College Basketball

[S John]

With us winning and the 'Cuse losing over the weekend we are now in sole possesion of 6th in the Big East. I think thats about as high as we can get with only 4 games left. Nova is the #5 and they are 2 games ahead of us. If we can fend off Cincy and USF on the road, and take care of business with DePaul at home, then Louisville will be facing us in Morgantown coming off a 7 game winning streak. If thats the scenario, I like our chances to win out.

But, one game at a time... We can be a little shaky sometimes away from home and Cincy killed us last year. Plus the old rivalry due to Huggs. USF played us close in Morgantown back in January, so no gimmies, but coming off a three game win streak against Nova, ND, and Rutgers I like where we're at right now. I'd say we're only a Cincy win away from being a lock for the tournament and I'm looking for us to hopefully finish out around 22-9 and 11-7 in the Big East.

Edit: Oh, and the best news out of all this is that we start 3 freshman and Ruoff is the only senior on the team. :cool:

[Rhom]

I came across an interesting statistical analysis of what schools [url="http://www.82games.com/collegedraftpicks.htm"]are best at producing NBA players of quality.[/url] Its similar to a discussion we had last summer about coaches developing talent vs. riding the talent that they have.

The author admits that it is difficult to extrapolate out results based on the small sample size of many schools. However, it is interesting to note that out of the schools that have put over 20 players in the league over the chosen sample time frame, its UConn coming out on top over Duke, UNC, and Arizona.

[S John]

After a few weeks of losely following Lunardi's bracketology I have decided to apply for a job at ESPN. They basically pay this guy to do nothing, I could [i]easily [/i]do his job. There was a brief article explaining some of the assumptions that himself and the boys down at espn used in making this weeks edition of Bracketology. One of them in particular struck me:

[quote]Florida and Georgetown made lengthy runs to win the SEC and Big East tournaments, respectively. The Hoyas became the first team ever to win five games in five days to secure their automatic bid.[/quote]

Ok, anything can happen right? But why on earth would you make the assumption that Georgetown wins the Big East tourney? They have been beaten 9 times in conference by 7 different teams. Marquette and Cincinatti have each beaten them twice. A few teams (ahem) have beaten the crap out of them. What in the world makes anyone think that they will be able to win 5 games in a row in 5 consecutive days, facing at least a few teams that have already beaten them from the hardest bball conference? No team has ever won 5 games in 5 days! Hell, theyve lost 8 of thier last 10. It is so unlikely that it blows my mind. If they were seriously trying to create an honest projection they could not possibly have included this scenario.

You might as well just compile a list of 110 teams that might make it under various rediculous scenarios and throw darts at it, and I think I could handle that position at ESPN.

[RedEyedGhost]

Yeah, Lunardi is a total joke. This is all from his appearance on Midnight Madness Saturday: After beating UNC "they" moved Maryland into their bracket, yet before that Maryland was not even in their first 12 out. He did also repeatedly use the word "they" rather than "I", so WTF, does ESPN employ a team of "bracketologists"? And somehow Lunardi is the most qualified to be on camera :stunned: ? The dude has to have a day job, right?

One win against an overrated team makes that much of a difference? What a joke.

[quote name='Rhom' post='1696413' date='Feb 23 2009, 07.41']REG... this is another NCAA tourney game that we [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=244000049"]never discuss.[/url] Seriously sir. You repeatedly make these social mistakes. It needs to stop. Now.[/quote]

Hey it's not my fault that was the second consecutive year that KU absolutely destroyed the team the knocked off UK in the previous round (Marquette the year before - see what I did there :P). I would have much rather faced you guys, so that the all-time head-to-head record ended up being less lopsided :smoking:

[quote name='Rhom' post='1696527' date='Feb 23 2009, 10.17']I came across an interesting statistical analysis of what schools [url="http://www.82games.com/collegedraftpicks.htm"]are best at producing NBA players of quality.[/url] Its similar to a discussion we had last summer about coaches developing talent vs. riding the talent that they have.

The author admits that it is difficult to extrapolate out results based on the small sample size of many schools. However, it is interesting to note that out [b]of the schools that have put over 20 players[/b] in the league over the chosen sample time frame, its [b]UConn coming out on top over Duke, UNC, and Arizona[/b].[/quote]

First of, FUCK YOU AND THE HORSE YOU ROAD IN ON! KU also has over 20 on that list (22 to be exact). ;)

Secondly that list is an absolute joke, and really worthless. Shouldn't the player want to go to a school that is going to get him drafted regardless of whether or not he'll be a star (ie. Duke, KU, or UNC)? Or should the NBA start drafting more from Wake and UTEP, because those draftees have a higher probability of being a star percentagewise? Hell no.

The only valuable information that can be gleaned from the dude that wrote that's colossal waste of time is: college selection will not predict NBA success, but certain schools and coaches can prepare you to get drafted (and therefore make $$) even though you do not necessarily have the talent to make it in the league. So if there are any elite HS players (that are also huge fantasy nerds and therefore reading this board) reading this, you should pick KU because coach Self will get you to the league and get you paid whether or not you'll make it long term (long term is solely on you).

[Rhom]

I tend to agree... but then I heard the other day that Lunardi successfully predicted the entire field last year! (Seeding not withstanding.)

Edit:

[quote name='RedEyedGhost' post='1696659' date='Feb 23 2009, 14.17']First of, FUCK YOU AND THE HORSE YOU ROAD IN ON! KU also has over 20 on that list (22 to be exact). ;)

Secondly that list is an absolute joke, and really worthless. Shouldn't the player want to go to a school that is going to get him drafted regardless of whether or not he'll be a star (ie. Duke, KU, or UNC)? Or should the NBA start drafting more from Wake and UTEP, because those draftees have a higher probability of being a star percentagewise? Hell no.

The only valuable information that can be gleaned from the dude that wrote that's colossal waste of time is: college selection will not predict NBA success, but certain schools and coaches can prepare you to get drafted (and therefore make $$) even though you do not necessarily have the talent to make it in the league. So if there are any elite HS players (that are also huge fantasy nerds and therefore reading this board) reading this, you should pick KU because coach Self will get you to the league and get you paid whether or not you'll make it long term (long term is solely on you).[/quote]

:rofl:

Agreed. As I said, the stats aren't all that strong for the teams with the bare minimum of 5 picks. I do think that the schools that have produced 15 or more players give us a little better perspective.

[Arakasi]

[quote name='RedEyedGhost' post='1696659' date='Feb 23 2009, 13.17']Yeah, Lunardi is a total joke. This is all from his appearance on Midnight Madness Saturday: After beating UNC "they" moved Maryland into their bracket, yet before that Maryland was not even in their first 12 out. He did also repeatedly use the word "they" rather than "I", so WTF, does ESPN employ a team of "bracketologists"? And somehow Lunardi is the most qualified to be on camera :stunned: ? The dude has to have a day job, right?

One win against an overrated team makes that much of a difference? What a joke.



Hey it's not my fault that was the second consecutive year that KU absolutely destroyed the team the knocked off UK in the previous round (Marquette the year before - see what I did there :P). I would have much rather faced you guys, so that the all-time head-to-head record ended up being less lopsided :smoking:



First of, FUCK YOU AND THE HORSE YOU ROAD IN ON! KU also has over 20 on that list (22 to be exact). ;)

Secondly that list is an absolute joke, and really worthless. Shouldn't the player want to go to a school that is going to get him drafted regardless of whether or not he'll be a star (ie. Duke, KU, or UNC)? Or should the NBA start drafting more from Wake and UTEP, because those draftees have a higher probability of being a star percentagewise? Hell no.

The only valuable information that can be gleaned from the dude that wrote that's colossal waste of time is: college selection will not predict NBA success, but certain schools and coaches can prepare you to get drafted (and therefore make $$) even though you do not necessarily have the talent to make it in the league. So if there are any elite HS players (that are also huge fantasy nerds and therefore reading this board) reading this, you should pick KU because coach Self will get you to the league and get you paid whether or not you'll make it long term (long term is solely on you).[/quote]

The guy said to not take it seriously, since one big star (like Wade) can really skew the numbers a certain way. But seriously why is Kansas being mediocre in that list a surprise? Other than Pierce and Hinrich there is no good NBA players from there (well Chalmers now is looking good).

In college football there are certainly programs with a proven record of producing NFL prospects (USC for example or Miami). I don't see quite the same in college hoops, but its not a surprise if there would be some correlation there too.

[RedEyedGhost]

[quote name='Arakasi' post='1696668' date='Feb 23 2009, 12.27']The guy said to not take it seriously, since one big star (like Wade) can really skew the numbers a certain way. But seriously why is Kansas being mediocre in that list a surprise? Other than Pierce and Hinrich there is no good NBA players from there (well Chalmers now is looking good).

In college football there are certainly programs with a proven record of producing NFL prospects (USC for example or Miami). I don't see quite the same in college hoops, but its not a surprise if there would be some correlation there too.[/quote]

KU being mediocre on the list is not a surprise to me. What even defines "star" on the list? When I think of stars in the pros from KU, I only think of Pierce. I guess Hinrich is one of our other 3 stars that guy has listed, but who the fuck is #3? Chalmers? A star after half a season?

My point about KU is that we can get kids that guaranteed contract, what they do after that is all up to them. Drew Gooden is the perfect example of this - [s]he's got[/s] he had all the talent in world going into the league, but once he got paid he got fat and lazy and now he's destined to be a journey man (I think he's now on his 5th team in 7 years). If Drew weren't lazy he could have been a superstar in the pros.

Basketball and Football are such different animals that I don't think they can really be compared in this regard.


ETA: I get the feeling that the dude that did that list thought he was going to kind something worthwhile, and all he got was crap, and a big waste of time and effort.

Looks like [url="http://www.normantranscript.com/sports/local_story_054123904.html"]Blake Griffin is definitely out for tonight's game[/url]. It was a concussion, and they may mean he won't play in another regular season game. Hopefully he's healthy, so we can kick his ass in the Big 12 tournament championship game :)

[quote]Oklahoma won't have Blake Griffin tonight against Kansas. Sooner coach Jeff Capel announced Monday afternoon the All-American forward won’t play due to the concussion he received Saturday night at Texas.

The decision was made earlier in the day after consultation with OU's medical staff.

...

Capel has given no time frame for Griffin's return to the floor. OU plays at Texas Tech Saturday. The regular season concludes next with games at Missouri (March 4) and at home against Oklahoma State (March 7).[/quote]

[Arakasi]

I'm sure there are college coaches who develop their players better than other coaches for the NBA level. I just don't really know who they are. But I'm sure NBA scouts and GMs know. (Which probably works both ways. You can say that a given player looks more attractive coming out of school because they got better coaching in college, but someone under a mediocre coach who put up similar numbers has better raw potential, and if the NBA draft has been about anything recently it is potential.)

[RedEyedGhost]

[quote name='Arakasi' post='1696753' date='Feb 23 2009, 13.09']I'm sure there are college coaches who develop their players better than other coaches for the NBA level. I just don't really know who they are. But I'm sure NBA scouts and GMs know. (Which probably works both ways. You can say that a given player looks more attractive coming out of school because they got better coaching in college, but someone under a mediocre coach who put up similar numbers has better raw potential, and if the NBA draft has been about anything recently it is potential.)[/quote]

I'm sure there are coaches that do a better job prepping a player, but in basketball so much of it depends on the player's innate ability that even if a players picks the wrong coach for him once he gets to the NBA it will get fixed.

I will never try and figure out why NBA teams draft the way they do. All I know is that KU got 22 players paid, and that's a very good thing wrt recruiting.

[add-on]

[quote name='Triskele' post='1695233' date='Feb 21 2009, 16.10']And interesting note on Oregon State: They have four commitments from rivals.com top 150, two of which are ranked #'s 70 and 72. So they may end up with a top 25 recruiting class. Keep in mind that last year they were 0-18 and they've only made the post-season once since '92 or so. Is this the Craig Robinson/Obama's brother-in-law effect?[/quote]
The surprise for me is Angus (#146). My brothers took him on his visit to Michigan, and all the things we were hearing from him and the people who know him had been pointing to him joining his buddy Matt Vogrich there. Ah, well. That's how it goes, I guess.

He may be down on the list, but I've seen him play and worked a camp or two with him. He's smart, big, and a hard worker on the boards. A nice piece to add to a growing program.

[quote name='RedEyedGhost' post='1696712' date='Feb 23 2009, 13.53']KU being mediocre on the list is not a surprise to me. What even defines "star" on the list? When I think of stars in the pros from KU, I only think of Pierce. I guess Hinrich is one of our other 3 stars that guy has listed, but who the fuck is #3? Chalmers? A star after half a season?[/quote]
I was going to say that one of your stars would have to be Danny Manning, but it looks like he missed the cutoff year by just one. :dunno:

[Arakasi]

Even though Manning was considered an NBA dissapointment in ways he really did put up some good numbers for a decent amount of years. Probably playing for the Clippers didn't help him.

[add-on]

Yeah, I just thought he would make more sense as a 'star' than Gooden or Hinrich. For instance, neither one of those guys has ever made an All-Star team and it's unlikely that they will.

I'm just echoing others' confusion as to who would be included in Kansas' three stars after Pierce.

[Rhom]

[quote name='S John' post='1696613' date='Feb 23 2009, 13.28']After a few weeks of losely following Lunardi's bracketology I have decided to apply for a job at ESPN. They basically pay this guy to do nothing, I could [i]easily [/i]do his job. There was a brief article explaining some of the assumptions that himself and the boys down at espn used in making this weeks edition of Bracketology. One of them in particular struck me:

Ok, anything can happen right? But why on earth would you make the assumption that Georgetown wins the Big East tourney? They have been beaten 9 times in conference by 7 different teams. Marquette and Cincinatti have each beaten them twice. A few teams (ahem) have beaten the crap out of them. What in the world makes anyone think that they will be able to win 5 games in a row in 5 consecutive days, facing at least a few teams that have already beaten them from the hardest bball conference? No team has ever won 5 games in 5 days! Hell, theyve lost 8 of thier last 10. It is so unlikely that it blows my mind. If they were seriously trying to create an honest projection they could not possibly have included this scenario.

You might as well just compile a list of 110 teams that might make it under various rediculous scenarios and throw darts at it, and I think I could handle that position at ESPN.[/quote]

Again... while I definitely tend to agree with you on the validity of Bracketology (they had one up the week after Kansas won the title for chrissakes!!!)... I just looked at the ESPN.com Bracketology for this week that you reference with the G'town and Florida wins and your complaints are actually not valid. This was not Lunardi's Bracketology posted on ESPN's website this week. This was the mock selection committee that the NCAA puts on for media types. One of the "monkey wrenches" that they threw at the selection committee was the G'town/Florida scenarios. No one is saying this is their assumption, this is the scenario that the NCAA put them under for selections.

Generally, I believe Lunardi works under the assumption that the team leading the conference currently gets the auto bid. At least, that's how he works the minor conferences.

[RedEyedGhost]

[quote name='Arakasi' post='1696826' date='Feb 23 2009, 13.44']Even though Manning was considered an NBA dissapointment in ways he really did put up some good numbers for a decent amount of years. Probably playing for the Clippers didn't help him.[/quote]

For having something like 5 ACL operations back when ACL tears were a really big deal (two on one knee, three on the other), he did have a pretty amazing career.

[quote name='add-on' post='1696843' date='Feb 23 2009, 13.50']Yeah, I just thought he would make more sense as a 'star' than Gooden or Hinrich. For instance, neither one of those guys has ever made an All-Star team and it's unlikely that they will.

I'm just echoing others' confusion as to who would be included in Kansas' three stars after Pierce.[/quote]

The confusion is what is considered a "star". The guy should have links on each team that breaks down the players in each category, but that would have required even more wasted time.

Hinrich has been a 6 year starter, so I'm fairly confident that he's one of the three. Gooden has started most of his career too, but if you ask me he is a huge bust.

It's pretty bad when a huge KU homer can't even figure out who he's talking about :thumbsdown:

[S John]

[quote name='Rhom' post='1696880' date='Feb 23 2009, 16.12']Again... while I definitely tend to agree with you on the validity of Bracketology (they had one up the week after Kansas won the title for chrissakes!!!)... I just looked at the ESPN.com Bracketology for this week that you reference with the G'town and Florida wins and your complaints are actually not valid. This was not Lunardi's Bracketology posted on ESPN's website this week. This was the mock selection committee that the NCAA puts on for media types. One of the "monkey wrenches" that they threw at the selection committee was the G'town/Florida scenarios. No one is saying this is their assumption, this is the scenario that the NCAA put them under for selections.

Generally, I believe Lunardi works under the assumption that the team leading the conference currently gets the auto bid. At least, that's how he works the minor conferences.[/quote]

Ah, my apoligies to Mr. Lunardi for that one then. I was convinced it was part of some grand ESPN conspiracy to keep the Georgetown fanbase tuning in. Similar to the way that, even in the midst of a non-noteworthy football season, Notre Dame always seems to find themselves in the headlines and getting air-time.

[Rhom]

[quote name='S John' post='1696924' date='Feb 23 2009, 16.40']Ah, my apoligies to Mr. Lunardi for that one then. I was convinced it was part of some grand ESPN conspiracy to keep the Georgetown fanbase tuning in. Similar to the way that, even in the midst of a non-noteworthy football season, Notre Dame always seems to find themselves in the headlines and getting air-time.[/quote]

Eh. I'm convinced that other than UNC, none of those east coast schools actually have a significant fanbase worth pandering to.

Hell, Duke can't sell out their 10,000 seat arena for non-conference home games!

[Rhom]

You know, the hot topic around teh intrawebz and on sports radio has been the Calhoun [url="http://www.necn.com/Boston/Sports/2009/02/22/Exploring-Krayeskes-Calhoun/1235343338.html"]confrontation.[/url] Calhoun stated that they bring in 12 million a year to the university. I didn't think much of it, but just took him at his word last night. Today I saw that the numbers aren't anywhere near that... (Don't have the link atm.)

UCONN's Men's Basketball
Revenue: $7,333,214

Expenses: $6,097,728

Net: +$1 235 486


As an interesting corollary, [url="http://www.forbes.com/2007/12/27/college-basketball-valuations-biz-sports_cz_js_0102basketball.html"]this is an older article (Jan 08) from Forbes[/url] that lays out the most "valuable" college basketball programs.

[add-on]

[quote name='RedEyedGhost' post='1696885' date='Feb 23 2009, 15.17']The confusion is what is considered a "star". The guy should have links on each team that breaks down the players in each category, but that would have required even more wasted time.

Hinrich has been a 6 year starter, so I'm fairly confident that he's one of the three. Gooden has started most of his career too, but if you ask me he is a huge bust.

It's pretty bad when a huge KU homer can't even figure out who he's talking about :thumbsdown:[/quote]
Oh hey. Raef LaFrentz? He was pretty good there for a while.


I'm having trouble letting this go...

[RedEyedGhost]

This game is horribly officiated. Both ways. Each team seems to be getting away with stuff, but then they feel the need to call b.s. ticky-tack makeup fouls.

They have been automatic from 3 for the past five minutes including Clay Davis (who?) making four straight. Willie Warren has made two from insanely far out tonight.

And Collins just swishes one from 26'!!

[quote name='add-on' post='1697311' date='Feb 23 2009, 19.47']Oh hey. Raef LaFrentz? He was pretty good there for a while.


I'm having trouble letting this go...[/quote]

:dunno:


ETA: Shheeeeeit, it was CADE Davis, not Clay.

I had figured about a 10pt win with Griffin out, and I'll definitely be happy with 9. I don't care if Griffin is healthy for their game against Texas Tech or not, because either way they should hold him out of the game to let the team get a little experience without him. If he's back to 100% for the tourney (and he should be unless they let him play too soon), OU will be nasty and could make a big run.
I'm sure KU is not the only team with some head scratchers either, but I'm not going to waste any time looking.

[Rhom]

Holy &%#@!!! There were some insanely long threes made by both teams in that game. Very enjoyable.