Game thread for NU @ Michigan
- Thread starter mshelton33
- Start date
Our lack of Big Ten level depth in the frontcourt was on full display today.
When Nicholson had to go to the bench so early, that made it pretty likely that Beran would also end up in foul trouble.
And we have no legitimate size besides those two.
Michigan beat us when they started using two big guys and we couldn't counter.
This should help enlighten those who scoffed about the negative impact of Luke Hunger's injury.
When Nicholson had to go to the bench so early, that made it pretty likely that Beran would also end up in foul trouble.
And we have no legitimate size besides those two.
Michigan beat us when they started using two big guys and we couldn't counter.
This should help enlighten those who scoffed about the negative impact of Luke Hunger's injury.
Ok my bad, I missed your context. Probably because I was blinded by my frustration with him.
Small ball helped us in the first. It was driven be Mats 2 fouls.
But that was a fluke. I feel like I’ve stated this opinion a million times, but small ball works with physical and athletic perimeter players. That’s not us.
So later Howard, instead of matching small, plays big. We lost. He still sucks
Here is what I tell my twelve year old and his teammates (not a guarantee they listen): an open shot is a good shot choice—provided it’s within your range. I tell Little H (Canute) that his range ends where he can’t make at least 40%. He wants to shoot the 3, but he knows what dad will say when that happens.
I think very highly of Robbie Hummel as an analyst. He is usually right on it...
In this case, his praise of the small ball lineup was reasonable, but he chose to interpret that as a knock on Nicholson, who played a good game overall, while his teammates were playing very poorly at the start of the game. I think the success of the small ball lineup might be more easily explained by crediting Barnhizer, who got off the bench and played well. (Lately Barnhizer has only been out there as Beran's backup, playing with Verhoeven - he deserves more than that).
Barnhizer - 4 of 8 shooting. 10 points, 5 rebounds, 3 assists, 2 steals, 1 turnover. 26 minutes.
Nicholson - 5 of 5 shooting. 13 points, 5 rebounds, no assists or turnovers, 19 minutes.
In this case, his praise of the small ball lineup was reasonable, but he chose to interpret that as a knock on Nicholson, who played a good game overall, while his teammates were playing very poorly at the start of the game. I think the success of the small ball lineup might be more easily explained by crediting Barnhizer, who got off the bench and played well. (Lately Barnhizer has only been out there as Beran's backup, playing with Verhoeven - he deserves more than that).
Barnhizer - 4 of 8 shooting. 10 points, 5 rebounds, 3 assists, 2 steals, 1 turnover. 26 minutes.
Nicholson - 5 of 5 shooting. 13 points, 5 rebounds, no assists or turnovers, 19 minutes.
Last edited:
IMO the question the small ball raises today is not whether it’s a good way for us to play or not. Last year should give us a good idea of the results.
The question it raises, in my mind, is if it’s preferable over using Verhoeven. In other words, it raises the question if Matt’s replacement at 5 should be Beran. It’s not great, but perhaps better than using Verhoeven. In effect, it would transfer most of Verhoeven’s minutes to Barnhizer.
Barnhizer is so physically overmatched playing as a 4, but he makes up for it with his grit. Today was his first B1G game in double figures scoring (second career).
The downside is that Beran is *also* overmatched as a five. He was in more foul trouble than I recall this season.
The downside is that Beran is *also* overmatched as a five. He was in more foul trouble than I recall this season.
It might work, but introducing it against one of the premier centers in the B1G is probably not the best. Not blaming Collins here, he did it out of necessity.
You should probably complain to Cappy about the personal attacks...oh, wait...
I wonder why, if contact is made only after the shot is released, a shooting foul is called.
Because it alters the shot. Not every time, but if your brain realizes you are going to be touched, your shot will come out differently.
Back in the day there were guys who, after a shot, would shove their forearm into a shooter's chest, just to send a message and try to get the shooter to rush the next one.
Additionally, what contact would be allowed after the release? Maybe a tackle is too much, but where is the line drawn?
When you can't tell if there was actually any contact or if it was a flop.
If I see a 3-point-shooter fall on his *** after maybe his hand was touched, I don't want to reward that.
If you make contact with a three=point shooter at all, that means you are in his airspace. That can be potentially very dangerous and should always be a foul, even if the shooter didn't land on you.
Flops are a disgrace. And I think it's positive they are cracking down on it.
But what you are describing is a... flop... if you can't see contact, it's a flop. You don't whistle maybes.
That would be a foul but not a shooting foul; the referee would decide if the amount of contact warrants a foul
I don't like the flop call rule. It puts too much of the onus on the referee. He has to decide if there is a foul and then decide if there is a flop, two potentially game changing calls in one brief moment. Who cares if the shooter falls down after the shot (Boo does it after most drives to the basket)? It's the foul call (or not) that counts.
The flop matters because if the ref rewards guys who flop, more guys will flop, which means more and more bodies cluttering up the floor on plays risking incidental injury and other problems.
I'd also like to see charging calls on the guys who like to leap into other players and then toss the ball towards the net so we can maybe decrease that stupid play style.
I'd also like to see charging calls on the guys who like to leap into other players and then toss the ball towards the net so we can maybe decrease that stupid play style.