Well ... as I start, I plan for this to be shorter than normal - but who knows how its ends up, LOL!
First, this loss does not change the math - though it does make it tougher. RU needed to win 6 of its last 8 to have a hope of getting on the bubble. Now it is 6 of the last 7. All along, IMO, to get on the bubble RU did HAVE to win 6 of 8, including 3 of the 5 road games, which meant at least 1 of the toughest 3 road games (5 road games): Maryland, Purdue and Michigan ... and the other 2 road games (Oregon and Washington). Now ... Still the same, but Maryland is done, so RU still has to win 3 of the 4remaining road games, versus 3 of the 5. Tougher row to hoe, but ... well ...
Second, the MAIN consideration remains making the Big 10 conference tourney. A win here would have helped a lot, of course, but ... hold serve at home and beat Washington, and RU is 9-11 in conference play and almost certainly in the Big 10 tourney, very likely ahead of Iowa, NW, Minny, Penn St and Washington - and would own the tie-breaker on all but Penn State (who seems unlikely to finish as well as 9-11, so the tiebreaker would not come into play). AND ... stand a good chance of being tied with or ahead of Indiana and Oregon - but unless they beat Oregon @Oregon, would not have the tiebreaker on either of those 2 teams. IF ... RU holds serve at home and wins both West Coast road games, then I is 10-10 in conference, and finishes anywhere from 8th to 11th in the conference (8th or 9th get a single bye).
Now, as to the game:
1) Sometimes, the other team is simply better, in general and in a particular game. Sometimes you are beaten by a team performing better MORE than beating yourself. In this game, IMO, RU did not beat itself, but was imply beaten Maryland played very well, particularly defensively. But RU played decently, at least. This was not the egg RU laid versus Purdue or the 2nd half of Penn State. This was not the awful shooting RU had vs Michigan St. RU actually did plenty right in this game - and were outplayed in other areas. But sometimes doing "plenty right" is not enough. Which brings us to:
2) Pre-game I laid out 4 potential keys: a) Hold Maryland to 75 or fewer points, or failing that to below 80 points; b) find a way to limit the post play while defending the 3-point line as well (as most teams have been UNABLE to do vs Maryland); c) get Maryland into foul trouble - as happens from time to time ... Queen and/or Reese (Reese being more likely), AND Gillespie; and d) Harper AND Bailey both score well, plus 1-2 OTHER RU players.
4) RU also ended up with more points in the paint than Maryland, and more fastbreak points, as many points off turnovers, and more made FT's ... but 7 fewer 3-point shots.
5) Also, though it felt like RU was never quite there - that was not true. IMO, the KEY moment in the game came in the 2nd half, with about 13 minutes left. RU had clawed its way to within 3 points at 53-56, then 4 points, at 54-58. RU had ALL the momentum, was playing with huge energy, executing well offensively and defensively. The following things then happened, in succession:
As to the players ... Harper was ... okay ... but on the road, without Bailey, despite Grant, Sommerville and Martini scoring, RU needed him great. And he was not. Bailey beimng ill was a bad break - even just being abkle to PLAY, while he played, he was helping the team, quite a bit, I think. But him not on the court at all was a huge problem. P{lus, remember how f=good he is agaianst the zone, getting and making shtos at the foul line (the weak spot of the zone) - which MD used well after Bailey sat. Grant: A great game, his best. I tell you, he is my candidate for double digit scoring break out next year (try 12 ppg, 7 rpg?). And he was great even going 0-4 from 3. He did have a problem when matched against Queen - but so did every other RU player. But he had 19 points, 8 rebounds (6 offensive) and just 1 turnover. And I thought Sommerville played generally well - yes, Queen blitzed him, but it was just that type of game for Queen, a career game. Sommerville still had 12 points and 9 rebounds (2 offensive). Sommerville was not the reason RU lost, despite getting eaten up by Queen. Martini also played very well: An actual offensive contributor, with 10 points, and he actually got some rebounds (5) ... but at 6'6"-6'7" was just overwhelmed by Queen, though he tried. Williams was ... okay - some important plays and some bad plays ... just 4 points but 5 rebounds. Derkakc was very high energy, very assertive, great from the FT (9-11), great dr4awing fouls ... but could not put in a FG (0-4) ... definitely part of RU's rallying and trying to keep RU in the game, but allso 0 rebounds. Davis was ... meh ... 1-6 FG (not good) - MD played great defense on him - but 4 rebounds, an assist, but also 1 turnover. Dortch and Acuff did nothing.
On to Iowa!
First, this loss does not change the math - though it does make it tougher. RU needed to win 6 of its last 8 to have a hope of getting on the bubble. Now it is 6 of the last 7. All along, IMO, to get on the bubble RU did HAVE to win 6 of 8, including 3 of the 5 road games, which meant at least 1 of the toughest 3 road games (5 road games): Maryland, Purdue and Michigan ... and the other 2 road games (Oregon and Washington). Now ... Still the same, but Maryland is done, so RU still has to win 3 of the 4remaining road games, versus 3 of the 5. Tougher row to hoe, but ... well ...
Second, the MAIN consideration remains making the Big 10 conference tourney. A win here would have helped a lot, of course, but ... hold serve at home and beat Washington, and RU is 9-11 in conference play and almost certainly in the Big 10 tourney, very likely ahead of Iowa, NW, Minny, Penn St and Washington - and would own the tie-breaker on all but Penn State (who seems unlikely to finish as well as 9-11, so the tiebreaker would not come into play). AND ... stand a good chance of being tied with or ahead of Indiana and Oregon - but unless they beat Oregon @Oregon, would not have the tiebreaker on either of those 2 teams. IF ... RU holds serve at home and wins both West Coast road games, then I is 10-10 in conference, and finishes anywhere from 8th to 11th in the conference (8th or 9th get a single bye).
Now, as to the game:
1) Sometimes, the other team is simply better, in general and in a particular game. Sometimes you are beaten by a team performing better MORE than beating yourself. In this game, IMO, RU did not beat itself, but was imply beaten Maryland played very well, particularly defensively. But RU played decently, at least. This was not the egg RU laid versus Purdue or the 2nd half of Penn State. This was not the awful shooting RU had vs Michigan St. RU actually did plenty right in this game - and were outplayed in other areas. But sometimes doing "plenty right" is not enough. Which brings us to:
2) Pre-game I laid out 4 potential keys: a) Hold Maryland to 75 or fewer points, or failing that to below 80 points; b) find a way to limit the post play while defending the 3-point line as well (as most teams have been UNABLE to do vs Maryland); c) get Maryland into foul trouble - as happens from time to time ... Queen and/or Reese (Reese being more likely), AND Gillespie; and d) Harper AND Bailey both score well, plus 1-2 OTHER RU players.
a) RU did NOT hold Maryland below 80 points. So ... a fail
b) Maryland scored 90 points mainly because RU was UNABLE to balance defending the post offense AND the 3-point line. Maryland's Queen was terrific, offensive rebounding, post play, driving, mid-range and FT (drawing and making). - plus 5 assists and just 1 turnover Oddly enough, both Sommerville and Grant played well, but still could do nothing about Queen: hat's off the Queen more than terrible play by RU, IMO. You could make the case this was Queen's best game of his young career, so credit to him. And though Maryland was not lights out 3-point shooting, still, they got 27 attempts and made their season average of 37% - and Miguel WAS hot from 3 - made very difficult 3-pointers (including several with a defender in his face). Those 10 3's to RU's 3 3's were a large part of the difference in the game. So ... fail.
c) RU DID get Reese into foul trouble, but NOT Gillespie. And though Gillespie did not have a great game, he did end up with 14 points and 3 assists (and 4 TO, 4-11 FG). So ... partial succeed, partial fail.
d) RU did not have Harper and Bailey both score - though RU did have 3 (not 1-2) other players score (Grant, Sommerville and Martini). Harper was okay - not great, but okay. His final stats looked better than his impact, frankly: He shot 7-17, 6-6 FT, 4 rebounds, 4 assists and just 2 TO - but all his FG's were at the rim, and he missed ALL his mid0range and 3-point shots (which was a problem for the RU offense). And in the absence of a sick Bailey in the 2nd half, RU needed Harper to be GREAT, not merely solid. But again, a lot of credit to Maryland's defense, as much as Harper falling short.
3) Oddly enough, RU ended up outrebounding Maryland - but in the 1st half Maryland obliterated RU on the Boards. RU did much better in the 2nd half, but severe damage had been done. By my count, Maryland had 12 offensive rebounds in the 1st half24-25 missed shots. RU turned it around in the 2nd half ... and oddly enough RU got 22 2nd chance points to Maryland's 13 - but it sure felt like more.4) RU also ended up with more points in the paint than Maryland, and more fastbreak points, as many points off turnovers, and more made FT's ... but 7 fewer 3-point shots.
5) Also, though it felt like RU was never quite there - that was not true. IMO, the KEY moment in the game came in the 2nd half, with about 13 minutes left. RU had clawed its way to within 3 points at 53-56, then 4 points, at 54-58. RU had ALL the momentum, was playing with huge energy, executing well offensively and defensively. The following things then happened, in succession:
a) Bailey left the game, for the rest of the game, ill, ill, ill. So ... he had just 4 points, on 2-4 FG, and just 4 rebounds, with 3 turnovers ... but also 3 assists and 2 steals. Even not shooting, and lower energy, it is clear in retrospect he was having a positive impactr, on defense, on play-making (his assists) - likely due to the attention he was drawing defensively, and in other possibly intangible ways. RU was outscored 23-10 after his departure, to fall behind 66-79.
b) At 54-58 Harper fouled Rice taking - and making - a 3, for a 4-point play, 54-62 ... and I am not sure RU ever truly recovered, though RU did get to trail by 62-67 a few minutes later.
c) Maryland went to the 2-3 match-up zone, and because Harper was missing his mid-range shots, RU had trouble scoring.
d) At 62-67 with about 9 minutes left, Sommerville had just picked up his 4th foul and had to sit. Even so, RU forced a MD shot clock violation ... but then turned the ball over to MD, and MD scored. MD scored, then Derkack missed a shot - though Martini got the rebound and 2-2 FT, Williams committed his 5th foul on a terrible foul way on the perimeter at about 4:30 left, and MD hit 2 FT, then Martini travelled trying to post up and MD scored - 64-73 ... RU scored, but MD scored 6 consecutive points, while Harper forced a tough 3 (missing), Harper had a TO ... 66-79.
6) RU, in the end, just could not stop Maryland from scoring most possessions in the last 6 minutes of the game, not without Bailey, Williams and partly without Sommerville (foul trouble). After falling behind 66=9, RU never got closer than 8 points.As to the players ... Harper was ... okay ... but on the road, without Bailey, despite Grant, Sommerville and Martini scoring, RU needed him great. And he was not. Bailey beimng ill was a bad break - even just being abkle to PLAY, while he played, he was helping the team, quite a bit, I think. But him not on the court at all was a huge problem. P{lus, remember how f=good he is agaianst the zone, getting and making shtos at the foul line (the weak spot of the zone) - which MD used well after Bailey sat. Grant: A great game, his best. I tell you, he is my candidate for double digit scoring break out next year (try 12 ppg, 7 rpg?). And he was great even going 0-4 from 3. He did have a problem when matched against Queen - but so did every other RU player. But he had 19 points, 8 rebounds (6 offensive) and just 1 turnover. And I thought Sommerville played generally well - yes, Queen blitzed him, but it was just that type of game for Queen, a career game. Sommerville still had 12 points and 9 rebounds (2 offensive). Sommerville was not the reason RU lost, despite getting eaten up by Queen. Martini also played very well: An actual offensive contributor, with 10 points, and he actually got some rebounds (5) ... but at 6'6"-6'7" was just overwhelmed by Queen, though he tried. Williams was ... okay - some important plays and some bad plays ... just 4 points but 5 rebounds. Derkakc was very high energy, very assertive, great from the FT (9-11), great dr4awing fouls ... but could not put in a FG (0-4) ... definitely part of RU's rallying and trying to keep RU in the game, but allso 0 rebounds. Davis was ... meh ... 1-6 FG (not good) - MD played great defense on him - but 4 rebounds, an assist, but also 1 turnover. Dortch and Acuff did nothing.
On to Iowa!
