Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Commentary: The real problem with Ohio State basketball

periatt.1@osu.edu

Published: Sunday, February 19, 2012

Updated: Sunday, February 19, 2012 23:02

I normally don't buy into the whole "intangibles win games" argument. I respect that intangibles exist, but when it comes down to it, in any sport, it's the team that has the most talented players that normally comes away with the victory.

But as the Ohio State men's basketball team continues to throw away any chance of being a No. 1 seed in the NCAA tournament and looks destined for another early tournament exit, I can't fathom any other crippling flaw on this team other than lack of intangibles.

OSU is undoubtedly talented. After Kentucky and North Carolina, I don't believe any other team can match up to the Buckeyes when it comes to pure basketball skill. Sophomore forward Jared Sullinger is likely a top-10 pick in the NBA if he decides to declare for the draft after this year. Senior guard William Buford has an NBA-ready game (although his play recently has surely given his draft stock a hit). And sophomore forward Deshaun Thomas is as potent of a scorer as there is in the Big Ten.

Throw in sophomore guard Aaron Craft's defensive game that ranks as one of the best in the country and OSU has talent in excess.

So what's the problem? Why has OSU lost two out of three games and appeared out of sync since after the Michigan game on Jan. 29?

It's the intangibles.

There was a point in Saturday's Michigan game that particularly stuck out. Thad Matta, who traditionally is a relatively calm in-game coach, got right up in Buford's face during a timeout and started chewing the team's lone senior out.

Buford, who shot 3-12 in the game and finished with 6 points, struggled the entire contest and Matta, I'm sure, was trying to snap him out of his funk.

But the confrontation reveals a larger problem.

Think about it. Matta, in the middle of a heated road game with Big Ten title implications, had to use valuable time to try and motivate a player who should be the team's leader. As the Buckeye's only senior, Buford should be the one trying to motivate everyone else.

Before the season began, Buford and his teammates said he stepped up into that leadership role. They said the normally laid-back Buford transformed and became more vocal.

"He changed," Thomas said of Buford before the season. "He started talking to us more, telling us what we got to do."

There hasn't been much of that lately. The Buckeyes are left to guess whether Buford will show up ready to play and Matta has had to resort to screaming.

David Lighty was the leader of the team last year. He was Matta's on-court coach and motivator.

Former OSU walk-on and current ESPN writer, Mark Titus, said Lighty's intangibles were invaluable.

"Lighty was more valuable from an intangible standpoint than just being the guy who made sure everyone got along," Titus said in a preseason article he wrote for ESPN. "He was also the guy who would get in a teammate's face and tell him to pull his head out of his ass and start playing better, and he was always effective when he did this, because he was respected so much by everyone on the team."

Titus went on to say that for OSU to be successful, Buford or Sullinger would have to fill that intangibles void that Lighty left.

At this point in the season, no one has filled the void.

It's easy to be a leader when everything is going smoothly.

When OSU beat Florida and Duke in a span of two weeks and rattled off eight consecutive wins to start the season, nobody needed to get in anyone's face.

Even after the Kansas loss, it wasn't time to panic because OSU's best player, Sullinger, couldn't play.

But in the middle of the Michigan game Saturday, with OSU trailing and Crisler Arena rocking, someone needed to huddle the squad up, get the guys focused, and like Titus said, pull heads out of asses.

Instead Matta was screaming at Buford.

Not all the blame should fall on Buford though. After him, Sullinger and Craft would be next in line to lead the team based on experience. But Sullinger at times appears too busy jawing at the refs and Craft doesn't have the offensive prowess to legitimize being the intangible leader.

The Buckeyes have talent. They couldn't have beaten Duke by 22 points and a total of five ranked opponents if they didn't.

But now, after losing two of the last three games and sitting at an intersection that will determine their fate for the rest of the year, someone other than Matta needs to lead this team.

Once things start going downhill, it takes a powerful force to turn them around. Talent alone can't do it. Intangibles can.

Do the Buckeyes have the intangibles to be a successful team?

I don't think even they know. But if the team doesn't figure it out quick, it'll be another early exit for the Buckeyes come March.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

10 comments

Anonymous
Sat Feb 25 2012 18:01
I see way to many missed shots from 2-3 feet away. They must have missed 15 shots against Sparty. Last year when they lost to Kentucky, the Bucks kept trying to flip up those 2 foot shots and Kentucky swatted them away again and again. They need to dunk it! If this team would make half of those short shots, they would be undefeated!
Anonymous
Thu Feb 23 2012 13:15
The real problem with Ohio State basketball.....The crappy refs.
Jon
Tue Feb 21 2012 14:23
Andy M is an idiot, just saying
Anonymous
Mon Feb 20 2012 23:18
Lack of an outside game is a crippling flaw as the Buckeyes are learning.
Anonymous
Mon Feb 20 2012 20:48
In the two recent losses the single most evident culprit has been awful shooting. End of story. Sometimes the basket just has a lid on it no matter how open you are. Scoring the ball consistently maintains confidence and continuity at both ends of the floor. There isn't a single person to blame however, the whole team is shooting bad. In both games Sullinger missed easy baskets he'd make 99 times out of a hundred. Same with Buford. A few trips up and down the court with nothing to show for it can get into a guys head. If that happens, forget about it Thomas is the only guy with the right idea. Just keep stroking it
Robert
Mon Feb 20 2012 20:42
They don't shoot well from the outside and Buford is killing them at both ends of the floor.
Anonymous
Mon Feb 20 2012 18:58
"Plan A" is no longer working with the now regularly inconsistent shooting woes affecting basically everyone. "Plan B" should immediately become developing SIGNIFICANT consistent minutes for Williams, Ravenel, Weatherspoon, Thompson, and maybe even Ross (6'8"). Are we not watching how effective Sparty now has become playing Green, Payne, Nix, Dawson almost all together. These guys are huge and they already outmuscled us in our own building to the tune of a very "expensive" loss and lesson. Are we listening? This is where Thad can continue to flex his muscle as the nation's best recruiter by adjusting "on the fly". How will we EVER get past Sparty again, Kentucky, Syracuse, Kansas-- these teams are huge and play extensively above the rim? And by the way, "Plan B" will take extensive heat off Sully as having to be our 1 big man on the floor at-a-time. BEST GET THIS DONE FAST!
Ron G OSU 1965
Mon Feb 20 2012 18:34
i feel that the lack of a real consistent 3 point shooter like Diebler allows teams to clog the paint making easy baskets much more difficult. Pretty simple.
Andy M
Mon Feb 20 2012 14:58
"anonymous" is usally reserved for those who ha no idea what they are talking about...glad you proved that to be true. First of all Burke and Craft are NOT a toss-up.... not at all. If Burke was on this team he would have the same roll as Scott...backing up Craft. As far as Burke being 3 times better than Scott...really?? Do a little research and you will notice that when they played head to head...in the game at the schott (due to Craft being in foul trouble) Scott outscored, rebounded, and had less turnovers than Burke....hmm, 3 times better..smh. Thomas has no defense...you just listen to Dan Dakich too much... remember he was a mere .500 coach in the MAC and obviously dislikes Thomas b/c he didn't go to Indiana (his alma mater).
Don't get me wrong, I like Burke, and think he is a heck of a player...but no one was recruiting him. He committed to Penn St. , before he was finally given a shot by Michigan. We already had Scott committed and no schollys left...what were we supposed to do? Tell Scott we wouldn't honor his scholly..that would do wonders for us with future recruits.
Anonymous
Mon Feb 20 2012 02:33
May I suggest they are not near as talented as the third best team in the country. Trey Burke and Craft are a tossup. Trey Burke is quicker and much better offensive player than Craft and Craft has twice had difficulty defending Burke. This is the first time I can think of questioning Matta's recruiting. Trey Burke is three times the player as Scott who Matta obviously recruited instead. Thomas has no defense and non of these guys can play a good game two games in a row. They are very inconsistent. This is not intangibles, it is focus and attitude. They act like they are suppose to win just by showing up. Buford and Sullinger look and play like they can't wait until the season is over to head to the NBA. I don't need any more proof on the focus angle other than Sullinger's 10 turnovers the other night and Buford hasn't been much better. Thomas is the only one with any kind of outside shot but he is also inconsistent, like Buford. I've said this since the very beginning of the season. There lack of outside shooting will no do them well this year.






log out