1. Both teams shot the ball miserably for 1/2 of the first half. This was an opportunity missed in this game and, more concerning, was it a sign of reasonably athletic players who do not shoot well.
2. ISU missed 5 consecutive FT's in the first half to go from leading 14-11 to trailing something like 23-14. This is unacceptable at any time against any opponent.
3. The big man foul trouble was an issue; however, this may truly be a situational occasion given UCLA's homecourt, big game celebration and size. But ISU does not have enough depth to have key players benched the majority of the game in foul trouble.
4. The closing was disappointing. With about 7.5 minutes to go, it was a 12 point game and, theoretically at least, winnable. Considering how badly ISU had shot the ball up to that point, it was indicative of how hard they fought to stay in the game - and that is a very good thing. Just disappointing it slipped to such a wide margin.
So, limited data but my biggest concern is proven perimeter shooting because it was not there.
It appears Eitel is the new Carter in that the coaches don't see a spot for him on the floor but all he does is make plays when he is there. I saw the exhibition game in person and again, the ball movement and shooting left a lot to be desired. I pointed out to my wife that if you just count the amount of time that a player has the ball w/o moving it, you can get an idea of why the offense looked so bogged down. Eitel consistently had the ball for less than 2 seconds: he either shot or passed quickly or infrequently made a dribble drive. All of the other players held the ball for at least 4 seconds and ISU was very easy to guard. You don't measure that in any box score for Eitel but it did lead to open shots and points for other players.