Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Gr8t Dane
Joined
·
711 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Good luck everyone. The real season starts today. UVM seems to be back on track after a rocky stretch. SBU has surprised me with how they have played after losing their coach and best player. The rest of the league seems wide open and it should be an interesting season. My pick for the biggest surprise is Maine. They won't compete for a top 4 spot, but I'm betting they finish in the 5th-7th range and steal some wins that no one will see coming. While UML, Hartford, and Bing each have players that can take over a game, I'm thinking these 3 are battling it out for who gets to end their season early, and who gets to play which of the top 2 seeds in round 1 of the conference tournament. Can Hartford put the ball in the basket? Can UML or Bing stop anyone from putting the ball in the basket.

Here are the TRankings of the league as conference play begins:

20582
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,684 Posts
Based on where teams were projected to finish in the pre-season, I'd rate non-conference performance against their respective schedules as...

Teams that WAY over-performed: Binghamton, New Hampshire
Team that solidly over-performed: Stony Brook
Teams that were about right, within the margin of error: Vermont, Albany, Hartford, Maine
Teams that solidly under-performed: UMBC, Lowell
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,858 Posts
When was the last time 8 of the 9 conference teams started conference play with 6 or more wins? Even with the D3 games? Feels like that has not happened in a while but I could be wrong.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
33,160 Posts
I believe only 5 schools have 6 or more actual D1 wins, though. Strip all of the Sub-D1 wins out and have to believe it looks like any other typical year

UMBC has 4 of its wins against sub-D1 schools; the NCAA max of allowable games vs sub-D1s including exhibitions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
562 Posts
Based on where teams were projected to finish in the pre-season, I'd rate non-conference performance against their respective schedules as...

Teams that WAY over-performed: Binghamton, New Hampshire
Team that solidly over-performed: Stony Brook
Teams that were about right, within the margin of error: Vermont, Albany, Hartford, Maine
Teams that solidly under-performed: UMBC, Lowell
UVM most definitely belongs in the “solidly under-performed” category.

After watching the first week of games I'm not surprised by the record. But five losses on the year at this point--three of them can be described as "bad losses" (Cincy, Yale and Rider)--is underwhelming at best and near-crisis at worst. The OOC record was not really better any better than previous years despite having a significantly more talented roster (I'll take the St John's win, but not those losses and to Yale and Rider and finding ourselves in a 25-point deficit vs Cincy late in the game). Also I'd say Bonaventure and Bucknell can be described as "bad wins," something that's been discussed to a lesser degree when analyzing YTD results. Those were single-possession wins and the algorithms everyone uses to rank teams don't give much appreciation for back-and-forth single-possession wins.

Injuries didn't help either and have hit UVM harder than in past years, but that doesn't make the 10-5 record any less of a disappointment when the expectations were for 14-1.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
165 Posts
Who was expecting 14-1?

I would classify UVMs play as disappointing, but not vastly underperforming. Road losses to Yale and Cincy aren’t bad losses, losing to UNCG at home is though, really can’t leave home games on the table.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,858 Posts
UVM most definitely belongs in the “solidly under-performed” category.

After watching the first week of games I'm not surprised by the record. But five losses on the year at this point--three of them can be described as "bad losses" (Cincy, Yale and Rider)--is underwhelming at best and near-crisis at worst. The OOC record was not really better any better than previous years despite having a significantly more talented roster (I'll take the St John's win, but not those losses and to Yale and Rider and finding ourselves in a 25-point deficit vs Cincy late in the game). Also I'd say Bonaventure and Bucknell can be described as "bad wins," something that's been discussed to a lesser degree when analyzing YTD results. Those were single-possession wins and the algorithms everyone uses to rank teams don't give much appreciation for back-and-forth single-possession wins.

Injuries didn't help either and have hit UVM harder than in past years, but that doesn't make the 10-5 record any less of a disappointment when the expectations were for 14-1.
And your lunatic take falls in the "about right, within the margin of error" as usual.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,858 Posts
Who was expecting 14-1?

I would classify UVMs play as disappointing, but not vastly underperforming. Road losses to Yale and Cincy aren’t bad losses, losing to UNCG at home is though, really can’t leave home games on the table.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He's the only one. Here and with his burner accounts he uses to reply to the men's basketball twitter account online with the same points about how they've blown their chance to get an 8 seed or something and can only be a mere 13 seed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,684 Posts
UVM most definitely belongs in the “solidly under-performed” category.

After watching the first week of games I'm not surprised by the record. But five losses on the year at this point--three of them can be described as "bad losses" (Cincy, Yale and Rider)--is underwhelming at best and near-crisis at worst. The OOC record was not really better any better than previous years despite having a significantly more talented roster (I'll take the St John's win, but not those losses and to Yale and Rider and finding ourselves in a 25-point deficit vs Cincy late in the game). Also I'd say Bonaventure and Bucknell can be described as "bad wins," something that's been discussed to a lesser degree when analyzing YTD results. Those were single-possession wins and the algorithms everyone uses to rank teams don't give much appreciation for back-and-forth single-possession wins.

Injuries didn't help either and have hit UVM harder than in past years, but that doesn't make the 10-5 record any less of a disappointment when the expectations were for 14-1.
Yeah, man. I don't know what to tell you. You looked at this team and this schedule and saw 14-1. I looked at this team and this schedule and saw 11-4, with a shot at 10-5. We just see the world differently.

By comparison, I looked at UMBC's schedule and thought that 7 wins was the absolute floor amount of wins they should have. And, all injury issues notwithstanding, that's what they did.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,156 Posts
He's the only one. Here and with his burner accounts he uses to reply to the men's basketball twitter account online with the same points about how they've blown their chance to get an 8 seed or something and can only be a mere 13 seed.
Wildly unrealistic...UVM had a nice OOC, I think there could be some lingering what if, didn't always play great but still toughed out some wins. Clearly this is a team that's very good and favored by a large margin in the AE but probably a slight step back from last year IMO. Very slight, shooting being the glaring weakness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,156 Posts
UVM most definitely belongs in the “solidly under-performed” category.

After watching the first week of games I'm not surprised by the record. But five losses on the year at this point--three of them can be described as "bad losses" (Cincy, Yale and Rider)--is underwhelming at best and near-crisis at worst. The OOC record was not really better any better than previous years despite having a significantly more talented roster (I'll take the St John's win, but not those losses and to Yale and Rider and finding ourselves in a 25-point deficit vs Cincy late in the game). Also I'd say Bonaventure and Bucknell can be described as "bad wins," something that's been discussed to a lesser degree when analyzing YTD results. Those were single-possession wins and the algorithms everyone uses to rank teams don't give much appreciation for back-and-forth single-possession wins.

Injuries didn't help either and have hit UVM harder than in past years, but that doesn't make the 10-5 record any less of a disappointment when the expectations were for 14-1.
How on earth is Cincy and Yale bad losses...even Rider isn't a bad loss although disappointing I think.

Cincy and Yale are both really really good ranked 53 and 69...hardly bad losses.

You do not have a significantly more talented roster...this was explained to you all summer long. I can't recall if it was you but I believe it was that ran around all summer yelling about 4-star recruits etc. and that no one else gets recruits like you. Unless your recruits are top 50 type kids, stars are a useless joke and lead to posts like this where you can't reconcile why you aren't getting top 25 votes. Stop it...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
33,160 Posts
For me, I'm solidly pleased with the overall 10-5 (9-5 really) results. I think we mostly took care of business and overachieved in our trio of "BCS/High Major" whatever you want to call it games against St. John's/Virginia/Cincy- remember we played Cincy w/out both Giddens and Shungu, 2 starters..Giddens alone would have been a huge difference)

However, the 0-3 against Rider/Yale/UNCG were bad games and can't shake the fact that should have been 2-1 in those, so for me I'd have loved to see 12-3 right now instead of 10-5. So that we're not 12-3 or even 11-4 is a tad disappointing. As I said previously, that might be a little irrational but that expectation was created by how we started out and success really up through the Virginia game.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,684 Posts
For me, I'm solidly pleased with the overall 10-5 (9-5 really) results. I think we mostly took care of business and overachieved in our trio of "BCS/High Major" whatever you want to call it games against St. John's/Virginia/Cincy- remember we played Cincy w/out both Giddens and Shungu, 2 starters..Giddens alone would have been a huge difference)

However, the 0-3 against Rider/Yale/UNCG were bad games and can't shake the fact that should have been 2-1 in those, so for me I'd have loved to see 12-3 right now instead of 10-5. So that we're not 12-3 or even 11-4 is a tad disappointing. As I said previously, that might be a little irrational but that expectation was created by how we started out and success really up through the Virginia game.
Totally fair. I guess my expectations were somewhat colored by the idea that all teams win some you don't expect and lose some you don't expect. And when you're good, the possibilities for unexpected losses outnumber the opportunities for unexpected wins. I thought the absolute ceiling for this team against this schedule was 13-2, but I also didn't think we were going to go a combined 5-0 against St. John's/Yale/UNCG/Bucknell/St. Bona. The law of averages says something's gonna give there.

Based on pre-season expectations, the Rider loss is really the one I'm chapped about. Way more than losing to Yale on the road or even a home game against a team like UNCG.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,858 Posts
I believe only 5 schools have 6 or more actual D1 wins, though. Strip all of the Sub-D1 wins out and have to believe it looks like any other typical year

UMBC has 4 of its wins against sub-D1 schools; the NCAA max of allowable games vs sub-D1s including exhibitions.
Missed this because of the terrible take about UVM that followed from another, but you're right...still those CIT and CBI bid committees don't care how many non-D1s are on there which might go a long way in helping the Hartford, UMBC (especially them) et al muster their way to 14-15 wins which seems to be enough to get one of those bids. Plus for guys like Gallagher and Dempsey and to a lesser extent Herrion (I think UNH's core group is promising for next year and after though) it's leverage in job security talks. Does just seem like even with all games considered there were generally multiple 10-loss teams...so "smarter" scheduling I guess?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,858 Posts
Just in case anyone was wondering here's the NET ratings of the teams UVM lost to:

Virginia - 50
Rider - 132
Yale - 57
Cincy - 88
UNCG - 82

So yeah, Rider loss sucks. But I'm hoping like hell they are able to at least go 15-3 in a god awful MAAC and maybe by year end they're closer to the top 100. Yale and UNCG probably won't deviate too far from where they are give or take.UVa will be itself. Cincy probably tails off the most and again, down 2 starters in that one. If UVM takes care of league play it'll still be in the 80s-90s range in NET (they're 90) right now by year end and if they do what they need to do which is get the auto bid a 13 seed is fine...because has anyone else been watching college basketball this year? Penn Friggen State is nationally ranked right now. They're good but that's what we're dealing with here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
562 Posts
Cincy was a bad loss because UVM was down by nearly 30 for much of the game. The hoop cats were never "in it" the way the were in the UVA game where the issue was UVM lacked the size and talent to close out (which resembled many of the other high-major matches over the last few years). The Cincy fixture was the most injury raddled we had been all season and could've REALLY used Giddens, but the end result nonetheless speaks volumes.

Yale was a bad loss because UVM's defense and offense just looked awful. Got behind early and never seemed to care enough to mount a comeback. Forced motion offense when we should've been hitting shots in transition. Everything was bad. I do think Miye Oni's importance for Yale's club was overstated and his loss will not be felt that much, but this is still a team UVM had beat for 5-6 years straight until this season.

Rider not a bad loss?!? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

UNCG was a very disappointing loss but IMO it doesn't rise to the level of "bad loss" since it was so close the entire game. I'm disappointed in the result but I'll live with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
782 Posts
How on earth is Cincy and Yale bad losses...even Rider isn't a bad loss although disappointing I think.

Cincy and Yale are both really really good ranked 53 and 69...hardly bad losses.

You do not have a significantly more talented roster...this was explained to you all summer long. I can't recall if it was you but I believe it was that ran around all summer yelling about 4-star recruits etc. and that no one else gets recruits like you. Unless your recruits are top 50 type kids, stars are a useless joke and lead to posts like this where you can't reconcile why you aren't getting top 25 votes. Stop it...
I think it’s more how they lost, vs the losses itself. They played a horrible second half vs Rider, and the funk extended to the Yale and Cincy games. Interestingly, they showed some muster late in the Cindy game and have played well since then. We are only going how far our 3 point shooting takes us. When we are on, we are the best team in AE and could give a 12/13 seed a battle. If we’re off, we’re very beatable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,889 Posts
I think it’s more how they lost, vs the losses itself. They played a horrible second half vs Rider, and the funk extended to the Yale and Cincy games. Interestingly, they showed some muster late in the Cindy game and have played well since then. We are only going how far our 3 point shooting takes us. When we are on, we are the best team in AE and could give a 12/13 seed a battle. If we’re off, we’re very beatable.
That last bit sums up my thoughts on the team as they enter conference play. If they're healthy (any update yet on Shungu for conference play?) but more importantly If they're passable from deep, I think they'll roll in conference play. If not, their defense is good enough to probably keep them in every game, but things could get much more difficult come AE tourney time if the 3 point struggles continue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
587 Posts
These conversations can get circular and repetitive quickly but FWIW I’m still not sure why this team was quite so hyped in the media and elsewhere. Other than people know who Lamb is and know the team has been consistently good over time. But those people don't watch this league enough to understand that the roster outside of Lamb is just a good solid mid-major roster in a not very good league. We’ve had a few rosters with better players on average than this one and never been higher than a 13, so it kind of is what it is.

I do agree that Rider and Yale were frustrating because of the lack of intensity, especially Rider. But the overall results so far have been within scope.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top