Watching them play vs Seton Hall. They are horrible (as is seton hall) m. Of all the teams we played this year I’m shocked we lost to them.
DePaul
- Thread starter ChuckBarkley
- Start date
We played them before we had a point guard who could defend or run the court.
DePaul shot lights out against Iowa and were on a roll early in the season. They then hit the Big East and just haven't been able to hit the broadside of the barn, they are shooting 35% overall in conference play, under 30% from 3 in most games. Its not like they are not getting wide open shots, they are just missing them.. something that they didn't do against Iowa.
College basketball is a long season and it is very rare for teams to not have a "WTF was that?" game.
The ones that do manage to avoid that generally end up in the Final Four, though.
The ones that do manage to avoid that generally end up in the Final Four, though.
Duke got beat by Stephen F Austin.....let it go, fellas.
Evansville punked KU also.
GO HAWKS !!!!
Evansville punked KU also.
GO HAWKS !!!!
depaul isn't a terrible team; they actually gave seton hall a decent run tonight. They just aren't a very good team. There's a reason why they were picked to finish last in the big east. I thought it was funny at the time that some posters felt the need to pump depaul up after they demolished Iowa. It looks even sillier now.
Well they are 3-0 against the mighty B1G. I didn’t pump them up on here but I did think they were going to be top half in the Big East. Reed, Moore, and Coleman Lands were playing great early. Coleman Lands especially was shooting the ball lights out but he’s had some off games in conf. play.
Iowa must have played absolutely no defense in that DePaul game, because the Blue Demons got flustered by the least bit of defensive prowess in that Seton Hall game. Picking up their dribble, leaving their feet before a pass, trying to force passes through multiple defenders, throwing it up haphazardly toward the basket....they kept that game close, but they are a very undisciplined team. Thankfully that turd occurred in early November and not March.
I would still take losing to DePaul over losing in the fashion we did to Nebraska.
To add to your point Evansville is 0-9 in the MVC. What a hot mess after one of the bigger wins in school history.
They were a good team for that stage of the season and they had a couple more games under their belts than we did. A big advantage. They played a great December, but they obviously peaked too early. It happens.
Injured JBo played 16 min and no D. Nunge played 10 min, scored zero and looked um...”rusty.”
This is a different Iowa team today.
This is a different Iowa team today.
Correct. If anything, I think that game helped get the team’s head screwed in straight and reiterated they can’t just show up and expect to win.
Everyone realizes they still beat Butler (#5 at the time) a little over a week ago right?
Based on the eye test, the big east may be the best conference top to bottom in the country. Any of the teams in that league are better than jnw and nebby. And the separation between the top of that conference and the bottom is narrower than the B1G.
depaul is arguably the best last place team in all of college b-ball, as strange as that sounds.
depaul is arguably the best last place team in all of college b-ball, as strange as that sounds.
yes they are #10 according to the voters. Watching them I’m not impressed. Turned the ball over a ton, very sloppy basketball.
Do any of the rating services try to rate an opponent's strength at the time a team played them as opposed to their strength at the time the rating is issued. I realize that is poorly worded. But, my question is when ratings are done in March, do we get credit for beating the March version (instead of November) of Texas Tech and losing to the March version of DePaul?
I can see the argument that the season- to-date rating gives a better snapshot of an opponent's strength (especially compared to November when you have little data), but it also seems to overlook that for stretches of the season teams may be playing better or worse. Sometimes obvious things like injuries; sometimes less clear explanations.
I can see the argument that the season- to-date rating gives a better snapshot of an opponent's strength (especially compared to November when you have little data), but it also seems to overlook that for stretches of the season teams may be playing better or worse. Sometimes obvious things like injuries; sometimes less clear explanations.
