2018-19 College Basketball thread

[Atocep]

So I nailed 3 of the final 4 and the title game. I'm sitting in the top 1% on ESPN. If UVA wins it will be interesting to see where my bracket lands overall.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Atocep

So I nailed 3 of the final 4 and the title game. I'm sitting in the top 1% on ESPN. If UVA wins it will be interesting to see where my bracket lands overall.

You, sir, are really lucky or really smart.

[Lathum]

The amount of commercials are making this almost unwatchable.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

If UCLA was such a good job to have, they would have a decent coach already.

UCLA is like a great draft athlete with all the measurables. If he has his head on right, great things are possible. If he has a 10 cent head, he is worthless.

Right now, UCLA basketball has a rep problem from being led by a 10 cent head for six years, and various dummies for 40-something years (excepting out Cunningham's two years, Larry Brown's F4 visit, Harrick's chanpionship and Howland's F4 run). And the AD has been run by someone even worse than that for 20 years.

So basically you're right and you're wrong.

[tarcone]

Another fatal TO call?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Crisis in Knoxvile averted. Here's one of the longtime local writers take in case anyone is interested.

Tennessee basketball: Phillip Fulmer needs to keep Rick Barnes happy

[JonInMiddleGA]

Also fwiw, from one of the younger (and generally more tuned in) writers there

@ByMikeWilson
37m37 minutes ago
I'm told UCLA athletic director Dan Guerrero never asked Tennessee for permission to contact Rick Barnes.

I'm sure Phillip Fulmer took kindly to that.

[CU Tiger]

Que the chant: A-C-.....nah just can't. Congrats Hoos!
ACC network launches with the defending champs

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Access to talent - Wash at best. I'd posit that the SE has more BBall talent than the west coast these days but it isnt clear cut either way.

It's a moot point now, and I agree with pretty much everything else you said, but the above contention simply isn't supported by evidence. The SE may have a lot of basketball talent, but up to this point Barnes hasn't gotten a ton of it at Tennessee. Most of his classes appear to be outside the top-25 (and even the top-40 in some years) whereas you basically can roll out of bed and land a top-20 class at UCLA, and if you actually put some effort into it and aren't a complete jackass you can land top-5 classes. The proximity to talent is immense and the UCLA brand still carries weight in recruiting.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Also fwiw, from one of the younger (and generally more tuned in) writers there

Do you even need permission in college? Was it done via agents?

Can't believe Barnes asked for more money haha

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Do you even need permission in college? Was it done via agents?

I can only assume yes to the latter, I believe the former is technically no but it's considered pretty standard behavior afaik.

Can't believe Barnes asked for more money haha

UCLA has certainly cost the SEC a fair chunk of change this silly season.

[Brian Swartz]

Venting a bit about the way some things are perceived …

I positively detest the vindication/redemption/etc. narrative going around vis a vis Virginia. They've been great year-in year-out for a while now. You can't be as good as they have been consistently without being good enough to have a chance at a national title - it's just that simple. And then there's the fact that they probably shouldn't have won this year. How many games just in the tournament did they come close to losing? Down at the half in the first one, though obviously they pulled away in the second. Oregon was very close, should have lost to Purdue, Auburn and Texas Tech were basically coin-flips at the end of the game. I'm not taking anything away from them - they still won those games and most champions have a game or two like that, though usually not this many. But would VA be less worthy of 'vindication' or whatever if they lost in the Elite 8 or Final Four instead of cutting down the nets? That's just ridiculous.

Ultimate point of all this is that I think way too much is made of the tournament, fickle as it is. I think this was one of Izzo's best coaching jobs ever - but I thought that before the tournament and making it to the Final Four didn't enhance it much. Injuries to Lankford, Ward, and later Ahrens and they still won the conference. There are other examples that could be made. I just think it is grotesque to define a team's season by that one game that all of them but one lose at the end of it. Did Auburn have a better season than UK because they went one round further, erasing the fact that they had an inferior regular season and lost the previous two meetings? Just doesn't make any sense to me.

/rant

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Did Auburn have a better season than UK because they went one round further, erasing the fact that they had an inferior regular season and lost the previous two meetings? Just doesn't make any sense to me.

In that particular example, I'd say absolutely that AU had a better season than UK.

Remember , there's not just one round more of the NCAA tournament but also an SEC tournament title. And ultimately the same number of wins against a slightly tougher (KenPom final SOS) schedule. And expectations factor into that analysis - fair or not - particularly with fan bases. Ask 100 people in Auburn and ask 100 in Lexington how they'd rate the season and I can't imagine the results are all that close.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

It's a moot point now, and I agree with pretty much everything else you said, but the above contention simply isn't supported by evidence. The SE may have a lot of basketball talent, but up to this point Barnes hasn't gotten a ton of it at Tennessee. Most of his classes appear to be outside the top-25 (and even the top-40 in some years) whereas you basically can roll out of bed and land a top-20 class at UCLA, and if you actually put some effort into it and aren't a complete jackass you can land top-5 classes. The proximity to talent is immense and the UCLA brand still carries weight in recruiting.

I haven't looked it up, but when was the last time UCLA had a top 5 recruiting class?

Reading this UCLA crap makes me think of Indiana. You think because you were good for a time years ago, you're still supposed to be and going to be good. That ship has sailed. If UCLA had all of these good qualities to be good, then they would be good.

[spleen1015]

Dola, grats to Virginia too.

[Scoobz0202]

Is 247 a bad source? It was my first google result because I wanted to take a quick peak. If it isn't, he isn't wrong.


2018: 6
2017: 5
2016: 11
2015: 24
2014: 7

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

I haven't looked it up, but when was the last time UCLA had a top 5 recruiting class?

Reading this UCLA crap makes me think of Indiana. You think because you were good for a time years ago, you're still supposed to be and going to be good. That ship has sailed. If UCLA had all of these good qualities to be good, then they would be good.

I honestly thought this was a tarcone post on first reading.

[JPhillips]

Virginia certainly isn't the best ever, but the way they came from behind in the last 15 seconds in the final three games is damned impressive.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

I haven't looked it up, but when was the last time UCLA had a top 5 recruiting class?

Reading this UCLA crap makes me think of Indiana. You think because you were good for a time years ago, you're still supposed to be and going to be good. That ship has sailed. If UCLA had all of these good qualities to be good, then they would be good.

This is the first decade with a championship geamr appearance. It's really just been lately we've really blown it and can't get out of our own way as evident by this search.

I think over the years our cheapness has been a major issue. Assistant coaches have to live a considerable distance. The other big issue seems to be LA. It's not for everyone.

Jim Harrick coached a lot of ball. His best years were, by far, at Ucla.

Steve Lavin barely coached anywhere. Still, he was able to rack up sweet 16s at Ucla.

Ben Howland is a hell of a coach. Won at Northern Arizona, UCSB, Pitt. Dominated at Ucla until the nonsense.

Steve Alford lost to Harvard in the tourney as a 2-seed ten minutes before being hired at Ucla, and was far more successful here than anywhere else.

The very second Ucla hires a good coach, he’ll have the best run of his career here.

(You know how else to know we’re a blueblood: when Tier-1 coaches try to leverage our opening for more money, their employers believe they’d leave to come here)

Oh and apparently after Barnes asked for the 7 from us we pulled the offer. He called back and said he would take the 6 and they told him no. I don't know what side more sad about that

[Poli]

Sorry, Bug.

[MrBug708]

I'll be ok!

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

I haven't looked it up, but when was the last time UCLA had a top 5 recruiting class?

Reading this UCLA crap makes me think of Indiana. You think because you were good for a time years ago, you're still supposed to be and going to be good. That ship has sailed. If UCLA had all of these good qualities to be good, then they would be good.

Most of it is coaching. Alabama in football was struggling for a few years before Sabin came in and took them to an entirely new level of excellence. Great Prestige + Great coaching = Excellence. UCLA has just been missing that top tier coach. Indiana may be a different situation. It may just have been Bobby Knight that brought them to the level of excellence. Indiana just doesnt seem like a location that would bring in a bunch of top 20 recruits yearly.

[JPhillips]

I'm so old I remember when Rick Barnes was considered a disappointment at Texas.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Most of it is coaching. Alabama in football was struggling for a few years before Sabin came in and took them to an entirely new level of excellence. Great Prestige + Great coaching = Excellence. UCLA has just been missing that top tier coach. Indiana may be a different situation. It may just have been Bobby Knight that brought them to the level of excellence. Indiana just doesnt seem like a location that would bring in a bunch of top 20 recruits yearly.

Duke post Coach K will be a fascinating thing to watch. I could see it going either way.

[digamma]

Crazy fun weekend here, with lots of fans from all around in the city. Such a contrast from the Super Bowl where it is so corporate and all of the events are tight and non-public.

Also tons of fun catching up with old classmates and getting to the games. What a game!

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Most of it is coaching. Alabama in football was struggling for a few years before Sabin came in and took them to an entirely new level of excellence. Great Prestige + Great coaching = Excellence. UCLA has just been missing that top tier coach. Indiana may be a different situation. It may just have been Bobby Knight that brought them to the level of excellence. Indiana just doesnt seem like a location that would bring in a bunch of top 20 recruits yearly.

Um, Indiana is an incredibly talent-rich state in terms of basketball players. And it is a gorgeous campus.

[JPhillips]

IU also has the talent-rich Chicago area nearby.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Um, Indiana is an incredibly talent-rich state in terms of basketball players. And it is a gorgeous campus.

It does produce a lot. But not in the same realm as California. In the 2016-2017 NBA roster, 46 came from California, 17 came from Indiana. That's good enough for 4th but still way behind. In the c/o 2019 there are 3 top 100 players from Indiana and 7 top 200. California has 6 and 18.

And everyone thinks their campus is beautiful

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

And everyone thinks their campus is beautiful

Surely Purdue folks don't...

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

And everyone thinks their campus is beautiful

This has nothing to do with anything, but one of the most powerful moments in Hoop Dreams was when one of the kids got to the state tournament at U. of Illinois, and his parents were walking on the campus. And the dad was basically speechless looking around and realizing that such a beautiful place could exist.

It was one of those "Oh wow" moments for me. U. Illinois's campus looked good, but it didn't look any better or worse than most big state campuses. As you note, most college campuses are beautiful. And, as a middle class white kid, I'd been on various college campuses and had generally seen lots of green open fields growing up in suburbia. So if I had business at U. Illinois, I wouldn't have thought much about the beauty of the campus at all.

But this adult man had lived his life in inner city Chicago. And had never been out to see anything as beautiful as a generic state university campus. And, I don't know. You know how some things just strike you? That struck me. I got a small sense of what it really meant to grow up poor and black in Chicago and how totally different that life is from the life I lived.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Surely Purdue folks don't...

Sometimes that's the price you pay. You go to Arizona State for the "beauty", Cal for the academics.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

It's a moot point now, and I agree with pretty much everything else you said, but the above contention simply isn't supported by evidence. The SE may have a lot of basketball talent, but up to this point Barnes hasn't gotten a ton of it at Tennessee. Most of his classes appear to be outside the top-25 (and even the top-40 in some years) whereas you basically can roll out of bed and land a top-20 class at UCLA, and if you actually put some effort into it and aren't a complete jackass you can land top-5 classes. The proximity to talent is immense and the UCLA brand still carries weight in recruiting.

Fair point.
A couple counter points, historically Barnes hasn't succeeded because of Top 10 talent. He won with "his guys" a blue collar bang and grind game. He got away from that at Texas at times, and I think he would tell you it ultimately cost him. I think since arriving at Tenn he has gone back to his "roots" stylistically.


When I talk about access to talent, I'm saying can you sign players good enough to compete in your footprint. And every school has a footprint.


I don't think the type of player that make Top 10 classes necessarily will fit and work for Barnes. But thats just my opinion and Im not a basketball guy.

[MrBug708]

Cronin it is

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Fair point.
A couple counter points, historically Barnes hasn't succeeded because of Top 10 talent. He won with "his guys" a blue collar bang and grind game. He got away from that at Texas at times, and I think he would tell you it ultimately cost him. I think since arriving at Tenn he has gone back to his "roots" stylistically.


When I talk about access to talent, I'm saying can you sign players good enough to compete in your footprint. And every school has a footprint.


I don't think the type of player that make Top 10 classes necessarily will fit and work for Barnes. But thats just my opinion and Im not a basketball guy.

Yeah, he did pretty badly at Texas when he was chasing one and dones and admits he shouldn't have done that as much. Maybe it's over generalizing, but I feel like elite recruits from the LA area (and there are many!) will be more flashy, interested in the celebrity life, and more likely to be one and done. Calipari would've been a great fit for that, but Barnes would've been torn between sticking to the style that works for him or taking some low hanging fruit that might not fit the culture he wants on a team.

Mick Cronin appears to be the guy. It's interesting that every coach on the list seemed to have the tough guy, defense first rep when that's not the style I associate with UCLA, but Howland had success there early and it'll be interesting to see how Cronin handles high recruits. I would've paid money to see him interact with LaVar Ball...

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Cronin it is

I'm not sure if Guerrero is lucky or savvy, but IMO Cronin is better than Dixon and Barnes. I think you guys got a good one.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

Reading this UCLA crap makes me think of Indiana. You think because you were good for a time years ago, you're still supposed to be and going to be good. That ship has sailed. If UCLA had all of these good qualities to be good, then they would be good.

I don't think UCLA is still in that elite tier with North Carolina, Duke, Kansas and Kentucky. It's been too long since they've been a major factor in the post-season. And they probably haven't been the top program in the Pac-10/12 for at least a decade (if not two) with the rise of Arizona.

But there are inherent reasons why it should be a top program if they could get out of their own way when hiring coaches. First and foremost is location - they are still the premier basketball program in SoCal amidst a massive collection of talent. And Los Angeles is a big draw for a lot of kids. Add to that UCLA itself is in a very high tier academically among public schools (so it appeals to the parents that want their kids to go to a "good school"). And even though the glory years are decades old, there's still a big draw to look at all of the superstars that played there and the 11 championship trophies, still the most of any school.

Bug and CR can enlighten you more with the botched hires and management of the athletic department, but there are plenty of good reasons why UCLA should be one of the top programs in the game.

[MrBug708]

Arizona might be consistent, but that haven't been relevant in the dance since 2001. Gonzaga is the premier west coast program right now

[Vince, Pt. II]

Mick Cronin to UCLA?

Edit: old news, apparently

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I'm not sure if Guerrero is lucky or savvy, but IMO Cronin is better than Dixon and Barnes. I think you guys got a good one.

Gut punch.

I started at Cinci before finishing my degree at UW, so I follow them pretty closely.

That being said, I don't think his style is fit for UCLA. Seems to me they are going to want to get up and down and Cronin plays a pretty boring style. Maybe with better athletes he will open it up a bit, but we'll see.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Arizona might be consistent, but that haven't been relevant in the dance since 2001. Gonzaga is the premier west coast program right now

Agreed. And depending on what shakes out from the agent payout situation as it relates to Arizona, they may take a step back here if Miller is forced out. But I think they've been the top program in the conference for a while now.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I'm not sure if Guerrero is lucky or savvy, but IMO Cronin is better than Dixon and Barnes. I think you guys got a good one.

Eh, I disagree. Cronin had a mediocre Cincinnati program until the Big East split. Take away his first season as it was a dumpster fire and he was more or less a 500 coach in conference play over 6 years. Once the Big East split and they moved to the AAC they made a jump.

Personally I'd take Barnes and Dixon over Cronin. I don't think Cronin is a bad coach, per say, but I don't think he's great either.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Eh, I disagree. Cronin had a mediocre Cincinnati program until the Big East split. Take away his first season as it was a dumpster fire and he was more or less a 500 coach in conference play over 6 years. Once the Big East split and they moved to the AAC they made a jump.

Sure. But I look at the AAC and I don't think it's any worse - and perhaps better - than CUSA was when Huggins was coaching Cincinnati, and Cronin has been at least as good as Huggy was since that happened. I mean, hard to know how well all of that translates, but it seems like Cronin compares well to Huggins.

[MrBug708]

Cronin numbers O/D
PACE OF PLAY
- The only year he has been in the top 200 for tempo rankings was the first of his career, when he was 59th
-Interestingly, his tempo was basically the same the rest of his time at Murray then his Big East era at Cincy--in the 200s. That's slow, but not ridiculous. Then, literally the first year of the AAC, the tempo plummeted into the 330s. He's been between 328 and 339 the last six seasons. I don't exactly know what it was about the conference move that caused the dip, but it is the most immediately noticeable thing about his kenpom profile

OFFENSE
- 5/16 years rated lower than 100
- Top 50 the last 3 seasons
- The last 3 seasons are easily his best offense

DEFENSE
- Made a leap his 4th year at Cincy (2010) and never looked back. Average ranking before that: 107. Since then: 18
- The last 9 years, he has been out of the Top 25 once (this season--27th)
- Best defense was last season: 2nd in the nation

OVERALL
- Whereas his big defensive leap was 2010, his breakthrough overall was 2011. Before then, average ranking of 94 (to be fair, that includes 3 Murray State years). After, average ranking of 28.
- Only one top 10 (last season), but he's been top 40 every season but one since 2011 (43rd in 2015)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

PACE OF PLAY

How does the rest of the conference stack up for tempo? Could it be simply a matter of opponents dictating pace to some degree, and Cronin being content with that style?

[MrBug708]

It's usually adjusted for those things so it's a baseline number

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

How does the rest of the conference stack up for tempo? Could it be simply a matter of opponents dictating pace to some degree, and Cronin being content with that style?

It probably does have a lot to do with the conference pace. The average seconds per shot by the opponent is the most noticeable trend that has shifted that downward. Cincy's time of shot would kind of change a bit based on talent.

Also, it seems Cincy decided to make defense their top priority and felt very comfortable playing that pace.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

It's usually adjusted for those things so it's a baseline number

Ive started paying more attention to possession length right below the adjusted pace because I feel I can get a more accurate reading of game flow. For example Auburn plays fast on the offensive side of the ball but slow the game down with their pressing defense so they ended up in mid 100s for pace. Breaking that down a bit further if they play a fast paced offense like UNC it means both teams are going to be jacking shots up quickly where as Virginia just going to slow the game down even more.

I like the pace stat but on certain teams like Auburn it doesnt quite project what is really going on.

[Izulde]

Steve Alford expected to replace Eric Musselman as Nevada's head coach | SI.com

I can't stop smiling. FUNR.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Steve Alford expected to replace Eric Musselman as Nevada's head coach | SI.com

I can't stop smiling. FUNR.

There is a thread over at hawkeyenation. It is awesome.

How dumb of an AD are you to hire this guy?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by tarcone

How dumb of an AD are you to hire this guy?

That was my initial reaction as well but then I went back and looked at New Mexico and how they've done before and after him, and I can see why Nevada would be interested. He may have failed to live up to expectations at Iowa and UCLA, but he did quite well at New Mexico; significantly better than his immediate two predecessors and his successors, and arguably the best of any coach they've had.