PDA

View Full Version : MBB: "Way Too Early" Preseason Polls Collector Thread and Discussion



ncexnyc
04-03-2018, 11:26 AM
It's about time.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/22966716/college-basketball-way-too-early-top-25-rankings-2018-19

Troublemaker
04-03-2018, 11:29 AM
These "way too early" top 25s will be better to look at after all the NBA early entry, transfer, grad transfer, late commit, and reclass (if any) decisions are finalized. But for those interested... I've linked a few below.

It seems like there is a consensus developing that Kansas is preseason #1. I think that is solid, although I'd probably make UVA my preseason #1.

CBS (https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/2018-19-college-basketball-rankings-way-too-early-projection-has-kansas-and-duke-at-the-top/) - 1. Kansas, 2. Duke, 3. Nova, 4. Auburn, 5. Tennessee... ACC: 8. UVA, 9. UNC, 13. VaTech, 14. Lville, 15. FSU, 24. Clemson

SI (https://www.si.com/college-basketball/2018/04/03/ncaa-basketball-preseason-rankings-top-25-kansas-duke) - 1. Kansas, 2. Duke, 3. Nova, 4. Michigan, 5. Kentucky... ACC: 6. UNC, 7. UVA, 13. VaTech, 16. Clemson, 23. FSU

ESPN (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/22966716/college-basketball-way-too-early-top-25-rankings-2018-19) - 1. Kansas, 2. Duke, 3. Nova, 4. Kentucky, 5. Auburn... ACC: 7. UVA, 9. UNC, 15. Cuse, 16. VaTech, 18. Clemson, 23. FSU

Fox (https://www.foxsports.com/college-basketball/story/duke-is-no-1-in-way-too-early-ap-poll-for-2018-19-040318) - 1. Duke, 2. Kansas, 3. Nova, 4. Kentucky, 5. UNC... ACC: 8. UVA, 12. Lville, 16. VaTech, 24. FSU

TSN (http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/news/college-basketball-top-25-rankings-2018-2019-kentucky-duke-kansas-villanova-nba-draft/699qbsghlgh01sfheywp060ox) - 1. Kansas, 2. Duke, 3. Kentucky, 4. Nova, 5. UVA... ACC: 12. UNC, 19. VaTech, 24. ND

Yahoo (https://sports.yahoo.com/way-early-top-25-2018-19-college-basketball-season-033644755.html) - 1. Kansas, 2. Nova, 3. Duke, 4. UVA, 5. UNC... ACC: 15. VaTech, 16. Cuse, 18. FSU

USAT (https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2018/04/03/college-basketballs-super-early-2018-19-preseason-top-25-teams/480867002/) - 1. Kansas, 2. Duke, 3. UVA. 4. Nova, 5. Zaga... ACC: 9. UNC, 14. Lville, 16. VaTech, 20. FSU

NBC (http://collegebasketball.nbcsports.com/2018/04/02/2018-college-basketball-preseason-top-25/) - 1. Kansas, 2. Nova, 3. Kentucky, 4. Duke, 6. UVA... ACC: 11. UNC, 12. Lville, 13. VaTech, 15. FSU, 22. NCSU, 25. Clemson

Truth&Justise
04-03-2018, 11:30 AM
Well, it certainly is super early. Really need to wait until after the NBA draft.

And given Duke's extreme youth next year -- and possible lack of returning starters -- it's tough to make many accurate predictions for how good they'll be. But I know I'll enjoy the ride!

Still, wouldn't mind if a few publications didn't place those lofty expectations on us.

kAzE
04-03-2018, 11:31 AM
NBC . . . . . Wtf.

At least Vegas respects us. We currently have 5-1 odds to win the title.

I'm guessing these rankings assume everyone goes pro. If Trent returns, I think we jump to #1 in some of those.

dukelifer
04-03-2018, 11:35 AM
These "way too early" top 25s will be better to look at after all the NBA early entry, transfer, grad transfer, late commit, and reclass (if any) decisions are finalized. But for those interested... I've linked a few below.

It seems like there is a consensus developing that Kansas is preseason #1. I think that is solid, although I'd probably make UVA my preseason #1.

CBS (https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/2018-19-college-basketball-rankings-way-too-early-projection-has-kansas-and-duke-at-the-top/) - 1. Kansas, 2. Duke, 3. Nova, 4. Auburn, 5. Tennessee... ACC: 8. UVA, 9. UNC, 13. VaTech, 14. Lville, 15. FSU, 24. Clemson

SI (https://www.si.com/college-basketball/2018/04/03/ncaa-basketball-preseason-rankings-top-25-kansas-duke) - 1. Kansas, 2. Duke, 3. Nova, 4. Michigan, 5. Kentucky... ACC: 6. UNC, 7. UVA, 13. VaTech, 16. Clemson, 23. FSU

ESPN (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/22966716/college-basketball-way-too-early-top-25-rankings-2018-19) - 1. Kansas, 2. Duke, 3. Nova, 4. Kentucky, 5. Auburn... ACC: 7. UVA, 9. UNC, 15. Cuse, 16. VaTech, 18. Clemson, 23. FSU

Fox (https://www.foxsports.com/college-basketball/story/duke-is-no-1-in-way-too-early-ap-poll-for-2018-19-040318) - 1. Duke, 2. Kansas, 3. Nova, 4. Kentucky, 5. UNC... ACC: 8. UVA, 12. Lville, 16. VaTech, 24. FSU

TSN (http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/news/college-basketball-top-25-rankings-2018-2019-kentucky-duke-kansas-villanova-nba-draft/699qbsghlgh01sfheywp060ox) - 1. Kansas, 2. Duke, 3. Kentucky, 4. Nova, 5. UVA... ACC: 12. UNC, 19. VaTech, 24. ND

Yahoo (https://sports.yahoo.com/way-early-top-25-2018-19-college-basketball-season-033644755.html) - 1. Kansas, 2. Nova, 3. Duke, 4. UVA, 5. UNC... ACC: 15. VaTech, 16. Cuse, 18. FSU

USAT (https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2018/04/03/college-basketballs-super-early-2018-19-preseason-top-25-teams/480867002/) - 1. Kansas, 2. Duke, 3. UVA. 4. Nova, 5. Zaga... ACC: 9. UNC, 14. Lville, 16. VaTech, 20. FSU

NBC (http://collegebasketball.nbcsports.com/2018/04/02/2018-college-basketball-preseason-top-25/) - 1. Kansas, 2. Nova, 3. Kentucky, 4. Duke, 6. UVA... ACC: 11. UNC, 12. Lville, 13. VaTech, 15. FSU, 22. NCSU, 25. Clemson
Surprised Duke is there was so much inexperience. Based on yesterday, Nova should at least be 2. They have a strong core returning. I would also have UVa up near 3 or 4. I would put Duke at 10.

Troublemaker
04-03-2018, 11:46 AM
NBC . . . . . Wtf.

At least Vegas respects us. We currently have 5-1 odds to win the title.

I'm guessing these rankings assume everyone goes pro. If Trent returns, I think we jump to #1 in some of those.

There is probably some Duke-as-preseason-#1 fatigue. So even if Gary returns, I would not expect us to be ranked #1 in either these "way too early" ones or the real polls (AP, Coaches) right before the season starts.

Truth&Justise
04-03-2018, 11:47 AM
A non-Duke point: another thing to keep an eye on (along with transfers and draft decisions) is Phil Cofer's eligibility. A lot of these early rankings have FSU in the top 20, and they're certainly bringing back a talented core, full of giant-big men and scoring wings. But I don't see anyone else on the roster who can replicate Cofer's role as a stretch four. He was also their leading scorer this past year, so there's that, too.

The team is petitioning the NCAA for a hardship waiver based on Cofer's sophomore season, when he played only 11 games due to injury (https://www.foxsports.com/florida/story/phil-cofer-hopes-to-keep-playing-for-the-team-030218). But that is one game too many for the 30-percent cutoff for a medical redshirt. So FSU will have to wait out the NCAA decision on whether to grant a waiver. Anyone have insight on how the NCAA usually rules on those?

Troublemaker
04-03-2018, 12:04 PM
Based on yesterday, Nova should at least be 2. They have a strong core returning.

I'm okay with top 5 for them. Love Jay Wright and the Nova program, but even they are going to feel the losses of Mikal Bridges and Brunson. (Just like they took a season to fully recover from the losses of Arciadacano and Ochefu.) But, for the most part, they're going to purr right along. They might very well get a 1-seed again, as the Big East seems to be perfectly built for them to do so. Strong enough for high RPIs but no team strong enough to challenge them for the crown.


Surprised Duke is there was so much inexperience.

Shouldn't be surprised if you've looked at these things in previous seasons.


I would put Duke at 10.

It comes down to whether our guys can properly spread the floor for each other to operate. This season, we played defense on ourselves at times with only two good high-volume shooters on the court. If we can reliably shoot from more spots on the floor, I think we should be a strong contender to be in Minneapolis.

Reisen
04-03-2018, 12:10 PM
Shouldn't be surprised if you've looked at these things in previous seasons.



Agreed. This was a year where experience dominated in the tournament, but Duke was still a fraction of an inch from going to a FF while starting 4 freshmen. Of course, Duke's 2015 team showed one and dones can win it all, and UK has had success in the past with the approach.

I'm not at all surprised to see us with a top 3 ranking given our stellar recruiting class. If we get an unexpected return from someone like a Trent or Duval, all the better.

CDu
04-03-2018, 12:11 PM
Surprised Duke is there was so much inexperience. Based on yesterday, Nova should at least be 2. They have a strong core returning. I would also have UVa up near 3 or 4. I would put Duke at 10.

I think Duke and Nova are both TBD. Nova should lose Bridges (a projected lottery pick and of senior-year age already) and could likely lose Brunson (NPoY, two-time champ, probably a borderline first/second round pick). If both go, they suddenly have some real question marks. Plenty of talent returning, but lacking at the PG spot in a big way. And suddenly not nearly as deep without their two best scorers.

With Duke, it also depends a lot on who returns. If Bolden stays, we have a formidable frontcourt with versatility. If Bolden and Trent stay, we have an unbelievably deep, versatile group with enough shooting to make it work, and we won't be quite as reliant on the freshmen to carry the scoring load.

I'm comfortable with Duke as a top-5 preseason team, and above Nova if Brunson goes pro and at least one of Bolden/Trent returns.

sagegrouse
04-03-2018, 12:20 PM
NBC . . . . . Wtf.

At least Vegas respects us. We currently have 5-1 odds to win the title.

I'm guessing these rankings assume everyone goes pro. If Trent returns, I think we jump to #1 in some of those.

I dunno. I guess we will be a top ten team like this year (finishing at #9), and there's a chance, I suppose, we'll be better than that. Four freshman starters and no established returnees.

kAzE
04-03-2018, 12:27 PM
I dunno. I guess we will be a top ten team like this year (finishing at #9), and there's a chance, I suppose, we'll be better than that. Four freshman starters and no established returnees.

These way too early polls are usually a guess at how good these teams will be at the end of the season.

If we were to rank the teams based on how good they are in November 2018? I would put us maybe borderline top 10. But this team's ceiling will obviously be a national championship team.

I thought we were a strong contender this year as well, but an unfortunate shooting slump by both Grayson and Gary really hurt us in both games in Omaha.

Although we will be about as inexperienced as this year's club, I think the leadership void isn't as big a deal as some will make it out to be. In my opinion, RJ Barrett brings a level of leadership that we haven't seen in an incoming freshman before. The more interviews/video clips I watch, the more confident I am that he can carry the load both on the court and as a team leader. He's super vocal and ridiculously competitive. This kid is incredible in so many more ways than just as a basketball player. He's not gonna be a quiet guy like Grayson/Marvin. Duke fans are in for a treat.

arnie
04-03-2018, 12:28 PM
I dunno. I guess we will be a top ten team like this year (finishing at #9), and there's a chance, I suppose, we'll be better than that. Four freshman starters and no established returnees.

Agree with the above. We need to dampen expectations when we have very little team experience returning. This year we were preseason No. 1, escaped serious injury bug, finished 2nd in ACC and made Elite 8. I don’t think I’d expect next years team to do much better.

Do hope we sweep the Heels.

proelitedota
04-03-2018, 12:29 PM
If the 4 freshmen are at least as good as Carter and Trent, we should be a top 5 team. They're about similarly rated on recruiting sites as those two. Trent coming back would make our backcourt one of the strongest if not the strongest on paper in Duke history.

1, 3, 8, 12 rankings by recruiting services. I don't think think any other past teams are close.

FerryFor50
04-03-2018, 12:39 PM
I think Duke and Nova are both TBD. Nova should lose Bridges (a projected lottery pick and of senior-year age already) and could likely lose Brunson (NPoY, two-time champ, probably a borderline first/second round pick). If both go, they suddenly have some real question marks. Plenty of talent returning, but lacking at the PG spot in a big way. And suddenly not nearly as deep without their two best scorers.

With Duke, it also depends a lot on who returns. If Bolden stays, we have a formidable frontcourt with versatility. If Bolden and Trent stay, we have an unbelievably deep, versatile group with enough shooting to make it work, and we won't be quite as reliant on the freshmen to carry the scoring load.

I'm comfortable with Duke as a top-5 preseason team, and above Nova if Brunson goes pro and at least one of Bolden/Trent returns.

Was looking at Nova's roster to see who else was leaving as a senior and was surprised to see how many redshirt players they have.

6 redshirt players this year, including key players like Divincenzo, Bridges, Paschall, Spellman and Booth.

Do any other schools stash players as much?

flyingdutchdevil
04-03-2018, 12:46 PM
There is probably some Duke-as-preseason-#1 fatigue. So even if Gary returns, I would not expect us to be ranked #1 in either these "way too early" ones or the real polls (AP, Coaches) right before the season starts.

Based on talent, we're #1. Based on production, we're top 5. Certainly not 1.

If the last two years has proved anything, it's that pre-season should be based on production, not talent.

tbyers11
04-03-2018, 12:52 PM
Was looking at Nova's roster to see who else was leaving as a senior and was surprised to see how many redshirt players they have.

6 redshirt players this year, including key players like Divincenzo, Bridges, Paschall, Spellman and Booth.

Do any other schools stash players as much?

Of those key 5 only one (Bridges) was a voluntary redshirt. DiVincenzo and Booth were injury redshirts. Paschall was a transfer from Fordham and Spellman was academically ineligible.

Uva definitely redshirts, particularly big men. Others have mentioned Notre Dame and Wisconsin. I know that Ethan Happ was a planned redshirt in 2015, the year we beat Wisconsin for the national championship.

CDu
04-03-2018, 01:17 PM
Was looking at Nova's roster to see who else was leaving as a senior and was surprised to see how many redshirt players they have.

6 redshirt players this year, including key players like Divincenzo, Bridges, Paschall, Spellman and Booth.

Do any other schools stash players as much?

As has been discussed in a couple of other threads (not picking on you Ferry, just noting it), that is a bit misleading. Yes, they have 6 guys on the roster who have redshirted. But 3 of them were injury redshirts: Booth (a costly missing piece last year in what would have been his junior year), Divincenzo (missed most of his freshman year), and another guy who missed two seasons with hip injuries and doesn't see the court much. Another was a transfer (Paschall, who transferred after his freshman year from Fordham). And the last was an academically ineligible freshman (Spellman, a top-20 recruit who also would have made a big impact on last year's team). Only Bridges was a healthy true redshirt.

I would venture that there are a lot of teams with several "redshirt" guys on the roster who sat out a year due to injury or transfer. There probably aren't any teams that have a bunch of true redshirts on their roster.

Ian
04-03-2018, 01:30 PM
With the amount of youth, I'd say top 10, 2nd or 3 rd place in the ACC and SW16 to E8 finish should be the realistic expectation for next year..

PackMan97
04-03-2018, 01:39 PM
NBC . . . . . Wtf.

NBC also has the Pack listed because wait for it...too many guards!!! :eek:

Speaking of red shirts, State will have four redshirts on the court next year (all transfers). Torin Dorn, CJ Bryce, Devon Daniels, and Blake Harris. Should I buy tickets to the see State win it all next year?

Dukehky
04-03-2018, 01:45 PM
All recruiting classes are not created equal. There are several of those way-too-early columns that say that this is Duke's best recruiting class ever. 4 top 10 recruits is great, but Barrett would be ranked below Carter and Bagley from this year's class. They are super talented, that's for sure, but this year's team lost what? 8 games. Next year's team isn't going to be as good as this year's, just depends on some luck and how the rest of the country looks.

We're going to be having the exact same types of discussions next year like we did this year. Can the team defend, who is the leader, why doesn't the bench play more, etc., etc.

It's going to be a fun team to watch, I think. If Trent somehow comes back, we definitely have a chance to be really good, we probably have a chance to be really good anyway. But I thought this year's team was going to be incredible, tough to beat, lose maybe 2/3 games and get to the FF for sure.

I don't have any of that in my mind for next year unless Trent and Carter or come back.

All that being said, there is a Stones on next year's team...

TexHawk
04-03-2018, 01:47 PM
Saw rumors this morning that Divincenzo is pretty much gone, as he may have boosted himself into the 1st round.

All of the KU love is assuming Malik Newman stays, which is... not happening. Will still be good by March though, w/o Newman it still may be the deepest KU team ever. Mitch Lightfoot is going from 6th man and sometimes-starter to the 6th big man in the rotation (depending on how you classify the Lawsons). Still in it for Romeo Langford too. Will definitely struggle with perimeter shooting, which is an interesting contrast to this year's team.

Don't sleep on K-State. They bring back everyone and now have tournament experience. Dean Wade will be a senior and healthy, and likely Big12 POY. If KU/KSU are both top 10 teams, it will make the conference season interesting, as the regional is back in Kansas City next year, and only one of them can get it.

duke4ever19
04-03-2018, 01:57 PM
All that being said, there is a Stones on next year's team...

Tyus earned that nickname over the course of the season. Tre will have to do likewise, before I apply that nickname to him.


With the amount of youth, I'd say top 10, 2nd or 3 rd place in the ACC and SW16 to E8 finish should be the realistic expectation for next year..

I think we will be at best a 2-seed or a 3-seed in next year's NCAA tournament. We will hang around the top 10 all year. I don't expect a Final Four from this group. Of course, I'd love to be wrong.

richardjackson199
04-03-2018, 02:01 PM
All recruiting classes are not created equal. There are several of those way-too-early columns that say that this is Duke's best recruiting class ever. 4 top 10 recruits is great, but Barrett would be ranked below Carter and Bagley from this year's class. They are super talented, that's for sure, but this year's team lost what? 8 games. Next year's team isn't going to be as good as this year's, just depends on some luck and how the rest of the country looks.

We're going to be having the exact same types of discussions next year like we did this year. Can the team defend, who is the leader, why doesn't the bench play more, etc., etc.

It's going to be a fun team to watch, I think. If Trent somehow comes back, we definitely have a chance to be really good, we probably have a chance to be really good anyway. But I thought this year's team was going to be incredible, tough to beat, lose maybe 2/3 games and get to the FF for sure.

I don't have any of that in my mind for next year unless Trent and Carter or come back.

All that being said, there is a Stones on next year's team...

And I think it's very safe to assume Carter, Trent, and Duval are all gone. The question mark to me is Bolden. No clue here, but I'm afraid he may be as likely as 50% to not be at Duke next year either. I think our most important recruit right now for next season is #1 Marques Bolden and #2 E.J. Montgomery. I hope they're not mutually exclusive, but Montgomery appears to be waiting for who is leaving/coming back at all of his options prior to making a decision.

I obviously don't really know where Duval or Trent will be drafted. And I have no clue, but I don't think it's going to matter much. I really think they are gone like Frank Jackson.

I'm obviously taking a much lowered expectations approach to next year, but hoping for the best.

And I really hope DiVencenzo, Mikal Bridges, and Brunson are all gone. Please give Jay Wright the least firepower possible. Hell I hope Cam Johnson is gone. But Roy usually finds a way to convince them to stay. I hope Malik Newman is gone.

We'll know more after the draft. I was pretty worried last year about Duke's prospects, and sure didn't see Bagley coming as of this time last year. K usually finds a way to put together a team capable of competing for a Natty. That is the best we can hope for, so we'll see what happens. I expect a very young team with a lot of growing pains, and hope I'm wrong.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
04-03-2018, 02:08 PM
NBC also has the Pack listed because wait for it...too many guards!!! :eek:

Speaking of red shirts, State will have four redshirts on the court next year (all transfers). Torin Dorn, CJ Bryce, Devon Daniels, and Blake Harris. Should I buy tickets to the see State win it all next year?

What selfless and amazing young men!

Dukehky
04-03-2018, 02:12 PM
And I think it's very safe to assume Carter, Trent, and Duval are all gone. The question mark to me is Bolden. No clue here, but I'm afraid he may be as likely as 50% to not be at Duke next year either. I think our most important recruit right now for next season is #1 Marques Bolden and #2 E.J. Montgomery. I hope they're not mutually exclusive, but Montgomery appears to be waiting for who is leaving/coming back at all of his options prior to making a decision.

I obviously don't really know where Duval or Trent will be drafted. And I have no clue, but I don't think it's going to matter much. I really think they are gone like Frank Jackson.

I'm obviously taking a much lowered expectations approach to next year, but hoping for the best.

And I really hope DiVencenzo, Mikal Bridges, and Brunson are all gone. Please give Jay Wright the least firepower possible. Hell I hope Cam Johnson is gone. But Roy usually finds a way to convince them to stay. I hope Malik Newman is gone.

We'll know more after the draft. I was pretty worried last year about Duke's prospects, and sure didn't see Bagley coming as of this time last year. K usually finds a way to put together a team capable of competing for a Natty. That is the best we can hope for, so we'll see what happens. I expect a very young team with a lot of growing pains, and hope I'm wrong.

I just don't think there should be this level of concern. He would 100% have to play overseas; I don't think he's even a G-League prospect at this point. If he were to transfer, then he would have to sit out next year and the next time he would be on the court is when he would be a senior at Duke, so that doesn't put him to the pros any faster. He's also been hurt significant portions of his first two years here, he knows that has likely played a pretty big role in his playing time.

I mean, Ques is a hard dude to get a read on, so certainly anything is possible. I agree that he is our most important recruit (assuming Trent is 100% out the door, otherwise, he is #1). I think he's going to have a big year for us. That sophomore to junior jump can be huge (see the Plumlees (all three of them)).

Unlike this year, there is no one on the roster that provides what he can provide. I know people see Zion as a college 5, and I definitely think we can run out lineups where that has the potential to be devastating, but the Warriors don't even play that small ball line-up most of the time. I just don't see us running a small lineup the majority of the time, and Ques is going to have to be integral. K knows that and will tell him that.

I think it's way closer to his being 90% back. Haven't heard any rumblings that he is looking to leave like there were last year. While that's certainly not a definite, it isn't a bad thing.

richardjackson199
04-03-2018, 02:16 PM
I just don't think there should be this level of concern. He would 100% have to play overseas; I don't think he's even a G-League prospect at this point. If he were to transfer, then he would have to sit out next year and the next time he would be on the court is when he would be a senior at Duke, so that doesn't put him to the pros any faster. He's also been hurt significant portions of his first two years here, he knows that has likely played a pretty big role in his playing time.

I mean, Ques is a hard dude to get a read on, so certainly anything is possible. I agree that he is our most important recruit (assuming Trent is 100% out the door, otherwise, he is #1). I think he's going to have a big year for us. That sophomore to junior jump can be huge (see the Plumlees (all three of them)).

Unlike this year, there is no one on the roster that provides what he can provide. I know people see Zion as a college 5, and I definitely think we can run out lineups where that has the potential to be devastating, but the Warriors don't even play that small ball line-up most of the time. I just don't see us running a small lineup the majority of the time, and Ques is going to have to be integral. K knows that and will tell him that.

I think it's way closer to his being 90% back. Haven't heard any rumblings that he is looking to leave like there were last year. While that's certainly not a definite, it isn't a bad thing.

Thanks! That makes me feel better. I'm probably just being paranoid. I expected a bigger role for Marques this year, but you're right - injuries have limited that. Next year's team absolutely needs Marques to be a contender IMO.

Lennies
04-03-2018, 02:20 PM
Of those key 5 only one (Bridges) was a voluntary redshirt. DiVincenzo and Booth were injury redshirts. Paschall was a transfer from Fordham and Spellman was academically ineligible.

Spellman really got screwed by the NCAA. He got an opportunity to transfer to a private school a couple weeks into his freshman year of high school, with the condition that he repeat his 8th grade year at the school. He took the opportunity. After finishing high school in four years with good grades, Spellman was considered by the NCAA to not have graduated with his high school class (the one he spent a couple weeks with) and forced to take an academic redshirt. If Spellman had been available last year, Nova might be looking at three championships in three years.

PackMan97
04-03-2018, 02:24 PM
Spellman really got screwed by the NCAA. He got an opportunity to transfer to a private school a couple weeks into his freshman year of high school, with the condition that he repeat his 8th grade year at the school. He took the opportunity. After finishing high school in four years with good grades, Spellman was considered by the NCAA to not have graduated with his high school class (the one he spent a couple weeks with) and forced to take an academic redshirt. If Spellman had been available last year, Nova might be looking at three championships in three years.

So what you are saying is not only did the NCAA refuse to punish UNC for their cheating ways? They hamstrung one of the top teams that could have beaten Carolina and prevented them from winning their ill gotten gains.

9f and take the NCAA with you!

Troublemaker
04-03-2018, 02:29 PM
With the amount of youth, I'd say top 10, 2nd or 3 rd place in the ACC and SW16 to E8 finish should be the realistic expectation for next year..

That's certainly realistic. But top 5, 2nd in the ACC*, ACC Champs, Final Four and National Championship are also realistic. What I want to know to decide whether we're top 5 or top 10 is how well our guys shoot. We'll find out several months from now.

* Is UVA going to give the rest of the teams in the ACC a chance at the regular season title? 3 of the past 5 seasons they've won 16 or 17 games. If they have one of those seasons again, nobody is matching it.

Troublemaker
04-03-2018, 02:34 PM
All recruiting classes are not created equal. There are several of those way-too-early columns that say that this is Duke's best recruiting class ever. 4 top 10 recruits is great, but Barrett would be ranked below Carter and Bagley from this year's class. They are super talented, that's for sure, but this year's team lost what? 8 games. Next year's team isn't going to be as good as this year's, just depends on some luck and how the rest of the country looks.

That's wrong. RJ is better than both of them, as much as I like Marvin and Wendell.

You are free to remind me of this post in the future if you turn out to be right.

Troublemaker
04-03-2018, 02:36 PM
Based on talent, we're #1. Based on production, we're top 5. Certainly not 1.

If the last two years has proved anything, it's that pre-season should be based on production, not talent.

Based on production, we should be ranked around #300, actually.

A lot of freshmen on next season's team who have played 0 minutes of college ball.

fraggler
04-03-2018, 02:46 PM
That's insane. RJ is better than both of them, as much as I like Marvin and Wendell.

You are free to remind me of this post in the future if you turn out to be right.

Don't know how you will determine who is right. Better team success? Better stats (not likely to happen)? RJ is very good, and I am excited we have him, but other than his competitiveness, there isn't anything transcendent about him - in fact, I worry that his lack of reliable outside shot will hamper his slashing on the college level. Marvin had otherworldly bounce that few in the NBA can match and he was insanely productive due to that attribute alone. RJ isn't even the best skilled or best athlete just of our incoming recruits. And since both Marvin and RJ reclassified at one point, it is hard to compare them, but I do remember seeing Marvin rated ahead of him when they were in the same class.

Honestly, I hope you are right and it becomes obvious that RJ is better than Marvin was - I want to be wrong.

Ian
04-03-2018, 02:52 PM
That's certainly realistic. But top 5, 2nd in the ACC*, ACC Champs, Final Four and National Championship are also realistic. What I want to know to decide whether we're top 5 or top 10 is how well our guys shoot. We'll find out several months from now.

* Is UVA going to give the rest of the teams in the ACC a chance at the regular season title? 3 of the past 5 seasons they've won 16 or 17 games. If they have one of those seasons again, nobody is matching it.

Depends on how you definite realistic, just because they can happen doesn't make them realistically expectated to happen. I think your outcomes are the more optimistic, if things breaks our way scenario.

CDu
04-03-2018, 02:54 PM
That's wrong. RJ is better than both of them, as much as I like Marvin and Wendell.

You are free to remind me of this post in the future if you turn out to be right.

I believe that - prior to his reclassification - Bagley was rated higher than Barrett. So I don't think I agree with you on this one. But Barrett would surely been rated above Carter.

Dukehky
04-03-2018, 02:56 PM
That's wrong. RJ is better than both of them, as much as I like Marvin and Wendell.

You are free to remind me of this post in the future if you turn out to be right.

WOW! I got blasted for saying I thought Tatum had the best offensive game of any recruit coming into his freshman year! Now Barrett is better than probably the best freshman (definitely the best statistical season) Duke has ever had?

I will warrant that there is a good chance RJ is better than Carter. That's fair, but until I see it, I'm going to continue assuming that Bagley is better than Barrett. When they were in the same class, Bagley was rated higher than Barrett. Ages are weird there, but I think that's not an insignificant piece of evidence.

It would be cool if you were right. I just don't agree.

RJ certainly has a better resume, but he played for a better high school program and played in Hoop Summits. Bagley didn't. Man, Bagley was just so good. Barrett is too, but I don't think he's gonna have anywhere near the season Bagley did.

I won't remember this discussion happened, so I won't come back to it, and I'll be fired up if you're right.

CDu
04-03-2018, 03:03 PM
WOW! I got blasted for saying I thought Tatum had the best offensive game of any recruit coming into his freshman year! Now Barrett is better than probably the best freshman (definitely the best statistical season) Duke has ever had?

I will warrant that there is a good chance RJ is better than Carter. That's fair, but until I see it, I'm going to continue assuming that Bagley is better than Barrett. When they were in the same class, Bagley was rated higher than Barrett. Ages are weird there, but I think that's not an insignificant piece of evidence.

It would be cool if you were right. I just don't agree.

RJ certainly has a better resume, but he played for a better high school program and played in Hoop Summits. Bagley didn't. Man, Bagley was just so good. Barrett is too, but I don't think he's gonna have anywhere near the season Bagley did.

I won't remember this discussion happened, so I won't come back to it, and I'll be fired up if you're right.

Yeah, I'm in agreement with you. I see very little chance that Barrett outperforms Bagley next year. I certainly could see the team doing better, but that has more to do with the players around Barrett/Bagley than those two (especially in the sense that next year's team is more along the lines of the types of teams Coach K is used to coaching, unlike this year). The fact that Bagley was rated above Barrett prior to reclassifying seems to suggest that he was the better talent. And Bagley's actual performance in college seems consistent with that assessment.

Now, I'd LOVE for Barrett to be even better than Bagley was. But there probably hasn't been a better freshman performer in college basketball (not just at Duke) than Bagley. Some guys are in the discussion (Magic, Anderson, Beasley, Durant, Oden, Anthony), but I don't think any were clearly better. So I'd set the likelihood of Barrett being better as... pretty low.

ncexnyc
04-03-2018, 03:09 PM
That's wrong. RJ is better than both of them, as much as I like Marvin and Wendell.

You are free to remind me of this post in the future if you turn out to be right.

This is one of the boldest statements I've ever seen posted on DBR. In fact it's so bold, I'm shocked that you didn't use caps for the whole thing.

In fact this statement is so bold, I feel a pie bet in the making.;);)

curtis325
04-03-2018, 03:12 PM
That's wrong. RJ is better than both of them, as much as I like Marvin and Wendell.

You are free to remind me of this post in the future if you turn out to be right.


RJ Barrett with one hand tied behind his back is better than Bagley, Carter, Jabari, Ingram, and Ditka--combined.

FerryFor50
04-03-2018, 03:14 PM
RJ Barrett with one hand tied behind his back is better than Bagley, Carter, Jabari, Ingram, and Ditka--combined.

Barrett's so good, Chuck Norris retired from competitive sports.

And because Barrett's Canadian, he apologized to Chuck later.

richardjackson199
04-03-2018, 03:16 PM
This is one of the boldest statements I've ever seen posted on DBR. In fact it's so bold, I'm shocked that you didn't use caps for the whole thing.

In fact this statement is so bold, I feel a pie bet in the making.;);)

I can't speak for Trouble, but nice try, I don't think it's going to work. Trouble always wins pie bets because he's like a sharp, wiseguy. If he bets, his odds of winning are probably better than yours going in.

But... if you want to sucker Trouble into a pie bet, you've gotta call him naive, not bold. The last time somebody called him naive Trouble was ready to bet them 10 pies to 1. :cool:

Billy Dat
04-03-2018, 03:16 PM
RJ certainly has a better resume, but he played for a better high school program and played in Hoop Summits. Bagley didn't. Man, Bagley was just so good. Barrett is too, but I don't think he's gonna have anywhere near the season Bagley did.

This is the game that made the biggest impression on me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDWobLS87Tk

I found myself rooting against the USA in hoops for probably the only time, the things that Coach Cal will drive me to.


Now, I'd LOVE for Barrett to be even better than Bagley was. But there probably hasn't been a better freshman performer in college basketball (not just at Duke) than Bagley. Some guys are in the discussion (Magic, Anderson, Beasley, Durant, Oden, Anthony), but I don't think any were clearly better. So I'd set the likelihood of Barrett being better as... pretty low.

Marvin was so good (I am crying a the memory, let me compose myself...ok, I feel better now). I think Anthony Davis belongs on the list as maybe the best freshman ever with what he accomplished - I am guessing you just forgot him.

I do see RJ as being a transcendent player next year.

FerryFor50
04-03-2018, 03:19 PM
This is the game that made the biggest impression on me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDWobLS87Tk

I found myself rooting against the USA in hoops for probably the only time, the things that Coach Cal will drive me to.



Marvin was so good (I am crying a the memory, let me compose myself...ok, I feel better now). I think Anthony Davis belongs on the list as maybe the best freshman ever with what he accomplished - I am guessing you just forgot him.

I do see RJ as being a transcendent player next year.

The difference between Bagley and Barrett? Bagley depended on his guards to get him the ball, or on getting a rebound to push in transition or an offensive board, for most of his offense.

Barrett will be playing some point next season, most likely, and will also be given more freedom to create off the dribble than Bagley was. Plus, he'll be more adept at it.

So while he might not be better at scoring or grabbing boards, Barrett might be better in other aspects. But it will be hard to outperform what Bagley did, stats-wise.

CDu
04-03-2018, 03:20 PM
This is the game that made the biggest impression on me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDWobLS87Tk

I found myself rooting against the USA in hoops for probably the only time, the things that Coach Cal will drive me to.



Marvin was so good (I am crying a the memory, let me compose myself...ok, I feel better now). I think Anthony Davis belongs on the list as maybe the best freshman ever with what he accomplished - I am guessing you just forgot him.

I do see RJ as being a transcendent player next year.

I literally just remembered him a minute before I saw your post!

I also think Barrett will be great. I just don’t expect him to be as good as Bagley. Which should by no means be viewed a slight.

phaedrus
04-03-2018, 03:28 PM
We're using the altogether wrong point of comparison here. Who cares about Marvin Bagley III? As an 18-year old freshman, fellow Southern Ontarian Wayne Gretzky led the nation in scoring and won his first of eight straight NPOYs. Oh, and he won five championships. If RJ comes even close to the Great One at Duke, we'll forget about MBIII.

Yeah, I know, different eras and all that. But the ceiling is high.

FerryFor50
04-03-2018, 03:29 PM
We're using the altogether wrong point of comparison here. Who cares about Marvin Bagley III? As an 18-year old freshman, fellow Southern Ontarian Wayne Gretzky led the nation in scoring and won his first of eight straight NPOYs. Oh, and he won five championships. If RJ comes even close to the Great One at Duke, we'll forget about MBIII.

Yeah, I know, different eras and all that. But the ceiling is high.

Wait. Gretzky was in school for 8 years?

phaedrus
04-03-2018, 03:41 PM
Wait. Gretzky was in school for 8 years?

If you're going to split hairs, I was referring to Gretzky's NHL debut, not college. After all, Gretzky went pro at 14. But that only strengthens the point - Barrett will be competing with mere schoolboys, not professional athletes.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
04-03-2018, 03:43 PM
I can't speak for Trouble, but nice try, I don't think it's going to work. Trouble always wins pie bets because he's like a sharp, wiseguy. If he bets, his odds of winning are probably better than yours going in.

But... if you want to sucker Trouble into a pie bet, you've gotta call him naive, not bold. The last time somebody called him naive Trouble was ready to bet them 10 pies to 1. :cool:

I disagree - perfect grist for a pie bet. If RJ proves to be better than Bagley - who gives a rip about losing out on the wager? If Bagley's numbers come out better - hey, you get a pie!

I endorse this bet.

devildeac
04-03-2018, 03:52 PM
We're using the altogether wrong point of comparison here. Who cares about Marvin Bagley III? As an 18-year old freshman, fellow Southern Ontarian Wayne Gretzky led the nation in scoring and won his first of eight straight NPOYs. Oh, and he won five championships. If RJ comes even close to the Great One at Duke, we'll forget about MBIII.

Yeah, I know, different eras and all that. But the ceiling is high.

At least it's not the roof. :rolleyes:

devildeac
04-03-2018, 03:53 PM
Wait. Gretzky was in school for 8 years?

Which is one year less than Bonzie was at ND. :rolleyes:

Troublemaker
04-03-2018, 06:13 PM
I can't speak for Trouble, but nice try, I don't think it's going to work. Trouble always wins pie bets because he's like a sharp, wiseguy. If he bets, his odds of winning are probably better than yours going in.

But... if you want to sucker Trouble into a pie bet, you've gotta call him naive, not bold. The last time somebody called him naive Trouble was ready to bet them 10 pies to 1. :cool:

Yeah, but no taker. Perhaps because they (eventually?) realized Jay Wright leaving Nova for another college is worse than 10 to 1. (The NBA, though? Quite possible.)


Depends on how you definite realistic, just because they can happen doesn't make them realistically expectated to happen. I think your outcomes are the more optimistic, if things breaks our way scenario.

The common, everyday usage of the word.


Don't know how you will determine who is right. Better team success?

Yeah, it would be tough to form a bet around comparing RJ and Marvin. I've been holding back on unleashing my compelling arguments for RJ (although they're nothing revolutionary) to see if I can figure out a way to get a pie out of it first, but I may relent later on in the offseason.

I'm pretty confident that by the end of next season, RJ would win a poll on DBR for being the better player but I'm not sure if Dukehky would find that an acceptable way to resolve it. (Maybe we each would provide closing arguments before the poll is created.) That said, Dukehky also seems to think this season's team is better than next season's team, and since it's easier to compare team success, we could probably figure out a pie bet around that once the roster is finalized.


RJ is very good, and I am excited we have him, but other than his competitiveness, there isn't anything transcendent about him - in fact, I worry that his lack of reliable outside shot will hamper his slashing on the college level. Marvin had otherworldly bounce that few in the NBA can match and he was insanely productive due to that attribute alone. RJ isn't even the best skilled or best athlete just of our incoming recruits. And since both Marvin and RJ reclassified at one point, it is hard to compare them, but I do remember seeing Marvin rated ahead of him when they were in the same class..

Not sure if it qualifies as "transcendent," but RJ is one of the best driving talents we've ever had. He has the entire package -- quickness, footwork/craft, contact absorption, foul-drawing (and good FT shooting), and finishing.

While we're here, there are a couple words that are probably overused by sports fans. "Transcendent" is one, imo, but the one that is REALLY overused is "generational talent." To me that should mean you're the best talent of your generation. I've seen "generational talent" frequently used to describe Marvin even though he's likely going in the 3 to 6 range of the draft.

Troublemaker
04-03-2018, 06:43 PM
BTW, it looks like Barrett and Bagley were part of the same class for all of two weeks.

Barrett had always been 2019 until he reclassed to 2018 in late July 2017.
Bagley had always been 2018 until he reclassed to 2017 in mid August 2017.
So there was a two week period when they were both 2018.

I think if RJ and Marvin both played and practiced in McDonald's, Jordan Brand, and Hoop Summit competitions together, RJ would've been ranked higher. (Not sure if Marvin would've been able to carry his high school to nationals, where RJ just completed an undefeated season and was named MVP, but those other competitions would've been enough, imo.)

sagegrouse
04-03-2018, 06:57 PM
If the 4 freshmen are at least as good as Carter and Trent, we should be a top 5 team. They're about similarly rated on recruiting sites as those two. Trent coming back would make our backcourt one of the strongest if not the strongest on paper in Duke history.

1, 3, 8, 12 rankings by recruiting services. I don't think think any other past teams are close.

Oh, boy! Top five in recruiting... and not one minute of college experience. And, assuming the freshman are gone. no one returning will be at all like Grayson, who had been All-Final Four, third team A-A, and All-ACC.

The "possible" returnees to the 2018-2019 roster have started a total of nine games at Duke and played a total of about 2,000 minutes. Grayson himself was over 2,600 minutes entering 2017-2018.

CDu
04-03-2018, 06:58 PM
While we're here, there are a couple words that are probably overused by sports fans. "Transcendent" is one, imo, but the one that is REALLY overused is "generational talent." To me that should mean you're the best talent of your generation. I've seen "generational talent" frequently used to describe Marvin even though he's likely going in the 3 to 6 range of the draft.

I agree somewhat with this. Although I wouldn’t use draft position as the argument. Who are the “generational talents” of the last decade or so in the NBA? Durant? Picked second. Curry? 9th. Westbrook? 4th. Harden? 3rd. Paul? 3rd. The point is, NBA teams aren’t always great at realizing when generational talents are there. Sure, LeBron went #1, as did Anthony Davis. But it would seem that the uber-elite aren’t always fully understood at draft time.

I don’t know if Bagley will be in that category. I think some aspects of his game will translate better in the NBA, where teams won’t be able to crowd the lane and double him off ball in the post the way they did this year, both by rule, by 3pt distance and by shooting skill of his teammates. But regardless, he is in rare company in terms of dominance at the college level. I mean, the guy almost set the ACC freshman scoring record and easily set Duke’s freshman scoring and rebound marks despite missing 4 games. I mean, we are talking about a guy who was so good that teams strategized their defense to slow him and force one of 3-4 other potential NBA regulars (including another surefire lottery pick) to beat them, and he still easily averaged over 20 and 10 on an extremely efficient shooting.

CDu
04-03-2018, 07:12 PM
BTW, it looks like Barrett and Bagley were part of the same class for all of two weeks.

Barrett had always been 2019 until he reclassed to 2018 in late July 2017.
Bagley had always been 2018 until he reclassed to 2017 in mid August 2017.
So there was a two week period when they were both 2018.

I think if RJ and Marvin both played and practiced in McDonald's, Jordan Brand, and Hoop Summit competitions together, RJ would've been ranked higher. (Not sure if Marvin would've been able to carry his high school to nationals, where RJ just completed an undefeated season and was named MVP, but those other competitions would've been enough, imo.)

It is interesting that you feel so strongly about this, despite the fact that the guys who have watched both guys regularly all seemed to rate Bagley higher. And considering that Bagley just put together a really prolific season.

Barrett played for Montverde, which is a perennial HS powerhouse that regularly recruits the best talent (Embiid, Simmons, Russell). They won it in 2013-15 and were runner-up in 2017. So while a championship is impressive, it isn’t like he carried a lesser team a la Manning in 1988. He led a very good team this year to its 4th title in 6 years.

flyingdutchdevil
04-03-2018, 07:28 PM
It is interesting that you feel so strongly about this, despite the fact that the guys who have watched both guys regularly all seemed to rate Bagley higher. And considering that Bagley just put together a really prolific season.

Barrett played for Montverde, which is a perennial HS powerhouse that regularly recruits the best talent (Embiid, Simmons, Russell). They won it in 2013-15 and were runner-up in 2017. So while a championship is impressive, it isn’t like he carried a lesser team a la Manning in 1988. He led a very good team this year to its 4th title in 6 years.

Either you are old, a Kansas fan, or love 1980s college ball. I would have used "a la Anthony in 2003". :D

Troublemaker
04-03-2018, 07:35 PM
It is interesting that you feel so strongly about this, despite the fact that the guys who have watched both guys regularly

To be clear, I feel confident that RJ is better than Marvin, not necessarily that RJ would've been ranked higher than Marvin were they in the same class. That could've gone either way, but I just find any ranking to be dubious that's based on them being technically in the same class together for two weeks. If they were in the same class together for a long time, participating in the same all-star events, I think RJ would've moved ahead. Part of RJ's appeal is his alphaness -- how he interacts with other players, how he commands the ball in clutch situations, and his history of coming up big in major competitions. I think he exudes "winner" whether that's a real thing or not. And so the scouts would've latched onto that alphaness and winner-ness and moved him ahead, whether they should've or not. Seeing "Alpha RJ" and "Goes About His Business Marvin" in the same settings more often would've tipped the scales towards RJ.

CDu
04-03-2018, 07:42 PM
To be clear, I feel confident that RJ is better than Marvin, not necessarily that RJ would've been ranked higher than Marvin were they in the same class. That could've gone either way, but I just find any ranking to be dubious that's based on them being technically in the same class together for two weeks. If they were in the same class together for a long time, participating in the same all-star events, I think RJ would've moved ahead. Part of RJ's appeal is his alphaness -- how he interacts with other players, how he commands the ball in clutch situations, and his history of coming up big in major competitions. I think he exudes "winner" whether that's a real thing or not. And so the scouts would've latched onto that alphaness and winner-ness and moved him ahead, whether they should've or not.

I mean, I sure hope you are right. But I do doubt you will be. I just don’t think Barrett will be better next year than Bagley was this year. But I do hope I am wrong. Hopefully the team does better than this year’s did. I think there is a good chance, as the group coming in appears to have more talent overall than this one - especially in ballhandling, as all of our recruits can handle it. The concern will be a huge lack of experience.

lotusland
04-03-2018, 07:50 PM
It’s possible that AOC and Javin will be the only rotation players I’ve actually seen play. What I know is they will struggle with M2M defense for most if not all season. It Also looks like shooting will be dicey again based the freshman scouting report. We really need Bolden back. Trent returning would be awesome. If I had to bet without seeing the freshman play I say this year’s team would beat next year’s team and Barrett’s season will not be better than Bagley’s. We’ll also be less experienced especially if Bolden bails. My way too early projection for our 2018-19 season end rank is 8th.

22JumpShots
04-03-2018, 08:26 PM
My way too early projection for our 2018-19 season end rank is 8th.

This doesn't compute. Highly unlikely that a National Champion could be ranked out of the top 3. ;)

ncexnyc
04-03-2018, 08:53 PM
I hate getting into this as however you spin things, it always comes across as bashing a kid.

I'm not sure pointing out MBIII missed 4 games and still did what he did is a wise way to show how good he was. As an astute college basketball fan would know that we didn't miss a beat in his absence, going 4-0. And to make matters worse our senior played his best basketball during this stretch. I'm also curious how someone would explain the fact that a 6'8' guard who weighs 205 lbs. was able to do such a great job in neutralizing such an awesome talent. You could blame our scheme, but it seems to me a great player who's 6"11" and weighs 234 lbs. shouldn't have been denied.

I'm also curious how some people can say Bolden is so important for our team next year, but these very same people think the kid has ABSOLUTELY ZERO chance of being drafted this year. Surely a kid who means so much to our program next year brings something to the table the pros would appreciate. Otherwise, a warm body should be more than adequate to plug the 5 next year if Bolden does go. Put me in the camp that wants this young man back and who believes he has the talent to make it in the NBA.

Next year's team vs this year's team. Those who believe we'll be devoid of senior leadership seem to forget Austin Rivers year at Duke. For whatever reason the 3 upperclassmen who were starters couldn't or wouldn't provide the leadership that team needed, which is why Rivers took over the team. Granted I've only seen Jones play once, but he appears to be the type of PG that makes the players around him better. He's played some USA basketball so he's a seasoned player. We'll get that leadership not only from Tre, but RJ as well. As has already been pointed out on this thread, the dude is a true Alpha Dog, in every sense of the term. Who was the Alpha Dog on this year's team? Grayson could have been, but it wasn't in his nature. In fact if anyone stepped up when the chips were down, I'd say Trent was the one player who looked to step-up when things were going sideways.

Bolden as a Junior should be able to approximate what we got from Carter, especially if Jones is as good as I believe he is. He'll have the same knack for feeding the post like his brother did. Zion should be able to duplicate MBIII's rebounding numbers and will more than likely be a better defender, as he appears to be quite nimble for his size. Considering how down people are on what Gary brought to the table, then would anyone question Cam being an upgrade? Three point shooting? Seems that doesn't matter to some.

The bench? Yes, it might shock some of you to know we do indeed have one. I would expect to see continued improvement from both Jack and Justin, even to the point where they get more than garbage time. Javin has all the physical tools you could want in a player, now if only he could find some glint of an offensive game, he'd be more than an adequate frontcourt back-up player. Alex could have a huge role next year or he could be the odd man out. Should Trent return, Alex has a hard time getting on the court, but should Gary leave and Alex puts on some muscle then he's got a big role to play next year. Let's not forget Mr. Goldwire and Vrank the Tank. Should Trevon leave, who will spell Jones? It seems to me that with a year of experience Jordan should be more than capable of giving us a few solid minutes night in and night out. Same goes for Antonio. After four years he knows what we're trying to do better than anyone. He should be able to step-up if the need arises.

I really don't look for next year's team to struggle on defense like this year's team. From all accounts the incoming group can play some defense and if they can't cut it M2M, we've already shown we could make the transition to a zone team, so there shouldn't be any growing pains like we had this year and Coach K. more than likely won't be as hesitant to make the shift.

So I do believe next year's team will be better. A more rounded group of starting players with a true role identity and an actual bench. Of course all of this could go haywire if the word injury gets used as often next year like it was two seasons ago.

mr. synellinden
04-03-2018, 08:56 PM
I mean, I sure hope you are right. But I do doubt you will be. I just don’t think Barrett will be better next year than Bagley was this year. But I do hope I am wrong. Hopefully the team does better than this year’s did. I think there is a good chance, as the group coming in appears to have more talent overall than this one - especially in ballhandling, as all of our recruits can handle it. The concern will be a huge lack of experience.

I've been reading a lot of the back and forth on this. Is it possible that Bagley is a better/more productive player from an offensive statistical perspective (and historically great in that respect), but that RJ might be better overall, including defensively, making his team better, leadership, etc.? So just as an extreme example, compare freshman year Jabari or Marvin with senior year Battier - who would you rather have? What if we replaced Bagley this year with next year's RJ, would the 2017-2018 be a better team?

You guys might both be right. Bagley was a historically great not only freshman but player from an offensive production standpoint. But Barrett might be a guy who can do more to get his team to win. Maybe.

lotusland
04-04-2018, 08:40 AM
I hate getting into this as however you spin things, it always comes across as bashing a kid.

I'm not sure pointing out MBIII missed 4 games and still did what he did is a wise way to show how good he was. As an astute college basketball fan would know that we didn't miss a beat in his absence, going 4-0. And to make matters worse our senior played his best basketball during this stretch. I'm also curious how someone would explain the fact that a 6'8' guard who weighs 205 lbs. was able to do such a great job in neutralizing such an awesome talent. You could blame our scheme, but it seems to me a great player who's 6"11" and weighs 234 lbs. shouldn't have been denied.

I'm also curious how some people can say Bolden is so important for our team next year, but these very same people think the kid has ABSOLUTELY ZERO chance of being drafted this year. Surely a kid who means so much to our program next year brings something to the table the pros would appreciate. Otherwise, a warm body should be more than adequate to plug the 5 next year if Bolden does go. Put me in the camp that wants this young man back and who believes he has the talent to make it in the NBA.

Next year's team vs this year's team. Those who believe we'll be devoid of senior leadership seem to forget Austin Rivers year at Duke. For whatever reason the 3 upperclassmen who were starters couldn't or wouldn't provide the leadership that team needed, which is why Rivers took over the team. Granted I've only seen Jones play once, but he appears to be the type of PG that makes the players around him better. He's played some USA basketball so he's a seasoned player. We'll get that leadership not only from Tre, but RJ as well. As has already been pointed out on this thread, the dude is a true Alpha Dog, in every sense of the term. Who was the Alpha Dog on this year's team? Grayson could have been, but it wasn't in his nature. In fact if anyone stepped up when the chips were down, I'd say Trent was the one player who looked to step-up when things were going sideways.

Bolden as a Junior should be able to approximate what we got from Carter, especially if Jones is as good as I believe he is. He'll have the same knack for feeding the post like his brother did. Zion should be able to duplicate MBIII's rebounding numbers and will more than likely be a better defender, as he appears to be quite nimble for his size. Considering how down people are on what Gary brought to the table, then would anyone question Cam being an upgrade? Three point shooting? Seems that doesn't matter to some.

The bench? Yes, it might shock some of you to know we do indeed have one. I would expect to see continued improvement from both Jack and Justin, even to the point where they get more than garbage time. Javin has all the physical tools you could want in a player, now if only he could find some glint of an offensive game, he'd be more than an adequate frontcourt back-up player. Alex could have a huge role next year or he could be the odd man out. Should Trent return, Alex has a hard time getting on the court, but should Gary leave and Alex puts on some muscle then he's got a big role to play next year. Let's not forget Mr. Goldwire and Vrank the Tank. Should Trevon leave, who will spell Jones? It seems to me that with a year of experience Jordan should be more than capable of giving us a few solid minutes night in and night out. Same goes for Antonio. After four years he knows what we're trying to do better than anyone. He should be able to step-up if the need arises.

I really don't look for next year's team to struggle on defense like this year's team. From all accounts the incoming group can play some defense and if they can't cut it M2M, we've already shown we could make the transition to a zone team, so there shouldn't be any growing pains like we had this year and Coach K. more than likely won't be as hesitant to make the shift.

So I do believe next year's team will be better. A more rounded group of starting players with a true role identity and an actual bench. Of course all of this could go haywire if the word injury gets used as often next year like it was two seasons ago.

Speaking of Justin I got the distinct impression that he moved in front of Vrank on the depth chart this year. In the little meaningful game time he hit threes, blocked shots and finished lobs impressively. I like to see a little more JRob next year. I don’t expect good M2M defense and I think zone will be the best option again with freshman. If Bolden is back he will be asked to play a lot of minutes for the first time. I rather protect him from fouls, preserve his energy level and keep him close to the basket for rebounding and rim protection. From my memory he actually played the P &R pretty good and did a good job of closing on penetration using his length but I don’t think that is the best use for him. Without Bolden we’d have Javin who has no shortage of energy but is very foul prone.

HereBeforeCoachK
04-04-2018, 09:28 AM
As an astute college basketball fan would know that we didn't miss a beat in his absence, going 4-0. And to make matters worse our senior played his best basketball during this stretch. I'm also curious how someone would explain the fact that a 6'8' guard who weighs 205 lbs. was able to do such a great job in neutralizing such an awesome talent. You could blame our scheme, but it seems to me a great player who's 6"11" and weighs 234 lbs. shouldn't have been denied.

I'm also curious how some people can say Bolden is so important for our team next year, but these very same people think the kid has ABSOLUTELY ZERO chance of being drafted this year. Surely a kid who means so much to our program next year brings something to the table the pros would appreciate. Otherwise, a warm body should be more than adequate to plug the 5 next year if Bolden does go. Put me in the camp that wants this young man back and who believes he has the talent to make it in the NBA.

Who was the Alpha Dog on this year's team? Grayson could have been, but it wasn't in his nature. In fact if anyone stepped up when the chips were down, I'd say Trent was the one player who looked to step-up when things were going sideways.

Bolden as a Junior should be able to approximate what we got from Carter, especially if Jones is as good as I believe he is. He'll have the same knack for feeding the post like his brother did.

The bench? Yes, it might shock some of you to know we do indeed have one. I would expect to see continued improvement from both Jack and Justin, even to the point where they get more than garbage time. Javin has all the physical tools you could want in a player, now if only he could find some glint of an offensive game, he'd be more than an adequate frontcourt back-up player. Alex could have a huge role next year or he could be the odd man out. Should Trent return, Alex has a hard time getting on the court, but should Gary leave and Alex puts on some muscle then he's got a big role to play next year.

I really don't look for next year's team to struggle on defense like this year's team. From all accounts the incoming group can play some defense and if they can't cut it M2M, we've already shown we could make the transition to a zone team, so there shouldn't be any growing pains like we had this year and Coach K. more than likely won't be as hesitant to make the shift.

So I do believe next year's team will be better. A more rounded group of starting players with a true role identity and an actual bench. Of course all of this could go haywire if the word injury gets used as often next year like it was two seasons ago.

There was nothing in your long post that I disagreed with at all, and I quoted the parts that were almost identical to thoughts I had during, and since the season. Especially insightful I thought was your point that Trent seemed to have the only natural leadership personality on the team when some times were tough. I texted the 2 of my 3 kids who care about this stuff during several games that "Trent seems like a man among the boys" in games...not only how he played, but his demeanor and body language. After hearing some anecdotes about how his dad raised him, this makes sense.

Which leads me to Grayson's demeanor. I think this whole tripping thing knocked his intensity back some, as he tried to control his emotions. I think he lost a bit of the edge, an edge that we could have used from the senior. Now it could be I'm over reading this, and this could all be related to his basic introvert personality - but I rarely saw the fire from years 1 and 2 this season. I hate saying that because I really think I'd love the kid if I knew him personally, and he clearly has a big heart for other people. I think I hate that his shot against Kansas spinned out more for him than for me, and I HATE HATE HATE that it spun out vis a vis me.....

CDu
04-04-2018, 10:05 AM
I'm not sure pointing out MBIII missed 4 games and still did what he did is a wise way to show how good he was. As an astute college basketball fan would know that we didn't miss a beat in his absence, going 4-0. And to make matters worse our senior played his best basketball during this stretch. I'm also curious how someone would explain the fact that a 6'8' guard who weighs 205 lbs. was able to do such a great job in neutralizing such an awesome talent. You could blame our scheme, but it seems to me a great player who's 6"11" and weighs 234 lbs. shouldn't have been denied.

I don't think the 4-0 run without Bagley tells us much of anything about how good or not good he was. We didn't miss a beat because of a combination of factors: (a) our quality of competition was lower in those four games (especially since Clemson was missing their PG and best player), (b) that was when we switched to zone, (c) we had a really stacked roster without him, and (d) said stacked roster was not constructed in a way that Coach K was used to working with - he just never quite figured out how to maximize the talents of our two bigs together.

Allen had two good games in the four that Bagley sat, mainly because he made 3s in those games. But he also shot 5-14 against Ga Tech and 4-10 against Clemson. So I don't think Bagley's absence/presence was the cause of Allen's woes. I think Allen was just an inconsistent scorer this year, highly dependent on his 3pt shooting, which was notably inconsistent this year. To wit: he hit 7-10 (5-6 from 3) for 23 points against Notre Dame in the ACC tournament with Bagley back, for example. The guy just had an inconsistent year.

As for the "how did a 6'8", 205lb guy stop Bagley" comment: (a) he was rarely in single coverage on Bagley (Kansas doubled him relentlessly), and (b) Bagley still had 16 and 10, so it certainly wasn't like he was shut down. If we're talking about 16 and 10 against regular double-teaming as being neutralized, that seems like a pretty big compliment to said player.


I'm also curious how some people can say Bolden is so important for our team next year, but these very same people think the kid has ABSOLUTELY ZERO chance of being drafted this year. Surely a kid who means so much to our program next year brings something to the table the pros would appreciate. Otherwise, a warm body should be more than adequate to plug the 5 next year if Bolden does go. Put me in the camp that wants this young man back and who believes he has the talent to make it in the NBA.

Easy. Because this year's draft class of bigs is brutally deep. So deep that a potential first-rounder (Gafford) decided to come back. And because we need his experience. He's the most experienced returning big on the team (not in years, but in actual minutes played). For a team that will likely return less than 2000 total minutes of experience, every little bit helps.


Bolden as a Junior should be able to approximate what we got from Carter, especially if Jones is as good as I believe he is. He'll have the same knack for feeding the post like his brother did.

I will be shocked to see Bolden put up 14 and 9 next year, nor come all that close. I certainly hope you're right, but I doubt it. I'd expect Williamson to be in that neighborhood, but I'd expect more along the 8-10 ppg and 6-8 rpg range from Bolden.


The bench? Yes, it might shock some of you to know we do indeed have one. I would expect to see continued improvement from both Jack and Justin, even to the point where they get more than garbage time. Javin has all the physical tools you could want in a player, now if only he could find some glint of an offensive game, he'd be more than an adequate frontcourt back-up player. Alex could have a huge role next year or he could be the odd man out. Should Trent return, Alex has a hard time getting on the court, but should Gary leave and Alex puts on some muscle then he's got a big role to play next year. Let's not forget Mr. Goldwire and Vrank the Tank. Should Trevon leave, who will spell Jones? It seems to me that with a year of experience Jordan should be more than capable of giving us a few solid minutes night in and night out. Same goes for Antonio. After four years he knows what we're trying to do better than anyone. He should be able to step-up if the need arises.

I wouldn't expect to see Vrankovic, Robinson, White, or Goldwire get any more minutes than they got this year barring injuries or unexpected departures (most notably Bolden). That hasn't been their role, nor do I expect it to be next year. That's not meant to diminish their importance to the team. You need guys willing to be practice players and injury fill-ins. But assuming Bolden returns, it's going to be Bolden/Williamson/Reddish/Barrett/Jones, with O'Connell and DeLaurier and then probably less than 5 mpg on the season for the rest.

I'd expect Reddish to handle the PG duties as a "point forward" whenever Jones sits, with the offense looking more like our offense in the Paulus "no PG" era (i.e., lots of perimeter guys sharing the ball with the ability to attack off the dribble).


I really don't look for next year's team to struggle on defense like this year's team. From all accounts the incoming group can play some defense and if they can't cut it M2M, we've already shown we could make the transition to a zone team, so there shouldn't be any growing pains like we had this year and Coach K. more than likely won't be as hesitant to make the shift.

I would expect our defense to struggle early, just like every single one of our defenses has in the one-and-done era. Literally, ALL of them have. And I would expect the same to be true next year. For whatever reason, Coach K hasn't been able to unlock the key to getting his freshmen to figure out how to play effective college man-to-man defense until mid/late-season (if at all). I don't think next year will be any different. I certainly hope that the team gets its defense figured out like 2015 and 2018 did. But I would expect a lot of speed bumps along the way. I also don't think next year's team would be as effective in zone given that they are smaller than this year's team. If we're going to be a good defensive team, I'd expect it to be in man-to-man with lots of switches on screens. But, you never know what you'll get with a completely new team.


So I do believe next year's team will be better. A more rounded group of starting players with a true role identity and an actual bench. Of course all of this could go haywire if the word injury gets used as often next year like it was two seasons ago.

Again, I don't see any "actual bench" here. Certainly not compared with this year. We're simply as any deeper on the bench next year than we were this year. And if Bolden leaves (which I hope he doesn't), we're substantially less deep.

That's not to say that I think next year's team will be worse. I think the team will look more like a "typical" coach K team, with multiple ballhandlers on the perimeter and fewer guys whose strength is in the post. Williamson is closer to the "stretch 4" concept than Bagley was, which will allow Coach K to go back to a more familiar look. And I think that will work well for this group. As will having 3-4 guys on the court who can attack off the dribble, which was lacking this year. And hopefully we'll have a more steady hand at PG will help. I loved Duval's talent, and he was at times magnificent, but his PG game was not very mature yet. And Allen never really seemed comfortable in that role either, let alone the fact that having Duval off-ball made our spacing even worse. Hopefully Jones will be better in terms of being able to run the offense, even if he's not as dangerous an offensive player. And while I don't think we'll have anyone quite as good as Bagley was, I think we'll have 3 guys as good or better than Carter in Barrett, Reddish, and Williamson. And I hope we'll have a more consistent PG in Jones. That should help offset the loss of depth and the loss of the top-end guy Bagley.

So I do think there's a good chance that next year's team is better than this year's team. I just don't think it will have anything to do with depth or how awesome Bolden will be or how not awesome Bagley was. I think it's just that we'll be bringing in more top-end guys to next year's team (3) than we had this year (2), and our 4th best freshman will hopefully be as good or better next year than than our 3rd best freshman was this year.

CDu
04-04-2018, 10:18 AM
Speaking of Justin I got the distinct impression that he moved in front of Vrank on the depth chart this year. In the little meaningful game time he hit threes, blocked shots and finished lobs impressively. I like to see a little more JRob next year. I don’t expect good M2M defense and I think zone will be the best option again with freshman. If Bolden is back he will be asked to play a lot of minutes for the first time. I rather protect him from fouls, preserve his energy level and keep him close to the basket for rebounding and rim protection. From my memory he actually played the P &R pretty good and did a good job of closing on penetration using his length but I don’t think that is the best use for him. Without Bolden we’d have Javin who has no shortage of energy but is very foul prone.

Robinson got more PT than Vrankovic because we were less deep at forward than we were at C. Carter, Bagley, and Bolden were all better options at C than Vrankovic. But if one of the Cs was out and another was in foul trouble, we had to dig a little deeper at forward. And when both Bolden and DeLaurier were out, it especially made sense for him to sub rather than Vrankovic, because we still had 2 Cs (Bagley and Carter) but just one PF (Bagley).

That being said, Robinson played just 82 minutes this year, versus 66 for Vrankovic. 21 of Robinson's minutes came in the two massive blowouts against St Francis and Evansville. Another 31 came in a 3-game stretch in which both Bolden and DeLaurier were out with injuries, meaning we had literally no backup PFs besides White and Robinson. Other than that, Robinson played just 30 total minutes in 32 games. I don't expect him to see much action next year barring more bad luck with injuries. If any of the three of Vrankovic, Robinson, and White are going to see time, I'd expect it to be White. But I wouldn't expect more than about 150-200 minutes from any of them. Perhaps not even combined. Again, barring injury or an unexpected departure.

Kedsy
04-04-2018, 12:14 PM
I also don't think next year's team would be as effective in zone given that they are smaller than this year's team.

Wendell Carter: 6'10, 260, 7'3 wingspan
Marvin Bagley: 6'11, 235, 7'0
Gary Trent: 6'6, 215, 6'8.5
Trevon Duval: 6'3, 185, 6'9.5
Grayson Allen: 6'4.5, 205, 6'6.5

TOTALS: 394.5 inches tall, 1100 pounds, 411.5 inches wingspan
AVERAGE: 6'6.9, 220.0, 6'10.3

Marques Bolden: 6'11, 250, 7'6 wingspan
Zion Williamson: 6'6, 272, 7'0
Cam Reddish: 6'7, 205, 7'1
RJ Barrett: 6'6.5, 195, 6'10
Tre Jones: 6'2.5, 185, 6'4

TOTALS: 393 inches tall, 1107 pounds, 417 inches wingspan
AVERAGE: 6'6.6, 221.4, 6'11.4

So, while it's true that Zion is shorter than Marvin, overall next year's team isn't really any smaller (and has a bit longer reach).

lotusland
04-04-2018, 12:27 PM
Robinson got more PT than Vrankovic because we were less deep at forward than we were at C. Carter, Bagley, and Bolden were all better options at C than Vrankovic. But if one of the Cs was out and another was in foul trouble, we had to dig a little deeper at forward. And when both Bolden and DeLaurier were out, it especially made sense for him to sub rather than Vrankovic, because we still had 2 Cs (Bagley and Carter) but just one PF (Bagley).

That being said, Robinson played just 82 minutes this year, versus 66 for Vrankovic. 21 of Robinson's minutes came in the two massive blowouts against St Francis and Evansville. Another 31 came in a 3-game stretch in which both Bolden and DeLaurier were out with injuries, meaning we had literally no backup PFs besides White and Robinson. Other than that, Robinson played just 30 total minutes in 32 games. I don't expect him to see much action next year barring more bad luck with injuries. If any of the three of Vrankovic, Robinson, and White are going to see time, I'd expect it to be White. But I wouldn't expect more than about 150-200 minutes from any of them. Perhaps not even combined. Again, barring injury or an unexpected departure.

Sounds about right but a 4/5 rotation of Zion, Javin and Bolden is very unlikely to make it through the year without injuries and/or foul trouble. Should Bolden not return, the calculus changes considerably. Montgomery would help but would he play ahead of those guys from the jump? With 4 freshmen starters it almost seems better to have someone on the floor who knows where to be on defense than the most physically gifted player. We may be thin at guard/wing too so I'm not sure moving Cam over is a viable option either with only JGold and AOC likely to return.

None of that bothers me. I'd like to see one or more of those guys earn a role JRob seems to have the most upside from what I've seen.

CDu
04-04-2018, 12:28 PM
Wendell Carter: 6'10, 260, 7'3 wingspan
Marvin Bagley: 6'11, 235, 7'0
Gary Trent: 6'6, 215, 6'8.5
Trevon Duval: 6'3, 185, 6'9.5
Grayson Allen: 6'4.5, 205, 6'6.5

TOTALS: 394.5 inches tall, 1100 pounds, 411.5 inches wingspan
AVERAGE: 6'6.9, 220.0, 6'10.3

Marques Bolden: 6'11, 250, 7'6 wingspan
Zion Williamson: 6'6, 272, 7'0
Cam Reddish: 6'7, 205, 7'1
RJ Barrett: 6'6.5, 195, 6'10
Tre Jones: 6'2.5, 185, 6'4

TOTALS: 393 inches tall, 1107 pounds, 417 inches wingspan
AVERAGE: 6'6.6, 221.4, 6'11.4

So, while it's true that Zion is shorter than Marvin, overall next year's team isn't really any smaller (and has a bit longer reach).

And when you factor in the bench guys? We always had at least two guys with a 9ft+ standing reach, and sometimes had 3 such players (when DeLaurier played the 3). Next year, we are going to be a bit shorter on the back line, and will rarely have two super-tall guys on the floor together.

We will have more midrange guys, though, which should lend itself better to man.

sagegrouse
04-04-2018, 12:29 PM
Wendell Carter: 6'10, 260, 7'3 wingspan
Marvin Bagley: 6'11, 235, 7'0
Gary Trent: 6'6, 215, 6'8.5
Trevon Duval: 6'3, 185, 6'9.5
Grayson Allen: 6'4.5, 205, 6'6.5


Oh, yeah! I forgot. Bagley has no chance in the NBA 'cuz his ... "Arms Too Short to Box with God."

Acymetric
04-04-2018, 02:05 PM
Wendell Carter: 6'10, 260, 7'3 wingspan
Marvin Bagley: 6'11, 235, 7'0
Gary Trent: 6'6, 215, 6'8.5
Trevon Duval: 6'3, 185, 6'9.5
Grayson Allen: 6'4.5, 205, 6'6.5

TOTALS: 394.5 inches tall, 1100 pounds, 411.5 inches wingspan
AVERAGE: 6'6.9, 220.0, 6'10.3

Marques Bolden: 6'11, 250, 7'6 wingspan
Zion Williamson: 6'6, 272, 7'0
Cam Reddish: 6'7, 205, 7'1
RJ Barrett: 6'6.5, 195, 6'10
Tre Jones: 6'2.5, 185, 6'4

TOTALS: 393 inches tall, 1107 pounds, 417 inches wingspan
AVERAGE: 6'6.6, 221.4, 6'11.4

So, while it's true that Zion is shorter than Marvin, overall next year's team isn't really any smaller (and has a bit longer reach).

Not directed at you necessarily, but I always wonder if standing reach isn't more important than wingspan for guys who are more focused on rebounding and defending vertically (post players, basically). Zion and Bagley have the same wingspan, but I would expect Bagley's standing reach to be 3-5" higher (depending on how/where that additional 5" of height are distributed). I've always felt like wingspan is more important for Guards and wings who spend more time defending laterally and trying to prevent penetration or entry passes (where a post player is more likely to be defending vertically, challenging shots and going for boards).

Which is just a long way of saying I think the size difference between Zion and Bagley is more pronounced than someone might think when they see the same wingspan. Things also look a little bit different comparing position by position if you switch Bagley and Carter, which I think would be at least somewhat reasonable to do for the purposes of this comparison. We are a little smaller in the post (which is perfectly fine with me) and at PG (not a huge deal) but bigger on the wings (which I think could help our man-man).

Kedsy
04-04-2018, 02:38 PM
And when you factor in the bench guys? We always had at least two guys with a 9ft+ standing reach, and sometimes had 3 such players (when DeLaurier played the 3). Next year, we are going to be a bit shorter on the back line, and will rarely have two super-tall guys on the floor together.

We will have more midrange guys, though, which should lend itself better to man.

Those two bench guys only combined for 892 minutes (24 mpg). And we'll still have one of them coming off the bench, and as a junior I'd hope he'd lower his fouls per minute and be able to play 24 mpg by himself if needed. If K wants to he should be able to always have two of Marques/Zion/Javin playing, and sometimes three. And if we manage to get EJ Montgomery (6'9, 215, 7'0.5 wingspan), our bench will compare admirably to last year's bench and be plenty tall and long enough to play zone and play two (or three) tall guys if Coach K wants to.

Of course, if Marques Bolden decides to enter the draft, then all bets are off.

Kedsy
04-04-2018, 02:50 PM
Not directed at you necessarily, but I always wonder if standing reach isn't more important than wingspan for guys who are more focused on rebounding and defending vertically (post players, basically).

Yeah, I don't know. Maybe. Although if you're talking about covering ground in a zone defense, wingspan might be the more valuable metric. I'm just not sure.

I do know that it's harder to find standing reach numbers for guys who haven't gone through the NBA's pre-draft camp. FWIW, here are some standing reach numbers I did find:

Wendell Carter: 9'0
Marvin Bagley: 8'9
Marques Bolden: 9'4.5
Zion Williamson: 8'7
EJ Montgomery: 8'10.5

So, Marques + Zion combined standing reach still better than Wendell + Marvin.

CDu
04-04-2018, 07:19 PM
Those two bench guys only combined for 892 minutes (24 mpg). And we'll still have one of them coming off the bench, and as a junior I'd hope he'd lower his fouls per minute and be able to play 24 mpg by himself if needed. If K wants to he should be able to always have two of Marques/Zion/Javin playing, and sometimes three. And if we manage to get EJ Montgomery (6'9, 215, 7'0.5 wingspan), our bench will compare admirably to last year's bench and be plenty tall and long enough to play zone and play two (or three) tall guys if Coach K wants to.

Of course, if Marques Bolden decides to enter the draft, then all bets are off.

The 21.6 mpg for those two combined with the 57 mpg for our other two bigs meant a 78.6 mpg average. Of course, that is an underestimate though. Come tourney time, those guys were getting 80-85 mpg combined.

Next year? I doubt Bolden becomes a 30+ mpg guy. I would guess he falls in the 25 mpg range. And when he is out, we become substantially smaller on the back line than we were this year (since we pretty much always had two 6’10” guys with near/greater than 9ft standing reach on the court. Next year, we will only very occasionally have two such guys (whenever Bolden and DeLaurier are in), and won’t even have one guy as long as the “shorter” of our two for a decent chunk of time when Bolden sits.

Said another way, last year, we could actually get bigger going to our bench. Next year, that won’t be the case (at least not without going to some oddball lineups).

Now, if Bolden can be a 35 mpg guy, then we can maybe zone with similar success. But I have my doubts about his readiness to jump to that PT level. And without his obscene length, we become shorter/less lengthy at nearly every spot on the floor.


Yeah, I don't know. Maybe. Although if you're talking about covering ground in a zone defense, wingspan might be the more valuable metric. I'm just not sure.

I do know that it's harder to find standing reach numbers for guys who haven't gone through the NBA's pre-draft camp. FWIW, here are some standing reach numbers I did find:

Wendell Carter: 9'0
Marvin Bagley: 8'9
Marques Bolden: 9'4.5
Zion Williamson: 8'7
EJ Montgomery: 8'10.5

So, Marques + Zion combined standing reach still better than Wendell + Marvin.

Again, though, that is really based on an assumption that Bolden will be ready to play 30+ mpg. Because he is really the piece of the puzzle that carries those height/length/reach stats. Without him, a Williamson/DeLaurier pair is notably less long than Carter/Bagley.

As an aside, those Bagley measurements were from 2014 I believe. They might still be correct, but as you said, I wouldn’t put much stock in them.

Kedsy
04-04-2018, 09:13 PM
They might still be correct, but as you said, I wouldn’t put much stock in them.

Yeah, I know. Best I could do. I found people in 2017 using the same numbers as 2014, but I got the impression they were citing the old numbers, rather than talking about more recent measurements. So either he was the same length or nobody has measured him in awhile.

And I agree that Marques's measurements are what make next year's frontcourt seem as tall/long as this year's frontcourt, and if he leaves or doesn't play big minutes our big men will be smaller. But Cam and RJ are taller and longer than our wings were this year, so in some ways it evens out. Plus Zion, Cam, and RJ (as well as Javin and Marques) all have really long arms. Especially if we get Montgomery, we should be plenty tall and long to play a zone, if that what Coach K wants to do. I don't think the difference between Marvin's height/length and Zion's is what made our zone effective.

Troublemaker
05-31-2018, 10:52 AM
These "way too early" top 25s will be better to look at after all the NBA early entry, transfer, grad transfer, late commit, and reclass (if any) decisions are finalized. But for those interested... I've linked a few below.

It seems like there is a consensus developing that Kansas is preseason #1. I think that is solid, although I'd probably make UVA my preseason #1.

CBS (https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/2018-19-college-basketball-rankings-way-too-early-projection-has-kansas-and-duke-at-the-top/) - 1. Kansas, 2. Duke, 3. Nova, 4. Auburn, 5. Tennessee... ACC: 8. UVA, 9. UNC, 13. VaTech, 14. Lville, 15. FSU, 24. Clemson

SI (https://www.si.com/college-basketball/2018/04/03/ncaa-basketball-preseason-rankings-top-25-kansas-duke) - 1. Kansas, 2. Duke, 3. Nova, 4. Michigan, 5. Kentucky... ACC: 6. UNC, 7. UVA, 13. VaTech, 16. Clemson, 23. FSU

ESPN (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/22966716/college-basketball-way-too-early-top-25-rankings-2018-19) - 1. Kansas, 2. Duke, 3. Nova, 4. Kentucky, 5. Auburn... ACC: 7. UVA, 9. UNC, 15. Cuse, 16. VaTech, 18. Clemson, 23. FSU

Fox (https://www.foxsports.com/college-basketball/story/duke-is-no-1-in-way-too-early-ap-poll-for-2018-19-040318) - 1. Duke, 2. Kansas, 3. Nova, 4. Kentucky, 5. UNC... ACC: 8. UVA, 12. Lville, 16. VaTech, 24. FSU

TSN (http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/news/college-basketball-top-25-rankings-2018-2019-kentucky-duke-kansas-villanova-nba-draft/699qbsghlgh01sfheywp060ox) - 1. Kansas, 2. Duke, 3. Kentucky, 4. Nova, 5. UVA... ACC: 12. UNC, 19. VaTech, 24. ND

Yahoo (https://sports.yahoo.com/way-early-top-25-2018-19-college-basketball-season-033644755.html) - 1. Kansas, 2. Nova, 3. Duke, 4. UVA, 5. UNC... ACC: 15. VaTech, 16. Cuse, 18. FSU

USAT (https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2018/04/03/college-basketballs-super-early-2018-19-preseason-top-25-teams/480867002/) - 1. Kansas, 2. Duke, 3. UVA. 4. Nova, 5. Zaga... ACC: 9. UNC, 14. Lville, 16. VaTech, 20. FSU

NBC (http://collegebasketball.nbcsports.com/2018/04/02/2018-college-basketball-preseason-top-25/) - 1. Kansas, 2. Nova, 3. Kentucky, 4. Duke, 6. UVA... ACC: 11. UNC, 12. Lville, 13. VaTech, 15. FSU, 22. NCSU, 25. Clemson

A few updates:

CBS (https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/2018-19-college-basketball-rankings-changes-in-top-25-and-1-after-ncaa-draft-withdrawal-deadline/) - 1. Kansas, 2. Duke, 3. Tenn, 4. Kentucky, 5. Zaga... ACC: 7. UVA, 8. UNC, 13. VaTech, 14. FSU, 22. Cuse, 24. Clemson

NBC (https://collegebasketball.nbcsports.com/2018/05/30/college-basketball-preseason-top-25/) - 1. Kansas, 2. Zaga, 3. Duke, 4. Kentucky, 5. Nova... ACC: 8. UVA, 10. UNC, 11. VaTech, 14. FSU, 19. Lville, 21. NCSU, 23. Clem, 25. Cuse

ESPN (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/23653227/kansas-jayhawks-stay-no-1-villanova-wildcats-tumble-post-nba-draft-deadline-top-25) - 1. Kansas, 2. Duke, 3. Kentucky, 4. Zaga, 5. Tenn... ACC: 7. UVA, 8. UNC, 14. VaTech, 16. Cuse, 18. FSU, 20. Clem

Troublemaker
06-02-2018, 02:50 PM
KenPom's

Ken Pomeroy‏Verified account @kenpomeroy (https://twitter.com/kenpomeroy) 24h24 hours ago (https://twitter.com/kenpomeroy/status/1002626119428952065)
Post-deadline computer top 10:
1) Kansas,
2) Duke,
3) Villanova,
4) Nevada,
5) Virginia,
6) North Carolina,
7) Syracuse,
8) Gonzaga,
9) Tennessee,
10) Kentucky,
11) West Virginia.

Troublemaker
06-02-2018, 02:57 PM
Yahoo (https://sports.yahoo.com/post-draft-deadline-look-college-basketballs-2018-19-top-25-065245196.html) - 1. Kansas, 2. Duke, 3. Zaga, 4. Tenn, 5. UNC.... ACC: 8. UVA, 15. VaTech, 16. Cuse, 17. FSU

fuse
06-03-2018, 10:29 AM
While I love the media (over) ranking, seems to me like 8-15 might be appropriate having no idea how our team will play together.

NSDukeFan
06-03-2018, 11:24 AM
Every good team has question marks, though. With the NBA calling, no team has a ton of experience and talent. Duke won’t have much experience, but the players will be extremely talented.

szstark
06-03-2018, 12:16 PM
Every good team has question marks, though. With the NBA calling, no team has a ton of experience and talent. Duke won’t have much experience, but the players will be extremely talented.

Our entire team is a question mark. We will have five new starters, four of whom have never played college basketball and the fifth has been a role player/substitute. Yes they are all talented, but as we have seen the past several years, talent can only take you so far, especially freshman talent. It is still a team game and that means blending that talent by knowing and trusting each other. We have players coming back, but while they will make a serviceable bench, they certainly can’t be the reason behind a #2 ranking. If we as fans buy into this preseason ranking, we are setting ourselves up for a very disappointing season. Let’s just watch what happens, hope for the best, and enjoy the ride instead of being so upset when the “#2 team in the country” doesn’t always play like the #2 team in the country.

Troublemaker
06-03-2018, 12:45 PM
While I love the media (over) ranking, seems to me like 8-15 might be appropriate having no idea how our team will play together.

Unknown is unknown, though. I think our ranking should be "TBD" instead of your suggested 8-15.


Our entire team is a question mark. We will have five new starters, four of whom have never played college basketball and the fifth has been a role player/substitute. Yes they are all talented, but as we have seen the past several years, talent can only take you so far, especially freshman talent. It is still a team game and that means blending that talent by knowing and trusting each other. We have players coming back, but while they will make a serviceable bench, they certainly can’t be the reason behind a #2 ranking. If we as fans buy into this preseason ranking, we are setting ourselves up for a very disappointing season. Let’s just watch what happens, hope for the best, and enjoy the ride instead of being so upset when the “#2 team in the country” doesn’t always play like the #2 team in the country.

I mostly agree and definitely agree that nobody should buy the #2 ranking before games are played.

That said, top-10 ranked freshmen have tended to perform really well for us, so there's a limit to just how big a question mark they are. Also, in the past 5 seasons, Duke's two youngest teams have been our two best ones. One won a national championship and finished the season as kenpom #3 and the other came within a whisker of the Final Four and finished the season as kenpom #3.

budwom
06-03-2018, 12:57 PM
I'm having trouble seeing how this particular group meshes into a title threat team, but far stranger things have happened. Team chemistry (TBD of course) will be as crucial as ever.
Should be a fascinating year.

lotusland
06-03-2018, 01:42 PM
I'm having trouble seeing how this particular group meshes into a title threat team, but far stranger things have happened. Team chemistry (TBD of course) will be as crucial as ever.
Should be a fascinating year.

Yeah I expect the frosh will be talented players who defend poorly as a group to start the year but may improve from poor to adequate by March. Bolden showed his value on both ends in limited stretches last year. If he stays healthy and gains some stamina, he could really have a breakout year. He’s a true post center who doesn’t stray far from the paint though and that might clog thing up a bit in half court sets considering the freshmen all want to get in the lane too. Hopefully they shoot better than advertised or else opponents will zone the crap out of us all year.

OldPhiKap
06-03-2018, 03:39 PM
These "way too early" top 25s will be better to look at after all the NBA early entry, transfer, grad transfer, late commit, and reclass (if any) decisions are finalized. But for those interested... I've linked a few below.

It seems like there is a consensus developing that Kansas is preseason #1. I think that is solid, although I'd probably make UVA my preseason #1.

CBS (https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/2018-19-college-basketball-rankings-way-too-early-projection-has-kansas-and-duke-at-the-top/) - 1. Kansas, 2. Duke, 3. Nova, 4. Auburn, 5. Tennessee... ACC: 8. UVA, 9. UNC, 13. VaTech, 14. Lville, 15. FSU, 24. Clemson

SI (https://www.si.com/college-basketball/2018/04/03/ncaa-basketball-preseason-rankings-top-25-kansas-duke) - 1. Kansas, 2. Duke, 3. Nova, 4. Michigan, 5. Kentucky... ACC: 6. UNC, 7. UVA, 13. VaTech, 16. Clemson, 23. FSU

ESPN (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/22966716/college-basketball-way-too-early-top-25-rankings-2018-19) - 1. Kansas, 2. Duke, 3. Nova, 4. Kentucky, 5. Auburn... ACC: 7. UVA, 9. UNC, 15. Cuse, 16. VaTech, 18. Clemson, 23. FSU

Fox (https://www.foxsports.com/college-basketball/story/duke-is-no-1-in-way-too-early-ap-poll-for-2018-19-040318) - 1. Duke, 2. Kansas, 3. Nova, 4. Kentucky, 5. UNC... ACC: 8. UVA, 12. Lville, 16. VaTech, 24. FSU

TSN (http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/news/college-basketball-top-25-rankings-2018-2019-kentucky-duke-kansas-villanova-nba-draft/699qbsghlgh01sfheywp060ox) - 1. Kansas, 2. Duke, 3. Kentucky, 4. Nova, 5. UVA... ACC: 12. UNC, 19. VaTech, 24. ND

Yahoo (https://sports.yahoo.com/way-early-top-25-2018-19-college-basketball-season-033644755.html) - 1. Kansas, 2. Nova, 3. Duke, 4. UVA, 5. UNC... ACC: 15. VaTech, 16. Cuse, 18. FSU

USAT (https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2018/04/03/college-basketballs-super-early-2018-19-preseason-top-25-teams/480867002/) - 1. Kansas, 2. Duke, 3. UVA. 4. Nova, 5. Zaga... ACC: 9. UNC, 14. Lville, 16. VaTech, 20. FSU

NBC (http://collegebasketball.nbcsports.com/2018/04/02/2018-college-basketball-preseason-top-25/) - 1. Kansas, 2. Nova, 3. Kentucky, 4. Duke, 6. UVA... ACC: 11. UNC, 12. Lville, 13. VaTech, 15. FSU, 22. NCSU, 25. Clemson

Looks like everyone in the conference except BC, Pitt, Wake and GT are in someone’s top 25. Strong.

Troublemaker
06-03-2018, 04:08 PM
I'm having trouble seeing how this particular group meshes into a title threat team, but far stranger things have happened.

It would just take our four freshmen to live up to being the top-12 recruits that they are. It's a fair question though as to whether it's reasonable to go 4-for-4 in that regard. If we bat only 3-for-4, it matters whom the lagger is. Last season, Trevon wasn't a steady PG, which hurt our regular season record and therefore seeding; I would've rather had Bagley not live up to expectations than Duval because a postup 4 isn't as important as a PG. This season, if we bat .750, the lagger needs to be either Reddish or Williamson. We need Jones to live up to his reputation as a smart PG that can defend, and we need Barrett to become the college superstar that he's projected to be.


Bolden showed his value on both ends in limited stretches last year. If he stays healthy and gains some stamina, he could really have a breakout year. He’s a true post center who doesn’t stray far from the paint though and that might clog thing up a bit in half court sets considering the freshmen all want to get in the lane too.

Hopefully Duke will be playing lots of pick-n-roll instead of relying too much on Bolden postups. Even though he did improve on scoring in the post, we need him more away from the basket springing our guards and wings free.


Hopefully they shoot better than advertised or else opponents will zone the crap out of us all year.

I mean, if we can't shoot, defenses can destroy our offense in m2m, too. See what VaTech did to us last year, especially that first GIF in this article: https://accsports.com/acc-analytics/inside-playbook-duke-power-play-trevon-duval/

What should be an easy dunk on the roll becomes a turnover because the VaTech defender completely ignored Duval to clog the lane and pick off the pass.

UrinalCake
06-03-2018, 10:09 PM
It would just take our four freshmen to live up to being the top-12 recruits that they are. It's a fair question though as to whether it's reasonable to go 4-for-4 in that regard. If we bat only 3-for-4, it matters whom the lagger is. Last season, Trevon wasn't a steady PG, which hurt our regular season record and therefore seeding

I would say that as a whole, our freshman class met expectations last season. Some players were better than expected and some were not as good, but it all averaged out. The reason our season was a disappointment, if you want to call it that, was that Grayson fell into an extended shooting slump, Javin provided very little (partially due to injuries), and Bolden didn't come on until late (again injuries played a role). The upperclassmen were the ones who "failed to meet expectations," not the freshmen.

We have had great success with "elite" level recruits, which I would loosely defined as top-5 players out of high school. Basically all of them have been All-ACC level players, except for Giles. The last one who wasn't was Josh McRoberts, and that's going back a ways. Maybe Singler, I think he was ranked just outside the top 5 and had a solid freshman season but not elite. Anyways, despite our incredible recruiting run we have never had THREE top-5 players in a single class. I'm pretty sure nobody has. So if all three of these guys can perform at the level of a Bagley/Tatum/Okafor/Ingram/Parker/etc. then will absolutely compete for a title. But as others have said, lots of question marks.

UrinalCake
06-04-2018, 12:39 PM
Andy Katz’s preseason ranking has us all the way down at 6; places a lot of emphasis on teams having experience. Despite being somewhat contrarian, he may be the only sane one of the bunch.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2018-06-04/andy-katzs-power-36-look-ahead-2018-19-season-post-nba-draft

Acymetric
06-04-2018, 12:52 PM
Andy Katz’s preseason ranking has us all the way down at 6; places a lot of emphasis on teams having experience. Despite being somewhat contrarian, he may be the only sane one of the bunch.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2018-06-04/andy-katzs-power-36-look-ahead-2018-19-season-post-nba-draft

It is pretty crazy to look at who UVA has returning. Amazing that they aren't higher in some of the other rankings, but that NCAA performance does hurt.

The most surprising pick of his for me is Tennessee at #4 (I also think he is slightly overvaluing Nevada and Gonzaga). He got Nova right, they will be very good but lost some pretty key pieces, not sure I understand putting them quite so high (Duke has the same issue, maybe to a greater degree, but also has theoretically better pieces coming in as replacements).

JasonEvans
06-04-2018, 01:27 PM
It is pretty crazy to look at who UVA has returning. Amazing that they aren't higher in some of the other rankings, but that NCAA performance does hurt.

I agree that UVA should be about a top 5 team coming into next season, but lets not forget that they lost their two best defenders in Devon Hall and the incredible Isaiah Wilkens. Wilkens' help D was something to behold. I think he should have made one of the All-ACC teams despite only averaging 6 points per game (he was their leading rebounder, leading shot blocker, and probably the best defensive player in the country). Hall also made the All-ACC Defensive team and was UVA's best 3-point shooter last season.

So, the Wahoos bring back a lot but they lost their perimeter and interior defensive anchors... while I expect them to still be an excellent defensive team, the jury is most certainly out on whether they will be close to otherworldly again.

-Jason "I need to see how the ACC schedule shakes out, but I will probably pick UVA to win the conference again... even though I think Duke has a better shot at winning the national title" Evans

jhmoss1812
06-04-2018, 02:29 PM
I agree that UVA should be about a top 5 team coming into next season, but lets not forget that they lost their two best defenders in Devon Hall and the incredible Isaiah Wilkens. Wilkens' help D was something to behold. I think he should have made one of the All-ACC teams despite only averaging 6 points per game (he was their leading rebounder, leading shot blocker, and probably the best defensive player in the country). Hall also made the All-ACC Defensive team and was UVA's best 3-point shooter last season.

So, the Wahoos bring back a lot but they lost their perimeter and interior defensive anchors... while I expect them to still be an excellent defensive team, the jury is most certainly out on whether they will be close to otherworldly again.

-Jason "I need to see how the ACC schedule shakes out, but I will probably pick UVA to win the conference again... even though I think Duke has a better shot at winning the national title" Evans

Hall and Wilkins are big losses for sure. But the trio of Jerome, Guy, and Hunter might be the best returning trio in the country. Diakite should make a big leap on both ends of the floor and Salt will be a solid starter. Jay Huff will be a very intriguing stretch 4 for us as well and Kihei Clark will spell Jerome at the point. Marco Anthony will need to make a big leap though because the issue for us is we have a lot of unknowns when it comes to the bench. We may also be lacking some depth at the guard position. We've been desperately looking for a grad transfer at the guard position but haven't had any luck. The bench players are relative unknowns both at UVA and on the recruiting trail. I trust in Bennett but most recruiting services don't know much about guys like Kody Stattman, Francesco Badocchi, and Francisco Caffaro. Really wish Braxton Key (transfer from Bama) didn't have to sit out this year. I think UVA will compete for the ACC title again but this season will be much more competitive than last year. I'm perfectly fine not being a 1-seed in the NCAA tourney if I'm being honest.

Troublemaker
06-04-2018, 02:38 PM
It is pretty crazy to look at who UVA has returning. Amazing that they aren't higher in some of the other rankings, but that NCAA performance does hurt.

Yeah, it's this year's most egregious example of allowing NCAA tourney performance to affect preseason rankings. UVA is my preseason #1. The way I look at it is that there were two great teams in 2017-18 in Villanova and UVA. One had a historic offense, the other a historic defense. Nova lost so many key players and deserve to be moved down the polls, but UVA only lost a couple of program guys that will be easily replaced, imo. Hunter is better than Hall and will be a lottery pick in next year's draft. Diakite will ably fill in for Wilkins and will probably provide some much needed post scoring even if his defense isn't quite at Wilkins' level.

The only question mark is whether UVA can develop a wing off the bench that can allow UVA to be flexible with their lineups, i.e. allow them to sometimes play Hunter at the 4. UVA was probably at their most dangerous last season with Hunter at the 4.

Troublemaker
06-04-2018, 02:43 PM
Here are the Futures Odds to win it all next season listed on Vegas Insider: http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-basketball/odds/futures/

The teams at the top are way overpriced as you would imagine. (Vegas' goal isn't to try to make "fair" futures odds; their goal is to try to make money).

That said, the very few teams that hold some value to me (or comes close to holding value, at least) are:

UVA at 14 to 1
Nevada at 20 to 1
Auburn at 33 to 1

I think all of these are better value bets than, say, Nova at 7.5 to 1 or UNC at 12 to 1

devildeac
06-04-2018, 02:47 PM
Here are the Futures Odds to win it all next season listed on Vegas Insider: http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-basketball/odds/futures/

The teams at the top are way overpriced as you would imagine. (Vegas' goal isn't to try to make "fair" futures odds; their goal is to try to make money).

That said, the very few teams that hold some value to me (or comes close to holding value, at least) are:

UVA at 14 to 1
Nevada at 20 to 1
Auburn at 33 to 1

I think all of these are better value bets than, say, Nova at 7.5 to 1 or UNC at 12 to 1

It'd be much more ironic if they listed UVA at something like, oh let's say, 16 to 1. :rolleyes:

jhmoss1812
06-04-2018, 02:51 PM
It'd be much more ironic if they listed UVA at something like, oh let's say, 16 to 1. :rolleyes:

Not cool dude lol

devildeac
06-04-2018, 02:57 PM
Not cool dude lol

Sorry. :o

Better than 15 to 2 or 14 to 3 (cough, Lehigh, cough, Mercer). More :o

jhmoss1812
06-04-2018, 03:17 PM
Sorry. :o

Better than 15 to 2 or 14 to 3 (cough, Lehigh, cough, Mercer). More :o

Winning a championship this year might take the sting out of that loss. For a second.

JasonEvans
06-04-2018, 11:01 PM
It'd be much more ironic if they listed UVA at something like, oh let's say, 16 to 1. :rolleyes:

You must spread some comments around...

devildeac
06-05-2018, 08:56 AM
You must spread some comments around...

It's the thought that counts. Thanks.

Hey, wait! Mods are subject to the comment-spreading rule/limits, too:rolleyes:;)?

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
06-05-2018, 09:11 AM
It's the thought that counts. Thanks.

Hey, wait! Mods are subject to the comment-spreading rule/limits, too:rolleyes:;)?

Off season and this thread seem as good a place as any for this obvious thread jack...

Can a mod please explain the "spread sporks" algorithm?

NSDukeFan
06-05-2018, 11:09 AM
Off season and this thread seem as good a place as any for this obvious thread jack...

Can a mod please explain the "spread sporks" algorithm?

I assume that will be right after Google explains its algorithms? 🤔

devildeac
06-05-2018, 11:49 AM
Off season and this thread seem as good a place as any for this obvious thread jack...

Can a mod please explain the "spread sporks" algorithm?

Not a mod (d'oh:o) but I'll guess it's filed in the same folder/category as double secret probation.

Plus, if someone tells you, they'll likely have to kill you. (kidding, kidding :eek:)

TruBlu
06-05-2018, 11:53 AM
Once upon a time there was a truly good and righteous man. An angel came to him and stated that due to him living so pure, on this rare occasion he would be granted one wish.

The man asked for a bridge to be built to Hawaii, as he was afraid of flying and boats. The angel stated that that wish was impossible, as it would disrupt the creatures of the sea.

The man thought for a while, and asked the angel if the angel would explain the DBR algorithms.

The angel paused, then asked “how many lanes would you like on your bridge to Hawaii?”.

(In the original joke, the second request was for the angel to explain how women think.)

JasonEvans
06-05-2018, 12:06 PM
https://media.makeameme.org/created/id-tell-you-5b16b4.jpg

-Jason "I don't know exactly how it all works, but I have asked the mods who to the engineering stuff to chime in" Evane

-jk
06-05-2018, 12:16 PM
I can’t divulge more than that eye of newt is involved...

-jk

devildeac
06-05-2018, 12:25 PM
I can’t divulge more than that eye of newt is involved...

-jk

Hey, leave Mark outta this:rolleyes:. Plus, if Newton_14 lost an eye, he'd likely have to get a job as an espn color/play-by-play commentator :p.

Or, be an acc ref. :eek:

TruBlu
06-05-2018, 12:36 PM
Being an ACC ref requires losing both eyes.

devildeac
06-05-2018, 12:42 PM
Being an ACC ref requires losing both eyes.

Well, you know the cheer:

I'm blind.

I'm deaf.

I wanna be a ref.

:o

devil84
06-05-2018, 02:54 PM
Off season and this thread seem as good a place as any for this obvious thread jack...

Can a mod please explain the "spread sporks" algorithm?

Nope, we can't, mostly because we didn't write it. Though like -jk says, eye of newt (not Newton_14!) is likely involved...

We can say that you're rewarded for commenting on a variety of people, not just the same few. This prevents people from getting too much recognition from just a few people (artificially inflating their sporks) OR getting too many negative comments from just a few people. There's also a component that won't let you give to many comments in a day (prevents you from commenting on every single post just so you can continue sporking). Other than that, the code isn't exposed for us to parse, so we just can't say.

Tired of sporking your friends? Be a bit more promiscuous! Do you see a new poster who you'd like to encourage to post more? Someone who has posted after a long break? A moderator who explains how things work then shamelessly asks for sporks (hint, hint)? Try sporking someone new! Reward good posts (or gently encourage a poster to change poor posting habits). With the daily limit, you can't be too promiscuous, so make sure that you're giving out good comments.

I'd love to explain more, but like I said, the code isn't available for us to peruse, just some vague, general guidelines. We sincerely don't know how the "spread it around" is calculated (we do know there is intentional variability), nor do we know a daily limit (again with the variability). The geeks that wrote it (and I consider myself a geek, so I use that in the most complimentary way possible) probably enjoy messing with people who game the system. It wouldn't surprise me if there's a "kill switch" that suspends comments for a period of time (like a long "spread it around" message) if it feels you're trying to figure out or game the system. Imagine what we can do with that eye of newt....<evil, evil laugh!>

CameronBornAndBred
06-05-2018, 02:57 PM
I love that "sporks" has become the accepted term, as opposed to the true "pitchfork". Ha!

JasonEvans
06-05-2018, 03:04 PM
I love that "sporks" has become the accepted term, as opposed to the true "pitchfork". Ha!

I need this shirt with a DBR logo on it.
https://image.spreadshirtmedia.com/image-server/v1/products/17294842/views/1,width=650,height=650,appearanceId=4,version=1485 256808/its-a-spork-on-a-shirt.jpg

devil84
06-05-2018, 03:17 PM
I love that "sporks" has become the accepted term, as opposed to the true "pitchfork". Ha!

But if I used "pitchforking," then the whole promiscuity with sporking thing falls apart. Pitchforking doesn't sound pleasant!

I personally prefer the term pitchforks, because the devil doesn't wield a spork (unless the devil eats at Taco Bell).

devildeac
06-05-2018, 03:42 PM
I love that "sporks" has become the accepted term, as opposed to the true "pitchfork". Ha!

Origin?

(cough, cough)

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
06-05-2018, 03:45 PM
I need this shirt with a DBR logo on it.
https://image.spreadshirtmedia.com/image-server/v1/products/17294842/views/1,width=650,height=650,appearanceId=4,version=1485 256808/its-a-spork-on-a-shirt.jpg

On the reverse "you must spread yadda yadda..."

Great DBR fundraising idea!

devildeac
06-05-2018, 04:00 PM
I need this shirt with a DBR logo on it.
https://image.spreadshirtmedia.com/image-server/v1/products/17294842/views/1,width=650,height=650,appearanceId=4,version=1485 256808/its-a-spork-on-a-shirt.jpg

Now you're engaging in crazietalk, Jason.

:p

CameronBornAndBred
06-05-2018, 04:41 PM
Now you're engaging in crazietalk, Jason.

:p

839483948394

:rolleyes:

(PS...I'll be happy as long as Duke is in the top 10.)

Wahoo2000
06-05-2018, 05:43 PM
Yeah, it's this year's most egregious example of allowing NCAA tourney performance to affect preseason rankings. UVA is my preseason #1. The way I look at it is that there were two great teams in 2017-18 in Villanova and UVA. One had a historic offense, the other a historic defense. Nova lost so many key players and deserve to be moved down the polls, but UVA only lost a couple of program guys that will be easily replaced, imo. Hunter is better than Hall and will be a lottery pick in next year's draft. Diakite will ably fill in for Wilkins and will probably provide some much needed post scoring even if his defense isn't quite at Wilkins' level.

The only question mark is whether UVA can develop a wing off the bench that can allow UVA to be flexible with their lineups, i.e. allow them to sometimes play Hunter at the 4. UVA was probably at their most dangerous last season with Hunter at the 4.

It might sound crazy to refer to a league DPOY and an all-defensive player who was also a 50/40/90-ish shooter as "program guys"... but you're absolutely correct. Diakite and Hunter both have MUCH higher upside than the 2 that left, and while their defense will likely not be on par with Wilkins/Hall, their offense should MORE than make up for it. If we can get 60 quality minutes from our bench of relative nobodies, we'll be elite again. If no one on the bench steps up at all, we'll be more of a top 8-15 team.

Lots of quotes and articles regarding Guy and Jerome saying they've "never worked nearly this hard" in an offseason. Hopefully that will pay major dividends. Still, we could go 33-0 and it won't matter (much) if we flame out in the tournament again.

Really looking forward to seeing Duke this year as well. Especially interested to see if we'll get much of Delaurier and O'Connell in for Bolden and Jones, respectively. That would give Duke a true "positionless" lineup where they can switch absolutely everything defensively and make playing at a high level on that end of the floor much easier for inexperienced players. I doubt it'll happen too much, as I expect Jones to play 30+mpg, but it sure should be tantalizing for a coach that loves good defense but has kind of been hampered in the last few years by having such inexperienced teams.

OldPhiKap
06-05-2018, 08:43 PM
Nope, we can't, mostly because we didn't write it. Though like -jk says, eye of newt (not Newton_14!) is likely involved...

We can say that you're rewarded for commenting on a variety of people, not just the same few. This prevents people from getting too much recognition from just a few people (artificially inflating their sporks) OR getting too many negative comments from just a few people. There's also a component that won't let you give to many comments in a day (prevents you from commenting on every single post just so you can continue sporking). Other than that, the code isn't exposed for us to parse, so we just can't say.

Tired of sporking your friends? Be a bit more promiscuous! Do you see a new poster who you'd like to encourage to post more? Someone who has posted after a long break? A moderator who explains how things work then shamelessly asks for sporks (hint, hint)? Try sporking someone new! Reward good posts (or gently encourage a poster to change poor posting habits). With the daily limit, you can't be too promiscuous, so make sure that you're giving out good comments.

I'd love to explain more, but like I said, the code isn't available for us to peruse, just some vague, general guidelines. We sincerely don't know how the "spread it around" is calculated (we do know there is intentional variability), nor do we know a daily limit (again with the variability). The geeks that wrote it (and I consider myself a geek, so I use that in the most complimentary way possible) probably enjoy messing with people who game the system. It wouldn't surprise me if there's a "kill switch" that suspends comments for a period of time (like a long "spread it around" message) if it feels you're trying to figure out or game the system. Imagine what we can do with that eye of newt...<evil, evil laugh!>

8395

Jackson
06-06-2018, 09:13 AM
Unknown is unknown, though. I think our ranking should be "TBD" instead of your suggested 8-15.



I mostly agree and definitely agree that nobody should buy the #2 ranking before games are played.

That said, top-10 ranked freshmen have tended to perform really well for us, so there's a limit to just how big a question mark they are. Also, in the past 5 seasons, Duke's two youngest teams have been our two best ones. One won a national championship and finished the season as kenpom #3 and the other came within a whisker of the Final Four and finished the season as kenpom #3.


8-15 seems so low for a team with this much talent. Number 1 seems unattainable for a team this young. At this point, a first weekend exit from the tournament doesn't seem surprising and winning the whole thing wouldn't surprise me eigher. I just hope for the ability to play man and look for at least one of the freshmen to play at ACC POY level. I expect either R.J. or Zion would be the best candidate.

NSDukeFan
06-06-2018, 12:20 PM
I might be greedy, but I am hoping for three freshmen to play near an ACC POY level with RJ (I am extremely excited to see what he can do) leading the way.

Wahoo2000
06-15-2018, 04:16 PM
re: UVA - news out of Charlottesville today is that Braxton Key (Alabama transfer, 2016 247 composite #59 overall, SF 6'8 225) will apply for a hardship waiver to be eligible for this coming season (18-19). If granted Key will be a junior eligibility-wise, and another player in a VERY similar mold to DeAndre Hunter (extremely long/rangy/athletic with good feel/knack for scoring off the bounce and a developing jump shot), and help shore up the biggest concern for UVA - bench/depth.

Now, I have no idea if his claim is legitimate or an attempt to just take advantage of the system, but after reading the hardship rules, I don't really see much of a way to "BS" it - Key and his family have to prove that an immediate family member (parent, sibling, or primary caregiver) is dealing with a life threatening illness. Documentation needed from multiple physicians. So, if NOT granted, shame on them (slightly) for the attempt. If it IS granted, hard to celebrate too much given the circumstances for the young man and his family.

tbyers11
06-15-2018, 04:28 PM
re: UVA - news out of Charlottesville today is that Braxton Key (Alabama transfer, 2016 247 composite #59 overall, SF 6'8 225) will apply for a hardship waiver to be eligible for this coming season (18-19). If granted Key will be a junior eligibility-wise, and another player in a VERY similar mold to DeAndre Hunter (extremely long/rangy/athletic with good feel/knack for scoring off the bounce and a developing jump shot), and help shore up the biggest concern for UVA - bench/depth.

Now, I have no idea if his claim is legitimate or an attempt to just take advantage of the system, but after reading the hardship rules, I don't really see much of a way to "BS" it - Key and his family have to prove that an immediate family member (parent, sibling, or primary caregiver) is dealing with a life threatening illness. Documentation needed from multiple physicians. So, if NOT granted, shame on them (slightly) for the attempt. If it IS granted, hard to celebrate too much given the circumstances for the young man and his family.

Interesting news. I have no idea to legitimacy of Key's hardship waiver but I do know that the NCAA has been making it more difficult to obtain a hardship waiver the last few years. For a while it seemed that if your second cousin once removed had a hangnail you could get a hardship waiver.

UrinalCake
08-20-2018, 08:34 AM
UNC commits 44 turnovers in their two games against heavily overmatched teams of random players from the Bahamas. Will be interesting to watch their point guard situation and how it shakes out.

HereBeforeCoachK
08-20-2018, 12:04 PM
Interesting news. I have no idea to legitimacy of Key's hardship waiver but I do know that the NCAA has been making it more difficult to obtain a hardship waiver the last few years. For a while it seemed that if your second cousin once removed had a hangnail you could get a hardship waiver.

I see the pendulum swinging back the other way in the past few months on this kind of thing....not just hardship, but other eligibility rulings. Of course, they were ridiculously slow to do the right thing for that NC State transfer......punishing him because he took summer school courses at Ohio State (or wherever it was).

PackMan97
08-20-2018, 12:15 PM
I see the pendulum swinging back the other way in the past few months on this kind of thing...not just hardship, but other eligibility rulings. Of course, they were ridiculously slow to do the right thing for that NC State transfer...punishing him because he took summer school courses at Ohio State (or wherever it was).

It is worth noting, it wasn't until Beverly and his family obtained private legal representation that the NCAA changed their tune.

Truth&Justise
08-20-2018, 01:50 PM
UNC commits 44 turnovers in their two games against heavily overmatched teams of random players from the Bahamas. Will be interesting to watch their point guard situation and how it shakes out.

Agree, with a grain of salt. They turned the ball over a ton in some easy wins against overmatched teams. We shot poorly from 3 and the FT line in easy wins against overmatched teams. Too early to tell if either will be long-term trends, but so far both appear to be conforming to early concerns.