My Preseason Bracketology

[ericd7633]

I agree the SOS will be good, and they have potential losses in the non-conference schedule. Considering they finished near the top last year in the AAC with a sweep of SMU, though, and I would expect them to be better, I think UC has less problems this year with the AAC than last year.

I see it as SMU, and UC as the top two. UConn on a bounce back, but still a lot of questions even with the transfers and recruits, but will also contend. Temple and Tulsa should continue on from last year in that range, but I don't think they are quite as good as the top 3. I like Houston, not because of the transfers but because they were in a lot of games last year and just lacked depth, which they will get this year to help rest guys and keep them from wearing down in games.

After that would be Memphis. I'm also not sold on Pastner being able to actually coach. He's had a lot of big time recruits, and either lost them to transfer, or failed to get them to play to their potential. It's been an every year thing for him, too.

Should be a good season, there's no doubt about that. Lots of time between now and then for things to happen.

It'll be interesting. The SMU postseason ban is a huge bummer for the conference. It'll be interesting to see how they perform this year, with having nothing to play for in March, I can see it going one of two ways, they get really pissed and win the conference again, or they end up being a middling type of team, because of lack of effort. I think SMU would be the clear favorite under normal circumstances, then I'd have Uconn, Memphis and Cincy in any order 2-4, followed by Temple/Tulsa then Houston.

Non-conference play will be crucial for the league this year, it didn't perform that well OOC last year, and it was reflected in the number of bids the conference got. That and the bottom of the league was atrocious for the 2nd year in a row. But the bottom should be much improved this year, which will help overall the numbers of the conference.

And yeah, I'm just pumped for the season, obviously, I'll get some(if not most) of these wrong come March, just thought it would be a fun exercise, one I hope to continue doing during the regular season.

 

[mr.hockey4242]

I'm aware of Cincy's recruiting class. He wasn't a consensus top 100 player. I wouldn't consider that an impactful recruit, myself. I'd say anybody in the top 50 would be considered impactful, and Memphis has 3 guys that are right around that range.

I look at all things, when doing this. Sure Cincy gets all their players back, but I just think there are limitations on that roster. The American should be much improved this year. Houston, Memphis, UConn will all be much better IMO.

I can see Cincy adding a couple losses to the resume, but them stay about the same on the seed line, because they'll have better a better SoS and RPI.

I don't agree with your impactful mindset on recruits. So much more play into it then a few rankings.

I like the way you take time to make brackets though. Impressive work.

 

[ericd7633]

I don't agree with your impactful mindset on recruits. So much more play into it then a few rankings.

I like the way you take time to make brackets though. Impressive work.

I will admit I don't see all the recruits in high school, so I am relying on said rankings to form an opinion. More times than not it is the top 50 guys that will have an immediate impact in their freshman season. Now that's not to say guys floating in the 100-125 range can't be iimpactful, I just feel like based on history, its less likely.

 

[rmilia1]

I thought they didn't do first round ( or I guess 2nd round now...) games that were repeats on regular season matchups?? Or is that just a general principle instead of a rule. Don't remember. Either way Dayton plays Iowa regular season so I'd be surprised of they rematched

 

[mr.hockey4242]

I will admit I don't see all the recruits in high school, so I am relying on said rankings to form an opinion. More times than not it is the top 50 guys that will have an immediate impact in their freshman season. Now that's not to say guys floating in the 100-125 range can't be iimpactful, I just feel like based on history, its less likely.

I think what you can say is you can't bank on a recruit outside top 100 to be an impact guy rather than saying they can't. Plenty emerge you just can't pin hopes on it id say.

Which i don't think cincy guy was doing, think he just mentioned they have a talented guy coming in.

 

[ericd7633]

I think what you can say is you can't bank on a recruit outside top 100 to be an impact guy rather than saying they can't. Plenty emerge you just can't pin hopes on it id say.

Which i don't think cincy guy was doing, think he just mentioned they have a talented guy coming in.

That's fair.

 

[H2S]

@ericd7633
appreciate the time & effort you've put in here.

 

[ericd7633]

I thought they didn't do first round ( or I guess 2nd round now...) games that were repeats on regular season matchups?? Or is that just a general principle instead of a rule. Don't remember. Either way Dayton plays Iowa regular season so I'd be surprised of they rematched

I didn't realize they were matched up in an early season tournament. Needless to say I didn't go through every teams schedule. I just wanted to avoid matching up a conference vs. conference foe.

But to answer your question BYU played Oregon in a rematch in the 2014 tournament, so there is precedence for it happening.

 

[Cincyfan78]

I don't agree with your impactful mindset on recruits. So much more play into it then a few rankings.

I like the way you take time to make brackets though. Impressive work.

This is kind of my point.

Outside of UNC, or Duke, or UK where you are seeing 2-3-4 top 30 guys committing, it's hard to extrapolate how much talent can rise about experience/age. There's something to be said when you have a team full of 20 year old nearly grown men, with 3 years of weight training and experience matchup against teams that are reliant on 1 or 2 highly recruits to make a big impact to compete.

This isn't to say the recruits won't have an impact, or can't be good, but if you are asking to compare a team that is overly reliant on a few transfers that haven't played with their teammates, the coach, or the system as well as a few recruits (highly ranked, or at least decently ranked) vs a team that has age, experience and also some at least viable recruits coming in...I'm leaning on experience every time. Mainly because when you face big time defensive teams, especially as a freshman, they've never faced real defense before. They don't know what it's like to be bumped and moved, and rejected at the rim. It's quite often a shock. Having watched UC forever, I can attest to that. Especially with them being ranked in the top 5 or 6 defensively (11 by adjusted defense) over the past 4-5 years.

I agree, I like the early bracket. keep it updated. Good discussions.

 

[Cincyfan78]

I think what you can say is you can't bank on a recruit outside top 100 to be an impact guy rather than saying they can't. Plenty emerge you just can't pin hopes on it id say.

Which i don't think cincy guy was doing, think he just mentioned they have a talented guy coming in.

Right. I also like the fact that if you can bring a recruit along, off the bench as opposed to having to start right away, it helps them in the long run.

Highly touted recruits fail all the time. No name guys come from nowhere all the time. It's just so hard to know. Unless you are putting together UK kind of classes or Duke kind of classes where you are getting 4-5 top 40 guys to help off-set any kind of "miss", it's hard to say team A got this one kid he's top 50, and he's going to be the reason they can compete. There's no off-set there, and if a team is relying on freshmen to come in and be the difference maker, I'm wagering that more often than not it's going to fail.

Even UK's best runs have come when they had Soph's and Jr's returning to help pave the way. Experience. Age. The one year they truly relied on tons of inexperience they were ousted in the first round of the NIT by Oral Roberts, I believe, 3 or so years ago.

 

[Cincyfan78]

I didn't realize they were matched up in an early season tournament. Needless to say I didn't go through every teams schedule. I just wanted to avoid matching up a conference vs. conference foe.

But to answer your question BYU played Oregon in a rematch in the 2014 tournament, so there is precedence for it happening.

Right now I wouldn't even worry about it because it's going to be so fluid through the first 5 months anyway. Once it starts getting down to crunch time you can more readily adapt to the schedules.

 

[Arizona_Sting]

I think what you can say is you can't bank on a recruit outside top 100 to be an impact guy rather than saying they can't. Plenty emerge you just can't pin hopes on it id say.

Which i don't think cincy guy was doing, think he just mentioned they have a talented guy coming in.

I like to base the impact of freshman on their ratings by dividing it up into categories.

Top 10 recruits ~85% chance of making immediate impact
Top 11-25 recruits- ~70% chance of making immediate impact
Top 26-50 recruits- ~40% chance of making immediate impact
Top 51-100 recruits ~25% chance of making immediate impact

These are just kinda my guesstimates, no factual data to support this but breaking it down into tiers makes it a bit easier to weigh in on recruiting classes. Obviously there's no perfect way to guess which recruits will come in and dominate right away and which ones will take a couple seasons before blossoming, but for the most part top 100 recruits typically seem to drop off quite a bit after the top 50.

Hell, there's a chance there are a few non-top 100 players end up making huge impacts or eventually make the NBA, it happens almost every year. Usually it's all about how the class fits in with the returnees, if they blend well that's all that really matters as a team.