Monday Basketball Bytes

08-09 Basketball General100

Let’s kick off the week with some basketball.

Crunch =====> I have been accused by some of my friends of being too ‘soft’ on the current basketball situation and being more optimistic than the average fan. But, I am feeling more and more vindicated every time the Wolfpack steps on the floor. There is no doubt that a lot of fans are starting feel a renewed sense of optimism in basketball. It’s hard to believe there are only 4 remaining regular season games for NC State Basketball, especially since mid-January saw many hoping for a quick end to the season since their attention was Russell Wilson’s injury more than Sidney Lowe’s team.

Crunch =====> Hindsight can be a wonderful tool — looking back at the past 12 ACC games, if you are honest with yourself, this team has not lost any surprising games. Two come close – the blown lead against Florida State and the blown lead at Virginia Tech. Now, go check the ACC standings you’ll see Florida State sitting in second place with a surprising RPI of 16. The loss at Va Tech, will forever sting.

Crunch =====> This hindsight supports a point that I made to a friend shortly after the Florida State loss when I recognized that the Seminoles were putting together a better season than I was expecting — NC State hasn’t lost to a single team that will not be in the NCAA Tournament. (VPI is obviously the big ‘bubble’ team at the moment; by the same token, the Wolfpack didn’t lose that game as much as had it taken from them under ridiculous circumstances.) Additionally, State has defeated a Top 5 (at the time) Wake Forest and a Miami team that sits on the bubble.

Crunch =====> The Wolfpack dominated the Hokies for 30+ minutes before hell broke loose. A win there, NC State would be 6-6 in the ACC, ahead of VT in the standings, with a great chance to finish .500 or better. Can still do that, but it will be tough. Losses @Clemson, @UNC, @Duke and UNC – those are better teams and all NCAA locks. The loss against FSU doesnt look so bad now. The loss @ BC, on the road is somewhat understandable, especially since they have one of the leagues best players in Rice.

Crunch =====> Speaking of ‘dominating…can anyone tell me the last time that an NC State Basketball team had the offensive efficiency and the ability to take twenty point leads in multiple ACC games? The Wolfpack have led by at least 18 points in three of our last four games – against Wake Forest (Top 5, NCAA team), Virginia Tech (NCAA bubble) and Virginia. Forget the comebacks that followed for a moment; when have we been good enough to even be able to get that far ahead of multiple ACC opponents?

Crunch =====> Looking at the next 4 games to close out the season: at Wake will be tough. Wake is a talented, but young team. Likewise, they tend to struggle on the road and play well at home – wins against Duke and UNC in the The Joe). This is the toughest of the 4 games remaining. Maryland and BC at home are two winnable, but very tough games. Both teams feature a point guard that can go-off and dominate a game (MD’s Vasquez and BC’s Rice). Control the PG position against MD and BC, and NC State will come out with wins. @Miami to close to season will probably be a standings game, meaning identical or close records with the winner getting the higher seed in the ACCT. Miami’s arena has never been intimidating, but Miami’s Jack McClinton doesn’t seem to care. Additionally, dead environments don’t necessarily work well for traveling teams. Let’s hope that game is for .500 or better for NC State.

Crunch =====> Speaking of Vasquez, his performance Saturday was one for the ages – a triple double with 35 points. He is the main reason Maryland is now squarely on the NCAA bubble. Maryland does not have a talented team across the board, but they do have a talented PG. Looking at all the ACC teams, those with very good point guards are in position to make the NCAAT. Those without, are struggling or on the outside looking in when it comes to the NCAAT. The 2 exceptions are Duke and Clemson – both have servicable PGs, but not stars at the position. GT, UVA, NC State, VT and Miami all have major questions at PG – and those are the 5 teams on the outside as we head into the home stretch.

Crunch =====> Kudos to Florida State and Leonard Hamilton. This is Hamilton’s 7th season, and he finally will lead the Seminoles into the NCAA Tournament. FSU has not been to the big dance since 1998 and Hamilton’s seat was getting really warm in Tallahassee. Having an All-ACC performer at the point guard position in Tony Douglas has given the Seminoles the leadership needed to win close games against tough opponents – something FSU lacked in previous seasons under Hamilton. Would Hamilton have been given an 8th season to make the NCAAT? Probably not, but that’s all a moot point now.

Crunch =====> Take a step back for a minute. It would be an amazing feat for NC State to finish anywhere near .500 in the toughest basketball conference (by a mile) in the country during Coach Lowe’s third season and after what happened last year. Don’t forget — NC State plays the TOUGHEST schedule in the ACC. So, reaching .500 for us is a helluva a lot different as it is for everyone else.

Crunch =====> The NC State baseball team had a tough beginning to its season, losing 2 of 3 in the round-robin tournament played at Doak Field over the weekend. Now, baseball is different than football and basketball in that even good teams lose many games. However, giving up 11 and 8 runs to Atlantic 10 opponents Rhode Island and Xavier is cause for concern for a NC State pitching staff that lost its complete starting rotation from last year. Plenty of time to recover from the 1-2 start, but you have to consider this a red-flag on what the season might hold going forward.

Crunch =====> For folks that keep their eye on the numbers, the following are the latest RPI’s for the ACC from Collegerpi.com. Now that Quinten Jackson is no longer around to lazily construct the basketball schedule, perhaps we can be more strategic in the future and try to target OOC games against opponents in the #150-#250 range as opposed to a menu of games against teams sub-300.

3. UNC
4. Duke
8. Clemson
17. FSU
18. Wake
46. Miami
52. Maryland
55. Boston College
66. VT
90. NC State
100. UVA
161. GT

About StateFans

'StateFansNation' is the shared profile used by any/all of the dozen or so authors that contribute to the blog. You may not always agree with us, but you will have little doubt about where we stand on most issues. Please follow us on Twitter and FaceBook

08-09 Basketball General

100 Responses to Monday Basketball Bytes

  1. LKNpackfan 02/23/2009 at 1:40 PM #

    Yep, we’ve obviously found an optimal lineup and a team identity. Its a crime Smith was on the bench as much as he was in the first half of the season.

  2. Daily Update 02/23/2009 at 1:45 PM #

    This would be a great off-season entry/project for Statefansnation. Maybe several of us can come up with a schedule for next year or at least a group of 50 or so teams that look like good additions for next year’s schedule.

    Then we can track it next basketball season to see how that schedule turns out. Note that we don’t want the schedule to be overly difficult, but we would want it to guarantee wins and at the same time give us a decent RPI.

  3. wolfonthehill 02/23/2009 at 1:48 PM #

    “It’s damned if we do and damned if we don’t.

    If we are a balanced league with everyone beating everyone we’re down. If we have two dominant teams followed by a very solid middle, we’re top heavy.”

    The answer to this, of course, is the “Big” 10 approach, whereby there are always 2-4 teams in that league so completely embarrassing that the rest of the league picks up 3-6 gimme wins a year. As long as your entire league is competitive (which the ACC is), we’re cursed to sit home on Selection Sunday, watching the “Big” 10 take 8 teams, while we only get 4-6. Happens every year… and it’s lining up to happen again this year.

    I’ve watched enough “Big” 10 basketball this season (and in past seasons) to know that… well… the level of basketball just isn’t that damn good. I watched MSU-Wisconsin yesterday, and I daresay that the Pack would’ve led either one by double-digits at halftime. And this was their marquee matchup, of their top team against their newly-hot-and-charging-for-the-postseason darling? No thanks.

    And when the above scenario regarding the ACC being under-represented in the tourney again plays out in 3 weeks, it will be every bit as much of a travesty as any argument regarding the BCS vs a playoff system ever will be.

  4. wufpup76 02/23/2009 at 1:50 PM #

    OOC scheduling is certainly hurtful, made more so by the fact that a few of the teams are having their worst respective seasons in some time.

    Thanks for pointing out that we have the toughest in conference schedule though. Of the top half of the league, we played @ Duke, @ Clemson, and 2 games each against both the Holes and WF … The only top tier team we played at home only was FSU, and we most decidedly let that one slip away. The bad news in all that is that we have only one win out of those games so far (more opportunities to come, however).

    If we had anything at all to go with that schedule, getting to 8-8 would have put us in prime position. As it stands, getting to 8-8 would still be quite an accomplishment for this team, especially given that we were 2-6 not so long ago. Let’s not settle for that though, 9-7 is still on the table for the taking!

    I also agree that this Big 10 love is sickening … The ACC is getting killed for eating it’s own – so of course that means the league is not as strong as thought … Right. So having the best overall RPI and the best non-conference results YET AGAIN means nothing. Great. And, oh yeah – the league kicked the Big 10’s ass for the what’th consecutive year?

    I know, I know – teams are judged on an individual basis and conference affiliation has no bearing on anything … It’s just the whole principle of the matter.

    If you guys want to consider something really funny, consider that Notre Dame is on Lunardi’s “First 4 out” with an RPI of 70, and an overall record of 15-11. Their best wins are Louisville (good), Texas (ok), Providence (same or worse than the middle/bottom of the ACC), and Georgetown (14-11). Read that again – RPI of 70, with one “marque” win. This team has a 7 game losing streak, some blowout losses, and a loss to St. John’s.

    Given that, I’m not saying State should be on the bubble – but the fact that a team with the Irish’s profile is means it’s not out of the realm of possibility. Because that is a putrid profile. If State could take advantage of some opportunities – including the ACC tournament – we could be right there on that bubble.

    GO Pack!

  5. choppack1 02/23/2009 at 2:05 PM #

    “Strange, I remember plenty of horrible losses to terrible teams in the only five years that the HSSS chose to remember….especially in 2003 and 2005.”

    Fair point – I guess it depends on how you define plenty. Obviously, we didn’t have a ton of quality wins those years. If we were losing left and right to the middle and bottom of the conference in those years, they are more like his first 5 years. Like I said, I see a strong correlation between several of those teams paths and this one. Like the 2002, 2003 and 2005 teams, we’ll need a solid ACC tournament to give us an NCAA tourament birth.

    I also see a strong correlation between the NIT teams and this one. We’ve put ourselves in a position where we can make a fantastic run and make the dance w/out winning the ACC tournament, but I think we were in this position in 98,99, and 00.

  6. wufpup76 02/23/2009 at 2:09 PM #

    “I watched MSU-Wisconsin yesterday, and I daresay that the Pack would’ve led either one by double-digits at halftime.”

    ^I watched it as well and tend to agree. Big 10 basketball is nothing short of fugly. There’s a reason that Wisconsin gets blitzed when they play the top half of our league. While they may play some good D at times, they are more or less a slow, lumbering football team on the basketball court. Teams with quick, skillful players obliterate them. “Skill” is not exactly the most valued asset in Big 10 basketball. Being able to strap on shoulder pads is.

    Anybody remember what happened when Wisconsin met Davidson last year? Richards, Curry, Barr and Lovedale lit them up and all the Wisconsin players could resort to doing was taking cheap shots away from the ball. The year before this, Wisconsin was a #2 seed. Result? Bounced in the 2nd round by a solid UNLV squad (after falling behind Corpus Christi by 19 in the first round). How about whenever Wisconsin plays a non-vintage Duke squad? They still get blitzed by 30 (Purdue, too). Duke is undefeated in the Big 10 challenge – even the last few non-vintage Duke teams. This is not happenstance.

    What kind of value system is set up that values these Big 10 teams so highly? There are some “decent” teams, but the league does not pass the eye test. I don’t get it.

    And I think it’s a travesty that college basketball is devolving away from a skill game to a clutch, grab, and hold game. I’m all about mixing it up down low, but it’s really hard for me to watch a Big 10 game. Clean it up some, please.

    Oh, and can’t wait for the Big 10 to send 7 teams to the tournament and have 6 of them bounced in the first round (which happened on consecutive seasons earlier this decade). Giggity. And the SEC deserves 6 teams in? Because they are the SEC? If the Big East and the ACC don’t have the most teams in then something is out of whack somewhere along the way. Kentucky got crushed at home by our current 10th place team. “Yeah, but Kentucky plays in the SEC! – They deserve a 4 seed!!!”

    Kill. Me. Now.

  7. choppack1 02/23/2009 at 2:09 PM #

    wulfpup – Wellman is on the committee, I’m not sure if that’s effective this year. Fortunately, Lunardi doesn’t make the brackets. The milk hasn’t been spilled yet, so we can’t really cry over it. I just hope Swoff and Wellman are pointing what the ACC has done.

  8. wolfonthehill 02/23/2009 at 2:13 PM #

    ^ Unfortunately, the Pack ran into the one elite Wisconsin team in the past 20 years in the tourney a few years back. Dammit.

    And the fact that the NCAA tourney committee insists on disconnecting league strength from number of bids is asinine. If a league is rated #1 in the country, how did that happen? Because there are more good teams in that league.

    It’s just not that complicated… unless you believe that the league can be greater than the sum of its parts… which is again illogical…. AAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!!… I GIVE UP!!!!!!!!!

    SFN: And we had a double-digit point lead and led at halftime by something like 9 points vs Wisconsin (which is like 20 against most teams). We folded like a cheap tent. Had we held on we would have made the Elite 8. That was miserable. But, par for the course the year after one of the worst NCAA Tournament collapsese in history (vs Vanderbilt).

    Speaking of that game against Wisconsin — click here to experience something pretty fascinating.

  9. Wolf Dog 02/23/2009 at 2:21 PM #

    We keep winning and our RPI will take care of itself. Can’t change the OCC schedule now. Losing to Davidson hurt.

    Rest of schedule going to be a dog fight with everyone fighting for tournament bid. I think we make a case for a tournament bid only 3 ways. 4-0 plus 1-2 tournament wins, 3-1 plus 2-3 tournament wins, and of course win the tournament. NCAA tournament commmittee has craped on the ACC lately. They no longer respect 8-8 in conference and for some reason mid majors and small conference teams in the Southeast don’t get near as much respect as teams in other regions of the country.

    I predict we go 2-2, get one tounament win and go to NIT. Of course I will be rooting for more.

  10. wufpup76 02/23/2009 at 2:34 PM #

    “wufpup – Wellman is on the committee, I’m not sure if that’s effective this year.”

    ^Unfortunately not. Wellman won’t be in on the selection process until next season. And I know I shouldn’t get all hot and bothered by Lunardi’s stuff, it’s just the indicators that sometimes become fact that I don’t like. I actually respect his efforts.

    “And the fact that the NCAA tourney committee insists on disconnecting league strength from number of bids is asinine. If a league is rated #1 in the country, how did that happen? Because there are more good teams in that league.”

    ^It’s a fair point. I actually agree that each team should be looked individually as opposed to conference affiliation, but ACC teams have to have been getting undervalued in season’s past somehow. It’s like the teams are penalized because the Holes and Duke are in the conference … oh wait, they are.

  11. choppack1 02/23/2009 at 2:40 PM #

    “And the fact that the NCAA tourney committee insists on disconnecting league strength from number of bids is asinine. If a league is rated #1 in the country, how did that happen?”

    If you want to know one of the many reasons I’m not gung-ho about an NCAA football playoff, you’ve just hit one. The selection process is extremely political. We’re lucky, we’ve never really been screwed, but it could happen this year. The NCAA smartly stays away from certain criteria that would make it easier for teams to understand what they need to do. I imagine part of our problems is that our “leadership” is happy w/ a few high seeds – and probably spends more time politicking for those.

    SFN – let’s not go there, for whatever reason – the Wisconsin game doesn’t bother me (I was probably still on a high from the UConn game) – but the Vandy game was the most painful NCAA loss I’ve ever experienced.

    We could also talk about the ACC tourney collapses – UMd twice (yes, the infamous larry rose “T”, but there was also the loss in 2000 where we were up late in the game. Then of course, there’s the Duke debacle.

    Funny, the so-called experts don’t seem to recall those games or a 1-17 record vs. NCAA bid receiving UNC teams or the fact that he was the only ACC coach to be at a school 10 years to not win an ACC championship, ACC regular season title, or advance to the Elite 8…You’d think we ran off Coach K or something.

  12. choppack1 02/23/2009 at 2:45 PM #

    Thanks for linking that article SFN – good stuff. Good, but never quite good enough – doesn’t that sum it up?

  13. wufpup76 02/23/2009 at 2:56 PM #

    “but the Vandy game was the most painful NCAA loss I’ve ever experienced”

    ^Right there with you. We need to bury this game in a long forgotten landfill somewhere …

    I’ve seen plenty of painful losses, but I could hardly watch any more of that year’s tournament. Not to mention the table and other inanimate objects I broke that day. And seeing Kevin Stalling’s goofy “Did you see what just happened? Did you see that game they just gave to us?” look on his goofy face did not help matters. Or Freiji’s (spelling?) face. Or any other of those idiots – especially the ones popping their jerseys after the game. Yeah, you pop those jerseys … after the other team gave a victory away to you. You EARNED it.

    Ok, I’m relapsing … Relax. Breath. Focus.

  14. PoppaJohn 02/23/2009 at 3:01 PM #

    Great stuff SFN, maybe I should step away from the ledge.
    It sure would be nice to end this season on a positive note with a post season win or two. And what we’ve seen from Tracy Smith and CJ Williams has certainly been encouraging for the future.

  15. Trout 02/23/2009 at 3:14 PM #

    What makes the Vandy game even more frustrating is that was one of Herb’s best teams. There was no bubble watch that year. We were a #3 seed (or 4).

    Agree with other posters, one of the most painful losses I can ever remember. Ranks right there with the ’79 Penn State/NC State football game and the Dudley Bradley steal game

  16. choppack1 02/23/2009 at 3:31 PM #

    And there are losses that aren’t so painful at the time, but you look back and you say, “that’s where it all went wrong.” I’m thinking specifically of GaTech in football.

    Trout – we were a 3 seed that year.

  17. wolfonthehill 02/23/2009 at 3:40 PM #

    SFN – Not sure if I’m glad I clicked that link or not… either way, the following quote from that piece is jarring to me…

    “Don’t get me wrong – I do not accept the backwards rationale that “they are better than us so it is ok to lose”-attitude that began rearing its head in the Les Robinson years and now continues to spread inside of Wolfpack Nation under Lee Fowler’s unambitious leadership. It is NOT ACCEPTABLE that so many teams around us are supposed to naturally be considered “better than us.””

    That mentality has STILL not left the NC State community. We seem to be OK with losing to Davidson because they’re ranked… so they’re better. OK with losing to Boston College. OK with losing to Florida State. OK with losing to Virginia Tech. All because those programs are now BETTER than ours.

    I find that thinking nauseating. We’re really saying it’s OK for Davidson to have a better program than NC State? Or BC? Or FSU? Or VaTech? Or even Marquette?

    There simply is no acceptable reason for NC State to dwell in the lower half (or even two-thirds) of the ACC. Accepting that leads only down the path to eternal mediocrity.

  18. Classof89 02/23/2009 at 3:50 PM #

    Here’s a scheduling philosophy: For teams from the so-called minor conferences (I define it as any conference whose members aren’t likely to demand a home and home to play us), schedule only teams that finished in the top 3 in the regular season standings the year before. For those who will claim that games are set more than one year in advance let me say, do you really think we already had that game with NC Central this year scheduled back in February of 2008?

    So, for example instead of perennial Sun Belt also ran New Orleans, schedule Western Kentucky (13-3, 19-8 this year) or Arkansas-Little Rock (13-3, 20-7) (yes, I know we had to play them because of the Monte Towe deal).

    Instead of Loyola(Md) out of the MAAC, why not Siena (15-1, 22-6) or Niagara (12-4, 22-7)?

    Instead of Atlantic Sun mediocrity Lipscomb, why not East Tennessee State (12-5, 18-9), with an added angle of interest for State fans as where Les Robinson coached before here (and actually beat a Valvano coached State squad one year)?

    I understand the need to schedule teams that won’t demand a return visit. I just don’t understand why we pick the awful teams we do. And if you have to pick an awful team, pick one that is (i) of regional interest–the UNC-Wilmington and UNC-Ashevilles of the world; or (ii) has some special historical link to NC State–for example, Canisius, who we lost to in double overtime in the late 1950s with one of Everett Case’s best squads. Or Murray State or Chattanooga, the only teams Jim Valvano ever lost to in the first round of the NCAAs.

  19. 61Packer 02/23/2009 at 3:52 PM #

    Regardless of who we play in the ACC, it is simply unrealistic to expect us to get an NCAA bid next month unless we win the ACC Tournament. This season’s non-conference schedule did little to help the team prepare for ACC play. And it was awful for us ticketholders to sit through some of those games, too. I don’t necessarily agree that we played the toughest ACC schedule since we play Duke, Clemson and FSU only once, but we’ve not played really well against anyone in the league except for last-place Georgia Tech and Wake Forest. OK, we won the UVA game, but we played it here, and we managed to blow separate leads of 18 and 17 points. An NCAA tourney-bound team generally doesn’t do that at home against a decidedly inferior opponent. We’ve done it all season, and we don’t need to keep doing it, especially in late February.

    I agree with most of the posts that say the ACC is more deserving of NCAA tourney bids than the Big Ten and the Pac 10, but there are nine other ACC teams that have done better than we have so far. NINE. I think the ACC will get 7 teams in unless both Maryland and Miami tank the rest of the season, then it may be 6. Virginia Tech and Maryland have difficult schedules and may end up in the NIT. The remaining Wolfpack game that will have the most bearing on the NCAA tourney is probably the March 7 game in Miami. Unfortunately, though, that game will determine whether or not Miami makes it, not us. Barring an Atlanta 4-game table run, I think we’re playing for NIT position at this point. And if we keep playing as sloppy as we did against UVA, the NIT may be a stretch.

  20. wufpup76 02/23/2009 at 4:04 PM #

    ^It’s not ok to think or accept that those schools (from wolfonthehill’s post) have better programs than us, but a situational loss doesn’t bother me all that much. Losing to them year in and year out would … You’re right though, this is part of the “culture” that is NC State nowadays.

    Also, I forgot to add about the NCAA Selection Committee – 6 of the representatives have 0 basketball experience this season. They are all athletic director types with more business experience than athletic knowledge. I would expect the field to be even more about the cpu numbers than usual this season. The espn gameday guys brought it up on Saturday and Jay Bilas made a really good point.

    He said (paraphrasing): “There is no way the academics would allow a committee on ANYTHING to be comprised of 60% coaches or “athletics people” with zero working knowledge on the subject at hand. Why do we accept this for college basketball and college athletics?”.

    At least the NIT now has a selection committee full of people that know the game. Too bad they’re selecting the NIT field and not the NCAA field.

    I think they’re putting the (NCAA) tournament’s integrity at stake by having committees like this. There are always going to be “snubs”, but if Davidson gets in “just because” of Curry or Kentucky gets in because their name is “Kentucky” – then what? That’s a slippery slope all the way down to college football postseason level – or worse yet “professional” wrestling.

    Don’t get me wrong, there are cases to be made for each of those teams, but hopefully you see my point – I hope there are no obvious “mistakes” by the comittee. That’s part of the beauty of the tournament … there are no “Notre Dames” that are guarenteed spots in the field – you actually have to earn your way there and the rest of it will take care of itself.

  21. LKNpackfan 02/23/2009 at 4:09 PM #

    Wow, thanks for reminding me about the Wisconsin game. That night cost me a small fortune in attorney fees.

  22. VaWolf82 02/23/2009 at 4:12 PM #

    And the fact that the NCAA tourney committee insists on disconnecting league strength from number of bids is asinine.

    What are you basing this on? I doubt that you could convince any fans from the MVC that league strength isn’t considered when handing out at-large bids.

  23. VaWolf82 02/23/2009 at 4:15 PM #

    Ranks right there with the ‘79 Penn State/NC State football game and the Dudley Bradley steal game

    Thanks for those memories. I was at both games with great seats to watch the disasters unfold at the end of the game.

  24. choppack1 02/23/2009 at 4:19 PM #

    “but there are nine other ACC teams that have done better than we have so far. NINE. ”

    And that’s true. Everyone agrees that if the selection was held tomorrow, there’s no way in hell we’d get a bid, nor do we deserve one.

    The issue at hand is really, what would we have to do to get an at-large bid.

  25. wufpup76 02/23/2009 at 4:26 PM #

    “What are you basing this on? I doubt that you could convince any fans from the MVC that league strength isn’t considered when handing out at-large bids.” (re: NCAA selection process)

    Va, whether it is actually true or not the NCAA insists on reminding us every season that teams are looked at individually and with no regards to conference affiliation. Even the sports journalists who go through the mock selection insist that it happens to them the same way – that league affiliation played no part. So there’s that, for whatever that’s worth.

1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply