might be a good thing for programs. I was thinking about that as I saw the same old faces on Duke's bench on Sunday, as the zone was getting ripped to shreds. Do any of those guys bring creativity to the table or feel they have the ability to own a part of the game plan or provide input?

MSU fans have the same complaint.  Not enough new voices among the assistants.  Apparently Fife (who quit as head coach at IPFW to come to MSU as an assistant) is a leader for the Detroit Mercy job, and MSU fans are hoping he takes it.  No reason to fire any of them, but it might be time to move along.

[Kris61]

This has been probably been discussed on here before but what would everyone think about a rule change that eliminated fouling out?   Every foul beyond a player’s fifth would result in an automatic 3 FT for the opposition (4 if it occurred on a 3 pointer).  I just hate seeing players having to sit.

You are still punishing for too much hacking but it’s a different consequence.  The coach still has a strategic decision to make.  Do you keep a guy out there with 5 fouls knowing a whistle could cost you 3 points?  Just wondering. I have a couple of buddies I ran it by who hated it.

[Anonymous Coward]

The foul-related rules I'd favor are the ones that would stop the crappy-stop-go-stop final two minutes of most basketball games. Imagine how smoothly games would end if deliberate fouling was always a bad idea? How could that be accomplished? I'm not sure how popular this will be, but if non-shooting fouls are restructured to both give one dead ball FT (when in the bonus) *and* return the ball to the team that was fouled, that would go all the way to fixing the problem.

[847badgerfan]

The foul-related rules I'd favor are the ones that would stop the crappy-stop-go-stop final two minutes of most basketball games. Imagine how smoothly games would end if deliberate fouling was always a bad idea? How could that be accomplished? I'm not sure how popular this will be, but if non-shooting fouls are restructured to both give one dead ball FT (when in the bonus) *and* return the ball to the team that was fouled, that would go all the way to fixing the problem.

In the last one minute, this would be fine with me.

How about a technical foul, ejection and one game suspension for the head coach that has his team intentionally fouling, down 15 in the last minute?

[ELA]

Yeah, the problem is, I don't find it much more enjoyable when an 8 point lead with 2:30 to go is game over because the team can just sit on the ball for 2 minutes.

[Kris61]

The foul-related rules I'd favor are the ones that would stop the crappy-stop-go-stop final two minutes of most basketball games. Imagine how smoothly games would end if deliberate fouling was always a bad idea? How could that be accomplished? I'm not sure how popular this will be, but if non-shooting fouls are restructured to both give one dead ball FT (when in the bonus) *and* return the ball to the team that was fouled, that would go all the way to fixing the problem.

So if a team is down 2 with 20 seconds left they are in pretty bad shape then.  I get the spirit of what you are trying to accomplish but I think it would have unintended consequences.

[847badgerfan]

There are unintended consequences with anything. Coaches are smart. They'll find ways to expose holes in any rule set.

[Kris61]

There are unintended consequences with anything. Coaches are smart. They'll find ways to expose holes in any rule set.


I mean, maybe.  Sounds like we’re trading allowing a team an opportunity for a team to comeback so that the fans can get home 15 minutes sooner.  If someone gets tired of watching that they can always leave or change the channel.  No one is forcing us to sit there.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the problem is, I don't find it much more enjoyable when an 8 point lead with 2:30 to go is game over because the team can just sit on the ball for 2 minutes.

That an end-of-game lead would be harder to surmount is a kind of problem...maybem, and I'm sure there would be other problems (with the ball and less than 30s, no need to wait out the clock; blow the whistle; the winner just wins), but at least those problems would maximize the importance of the first 38 minutes rather than somewhat undo their importance with a skillless stoppage strategy that most fans find contemptible. Which isn't just about the slow finish. It's also about favoring a hokey kind of chaos maximization over winning via standard basketball.

I guess the end of game fouling has always felt to me like one of those loopholes that all sports typically grimace at and close as soon as coaches notice/start taking advantage of, but somehow this one has lasted for decades.

[SuperMario]

 

Michigan played a great game against aTm but despite Mario's awe at the Seminoles' length and athleticism, FSU isn't very good.  Michigan has played really well in one of their four tournament games so far.  Now they get a highly unusual freebie in the semi-final and then if they play really well in the final game they have about a 50/50 chance of being the National Champion.  

So a team that beat Xavier, Gonzaga, Louisville, Clemson, Miami, Florida Missouri and UNC isn’t very good? I’d say they’ve been inconsistent, but it doesn’t seem to fit your narrative. 3 of those teams are top 11 of the RPI and they also played a tight game with virginia.
No game in the final four is a freebie. Did you know Loyola was 22 in the RPi before the tourney started? Statistics seem to contradict quite a bit of your post and I know you like statistics.

[Brutus Buckeye]

I find basketball to be a little soft as it is. Hence the appreciation for the Huggins-style hoops. 

So I typically don't advocate for reducing the amount of contact. Yet I don't necessarily hate the coward's idea.

They point that it would reduce the number of comebacks is a sound one, however.

surely there must be a happy medium. 

[Kris61]

That an end-of-game lead would be harder to surmount is a kind of problem...maybem, and I'm sure there would be other problems (with the ball and less than 30s, no need to wait out the clock; blow the whistle; the winner just wins), but at least those problems would maximize the importance of the first 38 minutes rather than somewhat undo their importance with a skillless stoppage strategy that most fans find contemptible. Which isn't just about the slow finish. It's also about favoring a hokey kind of chaos maximization over winning via standard basketball.

I guess the end of game fouling has always felt to me like one of those loopholes that all sports typically grimace at and close as soon as coaches notice/start taking advantage of, but somehow this one has lasted for decades.




I think that rule would have cost your team its last two Final Four appearances.