NCAA College Hoops 2016/2017

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Sat Mar 11, 2017 10:38 pm

brian wrote:Eustachy is such a douche.

I'm surprised they didn't terminate him based on the investigation's findings. I'm also surprised they won so many games and finished second in the conference, with only seven guys playing.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Sun Mar 12, 2017 9:08 am

Joe K wrote:It feels a bit dirty to have any rooting interest in them, but I'm glad I put a bet down on Duke to win the NCAA tournament a few weeks ago. A few years ago someone (maybe Ken Pomeroy?) did an analysis showing that preseason ranking (which is a good proxy for sheer talent level) is as good a predictor of tournament success as anything, even when the highly ranked team struggles during the regular season. In recent years, Kentucky's 2011 and 2014 teams are good examples of this, even though they ultimately both lost to UConn in the Final Four. So even when Duke was losing a bunch of ACC games and Graymond was getting himself suspended for dirty play, I liked their chances given that they were considered to be by far the most talented team coming into the season.

http://www.espn.com/blog/collegebasketb ... his-career

Ok, back to Duke hating now. Is there any other college coach who could land one of the most highly touted recruiting classes of all time, have a team that's a runaway #1 in every preseason ranking, proceed to lose 8 games with that team, finishing 5th in the conference, give a star player a slap on the wrist for repeated dangerous plays, and still have prominent national writers ready to call it "the best work of his career" before the NCAA tournament even starts? The only team I can think of in recent years with comparable preseason expectations to this year's Duke team was 2014-15 Kentucky. If they lost 8 regular season games while Willie Cauley-Stein repeatedly took cheap shots at opponents, Dana O'Neil would be calling for Calipri's job. But then again, she's the same writer who praised Coach K for "adjusting to" the 1-and-done era, as if he had players like Kyrie Irving, Jabari Parker, Jahlil Okafor, Tyus Jones and Justise Winslow forced upon him, instead of actively recruiting them. The college basketball media is second to only the NFL press for being totally insufferable.

DSafetyGuy · Post by **DSafetyGuy** » Sun Mar 12, 2017 9:19 am

Joe K wrote:The college basketball media is second to only the NFL press for being totally insufferable.

Most of the NFL press carries water for the league as a whole. Most college basketball media carries water for individual coaches and it is based mostly on their crafted (and publicly agreed upon) public images.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Sun Mar 12, 2017 10:43 am

The flip side to how much the committee is going to favor UNC and Duke tonight (there's now talk that both could get #1 seeds, despite 15 combined losses) is how badly UCLA is going to get hosed. It's assumed that they will get a #3 seed at best, despite being 29-4, having been ranked #3 in both polls prior to the conference tourneys, and having the best pair of true road wins of any team in the country (@ Arizona, @ Kentucky). Also, their losses (Arizona 2x, @ Oregon on a buzzer-beater, and @ USC) are not nearly as bad as Duke's. The problem with placing so much emphasis on perceived conference strength is it that ends up being a self-fulfilling prophecy where a great team from the PAC-12 gets its record completely devalued while teams from the ACC and Big-12 are given far more leeway for losses. I was going to be mad about the possibility of Kentucky getting seeded below Duke until I remembered how ridiculous UCLA presumably getting a #3 or #4 is.

Nonlinear FC · Post by **Nonlinear FC** » Sun Mar 12, 2017 4:16 pm

wlu_lax6 wrote:
Nonlinear FC wrote:And MI's wacky late season continues with an OT win over Purdue. Unpleasant finish for PU, as they had a chance to ice the game but missed the front of a 1-1 and Zak Irvin sliced down the lane to put it into OT.

I'm wondering if they just played their way out of the 8-9 game.
You think? Lunardi's Bracketology has the Minnesota as a 6, Wisconsin as 6, Terps as 7, Northwestern as a 9 and Michigan as a 9. Just too much of a log jam with teams still alive in the Big 10 tournament to move them up all that much and quality of wins will be teams that are about as good as Michigan on any night. Maybe get a 7 (stretch for 6) if they win the whole thing but Terps/NW winner will get a bump by making the semis as will Wisconsin (assuming they beat Indiana who is next 4 out right now)

A few days and wins later makes it easy to say in hindsight, but said I was wondering, not that they definitely had... At this point though... As I said prior to the tourney, MI is one of the hottest teams in the country right now, mainly because they've figured out how to play team D. They kept Wiscy to something like 39 percent today.

Again, you can put them at the 8 seed... That #1 seed is gonna be PISSED.

Post by **brian** » Sun Mar 12, 2017 4:27 pm

Michigan will be a 6 seed at lowest. Can pretty much guarantee you that. If the committee is seriously contemplating making Duke a fucking #1 seed, Michigan deserves at least a two-seed bump for winning the B1G.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Sun Mar 12, 2017 5:27 pm

brian wrote:Michigan will be a 6 seed at lowest. Can pretty much guarantee you that. If the committee is seriously contemplating making Duke a fucking #1 seed, Michigan deserves at least a two-seed bump for winning the B1G.

I think Michigan is easily the scariest of the 7 seeds. Of the 6 seeds, I'd much rather play Maryland or Creighton than Michigan right now. Hopefully they get their revenge for the 2013 Final and take out that sleazeball Pitino in the second round.

Post by **brian** » Sun Mar 12, 2017 5:32 pm

7 is fair for Michigan. My comment was only if they made Duke a 1. Duke being a 2 is fair with the mediocrity/parity out there considering they won the ACC title.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Sun Mar 12, 2017 6:09 pm

brian wrote:7 is fair for Michigan. My comment was only if they made Duke a 1. Duke being a 2 is fair with the mediocrity/parity out there considering they won the ACC title.

Yeah, Lunardi stuck to his guns and correctly called the four #1 seeds when most others had Duke as a #1. I still think the PAC-12 got a somewhat harsh go of it, but the seeding wasn't too bad overall.

DaveInSeattle · Post by **DaveInSeattle** » Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:29 am

DSafetyGuy wrote: Most college basketball media carries water for individual coaches and it is based mostly on their crafted (and publicly agreed upon) public images.

Jim Boeheim nods his head knowingly...

Post by **Sabo** » Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:37 am

Can someone please explain to me, who is someone who barely follows college basketball outside the MAC, how a seven-loss team got a number one seed? I'm going to assume it's because of money.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:50 am

Sabo wrote:Can someone please explain to me, who is someone who barely follows college basketball outside the MAC, how a seven-loss team got a number one seed? I'm going to assume it's because of money.

I was bitching about this earlier in the thread, but the short answer is that because the ACC is considered to be the best conference (and in fairness, likely is), they were probably always going to get at least one #1 seed. Carolina comfortably won the regular season title, so they were the most viable candidate. They certainly have #1 seed talent, but the 7 losses is an issue, especially since two of them were to non-tournament teams. Personally I think Arizona (30-4, PAC-12 regular season co-champs and tourney champs) and Kentucky (29-5, SEC regular season and tourney champs, with a head to head win over UNC) had viable cases. But the perceived weakness of the PAC-12 and SEC kept them behind UNC in the committee's eyes.

Post by **Sabo** » Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:56 am

Thanks for the explanation.

All I know is I'm glad Akron didn't qualify for the NCAA because fuck Akron.

DSafetyGuy · Post by **DSafetyGuy** » Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:56 am

DaveInSeattle wrote:
DSafetyGuy wrote: Most college basketball media carries water for individual coaches and it is based mostly on their crafted (and publicly agreed upon) public images.
Jim Boeheim nods his head knowingly...

No one really thought he could coach until he got to the Final Four in 1996 and then almost everyone in the media started to love him after winning in 2003. He pre-dates a lot of the crafting of image, but that works for everyone, as when he goes off on something, he gives both sides a chance to support their side.

Nonlinear FC · Post by **Nonlinear FC** » Mon Mar 13, 2017 6:30 pm

Joe K wrote:
brian wrote:7 is fair for Michigan. My comment was only if they made Duke a 1. Duke being a 2 is fair with the mediocrity/parity out there considering they won the ACC title.
Yeah, Lunardi stuck to his guns and correctly called the four #1 seeds when most others had Duke as a #1. I still think the PAC-12 got a somewhat harsh go of it, but the seeding wasn't too bad overall.

I feel like this might be one of the least controversial years in terms of seeding and bubble teams in a very long time. I'd also like to state that a LOT of ppl get very worked up before the brackets even come out, and they never have to walk back all that faux outrage.

Post by **Shirley** » Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:04 pm

It looks like Missouri just hired Cuonzo Martin away from Cal. That's a pretty quick and impressive coach search for Mizzou. http://www.cbssports.com/college-basket ... oach-soon/

I'm not sure it's clear exactly how good Martin is - he's never been anywhere more than 3 years - but he shows signs of being a pretty good coach and a very good recruiter.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:16 pm

Shirley wrote:It looks like Missouri just hired Cuonzo Martin away from Cal. That's a pretty quick and impressive coach search for Mizzou. http://www.cbssports.com/college-basket ... oach-soon/

I'm not sure it's clear exactly how good Martin is - he's never been anywhere more than 3 years - but he shows signs of being a pretty good coach and a very good recruiter.

He's supposed to be a good recruiter. Cal got some top-drawer talent under him. But, the team has under-achieved relative to expectations the past couple years, so there's that. And, fwiw, they were a #1 seed in the NIT but apparently didn't care about their first game and lost embarrassingly last night to Cal State Bakersfield.

DSafetyGuy · Post by **DSafetyGuy** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 10:56 am

Shirley wrote:It looks like Missouri just hired Cuonzo Martin away from Cal. That's a pretty quick and impressive coach search for Mizzou. http://www.cbssports.com/college-basket ... oach-soon/

I'm not sure it's clear exactly how good Martin is - he's never been anywhere more than 3 years - but he shows signs of being a pretty good coach and a very good recruiter.

He hired Michael Porter, Sr., so his recruiting record might get a little better somehow.

Post by **brian** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 12:23 pm

Cal to Mizzou is a downgrade. (And I'm not talking about Berkeley to Columbia either, though that's true too). Interesting decision. Maybe he feels like a downgrade in competition to the SEC will reap dividends.

duff · Post by **duff** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 12:55 pm

He may have just wanted to be closer to home, since he is from East St. Louis.

Post by **brian** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 1:07 pm

duff wrote:He may have just wanted to be closer to home, since he is from East St. Louis.

Fair. Didn't realize he was from there.

wlu_lax6 · Post by **wlu_lax6** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 1:50 pm

Crean gone from IU
Romar out at U Dub

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 3:47 pm

wlu_lax6 wrote:Crean gone from IU
Romar out at U Dub

Romar had a great recruiting class coming in (including Michael Porter Jr., referenced above.) Good luck salvaging that.

DaveInSeattle · Post by **DaveInSeattle** » Thu Mar 16, 2017 4:18 pm

sancarlos wrote:
wlu_lax6 wrote:Crean gone from IU
Romar out at U Dub
Romar had a great recruiting class coming in (including Michael Porter Jr., referenced above.) Good luck salvaging that.

Romar had the consensus #1 draft pick this year, and finished 9-22. He hasn't made the tourney since 2011 (the Isaiah Thomas team), and never got further then the Sweet 16.

People around here kept saying "but he's got a great recruiting class coming in", but the program was dead, and it was time for a change.

Post by **Shirley** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:23 am

I heard Jay Williams this morning on Mike and Mike talking about the Indiana job. He referred to it as a "top five or even top three job." No Fuckin' Way.

There really can't be any reasonable debate that Duke, UNC, Kentucky, and Kansas are all better programs and jobs than Indiana. I think UCLA qualifies as well, even if it hasn't been a consistent power for the past few decades.

I know every time the Indiana job comes up, this argument is made, but I have to wonder why Indiana is still considered such a major program. Is it just tradition? Because of the idealized view of Indiana high school basketball?

I think it's pretty clear that since about the mid 80s, many other programs have passed Indiana, including Louisville, Michigan State, Syracuse, UConn, and Arizona. In the past 30 years, Indiana has been to two Final Fours.

duff · Post by **duff** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:40 am

IU is not a top ten job. But it is close. I was listening to Dan Dakich on M&M and he said it needed to be an Indiana guy. Not sure if that means anything anymore. All that really means he wants Alford, and he would be crazy to leave UCLA. Dakich said it would be better at IU because he wouldn't have to deal with Mr. Ball. That is complete horseshit. Who cares if the other two aren't as good as Lonzo, and their dad starts pitching fits because they aren't getting the star treatment. Alford is still pulling good talent out there.

Dakich also mentioned Mike Brown and Dane Fife. I guess Keith Smart could come too.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:47 am

duff wrote:Alford is still pulling good talent out there.

Good recruits too.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:29 am

I don't know that Alford would want the ghost of Bobby Knight hovering over him. He does have a plum situation at UCLA.

duff · Post by **duff** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:04 am

The ghost of Bobby Knight has almost expired. Bringing in someone that has connection with him will only keep it going. Only the older IU fans want to have a connection to Knight. IU would be best to get someone not associated with the University at all. Hell, I would open up the checkbook for Chris Collins.

Post by **Shirley** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:39 am

duff wrote:IU is not a top ten job. But it is close.

I can get on board with that. It's a good job, but not one of the true elite anymore.

BTW, I think Alford would be a terrible hire. Lonzo Ball might be the only reason he's not getting a pink slip from UCLA this year. Alford has shown little in his coaching career that makes me think he's an elite coach.

Indiana shouldn't tie their hands with hiring an "Indiana guy." It just isn't worth it to limit themselves after failing with their last three hires.

Ryan · Post by **Ryan** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:45 am

They should poach from the NBA. I'm thinking Luke Walton maybe?

Post by **brian** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:51 am

Isiah Thomas.

duff · Post by **duff** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:06 am

Shirley wrote:
duff wrote:IU is not a top ten job. But it is close.
I can get on board with that. It's a good job, but not one of the true elite anymore.

BTW, I think Alford would be a terrible hire. Lonzo Ball might be the only reason he's not getting a pink slip from UCLA this year. Alford has shown little in his coaching career that makes me think he's an elite coach.

Indiana shouldn't tie their hands with hiring an "Indiana guy." It just isn't worth it to limit themselves after failing with their last three hires.

But that last three hires were not "Indiana guys". And I would say failing is pretty harsh. Sampson was a failure because of the cheating, but Davis and Crean didn't fail. Maybe they didn't live up to the high expectations of Hoosier Nation, but I wouldn't say they flat out failed on those hirings.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:10 am

Ryan wrote:They should poach from the NBA. I'm thinking Luke Walton maybe?

I know you're just joking but I've never understood the common assumption that Brad Stevens would go back to college for a marquee job. To me, Stevens seems like he's much better suited to the NBA. He's a great Xs and Os coach (talent being equal I'd take him over any of the big name college coaches) who doesn't strike me as the type of guy who'd want to deal with all the recruiting bullshit. I think it's just that a lot of big college hoops fans hate the NBA and just assume that Duke or IU is a more desirable job than the Celtics.

wlu_lax6 · Post by **wlu_lax6** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:25 am

Speaking of Duke...when K steps down or his back gives out...who takes that job? Assumption has to be someone from his coaching tree right?

Wojo? Brey? Collins? Capel? Quin Snyder? Probably not Amaker or Dawkins (or Hurley). Wojo would have been my guess before leaving Duke

DSafetyGuy · Post by **DSafetyGuy** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:34 am

Shirley wrote:I heard Jay Williams this morning on Mike and Mike talking about the Indiana job. He referred to it as a "top five or even top three job." No Fuckin' Way.

There really can't be any reasonable debate that Duke, UNC, Kentucky, and Kansas are all better programs and jobs than Indiana. I think UCLA qualifies as well, even if it hasn't been a consistent power for the past few decades.

I know every time the Indiana job comes up, this argument is made, but I have to wonder why Indiana is still considered such a major program. Is it just tradition?

Those are the six blueblood programs in college basketball, but Indiana and UCLA remain there only due to their tradition of success (and the outsized expectations that their fanbases bring along). Ben Howland took UCLA to the Final Four three years in a row, then was shown the door five years later after a season where he won the Pac-12 (three NCAA bids in that time, including his last season, and they must have turned down a postseason bid in another year where they finished 19-14). He didn't have enough success and also didn't play the right style for the fans/boosters (didn't he put enough grind-it-out defense on tape at Pitt?)?

Indiana is in the same boat. Ever since he lost to Syracuse in the NCAA's with a one-seed, Crean has been on the outs even though he had two tourney bids and a(nother) Big Ten title in three years after that and before this season. Of course, a first-round "upset" to Wichita State (the Shockers were actually the higher seed in a 7-10 game) and a Sweet Sixteen loss to UNC are terrible results to the fanbase.

Alford sucks as a coach, but he's recruiting his ass off at UCLA. #2 class for next year on ESPN with four guys ranked top ten at their position as part of a six-person class (and the Ball brother is the worst recruit on the list). One kid from Indianapolis and four from within 2 1/2 hours from campus. Don't know if that's gonna happen at Indiana.

Indiana should not limit themselves to "Indiana guys". Why exclude candidates like Gregg Marshall, Archie Miller, and Chris Mack from your pool? You want to be an elite program, you have to open yourself up to the best possible candidates.

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:47 pm

brian wrote:
duff wrote:He may have just wanted to be closer to home, since he is from East St. Louis.
Fair. Didn't realize he was from there.

there's also the part where Cal's admission standards are apparently going to be/have started to become a real "burden" when it comes to recruiting and that it's easier to win in the SEC than the Pac-12

oh, and they'll pay more in the SEC too

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:51 pm

DSafetyGuy wrote:
Shirley wrote:It looks like Missouri just hired Cuonzo Martin away from Cal. That's a pretty quick and impressive coach search for Mizzou. http://www.cbssports.com/college-basket ... oach-soon/

I'm not sure it's clear exactly how good Martin is - he's never been anywhere more than 3 years - but he shows signs of being a pretty good coach and a very good recruiter.
He hired Michael Porter, Sr., so his recruiting record might get a little better somehow.

yeah, Mizzou is potentially in the process of making one of the biggest one-season turnarounds in recent basketball memory

In addition to MP Jr., Mizzou still has a 4* PG recruit committed (for however long) and are in the mix for a 5* center from St. Louis who is committed to Illinois. The coach who recruited him to Illinois is in limbo there and has been reportedly offered a job at Mizzou. Tilmon, the player, will likely go wherever the assistant coach goes.

Plus Porter's little brother, the No. 38 (I think) recruit in 2018 could either classify as a 2017 prospect or come to Missouri in 2018.

To fill in the backstory on this too, the Porters have significant history in Columbia. Sr. is married to the women's basketball coach and the daughter is a sophomore on the women's basketball team. He was an assistant on the women's staff before moving to Washington (where the boys committed) this season and MP Jr. played two years of HS bball in Columbia plus all of middle school ball if I recall correctly. While this has all the makings of "hire dad, get kids," there's more to it than that.

DSafetyGuy · Post by **DSafetyGuy** » Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:02 pm

Mike Hopkins, the former "head-coach-in-waiting" at Syracuse, took the Washington job today. The amount of handwringing over it here is quite impressive.

My favorite conspiracy theory rumor is that Boeheim asked for five more years (next year is supposed to be his last based on the "three more years" succession plan outlined in the press conference dealing with NCAA sanctions two year ago). This would put him on track to coach his youngest son, who is a star as a junior for a local high school that has sent three players to SU in the last decade, then retire. (No idea if it would be five more years or five total years, the former would allow the son to prep for a year, as his older brother did.)

But, hey, Washington fans are disappointed, too, since they didn't get Mark Few. You know, because you leave the best program in the Northwest for the last two decades to take a gig for a team that hasn't made the tourney in six years.

DSafetyGuy · Post by **DSafetyGuy** » Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:03 pm

And Boeheim's contract just got extended. Time to go chuckle at the local reaction.