The 2020/2021 ACC regular season thread

dukedevilz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
5,184
6,568
113
I haven’t looked at GT’s conference slate, but they haven’t finished .500 in conference play since 2007 when they won 6 of their last 8 to finish 8-8. So I’d be pretty surprised if they go 10-10 this year.
They went 8-10 in Pastner's first year when they were picked dead last. Hard to win in the ACC when you only have one top 100 recruit on your roster. Their depth is still lacking. Gotta like the fact that Pastner finally has multiple top 100 guys on his team in addition to a 20 point transfer. And I'm not saying they're definitely going .500. Just think they have a reasonable shot to do it this year.

I see us top 3, but winning the ACC outright seems like a stretch.
It's not a shoo-in by any means. But there are no juggernauts in the ACC like there was last year.
 

TheDude1

Well-Known Member
Apr 15, 2010
4,776
4,360
113
I can't wait to see Vernon Carey. I love watching a godo center, and he is one with quickness and great hands. I don't expect him to be as good as Elton, but my guess is there will be some similarities. Plus, Vernon can apparently shoot a little bit. Him and Hurt should be a nice combo (although they are obviously both frosh).

Hoping Tre Jones improved his shot over the summer... he NEEDS to be a scorer as well as a passer.
 

GE Nole

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
27,542
11,051
113
They went 8-10 in Pastner's first year when they were picked dead last. Hard to win in the ACC when you only have one top 100 recruit on your roster. Their depth is still lacking. Gotta like the fact that Pastner finally has multiple top 100 guys on his team in addition to a 20 point transfer. And I'm not saying they're definitely going .500. Just think they have a reasonable shot to do it this year.
I think we are probably saying the same thing but to a different degree. I agree that GT will be improved. But they went 6-12 last year, and going from 6-12 to 10-10 is a sizable jump.

I went and looked at the schedule and the road slate is rough. It includes @NCSU, @FSU, @UNC, @UL, @ND, @Pitt, and @Cuse. Going 2-5 over that would be incredible. 0-7 seems possible. So that doesn't leave a lot of margin for error in the other 13 games, which include home games against Duke and UVA.

I guess my point is, I think 10-10 is probably the ceiling for GT, whereas you state it as "very possible." Very possible to me means like a 40 or 50% chance. I don't see 10-10 being that high. I'd say 8-12 is realistic for GT with 9-11 being a bit more likely than 7-13.

As an aside, I feel like we did this exact thing with BC last year. You (or some poster that I'm confusing with you) saying they had a good shot at making the NCAAT, with me saying that felt like the absolute best case scenario--not the realistic outcome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dukedevilz

dukedevilz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
5,184
6,568
113
I think we are probably saying the same thing but to a different degree. I agree that GT will be improved. But they went 6-12 last year, and going from 6-12 to 10-10 is a sizable jump.

I went and looked at the schedule and the road slate is rough. It includes @NCSU, @FSU, @UNC, @UL, @ND, @Pitt, and @Cuse. Going 2-5 over that would be incredible. 0-7 seems possible. So that doesn't leave a lot of margin for error in the other 13 games, which include home games against Duke and UVA.

I guess my point is, I think 10-10 is probably the ceiling for GT, whereas you state it as "very possible." Very possible to me means like a 40 or 50% chance. I don't see 10-10 being that high. I'd say 8-12 is realistic for GT with 9-11 being a bit more likely than 7-13.

As an aside, I feel like we did this exact thing with BC last year. You (or some poster that I'm confusing with you) saying they had a good shot at making the NCAAT, with me saying that felt like the absolute best case scenario--not the realistic outcome.
Eh. I didn't really factor the schedule into it. But, with a 20 game conference season, the imbalance of the schedules should be greatly reduced. But yes, I would say 40-50% of them reaching .500 is about how I feel.

And yes, I essentially said the same thing about Boston College. But that was back in 2018 when Jerome Robinson was playing. And I said if they stayed healthy. Deontae Hawkins, a grad transfer who had a 23.1 efficiency rating on a 28-7 team in 2017, had a season ending-injury 8 games into the season. That was a game-changer. BC had no depth. None. Their guards were playing close to 40 minutes a night. Look at the stats. Take Hawkins out of the picture, and BC had 5 players averaging more than 11 minutes a game. They were razor thin in terms of ACC-caliber players. I readily admitted that their bench was limited. And the 2020 Georgia Tech finds themselves in a similar situation (they have a lower ceiling than 2018 BC, IMO). They absolutely can't afford a season ending injury to one of their main cogs.

Boston College is my surprise team. They have one of the best trios in the league with Ky Bowman, Jerome Robinson, and Deontae Hawkins. If they stay healthy, I believe they will make the NCAA Tournament.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GE Nole

GE Nole

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
27,542
11,051
113
Eh. I didn't really factor the schedule into it. But, with a 20 game conference season, the imbalance of the schedules should be greatly reduced. But yes, I would say 40-50% of them reaching .500 is about how I feel.

And yes, I essentially said the same thing about Boston College. But that was back in 2018 when Jerome Robinson was playing. And I said if they stayed healthy. Deontae Hawkins, a grad transfer who had a 23.1 efficiency rating on a 28-7 team in 2017, had a season ending-injury 8 games into the season. That was a game-changer. BC had no depth. None. Their guards were playing close to 40 minutes a night. Look at the stats. Take Hawkins out of the picture, and BC had 5 players averaging more than 11 minutes a game. They were razor thin in terms of ACC-caliber players. I readily admitted that their bench was limited. And the 2020 Georgia Tech finds themselves in a similar situation (they have a lower ceiling than 2018 BC, IMO). They absolutely can't afford a season ending injury to one of their main cogs.
Yes, I recall that now. And you’re absolutely right that BC needed to stay healthy, and that GT this year needs to stay healthy.

But that’s sort of the thing—how common is it for a team to play a grind of a schedule and have zero significant injuries? This is why I feel the 40-50% chance is too high. There has to be a range of outcomes.

If 10-10 is the ceiling, then that’s probably in the 25% range where all things need to go right. 9-11 and 8-12 would each be about in the 30% range, and then 7-13 might be in the 15% range. Maybe 1-5% each for 11-9 or 6-14.

That’s how winshares work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dukedevilz

dukedevilz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
5,184
6,568
113
Yes, I recall that now. And you’re absolutely right that BC needed to stay healthy, and that GT this year needs to stay healthy.

But that’s sort of the thing—how common is it for a team to play a grind of a schedule and have zero significant injuries? This is why I feel the 40-50% chance is too high. There has to be a range of outcomes.

If 10-10 is the ceiling, then that’s probably in the 25% range where all things need to go right. 9-11 and 8-12 would each be about in the 30% range, and then 7-13 might be in the 15% range. Maybe 1-5% each for 11-9 or 6-14.

That’s how winshares work.
You might be right. GT does have a little more depth than BC did - but not quite the same star power. I think losing one player wouldn't be nearly as debilitating for them. And I wouldn't say 10-10 is the ceiling, per se. But, it's probably close. Here's how I might distribute the percentages:

12-8 or better: 10%
11-9: 15%
10-10: 20%
9-11: 15%
8-12: 15%
7-13: 15%
6-14 or worse: 10%

So yeah, I'll say 45% chance they reach .500. Not definite. But realistic. FWIW, Bart Torvik has Georgia Tech projected 9th in the ACC. If you look at the 6 years the ACC has had 15 teams, you'll find the 9th place teams has been:

10-8: 1x
9-9: 4x
8-10: 1x
 
  • Like
Reactions: GE Nole

Gnawed

Member
Gold Member
Oct 24, 2007
7
11
3
I really think my Hoos will struggle this year. By struggle, I mean struggle in light of their conference success over the past 5 years or so. I'm seeing a conference record of maybe 11-9 (or thereabouts) and something like a 7th place finish in the ACC.

The loss of SO MUCH offense from our guards/wings (Guy, Jerome, and Hunter) simply cannot be replaced in one season. Freshman Casey Morsell is likely to be productive his first year, but not to the level that any single member of the big 3 was last year. Transfer wing Tomas Woldetensae could surprise and contribute some offense, but again not likely to the level of Guy, Jerome, or Hunter. It will be highly unusual that our best offense will come from our 4s and 5s (Key, Diakite, and Huff) instead of our guards/wings. Maybe Coach Bennett and his staff have some tricks up their sleeves in tweaking the offense, but I do not see UVa as being able to score nearly as effectively as it has over the past few years, a fact which I understand and can live with given last year's championship.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jhmossy

dukedevilz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
5,184
6,568
113
I really think my Hoos will struggle this year. By struggle, I mean struggle in light of their conference success over the past 5 years or so. I'm seeing a conference record of maybe 11-9 (or thereabouts) and something like a 7th place finish in the ACC.

The loss of SO MUCH offense from our guards/wings (Guy, Jerome, and Hunter) simply cannot be replaced in one season. Freshman Casey Morsell is likely to be productive his first year, but not to the level that any single member of the big 3 was last year. Transfer wing Tomas Woldetensae could surprise and contribute some offense, but again not likely to the level of Guy, Jerome, or Hunter. It will be highly unusual that our best offense will come from our 4s and 5s (Key, Diakite, and Huff) instead of our guards/wings. Maybe Coach Bennett and his staff have some tricks up their sleeves in tweaking the offense, but I do not see UVa as being able to score nearly as effectively as it has over the past few years, a fact which I understand and can live with given last year's championship.
It's hard to really project when the turnover rate is so high. UVA's frontcourt appears to be the strength of this team. Can't imagine Bennett starting Key-Diakite-Huff together, even though all 3 are most likely among their top 5 players. The backcourt is a little thin, and certainly doesn't have superstars like last year. I think most people give UVA the benefit of the doubt, knowing that Bennett is an excellent coach. If I was going by roster makeup alone, I might consider placing them below FSU and NC State.
 

GE Nole

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
27,542
11,051
113
You might be right. GT does have a little more depth than BC did - but not quite the same star power. I think losing one player wouldn't be nearly as debilitating for them. And I wouldn't say 10-10 is the ceiling, per se. But, it's probably close. Here's how I might distribute the percentages:

12-8 or better: 10%
11-9: 15%
10-10: 20%
9-11: 15%
8-12: 15%
7-13: 15%
6-14 or worse: 10%

So yeah, I'll say 45% chance they reach .500. Not definite. But realistic. FWIW, Bart Torvik has Georgia Tech projected 9th in the ACC. If you look at the 6 years the ACC has had 15 teams, you'll find the 9th place teams has been:

10-8: 1x
9-9: 4x
8-10: 1x
This is great dialogue, really enjoy the back and forth.

Actually looking at GT's schedule, I'll say wins against VT, Clemson, Cuse, and Miami at home, plus a win @wake. Losses on the road to NCSU, FSU, UNC, UL, ND, and at home against Duke.

So that's 5-6 with the other 9 being "toss ups," though not all 50/50. (UVA at home is a game where UVA is favored, but GT could conceivably pull the upset, and on the flip side, GT should be favored at Clemson but the Tigers could definitely win).

If we say they go 5-4 in the toss ups, that would be a 10-10 record. I cannot see them being 12-8 or better. Think if they lost the 6 games I noted, plus to UVA at home. They could lose just ONE game the rest of the way. That feels more like 1% to me than 10%.

I'll say:
12-8 or better: 2%
11-9: 5%
10-10: 25%
9-11: 31%
8-12: 25%
7-13: 10%
6-12 or worse: 2%

32% of finishing 10-10 or better, but less than 10% of finishing better than 10-10.

Seriously, what do you think is GT's realistic record in the following games?
@NCSU, @FSU, @UNC, @UL, @ND, @Pitt, @Cuse, Duke, UVA, UL
 

dukedevilz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
5,184
6,568
113
This is great dialogue, really enjoy the back and forth.

Actually looking at GT's schedule, I'll say wins against VT, Clemson, Cuse, and Miami at home, plus a win @wake. Losses on the road to NCSU, FSU, UNC, UL, ND, and at home against Duke.

So that's 5-6 with the other 9 being "toss ups," though not all 50/50. (UVA at home is a game where UVA is favored, but GT could conceivably pull the upset, and on the flip side, GT should be favored at Clemson but the Tigers could definitely win).

If we say they go 5-4 in the toss ups, that would be a 10-10 record. I cannot see them being 12-8 or better. Think if they lost the 6 games I noted, plus to UVA at home. They could lose just ONE game the rest of the way. That feels more like 1% to me than 10%.

I'll say:
12-8 or better: 2%
11-9: 5%
10-10: 25%
9-11: 31%
8-12: 25%
7-13: 10%
6-12 or worse: 2%

32% of finishing 10-10 or better, but less than 10% of finishing better than 10-10.

Seriously, what do you think is GT's realistic record in the following games?
@NCSU, @FSU, @UNC, @UL, @ND, @Pitt, @Cuse, Duke, UVA, UL
If I'm not mistaken, the home team wins close to 66% of home games. Last time GT had a semi-decent team was in 2017. They played home games against all of the top 3 seeds from the ACCT, and won all three games (UNC, FSU, ND). Winning on the road ain't easy.

Honestly, I have a hard time gauging percentages this early. But I will refer you to the numbers from Bart Torvik. Let's say anything over 60% is a win.

Home Games:
Virginia Tech- 87%, W
Syracuse- 75%, W

Duke- 46%
Notre Dame- 51%
Virginia- 49%
NC State- 61%, W
Louisville- 40%
Clemson- 85%, W
Miami- 64%, W
Pittsburgh- 69%, W


Away Games:
NC State- 31%, L
FSU- 27%, L
UNC- 17%, L

Boston College- 60%
Louisville- 15%, L
Notre Dame- 22%, L
Pittsburgh- 38%, L

Wake Forest- 44%
Syracuse- 45%
Clemson- 61%, W

That puts GT at 7-6. The 7 toss-up games are as follow:

Boston College- 60% (Road)
Notre Dame- 51% (Home)
Virginia- 49% (Home)
Duke- 46% (Home)
Syracuse- 45% (Road)
Wake Forest- 44% (Road)
Louisville- 40% (Home)

The average percentage between these 7 games is 47.86%. So let's go ahead and say They win 3 and lose 4. That puts GT's record at 10-10. I don't anticipate them going 12-8, that would be an incredible accomplishment. But, I do think going 10-10 is very possible.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GE Nole

dukedevilz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
5,184
6,568
113
Btw, not sure if everyone is aware, but BC's Wynston Tabbs is out for the year. Huge loss for them. I think he would have been their leading scorer, possibly north of 18 points per game.
 

GE Nole

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
27,542
11,051
113
If I'm not mistaken, the home team wins close to 66% of home games. Last time GT had a semi-decent team was in 2017. They played home games against all of the top 3 seeds from the ACCT, and won all three games (UNC, FSU, ND). Winning on the road ain't easy.

Honestly, I have a hard time gauging percentages this early. But I will refer you to the numbers from Bart Torvik. Let's say anything over 60% is a win.

Home Games:
Virginia Tech- 87%, W
Syracuse- 75%, W

Duke- 46%
Notre Dame- 51%
Virginia- 49%
NC State- 61%, W
Louisville- 40%
Clemson- 85%, W
Miami- 64%, W
Pittsburgh- 69%, W


Away Games:
NC State- 31%, L
FSU- 27%, L
UNC- 17%, L

Boston College- 60%
Louisville- 15%, L
Notre Dame- 22%, L
Pittsburgh- 38%, L

Wake Forest- 44%
Syracuse- 45%
Clemson- 61%, W

That puts GT at 7-6. The 7 toss-up games are as follow:

Boston College- 60% (Road)
Notre Dame- 51% (Home)
Virginia- 49% (Home)
Duke- 46% (Home)
Syracuse- 45% (Road)
Wake Forest- 44% (Road)
Louisville- 40% (Home)

The average percentage between these 7 games is 47.86%. So let's go ahead and say They win 3 and lose 4. That puts GT's record at 10-10. I don't anticipate them going 12-8, that would be an incredible accomplishment. But, I do think going 10-10 is very possible.
So it seems like we really are pretty close. The only thing that keeps throwing me off is your “12-8 or better” at 10%. That just seems ridiculously unlikely.

Even 11-9 at 15% seems pretty high. Look at those percentages you posted—to go 11-9 they need to go 4-3 in the toss ups, which either means sweeping the road games AND beating one of the toughest 4 at home, or beating two or more of those tough teams at home.

And yeah, I did see about Tabbs. Tough blow. Gotta have depth.
 

dukedevilz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
5,184
6,568
113
The red headed “apparently” kid is on the gd level.

So it seems like we really are pretty close. The only thing that keeps throwing me off is your “12-8 or better” at 10%. That just seems ridiculously unlikely.

Even 11-9 at 15% seems pretty high. Look at those percentages you posted—to go 11-9 they need to go 4-3 in the toss ups, which either means sweeping the road games AND beating one of the toughest 4 at home, or beating two or more of those tough teams at home.

And yeah, I did see about Tabbs. Tough blow. Gotta have depth.
I was just throwing some numbers out there. Wasn't trying to have them perfectly match up with the percentages. But, It's not that far-fetched, truthfully. These percentages come from Bart Torvik. Let's review the numbers of the toss-up games.

Boston College- 60% (Road)
Notre Dame- 51% (Home)
Virginia- 49% (Home)
Duke- 46% (Home)
Syracuse- 45% (Road)

Wake Forest- 44% (Road)
Louisville- 40% (Home)

If you take the top two numbers as Ws and the bottom two numbers as losses, GT's record is then 9-8. The 3 toss up games are 49%, 46%, 45%. In order to go 12-8, GT would have to win all three.

.49 * .46 * .45 = 10.143%

The actual number would be slightly lower than that since I was canceling out the ND & Wake games (BC & Louisville games cancel each other out perfectly, percentage-wise). GT is 5% more likely to lose to Wake on the road than to beat Notre Dame at home. So, 10.143 * 0.95 = 9.64%. That's pretty darn close.
 

GE Nole

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
27,542
11,051
113
I was just throwing some numbers out there. Wasn't trying to have them perfectly match up with the percentages. But, It's not that far-fetched, truthfully. These percentages come from Bart Torvik. Let's review the numbers of the toss-up games.

Boston College- 60% (Road)
Notre Dame- 51% (Home)
Virginia- 49% (Home)
Duke- 46% (Home)
Syracuse- 45% (Road)

Wake Forest- 44% (Road)
Louisville- 40% (Home)

If you take the top two numbers as Ws and the bottom two numbers as losses, GT's record is then 9-8. The 3 toss up games are 49%, 46%, 45%. In order to go 12-8, GT would have to win all three.

.49 * .46 * .45 = 10.143%

The actual number would be slightly lower than that since I was canceling out the ND & Wake games (BC & Louisville games cancel each other out perfectly, percentage-wise). GT is 5% more likely to lose to Wake on the road than to beat Notre Dame at home. So, 10.143 * 0.95 = 9.64%. That's pretty darn close.
But that’s all assuming GT has ZERO injuries. Which isn’t close to a 100% outcome. So how do we account for the chances of GT having an injury? Or how do we account for the fact that one of their star transfers is missing the first 8 games?

Here’s the more realistic win shares of those 7 games:
.6 + .51 + .49 + .46 + .45 + .44 + .40 = 3.35-4.65
 

dukedevilz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
5,184
6,568
113
But that’s all assuming GT has ZERO injuries. Which isn’t close to a 100% outcome. So how do we account for the chances of GT having an injury? Or how do we account for the fact that one of their star transfers is missing the first 8 games?

Here’s the more realistic win shares of those 7 games:
.6 + .51 + .49 + .46 + .45 + .44 + .40 = 3.35-4.65
Bubba Parham is immediately eligible. Jordan Usher will only miss the NC State road game (69% chance of losing) and the Syracuse home game (75% chance of winning). Not sure if Torvik accounts for that or not, but those aren't games that should be materially effected. Don't think you can really factor hypothetical injuries into the equation. Other teams could also be effected by injuries, too. Just seems like you have to take an assumption of all else being equal. You don't know who on your team would be injured - or who might be injured on the other team. Don't think any algorithm could sufficiently account for that, IMO.

As far as the breakdown of percentages, yes, 3.35 for wins and 3.65 for losses (assuming you meant 3.65). Even if we round down the wins to 3, and round up the losses to 4, you end up with 10-10. Going .500 is actually very attainable. If you take the 7-6 start and add 3.35 wins and 3.65 losses, you end up with 10.35 wins and 9.65 losses. I agree that GT is more likely to finish 10-10. Going 12-8 would be challenging. Not super likely. That is essentially the absolutely ceiling. But it is feasible. And 10% seems about right.

FWIW, Evan Cole was the most consistent player on their trip to Spain. I don't know if that will actually materialize against D1 opponents - but something that we'll never be able to reasonably project is player progression.
 

dukedevilz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
5,184
6,568
113
Who would have thought that GT would be the talk of this thread lol. Are there any Tech basketball fans out there?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GE Nole

GE Nole

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
27,542
11,051
113
Who would have thought that GT would be the talk of this thread lol. Are there any Tech basketball fans out there?
Indeed. Fun stuff. I actually have an interest in watching most GT games now lol.

I’ll tell you one thing about Torvik, he is massively underestimating the production of RaiQuan Gray and Devin Vassell. He’s got RaiQuan averaging 2.9 ppg. Lol. The guy started all three NCAAT games last year and averaged nearly 7 ppg, yet with FSU losing 3 or 4 really nice contributors, he’s gonna average less than 3?!

And Vassell is the best shooter on the team. He’s gonna average 6-9 points a game just from threes. Let alone transition layups and ally oops.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dukedevilz

dukedevilz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
5,184
6,568
113
Indeed. Fun stuff. I actually have an interest in watching most GT games now lol.

I’ll tell you one thing about Torvik, he is massively underestimating the production of RaiQuan Gray and Devin Vassell. He’s got RaiQuan averaging 2.9 ppg. Lol. The guy started all three NCAAT games last year and averaged nearly 7 ppg, yet with FSU losing 3 or 4 really nice contributors, he’s gonna average less than 3?!

And Vassell is the best shooter on the team. He’s gonna average 6-9 points a game just from threes. Let alone transition layups and ally oops.
Torvik's site has limitations, no question. It's still a useful tool for looking at nearly all the rosters, schedules, advanced statistics, etc. His model does a very poor job at forecasting player development. The numbers are amazingly modest across the board. He also tends to minimize the importance of freshmen. On his rankings, he is undervaluing freshmen-dominated teams like Duke (#11), Kentucky (#12), Arizona (#28), Memphis (#41), and Washington (#60). Here were some of the failings that I pointed out last year. I was wrong about Wisconsin and two mid-majors, but spot-on with everyone else.

I've looked at his site a few times in the offseason. It's not completely terrible, but some of the rankings are way, way off. Here are some obvious blunders:

Overrated:
Miami: 10th
- they'll be hard-pressed to finish in the top 10 in the ACC. Right now, I'd say they're probably the 9th best team in the ACC.

Seton Hall: 21st- They're getting a couple of nice transfers. But they lack depth - and they only have one returning player that has shot north of 32% from 3. I think they'll make the Tournament, but probably in the range of a 9-11 seed.

Alabama: 24th- Are they expecting John Petty to suddenly be an All-American? Alabama could sneak into the NCAA Tournament, but they're not a top 25 team.

Wisconsin: 26th- Um, no

Missouri: 29th- See above

Underrated:
Washington: 52nd- They're not necessarily a top 25 team, but they return everyone. And they were young last year. I think I would rank them somewhere in the 20-35 range.

Loyola Chicago: 62nd- Ridiculously low for a Final Four team that returns 3 starters, including the Missouri Valley Conference POY.

LSU: 73rd- Probably the worst ranking on here. LSU is a legitimate SEC title contender. They're not the favorite, of course. But they should be a top 4 team in the conference and have a very high ranking during the season.

Marshall: 132nd- They won a game in the NCAA Tournament and they return two 20 point scorers. To not have them in the top 100 is definitively crazy.

Davidson: 144th- A very solid 12 seed in the Tournament last year. They return Kellan Grady (future 1st round NBA pick) and Gundmundsson (13 ppg, 6 reb, 5 assists).
 
  • Like
Reactions: GE Nole

dukedevilz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
5,184
6,568
113
Indeed. Fun stuff. I actually have an interest in watching most GT games now lol.

I’ll tell you one thing about Torvik, he is massively underestimating the production of RaiQuan Gray and Devin Vassell. He’s got RaiQuan averaging 2.9 ppg. Lol. The guy started all three NCAAT games last year and averaged nearly 7 ppg, yet with FSU losing 3 or 4 really nice contributors, he’s gonna average less than 3?!

And Vassell is the best shooter on the team. He’s gonna average 6-9 points a game just from threes. Let alone transition layups and ally oops.
How would you break down FSU's team in terms of starters and key bench players? Torvik's top 3 scorers seems reasonable to me in Forrest, Walker, and Williams. But I wouldn't expect the 2 JUCO guys to be 4th & 5th on the team in scoring. I think that's another error with his projections. He tends to overvalue JUCO players, for whatever reason. Some JUCOs turn out to be studs. But, I find them to be underwhelming, for the most part.
 

SheriffBufordTJustice

Well-Known Member
Aug 17, 2018
26,926
14,131
113
In the minds of the ignorant
I really think my Hoos will struggle this year. By struggle, I mean struggle in light of their conference success over the past 5 years or so. I'm seeing a conference record of maybe 11-9 (or thereabouts) and something like a 7th place finish in the ACC.

The loss of SO MUCH offense from our guards/wings (Guy, Jerome, and Hunter) simply cannot be replaced in one season. Freshman Casey Morsell is likely to be productive his first year, but not to the level that any single member of the big 3 was last year. Transfer wing Tomas Woldetensae could surprise and contribute some offense, but again not likely to the level of Guy, Jerome, or Hunter. It will be highly unusual that our best offense will come from our 4s and 5s (Key, Diakite, and Huff) instead of our guards/wings. Maybe Coach Bennett and his staff have some tricks up their sleeves in tweaking the offense, but I do not see UVa as being able to score nearly as effectively as it has over the past few years, a fact which I understand and can live with given last year's championship.
Replacing DeAndre Hunter's D is the key.
You saw what happen without Hunter in the 2018 tournament.

Hunter was the best all around college basketball player. His impact went beyond numbers.
If you would create a basketball player in a lab it would be DeAndre Hunter.
UVa's luck is that Tony Bennett has an eye for talent. His track record proves itself.

But players like Hunter don't just appear every year.
 

GE Nole

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
27,542
11,051
113
How would you break down FSU's team in terms of starters and key bench players? Torvik's top 3 scorers seems reasonable to me in Forrest, Walker, and Williams. But I wouldn't expect the 2 JUCO guys to be 4th & 5th on the team in scoring. I think that's another error with his projections. He tends to overvalue JUCO players, for whatever reason. Some JUCOs turn out to be studs. But, I find them to be underwhelming, for the most part.
Patrick Williams might very well end up leading the team in scoring. Forrest is often more of a facilitator than dominant scorer (mainly because he can’t shoot), although he can get to the basket at will when he chooses to play downhill. I imagine he tries to carry the load a bit early on but by the end of OOC schedule it could be Williams.

Regarding starters, you know with Ham that’s often just a token designation. Down in Tallahassee we tend to look at things by total minutes played as opposed to who starts the game.

A month or two ago I sketched out some rough numbers for who our top 11 guys might be in terms of total minutes played (assuming all stay healthy). It looked like this:

1. Trent – 975
2. MJ Walker – 825
3. Devin Vassell – 750
4. Patrick Williams – 700
5. RaiQuan Gray – 625
6. Malik Osborne – 500
7. Rayquan Evans – 440
8. Anthony Polite/Dom/Balsa – 375-ish
9. Jack – 300

Based on what I’ve heard from summer, I might bump Dominik up into the 425 range and adjust Evans and Polite down 20-30 min each. Also, Williams could get closer to 750 than 700.

FYI, we play 31 games so it starts with Forrest at just over 31 mpg and the math follows from there.

Malik Osborne is gonna surprise some folks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dukedevilz

dukedevilz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
5,184
6,568
113
Patrick Williams might very well end up leading the team in scoring. Forrest is often more of a facilitator than dominant scorer (mainly because he can’t shoot), although he can get to the basket at will when he chooses to play downhill. I imagine he tries to carry the load a bit early on but by the end of OOC schedule it could be Williams.

Regarding starters, you know with Ham that’s often just a token designation. Down in Tallahassee we tend to look at things by total minutes played as opposed to who starts the game.

A month or two ago I sketched out some rough numbers for who our top 11 guys might be in terms of total minutes played (assuming all stay healthy). It looked like this:

1. Trent – 975
2. MJ Walker – 825
3. Devin Vassell – 750
4. Patrick Williams – 700
5. RaiQuan Gray – 625
6. Malik Osborne – 500
7. Rayquan Evans – 440
8. Anthony Polite/Dom/Balsa – 375-ish
9. Jack – 300

Based on what I’ve heard from summer, I might bump Dominik up into the 425 range and adjust Evans and Polite down 20-30 min each. Also, Williams could get closer to 750 than 700.

FYI, we play 31 games so it starts with Forrest at just over 31 mpg and the math follows from there.

Malik Osborne is gonna surprise some folks.
Sit-out transfers are the best. They get one year under the belt learning the system, meanwhile their eligibility is placed on pause. It's amazing how much guys can improve in 18 months. Those are the transfers that intrigue me the most. They seem hungrier than transfers that are immediately eligible. Most knew Mariol Shayok was a good player, and a likely starter for Iowa State. But I don't think anyone was expecting 19 ppg. Not sure how good Osborne is, but he had respectable numbers at Rice. I'm sure he'll be valuable player this season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GE Nole

GE Nole

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
27,542
11,051
113
Sit-out transfers are the best. They get one year under the belt learning the system, meanwhile their eligibility is placed on pause. It's amazing how much guys can improve in 18 months. Those are the transfers that intrigue me the most. They seem hungrier than transfers that are immediately eligible. Most knew Mariol Shayok was a good player, and a likely starter for Iowa State. But I don't think anyone was expecting 19 ppg. Not sure how good Osborne is, but he had respectable numbers at Rice. I'm sure he'll be valuable player this season.
Well said. Certainly worked well for us with Toney Douglas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dukedevilz

dukedevilz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
5,184
6,568
113
All James Banks fault.

There are ACC teams I don't think I have watched for maybe the last 2-3 years so I truthfully can't give you an analysis.

But I am high on Louisville this year.
You should watch Georgia Tech this year and check out Banks. Pastner has a Princeton-style offense that he runs. Kind of fun to watch.
 

GE Nole

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
27,542
11,051
113
You should watch Georgia Tech this year and check out Banks. Pastner has a Princeton-style offense that he runs. Kind of fun to watch.
Do you think GT will actually have any shooters this year? They have been dreadful from behind the arc.
 

dukedevilz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
5,184
6,568
113
Do you think GT will actually have any shooters this year? They have been dreadful from behind the arc.
One can hope, right? That is one of their downfalls. On the Spain trip (4 games), they were 42 for 123 (34.2%). Alvrado was 8 for 16, Phillips was 6 for 12, and Devoe was 8 for 19. Others weren't very good. Small sample size, so probably not a solid indicator of how they'll perform. Parham was 116 for 292 last year (39.7%). He and Devoe should be the most reliable shooters. They're not going to be great, I suspect. And that will hurt them. But, they should be a little better than last season. Maybe in the 32-34% range as a team.
 

dukedevilz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
5,184
6,568
113
A journalist from HowTheyPlay released his ACC Preseason Projections. Here they are, from 1-15:

1. UNC
2. Duke
3. Virginia
4. Louisville
5. Notre Dame
6. NC State
7. Georgia Tech
8. Florida State
9. Miami
10. Syracuse
11. Virginia Tech
12. Pittsburgh
13. Wake Forest
14. Clemson
15. Boston College
 
  • Like
Reactions: heelpharm

GE Nole

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
27,542
11,051
113
A journalist from HowTheyPlay released his ACC Preseason Projections. Here they are, from 1-15:

1. UNC
2. Duke
3. Virginia
4. Louisville
5. Notre Dame
6. NC State
7. Georgia Tech
8. Florida State
9. Miami
10. Syracuse
11. Virginia Tech
12. Pittsburgh
13. Wake Forest
14. Clemson
15. Boston College
I read that one a week or so ago. Though I see he updated it to show that one of our freshman seven footers (who was going to redshirt anyway) has been ruled academically ineligible.

I think he’s too high on UVA by a decent amount, and maybe ND by a tad. But overall it’s solid.

One thing he doesn’t seem to be factoring in is the schedule.
 

dukedevilz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
5,184
6,568
113
I read that one a week or so ago. Though I see he updated it to show that one of our freshman seven footers (who was going to redshirt anyway) has been ruled academically ineligible.

I think he’s too high on UVA by a decent amount, and maybe ND by a tad. But overall it’s solid.

One thing he doesn’t seem to be factoring in is the schedule.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. No mention of Georgia Tech? He picked them to finish 7th and make it to the 2nd round of the NCAAs. I found that interesting. I like their team, but I don't like them that much, personally.

I see the ACC being a 3-team race between Louisville, Duke, and Carolina. Certainly one of those three teams could slip up, and maybe UVA slips past them. As of right now, though, I think they're a bit behind all three. They're especially light in the backcourt. I like UVA's bigs, but their backcourt is very, very shaky. Hard to imagine UVA finishing in the top 3 with essentially 4 guards. And of those four guards, only the incoming freshmen was a top 100 recruit.

And I would agree with the ND assessment. No doubt Notre Dame will be better. Everyone is back. Pflueger and Carmody should be healthy. Mooney is a legit candidate for 1st Team All-Conference. But for them to take the next step, IMO, Gibbs and Hubb have to much more reliable scorers. Those two were awful from the field. Never seen a Notre Dame offense struggle so much under Mike Brey.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GE Nole

GE Nole

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
27,542
11,051
113
Whoa, whoa, whoa. No mention of Georgia Tech? He picked them to finish 7th and make it to the 2nd round of the NCAAs. I found that interesting. I like their team, but I don't like them that much, personally.

I see the ACC being a 3-team race between Louisville, Duke, and Carolina. Certainly one of those three teams could slip up, and maybe UVA slips past them. As of right now, though, I think they're a bit behind all three. They're especially light in the backcourt. I like UVA's bigs, but their backcourt is very, very shaky. Hard to imagine UVA finishing in the top 3 with essentially 4 guards. And of those four guards, only the incoming freshmen was a top 100 recruit.

And I would agree with the ND assessment. No doubt Notre Dame will be better. Everyone is back. Pflueger and Carmody should be healthy. Mooney is a legit candidate for 1st Team All-Conference. But for them to take the next step, IMO, Gibbs and Hubb have to much more reliable scorers. Those two were awful from the field. Never seen a Notre Dame offense struggle so much under Mike Brey.
Totally agree about UVA and ND. Well said.

I figured we had spent enough time on GT, haha. But yeah, 2nd round of the NCAAT feels quite optimistic to me. I’d say second round of the NIT is more likely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dukedevilz

lurkeraspect84

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2014
21,340
18,195
113
Team
Kentucky
Georgia Tech has received...
  • A 2019-20 postseason ban.
  • Four years of probation with one scholarship reduction each year.
  • A fine of $5,000 plus 2% of the men’s basketball program budget.
  • Vacation of wins for one season.
  • No official visits may be conducted during home games for the first two years of probation.
 

GE Nole

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
27,542
11,051
113
Georgia Tech has received...
  • A 2019-20 postseason ban.
  • Four years of probation with one scholarship reduction each year.
  • A fine of $5,000 plus 2% of the men’s basketball program budget.
  • Vacation of wins for one season.
  • No official visits may be conducted during home games for the first two years of probation.
Welp...guess we don’t need to argue if they’re making the Dance lol.
 

brooky03

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2012
2,631
1,995
113
GT loses 1 scholarship per year and a season of wins for paying money to recruits.

Syracuse lost 100 wins and 3 scholarships per year because Terrence Roberts didn’t feel like talking to the NCAA (or wasn’t asked) and a tutor wrote a paper for a non-English speaking Center.

cool
 

UL_1986

Well-Known Member
Sep 13, 2018
6,226
4,496
113
GT loses 1 scholarship per year and a season of wins for paying money to recruits.

Syracuse lost 100 wins and 3 scholarships per year because Terrence Roberts didn’t feel like talking to the NCAA (or wasn’t asked) and a tutor wrote a paper for a non-English speaking Center.

cool
Yeah, well...the strippers done made our players play rrreal good.
 

dukedevilz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
5,184
6,568
113
Wow. Tough luck, Tech. Really thought they'd have a decent shot at making NCAAs this year.