Illinois 54, Rutgers 51 POSTGAME

Of course they are way down from last year. It'd be interesting to know how many d-1 players with a significant amount of shots have had their 3 pt % increase from last year...
Sorry I couldn't make this look much better. But the 18-19 numbers are the top non-seniors. Not many are showing up in the current year.
2019-20

1 Aaron Nesmith Vanderbilt 52.20
2 Dru Kuxhausen McNeese Jr. 50.40
3 John Petty Jr. Alabama Jr. 49.50
4 Stefan Gonzalez UC Davis 48.40
5 Tyrell Gumbs-Frater 47.90
6 Trae Berhow UNI 47.10
7 Ben Pyle Western Ill. 46.70
8 Matt Halvorsen Western Caro. 46.30
9 Mitch Ballock Creighton 45.50
10 Josh Williams Robert Morris 44.90
- Channel Banks Akron Sr. 44.90
12 Nate Kennell Bradley Sr. 44.80
13 Jazz Johnson Nevada Sr. 44.50
14 Jacob Rigoni Quinnipiac 44.40
15 Desmond Bane TCU Sr. 44.20
- Jordan Nwora Louisville 44.20
17 Markus Howard Marquette 43.90
18 Michael Littlejohn 43.80
- Spencer Jones Stanford 43.80
20 Travis Evee VMI 43.60


2018-9
2 Justin Jaworski, Lafayette 48.9
4 Nathan Hoover, Wofford 46.9
8 Noah Baumann, San Jose St. 45.5
9 David Jenkins, South Dakota St. 45.3
10 Brendan Barry, Dartmouth 44.5
11 J.C. Younger, Presbyterian 44.0
17 Cameron Tyson, Idaho 42.9
19 Kyle Guy, Virginia 42.6
20 Thomas Dziagwa, Oklahoma St. 42.5
22 Landon Taliaferro, Fairfield 42.3
24 Jalen Jordan, St. Francis Brooklyn 42.0
25 Terrell Gomez, CSUN 41.9
27 Mitch Ballock, Creighton 41.9
28 Rob Whitfield, UMKC 41.8
 
Sorry I couldn't make this look much better. But the 18-19 numbers are the top non-seniors. Not many are showing up in the current year.
2019-20
So Econ 173(stats) wasn't one of my best classes. You saying, that the numbers are saying, that this year, with a deeper three point line, the best guys are shooting the 3 better than last year?
Surprised..
 
I think it would be better to compare numbers from half-season last year to half-season this year. Shooters who put up great numbers in the first half of the season will see much more attentive defenders in the second half of the season. My guess is that first half numbers are almost always better than full season numbers.
 
Looking at the big ten schedule it seems we got the short end of the stick on who and where the teams we only play once. Not crying just noticing.
 
Looking at the big ten schedule it seems we got the short end of the stick on who and where the teams we only play once. Not crying just noticing.
Honestly besides Nebraska and Northwestern, it’s hard to tell. I mean OSU was #2 like three weeks ago and they’re gonna be unranked. Rutgers is apparently good. IU sucked until now they don’t. I have a feeling the conference SOC will be pretty darn even across the board when it’s all said and done... and I can’t imagine how many teams are gonna end the year with either 9,10, or 11 wins. We need to get minimum 11, no question.
 
Literally two years vs 1/2 year. We'll see at the end of the year, won't we.
well you said he was shooting many shots well beyond the three point line in his first two years. Do you have a shot chart for him? If you don't, then I'm in the camp of "you're making this up."
 
well you said he was shooting many shots well beyond the three point line in his first two years. Do you have a shot chart for him? If you don't, then I'm in the camp of "you're making this up."
ESPN only has shot charts for games we were playing a ranked team, I believe, but here's some shot charts for his first 2 years. I know that's a small sample size and you can't extrapolate that to the season, but he definitely took quite a few deep 3's. If you watched his first two years and think he only took threes right on the old line, you just didn't watch his incredible fresh and soph shooting performances.trent 1.PNGtrent 2.PNGtrent 3.PNGtrent 4.PNG
 
Ft. Collins, CO
I hadn't been back to U of I since '89 and I could not believe how things have changed. I didn't even recognize Green Street and KAM's has been moved! The State Farm Center is fantastic and I'm sure it can get crazy when the students are in the building.
As for the game, I can't remember ever seeing a college team shoot 19% for a half and score 18 points. The crazy thing was that we kept saying, "How can we only be down by 3 at half?" Whatever was said at halftime worked because the shooting definitely got better. It was great to see Ayo hit that mid range jumper with confidence. He will definitely need that at the next level. And his clutch free throws at the end were fantastic. It was also nice the see the energy level throughout the game and we did a decent job of minimizing turnovers. Rutgers is a big, physical team and while this win was a long way from pretty, it was an "effort" win that I think will help their confidence moving forward. I can't wait to see how this team continues to progress and I would be really surprised and disappointed if we weren't putting on our dancing shoes in March! Go Illini! :shield:
 
Mad Scientist
Arizona, USA
just checked Kenpom we are up to 27, i guess WISC and MIZZOU win must of helped a bit because last nightwe were 31
Arizona in freefall hurts, though.
 
just checked Kenpom we are up to 27, i guess WISC and MIZZOU win must of helped a bit because last nightwe were 31
tOSU at no #7 kinds of kills my confidence in their rating. Rutgers also much better than their rating. They actually seemed like the best we have played with the possible exception of MSU.
 
Ha, come on, man! Illini first!
I feel much more confident in the Illini's chances of making tourney than I do Oregon St., so they needed that win. They keep losing to the teams they should beat (Utah and ASU) and beating the tougher ones (Colorado and Arizona).
 
Mad Scientist
Arizona, USA
Crazy isn't it?

Michigan made a record leap by beating a north Carolina team that now looks pathetic.

Lots of sorting out to do yet.
This is a good reason why I think"NCAA tournament resumes" are such an imperfect way to discuss who should be in the tournament. Teams change so much over the course of a season that it can be problematic. If you have two teams with the same record, one of whom tore through the nonconference beating a bunch of then-overrated teams and then stumbled through the conference season, meanwhile the other team had some real stinkers in the nonconference and then put it all together and steamrolled through their conference, I'd argue the latter team is better deserving of a berth.
 
Captain 'Paign
Phoenix, AZ
This is a good reason why I think"NCAA tournament resumes" are such an imperfect way to discuss who should be in the tournament. Teams change so much over the course of a season that it can be problematic. If you have two teams with the same record, one of whom tore through the nonconference beating a bunch of then-overrated teams and then stumbled through the conference season, meanwhile the other team had some real stinkers in the nonconference and then put it all together and steamrolled through their conference, I'd argue the latter team is better deserving of a berth.
The Tourney Selection Committee actually used to use "Last 10 Games" as a criteria for selection, but not sure if that's the case any longer. I think it's a worthwhile selection criteria personally, though arguments against are it can favor (or disfavor) teams based on luck of the draw in conference scheduling (i.e. a team having a bunch of home or away games at the end of their conference schedule).
 
The Tourney Selection Committee actually used to use "Last 10 Games" as a criteria for selection, but not sure if that's the case any longer. I think it's a worthwhile selection criteria personally, though arguments against are it can favor (or disfavor) teams based on luck of the draw in conference scheduling (i.e. a team having a bunch of home or away games at the end of their conference schedule).
I'll bet a beach house (isn't that how some of ya do it around here) that there are selection/seeding criteria that are never ever spoke of.
 
The Tourney Selection Committee actually used to use "Last 10 Games" as a criteria for selection, but not sure if that's the case any longer. I think it's a worthwhile selection criteria personally, though arguments against are it can favor (or disfavor) teams based on luck of the draw in conference scheduling (i.e. a team having a bunch of home or away games at the end of their conference schedule).
The scheduling disparities were a real problem. That said I'm all in on using the eye test to sort out the last few teams. Ken pom etc have a tough time sorting out injuries and other factors.
 
well you said he was shooting many shots well beyond the three point line in his first two years. Do you have a shot chart for him? If you don't, then I'm in the camp of "you're making this up."
So you watched the games the last two years. Are you really saying Trent hasn't shot many, many times outside the 3 point line? Yes this is anecdotal, I have no shot charts, but I do have a good memory. Feel free to disagree, but no it wasn't made up. In any case, the small difference in distance doesn't account for his fall off, IMO.