Tag: SDSU basketball

How to buy UConn vs. San Diego State 2024 NCAA Tournament March Madness Sweet 16 tickets

Want to watch UCONN vs. San Diego State in person? Tickets are still available for this Sweet 16 matchup in Boston, MA.

Take a breath, Huskies and Aztecs fans, your teams are moving onto the Sweet 16!

No. 1 UConn routed No. 9 Northwestern 75-58, led by 20 points and 10 assists from senior Tristen Newton.

No. 5 San Diego State dispatched the penultimate double-digit seed, No. 13 Yale, 85-57 on Sunday night, capping the Round of 32.

Both teams advance to the Sweet 16 in the East Region, and will play in Boston on Thursday, March 28, in a rematch of last year’s NCAA Championship Game.

Tickets are still available to the UConn vs. San Diego State Sweet 16 matchup for as little as $294.

Tickets include access to both Sweet 16 games, the other game will feature the No. 2 Iowa State vs. No. 3 Illinois.

Weekend passes are also still available, and include both Sweet 16 games and the subsequent Elite 8 game in Boston.

At the time of publication Boston Regional weekend passes are still available for as little as $500.

[afflinkbutton text=”Shop UConn vs. SDSU Sweet 16 tickets” link=”https://stubhub.prf.hn/l/9OX99AD”]

[afflinkbutton text=”Shop Boston Regional weekend pass” link=”https://stubhub.prf.hn/l/deqP1wN”]

How to buy UConn vs. San Diego State 2024 NCAA Tournament March Madness Sweet 16 tickets

Want to watch UCONN vs. San Diego State in person? Tickets are still available for this Sweet 16 matchup in Boston, MA.

Take a breath, Huskies and Aztecs fans, your teams are moving onto the Sweet 16!

No. 1 UConn routed No. 9 Northwestern 75-58, led by 20 points and 10 assists from senior Tristen Newton.

No. 5 San Diego State dispatched the penultimate double-digit seed, No. 13 Yale, 85-57 on Sunday night, capping the Round of 32.

Both teams advance to the Sweet 16 in the East Region, and will play in Boston on Thursday, March 28, in a rematch of last year’s NCAA Championship Game.

Tickets are still available to the UConn vs. San Diego State Sweet 16 matchup for as little as $294.

Tickets include access to both Sweet 16 games, the other game will feature the No. 2 Iowa State vs. No. 3 Illinois.

Weekend passes are also still available, and include both Sweet 16 games and the subsequent Elite 8 game in Boston.

At the time of publication Boston Regional weekend passes are still available for as little as $500.

[afflinkbutton text=”Shop UConn vs. SDSU Sweet 16 tickets” link=”https://stubhub.prf.hn/l/9OX99AD”]

[afflinkbutton text=”Shop Boston Regional weekend pass” link=”https://stubhub.prf.hn/l/deqP1wN”]

New Mexico blows out No. 19 San Diego State, 88-70

Game Recap: New Mexico 88, No. 19 SDSU 70 New Mexico enjoyed a double-digit win over rivals San Diego State in front of a sold out crowd. Contact/Follow @HardwoodTalk & @MWCwire The Lobos received a team effort to put away top-25 ranked Aztecs at …

[mm-video type=playlist id=01fb7dafw2b08817yr player_id=none image=https://mwwire.com/wp-content/plugins/mm-video/images/playlist-icon.png]

 Game Recap: New Mexico 88, No. 19 SDSU 70

New Mexico enjoyed a double-digit win over rivals San Diego State in front of a sold out crowd.

Contact/Follow @HardwoodTalk & @MWCwire

The Lobos received a team effort to put away top-25 ranked Aztecs at home.

Albuquerque, NM–A conference rivalry that was on the verge of extinction this time last season was truly alive in Albuquerque on Saturday afternoon. In front of a sold out crowd inside the Pit, two of the Mountain West’s best hit the hardwood.

For the No. 19 Aztecs it was an opportunity to put the smackdown on a talented Lobo team who is coming off of a tough couple of road losses. For New Mexico, it was a shot at knocking off a top-25 opponent at home, who just happens to be one of your oldest rivals.

Things were tight from the opening tip. As the Lobos & Aztecs traded buckets most of the 1st half. With high energy, high emotion plays coming left & right. But the Aztecs began to play their game around the ten minute mark to separate themselves in front of an involved Lobo crowd.

A slowed down approach on both sides of the ball made every basket count. And when the Lobos went on a dry spell during that time, the Aztecs took advantage. Taking their first double-digit lead (29-19) behind offensive efforts from Darrion Trammell & Miles Byrd.

The Lobos weren’t going to take a beating like that lying down, certainly Jaelen House wasn’t. The graduate combo guard helped ignite a 17-0 run that would shrink their double-digit deficit and give them the 36-35 lead approaching the 2:15 mark.

Aside from House’s 14 first-half points, the Lobos were given the edge heading into the half by way of their free throw shooting. New Mexico’s three guard trio of Dent, House & Mashburn Jr. combined for 12-12 from the charity stripe. It’s hard to point to anything else offensively in the first twenty that gave them an advantage.

The second-half started out similarly, this time with the Lobos in the driver seat. Running and gunning off of defensive turnovers, the crowd inside the Pit was treated to highlight reel dunks left and right.

All of this until the Aztecs wore them out a tad. A few San Diego State buckets shrank the lead to within five. The Lobos answered as they had all game, with solid defensive plays from their guards & bigs.

A technical foul on San Diego State’s Miles Byrd around the 14th minute mark was a testament to how physical things were all night. The Aztecs were given two more technical just minutes later for some pushing & jarring once again. Those moments can be momentum killers but

The Lobos continued to trade buckets with their visitors. Eventually going on an 11-1 run approaching the ten minute mark to take their largest lead of the game (64-51). That lead would get as high as 19 behind the efforts of Mashburn Jr. and the rest of his team. The senior guard has looked out of rhythm since his hand injury back in November.

New Mexico never looked back, with multiple guards with red hot hands & JT Toppin in the post to defend and flush the ball any chance he got it was over.

“We were able to do it on a national stage against a nationally ranked team.” said Coach Pitino “A great day for our team and our fans”

Player Spotlights

New Mexico F-JT Toppin

Stat line: 17 points, 16 rebounds & 5 blocked shots

I changed this multiple times throughout the game, cycling through House, Mashburn Jr. & Toppin several times. But when I went to the box score & saw the freshman’s double-double and 4 blocked shots it felt necessary. Those four blocks could have easily been 8 or 10 as Toppin was active in the post all night, deflecting shots & passes.

“We knew we were going to win on defense, we knew we were going to score but we had to win on defense.” said Toppin on his squads defense

He also would have had over twenty points if he would have made some free throws (1-8). I don’t think the Lobos win without Toppin, their lack of interior defense has been an issue all season, not Saturday.

SDSU G– Darrion Trammell

Stat line: 12 points, 2 assists & 2 steals in 29 minutes on the floor.

There are not many stat sheet stuffing moments from the Aztecs during the season. They just aren’t that sort of team, they can get the job done as a team with no flashy stats. Trammell was one of the few Aztecs on the floor that looked to be score or create offense every time he touched the ball.

Three Takeaways

  • Sometimes passion is what’s needed when facing adversity. There isn’t another player on the court with House at the same time that has more passion than him. He was a maestro for his squad’s offense as well the crowd’s involvement all game.
  • The Aztecs played their game all game long. If your opponent is cold like the Lobos were in the first half you dominate and win. Once they find a rhythm as the Lobos did, the firepower isn’t always there to play catch up. A good showing by Brian Dutchers group, but let’s hope for a No. 25 ranking come Monday after that loss.
  • This has become a marquee Mountain West matchup in the Pitino era. Something the Lobo fanbase needed while also contributing to the juggernaut reputation of the conference. Games like this are good for fans, nothing more to be said.

Next Up:

The Lobos take their win and continue their two game homestand against a red & hot top-25 ranked Utah State. Danny Sprinkle has the Aggies rolling in year one and that 8:30 PM MT tip-off can be seen on FS1 on Wednesday night.

While SDSU returns home to face Steve Alford and his Nevada Wolf Pack on Wednesday night as well. Nevada is always a tough conference matchup and boast two of the better guards in the Mountain West in Kenan Blackshear & Jarod Lucas. That 8:00 PM PT tip-off can be seen on the CBS Sports Network.

Larry Muniz covers college basketball as a writer for Mountain West Wire and WAC Hoops Digest. Also as a co-host of the college basketball podcast “Hoops Talk W/Jay & Larry”. He is also a USWBA Member.

[lawrence-auto-related count=3 category=1361]

San Diego State’s Lamont Butler narrowly avoided stepping out of bounds before his buzzer-beater

That buzzer-beater was *this* close to never happening.

The first game of the Final Four ended in a thrilling victory for San Diego State as Lamont Butler nailed a remarkable buzzer-beater.

After SDSU head coach Brian Dutcher opted not to use their final timeout, Butler was trusted to make the right play. The guard took the ball down the floor in transition, dribbled near the baseline, and showed stellar footwork as the clock continued ticking.

Butler very nearly stepped out of bounds once on the baseline and if he had moved his right foot an extra inch, SDSU’s season would have come to a sad close due to a turnover. Instead, he was able to make his way to the midrange and nail the shot.

This is one of those shots that will go down in the March Madness history books, but it’s even crazier when you realize that it nearly didn’t happen.

Take a look at this angle and you will see exactly how close it was:

My heart is pounding just looking at that video!

Congratulations to Butler on using all 94 feet of the court and all 50 feet of the baseline, because my goodness, that was a close call.

[pickup_prop id=”32899″]

[lawrence-related id=2037207,2036270,2034889,2031366,2027851]

SDSU coach Brian Dutcher explains why he didn’t call a timeout before amazing Final Four buzzer-beater

“I ran out of plays so I decided not to take a timeout.”

San Diego State had a timeout remaining as the clock neared an expiration, but Brian Dutcher trusted his players and didn’t use it.

After trailing Florida Atlantic by as many as 14 points earlier in the game, SDSU had a chance to secure the victory. SDSU big man Nathan Mensah grabbed a rebound following a missed shot by FAU, then Lamont Butler took the ball up the floor in transition.

Butler stepped up on the biggest stage and managed to take an incredibly impressive off-the-dribble jumper from midrange. The shot went in for a thrilling buzzer-beater, earning a trip to the national championship.

After the game, Dutcher was asked why he chose not to call a timeout and draw up a more intentional possession in a set offense.

Dutcher was perfectly candid about the decision to instead let everything just happen within the flow of the game:

Here was the full quote from Dutcher:

“I ran out of plays so I decided not to take a timeout. So Lamont said if we get the rebound, let’s get downhill, send all three bigs to the rim. He got downhill and made the play.”

SDSU was an average team when it came to their typical shot quality after a timeout, but they were also relatively inefficient in a transition offense during the tournament.

This decision was bold but brilliant and it worked like a charm.

[pickup_prop id=”32899″]

[lawrence-related id=2037207,2036270,2034889,2031366,2027851]

Field of 96? A Proposal for an Expanded NCAA Tournament

Field of 96? A Proposal for an Expanded NCAA Tournament in 2021 All contingency plans should be on the table for the next March Madness. Contact/Follow @andrewdieckhoff & @MWCwire Could the NCAA Tournament expand to 96 teams? As the likelihood …

[jwplayer t4KKN06X-sNi3MVSU]

Field of 96? A Proposal for an Expanded NCAA Tournament in 2021

All contingency plans should be on the table for the next March Madness.

Contact/Follow @andrewdieckhoff & @MWCwire

Could the NCAA Tournament expand to 96 teams?

As the likelihood increases for a college basketball season unlike any other, it has become open season for speculations about how the NCAA might proceed with its second-most popular sport. National outlets such as CBS Sports and The Athletic have dedicated thousands of words to enumerating nearly every scenario imaginable on how the 2020-21 hoops season might unfold.

Particularly noteworthy is Matt Norlander’s recent rundown of different tournament formats that the NCAA could adopt for its annual spring fling. While most options were presented in a positive light, his final suggestion – temporarily expanding the field to 96 teams – came with multiple all-caps warnings:

“WARNING, WARNING: DO NOT DO THIS, NCAA. DON’T EVER DO THIS.”

“I REPEAT: ONE YEAR ONLY AND PREFERABLY IN AN ALTERNATE UNIVERSE FROM OUR OWN”

“DO NOT DO THIS, NCAA. I’M GOING AGAINST EVERYTHING IN MY DNA BY EVEN PUTTING THIS OPTION OUT THERE.”

Clearly, Norlander isn’t sold on the idea of giving out extra bids.

Even so, he does outline a few broad strokes for a 96-team field would look, most notably suggesting that each conference would be awarded two automatic bids and divvy out the remaining 32 at-large bids to leagues “based on historical league performance.”

The idea is treated with such contempt, however, that its author goes into no further detail, leaving at least one reader to wonder what it would look like to play this tune out. With seemingly endless time to speculate until anybody in charge makes any official proclamations, we here at the Mountain West Wire are happy to tug on that thread.

Let’s make one thing clear before we begin: I’m not advocating for this proposed and very very hypothetical tournament format to become the new status quo. And just in case you’re worried that the idea is gaining traction with the powers that be, NCAA president Mark Emmert recently said that pulling off even a 64-team tournament in a bubble scenario would be “tough.”

He makes a fair point. But what if the NCAA were to split up an expanded 96-team field over multiple bubbles, with the winner of each regional bracket advancing to a separate Final Four weekend event?

There are a few reasons why this hypothetical 96-team model could make some sense if the non-conference season is eventually canceled or severely truncated:

  • It allows for tournament games to be played across five sites total and could reasonably be completed within four to five weeks, including rest periods.
  • It increases the total number of NCAA Tournament games being played, potentially helping the NCAA and its member programs recoup some of the financial losses suffered due to the lack of a 2019-20 postseason and assuming there is no non-conference play in 2020-21. A guarantee of multiple teams from each conference would increase the NCAA Tournament units earned by each league.
  • It recognizes that the typical at-large selection process would lose the context provided by non-conference games and accounts for the lack of data by giving more bids to programs from all 32 conferences, while attempting to preserve existing hierarchies among the leagues with regard to the distribution of at-large bids.
  • It removes the subjective NCAA Tournament selection process, which would be hindered by the lack of inter-conference data, replacing the typical 68-team bracket with four brackets, each of which are comprised of 24 teams chosen from eight predetermined, geographically proximal conferences.
  • It places an even greater importance on winning conference games, which seems reasonable in the hypothetical scenario in which the non-conference slate is axed.
  • It allows each conference to exercise its own judgment regarding how its representative teams will be selected (conference tournament, order of finish in league play, etc.), giving each team a clear and unchanging rubric for how to make the NCAA Tournament and the consequences for falling in the standings.

Is it an ideal solution? Of course not. However, it’s going to take some enterprising spirit to get college basketball back, and so we can’t be afraid to discuss taking a first step down a potentially slippery slope. Norlander pointed out in his piece that the tournament has only ever expanded – it has never contracted. It’s a fair concern.

But If there were ever a season for a break-the-glass contingency plan, this is it.

NCAA senior VP of college basketball, Dan Gavitt, recently told Andy Katz, “We’ll be flexible. We’ll be nimble and we’ll deliver what the country is desperately looking for again and that’s just an incredible March Madness tournament in 2021.”

Here’s hoping Gavitt is serious, because the proposal that follows will certainly test the tensile strength of the NCAA’s flexibility.

If nothing else, it has been a fun thought exercise to put this together, and in the end, it may not be the worst idea I will ever have. Here goes nothing. (And who knows? Maybe we’ll find a miracle cure tomorrow and all of this will be moot.)

BID ALLOTMENT

By expanding the tournament, each league would still receive an automatic bid into the tournament, and further, each would be guaranteed one spot in round of 64 by virtue of its champion receiving a bye past the qualifying round. The remaining 64 at-large teams square off to see who fills out the bracket.

Of course, it would be naive to think that all leagues are created equal. But just how do you quantify the inequality that we know to exist between conferences?  One way is to look at the distribution of at-large bids granted to each conference over recent years, as well as to look at which leagues had teams under close consideration for an at-large bid. I’ll spare you all the calculations, and you can feel free to argue with them, but I established three tiers for the Division I conferences based on recent history:

  • Near-Lock Multi-Bid Leagues (Tier 1)
    • American, Atlantic 10, ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big XII, Pacific 12, SEC
  • Potential Multi-Bid Leagues (Tier 2)
    • Conference USA, Ivy League, Mid-American, Missouri Valley, Mountain West, Ohio Valley, Southern, West Coast
  • Near-Lock One-Bid Leagues (Tier 3)
    • America East, Atlantic Sun, Big Sky, Big South, Big West, Colonial, Horizon, MAAC, MEAC, Northeast, Patriot, Southland, Summit, Sun Belt, SWAC, WAC

By splitting the leagues up in such a way, bids can be evenly spread across the tiers:

  • Tier 1: five (5) bids per league x 8 leagues = 40 bids
  • Tier 2: three (3) bids per league x 8 leagues = 24 bids
  • Tier 3: two (2) bids per league x 16 leagues = 32 bids

Of course, while most of us may recognize a reality in which the Big Ten and the A-10 would likely not receive the same number of bids in a normal year, this is not a normal year. By divvying up bids from the start, the NCAA could save itself a big headache down the line in trying to split hairs between schools. They could also allow conferences to determine how their bids are chosen.

Don’t want to have a conference tournament at all? Fine, don’t! Want to choose your participants based strictly on order of finish in league play instead? Go for it! Want to use a conference tournament to determine your automatic bid and the league standings to determine the at-large representatives? You do you!

There are also questions of where to play the games, but I will save that discussion for another time, though. This is all hypothetical, after all, and there are people much better equipped to answer those questions. In fact, our own Jeremy Mauss touched on this topic earlier this week.

Instead, what I will break down is how the NCAA could actually hold this 96-team tournament in a mostly-travel-friendly way that takes the guesswork out of their lives in the event the non-conference season is canceled. Things look a little messy at first glance, but it could be an elegant solution if the NCAA decided to temporarily expand its tournament field.

Here are some important things to note:

  • The hypothetical tournament field would consist of 96 teams, with 32 conference champions receiving an automatic bid into the Round of 64. The remaining 64 bids would be allotted in a predetermined manner and seeded into a qualifying round in their respective bracket.
  • The 32 conferences would be evenly split into one the four regional brackets based on geographical footprint and the tiers noted above. Each bracket would include two Tier 1 leagues, two Tier 2 leagues, and four Tier 3 leagues, resulting in a total of 24 bids being allotted to each region. The four regional brackets would be structured as follows:
    • North: Big Ten, A-10, MVC, MAC, Horizon, Patriot, MAAC, NEC
    • East: ACC, Big East, Ivy, OVC, CAA, ASUN, AEC, MEAC
    • West: Pac-12, AAC, WCC, MWC, WAC, Big West, Summit, Big Sky
    • South: Big XII, SEC, SOCON, CUSA, Sun Belt, Southland, Big South, SWAC
  • The schedule might cause some complications of course, but if the brackets are split up into four separate sites each having the ability to play two games at overlapping times, that would facilitate things. Assuming a March 25 start date, here’s a sample timeline for the tournament, with built-in recovery periods:
    • Qualifying Round: Thurs., March 25 and Fri., March 26
    • First Round: Sat., March 27 and Sun. March 28
    • 10-day recovery period: Mon., March 29 through Wed., April 7
    • Regional Quarterfinals (same sites): Thurs., April 8 and Fri., April 9
    • Regional Semifinals: Sat., April 10
    • Regional Finals: Sun., April 11
    • 12-Day recovery period: Mon., April 12 through Fri., April 23
    • National Semifinals (new Final Four site): Sat., April 24
    • National Championship: Mon., April 26

Sure, it’s more April Madness than traditionalists might prefer, but it gets the job done in just about a month’s time, and provides some flexibility to accelerate or slow the schedule as needed.

Next is a glimpse at how each bracket would look, including how the conferences would be divided up and seeded into the tournament field.

(NOTE: To provide some extra context, I’ve included a mock-up of what each bracket would look like using results from the 2019-20 season. For the leagues that finished their conference tournaments, including the Mountain West, tournament champions were awarded the automatic bid. For all other leagues, bids were determined by conference tournament seeding, ignoring any results from canceled tournaments.)

NORTH BRACKET

  • Qualifying Round
    • Missouri Valley #2 vs. Mid-American #3
    • Atlantic 10 #4 vs. Big Ten #5
    • Atlantic 10 #2 vs. MAAC #2
    • Big Ten #3 vs. Patriot #2
    • Mid-American #2 vs. Missouri Valley #3
    • Big Ten #4 vs. Atlantic 10 #5
    • Big Ten #2 vs. NEC #2
    • Atlantic 10 #3 vs. Horizon #2
  • First Round
    • Big Ten Champion vs. NEC Champion
    • MVC #2/MAC #3 winner vs. A10 #4/B1G #5 winner
    • A10 #2/MAAC #2 winner vs. B1G #3/Patriot #2 winner
    • Mid-American Champion vs. Horizon Champion
    • Atlantic 10 Champion vs. MAAC Champion
    • MAC #2/MVC #3 winner vs. B1G #4/A10 #5 winner
    • B1G #2/NEC #2 winner vs. A10 #3/Horizon #2 winner
    • Missouri Valley Champion vs. Patriot Champion

For context, here’s how this bracket would look using 2019-20 results as earlier noted:

96team-north

EAST BRACKET

  • Qualifying Round
    • Ivy #2 vs. OVC #3
    • Big East #4 vs. ACC #5
    • Big East #2 vs. America East #2
    • ACC #3 vs. ASUN #2
    • OVC #2 vs. Ivy #3
    • ACC #4 vs. Big East #5
    • ACC #2 vs. MEAC #2
    • Big East #3 vs. CAA #2
  • First Round
    • ACC Champion vs. MEAC Champion
    • Ivy #2/OVC #3 winner vs. BE #4/ACC #5 winner
    • BE #2/AEC #2 winner vs. ACC #3/ ASUN #2 winner
    • OVC Champion vs. CAA Champion
    • Big East Champion vs. America East Champion
    • OVC #2/Ivy #3 winner vs. ACC #4/BE #5 winner
    • ACC #2/MEAC #2 winner vs. Big East #3/CAA #2 winner
    • Ivy Champion vs. ASUN Champion

For context, here’s how this bracket would look using 2019-20 results as earlier noted:

96team-east

WEST BRACKET

  • Qualifying Round
    • WCC #2 vs. Mountain West #3
    • American #4 vs. Pac-12 #5
    • American #2 vs. Summit #2
    • Pac-12 #3 vs. Big West #2
    • Mountain West #2 vs. WCC #3
    • Pac-12 #4 vs. American #5
    • Pac-12 #2 vs. Big Sky #2
    • American #3 vs. WAC #2
  • First Round
    • Pac-12 Champion vs. Big Sky Champion
    • WCC #2/MWC #3 winner vs. AAC #4/P12 #5 winner
    • AAC #2/Summit #2 winner vs. P12 #3/BW #2 winner
    • Mountain West Champion vs. WAC Champion
    • American Champion vs. Summit Champion
    • MWC #2/WCC #3 winner vs. P12 #4/AAC #5 winner
    • P12 #2/Big Sky #2 winner vs. AAC #3/WAC #2 winner
    • WCC Champion vs. Big West Champion

For context, here’s how this bracket would look using 2019-20 results as earlier noted:

96team-west

SOUTH BRACKET

  • Qualifying Round
    • SOCON #2 vs. C-USA #3
    • SEC #4 vs. Big XII #5
    • SEC #2 vs. Big South #2
    • Big XII #3 vs. Southland #2
    • C-USA #2 vs. SOCON #3
    • Big XII #4 vs. SEC #5
    • Big XII #2 vs. SWAC #2
    • SEC #3 vs. Sun Belt #2
  • First Round
    • Big XII Champion vs. SWAC Champion
    • SOCON #2/CUSA #3 winner vs. SEC #4/B12 #5 winner
    • SEC #2/Big South #2 winner vs. B12 #3/SL #2 winner
    • Conference USA Champion vs. Sun Belt Champion
    • SEC Champion vs. Big South Champion
    • CUSA #2/SOCON #3 winner vs. B12 #4/SEC #5 winner
    • B12 #2/SWAC #2 winner vs. SEC #3/SB #2 winner
    • SOCON Champion vs. Southland Champion

For context, here’s how this bracket would look using 2019-20 results as earlier noted:

96team-south

Well, there you have it. Have thoughts on the brackets? Suggestions for how it could be improved? Just want to complain? Crack your knuckles and head over Twitter to continue the conversation with @mwcwire.

Andrew is a current USBWA member, covering college basketball for Mountain West Wire of the USA TODAY Sports Media Group. He also runs the Dieckhoff Power Index, a college basketball analytics system, and provides bracketology predictions throughout the season.

[lawrence-auto-related count=3 category=1361]

Kawhi Leonard Makes All-Bubble Second Team

The NBA announced the Bubble Awards on Saturday morning. Mountain West alumnus Kawhi Leonard made the cut for the second team.

[jwplayer jF5wU66N-sNi3MVSU]

Former SDSU player Kawhi Leonard adds to his list of NBA honors

Contact/Follow @cisabelg & @MWCwire

The NBA announced the league’s Bubble Awards on Saturday before the Western Conference play-in series. Mountain West basketball alumnus Kawhi Leonard was named to the second-team. 

The awards were voted on by a panel of sportswriters and broadcasters who are on site in the Orlando bubble.

Leonard, who played for the San Diego State Aztecs from 2009–2011, led the Los Angeles Clippers to the No. 2 seed in the Western conference. He averaged of 27.1 points per game through the regular season, eight best in the league. He also contributed with 7.1 rebounds and 4.9 assists per game.

He is a two-time NBA champion and was the Finals MVP last season when he helped the Toronto Raptors win their first NBA Championship.

Full List of Bubble Awards:

Most Valuable Player: Damian Lillard – Portland Blazers
Top Coach: Monty Williams – Phoenix Suns

First team:
Damian Lillard – Portland Blazers
Devin Booker- Phoenix Suns
TJ Warren – Indiana Pacers
Luka Doncic – Dallas Mavericks
James Harden – Houston Rockets

Second team:
Giannis Antetokounmpo – Milwaukee Bucks
Kawhi Leonard – Los Angeles Clippers
Kristaps Porzingis – Dallas Mavericks
Caris LeVert – Brooklyn nets
Michael Porter Jr. – Denver Nuggets

The league is still going to have traditional NBA awards that will be announced throughout the playoffs, which officially begin Monday. Even though they are season-long awards, the eight seeding games did not count toward those.

[lawrence-auto-related count=3 category=1360]

[protected-iframe id=”f7652191f99ba13728097498e8a79cd8-137729785-157392989″ info=”https://open.spotify.com/embed-podcast/show/48681pqFq0kB9dhrtPPoNd” width=”100%” height=”232″ frameborder=”0″]

Five for ’21: Ranking the Mountain West’s Top Five Rebounders

Five for ’21: Ranking The Mountain West’s Top Five Rebounders Predicting the top five Mountain West rebounders for the ’20-21 season Contact/Follow @andrewdieckhoff & @MWCwire Who are the top rebounders in the MW? In the final installment of …

[jwplayer 18QegcJn-sNi3MVSU]

Five for ’21: Ranking The Mountain West’s Top Five Rebounders

Predicting the top five Mountain West rebounders for the ’20-21 season

Contact/Follow @andrewdieckhoff & @MWCwire

Who are the top rebounders in the MW?

In the final installment of Mountain West Wire’s offseason series, Five for ’21, we turn to the league’s best glass-cleaners.

As a reminder, the Five For ’21 series features our ranking of the top five Mountain West players in five different skill sets: passing, scoring, defending, rebounding, and shot blocking. The full Five For ’21 series schedule is below, including links to this week’s previous articles from Larry Muniz (@hardwoodtalk) and myself (@andrewdieckhoff).

Today’s list will borrow heavily from the Wednesday’s group of highlighted shot-blockers (for reasons that should be obvious), but a few fresh faces have been thrown in the mix as well. With those pleasantries out of the way, our final shortlist begins with its shortest player.

(NOTE: Statistics below taken from Sports-Reference.com. Percentages following per-game rebounding averages refer to rebounding rate in the respective category.)

5) David Roddy, Colorado State

  • Height/Weight: 6’5″, 250 lbs.
  • 2019-20 Stats: 5.6 RPG (12.8%), 3.9 DRPG (17.4%), 1.7 ORPG (8.0%)

OK, so while Roddy may not be as tall as any of his peers on this list, at 6’5″ and 250 pounds, he’s built like an NFL linebacker and has the toughness to match. Depending on the source, the Minneapolis native might be listed as a guard, a guard/forward, a wing, a wing forward, or a power forward. No matter what you call him, though, David Roddy brings a grittiness to the floor that few in the league can match.

His raw rebounding stats don’t exactly jump off the page, but consider this: Roddy ranked 12th in the Mountain West in rebound rate on both the offensive and defensive end of the court as freshman, and a handful of the players who finished ahead of him have either graduated or transferred out of the league. Among those departures is former teammate Nico Carvacho, the Mountain West’s career rebound leader. And while promising Rams sophomore Dischon Thomas is the likely beneficiary of most of those unclaimed boards now that Carvacho isn’t around, Roddy could also see a healthy uptick in his numbers.

It is entirely possible that Roddy finishes outside of the Top 10 in rebounding again this season, but his ability to bang around inside and get rebounds despite his height disadvantage was an important factor in Colorado State’s success last year. With the torch now officially passed to the Rams’ young roster, Roddy has a chance to make an even bigger impact this season. There may be some more traditional Goliaths in the league who will grab more rebounds, but I’m giving the nod to David here in the 5-spot.

4) Neemias Queta, Utah State

  • Height/Weight: 7’0″, 245 lbs.
  • 2019-20 Stats: 7.8 RPG (16.3%), 5.8 DRPG (22.9%), 2.0 ORPG (8.9%)

While Queta finished at #2 in our Five for ’21 shot-blockers list, the junior slips a bit lower when it comes to rebounding. As discussed in Wednesday’s piece, Queta’s numbers took a hit following the knee injury he suffered during FIBA play prior to the 2019-20 season. He eventually regained his form, though, and he is surely deserving of being included in this list.

Queta finished fifth in the Mountain West in defensive rebound rate last season, nabbing nearly a quarter of the available boards on that end of the floor. But his sophomore rebounding rates on both ends of the court were two percentage points lower than in his freshman campaign. Of course, it should be noted that there are a multitude of possible reasons that his numbers may have declined that don’t have to do with his injury — one of those reasons appears later in this list — and the kind of drop we are talking about is akin to falling from an A to an A-minus.

With Sam Merrill, Diogo Brito, and Abel Porter gone, it remains to be seen just how large a role Queta will occupy in the Aggie offense next season. If he is being relied upon to take more and more shots, it could cut into his rebounding numbers to some degree. That said, the smart money is on Queta in most of the one-on-one rebounding battles that the Mountain West has to offer.

3) Cheikh Mbacke Diong, UNLV

  • Height/Weight: 6’11 lbs, 230 lbs.
  • 2019-20:  7.9 RPG (17.8%), 4.9 DRPG (22.6%), 3.0 ORPG (13.2%)

Another recycled entry from the shot-blockers list, Diong has turned himself into one of the league’s best defensive big men, even if his scoring hasn’t quite caught up yet. His prowess for bullying others around in the paint is exactly the type of player that coach TJ Otzelberger needs in support of a talented group of scorers including Bryce Hamilton and David Jenkins Jr. For his part, Diong does precisely what is required of him.

As far as the numbers go, Diong finished his junior year as one of only five qualifying players to finish with a defensive rebound rate over 20% and an offensive rebound rate over 10% (min. 40% minutes played). Three of those players have since graduated, and the other one shows up later in this list, so Diong should fall among the league’s Top 5 rebounders almost by default.

With the sharp-shooting Jenkins taking over for Amauri Hardy in the offense, there may be slightly fewer rebounds available for Diong on the offensive end this year, but you can be sure that he’ll be ready to catch anything that comes off the rim. While his game isn’t likely to generate much content for the SportsCenter Top 10, Diong’s dedication to rebounding and defense will be critical to the Rebels’ success in year two of Coach TJ.

2) Nathan Mensah, San Diego State

  • Height/Weight: 6’10”, 220 lbs.
  • 2019-20: 6.8 RPG (20.2%), 4.8 DRPG (27.2%), 2.1 ORPG (12.8%)

On Wednesday, I detailed the what-ifs surrounding Nathan Mensah, whose 2019-20 season was lost months before it was taken from the rest of us due to a pulmonary embolism. But in the 13 games he did play last year, Mensah showed off some pretty eye-catching rebounding numbers. He was not quite at the level of departed Mountain West compatriots Nico Carvacho and RJ Williams, but the Ghanaian showed that he belongs in any conversation about the league’s best big men.

Because Mensah’s season was cut short, he didn’t qualify for the year-end statistical races. Had he maintained his rates over the full season, though, he would’ve been among the Mountain West’s best half-dozen rebounders. He also would’ve ended up in that prestigious 20/10 club noted above. Keep in mind that Mensah was only playing 20 minutes per game before his injury, and doing so in a very slow-paced offense, so his per-game averages are really not indicative of his skill on the boards.

Assuming Mensah is willing and able to return to the Aztecs when the next season begins, he has a very good chance to finish atop the Mountain West in both offensive and defensive rebounding rates. The main reason he doesn’t finish #1 in this list is because the player ahead of him posted very similar numbers — despite being three inches shorter than Mensah. In reality, it’s probably more of a 1A/1B situation, but now we’re just splitting hairs.

1) Justin Bean, Utah State

  • Height/Weight: 6’7″, 210 lbs.
  • 2019-20: 10.5 RPG (19.8%), 6.9 DRPG (24.6%), 3.6 ORPG (14.3%) 

Despite being on a Utah State team with a program all-timer in Sam Merrill and an exciting NBA prospect in Neemias Queta, Bean managed to carve out some good publicity for himself with a breakout sophomore campaign. As a freshman walk-on, Bean averaged 12 minutes per game and did not register a single start. He was effective in those limited minutes, both in terms of scoring and rebounding, which not only earned him a scholarship, but also a starting role in Craig Smith’s rotation.

In case you hadn’t yet put it together, Bean is the mystery man I alluded to earlier when discussing the 20/10 club for defensive and offensive rebounding rates. To be clear, including the Oklahoman in this list is not just some act of charity for the “little” guy. Bean’s numbers put him squarely among the league’s best rebounders, regardless of height. But while we’re on that subject, don’t forget that at various times the 6’7″ forward was competing for rebounds against three seven-footers on his own team: Queta, Kuba Karwowski (7’2″), and Trevin Dorius (7’0″).

Bean will enter his junior year at Utah State with much more weight on his shoulders than either of the previous two seasons, as the program moves on from the Merrill/Porter/Brito trio that played such a huge part in the Aggies’ recent success. But fans in Logan shouldn’t fret too much, as the best pound-for-pound rebounder in the Mountain West will still be cleaning the glass in Smith Spectrum.

Also considered (in alphabetical order): Mladen Armus, Boise State; Aguek Arop, San Diego State; K.J. Hymes, Nevada; Orlando Robinson, Fresno State; Robby Robinson, Nevada; Dischon Thomas, Colorado State.

Andrew Dieckhoff is a current USBWA member covering college basketball for Mountain West Wire. He also runs the Dieckhoff Power Index, a website dedicated to his college basketball ratings system and bracketology projections.

[lawrence-auto-related count=3 category=1361]

[protected-iframe id=”09e6ca4e11e5838c3834d87c7b471ffb-137729785-123448869″ info=”https://anchor.fm/mwwire/embed” width=”400px” height=”102px” frameborder=”0″ scrolling=”no”]

Five for ’21: Ranking the Mountain West’s Top Five Shot Blockers

Five for ’21: Ranking The Mountain West’s Top Five Shot Blockers Predicting the top five Mountain West shot blockers for the ’20-21 season Contact/Follow @andrewdieckhoff & @MWCwire Who are the top shot blockers in the MW? In the third installment …

[jwplayer 18QegcJn-sNi3MVSU]

Five for ’21: Ranking The Mountain West’s Top Five Shot Blockers

Predicting the top five Mountain West shot blockers for the ’20-21 season

Contact/Follow @andrewdieckhoff & @MWCwire

Who are the top shot blockers in the MW?

In the third installment of Mountain West Wire’s offseason series, Five for ’21, we shift our focus from the league’s offensive stars onto its defensive stalwarts.

As a reminder, the Five For ’21 series features our ranking of the top five Mountain West players in five different skill sets: passing, scoring, defending, rebounding, and shot blocking. The full Five For ’21 series schedule is below, including links to this week’s previous articles from Larry Muniz (Twitter: @hardwoodtalk).

  • Monday: Passers
  • Tuesday: Scorers
  • Wednesday: Shot Blockers
  • Thursday: Defenders
  • Friday: Rebounders

Today, we focus on the Mountain West’s top shot-blockers. This list has a distinctly international feel, so it is fitting that we start our countdown with one of the league’s most well-traveled players, whose long trip from Belgrade to Boise features a two-year stop in the Volunteer State.

5) Mladen Armus, Boise State

  • Height/Weight: 6’10”, 230 lbs.
  • 2018-19 (at ETSU): 33 GP (24 GS), 1.0 BPG, 5.5 BLK%, 4.6 FC/40

After spending two seasons in the SOCON at East Tennessee State, the 6-10 Armus decided to pack his bags and head west to ride with the Broncos, where he will have two years of eligibility remaining after sitting out last season. In his sophomore season for ETSU, Armus racked up nearly eight points and eight rebounds per game and became a fixture in the starting lineup — and not just for his serviceable offensive game.

The Serbian center showed steady improvement on defense in his second year in Johnson City, tallying just under two “stocks” (steals plus blocks) per game in 2018-19. As a freshman, Armus’ block percentage in SOCON games was just 1.4% — for reference, Justinian Jessup finished last season with a 1.6 BLK% — but he brought that number up to 5.9% in SOCON play last season and 5.5% overall, which would have been good for fifth-best in the Mountain West last year.

Armus could fill a huge role for Boise State on defense in 2020-21. While RJ Williams was able to make up for the team’s lack of size last season with a remarkable tenacity and instinct for rebounding, his 6’7″ stature didn’t translate to many blocks. With Derrick Alston Jr. back for one more year, and plenty of offensive support from Abu Kigab, Marcus Shaver, Devonaire Doutrive, and Emmanuel Akot, Armus will be relied upon to be the defensive anchor down low that Leon Rice needs to round out this talented roster.

4) K.J. Hymes, Nevada

  • Height/Weight: 6’10”, 210 lbs.
  • 2019-20 Stats: 31 GP (1 GS), 1.0 BPG, 8.7 BLK%, 9.5 FC/40

Hymes came into his first season in Reno with some considerable hype, after being pegged as the preseason Mountain West Freshman of the Year. Unfortunately for the Phoenix native, he never quite lived up to that billing. For Hymes, the issue was not so much about talent or athleticism, but discipline in defending. He averaged just under 14 minutes per game as a freshman behind BC grad transfer Johncarlos Reyes, and Hymes likely would have seen a larger share of playing time had he been able to stay out of foul trouble.

But when Hymes does stay on the floor, he can be a nightmare for would-be scorers entering into his airspace. All that time in the penalty box (so to speak) kept the big man from qualifying in the Mountain West’s statistical races, but if the threshold is lowered to include all players who appeared in more than a third of their team’s total minutes last year, Hymes had the best block percentage in the Mountain West by a decent margin, beating out Neemias Queta’s mark by almost a full percentage point.

The shot-blocking talent is certainly there for Hymes, but it is difficult to swat anything from the bench. If he can develop some more defensive discipline as a sophomore, he should find a welcome home into Steve Alford’s starting five. The question then becomes whether the impressive statistics will carry over to a larger sample size, of course, but there is good reason to believe that Hymes will be among the five best shot-blockers in the Mountain West in 2020-21.

3) Cheikh Mbacke Diong, UNLV

  • Height/Weight: 6’11”, 235 lbs.
  • 2019-20: 32 GP (27 GS), 1.2 BPG, 6.0 BLK%, 4.6 FC/40 

Over the course of three seasons in Las Vegas, Diong has become an absolute difference maker for the Runnin’ Rebels. While the Senegalese senior is no threat to win a scoring title anytime soon, his tough interior play has allowed him to become one of the league’s top defensive big men. Diong’s 7.5 BLK% during Mountain West play last year was second only to Utah State’s Neemias Queta (7.9) among qualified players, and his steal percentage was fourth-highest in the conference.

Diong’s imposing physical presence has always made him a bulwark in the post, but his improved timing and positioning helped the center finish just outside the Top 100 nationally in block percentage the past two seasons, as well as a Top 50 finish in offensive rebounding. He was also one of only four Mountain West players to record three or more games with 10+ points, 10+ rebounds, and 2+ blocks last year (Justin Bean, Nate Grimes, and Neemias Queta being the others).

A hard-nosed grinder, Diong has carved out a solid niche for himself on this UNLV roster, which does lose some size and physicality with the departures Donnie Tillman, Nick Blair, and Vitaly Shibel. While Diong’s offensive game has improved to some degree, players such as Bryce Hamilton, David Jenkins Jr., and Marvin Coleman should be carrying the scoring load, freeing the big man up to continue honing his blue-collar craft on defense.

2) Neemias Queta, Utah State

  • Height/Weight: 7’0″, 245 lbs.
  • 2019-20: 22 GP (20 GS) 2.6 BPG, 7.8 BLK%, 3.5 FC/40

While others may have had better numbers in smaller sample sizes, it was Queta who will go down as the Mountain West’s best shot-blocker of 2019-20. Despite missing multiple games himself due to an offseason injury, Queta was able to secure enough minutes on the season to let his 7.8 BLK% rule the day. Unfortunately for the Portuguese big man, he had to relinquish his MW Defensive Player of the Year crown to San Diego State’s Malachi Flynn. But he’ll have his eyes set on getting it back in 2020-21.

There is some cause for concern about Queta’s shot-blocking, however. In his freshman season at Utah State, he recorded a 10.5 BLK%, which was easily the best in the league and Top 20 in Division I. However, following the knee injury Queta suffered during FIBA play in the summer of 2019, some of the spring seemed to have gone out of his step. But Queta returned to form down the stretch, recording at least one block in 12 of his last 13 games, with multiple blocks coming in ten of those contests.

Even after accounting for the dip in Queta’s post-injury block percentage, the junior seven-footer is still undoubtedly one of the two best post defenders in the Mountain West. But with Sam Merrill gone, it will be more important than ever to keep Queta out of foul trouble, which could mean he has to trade some of the defensive risk-taking that has earned him so many blocks in his first two years in Logan.

1) Nathan Mensah, San Diego State

  • Height/Weight: 6’10”, 220 lbs.
  • 2019-20: 13 GP (13 GS); 1.7 BPG, 10.7 BLK%, 4.9 FC/40

In a cruel (and scary) twist of fate, the tremendous start to Mensah’s season was cut short by a pulmonary embolism that was thankfully caught before the situation turned any more tragic. The Aztecs were still perfect at that point, and we will simply never know what could have been had Mensah been able to play for the full season, both for the team and individually. (Go ahead and add all that to the list of things we’ll never know about the 2019-20 season.)

Here’s what we do know: Nathan Mensah was on a trajectory to be the league’s best shot-blocker before his season was ended early. His 10.7 BLK% would have led the league by a full two points had he kept that pace for the long haul, and it would have placed him somewhere in the back end of the Top 20 nationally. While Queta had the minutes to qualify for the season-long statistical races, it was Mensah who began to blossom into the Mountain West’s most elite shot-blocker on a per-minute basis.

Of course, Mensah’s health remains a question mark, as updates regarding his recovery have been scarce. Thankfully, the stories have been trending in a positive direction since January, and all indications point to him returning to the Aztecs’ lineup whenever the college basketball season resumes. If the Nathan Mensah Block Party does resume on time, San Diego State will be well-positioned to defend last year’s regular-season crown. With any luck, Mensah can finally put to rest some of those nagging what-ifs from 2020.

Also considered (in alphabetical order): Desmond Cambridge, Nevada; Assane Diouf, Fresno State; Trevin Dorius, Utah State; Kuba Karwowski, Utah State; Eduardo Lane, San Jose State; Bayron Matos, New Mexico; Braxton Meah, Fresno State; Orlando Robinson, Fresno State; David Roddy, Colorado State; Warren Washington, Nevada.

Andrew Dieckhoff is a current USBWA member covering college basketball for Mountain West Wire. He also runs the Dieckhoff Power Index, a website dedicated to his college basketball ratings system and bracketology projections.

[lawrence-auto-related count=3 category=1361]

[protected-iframe id=”09e6ca4e11e5838c3834d87c7b471ffb-137729785-123448869″ info=”https://anchor.fm/mwwire/embed” width=”400px” height=”102px” frameborder=”0″ scrolling=”no”]

Way-Too-Early Top 25 Roundup: Conditional Love for SDSU

San Diego State is featured in many “way-too-early” Top 25 lists, but the early love for the Aztecs comes with an important condition.

[jwplayer t4KKN06X-sNi3MVSU]

Mountain West Basketball: Way-Too-Early Top 25 Roundup

Aztecs’ shot at preseason Top 25 hinges on Flynn’s decision

Contact/Follow @andrewdieckhoff & @MWCwire

SDSU is receiving lots of early love, but most of it comes with a caveat.

In the wake of the cancellation of the 2019-20 season due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many pollsters and pundits have already pivoted toward next season. While much of the offseason coverage relates to the transfer portal, recruiting, and the NBA Draft, there is another springtime trend that has popped its head up a little earlier than usual this year.

The “way-too-early” Top 25 list.

These lists are an amalgamation of residual feelings about teams from the previous season and the hype surrounding the incoming talent for the next campaign. They are necessarily more art than science, as the landscape of college basketball will surely experience a few seismic shifts over the coming months.

Hence, “way-too-early.”

Still, these lists provide an interesting glimpse into the current perception of the college basketball world. The question as it pertains to this site, then, is simple:

Where does the Mountain West fit into that picture?

For now, only one team is getting any love in the early polls, and that is San Diego State. It shouldn’t be much of a surprise, as the Aztecs are coming off a 30-2 season in which they had a chance to become a #1 seed in the NCAA Tournament and were legitimate national title contenders.

But much of the love for the Aztecs is contingent on the return of Malachi Flynn. Even without Flynn, though, Brian Dutcher will be bringing back a squad of talented, battle-tested players who will be itching to replicate the success from this past season.

Without further ado, here’s a roundup of prominent Way-Too-Early Top 25 lists that include the Aztecs, starting with those that have San Diego State ranked highest.

Mark Cooper, TheScore.com; SDSU Rank: #4

Cooper writes: “This spot is contingent on the return of All-American Malachi Flynn (17.6 points, 5.1 assists per game). If he’s back, the Aztecs will be stacked again with Matt Mitchell, Jordan Schakel, and Trey Pulliam returning, plus the addition of Cal State Northridge shooter Terrell Gomez (44.2% from 3-point range).”

John Wilner, The Mercury News; SDSU Rank: #9

Wilner writes: “Will he or won’t he? If point guard Malachi Flynn returns, the Aztecs should keep humming — all the way to a high seed in the NCAAs. If Flynn departs, then a step back (or two) seems likely. Matt Mitchell is best as a complementary scorer, not the first option.”

Rob Dauster, NBC Sports; SDSU Rank: #10

Dauster writes: “The key here is going to be Malachi Flynn. A redshirt junior that transferred into the program from Washington State, Flynn is an All-American at the point that allows Brian Dutcher’s offense to run the way he wants it to run.

Losing Yanni Wetzel will hurt, but Nathan Mensah started over him at the start of the year, and the defense that K.J. Feagin provided will be missed. But with Matt Mitchell back, he and Flynn should be able to provide enough firepower that the system will still run just fine. Remember, the Aztecs are coming off of a season where they lost just two games and will return 3.5 starters, including an All-American, if Flynn is back.”

Kevin Flaherty, 247Sports; SDSU Rank: #11

Flaherty writes: “Malachi Flynn was one of the nation’s best guards this season, piloting the Aztecs to a 30-2 record. He was also just a junior, and he currently sits at No. 42 on ESPN’s list. This ranking is obviously dependent on him coming back to school. Losing Yanni Wetzell hurts; Matt Mitchell and Jordan Schakel returning is huge. If Nathan Mensah can come back fully from a blood clot in his lungs that cost him most of the season — and there was talk he might make it back for the NCAA Tournament — San Diego State would get back a big man who started the first 12 games of the season.”

Connor Muldowney, FanSided; SDSU Rank: #13

Muldowney writes: “It looked like San Diego State was poised to go undefeated in 2019-20, but the Aztecs had a couple of slip-ups, including in the Mountain West title game. Still, San Diego State should be elite once again, potentially pushing for an unbeaten season in a winnable Mountain West. As long as Malachi Flynn returns, the Aztecs will be one of the best mid-majors in the nation again.”

[lawrence-auto-related count=3 category=1374]

Pages: Page 1, Page 2