The unofficial online home for fans of the Old Dominion University Monarchs. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

The real JMU was a lot closer to the one that played Duke than the one that played Wisconsin. I saw someone picked jmu to go to the final 4. That’s funny. I still think Edwards is a punk and Freidel a dirty player.

For all of the talk of the metrics sucking:

12 out of the top 14 in KenPom are still in the tourney. 15 of the 16 teams are top 25 in KenPom.

(03-25-2024 09:53 AM)north beach monarch Wrote:  The real JMU was a lot closer to the one that played Duke than the one that played Wisconsin. I saw someone picked jmu to go to the final 4. That’s funny. I still think Edwards is a punk and Freidel a dirty player.

The reality is they are somewhere in between. If they play Wisconsin 10x, they may only win a couple.

93 points in a 64 possession game is pretty staggering.

(03-25-2024 12:10 PM)Stat Geek Wrote:  For all of the talk of the metrics sucking:

12 out of the top 14 in KenPom are still in the tourney. 15 of the 16 teams are top 25 in KenPom.

The problem with the metrics is, much like recruiting analysis, they are pretty good at getting the top few power conference teams right, but fall apart outside of that. People look at the top 10-15 teams, and say, yep looks good, but nobody pays attention how bad the rest of it is.

There is way too much weight on efficiency numbers, and we have seen how those can be manipulated/broken this year. Just read an analysis of what happened with the SEC that really dug into the numbers and found that the overall conference offensive efficiency was vastly overvalued because the conference shot more freethrow than any other conference by a wide margin. When taking freethrows out of the equation, the conference fell from one of the top couple leagues in offensive efficiency to the 18th best offensive league. That is a huge discrepancy based on an anomaly/manipulation. We also know that the Big 12 was inflated due to poor out of conference schedules and racking up big victory margins, which in turn padded offensive efficiency numbers.

So the answer to getting a ton of teams into the NCAAT is for the entire conference to schedule crappy teams and call a ton of fouls. Doesn't that sound like enjoyable basketball?

(03-25-2024 12:26 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 12:10 PM)Stat Geek Wrote:  For all of the talk of the metrics sucking:

12 out of the top 14 in KenPom are still in the tourney. 15 of the 16 teams are top 25 in KenPom.

The problem with the metrics is, much like recruiting analysis, they are pretty good at getting the top few power conference teams right, but fall apart outside of that. People look at the top 10-15 teams, and say, yep looks good, but nobody pays attention how bad the rest of it is.

There is way too much weight on efficiency numbers, and we have seen how those can be manipulated/broken this year. Just read an analysis of what happened with the SEC that really dug into the numbers and found that the overall conference offensive efficiency was vastly overvalued because the conference shot more freethrow than any other conference by a wide margin. When taking freethrows out of the equation, the conference fell from one of the top couple leagues in offensive efficiency to the 18th best offensive league. That is a huge discrepancy based on an anomaly/manipulation. We also know that the Big 12 was inflated due to poor out of conference schedules and racking up big victory margins, which in turn padded offensive efficiency numbers.

So the answer to getting a ton of teams into the NCAAT is for the entire conference to schedule crappy teams and call a ton of fouls. Doesn't that sound like enjoyable basketball?

That seems like some shoddy analysis. If you took away free throws, you would have to compare those teams to other conferences without free throws. Having said that, getting to the free throw line is a valuable skill. And just roughly looking at free throw rate iwth teams in the conference, it doesn't look like the top heavy are teams in the SEC.

It does not appear to me that the Big 12 scheduled weak out of conference games except for a couple teams. The conference had a tougher OOC schedule than the ACC. That was a funny excuse that Clemson and Pitt were making, despite Pitt having one of the worst non conference schedules in D1. And anyone should know that efficiency numbers take strength of opponent into account.

(03-25-2024 12:39 PM)Stat Geek Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 12:26 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 12:10 PM)Stat Geek Wrote:  For all of the talk of the metrics sucking:

12 out of the top 14 in KenPom are still in the tourney. 15 of the 16 teams are top 25 in KenPom.

The problem with the metrics is, much like recruiting analysis, they are pretty good at getting the top few power conference teams right, but fall apart outside of that. People look at the top 10-15 teams, and say, yep looks good, but nobody pays attention how bad the rest of it is.

There is way too much weight on efficiency numbers, and we have seen how those can be manipulated/broken this year. Just read an analysis of what happened with the SEC that really dug into the numbers and found that the overall conference offensive efficiency was vastly overvalued because the conference shot more freethrow than any other conference by a wide margin. When taking freethrows out of the equation, the conference fell from one of the top couple leagues in offensive efficiency to the 18th best offensive league. That is a huge discrepancy based on an anomaly/manipulation. We also know that the Big 12 was inflated due to poor out of conference schedules and racking up big victory margins, which in turn padded offensive efficiency numbers.

So the answer to getting a ton of teams into the NCAAT is for the entire conference to schedule crappy teams and call a ton of fouls. Doesn't that sound like enjoyable basketball?

That seems like some shoddy analysis. If you took away free throws, you would have to compare those teams to other conferences without free throws. Having said that, getting to the free throw line is a valuable skill. And just roughly looking at free throw rate iwth teams in the conference, it doesn't look like the top heavy are teams in the SEC.

It does not appear to me that the Big 12 scheduled weak out of conference games except for a couple teams. The conference had a tougher OOC schedule than the ACC. That was a funny excuse that Clemson and Pitt were making, despite Pitt having one of the worst non conference schedules in D1. And anyone should know that efficiency numbers take strength of opponent into account.

Funny how you just dismiss, but have no explanation for how the computers got the conference ratings so wrong.

(03-25-2024 12:58 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 12:39 PM)Stat Geek Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 12:26 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 12:10 PM)Stat Geek Wrote:  For all of the talk of the metrics sucking:

12 out of the top 14 in KenPom are still in the tourney. 15 of the 16 teams are top 25 in KenPom.

The problem with the metrics is, much like recruiting analysis, they are pretty good at getting the top few power conference teams right, but fall apart outside of that. People look at the top 10-15 teams, and say, yep looks good, but nobody pays attention how bad the rest of it is.

There is way too much weight on efficiency numbers, and we have seen how those can be manipulated/broken this year. Just read an analysis of what happened with the SEC that really dug into the numbers and found that the overall conference offensive efficiency was vastly overvalued because the conference shot more freethrow than any other conference by a wide margin. When taking freethrows out of the equation, the conference fell from one of the top couple leagues in offensive efficiency to the 18th best offensive league. That is a huge discrepancy based on an anomaly/manipulation. We also know that the Big 12 was inflated due to poor out of conference schedules and racking up big victory margins, which in turn padded offensive efficiency numbers.

So the answer to getting a ton of teams into the NCAAT is for the entire conference to schedule crappy teams and call a ton of fouls. Doesn't that sound like enjoyable basketball?

That seems like some shoddy analysis. If you took away free throws, you would have to compare those teams to other conferences without free throws. Having said that, getting to the free throw line is a valuable skill. And just roughly looking at free throw rate iwth teams in the conference, it doesn't look like the top heavy are teams in the SEC.

It does not appear to me that the Big 12 scheduled weak out of conference games except for a couple teams. The conference had a tougher OOC schedule than the ACC. That was a funny excuse that Clemson and Pitt were making, despite Pitt having one of the worst non conference schedules in D1. And anyone should know that efficiency numbers take strength of opponent into account.

Funny how you just dismiss, but have no explanation for how the computers got the conference ratings so wrong.

How did the computers get the conference ratings wrong?

Well, let's start with the fact that the ACC outperformed the Big 12 head to head and in the tournament, the ACC tied the SEC head to head and outperformed them in the tournament, the ACC and Big East are vastly superior to the Mountain West, but all of those conferences got significantly more teams in the tournament than the ACC and Big East on the back of computer rankings. Let's also consider that Pitt, Wake and St Johns were left out, but without a doubt would have finished in the top 2, at worst, in the Mountain West and that doesn't even get into how ****** up seed lines 6-13 were.

A little more of interest regarding the Mountain West. They signed a big contract with CBS 2 years ago, and have seen a significant increase in bids over those 2 years, while all teams in the conference outside of SDSU have compiled an unimpressive 2-12 tournament record.

(03-25-2024 01:58 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  Well, let's start with the fact that the ACC outperformed the Big 12 head to head and in the tournament, the ACC tied the SEC head to head and outperformed them in the tournament, the ACC and Big East are vastly superior to the Mountain West, but all of those conferences got significantly more teams in the tournament than the ACC and Big East on the back of computer rankings. Let's also consider that Pitt, Wake and St Johns were left out, but without a doubt would have finished in the top 2, at worst, in the Mountain West and that doesn't even get into how ****** up seed lines 6-13 were.

Bad ACC teams beating bad B12 teams doesn't make either conference better or worse.

How did they outperform them in the tournament, you would have to analyze who they played, etc. And bc the ACC has 2 really strong teams doesn't make Wake/Pitt/whoever any stronger.

The BE as the 2nd best conference in America. They probably did deserve another team in...a la St Johns over UVA. But, that doesn't mean that Butler/Xavier/Seton Hall etc deserved to go it. Just like UNC and Duke being good doesn't mean UVA deserved to be in.

Claiming St Johns, Wake and PItt would be second in the MWC is just a thrown in opinion.

The MWC was not a top 5 conference. But the MWC had 6 teams with resumes that deserved to be in the tournament. Nevada was a 10 seed facing a 7 seed. Who's to say that Dayton doesn't beat Pitt, UVA, St Johns, Wake, Seton Hall, etc?

Thats just trying to use silly stuff to support an bias opinion.

(03-25-2024 03:48 PM)Stat Geek Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 01:58 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  Well, let's start with the fact that the ACC outperformed the Big 12 head to head and in the tournament, the ACC tied the SEC head to head and outperformed them in the tournament, the ACC and Big East are vastly superior to the Mountain West, but all of those conferences got significantly more teams in the tournament than the ACC and Big East on the back of computer rankings. Let's also consider that Pitt, Wake and St Johns were left out, but without a doubt would have finished in the top 2, at worst, in the Mountain West and that doesn't even get into how ****** up seed lines 6-13 were.

Bad ACC teams beating bad B12 teams doesn't make either conference better or worse.

How did they outperform them in the tournament, you would have to analyze who they played, etc. And bc the ACC has 2 really strong teams doesn't make Wake/Pitt/whoever any stronger.

The BE as the 2nd best conference in America. They probably did deserve another team in...a la St Johns over UVA. But, that doesn't mean that Butler/Xavier/Seton Hall etc deserved to go it. Just like UNC and Duke being good doesn't mean UVA deserved to be in.

Claiming St Johns, Wake and PItt would be second in the MWC is just a thrown in opinion.

The MWC was not a top 5 conference. But the MWC had 6 teams with resumes that deserved to be in the tournament. Nevada was a 10 seed facing a 7 seed. Who's to say that Dayton doesn't beat Pitt, UVA, St Johns, Wake, Seton Hall, etc?

Thats just trying to use silly stuff to support an bias opinion.

Thats just trying to use silly stuff to support an bias opinion.

I would argue you are using silly stuff to support your opinion.


The MWC was not a top 5 conference. But the MWC had 6 teams with resumes that deserved to be in the tournament.

This is where we really disagree. I think resumes are nonsense. I think we should pick the best teams, and there is no doubt that Pitt and Wake were just better than those teams, resume or not.

I will grant your argument that UVA should not have been in the tournament, but only if you are willing to be consistent. By your resume standard, UVA should have been in the tournament. By any logical standard, UVA was not as good when it matters as several teams that were left out, but I'm not sure why UVA is always your go to, when half of the Mountain West shouldn't have been there, a couple SEC teams shouldn't have been there, and a couple Big 12 teams shouldn't have been there. There are plenty of crappy teams that got in to point out, but for some reason your bias against the ACC always manages to creep into your evaluation.

UVA only got a sniff at the tournament because the selection committee was dumb enough to listen to that stupid idiot Joe Lunardi and his bracketology picks.

(03-25-2024 04:26 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 03:48 PM)Stat Geek Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 01:58 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  Well, let's start with the fact that the ACC outperformed the Big 12 head to head and in the tournament, the ACC tied the SEC head to head and outperformed them in the tournament, the ACC and Big East are vastly superior to the Mountain West, but all of those conferences got significantly more teams in the tournament than the ACC and Big East on the back of computer rankings. Let's also consider that Pitt, Wake and St Johns were left out, but without a doubt would have finished in the top 2, at worst, in the Mountain West and that doesn't even get into how ****** up seed lines 6-13 were.

Bad ACC teams beating bad B12 teams doesn't make either conference better or worse.

How did they outperform them in the tournament, you would have to analyze who they played, etc. And bc the ACC has 2 really strong teams doesn't make Wake/Pitt/whoever any stronger.

The BE as the 2nd best conference in America. They probably did deserve another team in...a la St Johns over UVA. But, that doesn't mean that Butler/Xavier/Seton Hall etc deserved to go it. Just like UNC and Duke being good doesn't mean UVA deserved to be in.

Claiming St Johns, Wake and PItt would be second in the MWC is just a thrown in opinion.

The MWC was not a top 5 conference. But the MWC had 6 teams with resumes that deserved to be in the tournament. Nevada was a 10 seed facing a 7 seed. Who's to say that Dayton doesn't beat Pitt, UVA, St Johns, Wake, Seton Hall, etc?

Thats just trying to use silly stuff to support an bias opinion.

Thats just trying to use silly stuff to support an bias opinion.

I would argue you are using silly stuff to support your opinion.


The MWC was not a top 5 conference. But the MWC had 6 teams with resumes that deserved to be in the tournament.

This is where we really disagree. I think resumes are nonsense. I think we should pick the best teams, and there is no doubt that Pitt and Wake were just better than those teams, resume or not.

I will grant your argument that UVA should not have been in the tournament, but only if you are willing to be consistent. By your resume standard, UVA should have been in the tournament. By any logical standard, UVA was not as good when it matters as several teams that were left out, but I'm not sure why UVA is always your go to, when half of the Mountain West shouldn't have been there, a couple SEC teams shouldn't have been there, and a couple Big 12 teams shouldn't have been there. There are plenty of crappy teams that got in to point out, but for some reason your bias against the ACC always manages to creep into your evaluation.

I at least have something to support my opinions.

In no way, shape, or from should UVA have been in. Not by any metrics.

You are arguing that the last few teams in the tourney were wrongly selected. Im not going to say I agree with every selection, but all of those teams are last in the tourney for a reason and its no surprise when they leave the tourney early.


The MWC was a lot of 10/11 seeds, which is what St. Johns, Pitt, Wake, etc would have been as well. All of them were not likely to win ini round 1.

If anyone got the shaft, it was the Big East, but it was only St Johns that was a real head scratcher.

(03-26-2024 08:38 AM)Stat Geek Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 04:26 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 03:48 PM)Stat Geek Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 01:58 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  Well, let's start with the fact that the ACC outperformed the Big 12 head to head and in the tournament, the ACC tied the SEC head to head and outperformed them in the tournament, the ACC and Big East are vastly superior to the Mountain West, but all of those conferences got significantly more teams in the tournament than the ACC and Big East on the back of computer rankings. Let's also consider that Pitt, Wake and St Johns were left out, but without a doubt would have finished in the top 2, at worst, in the Mountain West and that doesn't even get into how ****** up seed lines 6-13 were.

Bad ACC teams beating bad B12 teams doesn't make either conference better or worse.

How did they outperform them in the tournament, you would have to analyze who they played, etc. And bc the ACC has 2 really strong teams doesn't make Wake/Pitt/whoever any stronger.

The BE as the 2nd best conference in America. They probably did deserve another team in...a la St Johns over UVA. But, that doesn't mean that Butler/Xavier/Seton Hall etc deserved to go it. Just like UNC and Duke being good doesn't mean UVA deserved to be in.

Claiming St Johns, Wake and PItt would be second in the MWC is just a thrown in opinion.

The MWC was not a top 5 conference. But the MWC had 6 teams with resumes that deserved to be in the tournament. Nevada was a 10 seed facing a 7 seed. Who's to say that Dayton doesn't beat Pitt, UVA, St Johns, Wake, Seton Hall, etc?

Thats just trying to use silly stuff to support an bias opinion.

Thats just trying to use silly stuff to support an bias opinion.

I would argue you are using silly stuff to support your opinion.


The MWC was not a top 5 conference. But the MWC had 6 teams with resumes that deserved to be in the tournament.

This is where we really disagree. I think resumes are nonsense. I think we should pick the best teams, and there is no doubt that Pitt and Wake were just better than those teams, resume or not.

I will grant your argument that UVA should not have been in the tournament, but only if you are willing to be consistent. By your resume standard, UVA should have been in the tournament. By any logical standard, UVA was not as good when it matters as several teams that were left out, but I'm not sure why UVA is always your go to, when half of the Mountain West shouldn't have been there, a couple SEC teams shouldn't have been there, and a couple Big 12 teams shouldn't have been there. There are plenty of crappy teams that got in to point out, but for some reason your bias against the ACC always manages to creep into your evaluation.

I at least have something to support my opinions.

In no way, shape, or from should UVA have been in. Not by any metrics.

You are arguing that the last few teams in the tourney were wrongly selected. Im not going to say I agree with every selection, but all of those teams are last in the tourney for a reason and its no surprise when they leave the tourney early.


The MWC was a lot of 10/11 seeds, which is what St. Johns, Pitt, Wake, etc would have been as well. All of them were not likely to win ini round 1.

If anyone got the shaft, it was the Big East, but it was only St Johns that was a real head scratcher.

Here's a though, if a conference has 4 10/11 seeds in the bracket, maybe the conference wasn't that good and you should reexamine whether 6 is too many.

It is your opinion that the metrics are good, nobody has facts on their side here other than head to head competition and actual performance on the court in and out of the tournament., which you for some reason seem to think is meaningless.

(03-26-2024 12:10 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(03-26-2024 08:38 AM)Stat Geek Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 04:26 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 03:48 PM)Stat Geek Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 01:58 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  Well, let's start with the fact that the ACC outperformed the Big 12 head to head and in the tournament, the ACC tied the SEC head to head and outperformed them in the tournament, the ACC and Big East are vastly superior to the Mountain West, but all of those conferences got significantly more teams in the tournament than the ACC and Big East on the back of computer rankings. Let's also consider that Pitt, Wake and St Johns were left out, but without a doubt would have finished in the top 2, at worst, in the Mountain West and that doesn't even get into how ****** up seed lines 6-13 were.

Bad ACC teams beating bad B12 teams doesn't make either conference better or worse.

How did they outperform them in the tournament, you would have to analyze who they played, etc. And bc the ACC has 2 really strong teams doesn't make Wake/Pitt/whoever any stronger.

The BE as the 2nd best conference in America. They probably did deserve another team in...a la St Johns over UVA. But, that doesn't mean that Butler/Xavier/Seton Hall etc deserved to go it. Just like UNC and Duke being good doesn't mean UVA deserved to be in.

Claiming St Johns, Wake and PItt would be second in the MWC is just a thrown in opinion.

The MWC was not a top 5 conference. But the MWC had 6 teams with resumes that deserved to be in the tournament. Nevada was a 10 seed facing a 7 seed. Who's to say that Dayton doesn't beat Pitt, UVA, St Johns, Wake, Seton Hall, etc?

Thats just trying to use silly stuff to support an bias opinion.

Thats just trying to use silly stuff to support an bias opinion.

I would argue you are using silly stuff to support your opinion.


The MWC was not a top 5 conference. But the MWC had 6 teams with resumes that deserved to be in the tournament.

This is where we really disagree. I think resumes are nonsense. I think we should pick the best teams, and there is no doubt that Pitt and Wake were just better than those teams, resume or not.

I will grant your argument that UVA should not have been in the tournament, but only if you are willing to be consistent. By your resume standard, UVA should have been in the tournament. By any logical standard, UVA was not as good when it matters as several teams that were left out, but I'm not sure why UVA is always your go to, when half of the Mountain West shouldn't have been there, a couple SEC teams shouldn't have been there, and a couple Big 12 teams shouldn't have been there. There are plenty of crappy teams that got in to point out, but for some reason your bias against the ACC always manages to creep into your evaluation.

I at least have something to support my opinions.

In no way, shape, or from should UVA have been in. Not by any metrics.

You are arguing that the last few teams in the tourney were wrongly selected. Im not going to say I agree with every selection, but all of those teams are last in the tourney for a reason and its no surprise when they leave the tourney early.


The MWC was a lot of 10/11 seeds, which is what St. Johns, Pitt, Wake, etc would have been as well. All of them were not likely to win ini round 1.

If anyone got the shaft, it was the Big East, but it was only St Johns that was a real head scratcher.

Here's a though, if a conference has 4 10/11 seeds in the bracket, maybe the conference wasn't that good and you should reexamine whether 6 is too many.

It is your opinion that the metrics are good, nobody has facts on their side here other than head to head competition and actual performance on the court in and out of the tournament., which you for some reason seem to think is meaningless.

13 of the top highest KenPom rated teams are still in the tourney. How is that for actual performance?

(03-26-2024 12:13 PM)Stat Geek Wrote:  

(03-26-2024 12:10 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(03-26-2024 08:38 AM)Stat Geek Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 04:26 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 03:48 PM)Stat Geek Wrote:  Bad ACC teams beating bad B12 teams doesn't make either conference better or worse.

How did they outperform them in the tournament, you would have to analyze who they played, etc. And bc the ACC has 2 really strong teams doesn't make Wake/Pitt/whoever any stronger.

The BE as the 2nd best conference in America. They probably did deserve another team in...a la St Johns over UVA. But, that doesn't mean that Butler/Xavier/Seton Hall etc deserved to go it. Just like UNC and Duke being good doesn't mean UVA deserved to be in.

Claiming St Johns, Wake and PItt would be second in the MWC is just a thrown in opinion.

The MWC was not a top 5 conference. But the MWC had 6 teams with resumes that deserved to be in the tournament. Nevada was a 10 seed facing a 7 seed. Who's to say that Dayton doesn't beat Pitt, UVA, St Johns, Wake, Seton Hall, etc?

Thats just trying to use silly stuff to support an bias opinion.

Thats just trying to use silly stuff to support an bias opinion.

I would argue you are using silly stuff to support your opinion.


The MWC was not a top 5 conference. But the MWC had 6 teams with resumes that deserved to be in the tournament.

This is where we really disagree. I think resumes are nonsense. I think we should pick the best teams, and there is no doubt that Pitt and Wake were just better than those teams, resume or not.

I will grant your argument that UVA should not have been in the tournament, but only if you are willing to be consistent. By your resume standard, UVA should have been in the tournament. By any logical standard, UVA was not as good when it matters as several teams that were left out, but I'm not sure why UVA is always your go to, when half of the Mountain West shouldn't have been there, a couple SEC teams shouldn't have been there, and a couple Big 12 teams shouldn't have been there. There are plenty of crappy teams that got in to point out, but for some reason your bias against the ACC always manages to creep into your evaluation.

I at least have something to support my opinions.

In no way, shape, or from should UVA have been in. Not by any metrics.

You are arguing that the last few teams in the tourney were wrongly selected. Im not going to say I agree with every selection, but all of those teams are last in the tourney for a reason and its no surprise when they leave the tourney early.


The MWC was a lot of 10/11 seeds, which is what St. Johns, Pitt, Wake, etc would have been as well. All of them were not likely to win ini round 1.

If anyone got the shaft, it was the Big East, but it was only St Johns that was a real head scratcher.

Here's a though, if a conference has 4 10/11 seeds in the bracket, maybe the conference wasn't that good and you should reexamine whether 6 is too many.

It is your opinion that the metrics are good, nobody has facts on their side here other than head to head competition and actual performance on the court in and out of the tournament., which you for some reason seem to think is meaningless.

13 of the top highest KenPom rated teams are still in the tourney. How is that for actual performance?

I'm out, we're just going in circles here. I have already responded to that one.

Salivating at this shot chart from the Indiana State - Cincinnati game last night.

(03-27-2024 12:04 PM)ODUCoach Wrote:  Salivating at this shot chart from the Indiana State - Cincinnati game last night.

James Harden, Mike D'Antoni would be proud

That's NBA shot chart right there

NSU came back from 18 down to win the CIT Championship tonight. Congrats to them.

Man Alabama took down mighty Final Four team North Carolina with their "look at me ball".....learn something new every day.