- Hard to believe that Wisconsin team won the league last season, they appear to be about 80% of what they once were. They missed a lot of shots yesterday, and I thought their defense wasn't quite as good as I expected. They are still good enough to give any seed 3 or higher a run for their money, though.
- That was a pretty convincing win, the 3rd in a row, so hopefully we start to get seeded more like our NET rating (which at 5 now, should mean a 2 seed but will probably be a 3).
- Looking at the computer rankings(not all are current as of this morning yet) we are:
- 3rd in Kenpom
- 3rd in ESPN BPI
- 4th in Sagarin
- 5th in NET
- 5th in Massey
- All of those models take SOS and things like who you beat and who you lost to into account, so our SEED should be VERY close to those rankings. This means we should be a 2 seed. Anything else has to be based on something the models DON'T consider, such as injuries (which should help us not hurt us) or perhaps recency (playing better or worse lately). I don't buy recency, however, as I think the NCAA tournament isn't about who is the best NOW, it's about your work over the course of the season......who DESERVES to be there. Otherwise teams with just a bunch of raw talent might get seeded 2 seeds above their actual performance, for example.
- Winning by 15 on the road at Wisconsin was caused by 4 factors:
- We came off the bus ready to play
- Garza had his A game
- Wieskamp had his A game
- Our defense is way better than 2 weeks ago
- Speaking of defense, we are now 1st in offensive efficiency and 92nd in defensive efficiency, after being as high as 120 a few games ago. I was actually quite shocked at some of the man to man decisions the team made for not having focused on it most of the season. We had guys switching by intuition, leading the cutters, dropping down in the post to help on rollers, hedging screens properly, and flying out to open players when their defender had to drop in the lane (helping the helper). We're not perfect, but I'd give us a B+ which is quite high considering most would consider us a C level defensive group regardless of scheme.
- We played some zone, but not for more than 1-2 possessions in a row to my knowledge - enough to confuse them for a few possessions and then get out of it. Wisconsin tried to run that baseline lob against it and had a turnover, for example. Wisconsin got a few 3's against us, but we did a great job on guys driving, cutting or posting. Some of that was their players just not finishing, but we deserve credit too.
- Wisconsin made much of that 2nd half run with Joe on the bench, and Garza may have also been on the bench for a few minutes of it. I was yelling for them to get Joe back in when it got cut to around 7, so I wish it was earlier, but as soon as we got him and Garza back on the floor things stablized quickly.
- Good to see CJF make an impact - a very tough shot in the lane, and the halftime 3, along with some good defense. He bust his but down the court in transition defense one time to pick up the ball, for example. Hope he's getting better.
- Wieskamp and Garza were studs. I didn't see Joe as much of an NBA player in the first part of the year, but this recent run definitely brings that back into focus. He has a fairly quick shot, with a very high release and doesn't waste time with lazy footwork. A very efficient catch and shoot perimeter guy in the NBA, with enough athleticism to run the court and rebound. Won't be a slasher in the NBA, but they have other guys who can do that. Garza had his mojo back and really beat up Reuvers inside with his strong elbows and half hooks. Then he'd step out and knock down a 3. Still not sure how opposing bigs can struggle to understand what is coming when Garza sets a screen on the perimeter. He's not a great roller, but he is a great fade and shoot guy. Defender needs to recognize and chase him off the line after a brief hedge - it's not like Garza will pump fake and take it down the lane for a dunk
- I hate Davison. The percentage of "unintentional" elbows that come from him should be about 10% of his team's total, but are probably about 70%. Shouldn't refs get suspicious about that?
- Speaking of Elbows, Garza might be tied with Davison in unintentional elbows, but at least I think they are unintentional in his case. Team bias? Nah.
- This game was the one where I'd like to take 4 or 5 clips to Keegan and show him what 10-15 more pounds in the weight room will look like. He tried to drive, and he actually gets the first step on his guy most of the time and has an advantage, but it gets taken away by the defender's strength closing down his angle. Then when he tries to pivot he gets pushed off balance and away from the basket. Next year, not only will he have the strength to keep his driving line and his pivot balance, but he will (I hope) have a half hook so he can pivot and finish over guys from 5 feet. Doesn't do you any good to get that close if you don't have a finishing shot that works against 6'10" players. Great job on the boards, though, with 12!
- I thought Bohannon did a great job of not forcing things in a setting where he easily could have hunted his shot. He only hunted that last long 3, haha. Did a great job pushing after makes or misses and putting pressure on Wisconsin. I thought Iowa did a FANTASTIC job of this, and was helped by Wisconsin missing 75% of their shots in the 1st half. We got the ball to Bohannon and he pushed it up and helped us get some good looks early in the possession before Wisconsin was 100% settled in their packline defense.
- We gave up 17 offensive rebounds, but some of those were simply due to Wisconsin missing a lot of shots. In the long run, I expect our defensive rebounding to be helped by playing man to man, where it's easier to find a guy to block out. Nunge has to be a bit more physical getting good position on defensive boards.
What did you guys think?
Last edited:
