You clearly didn’t watch the game, either. Hawks scored 53 points in the first half and a miserable 28 in the second half on 40% fewer attempts! What do you call slowing it down?
Why would I make such a claim without having watched the game?
This is such a laughable narrative.
Not sure where you're getting your numbers. 30 FGA in 1st half. 24 FGA in the 2nd half, which is 20% fewer attempts.
It was 58 points in the 1st and 23 in the 2nd, btw.
UNLV made an adjustment at halftime to go back to the straight man defense they had played all year. In the 1st half, they were attempting to switch part of Iowa's flex action, and were very ineffective at it. Miscommunication left huge gaps and turned Iowa guys loose for wide open looks and lay-ups. Whith the 2nd half return to their base defense, UNLV was really able to get into Iowa and make it hard for them.
UNLV also starting hitting their shots in the 2nd half, which allowed them to pick up and dog BJ full-court and slow him down quite a bit.
The 1st half, UNLV missed a ton of quick jumpers, that played into the hands of Iowa to get out and run. They also turned the ball over 9 times in the 1st half, which helped Iowa run. Just 5 turns in the 2nd.
Iowa also got up a couple extra shots in the 1st half with the benefit of 5 offensive rebounds vs 2 in the 2nd.
The first half was incredibly fast-paced. Really your best argument for intentional pace differential was the FTA differential by half. 58-42 at half. That pace was bound to slow down some. Especially with a 45 second shot clock.
The 16 point halftime lead was cut to 4 with about 12 minutes to go. And UNLV had taken the lead with 10 minutes to go. So certainly Iowa wasn't, "sitting on the ball," at that point, if they ever were.
And they weren't. Within those 1st 8 minutes of the 2nd half, Iowa was full-court pressing (not a characteristic of a team trying to sit on the ball). Also within that 8 minutes were several turnovers by Iowa, as they had trouble adjusting to UNLV's adjustment. But Iowa also was able to get up several good looks during that time period. Most of them by one of their best players that had a really tough day, and just couldn't get them to fall.
UNLV held the lead the rest of the game and by as much as 8. Iowa cut it to 3 with about 4 minutes to go, and picked up full-court with their D. Even if having been pressing, a lot of coaches will drop the D back once it's become a one possession game with that much time left.
The only time I would say Iowa was conservative in the 2nd half was with about 7 or 8 minutes to go, a UNLV defender slipped, and Iowa had a momentary 5 on 4, only to have called a timeout. But it was with Lohaus with the ball over 25 ft from the basket. And Davis was one of the only coaches who even let his big guys touch the ball away from the basket back then. Definitely not a play worthy of a 38 year "conservative" narrative.
Sure, Iowa worked the offense some in the 2nd half and had some patient possessions. But that was never uncommon to Iowa, if they didn't get something in transition. They would have worked the offense more in the first half too had the scoring opportunities not had been so easy.
But again, for Iowa to have sat on the ball once the lead was erased, wouldn't have made a lot of sense, if that was ever their intention in the first place.
Which of course, with 20 minutes to go they weren't trying to run the clock. And there is plenty of evidence to support that in the first 8 minutes of play in the 2nd half, which is when the lead was erased