I never performed well in science class. So, I can’t remember if I ever learned about a scale of intensity, some measurement that if it exists is probably named for a white-bearded borderline lunatic European scientist.
But I’ve seen enough college basketball games to know there could easily be such a scale. Sure, ESPN would probably create it, copyright it, and then put Dick Vitale’s face on it, or maybe Jay Bilas’ mug. But the levels of this intensity scale, unlike the Bracketology prognostications spurting from the Worldwide Leader’s talking heads as early as November (good thing I saw the Last Four In last night at dinner before the Creighton game!), would be hard to argue.
ANYWAY, if the atmosphere and early season stakes Creighton experienced last weekend on the road at Dayton were somewhere on this intensity scale between “Playing in the First Round of the NCAA Tournament on a Neutral Court” and “Playing against One of the Best Teams in the Available BracketBuster Pool on the Road,” the season opener at home against Florida A&M was way, way, way down toward the opposite end of the spectrum. Like, somewhere between “Playing Any MEAC School” and “Watching a Game During the Rick Johnson Era.”
It isn’t the players’ fault, necessarily. Creighton fans have been spoiled by some solid home season openers these past few years (New Mexico in 2008 and DePaul in 2007), games the team could get up for. And I’m not saying the guys weren’t jacked up last night. But they probably weren’t as excited to play the Rattlers as they were the Flyers in front of 13,000-plus hostile Ohioans (hostile Ohioans are worth a good 5-10 points on the intensity spectrum, by the way).
And so the play was sloppy. The rebounding, pathetic (except for Wayne Runnels’ second straight 9-rebound effort to start his CU career). And the rousing Phone Booth atmosphere Creighton fans tout as a major difference between Bluejays home games and those of similar resources and fan base sizes? Non-existent. By the under-8:00 media timeout in the second half, the crowd thinned to the size of what seemed like the 2,000 people who watched CU and FAMU fight it out at Ak-Sar-Ben Arena in 1993.
As expected, Creighton continued to score points. Sure, they suffered an extended drought in the second half: the Bluejays opened a 32-point lead with 9 minutes to play but then scored just a point a minute through the end of the game. But Dana Altman’s team shot 44% from the field, 36% from 3-point range, and 85% from the free throw line. Four Bluejays finished in double figures, led by Darryl Ashford (17) and Ethan Wragge (16). Scoring points shouldn’t be a problem for the Bluejays this season. Which is great, because in basketball, like most sports, the team that scores the most points wins (read: sarcasm).
But as I’m sure the rabble-rousers already pointed out after the game on talk radio and message boards, there are many areas in which the Bluejays must improve. But tell me: is there any team in the country that can’t say the same thing at this point in the season? KU didn’t crack 60 against a Coach Cal-less Memphis team last night. Gonzaga gave Tom Izzo’s team (ranked #2 right now) all it could handle last night, too.
Let’s get the obligatory rebounding reference out of the way, then. Creighton suffered yet another performance during which the Jays were outrebounded by their opponent. The Rattlers beat CU on the boards, 41-37. How is that possible? you might be asking yourself? They played a MEAC school! you might exclaim. Again, I chalk this up to intensity, whether that’s acceptable or not.
I put my research cap on after the game and looked at all of Creighton’s games against MEAC schools in the past 10 years. I couldn’t find box scores for CU’s games against Coppin State and Morgan State in 1989, but since that was Bob Harstad’s junior year I’ll go ahead and assume he wiped the boards clean against those teams. But would you be surprised to know that in the 8 games I could find stats for, including last night’s win against FAMU, the average rebounding margin in Creighton’s favor was +2.6?!
In December 2005, Norfolk State outrebounded the Bluejays 43-39. In December 2003, Delaware State and Creighton finished even on the boards (24 apiece). In three games against Bethune-Cookman in the past 15 years, Creighton won the rebounding edge by 4 (December 1994), 4 (December 1996), and 5 (December 2003).
Do the Bluejays need to work on their rebounding? Yes, I think that’s an established scientific finding (albeit one that didn’t require research by any white-bearded Euro-scientist). And could they play better defense? Sure, who couldn’t? Do they have the athletes to play better D and hit the boards with authority? If Runnels’ first two weeks as a Bluejay are any indication, along with the eventual return of Justin Carter and Casey Harriman and the progressions Kenny Lawson can make, then the rebounding will be close in most CU games. And despite some lapses in judgment and early season hiccups on placement and assignment, I would think P’Allen Stinnett, Antoine Young, and some of the new dudes will be just fine on the press and jumping into passing lanes.
But I contend last night’s game wasn’t the appropriate barometer by which to measure this team’s improvements (or lack thereof) in some of these areas. Face it: last night was another exhibition game. Nothing more. But Creighton and its fans better find themselves on the other end of the intensity spectrum Sunday against Arkansas-Little Rock (a team that beat CU last season with a big second-half comeback, and a team that absolutely throttled the Jays on the boards, 46-26). It doesn’t take a fancy scientist to figure that out.