Author Topic: The Official Bracketology Thread  (Read 384492 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ksupamplemousse

  • Elevate
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 4527
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #1400 on: February 02, 2016, 01:32:12 PM »
I give oscar very little credit for the first year here.  I picture him of just now settling into a Wooly like groove which involves bringing in young players and hoping fans mistake minutes/opportunity for quality.

That's fair. FWIW, even his last 6 years at Illinois, he averaged 5 Top 50 wins and 1.5 worse than 100 losses.

He's way more annoying, but his coaching record is much, much better than Wooly. Its not even close really, even with "his own" teams.

His talent level is WAY down here though, so does that change the equation going forward?
This is who I am...I have no problem crying. - Jerome Tang

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44945
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #1401 on: February 02, 2016, 01:33:51 PM »
I think we'll finish 17-14 (6-12) at worst.

Rinse and repeat for next year  :frown:
on one hand, i think we'll be pretty good next year but i know oscar struggles with player development and i temper my expectation.
even taking that into account i think we'll be better

I agree, but I've got to see some roster stability in the off season (anyone leaving besides Freeman will be a concern) to go along with your concern about development. Losing Edwards and Hurt won't be huge and oscar is adding a pretty good player in Xavier Sneed. Plus Williams/Maurice.

If next season isn't a tournament team oscar should be done.

Edwards was leading most of our stat categories up until conf season started.  I am not a fan, but this team would be much worse off, record wise, without him.

Edward's being a stat leader isn't an endorsement of his skills but an indictment of the talent around him.

Offline CNS

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 36749
  • I'm Athletes
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #1402 on: February 02, 2016, 01:40:53 PM »
Fully agree.  However, you take one of the least mediocre players off a mostly mediocre team and things go downhill.

Offline kso_FAN

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 29506
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #1403 on: February 02, 2016, 01:41:29 PM »
I give oscar very little credit for the first year here.  I picture him of just now settling into a Wooly like groove which involves bringing in young players and hoping fans mistake minutes/opportunity for quality.

That's fair. FWIW, even his last 6 years at Illinois, he averaged 5 Top 50 wins and 1.5 worse than 100 losses.

He's way more annoying, but his coaching record is much, much better than Wooly. Its not even close really, even with "his own" teams.

His talent level is WAY down here though, so does that change the equation going forward?

Its actually not that much different. From 04 to 08 he was getting 1 four star a year mixed with mainly 3 stars, similar to what he is doing here. The last couple years before he got fired he actually was doing better and pulled in 9 four star players in the 09 through 11 classes.

Offline ksupamplemousse

  • Elevate
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 4527
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #1404 on: February 02, 2016, 02:16:35 PM »
I give oscar very little credit for the first year here.  I picture him of just now settling into a Wooly like groove which involves bringing in young players and hoping fans mistake minutes/opportunity for quality.

That's fair. FWIW, even his last 6 years at Illinois, he averaged 5 Top 50 wins and 1.5 worse than 100 losses.

He's way more annoying, but his coaching record is much, much better than Wooly. Its not even close really, even with "his own" teams.

His talent level is WAY down here though, so does that change the equation going forward?

Its actually not that much different. From 04 to 08 he was getting 1 four star a year mixed with mainly 3 stars, similar to what he is doing here. The last couple years before he got fired he actually was doing better and pulled in 9 four star players in the 09 through 11 classes.

In that six year period, 09-11 makes up half that time period, and as you pointed out they had plenty of 4* kids in those three years. The three years before that he was signing three star kids that had multiple P5 offers (the vast majority of them anyway). Most of our three star guys have 0-1 P5 offers. Now, it may not make a bunch of difference in the on-court results, but I think his Illinois teams were distinctly more talented than his teams here.
This is who I am...I have no problem crying. - Jerome Tang

Offline Skipper44

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7574
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #1405 on: February 02, 2016, 02:52:51 PM »
He was able to recruit real P5 post players at  Illinois.  So far he has given us the Big Meat brigade and Claws.  I mean, DJamer is the best big he can claim after 4 years :(

Offline 420seriouscat69

  • Don't get zapped! #zap
  • Wackycat
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63922
  • #1 rated - gE NFL Scout
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #1406 on: February 02, 2016, 02:56:07 PM »
He was able to recruit real P5 post players at  Illinois.  So far he has given us the Big Meat brigade and Claws.  I mean, DJamer is the best big he can claim after 4 years :(
You can't claim that yet, since we don't know how the two bigs are that he brought in this year. We can't help they got the bubonic plaque.

Offline kso_FAN

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 29506
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #1407 on: February 02, 2016, 03:03:23 PM »
In that six year period, 09-11 makes up half that time period, and as you pointed out they had plenty of 4* kids in those three years. The three years before that he was signing three star kids that had multiple P5 offers (the vast majority of them anyway). Most of our three star guys have 0-1 P5 offers. Now, it may not make a bunch of difference in the on-court results, but I think his Illinois teams were distinctly more talented than his teams here.

That's fair.

I will only say that he's managed to recruit multiple 3 stars that appear to be Big 12 caliber players. DJamer, Westicles, Marcus, Nigel, Stokes, and Brown all had plenty of moments of showing themselves to be much better than expected early in their careers. The problem is only DJamer and Westicles have been here multiple years and stayed and both have shown slight improvement, but not enough to be all league caliber players by their junior year. You've got to have some of those guys develop

4 star #1 Malek Harris is gone and didn't really look like a true 4 star. I think Wade has potential to live up to his 4 star billing and be an all league player by his JR year. We'll see on Sneed.

Regardless, oscar needs to have a tournament team next year.

Offline Skipper44

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7574
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #1408 on: February 02, 2016, 03:07:42 PM »
Mono is a MHK epidemic

Offline ChiComCat

  • Chawbacon
  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 17631
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #1409 on: February 02, 2016, 03:23:30 PM »
I like Stokes and think Brown can be good.  Wade may play at a really high level down the line, but I think it's tough to project out post players.  The fact that Wade has the semblance of a mid-range game makes me optimistic though.

Offline wetwillie

  • goEMAW Poster of the WEEK
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 30551
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #1410 on: February 02, 2016, 07:02:49 PM »
no way this group makes the tourney next year.  It will be the 2017-2018 cats that go dancing.
When the bullets are flying, that's when I'm at my best

Offline IPA4Me

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7034
  • El Guapo
    • View Profile
    • Life Advice
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #1411 on: February 05, 2016, 02:54:02 PM »
Lots of butthurt L1C4 posts in my Facebook feed. Sheesh.

Offline 420seriouscat69

  • Don't get zapped! #zap
  • Wackycat
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63922
  • #1 rated - gE NFL Scout
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #1412 on: February 08, 2016, 09:06:37 AM »

Offline AppleJack

  • AppleJack
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6337
  • How are you doing today?
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #1413 on: February 08, 2016, 09:21:18 AM »
Is RPI still an important thing? If so, what is ours. Cats.
When one person, for whatever reason, has a chance to lead an exceptional life, he has no right to keep it to himself.

Offline 420seriouscat69

  • Don't get zapped! #zap
  • Wackycat
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63922
  • #1 rated - gE NFL Scout
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #1414 on: February 08, 2016, 09:22:19 AM »

Offline kso_FAN

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 29506
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #1415 on: February 08, 2016, 09:23:37 AM »
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology So close

Now is the time if we are going to put ourselves into serious bubble conversation. We probably need to win 4 of the next 5, though 3 of the next 5 might get us in the discussion.

Offline kso_FAN

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 29506
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #1416 on: February 08, 2016, 09:25:10 AM »
Is RPI still an important thing? If so, what is ours. Cats.
Yes and #35! http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rpi/_/sort/RPI

Its not as simple as that; our RPI doesn't really matter.

Our wins against the RPI Top 50 do matter. Right now we are 1-9, so we have a lot of work to do. I'd guess with no bad losses, we probably need at least 5 Top 50 wins.

Offline TownieCat

  • Fattyfest Champion
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 6993
  • I have no rhythm.
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #1417 on: February 08, 2016, 09:28:22 AM »
SOS is almost as important as RPI and we have the #7 SOS. None of that matters unless we get at least 18 wins tho.

Offline HerrSonntag

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3436
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #1418 on: February 08, 2016, 09:29:40 AM »
Is RPI still an important thing? If so, what is ours. Cats.
Yes and #35! http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rpi/_/sort/RPI

Its not as simple as that; our RPI doesn't really matter.

Our wins against the RPI Top 50 do matter. Right now we are 1-9, so we have a lot of work to do. I'd guess with no bad losses, we probably need at least 5 Top 50 wins.
With where we're at, i think 2 or 3 more top 50 RPI wins and no bad loses would put us on the right side of the bubble.  68 teams go dancing, we don't actually have to be good, just look that way.

Offline TownieCat

  • Fattyfest Champion
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 6993
  • I have no rhythm.
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #1419 on: February 08, 2016, 09:31:20 AM »

Offline kso_FAN

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 29506
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #1420 on: February 08, 2016, 09:32:41 AM »
Good points.

Its dangerous to compare to other seasons, but last year's OSU was 4-10 vs the RPI Top 50. Texas was 3-12. Both finished 8-10 in the league and made the tournament.

Offline #LIFE

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1792
    • View Profile

Offline TownieCat

  • Fattyfest Champion
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 6993
  • I have no rhythm.
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #1422 on: February 08, 2016, 09:57:41 AM »
Good points.

Its dangerous to compare to other seasons, but last year's OSU was 4-10 vs the RPI Top 50. Texas was 3-12. Both finished 8-10 in the league and made the tournament.

Another good example of a team with suspect RPI numbers is the 07-08 K-State team  :Chirp:

Offline 420seriouscat69

  • Don't get zapped! #zap
  • Wackycat
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63922
  • #1 rated - gE NFL Scout
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #1423 on: February 08, 2016, 10:06:14 AM »
Lunardi hasn't had us on his radar all season. I'm sure it's the 1-9 record vs the top 50.

Offline TownieCat

  • Fattyfest Champion
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 6993
  • I have no rhythm.
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #1424 on: February 08, 2016, 11:21:02 AM »
If you think about it, the committee has to find 36 at large teams to fill out the field. and every year a handful of average teams get in. This year two more average teams are getting in since SMU and Louisville (both of which would be locks) are banned from the tournament.

The First Four will be four teams that are even more mediocre than usual this year.