Bracketology - Let's Do This

RamblinRed

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
4,449
Congrats to Baylor, a deserving winner. They didn't win a singlegame by less than 9 points the entire Tournament. They were clearly the best team in the Tournament this year.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,608
All 4 final four coaches played 7-8 man rotations.

And with that, I'll get off the soapbox until someone brings up short bench after our first loss next year.

That's why Gonzaga, UCLA, and Houston all lost. All their players were worn out....:)
 

CuseJacket

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
15,347
That's why Gonzaga, UCLA, and Houston all lost. All their players were worn out....:)
Exactly. Mark Few, Kelvin Sampson and Mick Cronin are obviously frauds for all to see now. Thank goodness none of those teams ever faced overtime nor foul trouble throughout the tournament, too. Surely the legs would've fallen off.
 

lv20gt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,121
All 4 final four coaches played 7-8 man rotations.

And with that, I'll get off the soapbox until someone brings up short bench after our first loss next year.

A 7-8 man rotation is about a 15% increase over a 6-7 man rotation which isn't insignificant.
 

YlJacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,544
FWIW I expect that next year is going to be an outlier as far as rotations are concerned. Multiple teams including GT will have players coming back and at the same time have players coming through the system who were otherwise ready to play and slotted to replace them. It is going to be a strain if the players coming along or coming into the system are shut out of playing time. So I expect we will see the 7/8 man rotations expanded by one or more. Will require some changes in coaching approach for most guys for sure - especially CJP - but given the number of legit players he has I expect him to work it out.
 

lv20gt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,121
I'm not advocating for 6, and thankfully we weren't that this year.

We were pretty close to it. Against Duke we only played 6 players more than 5 minutes, and that was in an OT game. Against Cuse was the same, and we pretty much ironmanned that with our #6 only playing 7 minutes. Against VT our #7 only played 8 minutes. In game we won by 16. We had a pretty high number of games where we played only 6 players double digit minutes. FSU at home, Clemson, UNC, Georgia state. Yes. GSU. The 4 OT game. We only played 6 players 10 minutes or more.
 

CuseJacket

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
15,347
We were pretty close to it. Against Duke we only played 6 players more than 5 minutes, and that was in an OT game. Against Cuse was the same, and we pretty much ironmanned that with our #6 only playing 7 minutes. Against VT our #7 only played 8 minutes. In game we won by 16. We had a pretty high number of games where we played only 6 players double digit minutes. FSU at home, Clemson, UNC, Georgia state. Yes. GSU. The 4 OT game. We only played 6 players 10 minutes or more.
We're talking about two different things, I think.

I don't mind if our #6 and #7 get 6-12 minutes. My understanding is you're calling that a rotation of less than 7, whereas I would call that 7. Mark Few did that last night, as an example.

Would I prefer to spread the #6 and #7 minutes around more consistently, closer to 10-15 min? Yes, in an ideal world. Still with a prerequisite being that the bench performance warrants it.
 

lv20gt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,121
6-12 minutes a game? So like 20 minutes total between your 6th and 7th players? That's beyond the thin gold line levels. That's 36 minutes for each of your starters levels. That's not a 7 man rotation. That's not even a 6 man rotation.

And yes, Gonzaga did it, and their depth was the one thing people harped on being a potential weakness all year but their composition was a lot more able to deal with the problem of a short rotation due to better spread between front court and back court players.

There's no point in arguing this though as the issues only come up when something goes wrong, like when our starting center couldn't go against an all american center and we replaced him in the starting lineup with a 5-10 point guard. So us avoiding major issues for most of the year means we largely went unpunished for it so it's "proof" that it wasn't an issue.
 

CuseJacket

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
15,347
6-12 minutes a game? So like 20 minutes total between your 6th and 7th players? That's beyond the thin gold line levels. That's 36 minutes for each of your starters levels. That's not a 7 man rotation. That's not even a 6 man rotation.

And yes, Gonzaga did it, and their depth was the one thing people harped on being a potential weakness all year but their composition was a lot more able to deal with the problem of a short rotation due to better spread between front court and back court players.

There's no point in arguing this though as the issues only come up when something goes wrong, like when our starting center couldn't go against an all american center and we replaced him in the starting lineup with a 5-10 point guard. So us avoiding major issues for most of the year means we largely went unpunished for it so it's "proof" that it wasn't an issue.
Gonzaga did not lose last night due to depth. They lost the game in the first 5 minutes. I'm not sure if that is the point you're making, so apologies if I misunderstood.

I agree that it is thin and bordering on the edge of unsustainability, due to risks (injuries, Covid) you pointed out.

My point is, I still would not default to blaming coaching or depth as the issue even if we lose in those circumstances. There are reasons those choices are warranted and many coaches are doing the same thing, flexing those minutes up and down accordingly. I'd like more bench minutes, but not as the default for the sake of spreading minutes around.
 

orientalnc

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
5,531
6-12 minutes a game? So like 20 minutes total between your 6th and 7th players? That's beyond the thin gold line levels. That's 36 minutes for each of your starters levels. That's not a 7 man rotation. That's not even a 6 man rotation.

And yes, Gonzaga did it, and their depth was the one thing people harped on being a potential weakness all year but their composition was a lot more able to deal with the problem of a short rotation due to better spread between front court and back court players.

There's no point in arguing this though as the issues only come up when something goes wrong, like when our starting center couldn't go against an all american center and we replaced him in the starting lineup with a 5-10 point guard. So us avoiding major issues for most of the year means we largely went unpunished for it so it's "proof" that it wasn't an issue.
An interesting counter point is the Baylor spread. Their 6-8 guys played 22-16-16. Their top three were Mitchell at 36 and Teague and Butler each had 31. No one else above 27.

Another point is they played six guards and two forwards. Thamba and Tchamwa Tchatchoua each got only 16 minutes due foul trouble and Mayer or Vitae played the 5 (to the extent anyone does in their four out offense). When those two forwards were out, Baylor played a 2-3 zone with Mayer of Vitae in the middle.

They played an almost perfect game. I was one of the people who wondered if there had ever been a college team that could beat Gonzaga, then UCLA took them to OT and Baylor crushed them. As quick and efficient as they were, the Zags looked soft this weekend in both games.
 

Milwaukee

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,008
Location
Milwaukee, WI
All 4 final four coaches played 7-8 man rotations.

And with that, I'll get off the soapbox until someone brings up short bench after our first loss next year.
Baylor’s 8 man rotation is so special though, it’s essentially 8 starters/studs. Very impressive.
I still believe Zaga had the best starting 5 in the nation, but they have a HUGE drop off even when they go to their 1st sub. Baylor rolls 8 deep with killers.
 
Top