Top 25 talk

[smedindy]

Ah, but Indiana - Purdue Fort Wayne (IPFW for short) are already the Fighting Mastodons.

I wonder how much fight are in extinct animals, though.

I looked on the Westmont web site and I am relieved. Whew! 

[Titan Q]

IWU last played in the Westmont College tourney in 2001-02, Scott Trost's first year at IWU.  It was the first year I was doing radio for WJBC and we were positioned at one of those temporary-type press tables right in the middle of the bleachers (much like the broadcast location at Elmhurst for any CCIW fans).  During the Alberta (Canada) game , it was so empty and quiet in the gym, I remember Seth Hubbard at the FT line with the ball in his hand, preparing to start his pre-FT routine, looking over a me (as I'm doing some sort of color commentary) as if to say, "Could ya keep it down...I'm shooting a FT here."  Literally, every player on the bench and on the floor could hear ever second of play-by-play/commentary...to be honest, it made calling the game kind of challenging.  "A very careless pass by Luke Kasten..." [Kasten looks over] 

IWU never played the host in the tournament that year, so the game vs Alberta (which ended up not even counting as a real game...but that's another story) and the game vs St. Xavier were both in front of about 20 people...just the 20 traveling IWU parents/fans.  This year, IWU will have a pretty good contingent in Santa Barbara.  The parents of all of the guys in the rotation make just about every road trip.  There is also a group of fans that has started making the holiday trip each year.  And I know there are some IWU alums in California that are planning to make it this year.   Seeing IWU play in an empty gym was just very odd, as the Titans travel so well on the road just about everywhere.

[Titan Q]

I am looking forward to that IWU vs Puget Sound game.  Most teams work so hard to slow the Titans down and make it into a halfcourt 65-63 type game.  (Hanover and Trinity-Tx really did this well in recent years.)  Puget Sound is not Grinnell, but they are really up-tempo.  The loggers are averaging 91 points per game after averaging 93.3 last year.  They take an average of 70 FG per game...to put that into perspective, IWU averages 53 FGA per game.  Puget Sound's opponents only average 54 attempts per game.  Quite an advantage to take 16 more shots than your opponent every time out!  Puget Sound opponents average 31 turnovers per game...opponent assist to turnover ratio is .43 to 1, which is as low as I can recall seeing.  A really good number there - a sign that you're the type of team that makes it difficult for the opposition to run their stuff - is about .85 to 1.  I remember Hampden-Sydney having a very scary number in 2002-03 when IWU faced them...but it wasn't .43.

http://www2.ups.edu/athletics/mbasketball/teamstat.htm

Grinnell takes 99 shots per game...they force 29 turnovers...opponent A:TO ratio is .95 to 1.  I've never seen Puget Sound play, but I think their style is much different than Grinnell's.  I've heard people claim that Puget Sound runs some type of "modified Grinnell system", but I suspect it is a totally different style of up-tempo play.

What IWU does best is run the floor...it will be fun to see someone let them do that for once.

[John Gleich]

After seeing Puget Sound the last two years against Stevens Point, the key to beating UPS is not allowing the Loggers to force you to make too many mistakes.  UPS forced 14 UWSP turnovers in both games.  The times when UPS was making their runs was when the press was causing turnovers.  There was a point in the second half two years ago when UWSP went from being up 20 to being up just 7, with 7 minutes to go in the game.  Point helped this cause by missing 7 of their first 10 baskets (5 of those I believe were fairly uncontested lay-ups).  Point didn't help their cause, and Puget Sound took advantage.

The style that UPS has plays is definately an uptempo game.  They press with 4 players in the backcourt and one at half court.  They double the ball off the inbound and take away the first pass.  The remaining man the last two years has been very quick and athletic, playing safety, but going after the over-the-top pass, and he got it a few times.

Offensively, UPS plays a spread offense, 4 out, 1 in, and they rely very much on dribble penetration to get their offensive action moving.  They have no qualms about tearing a defense that is spread too thin to shreads with dribble drives (and, especially last season, Forward Zach McVey finished well when the his defender had to help on the drive).  If a team cuts off the penetration, then they kick to open shooters (and these guys just let 'er RIP).  They will take NBA distance 3 pointers without qualms.  Curtiss Chase has that range and won't hesitate to shoot it.

Like Grinnell, they hit the offensive boards hard.  Two years ago, they shot 37 3's and had 13 offensive rebounds.  They still lost by 21.  Last year, they shot 26 and seemed to play a BIT more conventionally.  They shot 26 3's and grabbed 6 offensive boards.  They're relentless on crashing, and pick up right away, as soon as the ball goes through the hoop.

Point beat UPS the last two seasons in a couple of ways.  First, they took what UPS MADE them take.  This included taking shots early in the shot clock that are decent shots (especially lay-ups that were open because UPS doubled on the half court as well).  Point also was able to throw over the top and get 2 on 1 situations against the UPS half court defender.  Nick Bennett was 13/17 two years ago, for 37 points.  Last year, they took away the over-the-top pass better... but UWSP was able to run their half court motion.  Eric Maus was 7/7 from the field for 18, Jason Kalsow was 6/7 for 16.

This game will test IWU's ball handlers.  And EVERYONE will have to handle the ball, even in the full court.  It just depends where the double comes from and who is open.  Jason Kalsow had 5 turnovers two years ago, as did Eric Maus had 6 last year.  But, because UPS doubles so much, there are LOTS of chances for assists.  Nick Bennett had 6 assists (most off 2 on 1 situations) two years ago and Jason Kalsow had 7 last year (most to Eric Maus, who was open under the basket b/c of the doubleteam).

In both games, the defense of the Pointers really won the game for UWSP.  They played quite a bit of 3-2 zone, which stuck a defender right in the gap in which the UPS ball-handlers were trying to penetrate.  Two years ago, Neil Krajnik had 7 steals, the team had 13, and caused 16 UPS TO's.  Last year, Point got 6 steals and caused 11 TO's.

2003-2004 box score
2004-2005 box score

Much has been said about IWU's size.  This will be to their advantage.  Looking at their roster, it looks like UPS has added some size (2 freshmen at 6'7", one at 6'5" and one at 6'4").  What they lack in size, they try to make up for in quickness, and against most teams they can do this.  If IWU can see and pass over the double team, they will always be one step ahead of the Logger defense, and this will lead to easy baskets.

[Ralph Turner]

Point, outstanding analysis of UPS.

Titan Q, I am looking forward to your analysis.

I would appreciate a knowledgeable poster to contrast UPS and Grinnell.

[David Collinge]

FWIW, PointSpecial's description of UPS' offensive scheme sounded like he was describing Wooster.  The Scots play a more conventional man defense (no press).  Just thought you'd like to know.

[Greek Tragedy]

Head over to the MWC page and talk to jeffp.  He's the Grinnell guru over there.

I've seen both play.  I was at the PS/Point game last year and I've seen Grinnell play at Lawrence and at Ripon.  jeffp doesn't like me too much because I basically don't have great things to say about Grinnell.  But, we've kissed and made up and we both understand we all have our own opinions! 

In my opinion, Grinnell is more of a helter skelter team.  It doesn't really look like they have a "plan".  They go out and pressure like crazy and then when they do have the ball, they penatrate and actually pass up open 2's to throw it out and launch crazy 3's.  I have yet to see Grinnell play this year.  In the Ripon game (the 2nd Grinnell game I saw), they were a little more controlled, but overall, they played the same way.

Puget Sound, on the other hand, looked like they knew what they were supposed to do.  Both teams pressure like crazy, but PS was more disciplined.  Offensively, PS actually used their big man and he scored pretty well, if I remember, as opposed to Grinnell, who basically used their big man as a pivot to find the 3-pt. shot. 

As Point Special said, ball-handling is the key.

[Greek Tragedy]

FWIW, PointSpecial's description of UPS' offensive scheme sounded like he was describing Wooster.  The Scots play a more conventional man defense (no press).  Just thought you'd like to know.

I actually didn't like to know. lol.

[John Gleich]

OS, UPS's use of their big man was a change from two years ago.  He actually was pretty successful (6/11, 19 points) against Point last year after not taking a shot the year before.  If I remember correctly, it appeared that he'd spent some time in the weight room, and he was definately a force.

OS's comments about the differences between Grinnell and UPS are pretty appropriate, I think.  I've only seen Grinnell on ESPN, but from almost every account I've read about them, they don't seem to use that many principles that could be interpreted as "good sound basketball."  It's cased many of the "System" (or Offenestration, I'm trying out a new name!)'s critics to say that it isn't really basketball, or not GOOD basketball, at least.

UPS definately has enough sound aspects in their game that it can, and should be dubbed as "good sound basketball."  Now, it may be good sound ball on steroids, but...

They've just got the game on fast forward.  They try and score in bunches, but they're using generally sound methods to accomplish this.

[Mr. Ypsi]

OS, UPS's use of their big man was a change from two years ago.  He actually was pretty successful (6/11, 19 points) against Point last year after not taking a shot the year before.  If I remember correctly, it appeared that he'd spent some time in the weight room, and he was definately a force.

OS's comments about the differences between Grinnell and UPS are pretty appropriate, I think.  I've only seen Grinnell on ESPN, but from almost every account I've read about them, they don't seem to use that many principles that could be interpreted as "good sound basketball."  It's cased many of the "System" (or Offenestration, I'm trying out a new name!)'s critics to say that it isn't really basketball, or not GOOD basketball, at least.

UPS definately has enough sound aspects in their game that it can, and should be dubbed as "good sound basketball."  Now, it may be good sound ball on steroids, but...

They've just got the game on fast forward.  They try and score in bunches, but they're using generally sound methods to accomplish this.

In discussing Puget Sound I noted that you used the adjective 'sound' four times - good job!  Applause to you!

[sac]

If a #5 team beats a #1 team in front of 20 people, does it make a sound?

[diehardfan]

 

[Greek Tragedy]

If a #5 team beats a #1 team in front of 20 people, does it make a sound?

It depends how many of those 20 fans are fans of the #5 team.

[Mr. Ypsi]

If a #5 team beats a #1 team in front of 20 people, does it make a sound?

The scenario described AIN'T gonna happen for 3 reasons:

1.  There ain't gonna be 20 people - IWU alone will bring more than that.

2.  #1 (IWU) ain't gonna lose to #5 (USP).

3.  Mr. Ypsi loves saying 'ain't gonna' and would have to stop if #1 or #2 happened.

[Greek Tragedy]

2.  #1 (IWU) ain't gonna lose to #5 (USP).

Univ. of Sound de Puget?