Grade Our OOC Performance

BearcatTalk

Help Support BearcatTalk:

What grade do you give the non-conference performance?

  • A

    Votes: 1 7.7%

  • B

    Votes: 4 30.8%

  • C

    Votes: 6 46.2%

  • D

    Votes: 2 15.4%

  • F

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    13
waterhead said:
Fair enough. More weight should be given to the bigger games...I get that.

The other thing to factor in are how some other big time teams have struggled or even lost bad games AT HOME. At least we haven't been down that road. This board would lose it's mind...lol! I know a lot of our games have been against absolutely horrible teams...but we didn't really have any close calls at home either. So you have that to factor in
Click to expand...



This teams offense shouldn't be ranked lower than last years. Our team turnover rate is bad and it has nothing to do with the PG position. Evans' is nearly double what it was last year, Cumberlands is up, Washingtons is up. That is disappointing to me.


Cumberland and Washington have played worse this year than last year. Cumberland hasn't taken the step we all hoped he would. Washington has struggled at times.


All these things factor into my grade. Out of all the minutes we've played I can only think of a few stretches where we've looked as good as we all think we can be.
 
jacobkdoyle said:
Miss St reminds me of K State. Play no one in non-con to go 12-1, go 9-9 in conference, and you're in.
Click to expand...

big 12 a lot different than the sec though. last year kstate played 17 of 18 conference games vs A or B caliber opponents and 14 of those 17 were A caliber games.


mississippi st will play 15/18 against A or B caliber buto only 7 of them are A games.
 
cincrulz11 said:
This teams offense shouldn't be ranked lower than last years. Our team turnover rate is bad and it has nothing to do with the PG position. Evans' is nearly double what it was last year, Cumberlands is up, Washingtons is up. That is disappointing to me.


Cumberland and Washington have played worse this year than last year. Cumberland hasn't taken the step we all hoped he would. Washington has struggled at times.


All these things factor into my grade. Out of all the minutes we've played I can only think of a few stretches where we've looked as good as we all think we can be.
Click to expand...

I have been reluctant to believe what others have already said about Cumberland. I thought he would put it together by now. I think Kyle is Kyle and he's going to be about the same as last year. I am hoping Cumberland can start to play like we all know he can (or at least me). I am wondering if coach focusing on Evans being the guy with the ball in his hands is affecting Cumberland's mindset? He was rumored early on to be the "alpha dog"...but he hasn't been that yet.
 
cincyguy13 said:
Can we all agree that giving the an A- is crazier than me giving them a D? This is basically saying it was almost perfect
Click to expand...

I just can't agree with anything saying it's a D. So I guess I'd go A- ahead of that, if those are the only choices. We have not been thrown off our track at all. A D grade would suggest some really serious problems to me.
 
cincrulz11 said:
big 12 a lot different than the sec though. last year kstate played 17 of 18 conference games vs A or B caliber opponents and 14 of those 17 were A caliber games.


mississippi st will play 15/18 against A or B caliber buto only 7 of them are A games.
Click to expand...

Do you know how our schedule in AAC stacks up?
 
jacobkdoyle said:
Do you know how our schedule in AAC stacks up?
Click to expand...

I was really hoping our conference could move into the top 6 this year with WSU added. Some teams have fallen off but some others are doing well. We are going to need some help from Houston, Temple, and maybe UCF when they get Taylor back. Shame about him and Dawkins.

We currently are projected as having 3 tourney teams. Pac 12 has 4 and Big Ten has 5. No other conference has more than 1 per Jerry Palm at the moment. If the AAC can pass up just one of them it would mean a great deal. Two would be a dream scenario. Top 5 conference would be huge. Top 6 would be just fine with me. 7 is where we have been.
 
jacobkdoyle said:
I just can't agree with anything saying it's a D. So I guess I'd go A- ahead of that, if those are the only choices. We have not been thrown off our track at all. A D grade would suggest some really serious problems to me.
Click to expand...

We have had a lot of questions though. Kyle was terrible for 2 of the 4 games. He was Good in the others. The point guard situation was a mess for some of the year. Jarron hasn’t been great this year. The offense against good teams was a problem in 2 of the games. Turnovers. Looked completely unprepared against Xavier. And 2-2 against our 4 best teams is the definition of average. How this is a A or even above average non conference performance is still confusing to me but agree to disagree
 
cincyguy13 said:
We have had a lot of questions though. Kyle was terrible for 2 of the 4 games. He was Good in the others. The point guard situation was a mess for some of the year. Jarron hasn’t been great this year. The offense against good teams was a problem in 2 of the games. Turnovers. Looked completely unprepared against Xavier. And 2-2 against our 4 best teams is the definition of average. How this is a A or even above average non conference performance is still confusing to me but agree to disagree
Click to expand...

We did play more games than just that 4 game stretch. We have to base a lot of our opinion on that stretch...but not all of it.

We handled business in every other game other than a single neutral game against Buffalo (and they are not that bad on Kenpom #123). Nothing horrible so far...just some "growing pains" really. Wofford is #168 and beat UNC at home. Hey...I get it...they get a pass for good reason...but I'm just sayin.
 
I went with a high C+.


We didn't blow any games. We under performed but didn't blow our entire season.


I also walk away from the non conference knowing that we have not played out best basketball yet. We've far from peaked and we still have so much room to improve.
 
We were +10 in the 2-2 tougher game stretch. Not bad considering we went down 26-9 against Xavier when we got our jolt into better competition. So in those final 150 minutes, we were +27. And that includes being incredibly sloppy vs Florida. Obviously 3-1 or better was the hope, it wasn't all bad even in the stretch that docks our grade according to most of us.
 
justinhub2003 said:
I went with a high C+.


We didn't blow any games. We under performed but didn't blow our entire season.


I also walk away from the non conference knowing that we have not played out best basketball yet. We've far from peaked and we still have so much room to improve.
Click to expand...

But we haven't blown our entire season. Omg lol
 
Jon Rycek said:
It said out, meant put. Meaning if we beat Florida I would have called an A-. I put us at a B
Click to expand...

Thank god. I really thought u were giving them an A for beating UCLA and Miss St.

I took back my D. Still feel like higher than a C is too high. If you only have 4 chances to make noise and lose 2 of them, hard for me to give that above average.
 
I don't think you can look at our 4 "featured" games in a vacuum. You have to look at each performance individually. I like to use a point system based on performance/opponent/location/result:

Xavier -1.5
Florida -5
Miss St +1
UCLA +1.5

So to me we come out +.5 in those 4. Now lets not forget our best win(RPI wise) is Buffalo, who is the best team in the MAC and gave Syracuse and Texas A&M a game in the last week. I give us a B-
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

JasonS
Q&A With Mike Thomas
Replies
10
Views
6K
Little Danny
L
Back
Top