2025-26 Roster

[leo from jersey]

I wonder if Rayvon or Betsey will decide they like their odds returning over trying to get minutes elsewhere, hope to come back for a "prove it" year at a high level, then get paid next year. They can both play the 4 and I think there's a chance either could win the role over the guys we have right now. Have to think Wes is looking to add at least one more PF to the mix to compete for minutes at that position.

PG, SG and C seem pretty much settled. SF Harris/Abaev likely have they majority of minutes locked down as well, though it seems less certain.

But PF seems like a position Wes is getting guys who aren't clearly good enough to be given the starting spot and telling them he'll give them a chance. I could see Rayvon or Betsey (or a guy like them, trying to prove themselves at the high major level) looking at Celestine (undersized, not great at defense or rebounding), Haynes (moving up a level, probably not quick enough to guard 4's and fouls too much) and McKinley (redshirt freshman, unknown, coming off a major knee injury) and saying to themselves, I can win the starting role (or at least 15-20 minutes per game) over those 3.

I can see the guys in the portal staying there.

[Oldtimer_UC_fan]

I can see the guys in the portal staying there.

Me too, Leo, especially Griffith.

[sedz]

I wonder if Rayvon or Betsey will decide they like their odds returning over trying to get minutes elsewhere, hope to come back for a "prove it" year at a high level, then get paid next year. They can both play the 4 and I think there's a chance either could win the role over the guys we have right now. Have to think Wes is looking to add at least one more PF to the mix to compete for minutes at that position.

PG, SG and C seem pretty much settled. SF Harris/Abaev likely have they majority of minutes locked down as well, though it seems less certain.

But PF seems like a position Wes is getting guys who aren't clearly good enough to be given the starting spot and telling them he'll give them a chance. I could see Rayvon or Betsey (or a guy like them, trying to prove themselves at the high major level) looking at Celestine (undersized, not great at defense or rebounding), Haynes (moving up a level, probably not quick enough to guard 4's and fouls too much) and McKinley (redshirt freshman, unknown, coming off a major knee injury) and saying to themselves, I can win the starting role (or at least 15-20 minutes per game) over those 3.

I think the big question with Celestine is can he be a good rebounder if he's asked to hit the glass. Omier put up ridiculous rebounding numbers for Baylor and didn't leave as many chances for other players. So was Ojianwuna before he got hurt. Edgecombe was a good rebounder for a wing. Rebounding wasn't Celestine's role at Baylor. But he certainly hasn't proven that he can rebound. At Cal he played the 3 and didn't really rebound at all.

The upside is he's a dependable shooter who doesn't make a lot of mistakes and put up the best production of his career in Big12 play, posting a 2.6 BPM in conference mostly at the 4. Still, I'd rather take my chances with a hard nosed slasher like Durugordon, even if he's a bit undersized and doesn't play great defense.

[swilsonsp4]

I can see the guys in the portal staying there.

Per Chad Brendel, none of the UC players who went into the portal will return.

[zykarious]

I think the big question with Celestine is can he be a good rebounder if he's asked to hit the glass. Omier put up ridiculous rebounding numbers for Baylor and didn't leave as many chances for other players. So was Ojianwuna before he got hurt. Edgecombe was a good rebounder for a wing. Rebounding wasn't Celestine's role at Baylor. But he certainly hasn't proven that he can rebound. At Cal he played the 3 and didn't really rebound at all.

The upside is he's a dependable shooter who doesn't make a lot of mistakes and put up the best production of his career in Big12 play, posting a 2.6 BPM in conference mostly at the 4. Still, I'd rather take my chances with a hard nosed slasher like Durugordon, even if he's a bit undersized and doesn't play great defense.

In favor of your argument, Celestine's rebound percentage in conference was 10.1%. I've been watching some of his games and he looks bigger and more capable of bodying guys in the post than I expected from the stats. He has some Josh Reed similarities, like Reed, he seems to be an athletically limited guy who plays smart and within his capability. The defense complaints from Baylor fans likely stem in part from the fact that he played the 4, but can't really jump or provide help defense in the paint. But hopefully Thiam will take care of that. On offense he mostly hangs out on the perimeter and isn't going to fly in and grab offensive rebounds (3.9% ORB% in conference is pretty bad).

Overall, he looks like a reliable veteran, who you know what you are getting from. Though would rather have him at the 3, as I'd like to get better rebounding out of the 4.

I'd like to get one more up-and-comer type (either young, from a smaller conference or both), I'm okay with Celestine as the fall back plan if other guys don't work out. But I don't want him penciled in as a starter.

[zykarious]

Slightly worse per Torvik. We began last season at #27. Our projected roster right now would be #30.

Seems accurate, last years projections counted on Skillings and Simas not regressing. If I'm comparing to what we thought we had on paper last preseason, I'd say we're about equal. But compared to the product on the court... well hopefully the product on the court is closer to what we are on paper than last year.

We should be improved or at least no worse at PG, SG and C as long as we stay healthy. Jizzle and Day Day are returning and I always expect at least small improvements from returners. Kriisa and Harris should be an improvement over Hickman (injured and a bust) and Fredrick (oft injured). Thiam's floor is about the level Aziz played at last year and his ceiling is far higher, hoping he takes a Sophomore jump and is an improvement, Haynes should be a better backup C than Page.

SF: Harris is probably a small improvement over Reed. Celestine for Reed is close to a wash, Abaev I'm not ready to say is an improvement over Skillings/Simas,

PF: Looks like the position we've gotten significantly worse. Mitchell did a lot well and nothing too poorly (besides shoot FT's). Everyone who looks likely to play the position this year seems to have major flaws (Celestine, Haynes) or is a complete unknown (McKinley). Need one of those guys to exceed my expectations or need another portal addition.

[sedz]

Lots of good insight zykarious. I agree that PF is the biggest downgrade, but it's also the easiest place to play someone out of position. PF is the swing position between 4 guard and 2 big lineups. We can tailor to our opponents. I don't have much confidence in Wes actually doing that though - I'd much rather bring in an experienced 4.

[JohnFrancis]

Would it be accurate to say that (maybe) the 'Cats will have a marginally better roster for 25-26 than 24-25
but the BIG 12 (as a whole) will be significantly better which means we're just treading water?

[London 'Cat]

Would it be accurate to say that (maybe) the 'Cats will have a marginally better roster for 25-26 than 24-25
but the BIG 12 (as a whole) will be significantly better which means we're just treading water?

It seems UC has separated itself from the bottom of the conference standings compared to last season. However, the top of the conference also improved their rosters as well. What that means for UC is likely another season in the middle of the conference standings at best.

[red_n_black_attack]

FWIW, here's Torvik's minutes distribution with the newest additions.

PG: Kriisa 25 / Day Day 8 / Tillery 7
SG: James 21 / Day Day 19
SF: Harris 15 / Abaev 13 / James 11 / Celestine 1
PF: Celestine 25 / Haynes 11 / McKinley 4
C: Thiam 30 / Haynes 10

I think we will have some times when Harris or Celestine are the SG. I like the flexibility to go big and envision a few rotations where we have either of the ones below. The ability for guys to play multiple positions should be a big boost. I like that we have two big time recruits, but hate that we will need them to contribute. If Tillery and Abaev can stake a claim to significant minutes, along with McKinley, then this team should be able to run a deep rotation to stay fresh.

PG Kriisa/Tillery/Day Day/James
SG Celestine/Harris
SF Abaev/Harris
PF Haynes/McKinley
C Thiam

Or go smaller
PG Kriisa/Tillery
SG James/ Day Day
SF Abaev/Harris
PF Haynes
C McKinley

We currently have 11 of 15 roster spots filled. I wouldn't mind adding another guard if he has low turnover rate and can shoot well beyond the arc, but those guys are mostly gone. My biggest hope is to add a true PF and a combo SF/PF. One more center would also be nice. Foul trouble could cause concerns or limit flexibility. I hope we aren't done with 11 players.

[sedz]

Torvik has released his first 2026 projections. We come in at #36. Our talent rating is #18.

[swilsonsp4]

Torvik has released his first 2026 projections. We come in at #36. Our talent rating is #18.

Do those metrics spell out the reason for the disparity between the overall and the talent ratings?

[London 'Cat]

Do those metrics spell out the reason for the disparity between the overall and the talent ratings?

Team chemistry? Coaching? I’m interested in learning that too.

[sedz]

Yes, for sure. Kenpom and Torvik have many inputs in their models, including coaches or at least prior seasons. In fact, before substitution data came along, models were almost entirely team based. Most models now (including Torvik) use the 16 step player based system laid out by Dan Hanner in Basketball Prospectus back in 2012: https://web.archive.org/web/20130530...articleid=2415

Hanner prescribed an adjustment giving "high weight to the most recent season for each coach, but also some weight to all historic seasons". Torvik says "each coach has their own ratings on offense and defense, which are based on their past performance compared to their school's overall program mean". Kenpom says "The components and weighting are based on a regression of the past nine seasons ... Projected offense is largely determined by the quality of a team’s offense over the previous three seasons."

I don't have a model myself. I'm just using BPM as a crude first building block. It's easy to see what effect adding a player or changing minutes distribution will have. And it's pretty close. My crude NetRtg calc using BPM only for this year's roster was 17.6. We ended at 16.3 in Torvik's model and 14.9 on Kenpom. So their models do think we are worse than what you'd expect from the roster alone.

Hanner closed that article with "Data can't tell us everything about the upcoming season. There will always be surprises, and that's what makes college basketball great. But the techniques for predicting the season are getting better, and through them we can gain insight into teams we may have overvalued or overlooked."

This post from the portal thread talks about all the adjustments.

Poor coach performance from prior years (bad offense) and low returning minutes are probably the biggest reasons for our disparity.

A good example in the opposite direction is Purdue: #27 in talent but #2 overall because of good coaching and roster continuity.

[GoBearcats31]

@GoBearcatsMBB tweeted "It all starts with 1 and 2" with pics of Jizzle and Day Day. Day Day obviously never hit the portal but this is further confirmation he is back.