Xavier

[cincrulz11]

this is a good post.

its actually a pretty crappy post. better recruits gives you a better chance to be good. but the rankings aren't an exact science. extremely good athletes tend to get overrated even if they aren't great basketball players. good basketball players that aren't hyper athletic tend to get underrated. some players peak in high school, others keep developing.


if you are getting top 20 guys its great for the most part, obviously its nice to get top 100 guys, but that doesn't guarantee you anything.



there have been plenty of schools that get top 100 guys and dont make the tournament. plenty of schools that rarely get top 100 guys and make it all the time. a lot of players are overrated and underrated every year, just looking at who has how many x star players isn't the way to do it.

 

[Madman81]

its actually a pretty crappy post. better recruits gives you a better chance to be good. but the rankings aren't an exact science. extremely good athletes tend to get overrated even if they aren't great basketball players. good basketball players that aren't hyper athletic tend to get underrated. some players peak in high school, others keep developing.


if you are getting top 20 guys its great for the most part, obviously its nice to get top 100 guys, but that doesn't guarantee you anything.



there have been plenty of schools that get top 100 guys and dont make the tournament. plenty of schools that rarely get top 100 guys and make it all the time. a lot of players are overrated and underrated every year, just looking at who has how many x star players isn't the way to do it.

judging a team based on its recruiting rankings over what it's doing on the court is dumb. your post made a mockery of recruiting rankings and thus was not dumb.

 

[cincrulz11]

judging a team based on its recruiting rankings over what it's doing on the court is dumb. your post made a mockery of recruiting rankings and thus was not dumb.

but you could call it trolling

 

[Madman81]

or just sarcasm in the ordinary course of conversation

 

[Helicopter]

Better playing Team yes. But we certainly do not have the most talent.

Xavier has 5 4 star players, 4 of which were top 100 and 1 was nearly a 5 star.

They have far more talent then our mostly 3 star roster.

If we win 2 out of the next 3 games, will have played way way way above our talent level because every one of those teams have far more talent then we do.

Brooks 3 star, Scott 3 star (an offensively challenged one at that), jenifer 3 star, diarra 3 star, cane 2-3 star, nsesome 3-star, Trevor Moore 3-star, Logan Johnson 3 star on most sites but really low grade 4 star on 247.

Keith and jarron are the only consensus 4 stars on our entire roster.


We need to win this game with defense, rebounding and playing as a team. Also people better acknowledge mick as a really damn good coach if we can beat all these teams with far more talent then we have.

One thing I will say about Mick -- he is a far better talent evaluator than 90% of other college basketball coaches. I also think the "star" system is really sloppy after the top 25 kids and highly political.

 

[waterhead]

This game probably wouldn't be too far off even money if playing on a neutral site. If we both play well we should win. If we both play bad we should win. If we play well and they play bad we should win.

So we need to avoid us playing bad and them playing well. Those are pretty good odds until you look at recent history because they usually play better than we do for some damn reason. So we are back to even money...lol!

 

[Helicopter]

This game probably wouldn't be too far off even money if playing on a neutral site. If we both play well we should win. If we both play bad we should win. If we play well and they play bad we should win.

So we need to avoid us playing bad and them playing well. Those are pretty good odds until you look at recent history because they usually play better than we do for some damn reason. So we are back to even money...lol!

I haven't seen any line yet but I would predict -6.5 UC. About 5 points more than even money on a neutral court.

 

[cincrulz11]

After Mick's comments today, somebody should tell Mick that Kerem Kanter was actually a pretty good offensive player last year. Its not fluke for him to score 17.

 

[justinhub2003]

After Mick's comments today, somebody should tell Mick that Kerem Kanter was actually a pretty good offensive player last year. Its not fluke for him to score 17.

He made 17 3’s all season with 3 being against uc.

He also missed the final shot from 3 that lost then the Florida state game

 

[cincrulz11]

He made 17 3’s all season with 3 being against uc.

He also missed the final shot from 3 that lost then the Florida state game

he went 2-2 from 3. thats not really a big deal over the course of a game. he didn't shoot a lot on the season but he shot 33%, not 13%. he hit 2 in 4 other games.


just seemed like an odd/the wrong person to bring up (probably shouldn't bring up anybody specifically).

 

[waterhead]

I haven't seen any line yet but I would predict -6.5 UC. About 5 points more than even money on a neutral court.

That’s more than I thought. I think torvik has it around 5 but he gives about 7 point differential between home and away games with the same team. Does Vegas give 3 to home team?

 

[cincrulz11]

That’s more than I thought. I think torvik has it around 5 but he gives about 7 point differential between home and away games with the same team. Does Vegas give 3 to home team?

more than 3 in college basketball although im not sure what the number is

 

[justinhub2003]

he went 2-2 from 3. thats not really a big deal over the course of a game. he didn't shoot a lot on the season but he shot 33%, not 13%. he hit 2 in 4 other games.


just seemed like an odd/the wrong person to bring up (probably shouldn't bring up anybody specifically).

Also he was 0-6 going into the game.

 

[cincrulz11]

Also he was 0-6 going into the game.

nobody is gonna argue he was a great shooter but he did shoot 34.8% his Jr and Sr years combined in college. he basically shot the 3 like Washington did. Kanter was 31-89 his final 2 years, Kyle was 35-98 35.7%.



but really what is a guy going 2-2 in a blowout even matter?

 

[cincycpaw]

I can’t wait for this game.

 

[justinhub2003]

nobody is gonna argue he was a great shooter but he did shoot 34.8% his Jr and Sr years combined in college. he basically shot the 3 like Washington did. Kanter was 31-89 his final 2 years, Kyle was 35-98 35.7%.



but really what is a guy going 2-2 in a blowout even matter?

It doesn’t. But his point was guys who typically not high level shooters, end up shooting well for X. Dee Davis is a good example and remy Able as well. It’s hard to gameplay when guys do atypical things.


But Steele said it best in his interview last night. It’s a players game and it’s not one where coaching matters. Our guys have to be ready

 

[cincrulz11]

It doesn’t. But his point was guys who typically not high level shooters, end up shooting well for X. Dee Davis is a good example and remy Able as well. It’s hard to gameplay when guys do atypical things.


But Steele said it best in his interview last night. It’s a players game and it’s not one where coaching matters. Our guys have to be ready

that 5-5 dee davis game will always stand out in my mind.

 

[icehole3]

Mick shouldn't wake up anybody for X, they play lights out in the shootout. Why wake them up, just dumb.

 

[TheShoeFits]

After Mick's comments today, somebody should tell Mick that Kerem Kanter was actually a pretty good offensive player last year. Its not fluke for him to score 17.

To be fair, Kanter was averaging 5 points a game coming into the Shootout and was exactly 0% 0-5 from 3.

 

[Queens_NYC]

I think it goes without saying but we need a big game from Cumberland tomorrow.

Not necessarily a game where he takes 20 shots, but a game where he is on the floor for 30+ minutes void of foul trouble, is aggressive but taking good shots/drawing fouls, and also consistently facilitating for others.