Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="auror, post: 2107393, member: 1329"] Parts of it are subjective, parts of it are not. OP asserted... This is quantifiably incorrect and was piggy backed on by almost every commentator. It is the grounds by which people have made assertions about quality of play and justified their subjective opinions. As to subjective aspects that most people consider "beautiful"... Turnovers are ugly, right? Turnovers are at the lowest levels of recent memory. The skill of shooting is beautiful, right? It's a bigger part of the game than it ever was. ISO ball is ugly, right? It's [URL='http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2016/10/03/30-second-shot-clock-freedom-movement-evaluation']trending downward[/URL] in recent years. No doubt. Were mine? I prefaced by saying I'd do a full average (couldn't find an easy source so have to calculate it myself), but cursory look suggests the trend holds for everybody, not sure the top team. That's the point of the chart illustrating the trend, to show that it's more than just 1 data point. Did you see the trendline? As demonstrated above, it's certainly not negatively impacting the scoring ability of teams, so I'm not sure what you are valuing that is being negatively influenced? Name recognition? Media narratives? IF this is true, and I've seen nothing definitive on the subject, that means coaching must be significantly better now if they are able to achieve more efficient scoring offenses with less talent. I'd be curious to see someone research this. Talk about cherry-picking. Villanova wasn't even a 1-seed last year. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach

Forum statistics

Threads: 164,612

Messages: 4,403,471

Members: 10,217

Latest member: Peter8122