Gameday Thread: #4 Seed Baylor (22-9) vs #5 Seed ISU (18-12)

IowaBear said:

---

HS doesn't always equate to college talent relying on Walter and Little to carry us next year is a bad idea. We lose almost all of our scoring aside from Cryer. And as much I love LJs offensive game is defensive game is BRUTAL. This team needs to bring in a proven scorer from the portal. One who's both offensive and defensive minded.

---

Despite his defensive deficiencies, LJ will be our offensive alpha next year followed closely by Bridges who continues to make strides on both ends of the court and looks poised for a breakout next year. We will have a 3 guard rotation with Little and Walter starting alongside Cryer. Little and Walter bring much more size and defensive ability than our current backcourt, even as freshmen. Love and Grimes look like our first guards off the bench with hopefully Bonner returning if he uses his extra year of eligibility. Not sure if Love is what he is or if he's still rounding back into form from the ACL. This offseason will be big for him. Either way, Drew likes to keep a tight rotation so I highly doubt we bring in another guard from the portal unless Bonner leaves because our backcourt is already crowded.

What we need from the portal is a SF/PF hybrid with lenght, athleticism and defensive ability to rotate in with Bridges and to allow us to play bigger with just 2 guards on occasion. Crossing my fingers EJ will be a productive player again. I expect Josh O to make huge strides this offseason so I think those 2 will anchor the center position. We probably need to bring in another big from the portal as EJ health insurance. As mentioned millions of times, missing on the trio of Loveday/Turner/Lohner has crippled us. Our staff has done a marvelous job with smoke and mirrors doing their best to mask our weaknesses. Those roster spots need to be used for 1 or 2 portal guys and a diamond in the rough developmental guy willing to redshirt.

bear2be2 said:

---

edible_waffles said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Our one and done heavy teams can be brutal to watch. I liked our 2010 team infinitely more than our 2012 team. I liked our 2020 team way more than our 2022 team. One paper 2012 and 2022 have more recruiting star power.

It is nothing against the players, but like others have said, you can't mesh well or develop enough in a year. We won a national championship with 3 and 4 star players that stayed until their junior and senior seasons. We relied heavily on the transfer portal.

I understand the desire for the most talented players available but the one and done thing just doesn't work out that much. Kentucky is king of the one and dones and they have the same number of national championships as Baylor in the last 20 years. UT had Kevin freaking Durant and didn't make it to the Sweet Sixteen.

I think we are getting away from what elevated our program over the last 5 years.

---

Beyond even us, few national champions were freshman-oriented (2012 Kentucky and 2015 Duke are the only two that come to mind)

As mentioned, our most successful teams (2010, 2012, 2017, 2021) were all upperclassmen oriented. This is where we succeed the most and where we make our deep runs.

While McDonald's All-Americans and high-ranking AAU players are great grabs for us, a one-and-done culture is not optimal for our continued success

---

The worst part is having to rebuild your roster year after year after year.

One of the most fun parts of the 2021 run was seeing the years before culminate to that moment. That team grew together for years to get to that point.

Now we're re-shuffling the deck every year, and it's hard to build any continuity or consistency that way. All teams are going to have their distinct identities and traits, but when you're relying as heavily as we are on freshmen now, you're playing roulette every season.

---

Every college team in the nation has to pivot and shuffle the deck every year. It is reality.

I wish we would have scored more points yesterday.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I hope we score 85 or more today. That would be more than ISU can match, and would show the team is able to perform at their best in a tournament environment.

---

This is why I wanted 85 yesterday. If you look at the score projections, we have actually met the offense expectation. For example, we were projected to score 69 by KenPom, but scored 72. The problem is our defense has been allowing more than the projected score.

So we either have to find a way to improve our defense on no notice, or find a way to score more than expectations. We have the tools to do the second when we choose our shots well.

From the 2021 squad, I really miss:

- ridiculous rebounding
- chronic steals
- consistent fast breaks which actually score
- lazer accurate passing
- shot blocks
- stupid good ability to drive the paint and score off the top of the backboard
- more steals
- mark vitals dominance
- ball handling clinics
- ability to recover from mid game lull

Yeah, i feel like we check only one box above for about 1/2 of any game (at best).

bear2be2 said:

---

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

Lots of knee-jerk, globalizing overreactions on this thread, per usual.

Basketball is a game of matchups and we clearly match up HORRIBLY with this team.

That said, this result has absolutely nothing to do with our tournament chances (unless we have the misfortune of drawing ISU in our bracket).

Get back home, rest, recalibrate, and let's make a run in the only tournament that actually matters.

---

We match up horribly against every blue-collar team with Sweet 16 talent.

We saw it against Virginia, Marquette, Iowa State, K-State and TCU, which would have swept us if Miles had played in the rematch.

When we play gritty teams that attack the rim and hustle to the ball, we crater. And when things start going downhill, we fold like a cheap suit.

---

We used to be THAT team that frustrated opponents with stellar defense, relentless rebounding and gritty hustle. Seems to have completely evaporated from this team.

bear2be2 said:

---

historian said:

---

PaperBear89 said:

---

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

PaperBear89 said:

---

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

We have one coming in next year, and we were blessed to get him.

---

We'll see. I believe more in hungry dogs than fat cats.

---

You obviously don't know Ja'kobe Walter.

---

I stand by my statement, esepcially the "We'll see". College team sports recruiting is among the least scientific evaluations anybody can make about anything. It is judging a player on how they did against a bunch of boys who will be doing something else besides playing sports next year.

---

Some of the excitement we have over Ja'kobe is similar to our feelings last year over Keyonte & the year before over Sochan & Brown. Sometimes it works out (Sochan). Others it doesn't (some are disappointed with Keyonte).

---

The problem with freshman isn't the players. It's the stage you are getting those players at in their development.

I have nothing against Kendall Brown or Keyonte George personally. Or Quincy Miller, Perry Jones and Isaiah Austin before them. It's just that none of them were good enough as freshmen to make significant contributions to the program in a one-year investment scenario.

Fortunately, we got an extra year out of Jones and Austin. But if either had left after their freshman year, they'd have joined Brown and likely George as talented, but frustrating players who were part of disappointing teams in March. And if Quincy Miller had been leaned on as heavily as some of these other guys were or had been on a worse, less experienced team, he would have too.

---

I don't disagree. Most of these one & done freshmen have great talent but still CB oils use development. They also don't have the maturity as a rule. But no one is going to convince them of that & if an NBA team is willing to make them instant millionaires, you cannot blame them for taking it. Clearly, Jeremy Sochan is the exception.

All good points.

Unfortunately, BU Athletics (football, both M&W basketball) have been disappointing this year. Let the tournaments play out and hope next year is our year.

I know you realize, that team was not only the national champ from 2021 but an all-decade type team. We are complaining while comparing our current top 10 team which is very good, to an all-decade team.

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

edible_waffles said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

Our one and done heavy teams can be brutal to watch. I liked our 2010 team infinitely more than our 2012 team. I liked our 2020 team way more than our 2022 team. One paper 2012 and 2022 have more recruiting star power.

It is nothing against the players, but like others have said, you can't mesh well or develop enough in a year. We won a national championship with 3 and 4 star players that stayed until their junior and senior seasons. We relied heavily on the transfer portal.

I understand the desire for the most talented players available but the one and done thing just doesn't work out that much. Kentucky is king of the one and dones and they have the same number of national championships as Baylor in the last 20 years. UT had Kevin freaking Durant and didn't make it to the Sweet Sixteen.

I think we are getting away from what elevated our program over the last 5 years.

---

Beyond even us, few national champions were freshman-oriented (2012 Kentucky and 2015 Duke are the only two that come to mind)

As mentioned, our most successful teams (2010, 2012, 2017, 2021) were all upperclassmen oriented. This is where we succeed the most and where we make our deep runs.

While McDonald's All-Americans and high-ranking AAU players are great grabs for us, a one-and-done culture is not optimal for our continued success

---

The worst part is having to rebuild your roster year after year after year.

One of the most fun parts of the 2021 run was seeing the years before culminate to that moment. That team grew together for years to get to that point.

Now we're re-shuffling the deck every year, and it's hard to build any continuity or consistency that way. All teams are going to have their distinct identities and traits, but when you're relying as heavily as we are on freshmen now, you're playing roulette every season.

---

Every college team in the nation has to pivot and shuffle the deck every year. It is reality.

---

I'm not talking about pivoting. I'm talking about having to replace your highest usage player(s) every season. To suggest every college program does that is a lie.

We didn't in the build up to our national title. In fact, we haven't in the build up to any of our best seasons under Drew. Which is one reason I don't like this philosophical shift. We're abandoning a strategy that has worked in our program for one historically proven to be less likely to.

historian said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

historian said:

---

PaperBear89 said:

---

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

PaperBear89 said:

---

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

We have one coming in next year, and we were blessed to get him.

---

We'll see. I believe more in hungry dogs than fat cats.

---

You obviously don't know Ja'kobe Walter.

---

I stand by my statement, esepcially the "We'll see". College team sports recruiting is among the least scientific evaluations anybody can make about anything. It is judging a player on how they did against a bunch of boys who will be doing something else besides playing sports next year.

---

Some of the excitement we have over Ja'kobe is similar to our feelings last year over Keyonte & the year before over Sochan & Brown. Sometimes it works out (Sochan). Others it doesn't (some are disappointed with Keyonte).

---

The problem with freshman isn't the players. It's the stage you are getting those players at in their development.

I have nothing against Kendall Brown or Keyonte George personally. Or Quincy Miller, Perry Jones and Isaiah Austin before them. It's just that none of them were good enough as freshmen to make significant contributions to the program in a one-year investment scenario.

Fortunately, we got an extra year out of Jones and Austin. But if either had left after their freshman year, they'd have joined Brown and likely George as talented, but frustrating players who were part of disappointing teams in March. And if Quincy Miller had been leaned on as heavily as some of these other guys were or had been on a worse, less experienced team, he would have too.

---

I don't disagree. Most of these one & done freshmen have great talent but still CB oils use development. They also don't have the maturity as a rule. But no one is going to convince them of that & if an NBA team is willing to make them instant millionaires, you cannot blame them for taking it. Clearly, Jeremy Sochan is the exception.

---

I'm not saying they shouldn't leave. I'm contending we shouldn't make them a major part of our recruiting strategy. The return on investment is almost never there, particularly when compared to the opportunity lost by not giving that scholarship to a multi-year transfer or three- or four-year developmental player with high upside.

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

I know you realize, that team was not only the national champ from 2021 but an all-decade type team. We are complaining while comparing our current top 10 team which is very good, to an all-decade team.

---

BU teams before the NC team played that way too

Alf said:

---

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

I know you realize, that team was not only the national champ from 2021 but an all-decade type team. We are complaining while comparing our current top 10 team which is very good, to an all-decade team.

---

BU teams before the NC team played that way too

---

I don't think this year's team would beat any of the Baylor teams that advanced to the Sweet 16 or beyond. Or last year's team, which got bounced in the Round of 32.

Our current ranking and projected seeding are the products of playing in the best conference in America, not necessarily what we've put on film week to week. We have some really nice wins, but we're a sub-.500 team against other good teams this season, and most of the losses were decided by the final media timeout or before.

"we're a sub-.500 team against other good teams this season"

False. Baylor is 15-10 in Quad 1 and 2 games this season.

Oldbear83 said:

---

"we're a sub-.500 team against other good teams this season"

False. Baylor is 15-10 in Quad 1 and 2 games this season.

---

I don't consider the bottom four of the Big 12 to be good teams. The NET rankings do.

The only good teams we've played this year IMO are ...

Virginia L
UCLA W
Marquette L
Gonzaga W
Iowa State L
TCU L
Kansas State L
Arkansas W
Kansas W
Texas L
TCU W
Kansas L
Kansas State L
Texas W
Iowa State L
Iowa State L

That puts us at 6-10 in those games. And even if you want to add in West Virginia, the only non-bubble team not on my good teams list, we're still sub-.500 at 8-10.

This Baylor team isn't nearly as good as the NET rankings would have you believe.

If the committee uses Net rankings for seeding, doesn't that mean the bottom teams in the Big 12 are still good teams? With all due respect, whether or not you (or I or any of us) consider WVU, OU, etc good doesn't matter if the committee seeding the tournament thinks they are.

The whole point is that the Big 12 is a whole lot better than any other conference. Our bottom teams are much better than the bottom of any other league. They are more comparable to the middle of the pack for Big 10, SEC, etc.

bear2be2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"we're a sub-.500 team against other good teams this season"

False. Baylor is 15-10 in Quad 1 and 2 games this season.

---

I don't consider the bottom four of the Big 12 to be good teams. The NET rankings do.

The only good teams we've played this year IMO are ...

Virginia L
UCLA W
Marquette L
Gonzaga W
Iowa State L
TCU L
Kansas State L
Arkansas W
Kansas W
Texas L
TCU W
Kansas L
Kansas State L
Texas W
Iowa State L
Iowa State L

That puts us at 6-10 in those games. And even if you want to add in West Virginia, the only non-bubble team not on my good teams list, and we're still sub-.500 at 8-10.

This Baylor team isn't nearly as good as the NET rankings would have you believe.

---

Total BS.

A team is not good or not just because you like it or not. The whole purpose of NET rankings is to have objective measures.

Baylor has 11 Quad 1 wins, exceeded only by Kansas.

That makes Baylor a really good team by OBJECTIVE definition.

The Bears are 11-8 against what every expert calls the best and toughest conference in college basketball this year.

That also DEFINES Baylor as a really good team.

You want to stomp your feet and whine, you go ahead.

But you look the fool pretending Baylor is not a good team, you look spiteful by pretending you did more to win than they did.

And by the way,, our last place team, Oklahoma, beat the snot out of top SEC seed Alabama when they played them this season.

So maybe the NET rankings are paying attention to things you missed.

Oldbear83 said:

---

And by the way,, our last place team, Oklahoma, beat the snot out of top SEC seed Alabama when they played them this season.

So maybe the NET rankings are paying attention to things you missed.

---

And finished three games under .500 for the season.

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech are competent teams. They're not good teams.

None are in the top 40 in the NET rankings and they combined to go 17-39 in Quad 1 games and 7-8 in Quad 2 games.

If sweeping those teams, none of which are likely to make the tournament field, makes you feel better about our team, great. Doing so says absolutely nothing of our team's ability to compete in the Round of 32 and beyond.

historian said:

---

If the committee uses Net rankings for seeding, doesn't that mean the bottom teams in the Big 12 are still good teams? With all due respect, whether or not you (or I or any of us) consider WVU, OU, etc good doesn't matter if the committee seeding the tournament thinks they are.

The whole point is that the Big 12 is a whole lot better than any other conference. Our bottom teams are much better than the bottom of any other league. They are more comparable to the middle of the pack for Big 10, SEC, etc.

---

I understand what the committee does. But that doesn't change the fact that I don't think this Baylor team is as good as its resume.

We're capable of beating good teams and have shown that. We don't do it consistently. And when we lose, we usually get blown out.

bear2be2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

And by the way,, our last place team, Oklahoma, beat the snot out of top SEC seed Alabama when they played them this season.

So maybe the NET rankings are paying attention to things you missed.

---

And finished three games under .500 for the season.

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech are competent teams. They're not good teams.

None are in the top 40 in the NET rankings and they combined to go 17-39 in Quad 1 games and 7-8 in Quad 2 games.

If sweeping those teams, none of which are likely to make the tournament field, makes you feel better about our team, great. Doing so says absolutely nothing of our team's ability to compete in the Round of 32 and beyond.

---

Go hide in your room, then. The actual fans will enjoy seeing Baylor play again in the NCAA Tournament.

So because Bear2 doesn't believe OU, Tech, OSU are good teams (they aren't) he's not a BU fan?? Boy that's reaching if I've ever seen it

Oldbear83 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

And by the way,, our last place team, Oklahoma, beat the snot out of top SEC seed Alabama when they played them this season.

So maybe the NET rankings are paying attention to things you missed.

---

And finished three games under .500 for the season.

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech are competent teams. They're not good teams.

None are in the top 40 in the NET rankings and they combined to go 17-39 in Quad 1 games and 7-8 in Quad 2 games.

If sweeping those teams, none of which are likely to make the tournament field, makes you feel better about our team, great. Doing so says absolutely nothing of our team's ability to compete in the Round of 32 and beyond.

---

Go hide in your room, then. The actual fans will enjoy seeing Baylor play again in the NCAA Tournament.

---

Everyone is glad we're back in the NCAA tournament. And everyone here hopes we play well wherever we're sent. That doesn't require us to delude ourselves into believing this team is something it's not. Nor does it make those who aren't enamored with this team bad Baylor fans.

"when we lose, we usually get blown out."

Well, let's see.

Loss #1: away game vs Virginia, lost by 7. No blowout

Loss #2: away game vs Marquette, lost by 26 (Blowout 1)

Loss #3: at Iowa State, lost by 15 ((Blowout 2)

Loss #4: vs TCU, lost by 1 point, definitely not a blowout

Loss #5: vs Kansas State, Overtime lost by 2 points, definitely not a blowout.

Loss #6: at Texas, lost by 5, not a blowout.

Loss #7: at Kansas, lost by 16 (Blowout #3)

Loss #8: vs Iowa State, lost by 15 (Blowout #4)

Loss #9: away game, lost by 6 to Iowa State, not a blowout.

So we had four bad losses.

For context, consider these games in this season:

Kansas at home vs TCU lost 60-83
Kansas at Iowa State, lost 53-68 (15 points, huh?)

Texas at home vs Kansas State, lost 103-116
Texas at Iowa State, lost 67-78

Kansas State at TCU, lost 68-82
Kansas State at Kansas, lost 78-90
Kansas State at Oklahoma, lost 65-79
Kansas State vs TCU yesterday, lost 67-80

Those are the top 3 Big 12 teams this year. Only a moron would suggest they are not good teams.

Baylor is a good team, using the very same standards used for everyone else.

bear2be2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

And by the way,, our last place team, Oklahoma, beat the snot out of top SEC seed Alabama when they played them this season.

So maybe the NET rankings are paying attention to things you missed.

---

And finished three games under .500 for the season.

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech are competent teams. They're not good teams.

None are in the top 40 in the NET rankings and they combined to go 17-39 in Quad 1 games and 7-8 in Quad 2 games.

If sweeping those teams, none of which are likely to make the tournament field, makes you feel better about our team, great. Doing so says absolutely nothing of our team's ability to compete in the Round of 32 and beyond.

---

Go hide in your room, then. The actual fans will enjoy seeing Baylor play again in the NCAA Tournament.

---

Everyone is glad we're back in the NCAA tournament. And everyone here hopes we play well wherever we're sent. That doesn't require us to delude ourselves into believing this team is something it's not. Nor does it make those who aren't enamored with this team bad Baylor fans.

---

There is a huge difference between recognizing the limits of this team, and trashing players/coaches out of spite.

Plain fact is that we could lose in the second round or have a deep run depending on who we play.

But some folks need to own their poor choice of words, not that they will have the guts to do so.

Oldbear83 said:

---

"when we lose, we usually get blown out."

Well, let's see.

Loss #1: away game vs Virginia, lost by 7. No blowout

Loss #2: away game vs Marquette, lost by 26 (Blowout 1)

Loss #3: at Iowa State, lost by 15 ((Blowout 2)

Loss #4: vs TCU, lost by 1 point, definitely not a blowout

Loss #5: vs Kansas State, Overtime lost by 2 points, definitely not a blowout.

Loss #6: at Texas, lost by 5, not a blowout.

Loss #7: at Kansas, lost by 16 (Blowout #3)

Loss #8: vs Iowa State, lost by 15 (Blowout #4)

Loss #9: away game, lost by 6 to Iowa State, not a blowout.

So we had four bad losses.

For context, consider these games in this season:

Kansas at home vs TCU lost 60-83
Kansas at Iowa State, lost 53-68 (15 points, huh?)

Texas at home vs Kansas State, lost 103-116
Texas at Iowa State, lost 67-78

Kansas State at TCU, lost 68-82
Kansas State at Kansas, lost 78-90
Kansas State at Oklahoma, lost 65-79
Kansas State vs TCU yesterday, lost 67-80

Those are the top 3 Big 12 teams this year. Only a moron would suggest they are not good teams.

Baylor is a good team, using the very same standards used for everyone else.

---

As usual, superficial analysis.

Against Virginia, we were down 22 points with less than 10 minutes remaining and 13 with 2:39 to play. I don't care what the final scores says. We got run off the court.

Against Iowa State on Thursday, we were down 12 with 2:33 to play. Again, I don't care what the final scores after a garbage time rally. That game was not competitive after ISU started its second-half run.

You somehow disappeared the second Kansas State loss, in which we were outscored by 13 in the second half and were never closer than nine in the final 10 minutes. Again, not a competitive effort.

This team has been dominated in seven of its 10 losses -- all of which were decided by the final media timeout. And four of those have come in the last six games -- all with our projected starting five on the court to finish the game.

If you believe this is a great team, good for you. Nothing I've seen from it this year leads me to agree with you. This is a good team, but it is a deeply flawed one with a limited ceiling in March. I'll set my expectations, you set yours. I'll be surprised and thrilled if this team makes it to the Sweet 16.

Oldbear83 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

And by the way,, our last place team, Oklahoma, beat the snot out of top SEC seed Alabama when they played them this season.

So maybe the NET rankings are paying attention to things you missed.

---

And finished three games under .500 for the season.

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech are competent teams. They're not good teams.

None are in the top 40 in the NET rankings and they combined to go 17-39 in Quad 1 games and 7-8 in Quad 2 games.

If sweeping those teams, none of which are likely to make the tournament field, makes you feel better about our team, great. Doing so says absolutely nothing of our team's ability to compete in the Round of 32 and beyond.

---

Go hide in your room, then. The actual fans will enjoy seeing Baylor play again in the NCAA Tournament.

---

Everyone is glad we're back in the NCAA tournament. And everyone here hopes we play well wherever we're sent. That doesn't require us to delude ourselves into believing this team is something it's not. Nor does it make those who aren't enamored with this team bad Baylor fans.

---

There is a huge difference between recognizing the limits of this team, and trashing players/coaches out of spite.

Plain fact is that we could lose in the second round or have a deep run depending on who we play.

But some folks need to own their poor choice of words, not that they will have the guts to do so.

---

Who exactly is trashing players and coaches out of spite? There's nothing at all wrong with sober analysis on a fan site. I've known what this team was since the Marquette game. It's too soft on the defensive end and too inconstant on offense to make a deep tournament run. I hope it surprises me. I don't think it will.

"As usual, superficial analysis."

Nope, just solid facts in context

You quit on the team, noted.

See you next year..

Oldbear83 said:

---

"As usual, superficial analysis."

Nope, just solid facts in context

You quit on the team, noted.

See you next year..

---

I'm remembering now why I just usually don't even engage with your nonsense. It's sad to see a grown man who is incapable of having a reasoned, adult discussion with those who disagree with him.

bear2be2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"As usual, superficial analysis."

Nope, just solid facts in context

You quit on the team, noted.

See you next year..

---

I'm remembering now why I just usually don't even engage with your nonsense. It's sad to see a grown man who is incapable of having a reasoned, adult discussion with those who disagree with him.

---

I don't cotton to people who whine and ***** and moan because they can't enjoy a 20+ win season and a national ranking, because serious fans won't join them in dissing the team for a loss to a good opponent.