This Week in the ACC - 12/1-12/7 & ACC/B1G Challenge

[pfrduke]

Thirty teams navigated November without a loss. Five of those squads - Duke, Louisville, Virginia, Miami, and NC State - reside in the ACC. Four of those squads - Wisconsin, Ohio State, Maryland, and Illinois - reside in the B1G Ten. By the grace of the scheduling gods, with the exception of NC State, those teams all square off against each other, giving the challenge as many matchups of undefeated teams as I can recall. This year's version of the challenge now has 14 games, with only Boston College watching from the wings (not complaining about that). Let's see how it all shakes out:

Monday has two ACC home games. It would be great to start 2-0, but Florida State has been really bad so far this season and they're playing a Nebraska team that came into the year with serious NCAA aspirations (and a top 25 ranking that lasted until Rhode Island upset the Huskers). Clemson gets Rutgers, which even as bad as Clemson has been playing should be a win, but, it's Clemson, so you never know.

[101]Clemson hosts [181]Rutgers (7:00, ESPNU)
[92]Florida State hosts [47]Nebraska (7:00, ESPN2)
[136]Boston College hosts [253]Marist (7:00, ESPN3)

Tuesday has two of the ACC's undefeateds (and Wake) hosting games. Louisville/Ohio State and Syracuse/Michigan are the marquee games, although Pitt/Indiana, Miami/Illinois, and even NC State/Purdue figure to be competitive games between good teams. All told, the 12 teams playing Tuesday have a combined 11 losses so far on the season (5 of those losses are in the Wake-Minnesota matchup; the other 5 games involve teams with 6 total losses). Wake has looked pretty bad so far, so it's hard to rely on them for a win, but every single other matchup is a very winnable contest for the ACC school.

[37]Pittsburgh at [63]Indiana (7:00, ESPN2)
[113]Wake Forest hosts [38]Minnesota (7:00, ESPNU)
[16]Syracuse at [19]Michigan (7:30, ESPN)
[21]Miami hosts [23]Illinois (9:00, ESPN2)
[53]NC State at [36]Purdue (9:00, ESPNU)
[3]Louisville hosts [14]Ohio State (9:30, ESPN)

Wednesday brings the challenge to an end. If you've been following along, you've noticed that the ACC has already used up 5 of its 7 home games, meaning that 4 of the 6 Wednesday contests are on the road. Thankfully, Northwestern and Penn State are two of those hosts The headliner of the night and of the whole challenge is the top 4 matchup between Duke and Wisconsin. And of course I want Duke to win. But speaking candidly, the result that I most want to have happen is for Virginia to beat Maryland. Badly. UVA had won three in a row at Comcast before getting nipped in overtime last year - it's time to start a new streak. Finally, I'm sure there's more variation than I'm remembering, but I feel like Virginia Tech-Penn State happens every. single. year. And really, it should - there has to be at least one game each challenge that every sane, basketball loving human being can safely ignore.

[42]Notre Dame hosts [13]Michigan State (7:15, ESPN2)
[165]Virginia Tech at [84]Penn State (7:15, ESPNU)
[12]North Carolina hosts [26]Iowa (7:30, ESPN)
[5]Virginia at [31]Maryland (9:15, ESPN2)
[89]Georgia Tech at [121]Northwestern (9:15, ESPNU)
[2]Duke at [4]Wisconsin (9:30, ESPN)

Thursday is dark.

Friday has a historic in-city rivalry that's been dominated by one team and BC testing itself against a tough Providence opponent (for the Friars, the Eagles should be slightly easier to score against than the Wildcats were today).

[3]Louisville hosts [259]Florida International (7:00, ESPN3)
[136]Boston College hosts [40]Providence (7:00, ESPN3)
[37]Pittsburgh vs. [155]Duquesne in Pittsburgh (7:00, ESPN3)

Saturday starts conference play, believe it or not, with a battle between the lesser Tobacco Road foes in Raleigh. The real highlight of the day, though, is the Virginia-VCU matchup. Shaka Smart's team has had a couple of hiccups, losing big to Villanova and then dropping a game to Old Dominion, but the Rams remain dangerous and the game is at VCU. Syracuse plays host to former Big East rival St. John's and Miami takes on a Green Bay squad that once again figures to be the class of the Horizon.

[89]Georgia Tech hosts [187]USC Upstate (12:00, ESPN3)
[5]Virginia at [29]Virginia Commonwealth (2:00, ESPNU)
[21]Miami hosts [54]Wisconsin-Green Bay (2:00, ESPN3)
[92]Florida State hosts [232]Central Florida (2:00, ESPN3)
[16]Syracuse hosts [43]St. John's (5:15, ESPN2)
[53]NC State hosts [113]Wake Forest (7:30, ESPNU)
[42]Notre Dame hosts [316]Fairleigh Dickinson (8:00, ESPN3)

Sunday has UNC hoping to get some revenge for the beatdown its football team took earlier this year at the hands of the Pirates and Clemson hosting an Arkansas team that should be a comfortable favorite but has had trouble winning on the road.

[12]North Carolina hosts [188]East Carolina (3:00, ESPNU)
[165]Virginia Tech hosts [184]Radford (3:00, ESPN3)
[101]Clemson hosts [27]Arkansas (5:00, ESPNU)

ACC Non-Conference Record: 74-19
ACC Record vs. BCS:* 11-7
America East: 2-0
American Athletic: 3-0
Atlantic Sun: 2-0
Atlantic Ten: 6-3
Big 12: 1-1
Big East: 0-4
Big South: 5-2
B1G Ten: 4-0
Big West: 0-1
Colonial: 3-1
Conference USA: 3-0
Horizon: 1-0
MAAC: 4-1
MAC: 2-0
MEAC: 10-1
Missouri Valley: 0-1
Mountain West: 3-1
Northeast: 2-0
Ohio Valley: 2-0
Pac-12: 2-1
Patriot: 4-0
SEC: 4-1
Southern: 3-0
Southland: 1-0
Summit: 1-0
Sun Belt: 1-1
SWAC: 3-0
WAC: 1-0
Non D-1: 1-0

*refers to Big XII, Big East, Big Ten, Pac-12, and SEC. The AAC is just a completely mediocre basketball conference and crediting wins over the likes of Tulane and South Florida as wins over major conference caliber opponents is just silly. And yes, BCS is now a completely outdated reference derived from an entirely separate sport, but it's handy shorthand.

[pfrduke]

See also the poll - make your vote above and discuss your prediction here.

[brevity]

Finally, I'm sure there's more variation than I'm remembering, but I feel like Virginia Tech-Penn State happens every. single. year. And really, it should - there has to be at least one game each challenge that every sane, basketball loving human being can safely ignore.

There's a LOT more variation. In the history of this event, Virginia Tech has played Penn State once before, in 2007.

Maybe you meant that either Virginia Tech or Penn State has been involved in the event's least marquee game every year, and you're forced to watch it because you're waiting for the Duke game to come on. I could see that. There's usually a game or two in the Challenge each year that I feel is a matchup between two football schools, shoehorned into a basketball event. And Iowa is involved.

[Duvall]

There's a LOT more variation. In the history of this event, Virginia Tech has played Penn State once before, in 2007.

Maybe you meant that either Virginia Tech or Penn State has been involved in the event's least marquee game every year, and you're forced to watch it because you're waiting for the Duke game to come on. I could see that. There's usually a game or two in the Challenge each year that I feel is a matchup between two football schools, shoehorned into a basketball event. And Iowa is involved.

It feels like this event has featured Miami-Nebraska at least four times, which is not actually possible. It still feels that way.

Winners: Clemson, FSU, Pittsburgh, Minnesota, Michigan, Miami, NC State, Louisville, Michigan State, Penn State, North Carolina, Virginia, Northwestern, Wisconsin. ACC wins 8-6 in the last set of games with the win over Maryland in the Comcast Center.

[JasonEvans]

I see 2 pretty solid Big Ten wins in Mich St and Minnesota. I would also make Nebraska and Purdue favorites. Duke-Wisc, Miami-Ill, and Syr-Mich are toss-ups, but I am an ACC homer so I'll say the Big Ten wins 1 of those. That's why I went with the ACC winning 9-5.

-Jason "pfr's Va Tech-Penn St comment is comedy gold! Props, my friend!" Evans

[Wander]

Big10 winners: Nebraska, Minnesota, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio State, Iowa, Michigan State
ACC winners: Clemson, Miami, NC State, Virginia Tech, Virginia, Duke, Georgia Tech

[Olympic Fan]

The 16th ACC Big Ten Challenge opens with two games tonight:

Rutgers at Clemson
Nebraska at Florida State

It gets going in earnest Tuesday night:

Pitt at Indiana
Minnesota at Wake Forest
Syracuse at Michigan
Illinois at Miami
N.C. State at Purdue
Ohio State at Louisville

The biggies come late Wednesday night:

Michigan Stare at Notre Dame
VPI at Penn State
Iowa at North Carolina
Georgia Tech at Northwestern
Virginia at Maryland
Duke at Wisconsin

The ACC leads the series 10-3-2, but hasn't won a challenge since 2008. The last two have been tied.

Overall, the ACC is 88-67

Duke has 13 wins -- the most of any team on either side. Maryland and Wake have 10 wins each for second place. No Big Ten team has more than seven wins, unless you count Maryland and their 10 wins won as an ACC team.

Interesting tidbit -- the ACC actually enters this year's challenge with a 4-0 record against the Big Ten (Duke d. Michigan State; Louisville d. Minnesota; Virginia d. Rutgers; Syracuse d. Iowa)

PS Could a moderator please fix the title of this thread

[left_hook_lacey]

The 16th ACC Big Ten Challenge opens with two games tonight:

Rutgers at Clemson
Nebraska at Florida State

It gets going in earnest Tuesday night:

Pitt at Indiana
Minnesota at Wake Forest
Syracuse at Michigan
Illinois at Miami
N.C. State at Purdue
Ohio State at Louisville

The biggies come late Wednesday night:

Michigan Stare at Notre Dame
VPI at Penn State
Iowa at North Carolina
Georgia Tech at Northwestern
Virginia at Maryland
Duke at Wisconsin

The ACC leads the series 10-3-2, but hasn't won a challenge since 2008. The last two have been tied.

Overall, the ACC is 88-67

Duke has 13 wins -- the most of any team on either side. Maryland and Wake have 10 wins each for second place. No Big Ten team has more than seven wins, unless you count Maryland and their 10 wins won as an ACC team.

Interesting tidbit -- the ACC actually enters this year's challenge with a 4-0 record against the Big Ten (Duke d. Michigan State; Louisville d. Minnesota; Virginia d. Rutgers; Syracuse d. Iowa)

PS Could a moderator please fix the title of this thread

I think it's better your way. :)

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Let's Go Hawkeyes, clap, clap, clap clap clap!

[jimsumner]

I'm reminded of the old North Carolina-centric tournament, the Bug Four. It was always a bug deal around here.

[Bluedog]

PS Could a moderator please fix the title of this thread

Probably too late now, but if you click just to the right of the thread title on the main EK Forum page (not once you're in the thread itself), you can edit it (assuming you do it within a certain period of time and are the author; I think it's the same amount of time that you get to edit a post, so when you added the "PS" you could have edited it yourself most likely...). I've done it before.

[Bob Green]

Title is fixed.

[Jim3k]

Title is fixed.


Aww...C'mon, Bob. This is one of the best typos ever. It should be preserved. Besides, it's far more descriptive than B1G. Heck, it might have caught on nationally. What a great thing that would have been. :D

[left_hook_lacey]

Aww...C'mon, Bob. This is one of the best typos ever. It should be preserved. Besides, it's far more descriptive than B1G. Heck, it might have caught on nationally. What a great thing that would have been. :D

My thoughts exactly. The normal normal logo has been bugging me for years. I really think we were onto something here. Now with Maryland on board, it has to be the BUG Ten now. Some sort of joke about cockroaches is trying to surface, but it's just....not....quite...there yet.

[Duvall]

Free the Bug Ten!

[Dev11]

The bug storyline is Georgia Tech trying to not go 0-2 against teams coached by Duke alumni.

[77devil]

I'm reminded of the old North Carolina-centric tournament, the Bug Four. It was always a bug deal around here.

The Big Four was a big deal. I doubt Greensboro Coliseum was ever or will ever be as loud.

[AncientPsychicT]

Free the Bug Ten!

No! Squash the Bug Ten!

Smash the Maryland Termites!
Swat the Indiana Hornets!
Stomp the Iowa House Flies!
Skewer the Nebraska Caterpillars!

[Duvall]

So is FSU basketball engaged in some kind of karmic Dorian Gray-type situation with FSU football? Because, woof.

[left_hook_lacey]

Free the Bug Ten!

FREE THE BUG TEN! FREE THE BUG TEN!

Don't make me print T-shirts and send them out as early Christmas gifts. I'll do it.

[Wander]

So is FSU basketball engaged in some kind of karmic Dorian Gray-type situation with FSU football? Because, woof.

Nebraska is actually a good team. FSU sucks.

I'll be available for such insightful commentary all day.

[BD80]

... Now with Maryland on board, it has to be the BUG Ten now. ...

I'm surprised that some haven't objected to this attempt at humor as unworthy of this board, and demeaning to arthropods.

You have to start with the Maryland Crabs. (which plagues its student body)

Michigan Boll Weevilrines

Nebraska Corn Borers

Penn State Nittany Ant-Lions

Ohio State Bug-Eyes

Rutgers Scarlet Beetles ...

crap I can't even remember how many teams are in the Big10

[Duvall]

Really looking forward to Duke's "weak schedule" and "lack of quality wins" being talking points for the chattering class all season.

[AncientPsychicT]

Nebraska is actually a good team. FSU sucks.

I'll be available for such insightful commentary all day.

Well, FSU has decided to make a game of it, and Nebraska's best scorer just fouled out. :eek:

[pfrduke]

Nebraska is actually a good team. FSU sucks.

I'll be available for such insightful commentary all day.

Clemson has much less excuse to losing at home to Rutgers. Yeesh

[Duvall]

Well, this is over. Can Duke stay home this week and get a jump on exams now?

[AncientPsychicT]

Clemson has much less excuse to losing at home to Rutgers. Yeesh

Well, Clemson has already lost to two Big South teams, one at home, so this shouldn't be much of a surprise.

[Olympic Fan]

Really disastrous night -- Clemson and FSU lose at home. Down 0-2 is a deep hole to climb out of.

I think the ACC has become the old Big East in the sense that it is loaded with a handful of great teams at the top, but burdered by an equal number of really terrible teams at the bottom.

I think the good ACC teams are very good. And there are some solid teams in the middle. But FSU, Wake, Virginia Tech, Boston College and especially Clemson all suck.

[pfrduke]

Well, Clemson has already lost to two Big South teams, one at home, so this shouldn't be much of a surprise.

And Rutgers had lost by 18 at home to St. Peter's. Even with those two Big South losses, Clemson was a 10 point favorite in Vegas. Clemson is bad; Rutgers is one of the very worst teams in a power conference. The Tigers absolutely should have won this game and while I'm not necessarily surprised, I'm definitely disappointed by the outcome.

[devildeac]

Clemson has much less excuse to losing at home to Rutgers. Yeesh

Just being Clemson isn't enough?

Did Rutgers wear any pastel blue in their unis tonight?:rolleyes:

[OldPhiKap]

Just being Clemson isn't enough?

Did Rutgers wear any pastel blue in their unis tonight?:rolleyes:

There is no chance that Clemson will win in Chapel Hill this year. Literally.

[Wander]

I wouldn't panic yet. Nebraska was picked 4th in the Big 10 and was a slight favorite in the game.

Like pfrduke points out, let's not talk about the other game... but it's really just one bad result, not two.

[brevity]

No! Squash the Bug Ten!

Smash the Maryland Termites!
Swat the Indiana Hornets!
Stomp the Iowa House Flies!
Skewer the Nebraska Caterpillars!

Pretty good, but here is the real Bug Ten:

Arkansas-Monticello Boll Weevils
Concordia Stingers
Delaware State Hornets
Emory and Henry Wasps
Richmond Spiders
St. Ambrose Bees
UC-Santa Cruz Banana Slugs
USC-Sumter Fire Ants
UT-Brownsville Scorpions
Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets (sorry)

Look at that, Jim Delany. 10 teams.

[JasonEvans]

In case anyone cares, the ACC got off to a terrible start tonight. Nebraska beating FSU 70-65 wasn't an upset, but I had figured Clemson would take out a pretty bad Rutgers team at home. They didn't and the ACC is 0-2 to start the challenge.

-Jason "betting on Clemson in basketball is always a mistake, right Klemnop?" Evans

[Duvall]

So yeah, the ACC is going 1-13. Congratulations to UNC, I guess.

[Duvall]

This looks like a terrible year for Duke to have a subpar nonconference schedule. Chances for a 1-seed may be slipping away.

[Dev11]

This looks like a terrible year for Duke to have a subpar nonconference schedule. Chances for a 1-seed may be slipping away.

Gonzaga and Kentucky have both recently been 1 seeds playing in bad conferences. This seems like a bit of an overreaction.

[Duvall]

Gonzaga and Kentucky have both recently been 1 seeds playing in bad conferences. This seems like a bit of an overreaction.

Except that Duke may not have many opportunities for quality wins at home or neutral sites - aside from the games at Wisconsin, Virginia and Louisville, what's left?

[Dev11]

Except that Duke may not have many opportunities for quality wins at home or neutral sites - aside from the games at Wisconsin, Virginia and Louisville, what's left?

Miami, Syracuse, and UConn may all prove to be solid opponents as well.

[OldPhiKap]

We've played six games, are undefeated, have not started conference games, and a top seed is already slipping away?

Yikes.

The ACC top is so strong this year, the bottom does not matter. If the best ACC team does not have a top seed, it will be because Duke, Louisville, UNC, Syracuse, Virginia, Miami, even State and Notre Dame play each other a lot. ACC basketball = SEC football, with more games.

The ACC Tourney could be brutal this year.

[Dev11]

Congratulations to the Michigan student section, who just successfully used the fake fast shot clock countdown to convince Trevor Cooney to take a three from Steph-Curry-Only territory.

[Mal]

Can we re-open the voting here? 'Cause this is not going well, and I notice no one picked what is now looking like the most likely outcome.

ACC's dangerously close to needing to win 7 of the final 9 games just to salvage a tie here. How I long for the days when we won this thing the first 10 years in a row.

[OldPhiKap]

Orange back in it.

[Wander]

I wouldn't freak out yet - Rutgers over Clemson is really the only unexpected result so far.

Now, if NC State and Miami both lose, I will join you guys on the panic train.

[OldPhiKap]

{g} looking really good for Syracuse. Maybe the best Duke transfer in modern day.

[bbosbbos]

Orange sux. Terrible game.

[moonpie23]

cuse imploding

[-jk]

How many ways can Cuse screw this up?

-jk

[bbosbbos]

I think coaching is the major problem here. Their players do not communicate at all.


How many ways can Cuse screw this up?

-jk

[OldPhiKap]

wow. That's what I get for rooting for Syracuse.

[sagegrouse]

I hereby change my vote from 9-5 ACC to 13-1 Big Ten. Only win will be Duke.

[CDu]

{g} looking really good for Syracuse. Maybe the best Duke transfer in modern day.

Elliot Williams says hello. Silent G isn't yet close to comparing favorably with EWill.

[OldPhiKap]

Elliot Williams says hello. Silent G isn't yet close to comparing favorably with EWill.

Per Wikipedia:


Williams received an NCAA waiver in August 2009 to play immediately for the Memphis Tigers for the 2009–10 season after playing for the Duke Blue Devils for the 2008–09 season. Playing in a total of 68 career games with 46 starts, Williams averaged 11.1 points, 2.3 rebounds, and 2.2 assists.

Kinda forgot about EWill because he transferred for family reasons as opposed to playing reasons. Liked him, and will always wish him well. On the point, though, it does not look like he lit it up at Memphis.

EWill got injured early in his pro career and I think is in the D-league right now. Hope he makes it back. He will always be part of the family.

[CDu]

Per Wikipedia:



Kinda forgot about EWill because he transferred for family reasons as opposed to playing reasons. Liked him, and will always wish him well. On the point, though, it doen not look like he lit it up at Memphis.

EWill got injured early in his pro career and I think is in the D-league right now. Hope he makes it back. He will always be part of the family.

Go take a look at his stats in his one season at Memphis. They were quite good. That Wiki page lists his cumulative career stats, half of which came at Duke where his role was quite limited. I don't expect to see G come close to what EWill did in his one year at Memphis.

[DukieInBrasil]

Syracuse literally threw that game away. They got outrebounded on the offensive glass by 7 and they had 19 turns vs. just 7 for UM. That's 19 extra possessions for Michigan and it's hard to win when you give the other team nearly 20 extra possessions.
Wake looked like they were gonna make it a game, and were within 1 at the half, but wow did they go inept on offense and defense in the 2nd half. Ugh-ly.

[OldPhiKap]

Go take a look at his stats in his one season at Memphis. They were quite good. That Wiki page lists his cumulative career stats, half of which came at Duke where his role was quite limited.

Good deal, not trying to fake away from EWill. Like I said, he is family and I understand what he had to do. (Like Brandon Connette too -- family comes first and I am appreciative of what they did for us under very difficult circumstances)

[Dukehky]

How much longer do you guys think Gottfried lasts at state? They aren't very good.

[OldPhiKap]

Leweyville looking dominant at the half, Miami up 10 late in the first. Need some home cooking in both to keep on boiling.

[OldPhiKap]

How much longer do you guys think Gottfried lasts at state? They aren't very good.

Depends if he beats UNC.

[CDu]

Good deal, not trying to fake away from EWill. Like I said, he is family and I understand what he had to do. (Like Brandon Connette too -- family comes first and I am appreciative of what they did for us under very difficult circumstances)

I personally don't care why a player transfers. 18 year olds don't always make the best choices, so if they aren't happy at Duke I fully support thrm transferring. You only get to experience that age once. Might as well do what is best for you.

My point was to remind that EWill was a successful transfer. The kid averaged 17.9 ppg, 4.0 rpg, and 3.8 apg while shooting 45.9% from the field. There is only one guy in the Coach K era that can best his numbers post transfer (Billy Mac).

[Duvall]

I wouldn't freak out yet - Rutgers over Clemson is really the only unexpected result so far.

Now, if NC State and Miami both lose, I will join you guys on the panic train.

Well, State's done. Looks like 2015 ACC Coach of the Year Jim Larranaga will coax Miami to a close win, though.

[Dukehky]

You guys checking out this masterful offensive display on ESPN? I know Harrell is great, but I just don't see the offense from this Louisville team. No way they beat UK some people think is possible.

[Duvall]

Duke has zero margin for error in assembling a body of work this year. Not enough quality wins and too many bad losses to be had.

[Bluegrassdevil1]

You guys checking out this masterful offensive display on ESPN? I know Harrell is great, but I just don't see the offense from this Louisville team. No way they beat UK some people think is possible.

You are quite right; however, should UK once again shift into their "virtually shut the opponent out" defensive standard in the second half, then the point total between the two teams may seep below last weekend's football score game between the rivals (44-40).

It is quite likely that U of L and UK will both be unbeaten on 12/27, letting the game be hyped as #1 vs. #4 (omission of the Duke-Wisconsin loser), but the game itself may look like a land war in Asia. One team will start in Volgograd, while the other plots from Hangzhou, but the audience will be stuck thinking, "when they meet in China, this is gonna be awesome! How many more months until they meet in China? And they could meet again in March? Yeah... maybe I can just DVR it, and watch the 23 seconds during each half where something offensively exciting happens; longest watch live all year; shortest DVR watch all year."

On an disconnected note that no one else will care about: I lived in Columbus during Paulus' time at Duke, and seeing him next to Matta always shakes my brain a bit loose.

[Bluegrassdevil1]

Duke has zero margin for error in assembling a body of work this year. Not enough quality wins and too many bad losses to be had.

Aside from Michigan St., Stanford, Army *slightly*, @Wisconsin, UConn *slightly*, twice against UNC, @Virginia, @UofL, and Miami, Duke has few moments where they will be able to obtain any solid victories. It is even worse for the Blue Devils when faced with more chances for big wins than UK, Wisconsin, Arizona, Kansas, or Gonzaga.

[Papa John]

Elliot Williams says hello. Silent G isn't yet close to comparing favorably with EWill.

As does Mike Chappell, who is twirling his national championship ring as he greets Silent G...

[Olympic Fan]

Discouraging night ... now 2-6 in the challenge. Need to go 5-1 Wednesday to get a tie.

It's not impossible, but it's going to be tough -- VPI at Penn State is an almost guaranteed loss.

One thing I want to see play out. Just two of the five ACC teams that are ranked have played -- and they are 2-0. Three more ranked reams play Wednesday. UNC is almost a sure win at home against Iowa. Virginia is a much better team than Maryland (especially with Dez Wells out), but it is on the road. Duke-Wisconsin is a titanic matchup.

I mentioned the other night that the ACC is shaping up as a top heavy league. If our good teams all win, it will take some of the sting out of losing the challenge.

Just a couple of other comments:

Best Duke transfer was Billy McCaffrey, who became SEC player of the year and consensus second-team All-American at Vanderbilt.

And it's stretching things to suggest Gottfried is in trouble at State -- he inherits a program that has missed the NCAA five straight years and generates three straight NCAA trips, including a Sweet 16 and at least one NCAA win every year -- which is more than we can say. This year's team is 6-1 with a last second loss on the road at Purdue. And he's in trouble?

[OldPhiKap]

Aside from Michigan St., Stanford, Army *slightly*, @Wisconsin, UConn *slightly*, twice against UNC, @Virginia, @UofL, and Miami, Duke has few moments where they will be able to obtain any solid victories. It is even worse for the Blue Devils when faced with more chances for big wins than UK, Wisconsin, Arizona, Kansas, or Gonzaga.

Yeah, but what have the Romans ever done for us?

http://youtu.be/9foi342LXQE

[CDu]

Aside from Michigan St., Stanford, Army *slightly*, @Wisconsin, UConn *slightly*, twice against UNC, @Virginia, @UofL, and Miami, Duke has few moments where they will be able to obtain any solid victories. It is even worse for the Blue Devils when faced with more chances for big wins than UK, Wisconsin, Arizona, Kansas, or Gonzaga.

Army should not be on this list at all. But your point is otherwise quite valid.

[ChillinDuke]

Army should not be on this list at all. But your point is otherwise quite valid.

I agree that Army doesn't belong on the OP's list, in terms of "big" wins. For sure true.

I will point out that some of the posters suggesting that Army is not a very good team / not a nice win are simply wrong. (Note: this may be more aimed toward the Army postgame thread)

Army returned its top five scorers, and it starts a lineup of five juniors. Their stud, Wilson, was 1st Team All-Patriot League last year (as a sophomore) and is picked Preseason POTY in the league this year. They are picked second in their league, but it's largely considered a two-horse race between them and American. I would not be the least bit surprised to see them in the Tourney come March, and I, for one, would absolutely not want to play them.

This is a perfect example of the Northern Iowa's or Mercer's (or Cornell's - 4 seniors) of the world, except one year early. Yet people are writing off that win as if it was some sort of repeat Vermont. It wasn't even close to a Vermont-esque performance.

And if you put any faith in the eye test (I sorta do, when I feel like it), Army passed in spades.

For all those calling the Furman game a terrible scheduling, Army, IMO, was a perfect scheduling. A strong, hard-nosed team that may prove to be an NCAA Tourney team before all is said and done. I compare that game to FGCU a few years ago, when we scheduled them.

- Chillin

[CDu]

I agree that Army doesn't belong on the OP's list, in terms of "big" wins. For sure true.

I will point out that some of the posters suggesting that Army is not a very good team / not a nice win are simply wrong. (Note: this may be more aimed toward the Army postgame thread)

Army returned its top five scorers, and it starts a lineup of five juniors. Their stud, Wilson, was 1st Team All-Patriot League last year (as a sophomore) and is picked Preseason POTY in the league this year. They are picked second in their league, but it's largely considered a two-horse race between them and American. I would not be the least bit surprised to see them in the Tourney come March, and I, for one, would absolutely not want to play them.

This is a perfect example of the Northern Iowa's or Mercer's (or Cornell's - 4 seniors) of the world, except one year early. Yet people are writing off that win as if it was some sort of repeat Vermont. It wasn't even close to a Vermont-esque performance.

And if you put any faith in the eye test (I sorta do, when I feel like it), Army passed in spades.

For all those calling the Furman game a terrible scheduling, Army, IMO, was a perfect scheduling. A strong, hard-nosed team that may prove to be an NCAA Tourney team before all is said and done. I compare that game to FGCU a few years ago, when we scheduled them.

- Chillin

I stand by my statement that Army is more like Vermont than they are like Northern Iowa (which is a very good team in a mid-major conference). Being the second-best team in teh Patriot League (a low-major) is not exactly strong praise.

No disagreement that Army is a better team than Furman. But look at Army's other results this year: a 3-pt win over St. Francis (NY), ; a 6-pt win over Air Force who is 1-3 against D-1 schools; a 6-point win over VMI who is 1-4 against D-1 schools and their one win is a 1-pt squeaker over Citadel; a comfortable win over bottom-feeder Marist (1-5); and a blowout of bottom-feeder Binghampton (winless against D-1). That's not exactly a stellar resume.

Could they make the tournament as a 15 or 16 seed? Sure. And could they sneak up and bite someone in their first-round game? Sure. But they are not a good team, and our win against them should not be viewed as a "good" win. If we had lost, it would have been a bad loss. And if we had won in a nailbiter, it would have been a bad-look win.

[ChillinDuke]

I stand by my statement that Army is more like Vermont than they are like Northern Iowa (which is a very good team in a mid-major conference). Being the second-best team in teh Patriot League (a low-major) is not exactly strong praise.

No disagreement that Army is a better team than Furman. But look at Army's other results this year: a 3-pt win over St. Francis (NY), ; a 6-pt win over Air Force who is 1-3 against D-1 schools; a 6-point win over VMI who is 1-4 against D-1 schools and their one win is a 1-pt squeaker over Citadel; a comfortable win over bottom-feeder Marist (1-5); and a blowout of bottom-feeder Binghampton (winless against D-1). That's not exactly a stellar resume.

Could they make the tournament as a 15 or 16 seed? Sure. And could they sneak up and bite someone in their first-round game? Sure. But they are not a good team, and our win against them should not be viewed as a "good" win. If we had lost, it would have been a bad loss. And if we had won in a nailbiter, it would have been a bad-look win.

Northern Iowa, except a year early. Referring to their upperclassmen-laden 2010 team that beat Kansas en route to the 16.

Further, acknowledging Army's less-than-stellar game results as you describe, I stand by my comment that they are not at all like Vermont. Vermont is part of the America East, rated last year as the 29th best conference (out of 33) based on Jerry Palm's Conference RPI. The Patriot League, by comparison, was rated 20th. So not good, to be sure, but not even in the bottom third. Currently this year, for whatever it's worth, Patriot is at #14.

Still further, Vermont was 1-4 entering the game last year - in stark contrast to the undefeated (5-0) Army team we played. Winning is paramount; style comes second.

So my point re: Vermont still stands that to my eye this was nothing like that game. At all. Army may be "more like" Vermont than Northern Iowa (even Northern Iowa a year early), but that isn't saying much.

Finally, I compared the game to FGCU. I would argue the Army game was "more like" that game than the Vermont game. But again, how much so I'm not sure (and perhaps shouldn't have compared to that game either). We won against FGCU by 21 because of an insane 30-0 run (including 23-0) to end the first half. However, we were trailing 30-29 and lost the second half.

By contrast, the Army game was tied 5-5 but was never in doubt from that point forward. We won both halves (by 13 and by 7). We answered every mini-run, somewhat definitively.

So I guess my overarching point is that the game was not like Vermont and was simply a solid, somewhat standard win against a middle-of-the-pack-with-upside team that played pretty well against us. Army is currently KenPom sandwiched between Boston College and Virginia Tech. Would we be complaining if that was our performance against one of those two teams? No complaints from me at all.

- Chillin

[Mal]

Our strength of schedule can't be fixed or changed at this point, and I've been told that, on occasion, by March, teams who look mediocre in December end up trading places with teams who look good over Thanksgiving Break.

The larger point, however, is why would we care about whether or not we have enough signature win chances to earn a 1 seed at this point in the season? First, we have to earn the right to be in the tournament, and second, execute on a season that allows us to even be in the conversation for a high seed. This is a really talented, but young team. Things could go sideways or stall, and we lose more games than anticipated based on early eye test results. Our strength of schedule would then have nothing to do with our not-top seeding for the dance.

But more to the point, we've dropped our first round game to 14/15 seeds two of the last three years (and if that's the reason we're concerned about not being a top seed, because we might get Lehigh instead of East Tennessee State in the first round, then things have really gone awry). Four years ago, as a 1, we got run out of the gym by a 5 seed. I'll worry about our seeding and path to the Final Four when and if we get to the Sweet 16, and at that point the thinking is going to be along the lines of "beat the best to be the best" and it won't matter if we're a 1 or a 2 or a 3 or a 4 seed.

I'm much more concerned about this team continually improving throughout the season instead of stalling, not being mentally fatigued in March, and not having holes exposed that they can't patch in-season like we've experienced several times over the past decade or so. When we get back to not losing to lesser teams in the tourney (obviously, big disclaimers for 2010 and 2013 where we won it all and lost to the champ but were probably the toughest challenge they faced - I'm not unthankful for those runs), then I'll fret about the potential seeding outcomes based on our strength of schedule in December.

[CDu]

Best Duke transfer was Billy McCaffrey, who became SEC player of the year and consensus second-team All-American at Vanderbilt.

The debate earlier was about the best Duke transfer in recent memory. I think everyone is in agreement that McCaffrey was the best Duke transfer, but that was over 20 years ago. The ongoing discussion was whether or not Gbinije could be the best Duke transfer in a long time. For some reason, this type of discussion frequently omits Elliot Williams, who is in my opinion the #2 Duke transfer of the Coach K era (and by a wide margin).

Aside from that topic of discussion, I think the Challenge has gone about as expected. The ACC - aside from the top - is pretty bad, and most of our "toss-up" matchups (Syracuse vs Michigan; NCSU vs Purdue; Pitt vs Indiana) have been road games so far. But one thing is becoming quite clear: the bottom of the ACC is atrocious. We're likely to dominate the matchups at the top, but we lost the challenge at the bottom for sure.

[Wander]

Our strength of schedule can't be fixed or changed at this point, and I've been told that, on occasion, by March, teams who look mediocre in December end up trading places with teams who look good over Thanksgiving Break.

The larger point, however, is why would we care about whether or not we have enough signature win chances to earn a 1 seed at this point in the season?

Agreed. Also I'll add to all your points: this isn't college football! So what if the ACC isn't the best conference? You guys all remember that Wichita State got a 1 seed last year, right? You don't need to be in the best conference, or even a very good conference, to get a 1 seed. There are enough data points in the season, and enough teams in the playoff, that it doesn't really matter that much. I don't care that much if the ACC is worse than expected as long as Duke is as good as expected - our weaker schedule will be approximately balanced out by us having more wins as a result.

[HaveFunExpectToWin]

Carolina fans are wearing green shirts for tonight's game to promote recycling papers.

[OldPhiKap]

Carolina fans are wearing green shirts for tonight's game to promote recycling papers.

Debbie Crowder approves.



(HaveFun with the perfect lob for the set-up assist)

[Dukehky]

If this terrible game full of incoherent offense runs into the Duke game, I'm going to go crazy. Iowa has missed infinite open shots, they should be up by a ton.

[MulletMan]

Carolina fans are wearing green shirts for tonight's game to promote recycling papers.

If they had had any brains, they'd have thrown the shirts onto the court at halftime so they could be recycled. Phalanx tested, Phalanx approved.

[fisheyes]

If they had had any brains, they'd have thrown the shirts onto the court at halftime so they could be recycled. Phalanx tested, Phalanx approved.

I remember that Duke did this in the recent? past. The team played a terrible first half with the Crazies wearing green. They threw them off for the second half and the team went on to win! Luckily Carolina wasn't so smart!

[CDu]

If I couldn't see the names on the jerseys, I would have said that was a classic A-10 vs MVC matchup between UNC and Iowa. Yuck.

[pfrduke]

The ACC dominated at the top. We won each of the 4 matchups of undefeateds, with Duke, Louisville, Virginia, and Miami handing Wisconsin, Ohio State, Maryland (hah!), and Illinois their respective first losses. We went 2-9 in the other games, though (although only Wake and Pitt lost by more than 5). The Big Ten won the challenge early, but with an 8-6 final, they didn't exactly dominate. Still, a disappointing outcome to drop this year's challenge.

[CDu]

So we lost the Challenge 8-6. But in games involving a ranked team we went 5-2. And we swept the three matchups involving 2 ranked teams. So what did we learn? At least for this week, the top of the ACC is better than the top of the Big-10. But the bottom of our conference was definitely worse than theirs.

Still, HUGE resume win for us. UVa and Miami added some nice scalps too. Syracuse had a great shot to win too but their freshman PG is not as cool as our freshman PG. And UNC can't throw it in the ocean. Fun times!

[flyingdutchdevil]

So we lost the Challenge 8-6. But in games involving a ranked team we went 5-2. And we swept the three matchups involving 2 ranked teams. So what did we learn? At least for this week, the top of the ACC is better than the top of the Big-10. But the bottom of our conference was definitely worse than theirs.

Still, HUGE resume win for us. UVa and Miami added some nice scalps too. Syracuse had a great shot to win too but their freshman PG is not as cool as our freshman PG. And UNC can't throw it in the ocean. Fun times!

Isn't that what the talking heads has been saying for the last week? That the ACC is the best conference at the top but the Big10 is best from top to bottom? I think the results of the past two days proved that.

I believe it. Between Duke, Louisville, UVA, and Miami, we're stacked on top. Gonna be a fun ACC season!

[Olympic Fan]

When the old Big East used to be great at the top and soft at the bottom, the ESPN talking heads proclaimed it the best conference in America.

Now, then the ACC has become the old Big East -- great at the top and soft at the bottom -- depth is what really matters to them.

I'm not happy with that 8-6 finish, especially since it took a choke job by UNC at home to prevent a 7-7 tie. But our best teams were better than their best teams.

Although to be honest, I had have been happy with a 1-13 finish if the 1 was Duke winning. 6-8 with Duke winning is five with me.

PS The ACC is actually 10-8 against the Big Ten at this point.

[BronxBlueDevils]

I will admit to being the crazy who started the "throw them back" cheer when the Green shirts happened in cameron. It was against nc State in 07-08. And we came back from losing at halftime to win the game. So yes we did do that. Ours was purely student organized but theirs was some official thing

[BD80]

... UNC can't throw it in the ocean. Fun times!

Do they ever check the rims in the dean dome to see if they are still round?

There were 76 rebounds in the unc game tonight, compared to 53 in tonight's Duke game. In a way, it might be to the heels advantage to allow the rims to continue to be pounded into oblong works of modern art, so all teams will shoot 20% from the field, leveling the playing field.

[dragoneye776]

Debbie Crowder approves.


^Did no one else catch how awesome this was?

[Duke95]

Debbie Crowder approves.



(HaveFun with the perfect lob for the set-up assist)

I think she's just happy they didn't play Wisconsin, or they'd have to bring Mary Willingham back for the mother of all Hooked on Phonics lessons.

[CDu]

They lost this one with poor finishing at the rim...and most importantly, terrible rebounding. Iowa killed them on the offensive boards in the 2nd half. Killed them. And I didn't see anybody get pissed off on the court about it. That's a concern.

[Note: I pulled this post by Wheat out of the Wisconsin post-game thread because I didn't want a Duke game thread to get derailed talking about how terrible UNC is]

Wheat, I agree with your assessment of the Duke/Wisconsin and UNC/Iowa games for the most part, but I'll note that UNC outrebounded Iowa by 4 for the game. Of note, you got 13 more FG attempts than Iowa, which suggests that you did in fact hold your own on the glass. Iowa did get 43.6% of their own misses, but you got 49.0% of your misses. So I'd say you still won the battle on the boards overall, just not convincingly so. Considering how tall Iowa is (they played 5 guys 6'8" or taller), I think winning the rebounding battle is all you can reasonably ask there.

I'd say the bigger culprit for the UNC loss was shooting 4-23 on 3s and 19-68 from the field overall. UNC is just a terrible, terrible shooting team right now. Berry, Britt, Tokoto, Pinson, and Hicks can't shoot. And the two guys that UNC fans hoped would be able to carry the offense from the outside (Paige and Jackson) seem to have lost their shots. Meeks certainly held his own inside, but Johnson certainly struggled. And when Johnson is scuffling along with the perimeter guys, your team is just a mess.

I honestly don't think there's a lack of toughness on UNC. I think UNC plays plenty hard and plenty tough. It's just really hard to consistently win games when you can't make shots. Out-toughing teams (especially well-coached teams) is just tough to do. Roy is asking them to "grit" their way to every win. Basically, he's asking them to play Chicago Bulls (minus Rose) basketball. Well, that's really hard to do. You can pull it off if you've got the ultimate grit guys like Noah, Gibson, Hinrich, and Butler. But that's a pretty rare combination. UNC has toughness, just not enough toughness to win on toughness alone.

If UNC could just make some shots, nobody would be questioning their toughness. The two losses for UNC have the same story: against Butler, UNC shot 4-16 from 3 and just 38.6% overall. Against Iowa, they shot 4-23 from 3 and 27.9% overall. In your two meaningful wins? You shot 45.1% overall and 50% from 3 against UF, and 41.7% overall and 35% from 3 against UCLA. Heck, you actually got outrebounded by UCLA, and you basically played to a draw on the glass against UF. How is that any tougher than you played last night?

Just make 2 more 3s (still a terrible 6-23) and 2 more 2s (so a terrible 23-68 overall) and you win by a couple of possessions last night. If you're going to shoot like Sister Mary's School for the Blind, you should expect to lose to solid teams regardless of how tough you play.

The following article is a fantastic summary of UNC's problem:
http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/101172/iowa-forces-no-12-north-carolina-into-miserable-shooting-night

Of note, Iowa's coach said this:
"[Paige is] the one guy that we marked," Iowa coach Fran McCaffrey said. "If he's on the weakside, you have to stay a little closer to him, otherwise we're in [the post]. We were really worried about their post scorers."

If the opponent only has to worry about one guy shooting, that's a real problem.

[Dukehky]

I would just like to respond to one thing CDu said, Jimmy Butler is no longer just a grit guy. He is a great player on both ends of the court and should be an all star this year.

Brice Johnson is going to pout himself out of any playing time. His body language was the worst I have seen in a long time from any ranked team in a tight game.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Thanks CDu. Interesting assessment on UNC.

Wheat - I have a question for you: what do you see in Nate Britt? I understand his speed is excellent and he came into UNC with a solid reputation, but he hasn't backed it up at all. He's shooting 34% from the floor, 35% from 3 (not bad, given this team), averages 1 apg for a PG on 14 minutes (which is terrible), and sports an awful 1.1 A:T ratio. Also, it doesn't help when you post these stats and you're standing 5'11".

[CDu]

I would just like to respond to one thing CDu said, Jimmy Butler is no longer just a grit guy. He is a great player on both ends of the court and should be an all star this year.

Brice Johnson is going to pout himself out of any playing time. His body language was the worst I have seen in a long time from any ranked team in a tight game.

I didn't mean to suggest Butler is "just" a grit guy. He's obviously taken off this year offensively. My point was that the Bulls (under Thibs) have long won their games primarily through grit. It doesn't meant that that's all those guys do. For example, Noah is no longer "just" a grit guy. He's also probably the best passing big man in the game right now. But grit still represents a BIG part of both Butler's and Noah's games. And similarly, prior to his injuries, Hinrich wasn't just a grit guy either. That's now pretty much all he brings, but early in his career he was also a terrific offensive PG. This year is a bit different in that the Bulls actually have a TON of skilled players: Gasol, Noah, Butler, Rose, Mirotic, Dunleavy, Brooks, and McDermott are all very skilled at various aspects of offense. They are strangely winning more on talent than grit so far this season.

Note: it's no secret that I'm a HUGE Bulls fan. I certainly wasn't intending to discredit Butler's improvements on offense.

And I agree about Brice Johnson. He has a bit of early-career Sulaimon in him. Great when things are going well, but man can he sulk when things aren't going well.

[CDu]

Thanks CDu. Interesting assessment on UNC.

Wheat - I have a question for you: what do you see in Nate Britt? I understand his speed is excellent and he came into UNC with a solid reputation, but he hasn't backed it up at all. He's shooting 34% from the floor, 35% from 3 (not bad, given this team), averages 1 apg for a PG on 14 minutes (which is terrible), and sports an awful 1.1 A:T ratio. Also, it doesn't help when you post these stats and you're standing 5'11".

I second your questions regarding Britt. I'd extend those to Paige (as a PG at least) as well. It seems that UNC is starting two supposed PGs, neither of whom do any PG-ish things very well. On a team that doesn't have good individual scorers (outside of Paige and, when confident, Johnson), not having good PG play can be a big problem.

[Duvall]

I feel Carolina under Roy (especially in the 1 and done era) has always kind of been inconsistent early in the season, and then they'll put it together and go on a run in the ACC. They are also relying on some pretty young players for offense (who are normal young players, not the freakish mutant young players on our team) I don't doubt that they will get much better once the season progresses, especially with the way they defend and rebound.

Well, maybe. But it's not clear in the last few years whether UNC has put it together at midseason, or simply struggled long enough to allow expectations to drop to the point where they could easily exceed them by beating up on the ACC's weaker sisters. Same thing will probably happen this year - along with another round-of-32ish loss for the Heels.


It's really a very athletic team, one of the most athletic teams in the country, comparable with Kentucky. They really just need to get it together on offense, find a couple more guys who can keep defenses honest by knocking down some shots from deep, and they should be very good.

Is that the kind of thing you just find at midseason? It's not like UNC has multiple guys with reputations or histories as shooters that happen to be in a slump - they don't have any guys that are even *supposed* to be shooters, aside from Paige when he's not in one of his lengthy slumps.

[Duvall]

As I posted in another thread, effort doesn't really seem to be the problem for UNC. Inability to shoot the basketball seems to be the problem. UNC was plenty tough; they just weren't any good.

That touches on an oddity in UNC's stats on the year - the Heels have done an outstanding job of offensive rebounding this season (which suggests that they don't lack for effort), but their defending rebounding has been subpar. Why the gap?

[CDu]

Well, maybe. But it's not clear in the last few years whether UNC has put it together at midseason, or simply struggled long enough to allow expectations to drop to the point where they could easily exceed them by beating up on the ACC's weaker sisters. Same thing will probably happen this year - along with another round-of-32ish loss for the Heels.

Yeah, I went back and looked at UNC's results over the past 8 seasons (since the onset of the one and done era). And the "UNC starts off shaky but finishes strong" theory is a myth - at least since the 2007 season (i.e., when the 1-and-done era arrived). Here are UNC's results over that span:

2007: Started 3-1 (loss to Gonzaga), finished non-con 13-1 (with wins over Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohio St), finished regular season 25-6, elite-8 loss
2008: 14-0 non-con, 29-2 regular season, championship game loss
2009: 13-0 non-con, 27-3 regular season, championship
2010: started 4-0 (with a win over Ohio St) and got to 7-1 (with a win over MSU) before the season fell apart and they finished the regular season 16-15 and in the NIT
2011: started 4-3 with losses to Minnesota and Vandy, rebounded mightily to finish 24-6,
2012: started 6-2 with wins over MSU and Wisconsin and solid losses to UK and UNLV, finished 27-4, lost in the elite-8
2013: started 5-2, moved to 10-3 in non-con, finished 22-9, lost in game 2 of the tourney

So pretty much the only season in which UNC got notably better after a sluggish start was 2011. But you know why they had the magical mid-season turnaround? Because Larry Drew II quit the team, which forced Roy to play Kendall Marshall full-time at PG. From then on (and through the 2012 season), UNC was an elite team.

The only other potential example was in 2013, when they started out just okay, but bottomed out in ACC play before finishing sort of strong down the stretch. But that was again due to Roy finally coming to the realization that he was sitting his best player (Hairston) in favor of a scrub (Hubert) due to some crazy infatuation with having two true bigs on the court. Once he made that realization, UNC played better. Of course, their improvement coincided with the schedule getting much easier. They still lost all of the really tough games left on the schedule.

So aside from that one season (2011), every other year since the one-and-done era arrived has seen UNC finish no stronger than they started. In fact, in one season, they started notably better than they finished (that was of course the glorious 2010 season).


Is that the kind of thing you just find at midseason? It's not like UNC has multiple guys with reputations or histories as shooters that happen to be in a slump - they don't have any guys that are even *supposed* to be shooters, aside from Paige when he's not in one of his lengthy slumps.

That's the thing. Aside from two personnel changes (one transfer and one lineup change), there was no "light-switch" moment midseason that one can turn to this year. Roy is playing his (best players for the most part). It's just that his best players (aside from a few guys) just aren't great players. His PGs are very mediocre and are probably not really ACC-caliber players. His wings (aside from Paige, and even he has stunk so far this year) can't shoot. His bigs aren't good defensively (aside from rebounding).

The only thing he can do is try to run an offense (never his strong suit as a coach) and try to get the guys to play even more aggressively defensively (and they already do that about as much as they can) and hope that somebody learns how to shoot. There isn't a magic lineup change that will cure the ills. And as you said, there just aren't many guys on the roster whom he can hope learn how to shoot.

[CDu]

That touches on an oddity in UNC's stats on the year - the Heels have done an outstanding job of offensive rebounding this season (which suggests that they don't lack for effort), but their defending rebounding has been subpar. Why the gap?

This is a great question. It's purely speculation on my part, but my guess is that part of it is the amount of effort Roy is trying to get out of them defensively. You know how we tend to stink at rebounding as a team? I think a big part of that is because Coach K asks so much of the guys defensively in terms of challenging passing lanes and shots that it's hard to have the energy to devote to boxing out. Especially when their best rebounder isn't exactly known for his endurance to begin with.

UNC is doing really well at challenging shots and forcing turnovers, but they are struggling on the defensive glass. I think the two are correlated. Again, that's just a guess.

[rifraf]

I will admit to being the crazy who started the "throw them back" cheer when the Green shirts happened in cameron. It was against nc State in 07-08. And we came back from losing at halftime to win the game. So yes we did do that. Ours was purely student organized but theirs was some official thing

I was there. Threw my shirt back, so I feel like I contributed to the win :)

[jv001]

This is a great question. It's purely speculation on my part, but my guess is that part of it is the amount of effort Roy is trying to get out of them defensively. You know how we tend to stink at rebounding as a team? I think a big part of that is because Coach K asks so much of the guys defensively in terms of challenging passing lanes and shots that it's hard to have the energy to devote to boxing out. Especially when their best rebounder isn't exactly known for his endurance to begin with.

UNC is doing really well at challenging shots and forcing turnovers, but they are struggling on the defensive glass. I think the two are correlated. Again, that's just a guess.

And I think a good guess. I believe the way a team plays defense can cause bad box outs. I've thought that for a while regarding Duke, but I'm no expert. Good get. GoDuke!

[OldPhiKap]

Is that the kind of thing you just find at midseason? It's not like UNC has multiple guys with reputations or histories as shooters that happen to be in a slump - they don't have any guys that are even *supposed* to be shooters, aside from Paige when he's not in one of his lengthy slumps.

Agree with this completely. Not sure where the relief is going to come from, certainly not on a consistent basis. Zone, or a box-and-1 on Paige, or an off night by Paige, or a great m-2-m defensive effort on Paige, etc. -- where do they go?


That touches on an oddity in UNC's stats on the year - the Heels have done an outstanding job of offensive rebounding this season (which suggests that they don't lack for effort), but their defending rebounding has been subpar. Why the gap?

Butler pwned Carolina on the offensive glass. My guess is that Carolina has a lot of offensive rebounds because they klang a lot of shots -- thus more chances to grab them.

[CDu]

Agree with this completely. Not sure where the relief is going to come from, certainly not on a consistent basis. Zone, or a box-and-1 on Paige, or an off night by Paige, or a great m-2-m defensive effort on Paige, etc. -- where do they go?



Butler pwned Carolina on the offensive glass. My guess is that Carolina has a lot of offensive rebounds because they klang a lot of shots -- thus more chances to grab them.

It isn't just that they miss a lot. They also have a terrific offensive rebound percentage. That is the one thing that they are legitimately strong at offensively.

[Bob Green]

...but Johnson certainly struggled. And when Johnson is scuffling along with the perimeter guys, your team is just a mess.

I dislike Brice Johnson's demeanor on the court. Coach Williams needs to sit Johnson's butt on the bench until his attitude improves. At least Jackson Simmons and Joel James hustle.

[Duvall]

I dislike Brice Johnson's demeanor on the court. Coach Williams needs to sit Johnson's butt on the bench until his attitude improves. At least Jackson Simmons and Joel James hustle.

Okay, but James and Simmons are pretty bad at, well, everything. Remarkably so, in James' case.

[Bob Green]

Okay, but James and Simmons are pretty bad at, well, everything. Remarkably so, in James' case.

You are correct. My thought is some bench time along with an earful from his coach might get Johnson's attention. Johnson has talent but a bad attitude.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

[Note: I pulled this post by Wheat out of the Wisconsin post-game thread because I didn't want a Duke game thread to get derailed talking about how terrible UNC is]

Wheat, I agree with your assessment of the Duke/Wisconsin and UNC/Iowa games for the most part, but I'll note that UNC outrebounded Iowa by 4 for the game. Of note, you got 13 more FG attempts than Iowa, which suggests that you did in fact hold your own on the glass. Iowa did get 43.6% of their own misses, but you got 49.0% of your misses. So I'd say you still won the battle on the boards overall, just not convincingly so. Considering how tall Iowa is (they played 5 guys 6'8" or taller), I think winning the rebounding battle is all you can reasonably ask there.

I'd say the bigger culprit for the UNC loss was shooting 4-23 on 3s and 19-68 from the field overall. UNC is just a terrible, terrible shooting team right now. Berry, Britt, Tokoto, Pinson, and Hicks can't shoot. And the two guys that UNC fans hoped would be able to carry the offense from the outside (Paige and Jackson) seem to have lost their shots. Meeks certainly held his own inside, but Johnson certainly struggled. And when Johnson is scuffling along with the perimeter guys, your team is jus
I honestly don't think there's a lack of toughness on UNC. I think UNC plays plenty hard and plenty tough. It's just really hard to consistently win games when you can't make shots. Out-toughing teams (especially well-coached teams) is just tough to do. Roy is asking them to "grit" their way to every win. Basically, he's asking them to play Chicago Bulls (minus Rose) basketball. Well, that's really hard to do. You can pull it off if you've got the ultimate grit guys like Noah, Gibson, Hinrich, and Butler. But that's a pretty rare combination. UNC has toughness, just not enough toughness to win on toughness alone.

If UNC could just make some shots, nobody would be questioning their toughness. The two losses for UNC have the same story: against Butler, UNC shot 4-16 from 3 and just 38.6% overall. Against Iowa, they shot 4-23 from 3 and 27.9% overall. In your two meaningful wins? You shot 45.1% overall and 50% from 3 against UF, and 41.7% overall and 35% from 3 against UCLA. Heck, you actually got outrebounded by UCLA, and you basically played to a draw on the glass against UF. How is that any tougher than you played last night?

Just make 2 more 3s (still a terrible 6-23) and 2 more 2s (so a terrible 23-68 overall) and you win by a couple of possessions last night. If you're going to shoot like Sister Mary's School for the Blind, you should expect to lose to solid teams regardless of how tough you play.

The following article is a fantastic summary of UNC's problem:
http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/101172/iowa-forces-no-12-north-carolina-into-miserable-shooting-night

Of note, Iowa's coach said this:

If the opponent only has to worry about one guy shooting, that's a real problem.

Better shooting would solve a whole lot of problems, no doubt.

But to me, this is an example where stats don't tell the true story.

Yes, the rebounding numbers were almost even at games end. But look at this gametracker (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/gametracker/playbyplay/NCAAB_20141203_IOWA@UNC). Iowa St. didn't have an offensive rebound in the first half, but by my count had 12 in the second half when the play matters most. They played harder and attacked on the boards during winning time. UNC reached, stood back and was not taking it to St. They played tentative, not only on the boards, but also hunting shots and seeking the rim.

It's pretty darn hard to be tentative and tough at the same time.

[CDu]

Better shooting would solve a whole lot of problems, no doubt.

But to me, this is an example where stats don't tell the true story.

Yes, the rebounding numbers were almost even at games end. But look at this gametracker (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/gametracker/playbyplay/NCAAB_20141203_IOWA@UNC). Iowa St. didn't have an offensive rebound in the first half, but by my count had 12 in the second half when the play matters most. They played harder and attacked on the boards during winning time. UNC reached, stood back and was not taking it to St. They played tentative, not only on the boards, but also hunting shots and seeking the rim.

It's pretty darn hard to be tentative and tough at the same time.

There is no such thing as winning time. Winning time is the whole game. If you prioritize the second half over the first half, you intend to lose.

In the first half, Iowa had no individual offensive rebounds. And you know what the score was? 31-29, Iowa. That's right: even when UNC was completely dominating the boards, they were losing. And UNC actually allowed MORE points when they were dominating the defensive glass than they did when they were getting killed on the glass. UNC gave up only 29 points in the second half (when they were getting killed on the glass) and they still couldn't win.

So again, the reason that UNC lost? They couldn't shoot at all. The other reason they lost? Because they didn't have a plan to beat the zone other than to try to shoot over it. If your only hope of winning is to hold the opponent to 50 points (especially at the pace UNC plays), then toughness and rebounding aren't the reason you are losing.

As for "not taking it to [Iowa]", Iowa was playing exclusively zone. It's really hard to take it to anyone, or be aggressive to the rim against a zone. That's the point; you play zone to prevent people from taking it to you. The zone forces teams to either make smart passes and cuts or take contested jumpers. You don't beat a zone by being aggressive in hunting shots. Driving into the teeth of a zone just gets you into trouble and results in bad shots and turnovers. .

UNC lost that game not because of rebounding. They got beat when they were rebounding well and they got beat when they were rebounding poorly. The one constant was that UNC could shoot and didn't have any plan to beat the zone given that they couldn't shoot.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

There is no such thing as winning time. Winning time is the whole game. If you prioritize the second half over the first half, you intend to lose.


I disagree.

In close games, the intensity level goes up as time runs low. Numbers and stats are impersonal and won't show it, but that's what happens.

Every pass gets challenged a little more, every cut is a little harder, battles for position are a little stronger, shots are taken with more focus.

At least that's what happens with teams that are engaged, and for what ever reason, UNC was not last night.

That being said, yes, shooting...or lack of it...is also killing them.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Agree with this completely. Not sure where the relief is going to come from, certainly not on a consistent basis. Zone, or a box-and-1 on Paige, or an off night by Paige, or a great m-2-m defensive effort on Paige, etc. -- where do they go?

UNC has five scoring options, (defined by a player who could be expected to score 10+ any game).
In order of likelihood:
Paige
Meeks
Jackson
Johnson
Tokoto

They have guys who can score, if not shoot it well from the perimiter. They just have to play better/smarter and harder.

[Wander]

In close games, the intensity level goes up as time runs low. Numbers and stats are impersonal and won't show it, but that's what happens.

Every pass gets challenged a little more, every cut is a little harder, battles for position are a little stronger, shots are taken with more focus.

At least that's what happens with teams that are engaged

Honestly, that sounds like the exact opposite of a description of a team that I would describe as "engaged."

[Henderson]

UNC has five scoring options, (defined by a player who could be expected to score 10+ any game).
In order of likelihood:
Paige
Meeks
Jackson
Johnson
Tokoto

They have guys who can score, if not shoot it well from the perimiter. They just have to play better/smarter and harder.

I agree with this 100%. UNC has talent, and that's why I thought at the beginning of the season that they'd be dangerous. I now think they are Butler dangerous -- capable on any give night, but meh, not top shelf at all.

So why? It might be coaching. Hello Roy. Stay with me on this.

I know you think Roy is a good coach, and I'd agree with that from an historical perspective. But I have to agree with the many posters on IC: The game has passed him by. He's not keeping up.

There are at least three key aspects to coaching college basketball: Recruiting, building and preparing your team, and on-court coaching. Roy used to be good at all of them. But in the past 5 years, he's faded against the competition.

Recruiting: The pipeline is dry. He's got nothing. Hello AFAM scandal? Or was it PJ Hairston? Or Leslie Mac? Even the IC faithful are acknowledging that he can't recruit anymore. But it's not like Roy is blameless in all of that. He was the freaking coach of the team.

Building and Preparing: Coaches have always embraced their character-building role for young men. Roy himself complains about the lack of toughness in his team. So whose job is that? Is he recruiting bad players or not building them and preparing them for the 21st Century of college athletics? The PJ and LesMac things last year were an embarrassment to the program. Where was the coach? The guy who is supposed to meld these young athletes into men? And there's now more, which need not be mentioned.

On-Court Coaching: Roy keeps saying he needs to coach better. Yep. He can't keep blaming his players for making mistakes on the court. They play how they are coached. And this business of pulling players right and left has been discussed here enough. He's trying to motivate his team during games by pulling players. And it's not working. He's not a good on-court coach anymore.

I think the game has passed Roy by on all three metrics of coaching. Nice guy. Wish him well. But UNC needs to cut him loose. There are other better options out there. When the earth changes, you don't stick with dinosaurs just because they used to rule the planet.

[CDu]

I disagree.

In close games, the intensity level goes up as time runs low. Numbers and stats are impersonal and won't show it, but that's what happens.

Every pass gets challenged a little more, every cut is a little harder, battles for position are a little stronger, shots are taken with more focus.

At least that's what happens with teams that are engaged, and for what ever reason, UNC was not last night.

That being said, yes, shooting...or lack of it...is also killing them.

I disagree. A team that is engaged takes EVERY possession seriously. If you wait until the second half to really focus, then you are going to let games against good teams get away early, and you'll let weaker teams stick around longer than necessary.

Come to think of it, maybe that is why UNC often plays down to their opponent over the years. They think being engaged means waiting until the second half to really focus.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Honestly, that sounds like the exact opposite of a description of a team that I would describe as "engaged."

In a perfect world, you'd be right.

But we have live in the real world. Intensity levels in close games go up as the clock winds down. (Or should, in UNC's case last night).

[CDu]

In a perfect world, you'd be right.

But we have live in the real world. Intensity levels in close games go up as the clock winds down. (Or should, in UNC's case last night).

It isn't just in a perfect world. Duke, for example, has long had a culture of taking every play seriously. If you don't do that, you don't play. See Andre Dawkins. Your theory, if it is accurate, sounds like a condemnation of UNC's program. If they find it acceptable to not get fully focused until the end, that is a real problem.

Fortunately for UNC, I think you are mistaken.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

I disagree. A team that is engaged takes EVERY possession seriously. If you wait until the second half to really focus, then you are going to let games against good teams get away early, and you'll let weaker teams stick around longer than necessary.

Come to think of it, maybe that is why UNC often plays down to their opponent over the years. They think being engaged means waiting until the second half to really focus.

I'm not saying anybody should wait to really focus. I'm saying that in close games the intensity level rises towards the end of a close game, no matter how good intensity level was earlier.

Iowa St.'s intensity level went up, UNC's did not. It was a problem in that game.

[CDu]

I'm not saying anybody should wait to really focus. I'm saying that in close games the intensity level rises towards the end of a close game, no matter how good intensity level was earlier.

Iowa St.'s intensity level went up, UNC's did not. It was a problem in that game.

And I am saying that if your intensity level isn't there from the getgo, your coaching staff isn't doing its job. The best staffs get their players going full-tilt from the opening tip. That is how a program like Butler could compete with the big boys. That is how many of the Duke teams (especially the more veteran-laden ones) would seem to outproduce their talent.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

I agree with this 100%. UNC has talent, and that's why I thought at the beginning of the season that they'd be dangerous. I now think they are Butler dangerous -- capable on any give night, but meh, not top shelf at all.

So why? It might be coaching. Hello Roy. Stay with me on this.

I know you think Roy is a good coach, and I'd agree with that from an historical perspective. But I have to agree with the many posters on IC: The game has passed him by. He's not keeping up.

There are at least three key aspects to coaching college basketball: Recruiting, building and preparing your team, and on-court coaching. Roy used to be good at all of them. But in the past 5 years, he's faded against the competition.

Recruiting: The pipeline is dry. He's got nothing. Hello AFAM scandal? Or was it PJ Hairston? Or Leslie Mac? Even the IC faithful are acknowledging that he can't recruit anymore. But it's not like Roy is blameless in all of that. He was the freaking coach of the team.

Building and Preparing: Coaches have always embraced their character-building role for young men. Roy himself complains about the lack of toughness in his team. So whose job is that? Is he recruiting bad players or not building them and preparing them for the 21st Century of college athletics? The PJ and LesMac things last year were an embarrassment to the program. Where was the coach? The guy who is supposed to meld these young athletes into men? And there's now more, which need not be mentioned.

On-Court Coaching: Roy keeps saying he needs to coach better. Yep. He can't keep blaming his players for making mistakes on the court. They play how they are coached. And this business of pulling players right and left has been discussed here enough. He's trying to motivate his team during games by pulling players. And it's not working. He's not a good on-court coach anymore.

I think the game has passed Roy by on all three metrics of coaching. Nice guy. Wish him well. But UNC needs to cut him loose. There are other better options out there. When the earth changes, you don't stick with dinosaurs just because they used to rule the planet.


Roy is fine. He coached very well last year and continues to do so.

He wears his heart on his sleeve, that's his personality, if players aren't playing hard, he'll call them out. You guys like to call it "throwing them under the bus", I look at it as refreshing honesty.

He has had some recruiting let downs, but overall his recruiting is very good...and there's been a few surprises recently..(like Bullock leaving), but he's keeping UNC playing at a high level. (Last night excepted).

If you really watch UNC, you can see how well coached they are. Lots of screening, ball movement, set plays to feed the post, complex defensive rotations...etc. that doesn't happen by accident. It takes time, repetition, focus and leadership in practice to play Roy's style.

When Roy's players do what he wants them to do, they are very good.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

And I am saying that if your intensity level isn't there from the getgo, your coaching staff isn't doing its job. The best staffs get their players going full-tilt from the opening tip. That is how a program like Butler could compete with the big boys. That is how many of the Duke teams (especially the more veteran-laden ones) would seem to outproduce their talent.

Has the game passed coach K by since he's lost to Lehigh and Mercer in 2 of the past 3 years?
Of course not.
Why is it necessary to hold Roy to a higher standard than coach K?

[CDu]

Has the game passed coach K by since he's lost to Lehigh and Mercer in 2 of the past 3 years?
Of course not.
Why is it necessary to hold Roy to a higher standard than coach K?

Huh? Nonsequitir much? How is what you just said relevant to my post (or any of my posts)?

Honestly, Wheat, and I don't mean this to be rude, but your description of a team's focus level sounds to me like you are projecting the average fan's experience onto the team. In major college basketball, focus doesn't wait to rise until the end. If you aren't fully focused from the tip, you're gonna get run. Very few goood programs have a problem with lacking focus early in the game.

What you are describing sounds instead like the fan exprrience. You hunker down if it is close late. But that isn't how the players work. At least not the good ones.

[BD80]

Has the game passed coach K by since he's lost to Lehigh and Mercer in 2 of the past 3 years?
Of course not.
Why is it necessary to hold Roy to a higher standard than coach K?

ol' roy's only problem is that K is the standard, and he's only 7 miles away. ol' roy is a lot of things, including a very good basketball coach. But he pales in comparison to Coach K. This reality may underlie ol' roy's willful ignorance of the AFAM scandal and other fraudulent classes for which his players were awarded fraudulent grades to stay eligible.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I'm not saying anybody should wait to really focus. I'm saying that in close games the intensity level rises towards the end of a close game, no matter how good intensity level was earlier.

Iowa St.'s intensity level went up, UNC's did not. It was a problem in that game.

Three quick replied, Wheat:

1) I think folks here are killing you on "engagement," which I see both sides of. Yes, good teams come out sharp and stay sharp through the game. However, I agree with you that it takes a different level of intensity and concentration to execute late in a close game when all the screws are tightened. Honestly, I don't see the panic that everyone else here and across the media seems to take out of the game on Wednesday. Wheat, you say blaming the shooting is a bit of a cop out, but lord, how many games does ANY team win when shooting 28 % from the field? I'm sure I'd feel differently, but best I can tell, if you are shooting that poorly, you are damned lucky to be close enough to throw up a prayer for OT.

2) My Good Tar Hell Neighbor (GTHN) is livid with Roy Williams. His family has known Roy's family up here in the Asheville area for decades, and GTHN is a big fan of Roy personally, but he is now starting to question whether he's got what it takes for the program right now. Specifically, he wants to see far more drives to the basket, a more cohesive offensive set with crisper passes, and less of a reliance on Paige. I'm surprised that he has turned on Williams, especially so early in the season. At any rate, other than not calling time out in the last few seconds of the game (which I can actually see both sides of - lots of folks like to let their team take control of the situation and keep the defense off-guard, but not necessarily a great move when your offense has been as stale as UNC's was that night) I don't see a lot of fault in Roy. In fact, UNC seems like a team with a ton of potential. Watching their games, (I haven't seen much this year admittedly) it feels like they have Paige (we know what he can do) Meeks (super high bball IQ, obviously a completely different physical person than last year) Joel James (built like Elton Brand!) and about two dozen guys who are 6'6 - 6'9 and can play all over the floor. There's plenty to work with there, and I won't be the least bit surprised if they are at the top of the ACC come February.

3) It was Iowa, not Iowa State. When a team beats you, they deserve that much.

Thanks, Wheat. Your posts seem to always promote.... lively discussion

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Huh? Nonsequitir much? How is what you just said relevant to my post (or any of my posts)?

Honestly, Wheat, and I don't mean this to be rude, but your description of a team's focus level sounds to me like you are projecting the average fan's experience onto the team. In major college basketball, focus doesn't wait to rise until the end. If you aren't fully focused from the tip, you're gonna get run. Very few goood programs have a problem with lacking focus early in the game.

What you are describing sounds instead like the fan exprrience. You hunker down if it is close late. But that isn't how the players work. At least not the good ones.

My bad, that comment was meant for Henderson.

I guess you just can't understand my point. And I've never said there shouldn't be focus/effort all the time.

Every coach wants his team to play hard all the time. Every player should want to play hard all the time.

But, I'll be sure to note for you a comparison of Duke's intensity level 3 minutes in during the next close game against their effort when they are down by two with a minute thirty and start slapping the floor to get a stop.

There is a difference in intensity as the clock winds down. UNC didn't match Iowa St.'s late in the last game.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

My bad, that comment was meant for Henderson.

I guess you just can't understand my point. And I've never said there shouldn't be focus/effort all the time.

Every coach wants his team to play hard all the time. Every player should want to play hard all the time.

But, I'll be sure to note for you a comparison of Duke's intensity level 3 minutes in during the next close game against their effort when they are down by two with a minute thirty and start slapping the floor to get a stop.

There is a difference in intensity as the clock winds down. UNC didn't match Iowa St.'s late in the last game.

Hawkeyes, not Cyclones

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Three quick replied, Wheat:

1) I think folks here are killing you on "engagement," which I see both sides of. Yes, good teams come out sharp and stay sharp through the game. However, I agree with you that it takes a different level of intensity and concentration to execute late in a close game when all the screws are tightened. Honestly, I don't see the panic that everyone else here and across the media seems to take out of the game on Wednesday. Wheat, you say blaming the shooting is a bit of a cop out, but lord, how many games does ANY team win when shooting 28 % from the field? I'm sure I'd feel differently, but best I can tell, if you are shooting that poorly, you are damned lucky to be close enough to throw up a prayer for OT.

2) My Good Tar Hell Neighbor (GTHN) is livid with Roy Williams. His family has known Roy's family up here in the Asheville area for decades, and GTHN is a big fan of Roy personally, but he is now starting to question whether he's got what it takes for the program right now. Specifically, he wants to see far more drives to the basket, a more cohesive offensive set with crisper passes, and less of a reliance on Paige. I'm surprised that he has turned on Williams, especially so early in the season. At any rate, other than not calling time out in the last few seconds of the game (which I can actually see both sides of - lots of folks like to let their team take control of the situation and keep the defense off-guard, but not necessarily a great move when your offense has been as stale as UNC's was that night) I don't see a lot of fault in Roy. In fact, UNC seems like a team with a ton of potential. Watching their games, (I haven't seen much this year admittedly) it feels like they have Paige (we know what he can do) Meeks (super high bball IQ, obviously a completely different physical person than last year) Joel James (built like Elton Brand!) and about two dozen guys who are 6'6 - 6'9 and can play all over the floor. There's plenty to work with there, and I won't be the least bit surprised if they are at the top of the ACC come February.

3) It was Iowa, not Iowa State. When a team beats you, they deserve that much.

Thanks, Wheat. Your posts seem to always promote.... lively discussion

Busy day ahead, I've got to run...

Shooting is their biggest issue. Nobody would be wrong saying it is costing them losses.

But in that IOWA game, (thanks, brain fart) what stood out to me at least as much as the terrible shooting was that missing second half intensity and getting outplayed. Shooting was horrible, but they still could have won with more effort.

As for Roy, I'm sure he wants to see all those things you mentioned too from his players. Many are piling on Roy now out of frustration.

I'm just not one of them. I hold the players accountable for how they play on the court, Roy's not out there.

[jv001]

Three quick replied, Wheat:

1) I think folks here are killing you on "engagement," which I see both sides of. Yes, good teams come out sharp and stay sharp through the game. However, I agree with you that it takes a different level of intensity and concentration to execute late in a close game when all the screws are tightened. Honestly, I don't see the panic that everyone else here and across the media seems to take out of the game on Wednesday. Wheat, you say blaming the shooting is a bit of a cop out, but lord, how many games does ANY team win when shooting 28 % from the field? I'm sure I'd feel differently, but best I can tell, if you are shooting that poorly, you are damned lucky to be close enough to throw up a prayer for OT.

2) My Good Tar Hell Neighbor (GTHN) is livid with Roy Williams. His family has known Roy's family up here in the Asheville area for decades, and GTHN is a big fan of Roy personally, but he is now starting to question whether he's got what it takes for the program right now. Specifically, he wants to see far more drives to the basket, a more cohesive offensive set with crisper passes, and less of a reliance on Paige. I'm surprised that he has turned on Williams, especially so early in the season. At any rate, other than not calling time out in the last few seconds of the game (which I can actually see both sides of - lots of folks like to let their team take control of the situation and keep the defense off-guard, but not necessarily a great move when your offense has been as stale as UNC's was that night) I don't see a lot of fault in Roy. In fact, UNC seems like a team with a ton of potential. Watching their games, (I haven't seen much this year admittedly) it feels like they have Paige (we know what he can do) Meeks (super high bball IQ, obviously a completely different physical person than last year) Joel James (built like Elton Brand!) and about two dozen guys who are 6'6 - 6'9 and can play all over the floor. There's plenty to work with there, and I won't be the least bit surprised if they are at the top of the ACC come February.

3) It was Iowa, not Iowa State. When a team beats you, they deserve that much.

Thanks, Wheat. Your posts seem to always promote.... lively discussion

My problem with Roy is not his lack of coaching skills, which is true, but with the academic fraud that went on right under his nose. He's either not qualified to coach a college basketball program because he's stupid. Or, he's not qualified to coach a college basketball program because he's a cheat and won't admit it. GoDuke!

[OldPhiKap]

My problem with Roy is not his lack of coaching skills, which is true, but with the academic fraud that went on right under his nose. He's either not qualified to coach a college basketball program because he's stupid. Or, he's not qualified to coach a college basketball program because he's a cheat and won't admit it. GoDuke!

To be fair, Roy no longer gets to pick where the pre-game meals will be when they are on the road.

[CDu]

My bad, that comment was meant for Henderson.. No sweat. It happens, especially with late-night posting. :)


I guess you just can't understand my point. And I've never said there shouldn't be focus/effort all the time.

Every coach wants his team to play hard all the time. Every player should want to play hard all the time.

But, I'll be sure to note for you a comparison of Duke's intensity level 3 minutes in during the next close game against their effort when they are down by two with a minute thirty and start slapping the floor to get a stop.

There is a difference in intensity as the clock winds down. UNC didn't match Iowa St.'s late in the last game.

and I guess you can't understand mine. UNC held Iowa to just 31 points in the first half and just 29 points in the second. Their defensive efficiency was actually BETTER in the second half than in the first, in spite of losing the rebound battle in the second half. So I think you are barking up the wrong tree when you complain about UNC's toughness and their second half focus.

The problem for UNC is that they can't shoot consistently and they don't have a good plan to get easier shots. You shouldn't expect to hold a decent team to below 55 points. So complaining about UNC's toughness when they just held a solid team to just 60 points seems silly. Had you shot just a little bit less awfully and scored 65, I guarantee you aren't on here talking about toughness and lack of focus.

Lack of toughness seems to be Roy's go-to line in situations like these, but it is a crutch. The issue with UNC isn't that they aren't tough enough, nor is it that they aren't trying hard enough. The issue is that they aren't a good enough shooting team to shoot their way past a zone (a talent issue) and they don't have a gameplan for how to get easier shots en lieu of that shooting issue (a coaching issue).

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

To be fair, Roy no longer gets to pick where the pre-game meals will be when they are on the road.

Really, UNC is in a fairly good spot in regards to this. Given the general angst from the fan-base about Roy's coaching, UNC could take the high road of a "righteous" firing of Roy for the academic scandal... conveniently coinciding with the downturn in the play of the team.

One of those "Roy didn't know anything" converts to "Someone has to take the fall" conversions over a few months that happen to line up with poor recruiting and poor play.

[Wander]

I guess you just can't understand my point. And I've never said there shouldn't be focus/effort all the time.

Every coach wants his team to play hard all the time. Every player should want to play hard all the time.

But, I'll be sure to note for you a comparison of Duke's intensity level 3 minutes in during the next close game against their effort when they are down by two with a minute thirty and start slapping the floor to get a stop.

The intensity of a game can go up at end-of-game situations, and I think we all agree that players are human and can be affected by this sort of thing, probably some guys more than others. The effects can be things like the home crowd getting more into it or young players getting nervous. But one of the effects shouldn't be "all cuts are harder at the end of the game" or anything that boils down to "the team tries harder." That's the definition of a team that has an effort problem. And, no, I honestly don't observe that Duke cuts harder with a minute to go in a close game compared to 3 minutes into the game.

[NSDukeFan]

The intensity of a game can go up at end-of-game situations, and I think we all agree that players are human and can be affected by this sort of thing, probably some guys more than others. The effects can be things like the home crowd getting more into it or young players getting nervous. But one of the effects shouldn't be "all cuts are harder at the end of the game" or anything that boils down to "the team tries harder." That's the definition of a team that has an effort problem. And, no, I honestly don't observe that Duke cuts harder with a minute to go in a close game compared to 3 minutes into the game.

Hasn't it been shown that average players tend to shoot worse at "crunch time"? My understanding is that players who shoot at their normal rate at the end of games in close games are somewhat uncommon.

[CDu]

The intensity of a game can go up at end-of-game situations, and I think we all agree that players are human and can be affected by this sort of thing, probably some guys more than others. The effects can be things like the home crowd getting more into it or young players getting nervous. But one of the effects shouldn't be "all cuts are harder at the end of the game" or anything that boils down to "the team tries harder." That's the definition of a team that has an effort problem. And, no, I honestly don't observe that Duke cuts harder with a minute to go in a close game compared to 3 minutes into the game.

Well said. Focus and effort don't increase in crunch time. Pressure does, but that is different.

Regardless, the whole thing is silly. Wheat (and Roy) is blasting UNC for lack of effort and toughness when they held a solid Big-10 team to 60, when the real problem is UNC's shooting. UNC's defense gave themselves ample opportunity to win. Their offense just couldn't capitalize.

[BD80]

... the real problem is UNC's shooting. UNC's defense gave themselves ample opportunity to win. Their offense just couldn't capitalize.

Maybe if they were required to do their own assignments in real classes, they would have learned how to

[OldPhiKap]

Maybe if they were required to do their own assignments in real classes, they would have learned how to

Their game was certainly punctuated with bricks.

[77devil]

Well said. Focus and effort don't increase in crunch time. Pressure does, but that is different.

Regardless, the whole thing is silly. Wheat (and Roy) is blasting UNC for lack of effort and toughness when they held a solid Big-10 team to 60, when the real problem is UNC's shooting. UNC's defense gave themselves ample opportunity to win. Their offense just couldn't capitalize.

To be fair, Huck blasted the players in the post game presser for their shooting too. As Wheat would say, this is refreshingly candid commentary by Ol' Roy.


"How do you feel about the misses close to the basket tonight?"

"Pissed off. I don't know how to fix it. If I'm six inches away, I'm going to make the dadgum basket."

[BD80]

How bad is Clemson? They lost, AT HOME, to Rutgers, who was playing their third game in four days.

Seton Hall is blowing Rutgers off the court, 47-25 at the half.

[Wander]

Hasn't it been shown that average players tend to shoot worse at "crunch time"? My understanding is that players who shoot at their normal rate at the end of games in close games are somewhat uncommon.

I think you are right. My understanding is that, on average, it's been shown players shoot free throws worse in "crunch time." Free throws are a nice stat in a lot of these types of discussions since you can't invoke a defense trying harder or whatever. It's a good example of what CDu and I were talking about - how pressure can definitely increase at the end of games, but it's the opposite trend of what you'd expect from Wheat's claim that "shots are taken with more focus."

[Kedsy]

How bad is Clemson? They lost, AT HOME, to Rutgers, who was playing their third game in four days.

Seton Hall is blowing Rutgers off the court, 47-25 at the half.

The whole bottom-third of the league is pretty darned bad. When's the last time the ACC had six (6) teams with 3 or more losses on December 6?

[BD80]

The whole bottom-third of the league is pretty darned bad. When's the last time the ACC had six (6) teams with 3 or more losses on December 6?

Well, we typically haven't had this many teams on December 6

[Wheat/"/"/"]

I think you are right. My understanding is that, on average, it's been shown players shoot free throws worse in "crunch time." Free throws are a nice stat in a lot of these types of discussions since you can't invoke a defense trying harder or whatever. It's a good example of what CDu and I were talking about - how pressure can definitely increase at the end of games, but it's the opposite trend of what you'd expect from Wheat's claim that "shots are taken with more focus."

This is another example of where stats don't tell the true story.

Say it's a close game and we take the last five minutes of the first half and player A shoots 3/4 from the line.

Then we take the last five minutes of the second half, and Player A again shoots 3/4 from the line.

Who wants to volunteer which shots required more focus from player A?

Yes, It's the same distance, nobody's guarding any body and the stats are the same.

But the stats can't quantify mental pressure...or fatigue, only that Player A shot 3/4 from the line.

In that Iowa game, terrible shooting was the #1 reason they lost that game, nobody disagrees with that. A close #2 was lack of toughness in the second half. I chose to focus on lack of toughness in this game because they still could have won it even with that terrible shooting if they had played harder.

Look at the stats and we see end game rebounding numbers roughly the same. Stats can lie. What we don't see in those numbers is the effort required to to corral those rebounds. Both teams had fairly equal effort in the first half, but UNC's size gave them the edge. In the second half, Iowa increased their effort and intensity going after rebounds where UNC remained more passive...reaching, not hustling to get to the prime real estate under the rim first, failure to focus on boxing out...where Iowa did all those things.

That failure to do those things was not about skill level, or size...it was about lack of effort required to match the other teams itensity. Lack of required intensity...desire...means lack of toughness overall to me.

You guys can point to the poor shooting and be right, but I saw the game, their body language, their hustle,and it gives me no pleasure to say they didn't play tough enough in that 2nd half to win that game.

[BD80]

How bad is Syracuse? The Orangemen lost to Michigan, who just lost to NJIT in Ann Arbor!

Who is NJIT? "New Jersey Institute of Technology is the lone independent in Division I. Coming into today's matchup with Michigan, it was ranked 293rd in KenPom with a 2-5 record and two losses this season to UMass-Lowell -- which is only in its second year of Division I competition."

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24870949/michigan-upset-by-njit

Cupcake City!!! And they lost!

I hear that South Harmon Institute of Technology is up next.

[Tripping William]

How bad is Syracuse? The Orangemen lost to Michigan, who just lost to NJIT in Ann Arbor!

Who is NJIT? "New Jersey Institute of Technology is the lone independent in Division I. Coming into today's matchup with Michigan, it was ranked 293rd in KenPom with a 2-5 record and two losses this season to UMass-Lowell -- which is only in its second year of Division I competition."

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24870949/michigan-upset-by-njit

Cupcake City!!! And they lost!

I hear that South Harmon Institute of Technology is up next.

Plus the Cuse lost by a dozen today to unranked, Steve Lavin coached St. John's.

[brevity]

Is Michigan basketball's home loss to NJIT worse than Michigan football's home loss to Appalachian State?


I hear that South Harmon Institute of Technology is up next.

Ladies and gentlemen, two-time Academy Award nominee Jonah Hill:

4561

[duketaylor]

Went to the UVA/VCU game today. VCU thinks they have a great atmosphere; it's pretty good. Very good pep band, decent student involvement (compared to what we're used to), overall an enjoyable experience. My first VCU home game. UVA had absolutely no intimidation for the VCU experience.
Game was 58-54 fairly late in the 2nd half, then UVA went on a nice 16-3 run to finish. VCU has limited inside offense and relies on taking 3-pointers. UVA had several dunks in the 1st half after VCU pressed/trapped and UVA broke said defense. Really, really good team versus a good team. Not really a contest, IMO. Virginia is the real deal.

I did like the VCU dance team's outfits in the first half; they changed to a different outfit in the 2nd half that was less enticing/interesting.

From the commercial a few years ago: "Lunch before the game today, about $30-including beer;), parking near the venue (free) $2, ticket for the game and the experience (free), priceless."

VCU friends of mine told me I couldn't find a ticket unless I was willing to pay major coin. When I showed them my free ticket at half-court they were shocked. It pays to take VCU and UVA guys to Cameron sometimes, especially when I've never asked for any return tickets.

Now I'm looking for Fleetwood Mac tickets at JPJ Arena (March 15) as an Xmas gift for my wife in exchange for some other Duke hoops tix.

I should have access to some Duke at UVA tix next year as well. Looking for Fleetwood Mac tix;)