*** Official Kansas State vs #23 IOWA STATE Game(Day) Thread ***

[MJ271]

I think the main difference between King and Watson is offensive potential. King isn't going to give you 15 points every night, but he can on any given night, and Watson definitely isn't as he just isn't that aggressive at this point.

That's definitely true. I think, though, it's relatively easy to tell whether it's going to be that kind of night for King pretty early on. Last night, it was pretty clear that it wasn't going to be his night offensively, so I really wasn't too upset about his foul trouble.

That being said, I also thought last night was one of Watson's poorer games. Didn't make a huge impact defensively, was slow on some rotations, and had that one awful turnover. Not turning it over is key for Watson, because when he isn't making huge plus plays (other than some offensive rebounds), he has to avoid those negative ones, which he typically does do better than King (Watson's 13.5% turnover rate vs. King's 19.7%, the second worst rate on the team).

 

[ZRF]

It's been brought up before but it's also important to note that our rebounding numbers are going to be skewed a bit because we're one of the best teams in the nation at turning teams over. KSU had 16 TO's last night and to go along with that, they only had 6 ORB, which is not that high. Comparatively, we had 11 ORB, which is high.

Overall, yes. But when your bigs are corralling around 20 percent of your team's rebounding total that's just plain bad. Against a team like KU, that not only has a viable big but one of the two best bigs in the country (Dickinson), that's problematic.

Admittedly part of the skewing was (in part) a by-product of KSU chucking up a **** ton of threes. Those balls typical carrom away from the bigs and to the guards.

 

[BWRhasnoAC]

I think the main difference between King and Watson is offensive potential. King isn't going to give you 15 points every night, but he can on any given night, and Watson definitely isn't as he just isn't that aggressive at this point.

King is really hot and cold offensively. Watson is a garbage guy but really consistent in his output. I would love for Watson to develop a shot outside. He would be driving by guys for spider monkey dunks off of shot fakes all day if he could force them to respect his shot.

 

[ZRF]

That's comparing apples to oranges though. It's not like the KSU bigs got the rebounds - they went to Gilbert instead.

McNair and Colbert for KSU - I think they are the '5's - played 40 minutes and got 3 boards, zero offensive.

KSU is not a particularly good rebounding team. They are 7th on the offensive glass (in conference) and near the bottom (just behind us) on the defensive boards. Neither team's bigs block out or rebound very well. Just because their's don't doesn't mean ours do. IN this case they both suck.

 

[Statefan10]

Overall, yes. But when your bigs are corralling around 20 percent of your team's rebounding total that's just plain bad. Against a team like KU, that not only has a viable big but one of the two best bigs in the country (Dickinson), that's problematic.

Admittedly part of the skewing was (in part) a by-product of KSU chucking up a **** ton of threes. Those balls typical carrom away from the bigs and to the guards.

We were +8 in rebounds against KU last year (3 games). And again, when your scheme is set up for bigs to NOT get the rebounds, they're going to have a lower percent of the team's rebounds.

 

[MJ271]

Unfortunately some stats aren't valid this time of the year, especially when a team has such a vast differential in opponent quality between non-con and conference schedules. As bad as our non-con was there's was even worse.

That rebounding percentage or rate (from Torvik) is 29.7 against conference opponents and that's likely a much better barometer of their actual ability (than the entire season that was largely against scrubs). They also shot a higher percentage of their shots from 3, 50% compared to 42% on the year (couldn't find conf stats on that), meaning they were compromising their ability to get offensive rebounds from their shot selection. Part of which could have been from our defense and/or part from just poor shot selection or circumstance.

In conference play KSU is sitting midpack on conference rebounding rate. Based on what I saw last night I think that's likely a better barometer of their abilities on that front, rather than the "#25 rating" that was compiled against dog **** teams.

That is a worthy note. But I'd point out that 22% is still significantly lower than 29.7% and to attribute that primarily to taking a few more threes (some of which were desperation) seems wrong to me.

I do agree that defensive rebounding is somewhere where Iowa State is potentially susceptible in part because of the reasons you've stated with the posts just not having great rebounding instincts, but also because of the help defense and rotations that can be more prone to leaving a guy open for a rebound on the weak side. But it clearly was a focus for the team after giving up a lot of offensive boards to TCU on Saturday (who, to be fair, is currently the best offensive-rebounding team in conference play), and they did execute better last night.


Also, now looking closer at KSU's non-conference schedule, they did play 6 Barttorvik top 100 teams in non-conference, 4 of them top 50. No great opponents, but they played quite a few mid-tier teams. This season, the only teams to hold KSU to a lower offensive rebounding rate than last night are Villanova and Oklahoma State, who are both solid defensive rebounding teams. So I wouldn't be so ready to write off their season stats as any more invalid than any team's.

 

[madguy30]

We were +8 in rebounds against KU last year (3 games). And again, when your scheme is set up for bigs to NOT get the rebounds, they're going to have a lower percent of the team's rebounds.

King has had some 7+ rebound games but otherwise R. Jones and Ward were just below their averages (4ish) last night but somehow it wasn't supposed to be like that.

 

[NENick]

All good.

I don't know why ESPN and other major sports outlets can't have boxcores with subtitutions/times.

And ESPN does include substitutions in the NBA play by play. Not sure why they don't for cbb.

You meant— King, stop with the 3s?

I assume they meant King.
Tre is 3-16. 18%
I actually think he has a good looking shot from outside and I think he's been told it's ok to take one when wide open. Results haven't been good, obviously, but I don't think his attempts have hurt and making one pulls a defender away from the basket.

 

[Cyclonepride]

And ESPN does include substitutions in the NBA play by play. Not sure why they don't for cbb.


I assume they meant King.
Tre is 3-16. 18%
I actually think he has a good looking shot from outside and I think he's been told it's ok to take one when wide open. Results haven't been good, obviously, but I don't think his attempts have hurt and making one pulls a defender away from the basket.

Yeah, I think he hit a huge one in the Houston? game

 

[simply1]

I think they treat it more like a business and people don't pay $$$ to watch the refs.

When something gets really bad like the shooters creating 3 point fouls kicking out their legs they ask if they can fix it, then they actually do. That was actually much worse in the NBA than in college and a few years later they have totally wiped it out. They didn't even need the challenge system to get rid of that BS, but they instituted it for other things and imho it works great. The refs are stopping to review things in college basketball anyway, so why can't a coach have them review that Milan actually just tripped or that Tre King did nothing on his fifth foul and the correct call was to call KSU's player for flopping?

I think the actual refs are better because it's the NBA, but at this point the NBA rules implemented consistently with typical high school refs could be better than major college games.

Using NBA officials as a standard is a sad commentary on how bad college refs are.

 

[singsing]

EXACTLY......the T buried them (before that i was feeling pretty uneasy about what the outcome would be).

It seems we (the fans, players, etc) got under their skin and that was the tipping point.

Pay attention if you are at a game. Managers from both teams are walking around, giving stat sheets, wiping the floor, etc. If Tang thinks we are doing some "Michigan" type stuff, no way.

LOL....next thing you know they will claim the Bankers Trust bank shot participants and the "win a lawn mower" participants are secretly listening into the huddle.

They're all over the internet saying ISU fans were throwing objects at their bench..Ok, I've never seen anything like that where the objects thrown weren't collected, and since it is a crime try to find those responsible. Didn't happen, but they're blabbing it. I've never met more delusional fans than kstaters.

 

[MeanDean]

They're all over the internet saying ISU fans were throwing objects at their bench..Ok, I've never seen anything like that where the objects thrown weren't collected, and since it is a crime try to find those responsible. Didn't happen, but they're blabbing it. I've never met more delusional fans than kstaters.

I heard the K-State players had Taco Bell for dinner last night.

That guy wasn't fake crying, the gas passing was making everyone's eyes water.

 

[CyNews]

Lipsey is a liability

What’s?????

 

[CyNews]

What’s?????

*What????

 

[jbhtexas]

And I do quote...

"He's look great in silver and black!"



NFL and NBA officiating is miles better than college officiating. Those professional leagues are 100%+ businesses while college still has some of that amateurism fading out of its DNA now.

The NFL and NBA wouldn't put resources into it if they felt it hurt rather than aided their bottom lines.

Every year thousands of kids go to college for the first time and many of them become college football and basketball fans. I will venture that poor officiating isn't going to prevent that from happening, and poor officiating isn't going to make existing fans walk away. In essence college sports inherently generates thousands of new fans every year. Perhaps not as many now as in the past, but college sports still has the benefit of new student enrollment.

I think the NFL and NBA are different. They are professional leagues who need to make a profit, and to do that, they need to put out a top-grade product to attract new fans and keep existing fans paying the prices that they command for tickets and TV/streaming subscriptions etc. To be successful, they need to make sure everything is "professional" and well done, including the officiating.

To me, it seems that the NBA and NFL "bottom lines" are significantly more sensitive to poor officiating destroying the gameflow than college sports.

 

[Cyclonepride]

Wanted to circle back to Hason's free throw percentage because that surprised me a lot with his fluid stroke from the line. Now that I see the stats, it makes sense. He came into the game at 36%, but that was 4/11. Just not many attempts. He's much better than that, and he showed it last night with 4/4

 

[ClubCy]

What’s?????

Did you not watch last night? He was off all night and I’m assuming was still pretty hurt. He looked like a shell of himself.

 

[HFCS]

Using NBA officials as a standard is a sad commentary on how bad college refs are.

The leg kick thing is REVOLUTIONARY how well they eliminated something that had become common bs.

10 years ago I’d have said more flopping in nba than in ncaa. Now there is waaaaaay more flopping in a typical ncaa game than nba.

 

[simply1]

The leg kick thing is REVOLUTIONARY how well they eliminated something that had become common bs.

10 years ago I’d have said more flopping in nba than in ncaa. Now there is waaaaaay more flopping in a typical ncaa game than nba.

The game is definitely better, however there’s been a lot of coverage lately on awful calls and of course suspicion since Donaghy. Just look at the last 2 minute reports.

 

[Cyforce]

You meant— King, stop with the 3s?

Yes