Wrap up from KC

[vbird53]

5. The Shockers were 4-17 from 3. Was the shot selection good?

There is a huge difference in the definition of good shot selection. If you're asking, "Were the players open enough to shoot the ball?", then the answer is yes. The players taking the 3s were open. However, if you're asking, "Were the correct players shooting the correct 3s at the correct time", then the answer is no.

Too many times, the Shocks are just way too quick to take a shot, and in many cases the wrong individual is taking the shot, just because he's open. Well, he's probably open for a reason--note 4-17 from 3.

6. Cousinard has always been foul prone. Many of his fouls are just plain dumb. How about Saturday night. Did he commit any dumb fouls, like reaching.

There is absolutely no reason to face guard an opponent 30 feet from the basket. Couisnard is up in their face 30 feet from the basket. There is a reason that defenses sag off a little, and man-up as the opponent closes in on the basket.

[ABC]

I have some questions for someone, who attended the game as follows:

1. How did UMKC manage 9 steals and the Shockers had none.

2. Clemente was 0-7. Why? Blocked shots? Poor shot selection? Fouled, but not called? Just plain ole poor shooting?

3. Ellis played 29 minutes, but only shot 3 times. I know he did a nice job on Brumagin, but how about the rest of his game? I am with Dr. Wu. The potential.

4. Wendell is a very fine person, but he cannot put the ball in the hole. How about Bret? Does he shoot well?

5. The Shockers were 4-17 from 3. Was the shot selection good?

6. Cousinard has always been foul prone. Many of his fouls are just plain dumb. How about Saturday night. Did he commit any dumb fouls, like reaching.

Observation:

The combination of fouls and turnovers by the Shockers was 40.

The combination of fouls and turnovers by UMKC was 30.

One more question:

Is it permissible to split basketball scholarships like baseball scholarships?

1. WSU had many, many lazy passes. The cross court kind that a junior team can intercept.
2. Poor shooting and poor shot selection. UMKC did block several WSU shots right under the basket. Not sure if it was Ramon.
3. Ellis: didn't notice him much. Very quiet game.
4. I know nothing about Bret.
5. 3 point shot selection was okay. MB took at least one that was too deep though. Mantis had 2 or 3 that looked like they were right on line and didn't drop.
6. Lots of reaching fouls by PJ; reaching at his man while his man was blowing by him.

[jdmee]

One more question:

Is it permissible to split basketball scholarships like baseball scholarships?

No.

[Ixiah]

I'd agree with everything you just said, except the last part. UMKC is not good. They aren't even close to mid-level MVC. They are bottom level Summit. You can't hide the fact that they've lost 4 in a row, including both conference games, Eastern Washington and Northern Arizona. They are 10th in a 1 bid league.



BTW, where does that put us.

UMKC had a player that just became eligible with the Shox game (kind of like the Dec. Orupke situation was shaping up to be). Not trying to put a good spin on a bad loss but perhaps UMKC is just a bad loss rather then the horrid one some are making out to be.

[Maggie]

I do not think you can sugarcoat it or make excuses. The player that became eligible for UMKC is an ok player but he is no All-American.

[jocoshock]

People can trash UMKC all they want, but they won and that's the bottom line.

There were two halves to the game. We won the first half, and they won the second by a larger margin than we won the first.

They had all of the intensity, focus and (e)MOTION in the second half. They won.

Doesn't matter where they would finish in the MVC. But again, their next game is against Northern Iowa, so that game should tell US where UMKC might land in the MVC, and where we might land as well....