Xavier

[cincrulz11]

Originally Posted by Madman81

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]

Originally Posted by cincrulz11

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]

Originally Posted by Madman81

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]

Originally Posted by justinhub2003

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]

Originally Posted by 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!

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by justinhub2003

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).