2019-2020 Season

[skyblade]

I expect Houston and USF to be top two in the league. I think Memphis takes some hits early - they are a very young team and teams will be gunning for them. I also think UC takes a few losses early in conference play - going to take a while for chemistry to develop. I'd rank UC around 30 in the preseason. They have the pieces to be very good, but have to prove that they can fit those new pieces together with a new coach.

 

[justinhub2003]

I mostly agree with what you are saying. What Cronin can do with the best talent is obviously going to have a higher ceiling than what he could do at UC. But what good is that for us here (at UC) if we knew we had peaked our ceiling under that coach and it wasn't going to get better?

Why not see if another coach can move the needle. If our best is just to reach the tourney...we can do that with other coaches. Maybe not with the same regularity...but it can be done. So the coaching change is just to see if we can catch lightning in a bottle while we sacrifice some comfort of the known vs the unknown. The unknown is always a bit scarier but it's also a lot more exciting usually.

I think people truly underestimate how hard to it is to make the tourney every single year for 9 years straight. Cronin is with Elite company when it comes to consistency.
I personally don't want a sweet 16 if it means missing the tourney 2 years in a row. I enjoy the ride of the season and being in my season ticket seats to watch it happen. The tourney is icing on the cake for me, but 30+ game season is what matters to me. And I think there isn't a whole lot of room for CJB to improve in the regular season, so he has to make it work in the post season, while also making it there every single year.

 

[Gaaangs]

This thread is an embarrassment.

Why are we still debating if Cronin is a good coach or not? The dude is gone. Let it be. It's just stupid to start comparing Brannen to Cronin when Brannen hasn't even coached a single game as UC's head coach.

As for this years team - I think missing the tournament would be a HUGE disappointment. Im with some of you - I think this team has a real chance to make some noise in March. They have solid players and something that I think most of you overlook - a different STYLE OF PLAY. A style of play that can actually win you games come March.

 

[justinhub2003]

Mason's composite is a 2 Star ranked 411.

His 247 ranking is slighly better at 364

 

[cincrulz11]

I think people truly underestimate how hard to it is to make the tourney every single year for 9 years straight. Cronin is with Elite company when it comes to consistency.
I personally don't want a sweet 16 if it means missing the tourney 2 years in a row. I enjoy the ride of the season and being in my season ticket seats to watch it happen. The tourney is icing on the cake for me, but 30+ game season is what matters to me. And I think there isn't a whole lot of room for CJB to improve in the regular season, so he has to make it work in the post season, while also making it there every single year.

the league is growing much stronger. After that initial season when Louisville was still here, our conference has been pretty bad outside of us and smu, and then houston recently.


since we entered the AAC our average kenpom ranking has been 26 at the end of the year. that racked up a lot of titles. i'm not sure the 26th best team in the country is going to be consistently winning this league going forward.


winning 30 games with how the conference is now will be a much tougher task than it has been.

 

[waterhead]

While I’m mostly done arguing dumb shit, this is a horrible take.

Locking your self in with a guy ranked in the 400’s for 4 years in a position where we don’t don’t need depth could hamper you from landing a guy you need.

Also if mason ends up not playing and gets pissed off, so we lose both brothers to transfer?

I’ve read some quote about recruiting that goes something like “missing a recruit won’t kill you, but landing the wrong one will”

But either way. I’m moving on. I’m ready for the season

Awful take. Part of it's a half baked pessimistic conspiracy theory about where the twins are headed next. The other half assumes we can fill all 12 other roster spots with considerably better talent which I just showed Cronin could NOT do and did not do. He would leave spots open and/or fill them with recruits in the 300's and 400's. He was not killing his chances to land better recruits because he could only get 1 of those per year anyway. Good grief think about it!!

 

[skyblade]

This thread is an embarrassment.

Why are we still debating if Cronin is a good coach or not? The dude is gone. Let it be. It's just stupid to start comparing Brannen to Cronin when Brannen hasn't even coached a single game as UC's head coach.

As for this years team - I think missing the tournament would be a HUGE disappointment. Im with some of you - I think this team has a real chance to make some noise in March. They have solid players and something that I think most of you overlook - a different STYLE OF PLAY. A style of play that can actually win you games come March.

I have yet to see anything that shows one style of play is better than the rest. Cronin's style is very similar to that of Virginia and Virginia just won the tournament. The most important thing in the tournament is the matchup.

Maybe it's because I've only ever watched UC, but I enjoy the gritty tough defensive wins. Style of play has never really mattered much to me. As long as it gets the win I don't care if the final score is 30-29 or 100-99.

I think Brannen's key to being successful here is being better at adjusting the scheme to the players and to the opposing team. Cronin's biggest flaw was/is his unwillingness to change his scheme and his attempts to fit square pegs into round holes. I'd say his dedication to playing the same style regardless of players or opponents was the main cause of march failures (besides just bad luck).

 

[cincycpaw]

I have yet to see anything that shows one style of play is better than the rest. Cronin's style is very similar to that of Virginia and Virginia just won the tournament. The most important thing in the tournament is the matchup.

Maybe it's because I've only ever watched UC, but I enjoy the gritty tough defensive wins. Style of play has never really mattered much to me. As long as it gets the win I don't care if the final score is 30-29 or 100-99.

I think Brannen's key to being successful here is being better at adjusting the scheme to the players and to the opposing team. Cronin's biggest flaw was/is his unwillingness to change his scheme and his attempts to fit square pegs into round holes. I'd say his dedication to playing the same style regardless of players or opponents was the main cause of march failures (besides just bad luck).

Perhaps the 9 straight tournaments with only 1 sweet 16 really tells you a lot about the 1 style of play for UC. Virginia did win the national championship with similar style but with shooters. And they were also the 1st #1 seed to lose to a #16 seed the year before. I think that shows the issue with that style of play. Razor thin margin of error.

 

[JoeRunner89]

Perhaps the 9 straight tournaments with only 1 sweet 16 really tells you a lot about the 1 style of play for UC. Virginia did win the national championship with similar style but with shooters. And they were also the 1st #1 seed to lose to a #16 seed the year before. I think that shows the issue with that style of play. Razor thin margin of error.

Virginia also plays in the ACC with better access to recruiting athletes. All that matters is winning, so I value the regular season maybe slightly more than the postseason but both are important.. it's important to be in a winning class with consistency. This is a big yr for Brannen he has to cash it in

 

[skylinecat]

Mason's composite is a 2 Star ranked 411.

His 247 ranking is slighly better at 364

Mick took a guy whose 247 ranking was 340 (Moore), 471 (Nsoseme), 346 (Strickland), 312 (Guyn) , 325 (Davis). Mick was an established coach in the league at the time he accepted those commitments. And that doesn't include guys like Nyarsuk that were awful juco transfers. Mason at least comes as a package deal with Gabe.

 

[skyblade]

Perhaps the 9 straight tournaments with only 1 sweet 16 really tells you a lot about the 1 style of play for UC. Virginia did win the national championship with similar style but with shooters. And they were also the 1st #1 seed to lose to a #16 seed the year before. I think that shows the issue with that style of play. Razor thin margin of error.

I've yet to see any statistical evidence that this is true. Looking at Kenpom adjT, it seems that slower paced teams have more regular season success then fast paced teams though at least over the last 3 years.

In 2019, of the 50 slowest paced teams 14 made the NCAA tournament, of the 50 fastest paced 8 made the NCAA tournament. 2 of the 50 slowest paced teams made the final four, 0 of the 50 fastest paced made the final four (fastest paced team to make final four was #152).

In 2018, 11 of the 50 slowest paced teams made the NCAA tournament and 13 of the 50 fastest paced teams made the NCAA tournament, 2 of the 50 slowest and 0 of the 50 fastest made the final four (fastest paced final four team was #144).

2017, 13 of the 50 slowest paced teams and 7 of the 50 fastest paced teams made the NCAA tournament. 0 of the 50 slowest paced and 1 of the 50 fastest paced made the final four (slowest was #234).

Edit in 2016 and 2015, 11 of the 50 slowest teams made the NCAA tournament. 7 (2016) and 9 (2015) of the 50 fastest made the NCAA tournament. Assuming my math is right, a random sample of 50 teams would expect 9.4 to go to the NCAA tournament. the 50 slowest teams have been better than random each of the last 5 years (not sure if it is enough to be statistically significant though - I'd guess not), the 50 fastest teams have done better than random only once in the last 5 years.

 

[waterhead]

Mick took a guy whose 247 ranking was 340 (Moore), 471 (Nsoseme), 346 (Strickland), 312 (Guyn) , 325 (Davis). Mick was an established coach in the league at the time he accepted those commitments. And that doesn't include guys like Nyarsuk that were awful juco transfers. Mason at least comes as a package deal with Gabe.

Agree! This is my point as well. We are already filling out the end of the roster instead of leaving it empty. I think the assumption here is that Mason ends up on the end of the bench for 4 years. That could happen but he could also surprise.

He can't do much worse than some of the players you mention. And I am damn sure he can do better than an empty spot on the roster. Mason is right in the same range but he's a gym rat who will work to prove people wrong. In a worst case he can add some ball handling if we see injury. He is also a capable shooter who can't do any worse than Moore has done so far (or Williams etc). Best case he can be a knock down shooter with some ball skills. I don't mind the pickup as a 13th roster spot. He can fill in at 2 positions.

 

[waterhead]

I've yet to see any statistical evidence that this is true. Looking at Kenpom adjT, it seems that slower paced teams have more regular season success then fast paced teams though at least over the last 3 years.

In 2019, of the 50 slowest paced teams 14 made the NCAA tournament, of the 50 fastest paced 8 made the NCAA tournament. 2 of the 50 slowest paced teams made the final four, 0 of the 50 fastest paced made the final four (fastest paced team to make final four was #152).

In 2018, 11 of the 50 slowest paced teams made the NCAA tournament and 13 of the 50 fastest paced teams made the NCAA tournament, 2 of the 50 slowest and 0 of the 50 fastest made the final four (fastest paced final four team was #144).

2017, 13 of the 50 slowest paced teams and 7 of the 50 fastest paced teams made the NCAA tournament. 0 of the 50 slowest paced and 1 of the 50 fastest paced made the final four (slowest was #234).

Edit in 2016 and 2015, 11 of the 50 slowest teams made the NCAA tournament. 7 (2016) and 9 (2015) of the 50 fastest made the NCAA tournament. Assuming my math is right, a random sample of 50 teams would expect 9.4 to go to the NCAA tournament. the 50 slowest teams have been better than random each of the last 5 years (not sure if it is enough to be statistically significant though - I'd guess not), the 50 fastest teams have done better than random only once in the last 5 years.

I don't think Brannen has one of the fastEST paced teams in NCAA just fastER than what we are used to. NKU was 153 in possessions per game last year. UC was 334. This is not a wholesale adjustment for pace.

 

[sedziobs]

Perhaps the 9 straight tournaments with only 1 sweet 16 really tells you a lot about the 1 style of play for UC. Virginia did win the national championship with similar style but with shooters. And they were also the 1st #1 seed to lose to a #16 seed the year before. I think that shows the issue with that style of play. Razor thin margin of error.

Duke has had a 1 or 2 seed 10 times in the last 12 years with only two Final Fours. All except one of the those years they were top half in tempo. The only time they weren't, they won the championship. They also lost in the first or second round 3 times, including their fastest tempo year.

This is simply to show that you can find single examples to support just about any point you want to make. To really prove a point, you would need to show a correlation among all teams over many years. As skyblade says, I don't think such a correlation exists.

 

[skyblade]

I don't think Brannen has one of the fastEST paced teams in NCAA just fastER than what we are used to. NKU was 153 in possessions per game last year. UC was 334. This is not a wholesale adjustment for pace.

Yeah, I expect UC's pace under Brannen to be in the 150+-25 range. The previous post was more directed at those who claim the slow pace makes for a worse team.

If slow pace = bad and faster pace = good, then fastest pace should = best assuming the improvement is linear. That is not the case over the last 5 years. Perhaps there is a central pace that is better than both faster and slower paces, but that would be too much work to figure out using kenpom AdjT.

Slowest 50 pace is > fastest 50 pace over the last 5 years. Slowest 50 pace also outperforms random chance (though it may not be statistically significant). I would like to see a study that compares pace of play to success (regular season and tournament) to see if there is any correlation. But that is way too much work for me.

Looking at the kenpom top 50 vs bottom 50 isn't the greatest or most accurate way of doing it, but it is simple. And it at least provides more evidence than those who claim slow pace is worse with no evidence at all.

 

[skyblade]

Duke has had a 1 or 2 seed 10 times in the last 12 years with only two Final Fours. All except one of the those years they were top half in tempo. The only time they weren't, they won the championship. They also lost in the first or second round 3 times, including their fastest tempo year.

This is simply to show that you can find single examples to support just about any point you want to make. To really prove a point, you would need to show a correlation among all teams over many years. As skyblade says, I don't think such a correlation exists.

Yeah, I'd like to see someone attempt a correlation, but I don't believe one exists.

I do think great defense tends to correlate with slow pace of play, much more so than great offense correlates with fast pace of play. Because of that, slow pace will generally seem to outperform face pace. But if you account for the defense variable, then you likely find that pace has no effect on success.

 

[waterhead]

Yeah, I'd like to see someone attempt a correlation, but I don't believe one exists.

I do think great defense tends to correlate with slow pace of play, much more so than great offense correlates with fast pace of play. Because of that, slow pace will generally seem to outperform face pace. But if you account for the defense variable, then you likely find that pace has no effect on success.

I'm sure it's a tough call but maybe one of you stat geniuses like yourself or Sedziobs can create a spreadsheet with pivot tables to find the winning formula? LOL! JK...good stuff here

 

[waterhead]

Yeah, I'd like to see someone attempt a correlation, but I don't believe one exists.

I do think great defense tends to correlate with slow pace of play, much more so than great offense correlates with fast pace of play. Because of that, slow pace will generally seem to outperform face pace. But if you account for the defense variable, then you likely find that pace has no effect on success.

Perhaps a better look would be to go into some of the 4 aspects that each coach will emphasize. Offensive vs defensive rebounds. FG efficiency. Full court press vs drop back half court defense etc.

Are we just robbing Peter to pay Paul here? Are we just looking at a different way to get the same results?

 

[sedziobs]

Here are tempos for each Final Four team this decade (champ listed first):

2019: 353 256 200 152
2018: 162 147 327 316
2017: 35 75 232 176
2016: 289 57 89 327
2015: 95 259 344 229
2014: 262 325 297 212
2013: 119 203 230 219
2012: 161 76 108 125
2011: 229 191 264 175
2010: 222 309 290 200

The average is 214, and the average champ is 193. Range is 35 to 353. Standard deviation is 96, so there isn't a middle peak. There have been more 300+ than sub 100 tempos.

 

[skyblade]

Perhaps a better look would be to go into some of the 4 aspects that each coach will emphasize. Offensive vs defensive rebounds. FG efficiency. Full court press vs drop back half court defense etc.

Are we just robbing Peter to pay Paul here? Are we just looking at a different way to get the same results?

I do think a lot of style differences involve trade-offs, one isn't necessarily better or worse than the other, just different.

For example if you have a fast pace team that likes to run. In order to run, they are likely going to take more risks on D to try to create TO's. The also won't send as many men for the rebound, instead having guys leak out ready to go on the transition attack. Then gain more easy basket and more transition opportunities, but they also give up more easy baskets and offensive rebounds.

It's possible to be a fast paced team that plays excellent defense. But looking at Kenpom from 2019, the fast paced teams with good defense (top 25 defense, top 100 tempo) were teams with excellent athletes who can erase mistakes (Duke and UNC).

I see style as a neutral factor. The only time it really matters is in matchups.

I think the main things that matter for UC's success are recruiting, player development, game planning and in-game coaching.

Of those, I think Brannen is going to be hard pressed to exceed Cronin by any significant margin at recruiting, player development and in-game coaching. I do think there is a lot of room for improvement in terms of game planning though. Cronin brought one style and dared other teams to beat in and forced his players to fit into it. I'm hoping Brannen makes a lot more game plan adjustments to help our own players thrive and to take away other teams strengths.