Breaking Down the B1G - One persons take
- Thread starter MadRU
- Start date
It's very difficult to have a conference drop off when the coaching talent increases.
Nebraska captures Fred Hoiberg, who was a multiple time Big 12 coach of the year and yes Michigan loses Beilien, but Michigan still has talent. They're not dropping from 2nd in the league to 10th overnight. They're still an NCAA team.
There's a valid reason why it's becoming more difficult to separate teams from 6 or 7th through 14....it's because the coaching gaps from school to school is much thinner.
If that somehow means other leagues are better because they have multiple National championship contenders, then i understand completely. But the bottom of a couple of leagues like the ACC have talent but not sure they're staffs are as strong. They definitely recruit well so you have that to contend with.
https://cbbcentral.com/2019/08/19/preseason-top-100-100-81/
https://cbbcentral.com/2019/08/20/preseason-top-100-80-61/
This writer has a national ranking and lands RU at 76th....we are in a grouping of Wisconsin Minnesota and slightly ahead of Penn State Nebraska, Northwestern and Indiana.
Nebraska captures Fred Hoiberg, who was a multiple time Big 12 coach of the year and yes Michigan loses Beilien, but Michigan still has talent. They're not dropping from 2nd in the league to 10th overnight. They're still an NCAA team.
There's a valid reason why it's becoming more difficult to separate teams from 6 or 7th through 14....it's because the coaching gaps from school to school is much thinner.
If that somehow means other leagues are better because they have multiple National championship contenders, then i understand completely. But the bottom of a couple of leagues like the ACC have talent but not sure they're staffs are as strong. They definitely recruit well so you have that to contend with.
https://cbbcentral.com/2019/08/19/preseason-top-100-100-81/
https://cbbcentral.com/2019/08/20/preseason-top-100-80-61/
This writer has a national ranking and lands RU at 76th....we are in a grouping of Wisconsin Minnesota and slightly ahead of Penn State Nebraska, Northwestern and Indiana.
Guy seems very knowledgable. May not agree with him on Wisconsin and Penn State, but he makes sound arguments and seems like he knows his B1G TEAMS. He completely nailed RU.
When another jalen rose or Cassius Winston comes out of Detroit, they will strongly look at big blue.
Nice try, but the best player in the big 10 and Ryan Klein literally won more games for them , and although the four freshman and sophomores played well for Purdue, they lose another 5 games without Edwards and Klein. They are not replacing them without a significant drop off. Wisconsin would have lost another 5-6 without Happ , who literally carried them to more wins than they should have had. They will drop appreciably.
Glad you didn’t try arguing the other teams I mentioned, since I think even you realize they lost too much. Get the point, , that these teams , which was losing these types of all league players, national accolades type players, older players with years of experience in the Big 10, will not be replacing them with the next guy up.
Cannot wait to reassess at the end of the year and see where they all end up. A number of them will be behind our team .
my point is that what you return is the important measure, not what you lost. Purdue lost a ton of production from 2017-18 season, but still did well in 2018-19 because they returned Carsen Edwards and Ryan Cline along with some others like Haarms and Eastern and Eifert and added in some decent talent too.
Wisconsin similarly loses Happ, but also returns enough talent to still be a very good team. For example I expect bigger things from Trice and King who are now another year removed from major injuries and should bounce back.
As for a team like Northwestern, I don't dislike their chances because of what they lost, but because they only return a small handful of players that would even play for any other conference team.
don't worry about what teams lose, look at what they bring back and add.
For anybody that thought subbing in St. Bonaventure for USCe was a major hit to our OOC, this guy has them basically even:
#85. St. Bonaventure– The Bonnies being 40 minutes from the NCAA Tournament last year with how much they had graduated the previous year is a testament to just how good a coach and recruiter Mark Schmidt is. Despite the heartbreaking defeat on the final possession, there’s a ton to be excited about from last season, mostly based on the way the young core of Kyle Lofton, Dom Welch, and Osun Osunniyi looked down the stretch. Osunniyi has upside that few in college hoops can match, with a hawk-like wingspan and high-level defensive instincts combined with a growing offensive game.
#84. South Carolina– Winning 11 SEC games despite losing multiple buy games in the non-conference last year was surprising, though the bad start doomed any hopes of dancing. AJ Lawson is impressive– an all-conference talent who can create for himself or others. However, the loss of Chris Silva may be too much to overcome in a loaded SEC.
#85. St. Bonaventure– The Bonnies being 40 minutes from the NCAA Tournament last year with how much they had graduated the previous year is a testament to just how good a coach and recruiter Mark Schmidt is. Despite the heartbreaking defeat on the final possession, there’s a ton to be excited about from last season, mostly based on the way the young core of Kyle Lofton, Dom Welch, and Osun Osunniyi looked down the stretch. Osunniyi has upside that few in college hoops can match, with a hawk-like wingspan and high-level defensive instincts combined with a growing offensive game.
#84. South Carolina– Winning 11 SEC games despite losing multiple buy games in the non-conference last year was surprising, though the bad start doomed any hopes of dancing. AJ Lawson is impressive– an all-conference talent who can create for himself or others. However, the loss of Chris Silva may be too much to overcome in a loaded SEC.
Surprised he's got Minny at #70 after losing Jordan Murphy, Amir Coffey and Dupree McBrayer from last year's squad. I do like Oturu and Gabe Kalscheur, but I dunno about Minny finishing mid-pack after losing their two big stars.
#70 Minnesota– This will be a much different Minnesota team than last year’s group. After dominating people on the glass last season while struggling to hit outside shots, the buzz out of the Twin Cities is that the Gophers are much improved shooting the ball. They obviously won’t possess the same size edge, but Daniel Oturu has a chance to take steps forward as a sophomore and become one of the Big Ten’s best centers. Payton Willis is the x-factor, the transfer from Vanderbilt who was mostly a bust as a recruit but has had positive things said about him this offseason. If he can provide another scoring option on the wing, the Gophers have a shot to make some noise in the Big Ten’s middle of the pack.
#70 Minnesota– This will be a much different Minnesota team than last year’s group. After dominating people on the glass last season while struggling to hit outside shots, the buzz out of the Twin Cities is that the Gophers are much improved shooting the ball. They obviously won’t possess the same size edge, but Daniel Oturu has a chance to take steps forward as a sophomore and become one of the Big Ten’s best centers. Payton Willis is the x-factor, the transfer from Vanderbilt who was mostly a bust as a recruit but has had positive things said about him this offseason. If he can provide another scoring option on the wing, the Gophers have a shot to make some noise in the Big Ten’s middle of the pack.
These rankings aren't relevant to what it does to your SOS....if South Carolina is 84th and their SOS is in the Top 20-25, which is where it will land, St Bonaventures will be in the 150 range in the A10.
https://cbbcentral.com/2019/08/21/preseason-top-100-60-41/
Degaz.
#70 playing B1G schedule actually isn't that good. #70 would be 12th place in the B1G according to bartovik. Bartovik has them #80
#70 playing B1G schedule actually isn't that good. #70 would be 12th place in the B1G according to bartovik. Bartovik has them #80
You can disagree but need to respect his opinion. Basketball is not baseball so "MoneyBall" analysis is not the end all.
As far as Wisconsin goes you can create a VERY constructive arguement why the loss of Happ won't hurt them as much as you think. Wisconsin ran their offense thru Happ and he dominated touches. He didn't shoot at that high of a % and when he went to the line he didn't convert. Happ had the lowest offensive rating of anyone in their rotation. Wisconsin was rated 77th is adjusted offensive efficiency last year which is bad for a major conference school.
Purdue the case is a little tougher. Purdue was ranked 4th offensively and Edwards did dominate possessions (in a touch way). Like Happ he was the lowest offensive rated player from an efficiency basis, but being 4th offensive makes the arguement hard. One thing to consider....Haarms shot 68% from 2 last year. I'd like to see him get a lot of touches. In addition, Wheeler and Williams were freshman that didn't get a ton of time because of people ahead of them on the depth chart. Don't be surprised if they end up being very good this year.
Agreed, it's not like baseball. Mike Trout being in the lineup doesn't change how a pitcher is going to pitch to Kole Calhoun (maybe barely). But Ethan Happ being in the lineup sure changes how a basketball team defends.
Happ was a gravitational player who drew multiple defenders. He was also an insanely good passer: 35% assist rate! Of the top 100 assist rates in the country, only eight were 6'5" or taller, and only two were on power-conference teams: Happ and Florida's Andrew Nembhard, who is just a tall PG.
Wisconsin's offense is going to look radically different. Wide-open shots that Happ created by drawing an extra defender and making a smart pass won't be there this year. Trice has been a catch-and-shoot guy, not a creator at PG.
I'm not discounting the possibility they'll be as good for better. But it's a very big adjustment. Bigger than the adjustment Purdue is going to make. They'll plug Proctor in Edwards' role, Stefanovic into Cline's, etc. Wisconsin doesn't have that ability; Reuvers is a much different player from Happ.
There are parallels between Rutgers and Wisconsin. On a smaller scale Rutgers offense was heavy on Eugene. Eugene was not terribly efficient. Did Eugene taking on the burden boost efficiency numbers of others? Will our offense be better with touches going to others who put the ball through the basket better?
We will find out.
We will find out.
EO was not nearly the passer Happ was. Which is to say Wisconsin's other players posted good ratings (partly) BECAUSE of Happ. Rutgers did not have other players succeed on offense because of Omoruyi.
I get what your point is and I say hogwash for this upcoming year. You miss my point or just decide to put your head in the sand. This past year, the Big 10 lost most of their best players of not just the last year, but the last 3-4 years. Players like Edwards and Happ and Murphy and Pardon and Klein , and Palmer and Copeland and Watson, and Law were 3-4 players except Edwards , who was a National player of the year candidate, while the rest were either Ist , 2nd, or 3rd, team all Big 10. These guys are not being replaced but what is coming in period . There will be huge drop offs, or medium drop offs, or mild drop offs for every team that lost them , which is perfect timing for our team , which is the deepest and most talented it has been in a decade . This is the reason I first commented on the guys article and predictions and gave my opinion of where we will land this year. Hopefully you see the light.
I've been following Big Ten hoops for almost 40 years. My head is not in the sand. The reason I think teams like Northwestern will be bad have nothing to do with what they lost, it's the lack of anything that they return.
Any simple analysis that says such and such a team lost something so they must fall back is overly simplistic and not infrequently incorrect. I think Wisconsin is likely to be far better than you believe and so is Purdue.
And if you think they are likely to be so bad because of what they lost, why does a computer program like Bart Torvik rate them both so highly in preseason rankings (Purdue #7 and Wisconsin #25)? The computer is well aware of what they lost.
You have come full circle in this discussion . I believe the loss of tremendous multiple year all conferences players, will cause that team to be worse, because there is no one to replace the players on the teams I mentioned that will be as good. You say Northwestern will be bad because they have no one good coming in , but that you mean, no one as good as Pardon and Law. The impact of each of our statements really are saying similar things for the teams I cited. Yes I can agree , if a team has stud 5 star recruits coming in to replace the players that were multiple year all conference players , they have a chance to be as good . But that is not happening . We will let this season play out and revisit.
By the way, if you are going to rely on a computer formula to tell you Purdue will end up 7th ranked , then you will be disappointed when it does not happen.
My disagreement with you is that I don’t care who teams lost. I look at their current rosters to project how good they will be, not what they lost from last season.
For example, you must have been shocked at how good Michigan was last season considering they lost their 3 most efficient offensive players from the previous season (Mo Wagner, Abdur-Rahkman, and Duncan Robinson) with only 1 newcomer seeing any significant minutes. Similarly as I mentioned, Purdue last season only returned 1 starter (Edwards) and only 3 other players that averaged more than 8 minutes per game and added no elite recruits.
When bad teams lose good players, it's a bad sign for them because if there were better players on the bench their team probably would not have been so bad. When good teams lose good players, you are at high risk of underrating the players on the bench that were blocked by very good players ahead of them and those teams probably will not be nearly as bad as you think.
Last edited:
All true, but those teams 8-14 I discussed from the article are not replacing their great players with anything great behind them. You mention Purdue, which was in the top tier and not one of the teams mentioned in the article, but Edwards, Klein and their sophomores , but especially Edwards and Klein won them most of their games . Klein alone hit some incredible threes to win them 3-5 games. He was an underrated money ball senior with experience. Purdue’s juniors this year, along with their freshman who contributed will keep them at good but they will not be great and they will not be 7th ranked. That is my opinion and at the end of the year we will know for sure. The rest of the Big 10 , except maybe Michigan State , does not scare anyone .
Michigan did have Simpson, Poole , Livers and Mathews coming back last year , not the depletion that Minnesota, Nebraska , Northwestern will have this year.
It's an interesting debate.
The way I see it, the lesser quality teams that lose multiple "stars" have a much more difficult time replicating the previous year's record because they typically don't have "stars in waiting" (or super freshmen) like the more elite teams do.
In contrast, the better/more elite programs are better equipped to "reload" even when they lose multiple stars, because they either have "stars in waiting" who played smaller roles the previous year, but who are ready to break out when they get their chance, or they have super freshmen who are ready to contribute at a high level right away.
Of course, this isn't a static formula, but is more in the nature of a general observation. For instance, I truly believe that Rutgers will be the exception to the general rule, and will be better this year despite the loss of Omoruyi, because we have four talented freshmen who are now sophomores, plus a JUCO who now has experience, plus a transfer who seems ready to be a star, plus a grad transfer who seems equipped to plug in for the loss of Eugene.
So perhaps to blockm2's point, for Rutgers, it's not so much about what we lost, but what we have coming back. But to goru7's point, Eugene wasn't really the focal point of the offense by the last 1/3rd of the year, so maybe we really didn't lose much after all?
My guess is to think big ten teams have players ready to step in and go.i dont think its so much “what programs have lost” as it is to “ what they have coming” i think this past class leaving evened the playing ground a little bit. Rutgers has some players hungry for success!
Totally agree with how you laid it out. I think the losses for the bottom teams losing great multiple players makes it almost impossible for them to be better. I have not heard that they have 4 and 5 stars potential one and done guys coming in. Teams like Purdue, Michigan , Michigan State usual have backups that they can reload with quicker but my guess is Purdue and Wisconsin will not be as good as they were this past year with what they lost. Only time will tell .
Maybe the players on the bottom teams weren't great.
I can think of a real good case study.
I'm not sure who this about but for Pardon and Law (especially Pardon) were the only thing keeping Northwestern from being hideously bad last season.
That said Miller Kopp and Pete Nance were heralded recruits. If we're expecting improvement from Mathis then we have to expect improvement from those two as well. And they have another in Robbie Beran, and that lacrosse guy Pat Spencer can ball. I don't think they fall too far, but their depth is horrible.
in 2018 a major conference team had the 283rd ranked offense and their 2 stars had usage and eff FG% of (conference only)....
Player 3 Star #1 28.5% usage 38.2% effective FG
Player 33 Star #2 29.5% usage 38.4% effective FG
Those 2 players left and the team moved to 145th
Player 3 Star #1 28.5% usage 38.2% effective FG
Player 33 Star #2 29.5% usage 38.4% effective FG
Those 2 players left and the team moved to 145th
Worth noting.....
team above loses another star this year (in conference)
Player 5 Star#1 27.1% usage 42.1% eff FG%
I hear arguments (that I don't necessarily disagree with offensively) that the said team will be better offensively without him.
team above loses another star this year (in conference)
Player 5 Star#1 27.1% usage 42.1% eff FG%
I hear arguments (that I don't necessarily disagree with offensively) that the said team will be better offensively without him.
I agree that getting rid of very inefficient players with big roles generally results in improved teams the next season. At which schools is that happening from 2019 to 2020?
Because Law/Pardon, Morgan, Happ, Palmer/Watson/Roby, Fernando, and Coffey were nowhere near as inefficient as Sanders/Freeman.
It is extremely rare to find 2 players as inefficient as the example and have a total team offensive efficiency that low.
Need to raise that bar a tad. My post is more theoretical. I didn’t look specifically this year. Trying to say many times stars on bad teams may be easier to replace than many think.
See, that's the thing. You act like Isaiah Livers and Jordan Poole were big deals coming back last season. As freshmen, they combined to average 26 minutes and 9 points per game. Simpson only averaged 7 points per game coming back.
When you have a good team, it's those guys riding the bench that might be a whole lot better the next season than you would realize. They only get stuck riding the bench because the guys ahead of them are so good.
