[Husker] Thanks for the excitment

[Aaron Wolfson]

Well, when a team is shooting from long and close range as well as Kentucky
was, it's somewhat of a pick-your-poison dilemma. Selling out on the drive
creates even more openings for 3s, which are even more deadly in a
single-elimination format. There is less of an excuse for allowing offensive
rebounds; usually the answer is either "the other team was bigger" or "the
other team put in more effort." I think the answer for this game is not so
much strategic as a case of one team having a bad night and the other having
a great night. We all saw some of the shots that Kentucky was hitting. At
some point you just have to say that they were the better team that night.
And of course, when you reach the Sweet 16, or increasingly deep levels in a
tournament, that sort of random performance variation has a bigger chance to
swing a game where teams are more evenly matched.

Aaron


On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Steve Reichenbach <reich at inetnebr.com>wrote:

> It was a great season for the team.  Those seniors will be long remembered
> for their character as well as success.
>
> WRT the loss, I was surprised that NU didn't pull in the perimieter
> defense to cut off drives to the hoop for shots and block out better
> for rebounds.  I am not a basketball expert, but it seemed that is
> what NU did with great success in the second half with UCLA.  Yes,
> I know that Kentucky shot the three well, but the three is more
> hot and cold than drives to the basket.  Can someone with more knowledge
> about basketball strategy comment?
>
> Next year looks to be a rebuilding year for NU and the Big 12 will be
> really tough, perhaps even better than this year.
>
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
>