I don't understand all the complaints about the offense. Despite playing in a tough road venue, despite the poor start partially due to the long layoff and despite missing Skyy Clark for most of the 2nd half, we had an offensive efficiency of 96.8, almost exactly what Iowa gives up for the season. We scored 61 points, also almost exactly what Iowa gives up.
Taking one half of a game as an example of our "poor" offense and ignoring most of the other halves of the season is "poor" analysis. One can't downplay the fact that we put up big offensive numbers against some bad defenses yet ignore the fact that Iowa is one of the best defensive teams in the nation.
I don't care what the "eye test" of our offense looks like. All that matters is seeing the ball go in the hoop and we do that at a higher adjusted efficiency than most teams. For those statistically challenged who don't think this means anything, adjusted efficiency accounts for the strength of the defenses they actually faced. By removing the influence of weaker or stronger defenses it shows a team's true offensive ability. It's a main stat in some form for ranking teams in every college basketball analytics website such as Kenpon, Torvick, Miya, Haslametrics and Massey for example.
It's not a matter of creating open shots, it's a matter of making open shots. We missed plenty of those. Good players create their own shots. That's what Dent did and that's what Stirtz did. Those two players scored almost 40% of all the points scored in the game. A good offense is one that gets the ball to players who can consistently make shots. If you don't have many of those, then no offense will be efficient. The offense is fine. But to win more games, we need to rebound and play better defense. That's the problem.