Following a mammoth weekend in college basketball, the Rauf Report breaks down the biggest concern for five teams that lost their high-profile matchups.
The biggest weekend of the NCAA Basketball season thus far provided plenty of drama and intrigue. We previewed a lot of it in Friday’s Rauf Report, and we discussed some of it over the weekend in our Saturday Recap.
Some of the victories raised eyebrows, such as Kansas’ dominant performance against Houston and Tennessee’s physicality causing Kentucky to wilt. While those individual matchups are interesting on their own, this weekend also highlighted some potential long-term concerns for a few top teams.
There were five matchups between ranked teams over the weekend, leaving five teams feeling suddenly deflated. In this Rauf Report, we identify the biggest problem plaguing each of those five programs, as well as what needs to be done to fix it.
MORE FROM HEAT CHECK CBB:
- Saturday Recap: UNC trounces Duke, Saint Mary’s stays hot, UConn rolls
- NCAA Basketball: Questions about Houston, South Carolina highlight Feb. 2 Rauf Report
- HC+ Mailbag: Ask Lukas Harkins your bracketology question today!
Rauf Report readers can now get 15% off their purchase with Homefield by using promo code REPORT at checkout! Homefield is the premier collegiate apparel brand with over 150 schools to choose from. Visit their website and use promo code REPORT for 15% off!
Can Houston improve its efficiency around the rim?
Friday’s Rauf Report led off with questions about Houston’s ability to hang with other top-quality teams due to its poor offense. Yes, the Cougars are top 20 in adjusted offensive efficiency, but they also rank 222nd in effective field goal percentage. They’re also below-average in 3-point rate and free-throw rate, meaning they aren’t making up for those inefficiencies elsewhere.
No one will confuse Houston with a great 3-point shooting team, but this squad holds its own from beyond the arc. Five different players are shooting at least 33.3 percent and two (LJ Cryer, Emanuel Sharp) have combined to make 114 3-pointers on the season.
Instead, it’s Houston’s interior shooting that is killing the offense, which isn’t typical for the Cougars given their physical brand of basketball. This team still fits that identity to a T — and yet, Houston has struggled to get to the rim, much less score from there.
Only 25.1 percent of Houston’s shot attempts come at the rim, per Hoop-Math, which is the lowest rate in the country. In half-court sets, the Coogs are making just 45.8 percent of their attempts at the rim, which is far from a successful rate. Couple that with the team’s 30.2 percent clip on mid-range jumpers in the half-court, and you have the makings for a struggling offense.
All those issues were on display in Saturday’s loss to Kansas. Kelvin Sampson’s group shot 31.3 percent from the field in the first half, allowing the Jayhawks to take a big lead and never look back. Star guard Jamal Shead was often forced to take tough, contested shots because of the lack of offensive movement. Cryer was virtually nonexistent, and Sharp struggled to find space.
If Houston is going to make a run in the NCAA Tournament, Shead must play at a high level. He’s the only Cougar who has proven he can consistently create his own shot and make something happen when the offense breaks down. Cryer is the better offensive player overall, so the Cougars will need him to produce, too. But Shead is the one who can break down a defense by himself.
Is Duke tough enough?
Following Duke’s loss to North Carolina on Saturday, head coach Jon Scheyer left no doubt about why the Blue Devils lost.
“I wasn’t happy with the way we competed,” he said flatly. “That was disappointing for me. We didn’t compete to the level that we needed to in order to beat this team tonight.”
A former Duke player himself, Scheyer understands the pressures of playing in the Dean Dome. Still, he expected a better effort from his team regardless of the environment.
“In this game, any game, when you play on the road against a good team, you can make some mistakes or play tight at times. All that’s normal,” Scheyer added later. “What’s not normal is to not lay it all on the line the way you need to.”
It’s clichéd when coaches say the other team “just wanted it more,” but Scheyer’s testament rings true in this case. North Carolina played with more urgency, was more physical, and got nearly all the 50-50 balls.
No play sums that up better than the clip below. A lazy pass by Caleb Foster goes over Kyle Filipowski’s head, though still in position for Filipowski or Tyrese Proctor to grab it. Instead, UNC’s Cormac Ryan shoots between both of them for the steal and converts a layup through contact on the other end.
Duke has rarely matched the energy from its toughest opponents this season. It didn’t against Arizona, nor in back-to-back road losses to Arkansas and Georgia Tech, and certainly not against Pitt in the Jan. 20 loss at home. The only time this team has met the moment was in an eight-point victory over Baylor back in December.
The Blue Devils were a preseason national title favorite due to their talent. But thus far, the mental makeup of this team suggests they won’t consistently answer the bell when tested. Some of that can be reasoned away by the youth on this team, but Duke must mature quickly over the next month.
Can Iowa State figure it out at the free-throw line?
I really like this Iowa State team. As detailed in a past Rauf Report, it has a similar makeup to several past Final Four teams. The Cyclones have an elite defense and are vastly improved offensively thanks to a trio of terrific guards in Tamin Lipsey, Keshon Gilbert and Milan Momcilovic.
Their one big weakness, though, comes at the foul line.
Iowa State only shoots 68.5 percent on free throws, a woeful 289th nationally. In its loss to Baylor — which was about 0.1 seconds from becoming a win — ISU went just 19-of-32 (59.4 percent) from the line.
Saturday wasn’t the first time poor foul shooting has cost the Cyclones. It was a major problem in losses to both Virginia Tech and BYU, too. The issue has also made some games more interesting than they should have been down the stretch (see also: their 9-of-18 mark in a four-point win over Kansas).
We routinely see poor free-throw shooting come back to bite teams in the NCAA Tournament. This Iowa State team is built to make a deep run, but this glaring weakness could keep that from happening.
Where can the Kentucky defense improve?
Kentucky is perhaps the most electric team in the country thanks to its offense. Freshmen Rob Dillingham, Reed Sheppard and DJ Wagner are as capable as they come on that end of the floor, and Antonio Reeves is quietly having an All-America-caliber season.
That backcourt quartet is the driving force of the nation’s third-highest scoring offense (88.8 ppg). The Wildcats also rank in the top five nationally in 3-point shooting and turnover rate.
On the other end, though, Kentucky ranks outside the top 100 in KenPom’s adjusted defensive efficiency.
The Wildcats have been routinely porous on that end, ranking 318th in points allowed per game. They’re among the nation’s worst at forcing turnovers and defending on the perimeter. As a result, opponents are getting open 3s at an alarmingly high clip.
On multiple occasions, John Calipari has lamented how opposing players have coincidentally gotten hot against Kentucky. However, at some point, you have to realize it’s not just a coincidence.
Kentucky has yet to play a game with a fully healthy roster this season, but this was never built to be an elite unit on the perimeter. In fact, most of Kentucky’s perimeter players are poor individual defenders. That’s why the coaching staff is stressing the importance of team defense and being tight on rotations.
“We’ve got to be a little more sound defensively in what we’re doing,” Calipari told reporters after the Tennessee loss. ‘We’re going to have to be a collective defensive team. I keep saying it. If one guy stops playing, it’s going to hurt this group. But when we do it together, we can hold our own.”
Defenses this bad simply don’t last long in the NCAA Tournament. Looking at the 10 most similar teams to Kentucky according to Bart Torvik’s historical database, four made first-round exits. Meanwhile, three of those teams did make it to the second weekend — but none progressed past the Sweet 16. The Wildcats have to shore up their defense quickly.
Can Wisconsin fix its perimeter defense?
Wisconsin’s defensive struggles aren’t as widespread as Kentucky’s, but defending the 3-pointer has been a major problem.
The Badgers rank outside the top 300 nationally in 3-point defense and are only 175th in turnover rate. They leave a lot of open shooters and don’t put much pressure on opposing ballhandlers. Those numbers bear out when watching the team, too, as the Badgers often struggle to stop dribble penetration.
Point guard Chucky Hepburn is a solid defender and the only real pest on the roster. Even so, he’s limited by his height at 6-2. AJ Storr is an electric offensive presence, but he falls off defensively due to a lack of lateral quickness (and, sometimes, effort). Max Klesmit, Connor Essegian and John Blackwell all play significant roles because of their offense, but they aren’t good on-ball defenders either.
The result has been a very un-Wisconsin-like profile for the Badgers. Their adjusted defensive efficiency is the second-lowest it has been in the KenPom era, dating back to 1997. This is the best offensive team in Madison since Bo Ryan’s final two seasons — which resulted in a Final Four appearance and 66 total wins — but that success has come at the detriment of its defense.
Like Kentucky, fixing the defense will be more scheme-related than anything else given the lack of quality perimeter defenders. However, unlike Kentucky, the Badgers do not have anything resembling rim protection (348th in block rate). As a result, Wisconsin has employed a conservative defensive approach, but it’s not very effective right now. If the problem isn’t fixed by March, it could send an outstanding offense home earlier than expected.
You must be logged in to post a comment.