UNC Men’s Basketball 2025-2026

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 487
  • Views: 10K
  • UNC Sports 
Not sure if you have been following the discussion or the specific metric being discussed

But we’re calling it out because it makes zero sense and no one seems to know how it’s calculated

The actual power rankings (pre-season) have been much more in the line with the results for UNC (and every team) than this “talent” metric we are discussing

Which was first introduced to the thread as support that HD is in fact working with plenty of talent. We are simply saying (whether you agree that he is or is not) that metric isn’t proof of it
I understand the specific metric being discussed.

My point is that ratings aren’t automatically garbage or useless just because you cherry pick an outlier like Florida being ranked in the 30s last season.
 
Not sure if you have been following the discussion or the specific metric being discussed

But we’re calling it out because it makes zero sense and no one seems to know how it’s calculated

The actual power rankings (pre-season) have been much more in the line with the results for UNC (and every team) than this “talent” metric we are discussing

Which was first introduced to the thread as support that HD is in fact working with plenty of talent. We are simply saying (whether you agree that he is or is not) that metric isn’t proof of it
that the talent rating "makes zero sense and no one seems to know how its calculated" is incorrect.

see snoop's post in this thread, #466.

"composite recruiting ranks weighted for minutes played" certainly isn't perfect but isn't completely nonsensical.

in short, looks like we've had some players that were relatively highly rated recruits that didn't live up to their billing, which may include some bad luck but likely also includes some combination of issues with evaluation, development, coaching, strategy, etc. from HD and staff.
 
Last edited:
Power ratings were the only reason we made the tournament last year.
Ya know, in that comment I also had another point typed out about how our fans hate advanced metrics but conveniently gloss over the fact that they work in our favor last season. I’m kinda over debating this though haha.
 
I understand the specific metric being discussed.

My point is that ratings aren’t automatically garbage or useless just because you cherry pick an outlier like Florida being ranked in the 30s last season.

Obviously there are going to be outliers. The issue is it has little to no correlation to the predictive metrics (that actually tend to be pretty accurate)

Talent = good players = good teams = winning more games. For the most part

If a talent metric is consistently putting bad or average teams near the top and completely missing on good ones then it isn’t telling us much, if anything useful

that the talent rating "makes zero sense and no one seems to know how its calculated" is incorrect.

see snoop's post in this thread, #466.

"composite recruiting ranks weighted for minutes played" certainly isn't perfect but isn't completely nonsensical.

in short, looks like we've had some players that were relatively highly rated recruits that didn't live up to their billing, which may include some bad luck but likely also includes some combination of issues with misevaluation, development, coaching, strategy, etc. from HD and staff.

I saw the post and was including SnoopRob in the no one. That explanation seems to be on the right track

I still need to see whatever math it is that rates 2025 #4 Auburn below #210 Longwood

If those were the results of a metric I created I would probably consider changing it
 
I saw the post and was including SnoopRob in the no one. That explanation seems to be on the right track

I still need to see whatever math it is that rates 2025 #4 Auburn below #210 Longwood

If those were the results of a metric I created I would probably consider changing it
i mean.....composite recruit rankings are what they are. maybe he's adding too much weight to the minutes played aspect.

pretty sure that auburn team had a bunch of transfers that pearl plucked from obscurity and junior colleges and whatnot.

i can't figure out how to view past year talent ratings on his site but this year's looks extremely spot-on.....top 10 is all heavyweight programs. hell, the top 50 is all monied, power programs who you figure will have all of the best players. we clock in at 13.
 
i mean.....composite recruit rankings are what they are. maybe he's adding too much weight to the minutes played aspect.

pretty sure that auburn team had a bunch of transfers that pearl plucked from obscurity and junior colleges and whatnot.

i can't figure out how to view past year talent ratings on his site but this year's looks extremely spot-on.....top 10 is all heavyweight programs. hell, the top 50 is all monied, power programs who you figure will have all of the best players. we clock in at 13.
Dude, did you see my post about this? He had Louisville as the #7 most talented team the year they went 8-24. Notre Dame went 13-20 with the #10 most talent. Now maybe those teams just had epic, epic fails at the same time, but it seems more likely that the unexplained method is just shitty.

"Based on composite recruiting rankings" is not a methodology. It's not meaningful. It's like rating a car and when someone asks you, how did you decide this car was a top 10 vehicle, you say, "based on its performance." That's fine if you explain performance somewhere else; otherwise, it's so vague as to make handwaving seem exact by comparison.

And as another poster pointed out, they had UVa #4 last year. I mean, come on.
 
Back
Top