BG rolled by Temple, 72-55

BGSU33 · Post by **BGSU33** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 4:00 pm

It was tied at 31 at the halftime, but we were blown out in the second half. Miller led the way for us with 21 points and 7 rebounds but Knight (2) and Hamblet (4) combined for just 6 points on 3-21 shooting (0-8 from three). Ouch! Temple’s duo of Christmas (20 points, 7 rebounds) and Tyndale (19 points, 8 rebounds, 6 assists) were just too much for us.

We’ve gotta put this one behind us and get ready for Furman. Any loss hurts, but with the non-conference games and the state of our program, I pretty much look at them as contests for which we can hopefully prepare ourselves for the MAC season. Five to ten years ago, a game like this would sting bad because we had thoughts of at-large bids. Those days are still down the road for us. Right now, we're day-to-day. Don't hang your head guys, learn from it and get ready for the next game. One game at a time....

Falcon137 · Post by **Falcon137** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 4:42 pm

I would be upset but I knew Temple was better and that the 1-3 record was deceptive. BG is a better team than their opponent the next 3 games...we NEED to win the next 3 to get ready for the MAC.

The only thing that bothers me is that this is a Temple team that was picked to finish in the lower end of the A10 this year. If this program wants to continue to grow we need to win or at least put forth a better showing than today.

Based on what happened today I would say this BG needs to play much better if they want to go .500 in the MAC.

FalconTurf · Post by **FalconTurf** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:41 pm

Today 2 main areas of concern were evident: outside shooting and inside presence. We had neither today. Glimpes of both but nothing consistent. Forutunately Temple had little inside either although I would guess we were out rebounded badly despite their 7 footer being in foul trouble the whole game and quite ineffective himself.

This team shows potential but at-large bids are something for power conferences and all that matters is that we are playing our best ball in the MAC tournament. Win and in, lose and forget it. The rest of the season only determines your seed.

I don't know if this team has a tourney run in them but eventually Coach Orr will build one.

Falcon137 · Post by **Falcon137** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 6:28 pm

FalconTurf wrote:Today 2 main areas of concern were evident: outside shooting and inside presence. We had neither today. Glimpes of both but nothing consistent. Forutunately Temple had little inside either although I would guess we were out rebounded badly despite their 7 footer being in foul trouble the whole game and quite ineffective himself.

This team shows potential but at-large bids are something for power conferences and all that matters is that we are playing our best ball in the MAC tournament. Win and in, lose and forget it. The rest of the season only determines your seed.

I don't know if this team has a tourney run in them but eventually Coach Orr will build one.

I'm not quite sure why you think BG and the rest of the MAC is playing non conference games for no reason. To say the rest of the season is for show and the only thing that matters is the MAC tourny is a pretty bleak outlook. Why even play the season? This program or conference will never progress if we keep the attitude that the MAC will get one bid and that BG's only shot is to win the MAC. Especially now, with the NIT and new post season tourny.

Look at Miami, they beat Xavier (ranked 26 at the time) hung tough with a very good USC and plays Dayton at home this week a game I think they will win. They don't think their playing for MAC seeding and that only power conferences deserve multiple bids. This isn't the SWAC, MEAC, or MAAC.

BleedOrange · Post by **BleedOrange** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:37 pm

Falcon137 wrote:I would be upset but I knew Temple was better and that the 1-3 record was deceptive. BG is a better team than their opponent the next 3 games...we NEED to win the next 3 to get ready for the MAC.

The only thing that bothers me is that this is a Temple team that was picked to finish in the lower end of the A10 this year. If this program wants to continue to grow we need to win or at least put forth a better showing than today.

Based on what happened today I would say this BG needs to play much better if they want to go .500 in the MAC.

Temple definitely was far better than their 1-3 record, and Christmas is an exquisite basketball player. The executed the offense very well, moved the ball, and played as a team. They looked well coached. Temple is no lower-end A-10 team. That pick is just hogwash. We lost to a darn good basketball team today.

When you really look at it, did we play badly or just shoot badly? Our turnovers, rebounds, and personal fouls, and overall floor game was good. We were able to get good shots without draining the shot clock. We just didn't make them, especially in the second half.

We didn't have a post presence in our half court sets. The team was reluctant to feed Larson when posting up. Beyond that, Chris Knight AGAIN was a complete no-show. That kid played with no intensity what so ever. The box score has him with 8 boards but it seemed like he had two or three. He does nothing off the ball except set a few weak picks. His shot attempts were feeble. In the last two home games, Knight has looked like an extremely mediocre MAC forward. We really could've used a performance from him today, but we got NOTHING. If Knight continues to play like that, it's fair to say that we're in dire need for Marcshall to come back from his injury and provide some energy inside.

Otis Polk had 1 foul in 10 minutes and looked very effective while he was in. It is too bad that we didn't play him more today. He made a difference while in.

TG1996 · Post by **TG1996** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:26 pm

BleedOrange wrote:When you really look at it, did we play badly or just shoot badly? Our turnovers, rebounds, and personal fouls, and overall floor game was good. We were able to get good shots without draining the shot clock. We just didn't make them, especially in the second half.

You're right, we couldn't get anything to fall in the second half. We didn't always get the best shot off, which doesn't help, but there were times when we'd make the moves, the passes, and the cuts, and not get it to fall. Once it got up to a 12-15 point lead, there were points where I thought the guys looked somewhat fatigued/disinterested, but they scrapped to the end, even when it was definitely out of reach.

renorvis · Post by **renorvis** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 9:09 pm

This was a wake up call to the BG players. This game showed what will happen if you don't rebound and play with intensity for all forty minutes. The guys shouldn't hang their head over this loss but I know they would have preferred a win. There is still hope for a great season and tournament berth bid. Chris Knight couldn't get going this game but I wouldn't say he is a mediocre MAC forward. Remember he is a freshman and will have an up and down season until he gets a flow going in the college game. The Cincy tournament was only a glimpse of what he can do. Once he has become comfortable with the college basketball season he will be fine. As for the rest of the team I am pretty sure that the coaching staff will go back to drawing board and go back to the basics to get the Falcons back on board.

FalconTurf · Post by **FalconTurf** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 9:21 pm

Falcon137 wrote:
FalconTurf wrote:Today 2 main areas of concern were evident: outside shooting and inside presence. We had neither today. Glimpes of both but nothing consistent. Forutunately Temple had little inside either although I would guess we were out rebounded badly despite their 7 footer being in foul trouble the whole game and quite ineffective himself.

This team shows potential but at-large bids are something for power conferences and all that matters is that we are playing our best ball in the MAC tournament. Win and in, lose and forget it. The rest of the season only determines your seed.

I don't know if this team has a tourney run in them but eventually Coach Orr will build one.
I'm not quite sure why you think BG and the rest of the MAC is playing non conference games for no reason. To say the rest of the season is for show and the only thing that matters is the MAC tourny is a pretty bleak outlook. Why even play the season? This program or conference will never progress if we keep the attitude that the MAC will get one bid and that BG's only shot is to win the MAC. Especially now, with the NIT and new post season tourny.

Look at Miami, they beat Xavier (ranked 26 at the time) hung tough with a very good USC and plays Dayton at home this week a game I think they will win. They don't think their playing for MAC seeding and that only power conferences deserve multiple bids. This isn't the SWAC, MEAC, or MAAC.

Deserve more the one bid in the MAC? Definately but the reality as seen in BG is that the MAC tournament is the only sure fire way in. Regardless of how you do in the regular season everyone has an opportunity. The season matters for seeding in MAC tourney and if you win that then they will go back on your body of work for the big dance. Hate to sound negative but rarely do 2 teams from the MAC dance in the tournament. Rather than hoping and wishing to get invited there is one guarenteed route to dance and that is by MAC tournament championship.

And yes I've seen the MAC do this well and better against the non-conf. opponents and I've have argued multiple teams deserved an invite. The fact is that our representatives must win in both tournaments (now all 3) regularly before we get multiple conference invitations. It appears to me that early season victories and moral victories mean little........AND I DON"T LIKE IT EITHER! (But what the MAC fans think really doesn't matter to the committee)

Falconfreak90 · Post by **Falconfreak90** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 9:27 pm

There will be growing pains with the new staff and figuring things out. Sounds like no shots were going down for us in that 2nd half.

Keep fighting and this team will go places.

cowboyjoe · Post by **cowboyjoe** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 9:31 pm

Bad shooting day...period. Don't read that much into it. Hamblet and Knight will not have many of these kinds of days.

factman · Post by **factman** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 9:39 pm

The one thing I REALLY disliked was hanging their heads and walking back to the huddle at timeouts, once we got down. They looked that a puppy that had just peed on the carpet and someone took a newspaper to them! We need some leadership to nip that in the bud NOW!!!

cowboyjoe · Post by **cowboyjoe** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 9:43 pm

Right on Factman. Mostly Hamblet and Knight, too....wait...they were the ones having bad offensive days!! Wow.. wonder if that's a coincidence?

renorvis · Post by **renorvis** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:00 pm

I have a question and anyone can answer this; why are our guards not getting the ball in the post more? Chris Knight had a lot of mismatches this game did not get the ball? Anyone notice?

Falcon137 · Post by **Falcon137** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:39 pm

BleedOrange wrote:
Temple definitely was far better than their 1-3 record, and Christmas is an exquisite basketball player. The executed the offense very well, moved the ball, and played as a team. They looked well coached. Temple is no lower-end A-10 team. That pick is just hogwash. We lost to a darn good basketball team today.

I tend to agree they were picked 9th but I just don't see them being better than any of the 8 teams above them. If we were to play them during school, I think this game would have had a different outcome. Temple is a name team that would have brought the students out and there would have been a great atmosphere and who knows maybe a different outcome.

BleedOrange · Post by **BleedOrange** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 12:16 pm

FalconTurf wrote:
Falcon137 wrote:
FalconTurf wrote:Today 2 main areas of concern were evident: outside shooting and inside presence. We had neither today. Glimpes of both but nothing consistent. Forutunately Temple had little inside either although I would guess we were out rebounded badly despite their 7 footer being in foul trouble the whole game and quite ineffective himself.

This team shows potential but at-large bids are something for power conferences and all that matters is that we are playing our best ball in the MAC tournament. Win and in, lose and forget it. The rest of the season only determines your seed.

I don't know if this team has a tourney run in them but eventually Coach Orr will build one.
I'm not quite sure why you think BG and the rest of the MAC is playing non conference games for no reason. To say the rest of the season is for show and the only thing that matters is the MAC tourny is a pretty bleak outlook. Why even play the season? This program or conference will never progress if we keep the attitude that the MAC will get one bid and that BG's only shot is to win the MAC. Especially now, with the NIT and new post season tourny.

Look at Miami, they beat Xavier (ranked 26 at the time) hung tough with a very good USC and plays Dayton at home this week a game I think they will win. They don't think their playing for MAC seeding and that only power conferences deserve multiple bids. This isn't the SWAC, MEAC, or MAAC.
Deserve more the one bid in the MAC? Definately but the reality as seen in BG is that the MAC tournament is the only sure fire way in. Regardless of how you do in the regular season everyone has an opportunity. The season matters for seeding in MAC tourney and if you win that then they will go back on your body of work for the big dance. Hate to sound negative but rarely do 2 teams from the MAC dance in the tournament. Rather than hoping and wishing to get invited there is one guarenteed route to dance and that is by MAC tournament championship.

And yes I've seen the MAC do this well and better against the non-conf. opponents and I've have argued multiple teams deserved an invite. The fact is that our representatives must win in both tournaments (now all 3) regularly before we get multiple conference invitations. It appears to me that early season victories and moral victories mean little........AND I DON"T LIKE IT EITHER! (But what the MAC fans think really doesn't matter to the committee)

At-larges are given based on the team's performance irrespective of conference affiliation. It's that simple. When more MAC teams perform better during the season, more will get at-larges. The MVC has demonstrated this. Being in the MAC does not by definition eliminate a team from at-large consideration.

In the past decade or so, BG has had teams that vied for at larges but came up short. In my opinion, BG's exclusions were the correct choices by the committee. In fact, I struggle to think of one MAC team denied an at large that deserved it CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY.

We do have disadvantages. Committees' tend towards a big-conference bias, especially in the seedings. Also, MAC teams that are bad in the pre-conference often get much more competitive as the season progresses. (A bad MAC would lose to a good MAC by 25 in November but only 10 in February.) This means that our best RPIs erode from the 40's to the 70's while that bad RPIs improve from the high 200's to the low 200's: the MAC eats itself in the regular season.

It doesn't help that we have 13 freaking teams. We're almost guaranteed to have several very bad teams watering down our RPIs. The MVC has the advantage of not having NIUs hanging around year after year.