As we gear up for another Purdue game, I wanted to gather insights from every team member. Everyone who guessed the outcome of Thursday’s match picked Purdue as the victor, which isn’t surprising. Notably, Drew was quite near to predicting the exact score, so perhaps it’s time to give us some further consideration, huh?
Ledman:
As a long-time Purdue supporter, I found the second half of the McNeese vs. Clemson First Round game strikingly reminiscent. McNeese held a commanding lead at halftime, 31-13, which made it seem like the game was over. Scoring just 13 points in a half of an NCAA Tournament game is hardly reassuring. Yet, in a surprising turn, Clemson made a comeback with some impressive three-point shooting, closing the game at a narrow 69-67 loss. This scenario mirrored Purdue’s tendency this season to let teams back into games by allowing shooters to heat up while the offense stagnates, putting them in precarious situations.
Does this give me optimism for the upcoming match? It does. Although the McNeese team showcases talent, they do have their shortcomings, much like any team. We just recognize Purdue’s weaknesses more vividly after watching them throughout the season. Despite the ups and downs, I believe Purdue will again be fielding the two top players on the court: Braden Smith and Trey Kaufman-Renn. I don’t foresee McNeese being able to effectively contain TKR. If they opt for double coverage, it could open avenues for Camden Heide’s resurgence from deep. I’m betting on a Purdue win, but I anticipate a tight finish.
Purdue 73
McNeese 68
Kyle:
While McNeese possesses incredible athleticism, they lack true size in the paint, which is where Purdue excels. Although they may attempt to smother Renn with defensive help, Purdue should be fine if they effectively convert outside shots, as confidence in taking those shots is key. Colvin and Heide will need strong performances to match the Cowboys’ athleticism.
Ryan:
This McNeese squad may not match the offensive prowess of High Point, but they exhibit great hustle and determination. Although McNeese’s defense held Clemson to a mere 13 points in the first half, it was largely due to Clemson’s missteps, including 1-15 shooting from three and ten turnovers. Purdue’s approach should be straightforward: maintain defensive positioning against McNeese and facilitate good ball movement to get Trey established inside.
Chase:
Watching McNeese dominate Clemson highlighted their length and athleticism, which posed challenges for Clemson’s guards. This dynamic may specifically trouble Fletcher Loyer, especially if McNeese incorporates zone defenses, a style against which Purdue has struggled. Purdue’s defense will be tested against McNeese’s drive players, but as long as they minimize interior touches and give TKR quality chances, victory should be attainable. I don’t expect a comfortable match.
Drew:
Purdue 82
McNeese 74
Taking a bold stance here, similar to my previous predictions, I feel confident about this matchup for Purdue. McNeese doesn’t pose a significant interior challenge, allowing Purdue to utilize Heide at the 4 position without losing size, a scenario in which they thrive. While the game might remain competitive with McNeese potentially leading at times, I trust Purdue during critical moments, especially given Clemson’s earlier missteps. As long as Purdue avoids a first-half performance like 13 points, I favor them in this matchup.
Jed:
Predicting this outcome is tricky, but McNeese’s non-conference schedule offered some valuable insights. They performed competitively against teams like Alabama and Mississippi State before entering their conference games. The Southland isn’t rated as highly as the Big South, where High Point plays, and the ongoing performance of the ACC doesn’t reflect well on Clemson’s showing. This McNeese team parallels a few Purdue opponents this season, namely Penn State and Nebraska, who have a similar defensive playstyle.
McNeese hasn’t encountered a post player of TKR’s caliber, meaning they will either have to accept TKR having a standout game while trying to limit three-point attempts or risk doubling him and facing punishment from beyond the arc. They are also unaccustomed to facing a guard like Braden Smith, so Purdue has the advantage of varying their strategies to create advantageous shot opportunities. Ultimately, it comes down to whether Purdue can efficiently convert their scoring chances.
Purdue: 82
McNeese: 73
