We're still a Jekyll/Hyde team. Jekyll shows up, we have a very good chance of winning (provided they don't go ham from three). Hyde shows up, we lose. It isn't really rocket surgery.
Reasons to hope: We play better D than most teams in the ACC, and Notre Dame hasn't had a great record against strong defenses. If the zebras let us bang, I think we can be much more physical than they are. We have the ability to shoot over a zone and to break it inside if our shots are falling. Mulcahy should find some success passing the ball, and McConnell should help frustrate Wesley (or Goodwin, whoever he ends up on).
Reasons to worry: They're a live-by-the-three/die-by-the-three team, and if they get hot from the arc we could be in serious trouble - they have the ability to score in bunches like Iowa does. If we hit a cold patch and struggle to score, or if we struggle to knock down good looks and bunnies, things can get quickly out of hand. If the wrong couple of players pick up early fouls, our offensive flow usually suffers.
Other factors:
- Site: Will the new arena/ball impact the overall 3P%? If so, that works out better for us than for them. But if they adjust to it better than we can, it will work out better for them than us. So far, Indiana/Wyoming/Texas Southern have all shot below their season averages from the arc, and Texas A&M-CC shot above it.
- Fans: The game is closer to ND's campus than to ours, and they have a more widespread fanbase in general. However, Dayton is home to McConnell and Harper Sr, so maybe that'll make a pro-RU local draw? We tend to do better with fan support.
- Officiating style: In a more loosely called game (like Indiana/Wyoming last night) we would probably have an advantage.... whereas in a more tightly called game, they likely will because their style of offense/defense doesn't usually cause them to pick up fouls anyway.
