We're only a week into the conference season, so full caveats on it's early, and things will change over the course of twenty games. Still, some interesting things have transpired for each Big Ten team to date. I have seen every Big Ten team play on multiple occasions, against good opponents and bad, have looked at the stats, and have learned from respectable sources I have spoken to in person and read on the internet. The following represents an amalgam of what has happened to date.
Illinois--Well, it looks like my older daughter may have been right, and I may have been wrong. She said before the season that Illinois was over-rared because its roster didn't fit together very well: I demurred, thinking Illinois was my favorite to win the conference because the Illini had two guys who rate to be All Big Ten first team, and pieces around them. Turns out, even if Brad Underwood figures things out, which I think he will, my daughter was spot on. Illinois plays a seven man rotation--five natural guards and two natural centers, without a legitimate small forward, power forward, or combo forward anywhere to be found. The two centers (Cockburn and Bezhenishvilli) can't play really together, because neither can go on the floor on offense or on defense, so Underwood is virtually always playing a lineup with four guards. That can work when things go well, but in their three losses, Illinois has been pounded on the defensive glass, which is going to happen when you're that small. Add to that the fact that two of the five guards a re freshmen who have been, as even highly ranked freshmen guards almost are, very inconsistent (word of caution to those who think we'll just seamlessly plug Collins and Bufkin into starting spots next year--please, please let Eli or Mike Smith decide to take an extra year), and there are going to be some real ups and downs. To add to that, the Illini are shooting an unsustainable 45% from 3 (including Damonte Williams, a career 28% 3 point shooter going into this season on 122 attempts, cruising along at 70% (14-20)) and are still 5-3. Again, I think Illinois can be very good, just perhaps more match-up dependent than I would have anticipated. Maybe one of the two wing transfers who have been sidelined or slowed by injuries thus far will help, though both are up-transfers, and neither was close to a sure thing even before the injuries.
Indiana--The Hoosiers have been better than expected early on, in large part because they have been very, very good on the defensive end. Offensively, aside from Trayce Jackson-Davis, who is a monster, Indiana does nothing especially well other than getting to the line, where they haven't converted at a great rate. In a conference where no death, no foul can sometimes be the norm, Indiana rates to play a ton of ugly, tight games. I'm still waiting to be convinced about IU's guards, who are usually crucial in those games, and about Archie Miller. Indiana did just add an immediately eligible grad up-transfer guard who started his career at Pitt, played decently as a freshman there, and was all-OVC after transferring to Tennessee-Martin, though whether he can provide much, if anything, after just getting to campus a week ago and never having practiced with these teammates or under this coaching staff remains to be seen. Former Michigan target Khristian Lander, a top 25 player in the country even after he re-classified forward a year, has been a disaster to date.
Iowa--Fran McCaffrey's team is terrific on the offensive end, and that's with Jason Bohannon struggling mightily after missing last year with hip surgery (6.6 per game on 28% shooting from 3, and that's with one excellent game (24 points, 7-16 from 3 against UNC) and 6 really poor ones (3.7 average, 6-30 from behind the arc, 25% from 2, 0 free throws attempted). It's anybody's guess how good he'll be (see e.g., Spike Albrecht after sitting out and then transferring to Purdue), but even if he's just a shadow of his former self, there's plenty of firepower between Luka Garza and the shooters who surround him. The problem, of course, is the defense. Picture this--Gonzaga missed 17 shots at the rim, turned it over 18 times, shot less than 60% from the line, and still scored 99 points Saturday against Iowa. It is only a slight exaggeration, if any, to say that Garza is far and away the best offensive player in the country, but that the second best player can be whomever he is guarding, particularly if he is caught in a switch off of ball screen action--there's a reason that the NBA showed no real interest in an offensive monster with inside and outside skills. Iowa will be in lots of shootouts, and will certainly win its share; whether that's a team which competes for a Big Ten championship and/or can go on a long tournament run remains to be seen. Michigan '14 showed you can be very, very good with the best offense in the country and a mediocre defense, but Iowa is going to have to improve significantly to wind up as good defensively as even that Michigan team was, and I'm not sure the Hawkeyes have the horses to do that.
Maryland--Mark Turgeon has the opposite roster composition problem to that of Illinois--a team of mostly forwards, with virtually nobody under 6'3" (only one guy under 6'5") or over 6'8" in the playing rotation. Maryland's glut of wings is filled with streaky shooters, and guys who can get out and run in transition. When they shoot well from distance (45% in the first four games against lesser competition), the Terps are dangerous; when they do not (26% in the last two against higher quality opposition, there isn't really a plan B. Maryland will win some games against tams which are favored, simply because the Terps are too athletic and too capable of going off from the perimeter not to have some special nights. However, in general, Maryland rates to struggle in Big Ten play.
Michigan--Much has been said about our performance over the first six games, so I'll try not to just recapitulate, and offer instead what I think is the biggest key going forward (aside, of course,, from health). Many think it's Franz Wagner getting into the offensive flow and shooting better--while this would certainly be a great thing, I do not think it's the most important key. That, to me, is whether Mike Smith can keep pace on the defensive end against Big Ten opposition. If he can, our offense is at its best, and most diversified, no matter how the 2-4 spots are configured. If he can't, we will be much better defensively when playing a lineup of, say, Brooks, Brown, Wagner, Livers and Dickinson, but that's a lineup without anyone who excels in working out of ball screens or isolation setups, and leaves us running a lot of offense through a freshman 5 (albeit a very good one), which is added pressure on him. The latter lineup is going to play a fair anyway, and Eli is going to need some breathers no matter who we want to play, but the better Mike can acquit himself on defense, and the more minutes we can thus play him without getting torched defensively, the better we're going to be.
Michigan State--I don't want to overdo last night's loss to Northwestern--Michigan State often has an inexplicable loss or stretch of a few games early and then comes on to win championships, and you don't get rich betting against Tom Izzo in the Big Ten--but to paraphrase George Costanza's father in the Festivus episode (those who aren't/weren't Seinfeld fans can look it up), "[Tom Izzo's] got a lot of problems with you people." That was a disaster Sunday night, and not in a way that Michigan State normally loses games (high turnover numbers)--this was lack of effort, focus, and basketball IQ (and terrible shooting to boot). The effort/focus/IQ problems won't last, but there are some long term issues which will be more difficult to fix--more specifically, there aren't many two way players on that squad. MSU's best offensive players--Joey Hauser and Gabe Brown--are sieves defensively. Aaron Henry and Rocket Watts are terrific athletes and usually very good perimeter defenders, but both are pretty inefficient and streaky at best on the offensive end, and have been so throughout their respective careers. Injuries have robbed Josh Langford of his athleticism and explosiveness, and Foster Loyer has never had either, so they are now in the "just a shooter' category, and Loyer is very bad defensively. The centers (Bingham, Marble, Kithier and Sassoko) are all just guys for one reason or another at this stage of their careers, though Sassoko has a chance to be much more a year or two down the road. Malik Hall does have two way capability, though as a complementary piece, not a star (see e.g., Kenny Goins as a possible comparison), and thus will likely be playing more in a smaller lineup with Hauser at the 5, though playing that small and without a rim protector has never been Izzo's style. That said, Izzo will find a way to make this work and create a pretty high floor, but without any guys who are spectacular on one end, or very good on both ends, I think the ceiling for this team is pretty low for a Spartan team under Izzo.
Minnesota--As Markus Carr goes, so goes Minnesota. When Carr goes off, as he did Sunday night against a good St. Louis team (32 points, 7 assists, got to the line for 19 free throw attempts), the Gophers can hang with a lot of teams. When he does not, Minnesota is in grave danger ("is there another kind") against teams with a pulse. It's really that simple. No team in the league is more single player dependant.
Nebraska--The Huskers are a very weird team, as might be expected from a squad which has almost a 100% turnover from last year. The point guard is 6'7", and does much of his scoring work closer to the basket, the primary center, who is 6'9", takes over 2/3 of his shots from beyond the arc, and the back-up center is the polar opposite of the guy he plays behind, having not attempted a 3 to date. Nebraska rushes the ball up court, chucks up 3s quickly (top 20 in the country in adjusted tempo) and at a very high rate, but doesn't usually make them very often. Similarly, the Huskers pressure and try to force tempo defensively, but unless they turn you over, which they haven't done against good teams, they're very susceptible to teams in the half court. There is some talent there--the 6'7" PG (Banton) is huge and has great court vision and passing ability--and any team which both shoots and allows as many 3s per game as does Nebraska is going to have some pick-up like games where the shots fall for them and not for the other team, so there will be some unexpected wins (Iowa and Purdue last year). That said, it has been, and will continue to be, a slow rebuild in Lincoln. Tennessee transfer Derrick Walker, who will be eligible next semester, may help a bit; an up-transfer from DII and a raw freshman who just became eligible last week may also add, though perhaps somewhat less.
Northwestern--Northwestern is better. While the Cats are certainly not as good as they looked against Michigan State, they are much improved, and have shooters all over the court. That said, this is the toughest team in the conference to size up--the Cats have played exactly two teams to date which were in the top 300 in the country, and lost to one of them. The next several games will give us a much better feel.
Ohio State--Chris Holtmann has a lot of good to very good players. However, Chris Holtmann has no great players, or guys you can consistently ride the back of at the end of a tight game. E.J. Liddell and Justin Ahrens are much improved, and Cal transfer Justice Sueing can play. Ohio State plays hard. There's just nothing which sticks out one way or the other in relation to the rest of the conference. To me, that's middle of the Big Ten, maybe a touch above. Not that this is a bad thing--the Big Ten is exceptional this year, with 13 of 14 teams in the top 60 in kenpom rankings, 11 in the top 50, and a ridiculous 9 in the top 27--it's just that I do not see a conference contender.
Penn State--The Nittany Lions, as demonstrated in the game against Michigan, are a difficult team to play against, one with definite strengths and weaknesses. Seth Lundy, the stretch 4, and likely PSU's best overall player, has been miserable the last two games after a great start--Penn State needs him to play well to balance out the plethora of downhill driving smaller guards, because there are no inside options available. If he reverts to form, the style differential from other Big Ten teams (forcing turnovers, shooting 3s from multiple guys off the bounce and the catch) can make PSU a very tough team to play and beat. If not...
Purdue--Matt Painter's team has been difficult to figure out. The Boilers have good wins against Ohio State (albeit when OSU was missing E.J. Liddell) and Notre Dame; they also had a complete second half meltdown against Miami, and a convincing loss to a good, but hardly overwhelming, Clemson team. The Clemson loss is likely attributable to the fact that starting point guard Eric Hunter was out for Purdue, and maybe the meltdon against Miami owed something to the fact that it was Hunter's first game of the season after time off for his injury. The pieces could certainly be in place to be very good in conference, what with an excellent post in Trevion Williams (who has improved markedly in his floor vision and passing, making double teams less effective), several perimeter shooters alongside, and Painter's coaching. Still though, I have the nagging feeling that Purdue is a ceiling limited team without a ton of athleticism and/or any real defensive stoppers. That said, Williams is a load, and if he's cooking, and the shooters around him are getting space because of his presence and connecting, Purdue can outscore a lot of teams.
Rutgers--Rutgers is good. Very, very good. It's very much the same team as we saw last year--one which was headed for the NCAA tournament for the first time since 1991 before the tournament was cancelled, but with a vastly improved Ron Harper, Jr., who makes Steve Pickell's team a decent, if not great, offensive team even before their fierce offensive rebounding is taken into account. Rutgers absolutely pounds the offensive glass, defends at the rim, and now, with the return of Geo Baker from injury, and Harper's vast improvement, has one-on-one guys who can take opponents off the bounce. There are some waning signs--Harper is not going to continue his 53% mark from 3, free throw shooting is a huge concern (the Knights are shooting just 60.4% as a team, and it's not as if this is a fluke, as Rutgers was #322 in the nation in free throw shooting last year), and the way Rutgers defends leads to a lot of open 3s, especially from the corners--but even with those concerns, Rugers is going to be very good. Pickell has a group which plays HARD and well, and that's a winning combination.
Wisconsin--A month in, Wisconsin is the clear Big Ten favorite, and with good reason. It's the same Wisconsin formula as always--hit 3s with everybody in the rotation being able to shoot them (firth n three point percentage in the nation as a team), never turn the ball over (first nationally in turnover rate), and force opponents into long twos, the least efficient shot in basketball (eighth nationally in two point percentage defense)--and it's being carried out by a team which starts five seniors who have played together and know what it takes. To be clear, this Wisconsin team is not especially athletic, and it is one much more prone to fouling than its predecessors--Marquette shot 28 free throws against the Badgers in Wisconsin's only loss, a figure which feels like more free throws than we took against them in the entire Beilein era. Also, D'Mitrik Trice is indispensable to that team to the point that his efficiency numbers usually track with Wisconsin's efficiency numbers. Thus, there are ways to beat them, even aside from the inevitable games when their heavy reliance on 3 point shooting lets them down. I just don't think that's going to happen enough though to make them anything other than the clear choice to win it, especially in a league where 6 losses rates to get at least a share.
Illinois--Well, it looks like my older daughter may have been right, and I may have been wrong. She said before the season that Illinois was over-rared because its roster didn't fit together very well: I demurred, thinking Illinois was my favorite to win the conference because the Illini had two guys who rate to be All Big Ten first team, and pieces around them. Turns out, even if Brad Underwood figures things out, which I think he will, my daughter was spot on. Illinois plays a seven man rotation--five natural guards and two natural centers, without a legitimate small forward, power forward, or combo forward anywhere to be found. The two centers (Cockburn and Bezhenishvilli) can't play really together, because neither can go on the floor on offense or on defense, so Underwood is virtually always playing a lineup with four guards. That can work when things go well, but in their three losses, Illinois has been pounded on the defensive glass, which is going to happen when you're that small. Add to that the fact that two of the five guards a re freshmen who have been, as even highly ranked freshmen guards almost are, very inconsistent (word of caution to those who think we'll just seamlessly plug Collins and Bufkin into starting spots next year--please, please let Eli or Mike Smith decide to take an extra year), and there are going to be some real ups and downs. To add to that, the Illini are shooting an unsustainable 45% from 3 (including Damonte Williams, a career 28% 3 point shooter going into this season on 122 attempts, cruising along at 70% (14-20)) and are still 5-3. Again, I think Illinois can be very good, just perhaps more match-up dependent than I would have anticipated. Maybe one of the two wing transfers who have been sidelined or slowed by injuries thus far will help, though both are up-transfers, and neither was close to a sure thing even before the injuries.
Indiana--The Hoosiers have been better than expected early on, in large part because they have been very, very good on the defensive end. Offensively, aside from Trayce Jackson-Davis, who is a monster, Indiana does nothing especially well other than getting to the line, where they haven't converted at a great rate. In a conference where no death, no foul can sometimes be the norm, Indiana rates to play a ton of ugly, tight games. I'm still waiting to be convinced about IU's guards, who are usually crucial in those games, and about Archie Miller. Indiana did just add an immediately eligible grad up-transfer guard who started his career at Pitt, played decently as a freshman there, and was all-OVC after transferring to Tennessee-Martin, though whether he can provide much, if anything, after just getting to campus a week ago and never having practiced with these teammates or under this coaching staff remains to be seen. Former Michigan target Khristian Lander, a top 25 player in the country even after he re-classified forward a year, has been a disaster to date.
Iowa--Fran McCaffrey's team is terrific on the offensive end, and that's with Jason Bohannon struggling mightily after missing last year with hip surgery (6.6 per game on 28% shooting from 3, and that's with one excellent game (24 points, 7-16 from 3 against UNC) and 6 really poor ones (3.7 average, 6-30 from behind the arc, 25% from 2, 0 free throws attempted). It's anybody's guess how good he'll be (see e.g., Spike Albrecht after sitting out and then transferring to Purdue), but even if he's just a shadow of his former self, there's plenty of firepower between Luka Garza and the shooters who surround him. The problem, of course, is the defense. Picture this--Gonzaga missed 17 shots at the rim, turned it over 18 times, shot less than 60% from the line, and still scored 99 points Saturday against Iowa. It is only a slight exaggeration, if any, to say that Garza is far and away the best offensive player in the country, but that the second best player can be whomever he is guarding, particularly if he is caught in a switch off of ball screen action--there's a reason that the NBA showed no real interest in an offensive monster with inside and outside skills. Iowa will be in lots of shootouts, and will certainly win its share; whether that's a team which competes for a Big Ten championship and/or can go on a long tournament run remains to be seen. Michigan '14 showed you can be very, very good with the best offense in the country and a mediocre defense, but Iowa is going to have to improve significantly to wind up as good defensively as even that Michigan team was, and I'm not sure the Hawkeyes have the horses to do that.
Maryland--Mark Turgeon has the opposite roster composition problem to that of Illinois--a team of mostly forwards, with virtually nobody under 6'3" (only one guy under 6'5") or over 6'8" in the playing rotation. Maryland's glut of wings is filled with streaky shooters, and guys who can get out and run in transition. When they shoot well from distance (45% in the first four games against lesser competition), the Terps are dangerous; when they do not (26% in the last two against higher quality opposition, there isn't really a plan B. Maryland will win some games against tams which are favored, simply because the Terps are too athletic and too capable of going off from the perimeter not to have some special nights. However, in general, Maryland rates to struggle in Big Ten play.
Michigan--Much has been said about our performance over the first six games, so I'll try not to just recapitulate, and offer instead what I think is the biggest key going forward (aside, of course,, from health). Many think it's Franz Wagner getting into the offensive flow and shooting better--while this would certainly be a great thing, I do not think it's the most important key. That, to me, is whether Mike Smith can keep pace on the defensive end against Big Ten opposition. If he can, our offense is at its best, and most diversified, no matter how the 2-4 spots are configured. If he can't, we will be much better defensively when playing a lineup of, say, Brooks, Brown, Wagner, Livers and Dickinson, but that's a lineup without anyone who excels in working out of ball screens or isolation setups, and leaves us running a lot of offense through a freshman 5 (albeit a very good one), which is added pressure on him. The latter lineup is going to play a fair anyway, and Eli is going to need some breathers no matter who we want to play, but the better Mike can acquit himself on defense, and the more minutes we can thus play him without getting torched defensively, the better we're going to be.
Michigan State--I don't want to overdo last night's loss to Northwestern--Michigan State often has an inexplicable loss or stretch of a few games early and then comes on to win championships, and you don't get rich betting against Tom Izzo in the Big Ten--but to paraphrase George Costanza's father in the Festivus episode (those who aren't/weren't Seinfeld fans can look it up), "[Tom Izzo's] got a lot of problems with you people." That was a disaster Sunday night, and not in a way that Michigan State normally loses games (high turnover numbers)--this was lack of effort, focus, and basketball IQ (and terrible shooting to boot). The effort/focus/IQ problems won't last, but there are some long term issues which will be more difficult to fix--more specifically, there aren't many two way players on that squad. MSU's best offensive players--Joey Hauser and Gabe Brown--are sieves defensively. Aaron Henry and Rocket Watts are terrific athletes and usually very good perimeter defenders, but both are pretty inefficient and streaky at best on the offensive end, and have been so throughout their respective careers. Injuries have robbed Josh Langford of his athleticism and explosiveness, and Foster Loyer has never had either, so they are now in the "just a shooter' category, and Loyer is very bad defensively. The centers (Bingham, Marble, Kithier and Sassoko) are all just guys for one reason or another at this stage of their careers, though Sassoko has a chance to be much more a year or two down the road. Malik Hall does have two way capability, though as a complementary piece, not a star (see e.g., Kenny Goins as a possible comparison), and thus will likely be playing more in a smaller lineup with Hauser at the 5, though playing that small and without a rim protector has never been Izzo's style. That said, Izzo will find a way to make this work and create a pretty high floor, but without any guys who are spectacular on one end, or very good on both ends, I think the ceiling for this team is pretty low for a Spartan team under Izzo.
Minnesota--As Markus Carr goes, so goes Minnesota. When Carr goes off, as he did Sunday night against a good St. Louis team (32 points, 7 assists, got to the line for 19 free throw attempts), the Gophers can hang with a lot of teams. When he does not, Minnesota is in grave danger ("is there another kind") against teams with a pulse. It's really that simple. No team in the league is more single player dependant.
Nebraska--The Huskers are a very weird team, as might be expected from a squad which has almost a 100% turnover from last year. The point guard is 6'7", and does much of his scoring work closer to the basket, the primary center, who is 6'9", takes over 2/3 of his shots from beyond the arc, and the back-up center is the polar opposite of the guy he plays behind, having not attempted a 3 to date. Nebraska rushes the ball up court, chucks up 3s quickly (top 20 in the country in adjusted tempo) and at a very high rate, but doesn't usually make them very often. Similarly, the Huskers pressure and try to force tempo defensively, but unless they turn you over, which they haven't done against good teams, they're very susceptible to teams in the half court. There is some talent there--the 6'7" PG (Banton) is huge and has great court vision and passing ability--and any team which both shoots and allows as many 3s per game as does Nebraska is going to have some pick-up like games where the shots fall for them and not for the other team, so there will be some unexpected wins (Iowa and Purdue last year). That said, it has been, and will continue to be, a slow rebuild in Lincoln. Tennessee transfer Derrick Walker, who will be eligible next semester, may help a bit; an up-transfer from DII and a raw freshman who just became eligible last week may also add, though perhaps somewhat less.
Northwestern--Northwestern is better. While the Cats are certainly not as good as they looked against Michigan State, they are much improved, and have shooters all over the court. That said, this is the toughest team in the conference to size up--the Cats have played exactly two teams to date which were in the top 300 in the country, and lost to one of them. The next several games will give us a much better feel.
Ohio State--Chris Holtmann has a lot of good to very good players. However, Chris Holtmann has no great players, or guys you can consistently ride the back of at the end of a tight game. E.J. Liddell and Justin Ahrens are much improved, and Cal transfer Justice Sueing can play. Ohio State plays hard. There's just nothing which sticks out one way or the other in relation to the rest of the conference. To me, that's middle of the Big Ten, maybe a touch above. Not that this is a bad thing--the Big Ten is exceptional this year, with 13 of 14 teams in the top 60 in kenpom rankings, 11 in the top 50, and a ridiculous 9 in the top 27--it's just that I do not see a conference contender.
Penn State--The Nittany Lions, as demonstrated in the game against Michigan, are a difficult team to play against, one with definite strengths and weaknesses. Seth Lundy, the stretch 4, and likely PSU's best overall player, has been miserable the last two games after a great start--Penn State needs him to play well to balance out the plethora of downhill driving smaller guards, because there are no inside options available. If he reverts to form, the style differential from other Big Ten teams (forcing turnovers, shooting 3s from multiple guys off the bounce and the catch) can make PSU a very tough team to play and beat. If not...
Purdue--Matt Painter's team has been difficult to figure out. The Boilers have good wins against Ohio State (albeit when OSU was missing E.J. Liddell) and Notre Dame; they also had a complete second half meltdown against Miami, and a convincing loss to a good, but hardly overwhelming, Clemson team. The Clemson loss is likely attributable to the fact that starting point guard Eric Hunter was out for Purdue, and maybe the meltdon against Miami owed something to the fact that it was Hunter's first game of the season after time off for his injury. The pieces could certainly be in place to be very good in conference, what with an excellent post in Trevion Williams (who has improved markedly in his floor vision and passing, making double teams less effective), several perimeter shooters alongside, and Painter's coaching. Still though, I have the nagging feeling that Purdue is a ceiling limited team without a ton of athleticism and/or any real defensive stoppers. That said, Williams is a load, and if he's cooking, and the shooters around him are getting space because of his presence and connecting, Purdue can outscore a lot of teams.
Rutgers--Rutgers is good. Very, very good. It's very much the same team as we saw last year--one which was headed for the NCAA tournament for the first time since 1991 before the tournament was cancelled, but with a vastly improved Ron Harper, Jr., who makes Steve Pickell's team a decent, if not great, offensive team even before their fierce offensive rebounding is taken into account. Rutgers absolutely pounds the offensive glass, defends at the rim, and now, with the return of Geo Baker from injury, and Harper's vast improvement, has one-on-one guys who can take opponents off the bounce. There are some waning signs--Harper is not going to continue his 53% mark from 3, free throw shooting is a huge concern (the Knights are shooting just 60.4% as a team, and it's not as if this is a fluke, as Rutgers was #322 in the nation in free throw shooting last year), and the way Rutgers defends leads to a lot of open 3s, especially from the corners--but even with those concerns, Rugers is going to be very good. Pickell has a group which plays HARD and well, and that's a winning combination.
Wisconsin--A month in, Wisconsin is the clear Big Ten favorite, and with good reason. It's the same Wisconsin formula as always--hit 3s with everybody in the rotation being able to shoot them (firth n three point percentage in the nation as a team), never turn the ball over (first nationally in turnover rate), and force opponents into long twos, the least efficient shot in basketball (eighth nationally in two point percentage defense)--and it's being carried out by a team which starts five seniors who have played together and know what it takes. To be clear, this Wisconsin team is not especially athletic, and it is one much more prone to fouling than its predecessors--Marquette shot 28 free throws against the Badgers in Wisconsin's only loss, a figure which feels like more free throws than we took against them in the entire Beilein era. Also, D'Mitrik Trice is indispensable to that team to the point that his efficiency numbers usually track with Wisconsin's efficiency numbers. Thus, there are ways to beat them, even aside from the inevitable games when their heavy reliance on 3 point shooting lets them down. I just don't think that's going to happen enough though to make them anything other than the clear choice to win it, especially in a league where 6 losses rates to get at least a share.
