(10-22-2019 04:05 PM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 03:17 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 02:59 PM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 09:49 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  The Cincy-ECU Basketball rivalry is my favorite one in all of sports.

Yeah last year we poached a Bearcat. This year I am thinking we’ll poach a Husky.

I am so excited.

You should be trying to poach a Tiger or Cougar this year. #ECULowStandards

Trying to work from the bottom up.

Cincy finished 2nd last year. #ECUMaths

You have to at least somewhat admire the absolute unabashed commitment to the cause.

I have no words. I feel like this cat does this every basketball season.

(10-22-2019 04:30 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  You have to at least somewhat admire the absolute unabashed commitment to the cause.

I have no words. I feel like this cat does this every basketball season.

I am going to miss ECU fans. They are loyal and optimistic no matter the situation. You have to admire it.

I am not sure that this is ECU's year to shine, but I do think that Dooley can get them going in the right direction.

(10-22-2019 04:30 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 04:05 PM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 03:17 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 02:59 PM)NoQuarterBrigade Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 09:49 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  The Cincy-ECU Basketball rivalry is my favorite one in all of sports.

Yeah last year we poached a Bearcat. This year I am thinking we’ll poach a Husky.

I am so excited.

You should be trying to poach a Tiger or Cougar this year. #ECULowStandards

Trying to work from the bottom up.

Cincy finished 2nd last year. #ECUMaths

Yeah but, last year we didn’t know the Husky was going to run away and seek shelter in another conference. So we have to adjust our strategy to make sure we take care of the Husky too. #ECUStrategizes

(10-22-2019 02:45 PM)Stickboy46 Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 02:29 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 02:19 PM)Stickboy46 Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 02:14 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 01:56 PM)BcatMatt13 Wrote:  [quote='StillJonesing' pid='16390445' dateline='1571769472']
So you admit UC’s “video coordinators” have better recruits coming in than ECU despite not recruiting anyone to UC until April. Got it.

I think we’re done here. Enjoy irrelevancy, god knows you’re used to it.

Sure. They went head to head this spring on a recruit you really needed and lost, even with the burden of signing 11 players and 8 this spring stretched thin with that amount and a set recruiting hours and a far inferior basketball resources, this staff beat your staff on an important player and landed 3 quality of players at least as highly ranked as anything yours landed.

What the heck does that say when your staff is at Cincy with much greater resources and get about the same level of recruits our staff did at ECU. Obviously they did more with less and it's shouldn't be a shock as they are certainly more accomplished.

If i remember right UC landed a 4 star Top 50 kid .. care to explain the bolded part? Which three players did ECU land as good as that?

Coleman had just as many good offers including one from Cincy they lost head to head, but I digress.

I don't know the story on that guy, he must have reclassified or something. Regardless the job Dooley and staff did this year relative the resources he has vs somewhere like Cincy holds up either way individually especially when he beat them on a recruit both wanted with offers from Duke and a ton of other P5 offers.

Ok .. are you now trying to make a "relative to resources" comparison?

No one is saying he did a bad job, but trying to put him ahead of Cincy ... is a stretch.

All I've said is we have an accomplished staff and I think any objective person would rate it over Cincy's today. Several national media people have commented on how did we put this staff together, as a nod to how good it is.

Certainly what they have to work with has to be taken into account though if you are judging them. I've never said our school was as attractive to recruits as Cincy, it certainly has disadvantages but the staff is not one of them and I expect it to show in results and I've probably been more critical than anyone of Dooley's first year. I think he is right where I expected in year 2 though.

Moving forward when they don't have to focus on getting 11 recruits in a single year and can be more focus on a normal 2 or 3 I expect you'll see a big time recruit and winning seasons before they are gone if you don't already consider a guy with Coleman's offer sheet as a big time land when we got him, and over that exact same Cincy staff and others. He was highly recruited and a lot of schools needed him at that point including Cincy with question marks at Center they really didn't fill after they lost him to us.

Cincy has a lot going for them but I wouldn't trade staffs, and one bad staff is all it takes to derail it or turn things around. Peace out.

KenPom's preseason prediction from last year:

1. SMU
2. Cincy
3. Houston
4. UCF
5. WSU
6. Temple
7. UConn
8. Memphis
9. Tulsa
10. Tulane
11. ECU
12. USF

Obviously, he was significantly off on his selections. I think his predictions are of little use until sufficient data arrives later in the season.

(10-24-2019 08:55 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  KenPom's preseason prediction from last year:

1. SMU (HOUSTON)
2. Cincy (CINCINNATI)
3. Houston (TEMPLE)
4. UCF (UCF)
5. WSU (MEMPHIS)
6. Temple (WSU)
7. UConn (TULSA)
8. Memphis (USF)
9. Tulsa (UConn)
10. Tulane (SMU)
11. ECU (ECU)
12. USF (TULANE)

Obviously, he was significantly off on his selections. I think his predictions are of little use until sufficient data arrives later in the season.

In parentheses where teams actually finished. Kenpom got 3 out of 11 right. Got one more within one spot. Crap predictions from an ‘expert scientific analytics’ so called self described. Pretty sure I predicted better myself.

(10-24-2019 08:55 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  KenPom's preseason prediction from last year:

1. SMU
2. Cincy
3. Houston
4. UCF
5. WSU
6. Temple
7. UConn
8. Memphis
9. Tulsa
10. Tulane
11. ECU
12. USF

Obviously, he was significantly off on his selections. I think his predictions are of little use until sufficient data arrives later in the season.

He was way off on SMU and I think many of us knew going in he would be. Had enough returning production and recent history that they fooled the formula, but they were incredibly thin.

However, he also had Cincinnati, Houston and UCF among the tier of tournament type teams, which proved very accurate. He had UCF below Cincinnati/Houston which many previews did not. He missed on 1 team from his middle tier...should have had USF instead of UConn. Everyone missed on USF, and I think many gave UConn far too much credit going in.

His numbers suggested Tulane and ECU would be really bad. They were really bad.

When you actually look at where those teams finished nationally in his rankings his two big misses were SMU and USF. UConn was a slight miss as well.

(10-24-2019 09:55 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(10-24-2019 08:55 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  KenPom's preseason prediction from last year:

1. SMU
2. Cincy
3. Houston
4. UCF
5. WSU
6. Temple
7. UConn
8. Memphis
9. Tulsa
10. Tulane
11. ECU
12. USF

Obviously, he was significantly off on his selections. I think his predictions are of little use until sufficient data arrives later in the season.

He was way off on SMU and I think many of us knew going in he would be. Had enough returning production and recent history that they fooled the formula, but they were incredibly thin.

However, he also had Cincinnati, Houston and UCF among the tier of tournament type teams, which proved very accurate. He had UCF below Cincinnati/Houston which many previews did not. He missed on 1 team from his middle tier...should have had USF instead of UConn. Everyone missed on USF, and I think many gave UConn far too much credit going in.

His numbers suggested Tulane and ECU would be really bad. They were really bad.

When you actually look at where those teams finished nationally in his rankings his two big misses were SMU and USF. UConn was a slight miss as well.

I think he was way off when considering most of us (the amateurs) made more accurate picks.

Prediction / (Actual)
1. SMU (Finished 10th or +9)
2. Cincy (dead on)
3. Houston (Finished 1st or -2)
4. UCF (dead on)
5. WSU (Finished 6th or +1)
6. Temple (Finished 3rd or -3)
7. UConn (Finished 9th or +2)
8. Memphis (Finished 5th or -3)
9. Tulsa (Finished 7th or -2)
10. Tulane (Finished 12th or +2)
11. ECU (dead on)
12. USF (finished 8th or -4)

(10-24-2019 10:55 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(10-24-2019 09:55 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(10-24-2019 08:55 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  KenPom's preseason prediction from last year:

1. SMU
2. Cincy
3. Houston
4. UCF
5. WSU
6. Temple
7. UConn
8. Memphis
9. Tulsa
10. Tulane
11. ECU
12. USF

Obviously, he was significantly off on his selections. I think his predictions are of little use until sufficient data arrives later in the season.

He was way off on SMU and I think many of us knew going in he would be. Had enough returning production and recent history that they fooled the formula, but they were incredibly thin.

However, he also had Cincinnati, Houston and UCF among the tier of tournament type teams, which proved very accurate. He had UCF below Cincinnati/Houston which many previews did not. He missed on 1 team from his middle tier...should have had USF instead of UConn. Everyone missed on USF, and I think many gave UConn far too much credit going in.

His numbers suggested Tulane and ECU would be really bad. They were really bad.

When you actually look at where those teams finished nationally in his rankings his two big misses were SMU and USF. UConn was a slight miss as well.

I think he was way off when considering most of us (the amateurs) made more accurate picks.

Prediction / (Actual)
1. SMU (Finished 10th or +9)
2. Cincy (dead on)
3. Houston (Finished 1st or -2)
4. UCF (dead on)
5. WSU (Finished 6th or +1)
6. Temple (Finished 3rd or -3)
7. UConn (Finished 9th or +2)
8. Memphis (Finished 5th or -3)
9. Tulsa (Finished 7th or -2)
10. Tulane (Finished 12th or +2)
11. ECU (dead on)
12. USF (finished 8th or -4)

Conference schedules isn't a fair way to judge, national rank is a much better picture. Conference schedules are non apples to apples schedules where a game or two can be the difference is half the league in the standings.

(10-24-2019 10:55 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(10-24-2019 09:55 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(10-24-2019 08:55 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  KenPom's preseason prediction from last year:

1. SMU
2. Cincy
3. Houston
4. UCF
5. WSU
6. Temple
7. UConn
8. Memphis
9. Tulsa
10. Tulane
11. ECU
12. USF

Obviously, he was significantly off on his selections. I think his predictions are of little use until sufficient data arrives later in the season.

He was way off on SMU and I think many of us knew going in he would be. Had enough returning production and recent history that they fooled the formula, but they were incredibly thin.

However, he also had Cincinnati, Houston and UCF among the tier of tournament type teams, which proved very accurate. He had UCF below Cincinnati/Houston which many previews did not. He missed on 1 team from his middle tier...should have had USF instead of UConn. Everyone missed on USF, and I think many gave UConn far too much credit going in.

His numbers suggested Tulane and ECU would be really bad. They were really bad.

When you actually look at where those teams finished nationally in his rankings his two big misses were SMU and USF. UConn was a slight miss as well.

I think he was way off when considering most of us (the amateurs) made more accurate picks.

Prediction / (Actual)
1. SMU (Finished 10th or +9)
2. Cincy (dead on)
3. Houston (Finished 1st or -2)
4. UCF (dead on)
5. WSU (Finished 6th or +1)
6. Temple (Finished 3rd or -3)
7. UConn (Finished 9th or +2)
8. Memphis (Finished 5th or -3)
9. Tulsa (Finished 7th or -2)
10. Tulane (Finished 12th or +2)
11. ECU (dead on)
12. USF (finished 8th or -4)

This would mean more to me if his goal was to pick the exact order of conference standings. He's not saying how a team will finish in conference. There is an element of randomness to where teams finish in conference.

When I'm looking at preseason computer projections I'm trying to see, how good does the computer expect the team to be. It's also smart to understand the formula for projections and where the formula could have blind spots (SMU was a big one for me last year where I wasn't confident in his projections).

But as an example. At the end of last season he had Memphis 56 in kenpom, Wichita State 66 and Temple 69. Those teams are close enough in quality that if you played the season 1000 times, they likely finish 4/5/6 about an equal amount of times. There is a randomness.

I look at the tiers more with his numbers than the exact ranking. At the beginning of the season his tournament caliber tier was SMU, UC, Houston, UCF. At the end it was UC, Houston, UCF.

His bubble tier (tournament if things break right) at the beginning was WSU, Temple, UConn, Memphis. At the end of the year it was Memphis, WSU, Temple.

His really bad teams were Tulane, ECU, USF at the beginning. Ended up being Tulane/ECU.

His projections are more a tool than anything else and as a tool if you use it correctly, it's really effective.

(10-24-2019 11:21 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(10-24-2019 10:55 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(10-24-2019 09:55 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(10-24-2019 08:55 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  KenPom's preseason prediction from last year:

1. SMU
2. Cincy
3. Houston
4. UCF
5. WSU
6. Temple
7. UConn
8. Memphis
9. Tulsa
10. Tulane
11. ECU
12. USF

Obviously, he was significantly off on his selections. I think his predictions are of little use until sufficient data arrives later in the season.

He was way off on SMU and I think many of us knew going in he would be. Had enough returning production and recent history that they fooled the formula, but they were incredibly thin.

However, he also had Cincinnati, Houston and UCF among the tier of tournament type teams, which proved very accurate. He had UCF below Cincinnati/Houston which many previews did not. He missed on 1 team from his middle tier...should have had USF instead of UConn. Everyone missed on USF, and I think many gave UConn far too much credit going in.

His numbers suggested Tulane and ECU would be really bad. They were really bad.

When you actually look at where those teams finished nationally in his rankings his two big misses were SMU and USF. UConn was a slight miss as well.

I think he was way off when considering most of us (the amateurs) made more accurate picks.

Prediction / (Actual)
1. SMU (Finished 10th or +9)
2. Cincy (dead on)
3. Houston (Finished 1st or -2)
4. UCF (dead on)
5. WSU (Finished 6th or +1)
6. Temple (Finished 3rd or -3)
7. UConn (Finished 9th or +2)
8. Memphis (Finished 5th or -3)
9. Tulsa (Finished 7th or -2)
10. Tulane (Finished 12th or +2)
11. ECU (dead on)
12. USF (finished 8th or -4)

This would mean more to me if his goal was to pick the exact order of conference standings. He's not saying how a team will finish in conference. There is an element of randomness to where teams finish in conference.

When I'm looking at preseason computer projections I'm trying to see, how good does the computer expect the team to be. It's also smart to understand the formula for projections and where the formula could have blind spots (SMU was a big one for me last year where I wasn't confident in his projections).

But as an example. At the end of last season he had Memphis 56 in kenpom, Wichita State 66 and Temple 69. Those teams are close enough in quality that if you played the season 1000 times, they likely finish 4/5/6 about an equal amount of times. There is a randomness.

I look at the tiers more with his numbers than the exact ranking. At the beginning of the season his tournament caliber tier was SMU, UC, Houston, UCF. At the end it was UC, Houston, UCF.

His bubble tier (tournament if things break right) at the beginning was WSU, Temple, UConn, Memphis. At the end of the year it was Memphis, WSU, Temple.

His really bad teams were Tulane, ECU, USF at the beginning. Ended up being Tulane/ECU.

His projections are more a tool than anything else and as a tool if you use it correctly, it's really effective.

I agree his preseason ratings should not be used for conference order prediction purposes.

Semi-related

https://www.reddit.com/r/CollegeBasketba...now_green/

Top 100 teams of the KenPom era. There is one teams seed that REALLY stands out compared to the rest ... 2017 Wichita state. Only team with a seed higher than 5 ... and was assigned a 10 ...

(10-24-2019 01:21 PM)Stickboy46 Wrote:  Semi-related

https://www.reddit.com/r/CollegeBasketba...now_green/

Top 100 teams of the KenPom era. There is one teams seed that REALLY stands out compared to the rest ... 2017 Wichita state. Only team with a seed higher than 5 ... and was assigned a 10 ...

For reference:

#20 2008 Memphis
#30 2002 Cincinnati
#44 2009 UConn
#49 2009 Memphis
#57 2004 UConn
#86 2018 Cincinnati
#92 2017 Wichita State

UConn’s 2011 and 2014 NC teams are 161 and 246.

Interesting.

(10-24-2019 01:21 PM)Stickboy46 Wrote:  Semi-related

https://www.reddit.com/r/CollegeBasketba...now_green/

Top 100 teams of the KenPom era. There is one teams seed that REALLY stands out compared to the rest ... 2017 Wichita state. Only team with a seed higher than 5 ... and was assigned a 10 ...

Man it sure seems like 2014 WSU would've made it over 2017. I know it's all about numbers but the 2014 team was solid in every which way.