I mean, I guess if the tournament started today, Iād take a 6 seed, but by March, the Hoos are gonna be a 4 seed.
Already 17th in NET in spite of the sos, and the ACC is way better this year so I think a 6 seed is very doable.
Is that 10 ACC teams including Cal and VT? The ACC is better this season, but thatās insane.
Iād run to the bank with a 6 seed in year one with a new coach.
Does tech have to make it too though? I donāt love their chances with a prolonged Lawal absence.
New ESPN bracketology this morning with eight ACC teams, on par with the SEC. Iād put the O/U at 7.5 for the ACC teams cause weird stuff can happen in conference play and you never know whoāll fall apart. Hoos as a 6 seed here:
Iād take it in a heartbeat. Would prefer a 6 to a 4/5
Iāll take the under on 7.5. My guess is we end up at 7.
We have 7 in top 40 of NET right now, but I am sort of skeptical of Miami, NC State (just outside top 40), and SMU. Feel like they wonāt all play out the string that great.
Based on some of the defensive struggles weāve discussed on here (I think itās been better recently), I was actually a bit surprised to see that weāre currently 39th out of 360ish teams in the country in FG% allowed. We are however, 299th in personal fouls committed per gameā¦
And NC State is 42. The ACC is strong enough this year that conference play should pull some teams up.
I expect 8 bids.
FG% defense isnt this teamās issue (2 of the top shot blockers in the country helps). Problem is they foul too much, and dont rebound or force turnovers at a high level.
Texas moved up 9 spots in NET last night and is now sitting at 77
They should end up being a Q1 win here shortly. Just need them to play well Friday vs. UConn. Easier said then done for sure.
Good news for the OOC slate
Well, I know the ball screen coverage had been discussed, particularly after the Butler game. FG% defense absolutely was an issue that game, but I generally agree with you. Our overall rebounding numbers are excellent because we rebound offensively at an elite level. Defensive rebounding is slightly below average. The turnovers donāt worry me quite as much. For the most part, it seems to me like teams who rely too much on turning teams over can flounder in March when the turnovers dry up.
Are there any ways to see the share of what kinds of turnovers we are committing and how that stacks up nationally? Offensive fouls, live ball turnovers, in-bounds, etc.?
Two really stand out in my mind:
- turnovers when we are getting full court pressed (in particular TDR has been bad and his lead to pick 6s)
- turnovers on inbounds
Bit of a nugget on our Charlotte game and why it went from Clemson to Dayton:
According to Matt Norlander, the Clemson-BYU game at MSG tonight was supposed to be BYU-someone else, and Clemson was a late fill after that team dropped out. After that, Clemson dropped the game in Charlotte for the much bigger bag of playing one of the Jimmy V games.
Canāt see them keeping that one closeā¦
That would be really interesting. None of the stats Iāve found narrow it down quite that specifically, unfortunately. Iām sure the team probably charts those kinds of things. Iād be curious to know as well.
Disagree. Efficiency metrics donāt care if you win or lose games. Winning is why we play and we should reward teams for it.
Yeah but the committee doesnāt use NET to rank teams. It uses it to assess resumes. There are teams well behind us in NET with better resumes.
Folks who advocate that seem to say resume gets you in, efficiency seeds you.
Iām neutralā¦ I donāt hate the idea of a committeeā¦