ISU-Purdue rehash (for fun)

[CyValley]

Time to move on, find yourself a hobby, go do something outside, its a beautiful weekend.

I failed to include a ;-) in the OP, it was a friendly discussion (I headlined it 'Fight' as a bit of whimsy) while sitting on the patio on a glorious sunny day. At one point the convo drifted from this and that iSu to the PU game.

Since I am not basketball savvy, I became curious about what the staff's thinking had been that led to its first half tactics. If it did not follow Michigan's small ball approach, why not? I assume the staff had GOOD REASON for starting out the way it did.

Curious minds want to know (but, clearly, not all minds are curious).

 

[CyValley]

This seems like a stupid way to spend a Saturday.

But Prohm was asked about this multiple times. I especially remember it in the end of season article in the Ames Tribune. You and your son might try reading it. Knowing what I know about Prohm, I'm sure he blames himself for whatever happened. But smarter basketball minds than me (and you) talked about how it probably was the right move to start the game like they did. Going small at the beginning would have had its own set of problems.

We read the Trib article. In fact, we called it up online yesterday to refresh our memories. The questioning was incomplete, follow-up questions to CSP to clarify the issue were not forthcoming (or weren't published).

So, rather than pompously assert that it was the right move to start the game the way they did, explain WHY it was the right move to start 'big' instead of small. I am not criticising that move, I only wish to understand the thinking BEHIND the move. I assume there was a good reason to start out that way.

You state going small at the start "would have had its own set of problems." WHAT problems?

For the record: I am an unreserved fan and backer of CSP. If anyone here believes my question was posed to wag a finger at coach, you are wrong. Period.

 

[CyValley]

A big thank you to ISUTREVMAN and MADGUY30 for responding courteously and seriously to my question about opening-half tactics. Just the type of insight I was looking for, all the angst and silliness offered by some others was beside the point.

Thank you again.

 

[BoxsterCy]

Such much disappointment. Until the OP's posts this morning I had envisioned this devolving into father/son fistacuffs or at least resolved via Feats of Strength.

 

[madguy30]

Such much disappointment. Until the OP's posts this morning I had envisioned this devolving into father/son fistacuffs or at least resolved via Feats of Strength.

The thread title had me hoping the Purdue and ISU teams were walking toward each other in an alley, snapping in rhythm, dancing, and singing their teams' names in a way that made you wonder if they were more concerned about the pending violence or hitting the right notes.

 

[Cyclonepride]

I failed to include a ;-) in the OP, it was a friendly discussion (I headlined it 'Fight' as a bit of whimsy) while sitting on the patio on a glorious sunny day. At one point the convo drifted from this and that iSu to the PU game.

Since I am not basketball savvy, I became curious about what the staff's thinking had been that led to its first half tactics. If it did not follow Michigan's small ball approach, why not? I assume the staff had GOOD REASON for starting out the way it did.

Curious minds want to know (but, clearly, not all minds are curious).

 

[SCyclone]

I keep thinking back to the two 3-pointers PU hit just before halftime, including that miracle buzzer-beater. A four point lead suddenly goes to 10, and momentum is all with them. I can remember thinking that it had quickly become a very uphill battle for the guys at that point.

And then they made that run.....and I believed. Was so proud of them for showing Purdue (and everyone else who watched) that they were, in fact, a great ballclub and not going to just fold up and die.

They just couldn't close the deal, and after all the great vibes from the preceding couple weeks, it was a real buzz killer. Personally, I think CSP really grew as a coach last season, and I truly believe our future in MBB is very bright. (Sorry to all the taverhoks who use that line so often.)

 

[Cyclonepride]

I keep thinking back to the two 3-pointers PU hit just before halftime, including that miracle buzzer-beater. A four point lead suddenly goes to 10, and momentum is all with them. I can remember thinking that it had quickly become a very uphill battle for the guys at that point.

And then they made that run.....and I believed. Was so proud of them for showing Purdue (and everyone else who watched) that they were, in fact, a great ballclub and not going to just fold up and die.

They just couldn't close the deal, and after all the great vibes from the preceding couple weeks, it was a real buzz killer. Personally, I think CSP really grew as a coach last season, and I truly believe our future in MBB is very bright. (Sorry to all the taverhoks who use that line so often.)

I go back to the couple of plays right after we came all the way back. The three pointer that just barely curled in, and Monte getting knocked sideways for the turnover. Really sucked to get some "bad luck" after an amazing comeback, but was very proud of how they fought.

 

[Clonefan32]

We act as though everything in the course of a game happens in a vacuum. We come back playing smaller, so some assume we would have won playing small the entire game. But that simply ignores all kinds of other factors that made this game what it was.

First, maybe the comeback was the result of having an extremely experienced group who "wasn't going to go out like this." Maybe we played so well in the second half because we had to due to our first half performance?

Second, I don't think Burton plays as well in the 2nd half if he spends the entire first half leaning on Swanigan. He wasn't exactly known for his conditioning. If we play small the whole game, Burton has to check either Haas or Swanigan the whole game, and is going to have to max out his effort keeping them from having position.

Third, the foul situation. Do you really think Burton could have played the 5 all game and stayed out of foul trouble?

There are all kinds of factors in a game that cause the outcome. To me, it's simple-minded to say "if we would have done X, Y would have happened."