Hubert Davis Catch-all

[Calheel]

I'd say teams performing around the top 8-10 are considered serious contenders for the final weekend. I don't think I'm in the minority here. In fact, I'd say the vast majority of folks agree with that. Hence, why I didn't think it needed to be stated.

What do you consider the cutoff for teams to be considered serious contenders for the final weekend?

Any team that could legitimately make a final four run. We were certainly in that group after the first Duke game.

 

[Calheel]

I didnt say it wouldnt have. I agree with you that we will never know. That’s why we have to judge the team on what actually happened, not “what if.” People have a tendency to count these sort of “what if” scenarios as an assumption that the rosiest scenario would have occurred.

And that is why I grade this year as an incomplete. Which in some ways is the worst possible outcome.

 

[stankeylegjones]

Any team that could legitimately make a final four run. We were certainly in that group after the first Duke game.

Based on what exactly would you put us in that group?

Like I said, those teams performing around the level of a top 8-10 team legitimately could make a final four run. Outside of that, you're looking at dark horses and/or teams who'd need a lot of their bracket to break right.

 

[Bigs23]

Which Top 25 team would not be severely hamstrung losing its best player?

 

[Mulberry Heel]

I'm going to steal rodo's list and work from there:

Tier 1: "I really doubt they leave their current school but you gotta call and ask"

• Tommy Lloyd
• Dusty May
• Matt Painter
• Todd Golden (personally, I'd have him off the board anyway for personal reasons, but I understand if others don't)

Tier 2: "The top realistic targets"

• TJ Olzeberger (my personal choice)
• Nate Oats

Tier 3: "Minor potential concerns but still good hires on paper"

• Brad Underwood (too old?)
• Fred Hoiberg (How lasting will his success at Nebraska be, and does he still really want the NBA?)
• Mark Byington (can he be elite, or just consistently very good?)
• Ryan Odom (would really love to see another good year at UVA first)

___________________________

IMO Brad Stevens is 1A above any of rodo's Tier 1. Obtainable? Likely not. But he's a slam dunk. Tommy Lloyd is 1B. Dusty May is a clear 2 with Painter at 3. Todd Golden is an absolute no for me. TJ and Nate are both a clear step down to me... I'd call them 4-ish. High risk, potential high reward... similar to the risk we took with HD. Would prefer we don't go there. I don't like Oates, so for me the options end with Painter, but TJ is worst case scenario if we are determined to fire HD and move on whether we get better or not.

I'm not weighing into whether Hubert should be retained or let go as head coach, but I am skeptical that Brad Stevens is a slam dunk. He hasn't coached a single game of college basketball in well over a decade, and the college game has changed enormously since then in terms of paying players and easy transfer rules. For all intents and purposes the college sports world he coached in doesn't really exist anymore. Yes he has NBA connections and was a great young coach in his day, and he might indeed be able to return to a college coaching gig and do well right away, but I wouldn't call him a slam dunk hire, imo. TBH I don't think he will ever return to college coaching given how much he's making as an NBA team executive, so it's very unlikely to happen anyway.

 

[Calheel]

Based on what exactly would you put us in that group?

Like I said, those teams performing around the level of a top 8-10 team legitimately could make a final four run. Outside of that, you're looking at dark horses and/or teams who'd need a lot of their bracket to break right.

Every team is a dark horse. Even a 1 seed is only 42% likely to make the final four. And a two seed is about 25%. So almost all teams need everything to break right to make the Final Four.

 

[stankeylegjones]

Every team is a dark horse. Even a 1 seed is only 42% likely to make the final four. And a two seed is about 25%. So almost all teams need everything to break right to make the Final Four.

I don't think many, at all, agree with your statement that every team is a dark horse. But, given that term is ambiguous, there is no use in arguing over it.

Now, back to my question, based on what exactly would you put us in that group ("any team that legitimately could make a run for the final four")? And what is your cutoff for determining "any team that legitimately could make a run for the final four?"