Wisconsin Basketball 2022-23

[Jim French Stepstool]

1 hour ago, Brewcrew82 said:

Valiant effort. 

Frustrating thing is, they went from 18 down at half to 27 down at the 15:00 mark or so. If that doesn't happen you might be looking at a one-possession game with several minutes left.

[Brewcrew82]

58 minutes ago, Jim French Stepstool said:

Wahl needs to get back to where he was his first 3 years. I really enjoy your comments on here, but I'm sorry that's about all I agree with from your list.

Take Crowl. He was pretty soft his second year. This season he improved in that area. Hopefully next year he continues to develop & add strength. He's not a straight-on power center nor will he ever be. He's a skill big, who passes well, usually doesn't turn the ball over & can shoot. His added strength---yes, he's much stronger this season---has made him much better in the low post but has messed with his outside touch. That's only happened to guys who add strength about 5 million times over the years. Hopefully he gets that back.

If there's normal development & added consistency next years' roster can have a lot of success. Would I take a shooting wing & shot-blocking rebounder? Who wouldn't? But you can act like George Steinbrenner & kick all on your list off the team & I still doubt the two types of player you want would see sufficient opportunity to come here save for Wahl leaving (And I'm pretty sure he isn't).

Did you not watch Crowl throw up (and proceed to miss) a floater today when he literally had an open basket for a dunk? Cause I did, and that's about as soft as I've ever seen from a UW big. Not to mention he repeatedly got blocked after taking his usual 20 dribbles in the post. As long as he's shooting above 34% or so from the three point line, you'll take what else he gives you. But he's completely failed to do that the past two seasons, shooting 31% and 28% respectively. So, the stats disagree with you, and say he's not a good shooter. Under Bo Ryan, our most successful teams had bigs that you had to respect from the three point line. This year, you had the aforementioned Crowl shooting under 30%; Wahl, who is a career 22% three point shooter; and Gilmore, who teams were consistently giving 5-8 feet of space and literally begging to shoot. With the offensive system we run, that is a recipe for disaster, and it's no wonder we ranked 150th in offense this year. If Wahl, who is a horrific shooter, is going to return, then Crowl has to either figure out his shooting, or become a reserve, because you have Yalden coming in who shot above 35% from 3 in the toughest high school league in the country. 

As far as the others, who on that list would you say is legitimately a power 5 player and should end up being a contributor on a top 4 BIG team? MAYBE Ilver if he puts in a lot of work this summer....But that's it. The fact that Gilmore was our top reserve big from the outset is nearly a fireable offense. You don't have to get rid of all of them, and I certainly appreciate the work they've all put in and how they've represented the university, but we need some form of talent upgrade in the transfer portal and have to create scholarship space to do so. Once NIL and the transfer portal came along, this became a business just like any other business. You fail to perform to standards, and your current status rightly comes into question.

Conversely, I would say that you seem to think everything is okay with the direction of this program right now. I'm still not in the "Fire Gard camp", like others some are (he did win the BIG championship 2/3 previous seasons, which is worth something IMO), but there are some concerning trends in recruiting that are really beginning to rear their ugly head on the court. It is incumbent on Gard to step up and fix that talent shortage ASAP, otherwise, it'll be more of the same next season, and I (and I suspect Chris McIntosh) will start packing Gard's bags for him. 

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

Yeah, I'm just not close on Gard yet. This was actually a pretty good performance in a reset year. Maybe we got spoiled by early results, and the team just couldn't hack it in a physical, very well-scouted league.

I think team's regret getting rid of guys like Gard more often than not. Jaime Dixon at Pitt. Tubby at Minnesota (and Memphis, for that matter), throw somebody like Tim Miles at Nebraska in there, and I think this is something Iowa understands about Fran, with all his flaws.

Obviously, CBB is changing, has changed. Maybe Gard won't be able to adapt. We'll see. I just think we're three years away. If Wisconsin misses the NCAAs again next year, I'll consider the following year the prove it one for Gard.

[yourout]

If Battle leaves Minnesota I wonder if there's a snowball's chance in hell of him coming to Madison?

He immediately would be a massive upgrade in the middle.

[MrTPlush]

Gard feels in a really similar position to the one PC was. Considering PC got booted largely due to recruiting woes, I have to imagine Gard is less than safe. Though, PC issues seemed to be a lot more dysfunctional and just plain garbage coaching in that regard.

I never thought Gard was that good and still don’t. However, as I have said before, I don’t think replacing him is going to grab an obvious upgrade. The basketball program isn’t irrelevant, but isn’t what the football program is. I doubt they can attract a flashier coach. They would have to bank on a coach with a different mindset and way of doing things to improve things. You aren’t going to go grab the Fickel of college basketball and have him load up a wagon of stuff to bring.

[Jim French Stepstool]

3 hours ago, Brewcrew82 said:

Did you not watch Crowl throw up (and proceed to miss) a floater today when he literally had an open basket for a dunk? Cause I did, and that's about as soft as I've ever seen from a UW big. Not to mention he repeatedly got blocked after taking his usual 20 dribbles in the post. As long as he's shooting above 34% or so from the three point line, you'll take what else he gives you. But he's completely failed to do that the past two seasons, shooting 31% and 28% respectively. So, the stats disagree with you, and say he's not a good shooter. Under Bo Ryan, our most successful teams had bigs that you had to respect from the three point line. This year, you had the aforementioned Crowl shooting under 30%; Wahl, who is a career 22% three point shooter; and Gilmore, who teams were consistently giving 5-8 feet of space and literally begging to shoot. With the offensive system we run, that is a recipe for disaster, and it's no wonder we ranked 150th in offense this year. If Wahl, who is a horrific shooter, is going to return, then Crowl has to either figure out his shooting, or become a reserve, because you have Yalden coming in who shot above 35% from 3 in the toughest high school league in the country. 

As far as the others, who on that list would you say is legitimately a power 5 player and should end up being a contributor on a top 4 BIG team? MAYBE Ilver if he puts in a lot of work this summer....But that's it. The fact that Gilmore was our top reserve big from the outset is nearly a fireable offense. You don't have to get rid of all of them, and I certainly appreciate the work they've all put in and how they've represented the university, but we need some form of talent upgrade in the transfer portal and have to create scholarship space to do so. Once NIL and the transfer portal came along, this became a business just like any other business. You fail to perform to standards, and your current status rightly comes into question.

Conversely, I would say that you seem to think everything is okay with the direction of this program right now. I'm still not in the "Fire Gard camp", like others some are (he did win the BIG championship 2/3 previous seasons, which is worth something IMO), but there are some concerning trends in recruiting that are really beginning to rear their ugly head on the court. It is incumbent on Gard to step up and fix that talent shortage ASAP, otherwise, it'll be more of the same next season, and I (and I suspect Chris McIntosh) will start packing Gard's bags for him. 

Crowl's shooting % from 3 went down from his soph to jr year. His FT % went down as well. His touch was obviously worse. He shot a bit better from 2 pt range, and his rebounds increased substantially. Like I said, he added strength & despite your dissatisfaction was more physical than the year before. Not claiming he was Bill Laimbeer. But let's see if his touch returns to at least soph year levels. You said he needs to be above 34%. That season he would've reached that number if 2 of his misses found the hole. Two.

 Pretty certain Yalden isn't starting over Crowl. And I like Yalden. 

There are reasons listed in which a sitting coach can remove a players' scholarship. Some of those legitimate reasons can be dicked around with. If you expect that, I think you have the wrong guy leading the program. If you're concerned about roster space being cleared I wouldn't worry. I'm pretty confident the current climate in college hoops takes care of that on its' own. Even so, improvement in the performance & consistency of the current roster is job one. I wouldn't say that if there isn't room for growth. There is.

Contributor to a top 4 Big Ten team? Neither was splashy, but Davis played in 27 games, & Gilmore often got minutes ahead of Carlson when the latter struggled. Like I said, nothing to write home about but they both contributed on the floor. Top 7-8? No.

The trend I see in recruiting is that there's a class coming in that I'm very happy with. The next one or two are stories that have yet to be written. As I've said, those outcomes are very important. 

 

[Samurai Bucky]

13 hours ago, Cool Hand Lucroy said:

And that's an uncool thing to say in the era of analytics, but Wisconsin has always, over the course of my lifetime, been a team that basically wins with belief. They've got guys who trust themselves to get stops and score enough to win. This team appeared to have the offensive yips.

I think back to the back-to-back Final Four teams.  That was done with highly skilled players, not superstars, and a great system.  

Giving it to somebody on the block, have them dribble for 4-5 seconds to try a 1-on-1 post move may be great once in a while, but it has failed this year.  When they move the ball and attack the basket (see the first Michigan game), they do well.

To come into the tournament as ill prepared as they did is inexcusable, but not surprising.  The team (coaches and players) need to look in the mirror and figure out what is going on before Chris McIntosh makes a decision.

[LouisEly]

Essegian is a true freshman - he's the last person who deserves any criticism.

18 hours ago, Brewcrew82 said:

Valiant effort. Just not enough offensive talent on this team. Time to get working in the transfer portal and on the recruiting trail, Gard. Your job depends on it.

As a lifelong fan and alumni of this proud program, I hope that first half is as low as it gets from this point on. 

I've seen worse than the first half.  They had a few turnovers (I believe six in the first half, but only 10 for the game) but they had several plays where they got the ball inside, got fouled, got the shot up and on the rim but rolled off.  An inch or two here and there and they could have had at least 4-5 and-ones.  Instead they got free throws and only made one of two.  They got good looks but rimmed out.  I don't think Hepburn was 100%; he just looked off. 

Essegian's a true freshman; he's the last person who should get criticized.  But Hepburn and Essegian combining to go 2-13 is what caused their downfall.

[Jim French Stepstool]

One more comment regarding the portal: I think everyone who clamors for a talent upgrade should, for a minute, put aside dissatisfaction with Wahl, or Crowl or Gilmore, or who should or shouldn't be on the team, and just for that minute put yourself in the position of a kid looking to transfer. let's say you're Brewcrew82s' athletic rebounder & shot blocker, which sounds good to me. When shopping, you look at Wisconsin & you don't see Crowls' lack of aggressiveness, you don't see Wahls' lack of an outside shot & problem finishing. You see two veteran post guys, both of whom started & averaged 11-12 PPG. You also see two incoming freshmen, one pretty well regarded & the other even more so. I'd love to be proven wrong, but you're probably going to keep looking. Same thing, maybe to a slightly lesser extent, with Mr. Athletic Wing. You probably don't think of how much of a better athlete you are, you see a kid who started & was all-freshman B10, plus another returning starter. It doesn't mean Gard shouldn't try. But we need to be realistic about it.

[Brewcrew82]

1 hour ago, LouisEly said:

Essegian is a true freshman - he's the last person who deserves any criticism.

I've seen worse than the first half.  They had a few turnovers (I believe six in the first half, but only 10 for the game) but they had several plays where they got the ball inside, got fouled, got the shot up and on the rim but rolled off.  An inch or two here and there and they could have had at least 4-5 and-ones.  Instead they got free throws and only made one of two.  They got good looks but rimmed out.  I don't think Hepburn was 100%; he just looked off. 

Essegian's a true freshman; he's the last person who should get criticized.  But Hepburn and Essegian combining to go 2-13 is what caused their downfall.

I never said anything about or Essegian or criticizing him. He was such a huge surprise on the season and props to Gard for recruiting him. 

My criticism was more directed at Crowl or who was so bad yesterday that he got benched in favor of Carter Gilmore. He’s really gotta figure out his shot in the off-season…

[Brewcrew82]

1 hour ago, Jim French Stepstool said:

One more comment regarding the portal: I think everyone who clamors for a talent upgrade should, for a minute, put aside dissatisfaction with Wahl, or Crowl or Gilmore, or who should or shouldn't be on the team, and just for that minute put yourself in the position of a kid looking to transfer. let's say you're Brewcrew82s' athletic rebounder & shot blocker, which sounds good to me. When shopping, you look at Wisconsin & you don't see Crowls' lack of aggressiveness, you don't see Wahls' lack of an outside shot & problem finishing. You see two veteran post guys, both of whom started & averaged 11-12 PPG. You also see two incoming freshmen, one pretty well regarded & the other even more so. I'd love to be proven wrong, but you're probably going to keep looking. Same thing, maybe to a slightly lesser extent, with Mr. Athletic Wing. You probably don't think of how much of a better athlete you are, you see a kid who started & was all-freshman B10, plus another returning starter. It doesn't mean Gard shouldn't try. But we need to be realistic about it.

I don’t care how Gard does it, but he simply can’t have a repeat of this season results-wise. Given that we’ll be returning largely the same cast of characters, it would be dangerous just to run it back and expect internal improvement to take care of things and get us back to top 4 in the conference. Surely we can do better than Carter Gilmore as our top reserve big…Gus will help, but you still have a need for some form of rim protection. 

I’m not under any illusions that we’ll suddenly start recruiting like Kentucky, but there is still a heck of a lot to sell with the program and the university. Andrew Rhode, for example, is someone who would upgrade the team at SF and offer us another ball handler other than Chucky. No reason why we should be losing guys like him to other programs. 
 

Bottom line is Gard has another season like this, and he’s probably gone. It’s up to him to get us back on track, and there’s a clear need for talent upgrades.

[Oxy]

It's probably not realistic to expect another Micah Potter type of transfer, but a clone of his would sure be nice. Gard HAS shown he CAN do it despite no real starting spots to offer, so hopefully it happens again.

[superfly]

1 hour ago, Brewcrew82 said:

I don’t care how Gard does it, but he simply can’t have a repeat of this season results-wise. Given that we’ll be returning largely the same cast of characters, it would be dangerous just to run it back and expect internal improvement to take care of things and get us back to top 4 in the conference. Surely we can do better than Carter Gilmore as our top reserve big…Gus will help, but you still have a need for some form of rim protection. 

I’m not under any illusions that we’ll suddenly start recruiting like Kentucky, but there is still a heck of a lot to sell with the program and the university. Andrew Rhode, for example, is someone who would upgrade the team at SF and offer us another ball handler other than Chucky. No reason why we should be losing guys like him to other programs. 
 

Bottom line is Gard has another season like this, and he’s probably gone. It’s up to him to get us back on track, and there’s a clear need for talent upgrades.

As a St. Thomas grad (2011) experiencing this transition (seemingly pretty well) to D1 im enjoying Rohde just where he is. 😂

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

1 hour ago, superfly said:

As a St. Thomas grad (2011) experiencing this transition (seemingly pretty well) to D1 im enjoying Rohde just where he is. 😂

As a Saint John's grad (2008), I'm a little jealous of St. Thomas men's basketball, as much as it hurts to admit.

I'd trade those D3 football national titles for an NCAA tourney berth (though I definitely wouldn't trade the domination of St. Thomas, a couple of years in the early 2010s aside ;)

(this post brought to you by the MIAC).

 

 

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

While we're on the subject of coaching, I was watching Tony Bennett and Virginia tonight and thinking about coaching philosophy. Dick Bennett leaves Wisconsin unexpectedly. The Soderbergh weird thing. Then, Tony Bennett remains as assistant under Ryan for a couple years before heading to Washington State, where he takes that program about as far as its been in a half century and really commits to the pack-line and the overall Bennett philosophy. Wisconsin, meanwhile, has Ryan and the swing.

Both programs, Wisconsin and Virginia are probably happy with this weird fork-in-the-road. Wisconsin gets some sweet 16s, an Elite 8, back-to-back Final Fours. Virginia gets the one FF, but is lucky enough to win it all (review that 2019 and how many narrow escapes they had...not that they didn't deserve it because I think they did, but you know what I mean--the difference between how things turned out for Virginia and UW over the last 20 years comes down to luck).

The difference is that Virginia remains committed to their philosophy, offensively and defensively. They don't run a lot of high ball screen, pick-and-roll stuff. It's passing and cutting and downscreens. That's an anomaly. UW, meanwhile, really moved away from the swing offensively. That worked fine for Kaminsky and Dekker, two guys who both could thrive in the pick-and-roll (to say nothing of Koenig and Gasser), but, lately, there just isn't enough ability to generate points from that offensive set. It used to be Wisconsin games looked different than the rest of the NCAA. Now, not so much. Sure, they play slow. Sure, they defend. But, in the halfcourt, it's the same ballscreen offense with late-clock isolation.

I'd like to see Wisconsin embrace the swing, that modified flex, some coherent, different offensive philosophy the way that Virginia has. Honestly, I think Jordan Davis would thrive in that Virginia system. Klesmit and Essegian too. And Chucky is a classic Tony Bennett PG who get a lot more open looks if defenses didn't have the luxury of sitting back and letting him take a 17-foot, late-clock fadeaway.

[Jim French Stepstool]

1 hour ago, Cool Hand Lucroy said:

While we're on the subject of coaching, I was watching Tony Bennett and Virginia tonight and thinking about coaching philosophy. Dick Bennett leaves Wisconsin unexpectedly. The Soderbergh weird thing. Then, Tony Bennett remains as assistant under Ryan for a couple years before heading to Washington State, where he takes that program about as far as its been in a half century and really commits to the pack-line and the overall Bennett philosophy. Wisconsin, meanwhile, has Ryan and the swing.

Both programs, Wisconsin and Virginia are probably happy with this weird fork-in-the-road. Wisconsin gets some sweet 16s, an Elite 8, back-to-back Final Fours. Virginia gets the one FF, but is lucky enough to win it all (review that 2019 and how many narrow escapes they had...not that they didn't deserve it because I think they did, but you know what I mean--the difference between how things turned out for Virginia and UW over the last 20 years comes down to luck).

The difference is that Virginia remains committed to their philosophy, offensively and defensively. They don't run a lot of high ball screen, pick-and-roll stuff. It's passing and cutting and downscreens. That's an anomaly. UW, meanwhile, really moved away from the swing offensively. That worked fine for Kaminsky and Dekker, two guys who both could thrive in the pick-and-roll (to say nothing of Koenig and Gasser), but, lately, there just isn't enough ability to generate points from that offensive set. It used to be Wisconsin games looked different than the rest of the NCAA. Now, not so much. Sure, they play slow. Sure, they defend. But, in the halfcourt, it's the same ballscreen offense with late-clock isolation.

I'd like to see Wisconsin embrace the swing, that modified flex, some coherent, different offensive philosophy the way that Virginia has. Honestly, I think Jordan Davis would thrive in that Virginia system. Klesmit and Essegian too. And Chucky is a classic Tony Bennett PG who get a lot more open looks if defenses didn't have the luxury of sitting back and letting him take a 17-foot, late-clock fadeaway.

Pretty good stuff there. Gard went back to the swing when he took over for Bo. Now it seems intermittent at best. It's ironic because I believe people like Freitag & Kneuppel could thrive with it, and Yalden & Winter look to be capable of opening the lane from the high post. In retrospect this group was probably going to lack consistency regardless of the system with the lack of finishing around the hoop.

[Jim French Stepstool]

2 hours ago, superfly said:

As a St. Thomas grad (2011) experiencing this transition (seemingly pretty well) to D1 im enjoying Rohde just where he is. 😂

So you've seen him regularly. How would you say he holds up defensively vs small, quick guards in the Summit? Does he ever take smaller guards into the post, or mostly float around the arc?

[LouisEly]

On 3/9/2023 at 8:18 PM, Cool Hand Lucroy said:

 UW, meanwhile, really moved away from the swing offensively. That worked fine for Kaminsky and Dekker, two guys who both could thrive in the pick-and-roll (to say nothing of Koenig and Gasser), but, lately, there just isn't enough ability to generate points from that offensive set. It used to be Wisconsin games looked different than the rest of the NCAA. Now, not so much. Sure, they play slow. Sure, they defend. But, in the halfcourt, it's the same ballscreen offense with late-clock isolation.

There's one other slight but important difference between UW's final four teams in 2014 and 2015 and now.  Starting in the 2015-2016 season, the NCAA reduced the shot clock from 35 to 30 seconds.  Those teams had five more seconds to work their offense to get a good shot.  Doesn't seem like much, but now at five seconds you have to take what you can get but in 2014-2015 you still had 10 seconds and didn't have to rush.

[Jim French Stepstool]

12 hours ago, LouisEly said:

There's one other slight but important difference between UW's final four teams in 2014 and 2015 and now.  Starting in the 2015-2016 season, the NCAA reduced the shot clock from 35 to 30 seconds.  Those teams had five more seconds to work their offense to get a good shot.  Doesn't seem like much, but now at five seconds you have to take what you can get but in 2014-2015 you still had 10 seconds and didn't have to rush.

Sure. It's tough enough to guard well for 30 seconds. Imagine how much tougher it is to do it for 35.

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

So, I know we're all pretty resigned to the Badgers being in the NIT. I think that's by far the most likely (and probably the most fair, honestly) outcome.

Still, to the extent that the actual committee deliberations work differently than the Bracketology hive mind, here's the case for Wisconsin:

They have more/the same Q1 wins and the same/fewer Q3/Q4 losses than Clemson, Pitt, Mississippi St., Utah St., Arizona St., and Nevada. Their win @Marquette is probably the best win of the bunch, along with ASU's @Arizona. The truth is: there isn't a lot separating these 7 teams. I'd have this Badger team closer to first team out than next four out, at least from a numbers perspective. The Badgers' big disadvantage is that the NET really dislikes them, as does KenPom.

I don't think the Badgers will get in. I don't think they should get in. All I'm saying is I think it will end up closer than the general consensus. No point speculating further, I suppose. All is revealed at 5PM Central.

EDIT: Forgot about Rutgers, a team everyone assumes is fairly safe. They have the head-to-head win at the Kohl. Has to matter. But they also have 4 Q3 losses and one less Q1 win than Wisconsin. When you get down to that cutline, there's a lot of flawed teams. Always is.

[Jim French Stepstool]

1 hour ago, Cool Hand Lucroy said:

So, I know we're all pretty resigned to the Badgers being in the NIT. I think that's by far the most likely (and probably the most fair, honestly) outcome.

Still, to the extent that the actual committee deliberations work differently than the Bracketology hive mind, here's the case for Wisconsin:

They have more/the same Q1 wins and the same/fewer Q3/Q4 losses than Clemson, Pitt, Mississippi St., Utah St., Arizona St., and Nevada. Their win @Marquette is probably the best win of the bunch, along with ASU's @Arizona. The truth is: there isn't a lot separating these 7 teams. I'd have this Badger team closer to first team out than next four out, at least from a numbers perspective. The Badgers' big disadvantage is that the NET really dislikes them, as does KenPom.

I don't think the Badgers will get in. I don't think they should get in. All I'm saying is I think it will end up closer than the general consensus. No point speculating further, I suppose. All is revealed at 5PM Central.

EDIT: Forgot about Rutgers, a team everyone assumes is fairly safe. They have the head-to-head win at the Kohl. Has to matter. But they also have 4 Q3 losses and one less Q1 win than Wisconsin. When you get down to that cutline, there's a lot of flawed teams. Always is.

Yeah, always some flawed teams when you let in 68.

I agree they shouldn't be dancing. But I agree at the end of the day they may have been closer to the cutoff than you would think. A big reason for that is we see them close-up, and the "eye test" we subject them to has been quite ugly at times. And a lot of people became overly negative due to that. I heard media types who actually get paid to give informed opinions, who thought they had to win out to secure a bid when there were like six games left on the schedule. 

It'll be weird being in the NIT. Last time they were there was late in the last century.

[LouisEly]

Two lucky plays.

I just keep thinking back to the Kansas game, and what would/could be had an out of bounds call been made at the very end of regulation on the Kansas player whose foot was touching out of bounds when he threw the ball back in play and they made the shot to tie it.  That and the circus shot at the end of overtime on the offensive rebound.

Then the Michigan game where their center heaves one up from 27 feet at the end of regulation to tie it.

Add those two wins and there is no discussion about them being in.

[MVP2110]

It's definitely true that some fans and media got too far into the idea this team wasn't close to being a tournament team. They were a couple plays away from locking up a spot as noted. It probably says something about the quality of teams we discuss on the bubble but Wisconsin will likely be one of the first four out or close to it

[MrTPlush]

49 minutes ago, LouisEly said:

Two lucky plays.

I just keep thinking back to the Kansas game, and what would/could be had an out of bounds call been made at the very end of regulation on the Kansas player whose foot was touching out of bounds when he threw the ball back in play and they made the shot to tie it.  That and the circus shot at the end of overtime on the offensive rebound.

Then the Michigan game where their center heaves one up from 27 feet at the end of regulation to tie it.

Add those two wins and there is no discussion about them being in.

I mean, true, but also…you could say that of any team at the bubble in a major conference.

You could also point out the plethora of close wins the Badgers won. Had so many of those gone there way, we would be wondering if they are even .500.

[Jim French Stepstool]

52 minutes ago, MrTPlush said:

I mean, true, but also…you could say that of any team at the bubble in a major conference.

You could also point out the plethora of close wins the Badgers won. Had so many of those gone there way, we would be wondering if they are even .500.

Yeah, they could've been going into the last week needing a win or 2........to reach the NIT. Or as was pointed out, could've been comfortably in the NCAAs. I focus mainly on Kansas & the 2-pt loss to Purdue. They were a whisker away from defeating three conference regular-season champs, and only one of those three would've been at home. THAT might not be something a lot of bubble teams can say.