NCAA Tournament thread

[swilsonsp4]

I might create a thread for the Way Too Early rankings. Usually these things had some semblance of being reasonable. Not anymore. It's ludicrous to attempt this exercise in the NIL era. They don't even know who's going on be each team yet.

It's pretty much "Round up the usual suspects" right now. Lots of recency bias.

[Lobot]

Hope this is the right place to post this...'Cats not even in considered in top '35' for next year:

https://247sports.com/longformarticle/college-basketballs-way-too-early-top-25-odds-for-2024-25-march-madness-kansas-unc-duke-cooper-flagg-alabama-nate-oats-230149733/#2402992

I might create a thread for the Way Too Early rankings. Usually these things had some semblance of being reasonable. Not anymore. It's ludicrous to attempt this exercise in the NIL era. They don't even know who's going on be each team yet.

[JohnFrancis]

Hope this is the right place to post this...'Cats not even in considered in top '35' for next year:

https://247sports.com/longformarticle/college-basketballs-way-too-early-top-25-odds-for-2024-25-march-madness-kansas-unc-duke-cooper-flagg-alabama-nate-oats-230149733/#2402992

[GoBearcats31]

Dan Hurley after UConn fell to Villanova to drop to 10-7 in January 2020 -- “People better get us now. That's all, you better get us now. It's coming.”

Cue up the Wes Miller "we're coming" post game interview clip from several weeks ago.

[GoBearcats31]

UConn is now one of eight programs to have gone back-to-back, including your Cincinnati Bearcats in 1961 and 1962.

UC's trophy room is getting awfully dusty.

[longtimefan]

Down to the Final. Who ya got?

I'm rooting against them because of Dan Hurley but I think UConn wins. However, I'll predict Edey is going to clean the glass against Clingan. Clingan got outrebounded by Grant Nelson 15 to 5 in the semi last night.

It’s a shame one of them has to win.

[bearcatbret]

I normally would say Purdue just because one of my closest friends from high school went there. However, I work for an Indiana based company where the majority of the employees are from Purdue and I really do not want to listen to them and see all of the random company-wide emails. I will not cheer for UConn though.

[Lobot]

Down to the Final. Who ya got?

I'm rooting against them because of Dan Hurley but I think UConn wins. However, I'll predict Edey is going to clean the glass against Clingan. Clingan got outrebounded by Grant Nelson 15 to 5 in the semi last night.

[leeraymond]

The "rim" is considered within 5 feet, basically in the restricted area. Tear drops, floaters, baby hooks, etc generally come from outside 5 feet. Within the rim area it's usually off glass or finger rolls. It's a significant dividing line in conversion percentage. In the NBA, within 5 ft, the median is 64% and every team makes over 58%. Between 5 and 10 ft, the median is 43% and every team makes under 50% (this is why "in the paint" is meaningless - the paint away from the rim is a bad shot). It gets worse as you move out. There's more than a 20% difference in conversion rate between the rim and all other twos.

NBA teams took less than 3 threes per game until 1985, less than 10 until 1995, and less than 20 until 2013. NBA teams shoot more than 35 threes per game today. It is not the same game. It doesn't matter how old I am. I can be 12 or 112. There are stats and video from all across basketball history that are more reliable than anyone's memory, young or old. We struggle to accurately remember what just happened a few games ago, much less 45 years ago.

It is the SAME game, just different approaches to playing it.

[Lobot]

Pepperidge farm remembers....... (Sorry)

[sedz]

When I hear at the rim, I do not necessarily think layups. I went back and watched some replays of that UCONN game. There were many layups. There were also many shots that were NOT layups but were about 5 five feet from the rim. To me those types of shots are NOT at the rim. However, the people who define what is basketball probably would disagree with me. All close shots are NOT at the rim. A lot of the players these days just use the floater to approach that type of shot.

Yeah, UCONN did play some pretty good defense. It is going to be interesting to see what UCONN's defensive strategy will be against Alabama.

By the way, I am not that old. I just remember a lot of old stuff (some of the time). However, it sounds like I am older than you. The one thing that you will realize Sedz is that there is not a whole lot that is new about basketball. It is just repackaged and given a different name. In fact, the three-point shot is 45 years old. Thus, using the three-point shot as offensive strategy is 45 years old. Teams are just using it differently and calling it something else.

The "rim" is considered within 5 feet, basically in the restricted area. Tear drops, floaters, baby hooks, etc generally come from outside 5 feet. Within the rim area it's usually off glass or finger rolls. It's a significant dividing line in conversion percentage. In the NBA, within 5 ft, the median is 64% and every team makes over 58%. Between 5 and 10 ft, the median is 43% and every team makes under 50% (this is why "in the paint" is meaningless - the paint away from the rim is a bad shot). It gets worse as you move out. There's more than a 20% difference in conversion rate between the rim and all other twos.

NBA teams took less than 3 threes per game until 1985, less than 10 until 1995, and less than 20 until 2013. NBA teams shoot more than 35 threes per game today. It is not the same game. It doesn't matter how old I am. I can be 12 or 112. There are stats and video from all across basketball history that are more reliable than anyone's memory, young or old. We struggle to accurately remember what just happened a few games ago, much less 45 years ago.

[leeraymond]

This is literally positionless basketball. Your players guard every position. You can do whatever you want on offense.


North Korea is a democratic republic.


UConn scored 48 points at the RIM. And they do it by vacating the middle. Karaban and Clingan are up high setting off ball screens and slipping. It's not an old school, back to the basket post offense. It's the horns set popularized by Mike D'Antoni. They only took 8 midrange shots all game. That's modern basketball. It's not just chuck up threes. It's avoiding the low probability midrange. Yes, most of the time it means more threes. But if you can get what you want at the rim, you don't have to shoot threes. UConn won that game with defense though. Illinois was 3 of 16 from midrange. They scored 0.38 points per possession on that shot. They would have only scored 26 points for the whole game if that was their offense over 70 possessions.

When I hear at the rim, I do not necessarily think layups. I went back and watched some replays of that UCONN game. There were many layups. There were also many shots that were NOT layups but were about 5 five feet from the rim. To me those types of shots are NOT at the rim. However, the people who define what is basketball probably would disagree with me. All close shots are NOT at the rim. A lot of the players these days just use the floater to approach that type of shot.

Yeah, UCONN did play some pretty good defense. It is going to be interesting to see what UCONN's defensive strategy will be against Alabama.

By the way, I am not that old. I just remember a lot of old stuff (some of the time). However, it sounds like I am older than you. The one thing that you will realize Sedz is that there is not a whole lot that is new about basketball. It is just repackaged and given a different name. In fact, the three-point shot is 45 years old. Thus, using the three-point shot as offensive strategy is 45 years old. Teams are just using it differently and calling it something else.

[sedz]

Teams are NOT positionless just because they play defense with lots of cross checking and switching man-to-man principles. That is how most NBA teams play defense. It is more efficient to do that as opposed to chasing your man all over the floor. Also, switching defense is used to play against the pick and roll to take away driving lanes and open shots off of those screens.

This is literally positionless basketball. Your players guard every position. You can do whatever you want on offense.

Even when players are introduced before games or are listed on the roster, there is a position associated with that player or is listed next to their names.

North Korea is a democratic republic.

Concerning the three-point shot versus the "inefficient mid-range shot. UCONN beat Illinois by 25 points last week and only hit 3 threes. I know that you will say that UCONN got to the rim a lot. You are right if you are thinking that. They hit for 52 points in the PAINT. However, those paint shots were an assortment of layups, floaters, and mid-range shots. A team can win by taking higher probability lower scoring shots (2 point shot). I understand the logic to taking the three instead of the mid-range. However, what happens when the three-point shot is NOT working that particular game? I guess in the world of modern basketball, the team will continue to take that low probability shot and go down with the three. "Live by the three and die by the three".

UConn scored 48 points at the RIM. And they do it by vacating the middle. Karaban and Clingan are up high setting off ball screens and slipping. It's not an old school, back to the basket post offense. It's the horns set popularized by Mike D'Antoni. They only took 8 midrange shots all game. That's modern basketball. It's not just chuck up threes. It's avoiding the low probability midrange. Yes, most of the time it means more threes. But if you can get what you want at the rim, you don't have to shoot threes. UConn won that game with defense though. Illinois was 3 of 16 from midrange. They scored 0.38 points per possession on that shot. They would have only scored 26 points for the whole game if that was their offense over 70 possessions.

[leeraymond]

Right, so Alabama's defense is worse than Detroit because they give up more points per game. That makes sense.

Denver plays completely positionless when Jokic isn't on the court. Skip to 6:45 in this video: https://twitter.com/NekiasNBA/status...167902720?s=20
They switch the screen and have Gordon on Chris Paul with a guard on big man Ayton. NBA teams do this all the time. Even when Jokic is out there the 2-4 positions are fluid. Gordon and Porter are defending guards. They aren't traditional bigs. Porter especially is a perimeter player on both ends. And again, Denver isn't even big compared to other NBA teams. Jokic is 6'11", normal for a center. The wings are 6'5", 6'8", 6'10", still normal for the NBA. The only real size difference between college and the pros is that wings and guards are a couple inches taller on average. Average NBA height is 6'7".

I never said positionless is new. Shooting a ton of threes and erasing the inefficient midrange shot is what's new. If your bigs can't deal with that, your team is going to struggle. Going positionless is just one strategy to adjust to the modern game in an era where there are fewer big players with enough quickness to compete. This isn't the 90s. You can't run Greg Ostertag out there with Karl Malone anymore. Or Rik Smits with Dale Davis. I brought up our past teams without traditional bigs when we first had this discussion over a month ago:


I get the feeling you are an old guy because...
Don't do that.

Teams are NOT positionless just because they play defense with lots of cross checking and switching man-to-man principles. That is how most NBA teams play defense. It is more efficient to do that as opposed to chasing your man all over the floor. Also, switching defense is used to play against the pick and roll to take away driving lanes and open shots off of those screens. It is only coaches like Miller that does not play switching man-to-man and cross-checking defenses. Playing that way does NOT make the team positionless. Within the course of a game, especially an NBA game, anybody may end up guarding anybody else because of randomness of movement when a basketball game is in effect. That is basketball. The year that Larry Davis took over for Cronin, because of Cronin's medical issues, Davis played with nothing but switching man-to-man and hybrid man-to-man and zone defenses. It was beautiful to watch UC play defense that year. Also, UC ended up being one of the very best defenses in the country that year (ranked 6th I believe). However, UC still had a center, forwards, and guards.

Even when players are introduced before games or are listed on the roster, there is a position associated with that player or is listed next to their names.

Concerning the three-point shot versus the "inefficient mid-range shot. UCONN beat Illinois by 25 points last week and only hit 3 threes. I know that you will say that UCONN got to the rim a lot. You are right if you are thinking that. They hit for 52 points in the PAINT. However, those paint shots were an assortment of layups, floaters, and mid-range shots. A team can win by taking higher probability lower scoring shots (2 point shot). I understand the logic to taking the three instead of the mid-range. However, what happens when the three-point shot is NOT working that particular game? I guess in the world of modern basketball, the team will continue to take that low probability shot and go down with the three. "Live by the three and die by the three". I personally do not believe that is a good strategy. Different things will work on different nights. Go with what is working that game and get the win. Winning is the only thing.

[sedz]

Right, so Alabama's defense is worse than Detroit because they give up more points per game. That makes sense.

Denver plays completely positionless when Jokic isn't on the court. Skip to 6:45 in this video: https://twitter.com/NekiasNBA/status...167902720?s=20
They switch the screen and have Gordon on Chris Paul with a guard on big man Ayton. NBA teams do this all the time. Even when Jokic is out there the 2-4 positions are fluid. Gordon and Porter are defending guards. They aren't traditional bigs. Porter especially is a perimeter player on both ends. And again, Denver isn't even big compared to other NBA teams. Jokic is 6'11", normal for a center. The wings are 6'5", 6'8", 6'10", still normal for the NBA. The only real size difference between college and the pros is that wings and guards are a couple inches taller on average. Average NBA height is 6'7".

I never said positionless is new. Shooting a ton of threes and erasing the inefficient midrange shot is what's new. If your bigs can't deal with that, your team is going to struggle. Going positionless is just one strategy to adjust to the modern game in an era where there are fewer big players with enough quickness to compete. This isn't the 90s. You can't run Greg Ostertag out there with Karl Malone anymore. Or Rik Smits with Dale Davis. I brought up our past teams without traditional bigs when we first had this discussion over a month ago:

I don't think we need traditional bigs. Even at the NBA level most big centers are one dimensional. They're either scorers like Jokic/Embiid or rim protecters like Gobert/Davis. It's hard to be versatile at that size, unless you're a wiry unicorn like Wembanyama/Holmgren. And so some teams go without a big entirely.

Most of our great Bearcat teams didn't have a true center. We had frontcourts with Corie Blount & Erik Martin, Kenyon Martin & Pete Mickeal, Jason Maxiell & Eric Hicks, Justin Jackson & Tius Rubles, Kyle Washington & Gary Clark. None of those guys were over 6'9", and they could all move laterally. That lets you play a more positionless style so you can switch screens, press, and play help defense. Having big guards makes all that even easier. Of course we have also had our fair share of big, slow centers like Fortson and Yancy, but they aren't necessary to have a great team.

We've got McKinley and Betsey coming in, and I'm hoping that lets us play more positionless. Imagine the length we could have if Skillings is at the 2 instead of the 4. And hopefully more scoring options too.

I get the feeling you are an old guy because...
Don't do that.