It's "...", not ",,,", dummy.

He tried every defensive option available and nothing slowed them. Man2man, zone, switch on picks, don't switch on picks, full court press, half court press. Nothing slowed down their shooting. It was one of those nights, just like Kansas and UNC experienced. It happens. Every team has one of those games. Sometimes you just have to tip your cap yo the other team. We simply didnt match up well with them. Our big line hurt us more defensively than it helped offensively.

They tried EVERYTHING during that game. It was not solely switching on picks.

GoodAg Paulie said:

---

They tried EVERYTHING during that game. It was not solely switching on picks.

---

game was over after 5 minutes.

loyola Chicago seemed to play much better defense. Hell everyone did. Michigan was shooting so freely. I'm just glad other teams shot well so you can use it as evidence that BK did a good job.

I bet UNC isn't happy about Roys coaching on that game. However, Roy is an all time great with titles so it's not at the same level as what Kennedy gets.

Double Diamond said:

---

I bet UNC isn't happy about Roys coaching on that game. However, Roy is an all time great with titles so it's not at the same level as what Kennedy gets.

---

But he's not a good coach without the burger boys.

Had everything to do with coaching. Roy refused to do anything to make it harder to get the ball into Davis. Just allowed easy entries into Davis.

Michigan was 100% on allowing them anything they wanted. They got comfortable and got hot. Loyola made things much harder on them and amazingly they didn't get hot.

Hilarious that Paulie thinks there is nothing we could have done to beat michigan and nothing Carolina could have done to beat us. We lost to michigan by 30. We went up against a coach known for being an offensive guru, one of the best 5 offensive coaches in basketball. We didn't lose because they were hotter than normal. We lost because they had a better game plan. Their game plan allowed them to win by 30 on a hot nite but if they had shot "normally" they still would have won by 12+.

Coaches do nothing during games.

correct - colder shooting for them would have still resulted in a 9-14 point win for UM....however who knows what that confidence building shooting streak did to both sides early. Could have been different - we'll never know.

They were unprepared and they did all the wrong things. You telling me Roy didn't do a good job doesn't mean BK did.

It's without an elite PG. Get the troll right, please.

Double Diamond said:

---

I bet UNC isn't happy about Roys coaching on that game. However, Roy is an all time great with titles so it's not at the same level as what Kennedy gets.

---

Roy did a horrible job against us (and we played great, too). It does not validate in any way what BK does in other games.

Roy has the skins on the wall though to overlook a bad game or too. I would contend that was the worst coached NCAA game of his hall of fame career. They overlooked very simple stuff to slow us down.

UNC just does like Missouri did and they win easily.

Mich shooting 16% from 3 vs Nova so far.

Just one of those nights your opponent did everything wrong and you ended up with a million open jumpers.

Turns out if you defend the 3 pt line, it's harder to make shots.

Montana, UH, FSU, Loyola, and Villanova must all be really good at defending the 3 then. Michigan averaged 25% from 3 in those 5 games. Or maybe it was an odd night where they shot 58% in one game partly due to lack of defensive adjustments and partly due to just being lucky everything goes in when that is clearly not the norm.

Yep. Pretty simple.

All those teams defend the 3 incredibly well except for A&M...... good grief

No, the numbers I posted support the "we had an absolutely horrific game plan" theory. If we played them 6 times with the same defensive strategy they'd drop at least 80 on us every single time. Yes they WERE hitting shots at a crazy rate......some silly little part of me attributes that to tons of open looks. Maybe that's just me.

When your scheme puts defenders in the wrong spot. You teach defense this way for seven years you'll have games were you get burnt by it and other games you don't.

I'm sure you'll all nitpick the data or kill the messenger, but ALL the data collected on the 3 point defense tells the same story. The best three point defenses result in a 3% difference in 3 point field goal %. Yep THREE. Sometimes they just make shots and sometimes they miss. The best 3 point defense remains and has always been the prevention of allowing the shots to go up in the first place.

One game is an abysmally poor sample size. That's why to get meaningful results good basketball is played in a 7 game series.

Links:
https://kenpom.com/blog/3point-defense-should-not-be-defined-by-opponents-3p/

https://kenpom.com/blog/one-last-post-on-3p-defense/

Problem with data is you can twist it and make it say something else.

Leaving shooters wide open will hurt you at some point. This doesn't mean you can't have a good defense, as again numbers, maybe you hit a string of games against teams who don't shoot well or don't that day. But it'll get you at some point. Florida and Michigan both are teams who typically do not shoot threes very well. However, both teams like to shoot threes. While maybe it wasn't the Aggies day when facing them. Or maybe leaving people wide open due to scheme and players who are allowed to free lance made things easier these days.

I suggest you go watch how Gillispies teams guarded the three. People weren't left open, players weren't over playing or doing any number of stupid things due to this Kennedy insistence on over playing and helping.