ISUr vs DePaul

[WSpringsBird]

Nice win and way to break the losing streak to DePaul.

Go Valley!

Go Shocks!!

We've won 3 straight now vs DePaul buddy

I think he was referring to our losing streak in games played at DePaul.

[Redbird23]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/viral/il ... vp-BBgO8Z4

final minute of play

[rlh04d]

Good win for ISUr.

I started to get really excited that it looks like we're going to have half of the conference with a top 100 RPI entering league play ... and then I realized 40% of the conference is worse than 270. The bottom half of the conference is going to destroy league RPI, again.

[Wufan]

Good win for ISUr.

I started to get really excited that it looks like we're going to have half of the conference with a top 100 RPI entering league play ... and then I realized 40% of the conference is worse than 270. The bottom half of the conference is going to destroy league RPI, again.

This is very similar to the AAC last year where Louisville, UConn, Cinci, Memphis, and SMU were all top 50 and the rest of the league was bottom 200. We are just a notch below that overall, but if the league can maintain separation, the sheer winning percentage and competition against other top level teams will push the RPI of two or three teams up to a level deserving of an at large. Best case scenerio for the MVC is for ISUr to win the conference with UNI second, WSU third, and UE fourth. UE wins in St Louis and we get 4 teams in the dance. Much more likely is WSU and UNI build at large resumes and everyone else is praying for a three game hot streak in St. Louis.

[Cdizzle]

Crazy, crazy game. Good job, ISUr. Definitely some talent on that team (we all guessed that), but they also appear to like each other a little more than the past couple of years and have some fight in them.

Hope none of the injuries are serious.

[rlh04d]

Good win for ISUr.

I started to get really excited that it looks like we're going to have half of the conference with a top 100 RPI entering league play ... and then I realized 40% of the conference is worse than 270. The bottom half of the conference is going to destroy league RPI, again.

This is very similar to the AAC last year where Louisville, UConn, Cinci, Memphis, and SMU were all top 50 and the rest of the league was bottom 200. We are just a notch below that overall, but if the league can maintain separation, the sheer winning percentage and competition against other top level teams will push the RPI of two or three teams up to a level deserving of an at large. Best case scenerio for the MVC is for ISUr to win the conference with UNI second, WSU third, and UE fourth. UE wins in St Louis and we get 4 teams in the dance. Much more likely is WSU and UNI build at large resumes and everyone else is praying for a three game hot streak in St. Louis.

If we maintain separation the way that those teams did (I don't believe any team other than SMU lost more than one game to a team outside of that group), we'll be good to go.

That separation only really matters if we have parity across the board in the Valley. Unfortunately, we always seem to with the middle six.

[BirdmanBB]

I think not holding on to the lead at home against VCU could end up burning the redbirds when everything is said and done. I do think if we can get one or two at home against WSU and/or UNI along with a record that finishes solidly in the top 3 of the conference with some separation, there's a solid chance to get 3 in. We seem to have a more balanced effort, so the loss of akoon-Purcell doesn't bother me too much. Just need some guys to pick up the slack and mature a little faster as players.

A win at Murray State would be nice, but the biggest difference I see in the birds this year is that they have a lot of fight in them and can hang and challenge/win games on the road. It's something we aren't used to seeing, so hopefully we see more of the same once conference play starts.

I still see WSU as the best team in this conference, but if we can challenge UNI for 2nd, i will be happy and hopefully we can end this NCAA tourney drought once and for all. Get in and you never know what can happen depending on matchups. The zone defense is very solid. We do a nice job of not letting teams in the interior. We will have trouble against good shooting teams unless we can play better man, which we don't go to that often. The game changer for this game was installing a solid press. We aren't VCU good at it, but apparently solid enough to create some turnovers when needed. It might be the difference this year in us beating good perimeter shooting teams. We don't go to it often, but it seems like we have the size and speed to execute it well. Which also kind of surprises me why we aren't that good at man.

[2livewu]

There are 2 reasons your team isn't good at man to man defense.

1)They are inexperienced as both individuals and as a group and 2) they aren't well coached.

It's much much easier to coach a zone.

I don't know why you aren't too concerned about losing DAP for a significant amount of time. He's a stud and a leader of this team. I think you'll be hard pressed to replace him against good teams.

I don't know what you mean when you talk about the VCU game "burning you"....can you expound upon that?

You're not talking about an NCAA at large birth are you?

[mathewson10]

There are 2 reasons your team isn't good at man to man defense.

1)They are inexperienced as both individuals and as a group and 2) they aren't well coached.

It's much much easier to coach a zone.

I don't know why you aren't too concerned about losing DAP for a significant amount of time. He's a stud and a leader of this team. I think you'll be hard pressed to replace him against good teams.

I don't know what you mean when you talk about the VCU game "burning you"....can you expound upon that?

You're not talking about an NCAA at large birth are you?

Jim Boeheim must not coach well since he prefers playing zone over man defense.

[Cdizzle]

I do not understand why ISUr does not play a man-to-man defense (other than the 2 reasons listed above). I believe it minimizes a couple of their strengths: great athleticism and great rebounding. Having both of those things makes a zone better, but it also makes playing a smothering man defense and destroying teams on the backboards possible. It seems like Muller is choosing to mask a weakness (poor team defense related to lack of experience together) instead of accentuating a strength (quickness and rebounding).

It reminds me of Coach Turgeon. Even in 2005 and 2006 when WSU had some really good teams, we would often hear things like "they went small so we had to go small." Never made sense to me. They went small and you have an all-league center, jam it down their throats. But I digress.