Ski played good D and he was a vital part of the run that gave us the lead in the second half.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
CU MBB Official Game Thread: Buffs vs. Wyoming, 7pm
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
Ski played good D and he was a vital part of the run that gave us the lead in the second half.
Isn't the problem that we couldn't adjust to that style of play and/or had it dictated to us? That isn't the indication of a good team to me. I think we'll get a lot better, but I wasn't impressed with last night's effort.
MarkW
Well-Known Member
Maybe, but CU is young and athletic. Wyo had the perfect antidote, slow and steady wins the race. Force the more athletic team to play slowly and deliberately which is not what the young guys want to do. They want to run and shoot quickly. So perhaps if CU was a "good team" they wouldn't have had the problems they did, or maybe it's just hard for the younger players to be patient when attacking a well conceived and executed zone defense that begs you to launch it from the perimeter.
Then I think about this season's Buffs one thing sticks out and that is the lack of the senior "glue" guy. In fact, for the first time in the Boyle era there isn't one of those guys.
SECOBuffsFan
Active Member
LOL....it is so much easier to dictate a slower tempo when playing a fast team than it is to speed up a team that wants to play slow. Its good that CU plays Wyoming every year...it teaches them they have to execute in the half court in games like that. Should make them better when they get into a conference or tournament game when that happens.
Why do you think Oregon can score a lot of points against certain teams but Boyle seems to have his number and generally holds them below their average ppg? He dictates their tempo.
Why do you think Oregon can score a lot of points against certain teams but Boyle seems to have his number and generally holds them below their average ppg? He dictates their tempo.
Thanks for making my point for me. The best teams in the country wouldn't have the pace dictated to them by Wyoming. Kentucky would easily score 90 or more on the Pokes.
When the better team gets sucked into the pace of the less talented team, there is a good chance the less talented team wins. Boyle's history against Arizona is good evidence of this (on the assumption UofA had more talent than us the last few years). The final score in his wins over Arizona: 71-58, 64-63 and 54-51. The final score in his losses to Arizona: 71-57, 92-83 and 79-69. Granted, this is a pretty small sample size, but looking at the scores alone, I would guess that UofA got a lot more shots off, i.e., played the quicker pace it wanted to, in the games we lost.
It was a game of attrition. It was clear at the beginning of the game that the refs were going to inject themselves into the game. CU tried playing it's way, but the refs wouldn't allow it. By the time we figured it out, we were down by 10 points. From that point on, it was CU's game. Feed the inside, attack the rim, make them foul you, get to the line. It was a horrible game to watch. It's why the game of basketball sucks. I still go, because I love a winner and with the football team sucking eggs, I need something. But if this is the way the game is going to be played from here on, count me out. That was brutal.
4thGenBuff
Well-Known Member
All I'm saying is that I have watched many Buff teams including the most recent fast paced team of Burks Higgins struggle to speed up Wyoming. They do there thing. We are not Kentucky. Being a Kentucky this year should not be anyone's expectation.
I agree we're not Kentucky. I am hoping for more from this team, though. Against a team like Wyoming, we have got to create turnovers and convert those to fast break points. Despite the pace, which as noted by sackman and others in this thread was caused as much by the officials as by Wyoming, if we could have thrown a rock in the ocean we would have easily won by double digits.
The reffing was not the problem the other night, they did exactly what the refs are doing in every other CBB this year, they are enforcing the new "points of emphasis", everybody needs to get used to this, it's not going anywhere. And this is actually something as a CU fans we should be happy about, Tad's teams are always the lowest in the country in opponents going to the line, CU doesn't foul people, they play good straight up defense. Wyoming was called for 10 more fouls than CU the other night, only 18 people got to the line at a higher rate then Spencer did last year - the way these games are officiated this is a good thing for CU.
Also - Tad's teams don't create turnovers, they don't gamble, while I wish they did more often than they do it's just not going to happen. The only way CU's going to get transition opportunities is to grab defensive boards and outlet quickly. Against Wyoming that was nearly impossible, they literally sent nobody to the offensive glass, they got back on D immediately when a shot went up. Larry Shyatt deserves some credit for his game plan.
So why don't we see this gameplan from everyone. does a team like Arizona think they can send a few guys to grab offensive rebounds and the other back on defense and still stop us? Also if CSU crashes the boards this year like they did last year, we should be able to beat them on the road. I think we are better rebounding as a team, even if we did lose the greatest CU rebounder ever.
SECOBuffsFan
Active Member
Several people on this board have stated several times that the non-conference schedule was no joke and that it wouldn't look good at times....it is a young team and the 2 "leaders" are not playing well. I don't understand why so many people are freaking out simply because the team came out of the gates slow.....We have won the 2 games we should have at this point and our shooting is horrible and cost us the Baylor game. It will be okay as basketball is a marathon and not a sprint.
If this is seriously the way the game is going to be officiated for the entire year, I'm going to be very disappointed. That's some butt-ugly basketball going on out there. A foul every time down the floor. That sucks. I agree, though, that it should help CU. CU has a pretty deep bench. Teams that can't go at least 8 deep will be in big trouble.
Goose and I were saying exactly this the other night, "why doesn't everybody do this against us?" A team like Arizona is a good example, I think they think exactly what you said, they've got some great athletes that can recover in transition D, Nick Johnson being the prime example, he's fast, athletic and can jump out of the gym. I think against some of these non-conference opponents coming up and the bottom dwellers of the Pac they'd be foolish not to employ Wyoming's template.
Harvard does play slower than us. Last year they averaged 65.9 possessions per game, which ranked 264. We were 172nd at 68.1 possessions. But Wyo was in a class by itself, averaging 62.4 with a rank of 336th. That pace was slower than even Wisconsin and Virginia. http://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/stat/possessions-per-game?date=2013-04-08
good find. I am expecting Harvard to employ the Wyoming game-plan. Send everyone back on defense and watch us struggle to execute our half-court offense.
I don't think the officiating was "bad" for CU. It was probably good for us, and certainly was good for us in terms of the number of fouls called for or against. Did it completely disrupt the flow of the game, though? I think the answer is yes. You are the expert on basketball here, but when we completely outmatch a team athletically like Wyoming, I would like to see us use that athleticism. I didn't see it.
I'm not freaking out and I was one of the ones stating the non-conference schedule was no joke and that we would come out of the gates slow. Honestly, this is about what I expected from the team.
I haven't watched a minute of Harvard - this is just coming from numbers, so take it with a grain of salt:
The last few years Harvard has been near the bottom in offensive rebounding numbers, so that leads me to believe they do send guys back on D and not contest. But this year they are 48th grabbing 40% of their offensive rebound opportunities, their opponents have been Holy Cross and MIT, so I'd imagine that's the reason for the deviation from the previous seasons. But I do concur with you, have to figure they are going to retreat pretty quickly.
Don't get me wrong, it's ugly as hell and I don't like it either. We can only hope the players adjust and it gets better.
There was no flow - NONE, ZIP, ZILCH. I ran into BuffaloBrad on the way out of the game, that was his first comment. And you are completely right, the reffing right now has killed the flow. We can only hope this gets better as the players get used to the way the game is called.
I am basing my assumption on two things.
1 - one they go to Harvard so they are smart and should figure this out easy
2 - what they did versus New Mexico in the tourney last year.
I think they are more athletic than I am giving them credit for. They played like Wisconsin last year, but have more athletes this year, so they may just decide to match us athletically and beat us that way instead of out-executing us.