Pregame: Illinois at Michigan State, Saturday, February 10th, 1:00pm CT, CBS

[PepeSilvia]

To win the conference going to need to win out at home plus 4 of 5 on the road(MSU, Maryland, PSU, Wisconsin, and Iowa).

Going to have to beat Purdue at home but really need to win these next 3(which will be very difficult) to avoid having to beat Wisconsin and Purdue back to back and then even if they did manage that avoid a letdown game at Iowa.

Realistically need to win the next 6 to have a good shot at the title.

 

[Illini_1105]

Need to bring the fight to them. Got almost a week to prepare

more importantly, the guys can actually take a blow and rest for a few days too. This is the break we get from the gauntlet. lets come back looking fresh and prepped

 

[john1952]

 

[BoiseBaller]

I'm a pretty strong believer in kenpom, and he's projecting us at 14-6. That means 6-3 to close. I'd feel pretty good about that if we win at MSU, but we will need to defend and rebound at a high level (dare I say elite?) to have a chance.

 

[ChiefGritty]

View attachment 30865

4-5 is probably more realistic against that slate than 8-1 from a sheer statistical perspective of those percentages.

6-3 would be nothing to sneeze at.

 

[Fighter of the Nightman]

View attachment 30865

Very underrated game here is at Iowa. Last game of the season (so could have Big Ten championship implications), a rivalry game where passions will run high and Iowa just keeps hanging around in the top 75 (#60 right now) making it a Quad 1 opportunity.

 

[SkyysNotFalling]

If we want to win the B1G we need to win our next 6, take it one game at a time.

Looking at Purdue’s remaining February schedule I just don’t see a loss…

 

[RML]

I'm oddly confident that we win at Sparty. We seem to play well in big games, and I think our guys recognize this as a big one. Plus, the Sparty guys are probably starting to feel like we have their number. Firmly re-establish us as above Sparty in the bb pecking order.

 

[RabidDawgClassic]

Just win.

And make sisokyo look stupid at least twice.

 

[altgeld88]

I predict we will work on inbounding the ball from the baseline vs. heavy pressure before this game.

Preferably not using that daft, four-or-five-guys lined up out-of-bounds along the baseline configuration that has led to such poor inbounding.

At the margin, getting this right and not screwing it up can (and likely at some point will) mean the difference between winning and losing. BT and tourney games are generally just too tight to let this detail go.

[EDIT: I have, in the past, lightly mocked those up in arms about BU's inability to diagram an in-bounds play. I apologize. In this baseline case, they were right.]

 

[Retro62]

Preferably not using that daft, four-or-five-guys lined up out-of-bounds along the baseline configuration that has led to such poor inbounding.

Are we sure Brad wasn't just upset and lining them up for wind sprints before he remembered the game was still going?

 

[RabidDawgClassic]

Preferably not using that daft, four-or-five-guys lined up out-of-bounds along the baseline configuration that has led to such poor inbounding.

At the margin, getting this right and not screwing it up can (and likely at some point will) mean the difference between winning and losing. BT and tourney games are generally just too tight to let this detail go.

[EDIT: I have, in the past, lightly mocked those up in arms about BU's inability to diagram an in-bounds play. I apologize. In this baseline case, they were right.]

That lineup reminds me of the Swinging Gate lineup in football. I roll my eyes every time I see it.

 

[SkyysNotFalling]

I think MSU is pretty bad. If we rebound, make layups & get back in transition we should win this one. We own their senior class.

 

[danielb927]

4-5 is probably more realistic against that slate than 8-1 from a sheer statistical perspective of those percentages.

6-3 would be nothing to sneeze at.

Torvik's title odds matrix says it's twice as likely: 13.5% chance of finishing 4-5 versus only a 6.7% chance of going 8-1.

6-3 is the most likely outcome (~30%) and we have a better than 50-50 shot of at least 6 more wins (56%), so I think 6-3 or better should absolutely be the expectation as a fan.

Also has us at a 95% chance of the double-bye (top 4 finish), but only a 7% chance of a regular season title (shared or solo).

I agree with others that I was happier with a Purdue win yesterday since it helps us out in NCAA seeding, albeit at the cost of hurting our B1G title shot.

 

[illini0440]

Preferably not using that daft, four-or-five-guys lined up out-of-bounds along the baseline configuration that has led to such poor inbounding.

At the margin, getting this right and not screwing it up can (and likely at some point will) mean the difference between winning and losing. BT and tourney games are generally just too tight to let this detail go.

[EDIT: I have, in the past, lightly mocked those up in arms about BU's inability to diagram an in-bounds play. I apologize. In this baseline case, they were right.]

No one was complaining when they ran it all the time 3-4 years ago and it worked?

 

[NarrowJ]

I think MSU is pretty bad. If we rebound, make layups & get back in transition we should win this one. We own their senior class.

The stats/data/metrics love them. Top 15-20 across the board, anything you look at.

5 of their 8 losses are to top 10-15 teams, with the other 3 being the home opener against JMU, at Nebraska and at Northwestern.

They throttled Baylor.

Make no mistake, they are a very good team.

 

[ChiefGritty]

The stats/data/metrics love them. Top 15-20 across the board, anything you look at.

5 of their 8 losses are to top 10-15 teams, with the other 3 being the home opener against JMU, at Nebraska and at Northwestern.

They throttled Baylor.

Make no mistake, they are a very good team.

Classic Izzo low seed second weekend team.

They don't even bust brackets anymore, everyone knows you need to be more scared of MSU the worse their seed is.

 

[altgeld88]

No one was complaining when they ran it all the time 3-4 years ago and it worked?

It has always seemed like a cluster to me, but I fully acknowledge my lack of understanding of it. I can't recall seeing it in past seasons, though perhaps that's because I can't recall seeing it badly botched. Still can't figure out how to coach it so it works systematically. I asked in the postgame thread for someone to explain it to me, as obviously it must work if coaches use it. No answers yet.

 

[ChiefGritty]

It has always seemed like a cluster to me, but I fully acknowledge my lack of understanding of it. I can't recall seeing it in past seasons, though perhaps that's because I can't recall seeing it badly botched. Still can't figure out how to coach it so it works systematically. I asked in the postgame thread for someone to explain it to me, as obviously it must work if coaches use it. No answers yet.

I think the idea is that it kinda doesn't allow the defense to set itself up in 3-dimensional space. You've got this huge expanse of floor and you make the 5 defenders cover it on the run.

Basically same thing as the equivalent football play, 4 vert with no safety help over the top is big advantage offense.

 

[Fighter of the Nightman]

The stats/data/metrics love them. Top 15-20 across the board, anything you look at.

5 of their 8 losses are to top 10-15 teams, with the other 3 being the home opener against JMU, at Nebraska and at Northwestern.

They throttled Baylor.

Make no mistake, they are a very good team.

Reminds me of Ohio State last year but not quite as extreme of a case. When we beat them in Champaign last year on January 24th, they were 11-8 overall and somehow still a Quad 1 win for us (#27 in the NET).

 

[pruman91]

No one was complaining when they ran it all the time 3-4 years ago and it worked?

maybe cause 3-4 years ago we had different players running it ???........just a guess , bro............

 

[illini0440]

It has always seemed like a cluster to me, but I fully acknowledge my lack of understanding of it. I can't recall seeing it in past seasons, though perhaps that's because I can't recall seeing it badly botched. Still can't figure out how to coach it so it works systematically. I asked in the postgame thread for someone to explain it to me, as obviously it must work if coaches use it. No answers yet.

How a football play has invaded March Madness

A football-inspired inbounds play is becoming more popular for teams looking to nail down NCAA tournaent victories.

sports.yahoo.com

The players botched it the second time....no one went deep...normally you have two guys go deep and 2 curl back....and you can mix and match responsibilities

 

[IlliniCub 16]

It has always seemed like a cluster to me, but I fully acknowledge my lack of understanding of it. I can't recall seeing it in past seasons, though perhaps that's because I can't recall seeing it badly botched. Still can't figure out how to coach it so it works systematically. I asked in the postgame thread for someone to explain it to me, as obviously it must work if coaches use it. No answers yet.

I think it works well when there is less than 10 seconds to go where the defense needs to foul almost immediately. The play gives a strong chance for at least one person to get open.

Where it runs into trouble is when you need to get the ball across half court because even when you get the ball inbounded, there is more congestion than a traditional inbounds play so there seems to be a better chance someone gets trapped and has to force a tough pass.

Plus like @illini0440 said, if it was executed more effectively, it would have been more open.

 

[altgeld88]

I think the idea is that it kinda doesn't allow the defense to set itself up in 3-dimensional space. You've got this huge expanse of floor and you make the 5 defenders cover it on the run.

Basically same thing as the equivalent football play, 4 vert with no safety help over the top is big advantage offense.

But it takes time for the offensive players to get into that space when they begin out-of-bounds on the baseline. The inbounder has five seconds to get the ball in. If players are stacked parallel to the upper portion of the paint, they are in space within one second of breaking, and can set picks quickly or disperse. If they start on the baseline, they use up at least two seconds getting to a position where the ball can reach them, maybe 3. The time limit in itself makes it completely dissimilar to football. Seems to me that it's much less useful, and much more likely to fail.

@illini0440, thanks for the Yahoo article. I skimmed it quickly. Will go back and read it thoroughly when I have time.

 

[ChiefGritty]

But it takes time for the offensive players to get into that space when they begin out-of-bounds on the baseline. The inbounder has five seconds to get the ball in. If players are stacked parallel to the upper portion of the paint, they are in space within one second of breaking, and can set picks quickly or disperse. If they start on the baseline, they use up at least two seconds getting to a position where the ball can reach them, maybe 3. The time limit in itself makes it completely dissimilar to football. Seems to me that it's much less useful, and much more likely to fail.

@illini0440, thanks for the Yahoo article. I skimmed it quickly. Will go back and read it thoroughly when I have time.

It does strike me that the proper setup position for the "recievers" might be just in front of the baseline rather than just behind it, for that reason.