March Madness Game 1 - Saint John's - March 20

['70 Grad]

Take the 13-0 start out and it’s not a terrible game for us. You just can’t have starts like that against a team like St. John’s.

So now who else is in the camp that taking a two week break just to get prime TV coverage might not be the best thing for the MVC?

Whether it is good or bad in general for the league is one question. Whether it hurts the MVC Champion (like us) for the specific next game after a two-week layoff is a second question. We were rolling. We were shooting. I would have liked to see us play anyone about Monday or Tuesday of the next week. (I couldn't believe the energy & shooting we had for that 4th game. Something I will always remember!!)

[orangetennis]

The Panthers shot poorly because SJ played great defense. When you're taller, longer, faster, quicker at every position, it's going to be difficult for the opposition to get many good shots. And the same is true on the opposite end of the floor. They were able to get better looks, and better looks fall at a higher rate.
The stat that Bobcat failed to mention was rebounding. We lost the battle on the boards 45-29, and 11-4 on the offensive end. They were taller, longer, and jumped higher than we could. And that affects A LOT in the game of basketball. Not to mention that Zuby Sat most of the 2nd half. That's why his #s weren't that great.
I don't know how much deeper SJ is than us, but their bench is as good (or better) than our starters. Think of it like when we play against upper iowa, or someone like that. We are able to play our bench more minutes because we are ahead in the game, but also our bench players are able to play with the opponents starters just fine.

[CletusCat]

I haven't looked at the numbers, but I would think over the last decade UNI is a top 100 D1 program? NET, Kenpom etc.

It's wild to me that we can be better than roughly 66% of D1 programs, but get absolutely waxed by a top 20 team.

Whoever said Arch Madness is our playoffs and the NCAA tourney is a bonus is spot on. If we can win a few decent non conference games and stay in the top half of the Valley year over year with the occasional tourney trip, I will be thrilled. This year, for all its' up and downs, was awesome.

I hope the NCAA and power conferences don't eliminate us small guys from the tourney. Wouldn't they rather have a first round matchup that they should win 9/10 times rather than an underperforming P5 team that sneaks in but has all the athletes and talent to upset them round one?

[GarretW1797]

Yeah, I don’t think the difference is so much coaching as it is depth. I read that one of those low major teams played five guys THE ENTIRE GAME(?!). Meanwhile, St. John’s was subbing in guy after guy with no drop off. Most of their rotation guys would have been stars in the MVC. Someone said above that the high majors are better at closing out games because of coaching, but with a deep bench, you have guys playing fresh until the final buzzer.

The difference between our best and worst teams has been depth. That’s hard to build at a mid-major, esp in the pay for play era.

That's a fair point. The coaching theory I had was more of an observation than me strictly saying that power 5 coaches are better than mid major coaches. I've just noticed the last couple of tournaments how the 1-5 seeds have been swifter at finishing their respective games more often than they did 10+ years ago, or at least it feels that way. The only games that were close in the last couple minutes where you felt like the score could go either way was High Point vs Wisconsin, Duke vs Siena, Virginia vs Wright State, and maybe Kansas vs Cal Baptist. Furman, Hofstra, Kennesaw State, and McNeese all got closed out well before then.

I decided to research that and see which 1-5 first round games were close (within 5 or 6) in the last couple minutes back in the 2016 tournament in the same way where it felt like either team had a chance. The list is:
Duke vs UNC Wilmington, UNC Wilmington was within 5, Duke won by 8.
Baylor vs Yale, Yale won by 4.
Purdue vs Little Rock, Little Rock won in 2OT by 2.
Miami vs Buffalo, Buffalo was within 4, Miami won by 7.
Michigan State vs Middle Tennessee, MT was leading by 3 with 3 minutes left and ended up winning by 9.
Maryland vs South Dakota State, SDSU was within 2, Maryland won by 5.
Cal vs Hawaii and Stephen F Austin vs West Virginia don't qualify because Hawaii won by 11 and SFA won by 14 (the only 12-16 seed win this year was by a single point)
Iowa State vs Iona is close, Iona was within 7 with 3 minutes left but never got closer as Iowa State won by 13; and Utah vs Fresno State was also close, Fresno State could only get within 8 down the stretch before losing by 11. And of all these games I've mentioned the record of the mid major is 1-7 this year vs 5-3 in 2016.

Also if you compare the 1-5 seeds to win by 20+ this year vs 2016, this year had more with 12 (almost 13 with Arkansas winning by 19 vs Hawaii) compared to 7 in 2016. 30+ point wins is 6 (almost 7 with Nebraska winning by 29 vs Troy) this year to 3 in 2016. To me personally, that seems like a result of better coaching and better preparation for the game. But I can understand how depth could play a part in that too.

[PantherAlum09]

Yeah, I don’t think the difference is so much coaching as it is depth. I read that one of those low major teams played five guys THE ENTIRE GAME(?!). Meanwhile, St. John’s was subbing in guy after guy with no drop off. Most of their rotation guys would have been stars in the MVC. Someone said above that the high majors are better at closing out games because of coaching, but with a deep bench, you have guys playing fresh until the final buzzer.

The difference between our best and worst teams has been depth. That’s hard to build at a mid-major, esp in the pay for play era.

Totally fair point. Rick Pitino, however, is one of the greatest coaches in basketball history, and he has a significant financial advantage.

Money is the biggest factor, now. It was a big factor before, but now everyone is aware and technically has the same ability to pay players. If we had some super donor that was one of the richest people in the world and loved UNI basketball we would love this new way.

[PantherAlum09]

I don't think we were beat because they were 'more athletic". We were mainly just out shot from 3 point land .... a mediocre 3pt shooting SJU hit more from behind the arc (10-29) than the Panthers (3-14). Had each shot their average (6-19) & (7-19), with all else staying the same, and you're looking at a 67-66 game.

Some takeaways on this:

-UNI outscored the vaunted SJU frontcourt in the paint, 34-32
-UNI led in fast break points 5-1
-UNI led in steals 6-3
-SJU out rebounded us, but had only 2 more second chance points (11-9)
-UNI had just 6 turnovers for the game despite the brutal press
-SJU only had 4 more points off turnovers (13-9)

-After that brutal run at the start, UNI stayed fairly close. It was 20-4 [shudder] at about the 12 minute mark...it's a closer 59-49 after that

-Hornseth and an undersized Tristan Smith held a great forward, Zuby Ejiofor, to 14 pts, 2 under his average (not sure if you heard the announcers mention it one of the 25 times, but apparently he's an unbelievable phenom and it's a major crime he wasn't voted to some all-Universe team....)


I'm disappointed by the outcome, but still proud of the team. Since Sunday night, pundits were banging that SJU would need to shoot and hit a lot of 3's...and they did. And despite hearing all damn week about how they have of the best front courts in the country, they didn't start going inside a lot until after they built up a lead. That shows the concern they had for UNI's defense.

SJU did have some really athletic blocks, but the numbers show the score made this look worse than it was.

That press that put us in the massive hole to start the game was completely because they were better athletes. The fact that Benny, Will, and Tristan thought they had easy lay ups and then ended up swatted or in no man's land are because they were signifcantly better athletes. They buried us and then got their star some rest in the second half. We fought and clawed to keep it respectable but it was domination in every sense of the word. We drew the worst possible matchup.

[SteinPizza]

That's a fair point. The coaching theory I had was more of an observation than me strictly saying that power 5 coaches are better than mid major coaches.

I don’t necessarily think that P5 coaches are automatically better than their mid major or even DII counterparts, but a big part of coaching is the ability to attract and sign playmaking athletes, or least guys who have the ability to be developed in to playmaking athletes. Being some elite wonky game strategist with no playmakers gives you a very low ceiling. Basketball is about making plays, and the unfortunate byproduct of NIL and the portal is that playmakers at the mid major level can be recognized and signed away. That’s why the upsets in future years in the tournament will be something like Iowa beating #1 Florida, or mid level Big 12 school beating the SEC champ, that kind of thing. The mid major upset of a P5 school is mostly a thing of the past, unfortunately. I read where this year is the second in a row where a 13, 14, 15 seed didn’t advance. Before NIL and the portal, something like that was way more common.

[orangetennis]

I don’t necessarily think that P5 coaches are automatically better than their mid major or even DII counterparts, but a big part of coaching is the ability to attract and sign playmaking athletes, or least guys who have the ability to be developed in to playmaking athletes. Being some elite wonky game strategist with no playmakers gives you a very low ceiling. Basketball is about making plays, and the unfortunate byproduct of NIL and the portal is that playmakers at the mid major level can be recognized and signed away. That’s why the upsets in future years in the tournament will be something like Iowa beating #1 Florida, or mid level Big 12 school beating the SEC champ, that kind of thing. The mid major upset of a P5 school is mostly a thing of the past, unfortunately. I read where this year is the second in a row where a 13, 14, 15 seed didn’t advance. Before NIL and the portal, something like that was way more common.

Exactly. I never really considered a 9, 10 or 11 seed as much of an underdog. The "Cinderella" teams have always been 12 seeds or higher. Although a few of those teams were able to hang around in their first round matchups this year, only High Point was able to pull out a win. In years past there was always 3 or 4 big upsets. But now, the only "Madness" we get is 11 seeded Texas upsetting Gonzaga

[panthergirl123]

Watching Kansas-St John's game. Kansas struggling with press too. Glad to see we weren't only team to struggle with their press.

[GarretW1797]

I don’t necessarily think that P5 coaches are automatically better than their mid major or even DII counterparts, but a big part of coaching is the ability to attract and sign playmaking athletes, or least guys who have the ability to be developed in to playmaking athletes. Being some elite wonky game strategist with no playmakers gives you a very low ceiling. Basketball is about making plays, and the unfortunate byproduct of NIL and the portal is that playmakers at the mid major level can be recognized and signed away. That’s why the upsets in future years in the tournament will be something like Iowa beating #1 Florida, or mid level Big 12 school beating the SEC champ, that kind of thing. The mid major upset of a P5 school is mostly a thing of the past, unfortunately. I read where this year is the second in a row where a 13, 14, 15 seed didn’t advance. Before NIL and the portal, something like that was way more common.

I agree with you for the most part, and do think it will be a lot harder for an upset to happen, but I don't think it's completely gonna go away. Let's not forget that FDU beat Purdue just three years ago as a 16 seed. Let's not forget that the 2017 tournament was fairly similar to this year so far where the only 12-16 upset was one 12 seed. I think we'll see at least one 13, 14, or 15 win next year. If not, than I will start to see it from your view more.