Is your intent to mock Styre for putting this together?
He said he was going to do so early in the season and he has followed through.
I commend him and thank him for that.
As always, you denigrate our team. Once again, you are wrong.
NET resume
- Thread starter Styre
- Start date
He said he was going to do so early in the season and he has followed through.
I commend him and thank him for that.
As always, you denigrate our team. Once again, you are wrong.
There was some thought at the start of the season that this might be a pretty good NU team. 1-10 is a pretty stark case that it wasn’t. That’s all.
I hope we get a chance to get that second Quad1 win this weekend.
@PurpleWhiteBoy naaah, he was mocking me. And that’s fine.
You look at all those quad 4 games and wonder why they were scheduled. I guess it indicates that you assume you will be less than .500 in the Conference and you are pumping to get over .500 overall....I dont know you had some guys coming back..why didnt you try and get a better non-con schedule....win one or two games against a quad 2 team, build some confidence. Plus you get fans in the stands early in the season,,,The schedule reads. " I have no confidence in you, I will feed you cupcakes, maybe you will develop confidence..." as oppossed to " I think you guys are ready, I think you can knock the hell out of some good teams....and if you dont play well they will take you to the wood shed" To me the disapointment of the season started with the schedule...
This is a reasonable take. I wonder how much CC's job security (or lack thereof) played into the schedule making? Our schedule was not designed to get us a Tournament worthy resume but rather so that we wouldn't have a losing record. It's possible that Collins may have been feeling some heat and wanted to be able to point to "progress" at the end of the year. It was a very risk averse schedule. I'm sure it wasn't completly self-serving, but it lacked excitment from a fan base perspective and contirubted (IMO) to our attendance woes.
After Neb wins the BTT, will we have higher quality wins from beating them twice? /s
There was no excuse for the week non-con, but at least there wasn’t a Merrimack loss this season. It is fun to get excited over near-100 point scoring output.
Maybe next year CCC and Scheyer can conspire to get the long-awaited Duke at the United Center game.
Thanks for clarifying. I can never tell with some people.
But I am even more convinced that our talent is at least Big Ten average, so when the usual tiny clan of Collins apologists come on here whining that our players are no good, I just get annoyed.
The problem is the coach. Obviously.
One could argue that it is the easiest problem to fix.
What is your problem? It was a light hearted jab at what would seem to be the obvious. Are you now Bob, the board protector of perceived bullying? No, it wasn’t mocking Styre or anyone else! This is golden coming from the King of cheap shots.
Geez, I have been saying since BEFORE the season that I didn’t expect us to be any good. I could care less if you think that is denigrating out team. I could be like you and shout down everyone that you disagree with by condescending comments, but like I said I have been trying to stay away from your nonsensical comments on here. I thought I might have been on ignore or you finally decided to take the high road, unfortunately I was sadly mistaken.
So, go back to pulling out your calculator and telling everyone how uniformed they are.
Poor boy is annoyed. What is your background that makes all of your opinions so infallible? Play College ball? Coach any level above park district? Have any concept of a team dynamic by being a member of a college team.
Continue you nonsense that everyone that disagrees with your well thought out conclusions has to be wrong and a “Collins apologist” and gather the troops to pile on.
The 1-10 is a bummer, but tbh what I'd like to have seen is a 3-3 split in three and a 6-0 in four. I don't think that was asking too much from this team, and I think that would be representative of the quality we've seen. but the results are the results.
We did have two games canceled due to COVID, but those would have been a Quad 3 (H #101 DePaul) and a Quad 4 (H #296 Prairie View A&M) game, respectively.
We need to change our scheduling philosophy a bit. We always play a non-conference tournament, and we always have the ACC-B1G game, and I guess if DePaul ever gets good we always have them, but otherwise we schedule the bottom of the barrel. This year we played 2 of the 10 worst teams in the country, which is a lot given there are 358 teams.
Next year we're in the Cancun Challenge and will play 2 of these 3 (NET rankings):
#10 Auburn
#97 Bradley
#119 Liberty
Do you see how radical your personal attacks are?
No, I know you don't.
I call you a Collins apologist because you are one.
(You make excuses for the coach's losing record by saying the players are bad. Constantly.)
You reply with yet another incensed personal attack.
Look at the level of discourse.
You go to the low road so easily it makes me feel bad for you.
Stop the BS garbage white boy.
If you actually pay attention, I have said, I would replace CCC after this season. There is one reason and one reason only, not enough wins. Can’t sell a turnaround with these results. Do I expect us to suddenly be consistent tourney contenders, absolutely not. Would I expect a short term boost, yes I would. Long term, nope, not unless there are structural changes. Sorry, I don’t kiss the ring on your +/- theories ( or facts to you) and MN thoughts. It’s easy to whine and complain every post when a team stinks. So if that is a CCC apologist, guilty as charged.
As far as you harping in me putting a lot of these at the feet of the players, absolutely. It’s an overall mess. Our guys try hard and represent the school in an admirable way. Now you tell me, what players do we have that are above average on BOTH offense and defense? The answer is zero! Some a good on offense, some are good on defense, no one is good at both. There is a reason we are inconsistent and it’s not all Coaching, WB. Good players don’t disappear during games because of Coaching.
You continue to be the most biased person on this board with everything except the Ukrainian conflict blamed on CCC. All I can say is thank God you aren’t on the football board to drag that down with the same cheap shots and complaints over and over and over.
The problem is one guy hyper posts so much it’s impossible to maintain continuity of a discussion!
I'm not biased. I look at the data and reach my conclusions. The +/- numbers are factual numbers. The success or failure of various lineups is measured and known. I actually think my Adjusted +/- is a damned good indication of how a player performs.
My conclusion is that the coach continues to badly misuse his personnel, just as he did last year. It costs us wins. As an NU supporter, I do not want our team coached by a guy who is holding the players back.
In the end, I do the work to collect the data, study it and present conclusions. You are one of the folks on here who don't like many of my conclusions and get upset when I post them. But it is uncommon to receive a coherent counter-argument in most cases.
Of course there are numerous other statistics, publicly available, that tend to confirm what I am posting, such as the KenPom luck rating, which tells you clearly that Collins needs to go. Chase Audige's Offensive Rating is another. Or Matt Nicholson's for that matter.
My conclusions are rarely unique - others express the same things - but I do have some insight into things that are not readily known because I have the lineup data. There are others who know more about the details of what an offense is trying to do or what we are trying to do defensively (Gato and some others) and I value their knowledge.
I try to admit when I am wrong. Robbie Beran is not as bad as he was last year, for example. My "Play Beran with Young" suggestion from last year has proven to be a total disaster this year - but Collins keeps doing it.
I make no apologies for evaluating the team and coach based on the cold, sometimes cruel numbers.
Can you share the rate comparisons for Nance w/Beran, Nance w/Young, and Beran w/Young?
My thoughts on your +/- posts are that they are interesting and informative, but have their limitations. They are facts, as you say, but the problem comes when trying to draw conclusions from those facts. The reason that one can not draw definitive conclusions from your data is that there is no control experiment to compare. We can't do the experiment where we re-run those games with different line-ups and see if the outcome changes. Even if we could, we'd need to do multiple iterations of that exercise to really get a true understanding of their predictive value. I'm not a statistician, but I do enough experiments to know that data interpretation involves a lot of art, in addition to science. But data interpretation is easier when the right experiments are done. Unfortunately, that is out of your hands.
I agree that there are limitations and sometimes projecting from a tiny data sample is silly, but past success or failure has to be somewhat predictive of future success or failure. Its just a question of how well might the past data predict the future.
There's always the temptation to "explain away" the games when Young and Nance do get to play together and it doesn't work - "Oh well, Audige did this or that and they would have done better, etc" but the best path is to just present the real numbers and try to interpret them. Sometimes they mean nothing at all.
Let me throw in $0.02 here by sharing some observations from the Horizon League final last night. Watched live, which, even giving up replays, so much more enlightening. And man, it has been 2 years since I was sitting in the stands of bball games. I missed it. Can't wait for tonight.
Wright State, coached, in my opinion very well, by Scott Nagy, plays a more traditional style of basketball. More of what I defend we should be playing. They have 3 scorers: Calvin/PG, Basile/PF/C and Holden/SF. They go inside often as Basile is very competent without being athletic at all. Reminds me of someone on our team. Calvin is a short PG with a big engine. Makes up for his height deficiency in similar ways Boo does. Holden averages 20 a game without a jump shot. It's atrocious, no arc, no rotation. Works hard on getting to the line. Other than that they are very very limited, 4 of the starters play more than 35 minutes every game. Only one bench player plays more than 20.
Northern Kentucky, coached by Darren Orn, happens to play a style that I believe is what CC dreams of. 4 guards, literally guards, all of them, Faulkner/Langdon/Warwick/Vinson, and one interior, limited offensively player, not particularly tall, but very athletic player: either Nelson or Brandon. They are fairly deep, being able to tap into up to 3 more players on the bench. At a point this season, they used more Beohm, a 6'9 forward, but results were not great. So he ended the season pretty much not playing. Their style works because the guards are pretty good athletes (for HL standards). In a way, like last year Baylor, athletic enough they won't be killed on the boards, athletic enough they are able to take advantage of motion on offense. On defense, they stick to matchup zone 100%. Which can be extremely aggressive as all players on the court, from the 4 guards to the big guy, are very mobile (again for HL standards).
Northern KY is a proxy of what I believe CC tries to do. Except they have the players to do it. If they tried to do it in the B1G they would fail miserable when those guards bumped into strong bodies or could not go by them consistently. In the Horizon League it works, as they have the horses. I just wish CC understood he needed to be, in the B1G, more Wright State, and way less Northern KY (on offense that is).
That might be a tall order as most coaches really want to come in and implement their system. What they were taught or what they developed, influenced by whatever path they were on throughout their lives. I mentioned Darrin Orn, who is doing a fine job. But truth is that he has had some of the best talent in the HL. He has recruited some really good players in Warwick or Vinson. But, as a previous 2 year season ticket holder, I was pissed off with his first season. He ended up winning the league with players he did not recruit and were, for me, the best roster in the league. But he also came in and forced his "system" on a roster more catered to a traditional style. And it was painful for me to watch. Almost blew it by not adapting his ideas to the strenghts in front of him. Instead of building the team over time to match his system, he shoved it down their throats. Won the league but got lucky multiple times. Including when, against all odds, a mediocre UIC made it to the final of the tournament by knocking off Jordan Ash's Wright State. In my opinion, not the more talented, but best team that year.
I can give you anything I can calculate.
Beran and Nance are 653-686 in 21987 seconds of action. (366 minutes of 71.3 - 74.9 pace)
Young and Nance are 211-214 in 7251 seconds of action. (121 minutes of 69.8 - 70.8 pace)
Beran and Young are 191-226 in 8042 seconds of action. (134 minutes of 57.0 - 67.5 pace)
Young and Williams are 224-202 in 7683 seconds of action. (128 minutes of 70.0 - 63.1 pace)
Nance and Williams are 204-183 in 7254 seconds of action. (121 minutes of 67.5 - 60.6 pace)
To provide further color, I dug deeper into the actual 5 man lineups.
I excluded all lineups with Simmons (0.885 NU pts / Opp Pts) Barnhizer, Williams and Nicholson.
Basically I wanted to focus on the guys who should be playing with these frontcourts.
So that was Greer (1.045), Buie (1.002), Berry (0.996), Roper (0.945) and Audige (0.965).
with those teammates, we get
Nance and Beran 559 - 569 in 18340 seconds (306 minutes of 73.2 - 74.5 pace)
Nance and Young 133 - 134 in 4572 seconds (76 minutes of 69.8 - 70.2 pace)
Young and Beran 156 - 192 in 6759 seconds (113 minutes of 55.4 - 68.2 pace)
if you go one step further and exclude the inexperienced pairing of Roper and Berry, we get
Nance and Beran 511-512 in 16697 seconds (278 minutes of 73.5 - 73.6 pace)
Nance and Young 120-101 in 3618 seconds (60 minutes of 79.6 - 67.0 pace)
Beran and Young 135 - 159 in 5788 seconds (96 minutes of 56.0 - 65.9 pace)
So it is readily apparent that playing Young with Beran is just not working.
Also apparent is the fact that when Collins puts Young and Nance out there together, they play quite well as long as the other 3 guys don't include Roper AND Berry together.
Lastly, the results with Beran and Nance have been about Big Ten average, as long as they aren't playing with guys who should be on the bench. That is a big step up from last year.
For the sake of completeness, here's our final resume. Since we finished below .500, we were not postseason-eligible. I've seen it argued that if the two non-conference games against DePaul (#102) and Prairie View A&M (#298) hadn't been canceled, we'd be over .500 and in the NIT. This is not true - with a NET rating of 91, even with those two more wins our season would likely be over.
Quad 1 (1-11)
H #13 Purdue - L
A #13 Purdue - L
N #14 Iowa - L
A #14 Iowa - L
H #15 Illinois - L
A #15 Illinois - L
H #24 Wisconsin - L
A #26 Ohio State - L
N #32 Providence - L
A #34 Michigan - L
A #36 Michigan State - W
A #48 Wake Forest - L
Quad 2 (2-3)
H #36 Michigan State - L
H #38 Indiana - W
A #88 Penn State - L
A #89 Maryland - W
A #108 Minnesota - L
Quad 3 (5-2)
H #77 Rutgers - W
H #88 Penn State - L
H #89 Maryland - L
H #108 Minnesota - W
H #141 Nebraska - W
N #141 Nebraska - W
A #141 Nebraska - W
Quad 4 (6-0)
N #223 Georgia - W
H #261 High Point - W
H #264 New Orleans - W
H #332 NJIT - W
H #348 Fairleigh Dickinson - W
H #356 Eastern Illinois - W
Quad 1 (1-11)
H #13 Purdue - L
A #13 Purdue - L
N #14 Iowa - L
A #14 Iowa - L
H #15 Illinois - L
A #15 Illinois - L
H #24 Wisconsin - L
A #26 Ohio State - L
N #32 Providence - L
A #34 Michigan - L
A #36 Michigan State - W
A #48 Wake Forest - L
Quad 2 (2-3)
H #36 Michigan State - L
H #38 Indiana - W
A #88 Penn State - L
A #89 Maryland - W
A #108 Minnesota - L
Quad 3 (5-2)
H #77 Rutgers - W
H #88 Penn State - L
H #89 Maryland - L
H #108 Minnesota - W
H #141 Nebraska - W
N #141 Nebraska - W
A #141 Nebraska - W
Quad 4 (6-0)
N #223 Georgia - W
H #261 High Point - W
H #264 New Orleans - W
H #332 NJIT - W
H #348 Fairleigh Dickinson - W
H #356 Eastern Illinois - W
Yeah, here are the other eligible teams with better NET rankings which also did not make the NIT, along with our proposed record had we won the two games we lost on our schedule:
Kansas St, West Virginia, Syracuse. Penn St and Maryland all had better NET ratings than us but were ineligible due to losing records.
| NET | Team | Record | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Non-D1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 69 | St. John's | 17-15 | 2-10 | 2-4 | 7-1 | 6-0 | 0-0 |
| 73 | Fresno St | 19-13 | 0-8 | 3-3 | 4-2 | 11-0 | 1-0 |
| 80 | Furman | 22-12 | 0-4 | 1-2 | 9-4 | 11-2 | 1-0 |
| 82 | Drake | 24-10 | 2-4 | 2-4 | 7-2 | 11-0 | 2-0 |
| 84 | Clemson | 17-16 | 1-5 | 3-7 | 7-4 | 6-0 | 0-0 |
| 87 | Wichita St | 15-13 | 1-4 | 2-6 | 6-3 | 6-0 | 0-0 |
| 91 | Northwestern | 17-16 | 1-11 | 2-3 | 6-2 | 7-0 | 1-0 |
Kansas St, West Virginia, Syracuse. Penn St and Maryland all had better NET ratings than us but were ineligible due to losing records.
I'm of the opinion that teams with losing records in their conference (including conference tournament games) should NOT be eligible for the NCAA tournament.
Obviously this is purely to favor the Power 5 and those teams just don't deserve to be in a tournament to determine the national champion.
Yes, I think Indiana should be in the NIT.
It is disturbing that playing an easy pre-conference schedule (as we did) and thereby having a better record may have some bearing in getting an NIT bid. The NCAA selection committee stated specifically that the difficulty of the non-conference schedule (citing Indiana specifically) was a difference maker for teams on the bubble. NU needs the toughest pre-conference slate they can schedule. It will make them a better team, increase revenues, and will pay off if they can get somewhere close to the bubble.
Yet they left Texas A&M out and put Indiana and MI in.
Indiana narrowly beats IL and MI
Texas A&M destroys Baylor and Arkansas
Indiana 4-8 Quad 1
A&M 4-10
Indiana 4-4 Quad 2
A&M 5-0
Indiana 3-8 on the road
A&M 5-5
Indiana non conference SOS 308
A&M 262
Indiana in, A&M 4th team out.
Tradition matters and they surely like the B1G
As I've said before, while this is true, it has been the rule since 2017 and the NIT has invited precisely zero teams with losing records. This could change in the future, of course, but somehow I doubt NU will ever be the test case.
I don't disagree, but if we're talking about eligibility, the NCAA explicitly changed the rule about losing records. The pre-NCAA-run NIT actually had such a rule and the NCAA went out of their way to get rid of it. Why, I have no idea. There must be some scenario they foresee when they would invite such a team.
I don't know either. I figured last year would be the ideal year to do it, since you had teams like Penn State (NET #44 yet sub-.500 thanks to the COVID schedule) with a serious argument for inclusion, but they still didn't do it.
Similar threads
