Who Won The Week? A Nebraska Sharpshooter, the Wolverines, & Rick Barnes…

Posted by Kenny Ocker on January 24th, 2014

Who Won the Week? is a regular column that will outline and discuss three winners and losers from the previous week. The author of this column is Kenny Ocker (@KennyOcker), a Spokane-based sportswriter best known for his willingness to drive (or bike!) anywhere to watch a basketball game. But he’s not biking anywhere with a sub-zero wind chill.

WINNER: Ethan Wragge

Creighton’s starting center/three-point assassin/reason why there’s no trees left in Nebraska had a performance for the ages Monday night at Villanova. The Wildcats thought it would be wise to double-team fellow Bluejay Doug McDermott – you know, the best player in college basketball – and left Wragge open. BAD. IDEA. Wragge came out and made his first seven three-pointers as the Jays shot the Wildcats to smithereens in a 96-68 game that was 90-50 before Greg McDermott’s team took its foot off the gas. Wragge wrapped up the game with 27 points on 9-of-14 three-point shooting, and also had the time to dish out three assists without a turnover. Creighton’s team stats from that game are almost as ridiculous as their bearded center’s: 33-of-58 shooting from the field, 21-of-31 from three-point range, 25 assists on the 33 made shots.

Ethan Wragge had a game to remember against Villanova. (AP)

Ethan Wragge had a game to remember against Villanova. (AP)

The Bluejays came into Monday night’s game ranked 13th  in Ken Pomeroy’s efficiency rankings and the Wildcats came in second. Because of Creighton’s ludicrous 1.4 points per possession against a team that had only given up more than a point per possession once in 17 games, the two teams flipped spots in the rankings, despite the college basketball season only half over. The difference between Creighton’s top-ranked offensive efficiency and Duke in second is equal to the difference between Duke and 16th-place Oregon. (Back to Wragge for a bit: Let’s just overlook Saturday’s eight-point performance in Creighton’s 81-68 loss versus Providence. He obviously had to save his three-pointers for a bigger game.)

(Related winners: Creighton; Providence, who also beat Butler on Tuesday; Doug McDermott, who still had 23 points despite the double-teams and the performance of Wragge. Related losers: Any voter who thought Creighton wasn’t worth ranking because of neutral-court losses to George Washington and San Diego State, and a road loss to a 14-5 Providence team; Villanova, for which there’s not enough ice left on the north pole to soothe its burns.) Read the rest of this entry »

Share this story

ATB: Well, Hello There, Mr. Cremins…

Posted by jstevrtc on January 5th, 2010

Doing the CharlestonCharleston 82, #9 North Carolina 79.  We tweeted this during the game, but it bears saying again here: America, if you didn’t know him before, may we introduce you to Andrew Goudelock.  He is a 6’2 junior guard from Lilburn, Georgia, and he plays for the Charleston Cougars.  No, that’s not a minor league baseball team.   Despite their 8-6 record, it’s a pretty good basketball team that knocked off the 9th-ranked Tar Heels on Monday night.  We single out Goudelock for three reasons.  First, when you put up 24 points on 10-20 shooting (including 4-8 from behind the three-point line) against North Carolina, you deserve a mention.  Second, we had him fourth on our pre-season all-Jeff Fryer team as one of the best three-point shooters in the nation and he made us look like freakin’ geniuses.  Lastly, it was his three from distance with two seconds left in regulation that forced overtime.  You have to see this shot.  Fading away, Ed Davis challenging, just short of 30 feet, so high we’re sure it showed up on NORAD radar.   All string.

In fact, when Carolina was up by 11 at the final TV timeout, this just looked like a moral victory for Charleston.  The lead was cut to eight, and Goudelock went on an 8-0 run by himself (including the long three) to close the scoring in regulation.  It wasn’t like he didn’t have any help, though.  Senior forward Casaan Breeden was impressive as well, adding 15/7/5 blocks, including one block of an Ed Davis shot late in regulation that must have sailed, as ESPNU color commentator Bob Wenzel said, “about 16 rows deep into the crowd.”  Indeed, every single one of Charleston’s starters scored at least 13 points (they only played eight players, and got only two points from their bench), also accounting for all 13 of their threes.  As for Carolina, they were guilty of poor game management late in both regulation and overtime.   They waited too long to foul when they needed to foul, fouled too quickly when they didn’t need to foul, got caught sleeping on an important in-bounds which led to an easy late bucket for Charleston, and missed a couple of close, easy shots in important situations despite owning the paint for most of the game.  Most intriguing, though, was the glaring disparity of threes and free throws between the two sides.  Charleston was 13-32 for 40.6%. UNC was ONE FOR SIX (16.7%).   Their streak of 421 straight games with a three-pointer was doomed until Larry Drew, II, hit one with a minute left in overtime.  From the free throw line, UNC shot 24-34 (70.6%), while Charleston was only three for six!  Charleston played a tough man defense for most of the game, but didn’t seem to be doing anything special to defend the three.   It looked like UNC just didn’t want to take them.  Unfortunately for them, 24 free throws simply cannot compete with 13 three pointers.   There’s no doubt Carolina will recover from this, since they were playing without Will Graves and Marcus Ginyard, and life in the ACC will teach the young Tar Heels all that they need to know.  They’ll be fine by March.  But that shouldn’t take away from Charleston’s victory.  Goudelock showed that he’s not just about the three, Charleston showed that they’re better than their 8-6 record (3-0 in the Southern Conference, by the way) and are brimming with new confidence — and the Charleston fans showed that they can rush a court with the best of them:

(Ed. note:  This RTC is approved under Provision IV of the Modified Forde Criteria.)

Read the rest of this entry »

Share this story