Hofstra comes to Trask Saturday night as UNCW honors our CAA championship team which was our only team with a win in the NCAA tournament.

Hofstra has four players who average double figures in conference play and a fifth player averaging almost 10. They played the toughest OOC schedule in the CAA and managed a huge win over Arkansas and some tight games with top level opponents.

They have seven guys who are their primary players.

Aaron Estrada 6'3"190 lb.Jr. 23.9ppg, 46.7%FG, 27.7% from 3(13-47), 93%FT, 4.9 assists, 5.3 Rebs, 36min. *I need two lines to fit in all he does
Jalen Ray 6'2" 175lb Grad 12.6ppg, 43%FG, 32.6% from 3(15-46), 2.7Reb, 30.6 min
D Darlinstone 6'7" 202lb. So. 10.6ppg, 53%FG, 3.7 Reb, 28.9 min.
O Silverio 6'3" 200lb Sr., 9.1 ppg, 34.9%FG, 30.2% from 3(13-43), 4.3Reb, 30.7 min
A lyiola 6'10" 215lb. Sr. 7.4ppg, 53%FG, 9.1Reb, 26 min.
C Burgess 6'3" 170lb. Jr. 2.1 ppg, 31%FG, 15.7 min
J Carlos 6'0 160lb Fr. 2.1 ppg, 8.6min

This game, like all Hofstra games, will be about Estrada. He leads the team in pretty much every category and somehow leads the team in scoring and assists. Nobody has really been able to stop him from scoring, so the hope is to keep his perecentages down because he's going to shoot a lot.

CAA stats for Hofstra

3pt FG% 28.4 last
3pt defense 39% next to last
Reb Margin #8
Blocked shots last
Steals #2
TO Margin #1 +6.17(UNCW#2 (+3.67)
Off Rebs #8
FT% #1 86%
FT attempts 86, UNCW 133

Hofstra has beaten some good teams and played some good teams very tight, but looking at their stats I don't see anything that should be a huge problem for the Hawks'. They run a bunch of guards and don't turn the ball over. They aren't big overall and have one big man who hits the boards hard. But, Hofstra doesn't hit the offensive boards hard as a team.

Neither team is likely to turn the ball over much so that will be a push. But the strengths of UNCW on the offensive boards and getting into the paint and drawing fouls and FT's should give us the advantage. As many guards as Hofstra has, it's surprising how little they get to the FT line considering how incredible they shoot when they get there.

Hofstra has 363 FG attempts total and 155 of them have been from three, but they don't shoot well from three and don't rebound well on offense, They have counted on limiting their TO's and creating turnovers to win games. Unfortunately for Hofstra, UNCW doesn't turn the ball over and UNCW allows the fewest three point attempts in the CAA at 17 per game while Hofstra takes an average of 25. They've attempted 28 more three pointers than UNCW in conference play, but only made two more.

Hofstra is basically the same team as Elon but better at creating TO's and limiting their own turnovers. Long rebounds off missed three's is just what the doctor ordered for UNCW. Okauru goes off.

Hawkstra - 73
Hofstra - 68

(01-28-2022 12:17 AM)82hawk Wrote:  They have seven guys who are thier primary players.

Aaron Estrada 6'3"190 lb.Jr. 23.9ppg, 46.7%FG, 27.7% from 3(13-47), 93%FT, 4.9 assists, 5.3 Rebs, 36min. *I need two lines to fit in all he does
Jalen Ray 6'2" 175lb Grad 12.6ppg, 43%FG, 32.6% from 3(15-46), 2.7Reb, 30.6 min
D Darlinstone 6'7" 202lb. So. 10.6ppg, 53%FG, 3.7 Reb, 28.9 min.
O Silverio 6'3" 200lb Sr., 9.1 ppg, 34.9%FG, 30.2% from 3(13-43), 4.3Reb, 30.7 min
A lyiola 6'10" 215lb. Sr. 7.4ppg, 53%FG, 9.1Reb, 26 min.
C Burgess 6'3" 170lb. Jr. 2.1 ppg, 31%FG, 15.7 min
J Carlos 6'0 160lb Fr. 2.1 ppg, 8.6min

I need to mention Hofstra's other three players. Zach Cooks averages 15.8 points. He's not on the CAA leaders because he hasn't played in 75 percent of games to qualify. He's played in 14 of 20 games. Sub forward Jarrod Simmons had 5 rebounds in 12 minutes tonight. He played 5 minutes in the first game before getting injured, missed 15 games, and is back. It's good he's back because sub forward Kvonn Cramer (who started and made the Rookie Team last season) has an unknown injury. Hofstra almost always has four guards on the court, and occasionally five. If Cramer remains out, expect to see exactly one of Iyiola and Simmons on the court at a time. Jalen Ray scored 3 tonight after scoring 2 in his previous game. Hofstra is now bringing Cooks and Ray off the bench, and Ray played only 19 minutes tonight. Ray shoots threes .421 and doesn't do much else.

Hofstra shot threes .360 nonconference and .289 so far in CAA games.

Hofstra shoots free throws .806, which would be the school record, and is threatening W&M's CAA record of .810 in 2017-2018. Estrada and Charleston's Reyne Smith could both break the old CAA record for free throw percentage.

Yep, the Pride are good. I’m surprised that they didn’t run away from a solid Cougar team last night after a great start.

The good news is that there is no way this is a "trap" game. Hofstra looks very good and they are breathing right down UNCW's neck.

This is a really big game!

If we win this, we are comfortably in first place heading into the 2nd half of the CAA schedule and would have a substantial tiebreaker advantage.

Keep it going!

Anyone know why our NET ranking (209) is lagging so far behind our RPI (126)?

Yes, this is a big game regarding conference ramifications. I see this a little differently than some. I’m okay win or lose if the Hawks are playing together on both ends and leaving it out there on the court.

Hawks should play free and have fun out there. The Pride is a road favorite so you may as well play free with nothing to lose. We weren’t moving the ball or guys on offense the other day and that needs to improve win or lose.

(01-29-2022 12:37 AM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote:  Anyone know why our NET ranking (209) is lagging so far behind our RPI (126)?

I'm no expert. But NET does at least two things that RPI doesn't. First, margin of victory (up to 10 points, I think) matters in NET, but doesn't in RPI. All of our wins in this stretch have been pretty close. Another thing is that offensive efficiency is calculated by NET, but not RPI.

I'm not sure how that's effecting UNCW, but for example if we were ahead by 8 points at the end of a game and dribbled the ball to run out the clock instead of driving and scoring we would be penalized by NET in two ways - not maximizing our margin of victory and by not converting the possession into points, thus lowering our offensive efficiency.

(01-29-2022 09:07 AM)70shawk Wrote:  

(01-29-2022 12:37 AM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote:  Anyone know why our NET ranking (209) is lagging so far behind our RPI (126)?

I'm no expert. But NET does at least two things that RPI doesn't. First, margin of victory (up to 10 points, I think) matters in NET, but doesn't in RPI. All of our wins in this stretch have been pretty close. Another thing is that offensive efficiency is calculated by NET, but not RPI.

I'm not sure how that's effecting UNCW, but for example if we were ahead by 8 points at the end of a game and dribbled the ball to run out the clock instead of driving and scoring we would be penalized by NET in two ways - not maximizing our margin of victory and by not converting the possession into points, thus lowering our offensive efficiency.

So, does that mean they throw sportsmanship out the window?

(01-29-2022 09:07 AM)70shawk Wrote:  

(01-29-2022 12:37 AM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote:  Anyone know why our NET ranking (209) is lagging so far behind our RPI (126)?

I'm no expert. But NET does at least two things that RPI doesn't. First, margin of victory (up to 10 points, I think) matters in NET, but doesn't in RPI. All of our wins in this stretch have been pretty close. Another thing is that offensive efficiency is calculated by NET, but not RPI.

I'm not sure how that's effecting UNCW, but for example if we were ahead by 8 points at the end of a game and dribbled the ball to run out the clock instead of driving and scoring we would be penalized by NET in two ways - not maximizing our margin of victory and by not converting the possession into points, thus lowering our offensive efficiency.

So, does that mean they throw sportsmanship out the window?

We are 4.5 dogs this morning with the over/under at 142.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

(01-29-2022 09:40 AM)SEA33HAWK Wrote:  

(01-29-2022 09:07 AM)70shawk Wrote:  

(01-29-2022 12:37 AM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote:  Anyone know why our NET ranking (209) is lagging so far behind our RPI (126)?

I'm no expert. But NET does at least two things that RPI doesn't. First, margin of victory (up to 10 points, I think) matters in NET, but doesn't in RPI. All of our wins in this stretch have been pretty close. Another thing is that offensive efficiency is calculated by NET, but not RPI.

I'm not sure how that's effecting UNCW, but for example if we were ahead by 8 points at the end of a game and dribbled the ball to run out the clock instead of driving and scoring we would be penalized by NET in two ways - not maximizing our margin of victory and by not converting the possession into points, thus lowering our offensive efficiency.

So, does that mean they throw sportsmanship out the window?

Actually, that is one effect. It pays to run up the score (to an extent). I think our NET lagging our RPI is partly affected by our narrow victory margins. In RPI, you either won or lost the game. In NET, narrow margins make wins less valuable than big win margins.

(01-29-2022 10:55 AM)70shawk Wrote:  

(01-29-2022 09:40 AM)SEA33HAWK Wrote:  

(01-29-2022 09:07 AM)70shawk Wrote:  

(01-29-2022 12:37 AM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote:  Anyone know why our NET ranking (209) is lagging so far behind our RPI (126)?

I'm no expert. But NET does at least two things that RPI doesn't. First, margin of victory (up to 10 points, I think) matters in NET, but doesn't in RPI. All of our wins in this stretch have been pretty close. Another thing is that offensive efficiency is calculated by NET, but not RPI.

I'm not sure how that's effecting UNCW, but for example if we were ahead by 8 points at the end of a game and dribbled the ball to run out the clock instead of driving and scoring we would be penalized by NET in two ways - not maximizing our margin of victory and by not converting the possession into points, thus lowering our offensive efficiency.

So, does that mean they throw sportsmanship out the window?

Actually, that is one effect. It pays to run up the score (to an extent). I think our NET lagging our RPI is partly affected by our narrow victory margins. In RPI, you either won or lost the game. In NET, narrow margins make wins less valuable than big win margins.

I can't completely agree with that thinking. Every team has nights they struggle and are not in sync. But the good ones tend to win ugly.

(01-29-2022 11:08 AM)SEA33HAWK Wrote:  

(01-29-2022 10:55 AM)70shawk Wrote:  

(01-29-2022 09:40 AM)SEA33HAWK Wrote:  

(01-29-2022 09:07 AM)70shawk Wrote:  

(01-29-2022 12:37 AM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote:  Anyone know why our NET ranking (209) is lagging so far behind our RPI (126)?

I'm no expert. But NET does at least two things that RPI doesn't. First, margin of victory (up to 10 points, I think) matters in NET, but doesn't in RPI. All of our wins in this stretch have been pretty close. Another thing is that offensive efficiency is calculated by NET, but not RPI.

I'm not sure how that's effecting UNCW, but for example if we were ahead by 8 points at the end of a game and dribbled the ball to run out the clock instead of driving and scoring we would be penalized by NET in two ways - not maximizing our margin of victory and by not converting the possession into points, thus lowering our offensive efficiency.

So, does that mean they throw sportsmanship out the window?

Actually, that is one effect. It pays to run up the score (to an extent). I think our NET lagging our RPI is partly affected by our narrow victory margins. In RPI, you either won or lost the game. In NET, narrow margins make wins less valuable than big win margins.

I can't completely agree with that thinking. Every team has nights they struggle and are not in sync. But the good ones te d to win ugly.

When NET first came out I recall that being one of the criticisms of it.

Teams had gotten pretty smart on how to "game" the RPI . The formula was pretty simple - if you had a good record against teams with good records who had beaten teams with good records, you could put together a pretty good RPI. My memory , for example, was that the Missouri Valley Conference hired a moneyball kind of consultant to advise their teams teams on scheduling and ended up putting something like 5 teams in the NCAA tournament.

Of course the bubble teams in P5 conferences hated it. They and their advocates said that you put together a good record by beating weaker teams with good records, who in turn had good records because they had beaten even weaker teams with good records, shouldn't trump their getting into a tournament with a mediocre record - because they had a bunch of losses to really strong teams.

So the crafted NET , and now to move up you need big wins and points per possession , and I suppose other things as well.

(01-29-2022 11:23 AM)70shawk Wrote:  

(01-29-2022 11:08 AM)SEA33HAWK Wrote:  

(01-29-2022 10:55 AM)70shawk Wrote:  

(01-29-2022 09:40 AM)SEA33HAWK Wrote:  

(01-29-2022 09:07 AM)70shawk Wrote:  I'm no expert. But NET does at least two things that RPI doesn't. First, margin of victory (up to 10 points, I think) matters in NET, but doesn't in RPI. All of our wins in this stretch have been pretty close. Another thing is that offensive efficiency is calculated by NET, but not RPI.

I'm not sure how that's effecting UNCW, but for example if we were ahead by 8 points at the end of a game and dribbled the ball to run out the clock instead of driving and scoring we would be penalized by NET in two ways - not maximizing our margin of victory and by not converting the possession into points, thus lowering our offensive efficiency.

So, does that mean they throw sportsmanship out the window?

Actually, that is one effect. It pays to run up the score (to an extent). I think our NET lagging our RPI is partly affected by our narrow victory margins. In RPI, you either won or lost the game. In NET, narrow margins make wins less valuable than big win margins.

I can't completely agree with that thinking. Every team has nights they struggle and are not in sync. But the good ones te d to win ugly.

When NET first came out I recall that being one of the criticisms of it.

Teams had gotten pretty smart on how to "game" the RPI . The formula was pretty simple - if you had a good record against teams with good records who had beaten teams with good records, you could put together a pretty good RPI. My memory , for example, was that the Missouri Valley Conference hired a moneyball kind of consultant to advise their teams teams on scheduling and ended up putting something like 5 teams in the NCAA tournament.

Of course the bubble teams in P5 conferences hated it. They and their advocates said that you put together a good record by beating weaker teams with good records, who in turn had good records because they had beaten even weaker teams with good records, shouldn't trump their getting into a tournament with a mediocre record - because they had a bunch of losses to really strong teams.

So the crafted NET , and now to move up you need big wins and points per possession , and I suppose other things as well.

Bingo

Teams get rewarded big time for those Big Quad 1 wins in February

Of course who has the opportunity to play Quad 1 games in February???

Hofstra would be a bubble team if they used the old RPI with a ranking of 36. With the new NET ranking they are 97

So NET was invented to screw over mid-majors. Makes perfect sense.

(01-29-2022 01:03 PM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote:  So NET was invented to screw over mid-majors. Makes perfect sense.

There are exceptions. Gonzaga's SOS is 89th, which is worse than most of the top teams. They are first in the Coaches Poll, second in the AP Poll, first in the NET, and 21st in the RPI. In the RPI, they're third in the West Coast. By RPI, Gonzaga is only 15 spots above Hofstra. Of the millions of people who will watch NCAA Basketball today, I don't know if anybody believes that.

The CAA is 13th in the RPI and 14th in the NET. The teams are an average of 17.7 spots better in the RPI than NET. I knew CAA teams did better in the RPI, but I didn't know how big a difference you had until I read your post. The NET has the top six conferences as expected, while the RPI has the Mountain West fifth. Using the NET instead of the RPI could make the Mountain West get one bid instead of four. The Mountain West and West Coast have their fourth best team better than the Pac-12's fourth best team.

(01-29-2022 11:23 AM)70shawk Wrote:  My memory , for example, was that the Missouri Valley Conference hired a moneyball kind of consultant to advise their teams teams on scheduling and ended up putting something like 5 teams in the NCAA tournament.

The most teams they got in the NCAA Tournament was four in 2006, and Missouri State was left out with an RPI of 22nd! The second biggest snub was Hofstra, who lost to you in the Final, and George Mason went to the Final Four.

I hate when people say that teams deserve to get in because of their best wins when it's not hard to have 2 wins against the top 50 if you have over 10 games against those teams.

The overall Sagarin expects Hofstra to win by 3.95.

Gonzaga is not a true mid major. They’re only listed as such on paper.

They’re not a good example.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

(01-29-2022 01:52 PM)B_Hawk06 Wrote:  Gonzaga is not a true mid major. They’re only listed as such on paper.

They’re not a good example.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

As long as Gonzaga is in a mid-major conference, they are mid-major. And I love it. It pisses the P5 teams off because they are so consistently good. And it goes against the P5 agenda.

(01-29-2022 01:04 PM)EvanJ Wrote:  The most teams they got in the NCAA Tournament was four in 2006, and Missouri State was left out with an RPI of 22nd! The second biggest snub was Hofstra, who lost to you in the Final, and George Mason went to the Final Four.

Hofstra knocked George Mason's Final Four team out of the CAA tournament that year. Tony Skinn infamously "racked up" your guard Loren Stokes in that loss. They got an at-large bid and you did not.

Fun fact: Tony Skinn is an assistant coach at Ohio State now
Tony Skinn today