College Basketball 2025-26 season thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter dukeman92
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 23K
  • Sports 
BillOfRights said:
I did discredit the graph. I must have missed your post where you acknowledged that.
Click to expand...
Oh, sorry, yes it doesn’t include all relevant data if it’s missing rebounding data.

Now, would including UNC’s rebounding numbers help to bolster their predicted performance in March or not? I think so, if those numbers are good, and I think not, if the numbers are bad.

What are the numbers? (I’ve done a quick search but haven’t found anything. I do know that Greg has said that they haven’t been great, but not sure if he’s correct in his assessment.)
 
stankeylegjones said:
Oh, sorry, yes it doesn’t include all relevant data if it’s missing rebounding data.

Now, would including UNC’s rebounding numbers help to bolster their predicted performance in March or not? I think so, if those numbers are good, and I think not, if the numbers are bad.

What are the numbers? (I’ve done a quick search but haven’t found anything. I do know that Greg has said that they haven’t been great, but not sure if he’s correct in his assessment.)
Click to expand...
"Doesn't include all relevant data"??????

The graph indicated that Tulsa and George Washington would have a better chance in March than Carolina. Does that pass the smell test with you?

It was based simply on number of possessions and offensive efficiency, and even then, it was just using rebounding margin and not rebounding percentage. Besides misusing rebounding, turnovers were the only part of defense it considered. It was malarkey.
 
BillOfRights said:
"Doesn't include all relevant data"??????

The graph indicated that Tulsa and George Washington would have a better chance in March than Carolina. Does that pass the smell test with you?

It was based simply on number of possessions and offensive efficiency, and even then, it was just using rebounding margin and not rebounding percentage. Besides misusing rebounding, turnovers were the only part of defense it considered. It was malarkey.
Click to expand...
Ah, I don't think the graph was meant to be a "sufficient prediction." More of a "necessary prediction." Yes, I agree with you about Tulsa and GW.
 
stankeylegjones said:
Oh, sorry, yes it doesn’t include all relevant data if it’s missing rebounding data.

Now, would including UNC’s rebounding numbers help to bolster their predicted performance in March or not? I think so, if those numbers are good, and I think not, if the numbers are bad.

What are the numbers? (I’ve done a quick search but haven’t found anything. I do know that Greg has said that they haven’t been great, but not sure if he’s correct in his assessment.)
Click to expand...
UNC OR% 33.9
UNC DR% 28.0
NCAA avg 30.9
 
When you consider UK's lack of high end talent and playmaking it's not so surprising they are struggling

Didn't seem like a final 4 roster with Lowe/JQ and without them it is little more than an overpaid roster of role players

Getting nothing from Jasper Johnson is rough. His minutes have been all over the place
 
Heelsandeers said:
When you consider UK's lack of high end talent and playmaking it's not so surprising they are struggling

Didn't seem like a final 4 roster with Lowe/JQ and without them it is little more than an overpaid roster of role players

Getting nothing from Jasper Johnson is rough. His minutes have been all over the place
Click to expand...
They’ve had a lot of injuries as well.
 
So with the way things are going, how long before we have mid season trades in college basketball? It could happen at the end of the first semester.
 
Centerpiece said:
Elliot having a game. Commentators slobbering all over him.
Michigan rolls.
Click to expand...

Might look that way from the box score

Michigan St came back from 17 down to take the lead in the second half

Michigan up 3 points with 4:30 to go and Elliot scored or assisted on 8 straight to secure it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top