Fwd: [personal] [Husker] NU Basketball Big 12 second half

[NUStLNorris at aol.com]

In a message dated 2/6/2006 4:23:16 PM Central Standard Time,  
reich at inetnebr.com writes:

Well,  the logic of my comment is that Baylor is not very good and
NU trailed at  half time, after scoring only 23 points.  Baylor didn't
play any  non-conference games.  Baylor has won one conference game.
Baylor  clearly is the weakest team in the conference.  Still, NU
trailed at  half time and the score was still close with just a few
minutes to  play.

Otherwise, my comment reflects what I saw at the game, although  I
am no basketball expert.  Baylor looked to be not very good in  the
first half except shooting lights-out from beyond the 3-point  line
and looked woeful in the second half.  NU didn't look very  good,
struggling to score throughout the game, but Baylor had even  more
trouble scoring.  If NU had been playing KU, the game might  have
been out-of-hand by half time.  It was easy to imagine KU  leading
by 20+ points the way NU played the first  half.



I thought that Nebraska’s second half effort against Baylor was the best  
20-minute stretch of basketball that I’ve seen Nebraska play in a long time  
(qualifier coming …) WHEN they continued to struggle from the field in general,  
and specifically, the perimeter game.  They did everything else extremely  well 
(shot free throws like there was no tomorrow), especially when you consider  
what was at stake.
 
I wish I could’ve heard what was said in the locker room at halftime.   There 
was no place in the season’s script for a loss to Baylor at home.  NU  was 
facing 20-minutes to save their season … and they responded.  The  defensive 
effort and rebounding were impressive.  Aaron Bruce is a great  shooter and he 
was stymied in the second half.  When Nebraska took the lead  in the second 
half, Baylor never threatened to take it back.  
 
When you shoot 62 percent from behind the arc in the first half like Baylor  
did, you don’t HAVE to be flawless in other parts of the game.  But Baylor  
played well.  They weren’t turning the ball over, they were screening well  and 
freeing-up their best shooters, they challenged Maric on the defensive end,  
etc.  The Bears had help looking “woeful” in the second half.   Nebraska 
played defense like a desperate team fighting for their season.   It was great to 
see.
 
Baylor had put together five consecutive respectable 20-minute  halves.  They 
pushed A&M only to lose by two in College Station, beat  K-State in overtime, 
then were up on NU by seven at the half.  They might  not be “clearly the 
weakest team in the conference” by year’s end.  I think  they MAY be more 
interested in playing basketball than Missouri  is within a couple of weeks.
 
I saw your earlier post re: Sagerin's ratings.  His ratings when  determining 
point spreads/favorites for basketball games are meaningless.   He wouldn’t 
put his own money behind those numbers, I guarantee you.  Vegas  odds, if the 
games were played tomorrow, would fluctuate from 8-to-12  points from Sagarin’s 
numbers, depending on the game.
 
Whereas it can be fun to look at blocks of games on the schedule (and say  
things like “we need to win two out of these next four”), it really does no 
good  to look even a week down the road and speculate how a typical NCAA “bubble 
team”  in a balanced league will play.  Things change every week.  Teams may  
play well for a few consecutive games and start “admiring their own press  
clippings” -- becoming just complacent enough to be susceptible to upset.   Maybe 
they didn’t practice as hard that week.  Maybe they weren’t as  desperate 
for a win as they were last week, when their play and “sense of  urgency” 
reflected how badly they needed a win to stay in-the-hunt.   Sometimes teams play 
and practice with a “sense of urgency,” and sometimes they  don’t.  This can 
vary from week-to-week.  I say “bubble teams” because  the very best of teams 
don‘t take a lot of days off.  
 
It happens.  Look around at the Big XII.  KU, CU, OU, NU, ISU, --  teams two 
through six in the current standings -- have all had their  Jekyll-and-Hyde 
moments.  On certain days, teams “want it more” or “need it  more” than their 
opponent.  ISU absolutely HAD to have their game in Ames  yesterday against CU 
(Curtis Stinson had the first triple-double in school  history).  CU lost and 
it’s, “well, we still finished the first half at 5  and 3.”  The Cyclones 
needed it more (and now stand at 4 and 4).
 
Your comment “if NU had been playing KU, the game might have been  
out-of-hand by half time?”  Well, obviously they WEREN’T playing KU and no  coach was 
going to convince the Huskers that Baylor was as good as KU.  If  we would have 
been playing KU, I think NU would have been a bit more focused on  the task 
at hand.  But someone obviously got the Huskers’ attention at  halftime. 
 
But you’re right, Nebraska DOES struggle to score at times.  A lot of  
conference teams have had difficulty scoring in the half-court offense.
 
Right now, my heart obviously says Nebraska but my head is saying  Kansas.  
But I don’t think this is a vintage Kansas team … they’re very  talented, but 
very inexperienced as well.  NU needs a win prior to going on  the road to 
Texas and Iowa State.  It’s a huge game for the Huskers.   I wonder who’s going 
to want this one more.  NU on January 21 (blowout loss  at KU) and the current 
Huskers are two entirely different teams.
 
As closely as I watch Nebraska basketball, I have no idea what the rest of  
the season has in store.  By Wednesday, I hope to have myself talked into  
thinking Nebraska can beat the Jayhawks.
 
Dave Norris