From: alan@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Alan Martin)
Subject: Re: Kansas skanks...
Organization: Applied Research Labs, University of Texas at Austin
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 21:36:40 GMT

marek@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marek Lugowski) writes:

>In article <1993Jan26.172741.8519@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu>
>alan@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Alan Martin) writes:

>>marek@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marek Lugowski) writes:
>>
>>>Well, I won't woof, because months ago I said IU was a fundamentally better
>>>team than KU ...
>>If you think IU is better, then I won't disagree.  I might quibble with your
>>use of the word "fundamental", however.
>I think the fundamentals you listed are good enough for Indiana high school
>level of play, okay okay, tournament time Indiana high school basketball
>level of play.  For the NCAA programs with aspirations, I would be slightly
>more inclusive.
>1.  creativity on the floor.  KU, what I have seen of them, play "routine
>motion".  I don't see much evidence of creative, energized players, true
>artists.
>2. mixing things up.  KU does indeed "look like" IU in much of thier
>half-court game, except that IU has more of a range and can hurt you from
>all 5 positions.

These points have to do with talent, not fundamental basketball execution.
IU clearly has more frontline talent.  If the players were truly *creating*,
I suspect that you would see Bobby plunking them on the bench.  They work
within their system, but their talent gets them good shots more quickly.

>3. poise.  KU gets blown out.  don't expect IU to get blown out this year.

Define poise.  I'd call it the ability to continue to properly execute your
system in adverse circumstances.  Teams that lack poise fall apart when they
get behind.  KU has demonstrated poise in several games this year, including
the Indiana game.  In the Michigan game, they simply did not have the horses
to compete.  The LBSU game may in fact have demonstrated a lack of poise, but
it's hardly been a chronic problem this year.

Oh, and by the by, 1 and 2 are certainly not necessary to win a championship.
Georgetown basically did it with defense and nothing else, and North
Carolina was the most uncreative team you ever saw.

>Forgve me if I am suffering from a convenient lapse of memory, but I do not
>recall IU being as unprepared for a team as KU was for Long Beach State.

Oh, okay...  how about IU versus, say, Kansas in the '91 tournament?  IU  
was never in the game.  Granted, KU was a much better team than the above
examples, but IU was a solid favorite.

>>>P.s.  They still play uninterestingly, from a spectator's viewpoint, no
>>>matter what they do.  However, they should make thier uninteresting shots
>>>more often given the talent that they have.
>>
>>Now this is amusing.  Do you think IU is uninteresting as well?
>Frankly, if KU played as much like IU as you claim, and have as interesting
>people on the floor, I would be glad to root for three teams in the top 5.

First you say they play uninterestingly, then you say they are uninteresting
people.  From my perspective, these are different.  I can understand, even
agree, with the latter, but not the former.

>                     IU really has more in its arsenal than you alledge.

I never alleged anything about IU's "arsenal".  I simply said that they
played the same style of offense.  They clearly have more explosive front
line talent than KU.


Lastly, don't draw too much of a conclusion from last night.  When KU plays
well, they're tough for anyone.  They might very well bore you and
Indiana right out of the tournament.  If they meet again, I'd make it
a tossup.  I'd give Indiana better odds of getting to the round of eight,
though.


					Al
					alan@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.college