Realistic assessment on 90+ point scoring

[DefenseBB]

With the squad we have returning in 2025-26, many have postulated we will easily score 90+ point per game. I did a full analysis of the last 26 years of data for WCBB 1999-00 to 2024-25 and for UConn in particular (all 26 seasons during this time frame). Details are below but to coin the phrase from MythBusters- "PLAUSIBLE" however not probable.

Historical background: History shows that only 3 teams have ever averaged more than 90 points per game:

1. 2014 Oregon 93.2 but they went 16-16 and did not make the NCAAT. Their primary factor for scoring was hoisting an absurd 81.5 shots per game including 31.4 three-point attempts.
2. 2024 Iowa 91.0 who were runner up in the NCAAT to LSU. This team was efficient with only 65.2 shots per game (49.6% FG), 29.0 three-point attempts (37.6%) and 78% from the FT line but with a paltry rotation of only 7 players with more than 10 min per game.
3. 2021 Maryland 90.8 who lost in the Sweet 16 round. Another efficient team with 67.6 shots per game (49.6% FG as well), 20.4 three point attempts (40.0%) and 79.0% from the FT line. This team had an 8-player rotation of 10 min or more (coincidentally, Angel Reese was hurt most of this year).

On average, the top 10 teams during this analysis averaged 89.5 pts, 66.2 shots per game, 19.3 3-pt attempts and an 8 player rotation.
There were 3 UConn teams in the top 10 all-time scoring:

1. 2018 Final Four team 89.5 pts with an absurd FG% 53.3 and 3 pt FG% of 40.0. This team had took 65.5 shots, with 22.8 assists per game and also only had an 8-player rotation.
2. 2015 Title Team 89.4 pts with and even more absurd 54.0% FG, 40.6% from 3-pt and 64.4 shots per game. This squad also only had an 8 player list with 10 min or more per game
3. 2016 Title Team 88.1 pts with 53.0% FG, 38.1% 3-pt FG, 64.6 shots per game. This team had 9 players with 10 min or more.

In looking at all the data, key factors are smaller rotations 7/8/9, highly efficient shooting, and >65 shots per game. This past year, UConn had 81.7 pts per game, 62.8 shots (50.9%), 22.5 3-pt attempts (38.2%) and 10 players with 10 min or more. But that is a bit misleading as Aubrey missed most of the season and when she came back, Morgan went down so we only had 9. UConn in the last 5 years has only averaged 61.1 shots per game and 78.5 pts. In the 11 championship seasons (ignoring 1995) the UConn team averages 82.7 points, 61.6 shots (50.9%), 19.3 3-pt attempts (37.9%) and 9.1 player rotation.

Key points to consider before the "rebuttals" of "but, but, but":

• Geno focuses on the half court offense as he is committed that this is what wins titles in March/April so he will not start pressing the whole game to get more shots.
• Geno regardless of the amount of talent he has, rotates only 9 or 10 players on title squads with significant depth. Who those players will be is currently unknown but we have conjectured.
• Three point shooting has increased over the past 10 years so there is an opportunity to gain more points with highly efficient shooting. This past year, we took more 3 pt shots per game than ever with 22.5 but we did lose one of the best shooters we have ever have in Paige.
• The more players you try to incorporate into a rotation, the less efficient you become, the less shots you make. This current team has oodles of talent and I do think Geno will try to play for the right combinations which will limit the scoring.
• The most shots UConn has ever taken per game was the 2018 team with 8 player rotation and 65.5 shots. They came close with 89.5 points per game and is the reason why I think the answer is "PLAUSIBLE". The noted pitfalls are too much depth as Geno tries to incorporate 2 quality transfers and a 15 person team (for the 1st time ever!).

Like I said, this team does have scoring potential but with too much talent, it's hard to find a rhythm to be great, night in, night out. The inhibiting factors are limited shots per game and too many players to incorporate.

Of the top 10 scoring teams since 2000, Baylor in 2017 with 89.5 pts. The primary factor for this team was rebounding and FG% efficiency (49.8% and 40.3% from 3). They had a 10-player rotation, but they also had 7 games with 100+ points, including a few absurd wins like 140-32 over Winthrop or 118-43 over Houston Baptist which we know Kim and her early home cooking of cupcakes that Geno will not do.

Like I said, it is a curious and plausible situation but anyone who states unequivocally that we will score 90+ per game is just plain guesing and is simply just convinced they will win the Lotto tonight as well.

 

[Bone Dog]

Nice analysis, very thorough. I don't think many have postulated 90+ scoring. But a few have and it has triggered many responses, mostly from folks who are skeptical of it. So, it's good to see a careful breakdown of the factors that would be involved.

Two distinctions I'd add to support your analysis:

1. to note that the rotation in February is typically when the paring down of playing time becomes really noticeable. Early season lineups tend to be much more 'experimental.' Since the scoring average is season long, it will include the early season period when more players will get into games.
2. you're right, I think, that Geno is not likely to run a pressing game in the second half of the season. But he will emphasize the transition game. This is not the result of turnovers generated in a full court press. It belongs more properly under the heading of the 'half court offense' you mention, but with a nuance. He encourages the team to run not merely on turnovers generated in the half-court defense but also on missed shots. It is still a half-court offense, sort of, but it doesn't allow opposing teams to settle into their half-court defense. We saw this quite a bit in this last tournament run.

Geno has always encouraged a transition game, but it received an extra boost last season because of the presence of Sarah, who runs the floor really well. I think she was the primary (not the exclusive) beneficiary of the long passes from Paige, and seems to have taken up the role we saw Aubrey play so frequently in former years. With Sarah in the game he was also able to emphasize the small lineups more than ever merely because she plays much bigger than she is on defense. Having a big who can run the floor has always been part of his thinking, and we will tend to see much more of it over the next few years. If he has to play Jana or Ice, then the speed of his bigs in a big lineup inhibits a bit this style of play. I wonder if we'll see Serah running in transition along with Sarah.

The reason I also think 90+ is unlikely is because so much of the team culture is about defense. Yes, this means lots of transition opportunities, and that can produce quick scores. But the careful defense also encourages the 'extra pass' offense which isn't simply about quick scores.

 

[DefenseBB]

I don't understand your comment about the "transition game". UConn has always excelled in the transition game and nothing really changed in the second half of the season. So, either your comment is spurious, or you are indicating this "transition game" would generate more scoring opportunities or better proficiency. I would argue that neither changed either during the season or to warrant the necessary increase in scoring this coming year to make any difference. While you are not advocating that 90 points is likely, the comment is confusing. Opposing teams, particularly Big East opponents always slow down their offense to limit the UConn opportunities, hence our consistent 61-64 shot per game average over the past 10 years.

But like I said, there is a very remote chance a solid 10-person rotation could be efficient enough to score 90 per game. The deep appears deep enough in scorers to allow for consistent bench output. How it plays out will be interesting.

 

[Bone Dog]

I don't understand your comment about the "transition game". UConn has always excelled in the transition game and nothing really changed in the second half of the season. So, either your comment is spurious, or you are indicating this "transition game" would generate more scoring opportunities or better proficiency. I would argue that neither changed either during the season or to warrant the necessary increase in scoring this coming year to make any difference. While you are not advocating that 90 points is likely, the comment is confusing. Opposing teams, particularly Big East opponents always slow down their offense to limit the UConn opportunities, hence our consistent 61-64 shot per game average over the past 10 years.

But like I said, there is a very remote chance a solid 10-person rotation could be efficient enough to score 90 per game. The deep appears deep enough in scorers to allow for consistent bench output. How it plays out will be interesting.

I merely meant that the distinction between "half court offense" and "pressing" is not completely representative of the offensive/defensive options Geno employs. This was because I was struck by your remark that

"Geno focuses on the half court offense as he is committed that this is what wins titles in March/April so he will not start pressing the whole game to get more shots."​

I was attempting to agree with you and offer support for your position by noting a distinction that others will see too, namely that the transition offense is not the same as using a pressing defense to get more shots, nor is it simply the same as a half-court offense. I assumed that you were aware of this and merely didn't feel like mentioning it at that moment.

Also, just to be clear, I specifically said I didn't think this would generate more shot opportunities in itself. You could gather this from my closing remark:

"Yes, this means lots of transition opportunities, and that can produce quick scores. But the careful defense also encourages the 'extra pass' offense which isn't simply about quick scores."​

​

My overall point was that even though the transition game is central to Geno's thinking, and sometimes tends to speed up the game, it would not by itself lead to more shot opportunities or a higher points per game average. To achieve that would probably require a different sort of change, like (for example) not always seeking the "extra pass."

This is what agreeing with you looks like. I noted the validity of your analysis -- and even praised you for it -- and offered an extension of your primary point. Naturally, I was taken aback by your prickly response in which you insinuated that there was something spurious about my comment. In future, try to err on the side of generosity in your reading of my posts, and I will do the same.

 

[Cuango]

With the squad we have returning in 2025-26, many have postulated we will easily score 90+ point per game. I did a full analysis of the last 26 years of data for WCBB 1999-00 to 2024-25 and for UConn in particular (all 26 seasons during this time frame). Details are below but to coin the phrase from MythBusters- "PLAUSIBLE" however not probable.

Historical background: History shows that only 3 teams have ever averaged more than 90 points per game:

1. 2014 Oregon 93.2 but they went 16-16 and did not make the NCAAT. Their primary factor for scoring was hoisting an absurd 81.5 shots per game including 31.4 three-point attempts.
2. 2024 Iowa 91.0 who were runner up in the NCAAT to LSU. This team was efficient with only 65.2 shots per game (49.6% FG), 29.0 three-point attempts (37.6%) and 78% from the FT line but with a paltry rotation of only 7 players with more than 10 min per game.
3. 2021 Maryland 90.8 who lost in the Sweet 16 round. Another efficient team with 67.6 shots per game (49.6% FG as well), 20.4 three point attempts (40.0%) and 79.0% from the FT line. This team had an 8-player rotation of 10 min or more (coincidentally, Angel Reese was hurt most of this year).

On average, the top 10 teams during this analysis averaged 89.5 pts, 66.2 shots per game, 19.3 3-pt attempts and an 8 player rotation.
There were 3 UConn teams in the top 10 all-time scoring:

1. 2018 Final Four team 89.5 pts with an absurd FG% 53.3 and 3 pt FG% of 40.0. This team had took 65.5 shots, with 22.8 assists per game and also only had an 8-player rotation.
2. 2015 Title Team 89.4 pts with and even more absurd 54.0% FG, 40.6% from 3-pt and 64.4 shots per game. This squad also only had an 8 player list with 10 min or more per game
3. 2016 Title Team 88.1 pts with 53.0% FG, 38.1% 3-pt FG, 64.6 shots per game. This team had 9 players with 10 min or more.

In looking at all the data, key factors are smaller rotations 7/8/9, highly efficient shooting, and >65 shots per game. This past year, UConn had 81.7 pts per game, 62.8 shots (50.9%), 22.5 3-pt attempts (38.2%) and 10 players with 10 min or more. But that is a bit misleading as Aubrey missed most of the season and when she came back, Morgan went down so we only had 9. UConn in the last 5 years has only averaged 61.1 shots per game and 78.5 pts. In the 11 championship seasons (ignoring 1995) the UConn team averages 82.7 points, 61.6 shots (50.9%), 19.3 3-pt attempts (37.9%) and 9.1 player rotation.

Key points to consider before the "rebuttals" of "but, but, but":

• Geno focuses on the half court offense as he is committed that this is what wins titles in March/April so he will not start pressing the whole game to get more shots.
• Geno regardless of the amount of talent he has, rotates only 9 or 10 players on title squads with significant depth. Who those players will be is currently unknown but we have conjectured.
• Three point shooting has increased over the past 10 years so there is an opportunity to gain more points with highly efficient shooting. This past year, we took more 3 pt shots per game than ever with 22.5 but we did lose one of the best shooters we have ever have in Paige.
• The more players you try to incorporate into a rotation, the less efficient you become, the less shots you make. This current team has oodles of talent and I do think Geno will try to play for the right combinations which will limit the scoring.
• The most shots UConn has ever taken per game was the 2018 team with 8 player rotation and 65.5 shots. They came close with 89.5 points per game and is the reason why I think the answer is "PLAUSIBLE". The noted pitfalls are too much depth as Geno tries to incorporate 2 quality transfers and a 15 person team (for the 1st time ever!).

Like I said, this team does have scoring potential but with too much talent, it's hard to find a rhythm to be great, night in, night out. The inhibiting factors are limited shots per game and too many players to incorporate.

Of the top 10 scoring teams since 2000, Baylor in 2017 with 89.5 pts. The primary factor for this team was rebounding and FG% efficiency (49.8% and 40.3% from 3). They had a 10-player rotation, but they also had 7 games with 100+ points, including a few absurd wins like 140-32 over Winthrop or 118-43 over Houston Baptist which we know Kim and her early home cooking of cupcakes that Geno will not do.

Like I said, it is a curious and plausible situation but anyone who states unequivocally that we will score 90+ per game is just plain guesing and is simply just convinced they will win the Lotto tonight as well.

I too believed even before your excellent analysis that scoring 90+ is essentially a pipe dream. I agree as well that in virtually all cases a team’s overall efficiency will go down as the rotation lengthens. However, I am not sure we’ve ever seen a roster with, not only this much talent but talent that is, for the most part pretty experienced even to the point of being postseason vets. Title winning vets! Now clearly Sarah will only be a soph but is nevertheless likely the best player in the country. I still agree it’s unlikely, but if anyone could maintain high efficiency with an expanded rotation it would have to be a roster (and coaching staff) like this one.

 

[YKCornelius]

DefenseBB, I will echo Bone Dog and Cuango that your analysis is excellent. I share your conclusion(s), and have thought from the onset of this discussion that how Geno approaches Big East contests, and how Big East opponents approach the same, are the long poles in the tent.

Very though-provoking. Thanks.

 

[DefenseBB]

For @Cuango you raise an interesting question-While this roster is extremely talented, top to bottom (1-15) which is more than he has ever had, his 1999-2000 (1-12) and 2000-01 Rosters were also loaded. Here is the link to the Sports Reference showing the stats for those two teams. At the top is the link to see the various seasons. Going back that far, they don't have the Minutes played for everyone (later on they do) but they do show shot attempts which gives a good idea. The talent pool in all of WCBB is now much deeper so other teams will be able to compete where as back then only a few (not even a handful) teams had enough talent to compete. This up-coming season, I would say UConn, UCLA, SCar, Texas and LSU have talent, with Oklahoma, USC Tennessee among the second tier (closely grouped).

But man, you are right, this team has some serious talent as did some of the earlier 2000's teams. Not that we forget how good some of those teams were but when I was reviewing the data, I had a huge smile on my face remembering. What we have witnessed is truly just phenomenal and we are blessed to be a part of this in our own weird "voyeuristic way".

1999-00 UConn Huskies Women's Roster and Stats | College Basketball at Sports-Reference.com

Check out the detailed 1999-00 UConn Huskies Roster and Stats for College Basketball at Sports-Reference.com

www.sports-reference.com

 

[Skeets]

Nice analysis, very thorough. I don't think many have postulated 90+ scoring. But a few have and it has triggered many responses, mostly from folks who are skeptical of it. So, it's good to see a careful breakdown of the factors that would be involved.

Two distinctions I'd add to support your analysis:

1. to note that the rotation in February is typically when the paring down of playing time becomes really noticeable. Early season lineups tend to be much more 'experimental.' Since the scoring average is season long, it will include the early season period when more players will get into games.
2. you're right, I think, that Geno is not likely to run a pressing game in the second half of the season. But he will emphasize the transition game. This is not the result of turnovers generated in a full court press. It belongs more properly under the heading of the 'half court offense' you mention, but with a nuance. He encourages the team to run not merely on turnovers generated in the half-court defense but also on missed shots. It is still a half-court offense, sort of, but it doesn't allow opposing teams to settle into their half-court defense. We saw this quite a bit in this last tournament run.

Geno has always encouraged a transition game, but it received an extra boost last season because of the presence of Sarah, who runs the floor really well. I think she was the primary (not the exclusive) beneficiary of the long passes from Paige, and seems to have taken up the role we saw Aubrey play so frequently in former years. With Sarah in the game he was also able to emphasize the small lineups more than ever merely because she plays much bigger than she is on defense. Having a big who can run the floor has always been part of his thinking, and we will tend to see much more of it over the next few years. If he has to play Jana or Ice, then the speed of his bigs in a big lineup inhibits a bit this style of play. I wonder if we'll see Serah running in transition along with Sarah.

The reason I also think 90+ is unlikely is because so much of the team culture is about defense. Yes, this means lots of transition opportunities, and that can produce quick scores. But the careful defense also encourages the 'extra pass' offense which isn't simply about quick scores.

Mr. Dog, you beat me to the point I would like to make in your closing statement. UConn focusses as much on defense as they do on offense. Their switching defense is a thing of beauty. That doesn't happen without a lot of focus. Combine that with high quality OOC games and it's not so much how many points you score, but how many points you hold your opponent to. Points? I 'd rather see a record setting MOV.

 

[Dugway]

I’m hoping that they just win.

 

[DefenseBB]

Mr. Dog, you beat me to the point I would like to make in your closing statement. UConn focusses as much on defense as they do on offense. Their switching defense is a thing of beauty. That doesn't happen without a lot of focus. Combine that with high quality OOC games and it's not so much how many points you score, but how many points you hold your opponent to. Points? I 'd rather see a record setting MOV.

Go read the "it's not defense but Offense that wins" thread in the General Forum. Statistics bear out that you need offense more than defense. Yes, defense is important but having a top 15 (4.3%) offense guarantees you success. All 25 title winners since 2000 had a top 15 team offense and 91 of 100 Final Four participants had a top 15 offense.

 

[Bone Dog]

Go read the "it's not defense but Offense that wins" thread in the General Forum. Statistics bear out that you need offense more than defense. Yes, defense is important but having a top 15 (4.3%) offense guarantees you success. All 25 title winners since 2000 had a top 15 team offense and 91 of 100 Final Four participants had a top 15 offense.

If defense and offense were unrelated elements of the game, this would be simply true. But as any UConn fan knows, defense leads into offense in Storrs. It’s not just that it creates offensive opportunities. It also sets the tone of the entire team, the self-discipline and camaraderie required, and so much more. Offense is obviously important — you absolutely cannot win without it — but to get a top 15 offense, you may need to have a great defense. Geno can coach a read and react offense so well because he requires a commitment to team defense.

 

[towerman]

No matter what the situation I have always felt Geno shies away from 100 points. He does not wish to rub it in.

 

[DefenseBB]

I try hard to understand your comments but just don't see the logic. Yes, all good teams need defense, just like you need a basketball to play the game. I did the full analysis of top offenses and their direct correlation to winning titles. You simply type a trite expression with no facts to bolster that thought merely by stating "any UConn fan knows" as if to garner support. Of course there is some correlation to defense leading to offense but you can't prove it and just stating such, does not make it a bullet-proof statement.

I showed facts on how the offensive stats related to winning. Do you have any facts to support your theory? Or is this just another Jana reminds you of Stewie views without any actual data?

 

[Bone Dog]

I try hard to understand your comments but just don't see the logic. Yes, all good teams need defense, just like you need a basketball to play the game. I did the full analysis of top offenses and their direct correlation to winning titles. You simply type a trite expression with no facts to bolster that thought merely by stating "any UConn fan knows" as if to garner support. Of course there is some correlation to defense leading to offense but you can't prove it and just stating such, does not make it a bullet-proof statement.

I showed facts on how the offensive stats related to winning. Do you have any facts to support your theory? Or is this just another Jana reminds you of Stewie views without any actual data?

I didn’t mean to offend you. You presented some data, good data. I merely tried to add some nuance to your interpretation of it. Offense and defense are not fully independent variables. And what any UConn fan knows is that Geno constantly says offense grows from the defense. I’m sure you’ve seen many of the pressers and interviews where he says this. Yes, all the recent winners were top offensive schools while only 90% were top defensive teams. But this by itself doesn’t prove your point. It only shows that not all coaches think about basketball the way Geno does.

 

[Cuango]

I try hard to understand your comments but just don't see the logic. Yes, all good teams need defense, just like you need a basketball to play the game. I did the full analysis of top offenses and their direct correlation to winning titles. You simply type a trite expression with no facts to bolster that thought merely by stating "any UConn fan knows" as if to garner support. Of course there is some correlation to defense leading to offense but you can't prove it and just stating such, does not make it a bullet-proof statement.

I showed facts on how the offensive stats related to winning. Do you have any facts to support your theory? Or is this just another Jana reminds you of Stewie views without any actual data?

Whoa! That was way harsh. Can’t we all just get along?

 

[YKCornelius]

DefenseBB, as much as I love your analysis on assessing the possibility of UConn averaging 90 ppg, I am unclear on your analysis on "offense not defense wins championships". Hence, I am reluctant to agree with your conclusion. First and foremost how are you defining "Top 15 in offense" - total points? points per game? shooting efficiency? points per possession? some combination of the these?

Likewise, how is "Top 15 in Defense" being defined - fewest points per game? opponents shooting efficiency? opponents points per possession? some combination of these?

Go read the "it's not defense but Offense that wins" thread in the General Forum. Statistics bear out that you need offense more than defense. Yes, defense is important but having a top 15 (4.3%) offense guarantees you success. All 25 title winners since 2000 had a top 15 team offense and 91 of 100 Final Four participants had a top 15 offense.

Finally, your contention that "having a top 15 offense guarantees you success" is absurd. Success at what? Winning a title? Certainly not as per your stats - those remaining 67 teams of the 91 FF participants who were "Top 15 Offenses" didn't win the NC that year.

Perhaps you meant guaranteed success at reaching the Final Four? Also absolutely not as per your stats - of the 375 teams that were Top 15 Offenses during your 26 year span, only 91 made it to the Final Four. The other 284 didn't.

Heck, I would be willing to bet that in any given year that the entire Top 15 in offense didn't even make it past the Sweet Sixteen. Some might have lost to other Top 15 Offenses, but I believe others lost to non-Top 15 offenses. Shouldn't take too long for me to verify, but I would need to know how you are defining a "Top 15 Offense" first.

 

[NycUcWbbFan]

I try hard to understand your comments but just don't see the logic. Yes, all good teams need defense, just like you need a basketball to play the game. I did the full analysis of top offenses and their direct correlation to winning titles. You simply type a trite expression with no facts to bolster that thought merely by stating "any UConn fan knows" as if to garner support. Of course there is some correlation to defense leading to offense but you can't prove it and just stating such, does not make it a bullet-proof statement.

I showed facts on how the offensive stats related to winning. Do you have any facts to support your theory? Or is this just another Jana reminds you of Stewie views without any actual data?

Your statistical analysis as well as Bonedog’s anecdotal analysis (supported by another statistical analysis &2) both have weighty probative value to the stated premise of your thread — which a lot of people, including me, agree with — that it is highly unlikely that next year’s team would average more than 90 points.

At bottom, while your statistical analysis is exhaustively descriptive of the 26-year past, it is not exhaustively predictive of the future.

• Correlation is not Causation, moreso if you are sampling from a distribution that is not an IIDRV (independent and identically distributed random variable) distribution (below);
• Your Past correlation analysis is not necessarily Prologue, and claiming that other people’s analyses have no probative value to your premise is something your analysis cannot prove (i.e. your analysis is not the sole canon).

There have only been around 40 draws of the independent (but not identically distributed) yearly random variable of winning the NCAAT.

• Many factors evolve: players (quantitative and qualitative quality, dispersion), style of play, coaching styles, Geno’s coaching style, rosters, rules of the game, paradigm (pre- and post- NIL/ portal), etc;
• Even among Geno’s championship teams, they each have won the NCAAT their own way (i.e. Rebecca’s team is different from Shea/Svet’s team, is different from TASSK/DT team, is different from DT’s teams, is different from Maya/Tina’s teams, is different from Breanna’s teams);
• In fact, next year’s team most closely resembles the non-championship 2000-01 Sue/Svet/TASSK/DT team that was derailed by injury (Cuango’s title-winning vets, accentuated here);
• Note: I have always used the non-senior TASSK years as a reference point to analyze the mix-match Geno coaching style which I have dubbed Geno’s oldish-newish MO;
• And even among the five teams (the 3 non-senior TASSK teams, Paige’s team, and next year’s Azzi/Sarah team), Geno has evolved; for example, Geno used the running game (as a crutch) in the early OOC schedule of the first TASSK team, which he didn’t do with Paige’s team.

Bonedog is echoing the opinions of many coaches over many years, and repeated in the 2025 NCAAT championship game. That Geno and CD win championships with both &1 &2 offense and defense.

• I am not sure how you can casually dismiss those observations as having no probative value.

Bonedog has touched upon the symbiosis of offense and defense to win games. Your statistical analysis shows Geno’s Goldilocks pace (why Geno is a fan of Nika). Both have probative value to your premise.

• I would even state that Geno’s well-documented emphasis on defense during the conference play “metamorphosis” helps in achieving the “Broadway Show” honed peak intuitive choreography of movement of Geno’s championship teams.

&1 In order to “prove” your premise than offense rather than defense wins championships, you have cited a thread where the OP is you and commenters such as this one, this one and this one disagree with your premise.

&2 UConn’s National Championship Teams’ Offensive Rating (ORtg) and Defensive Rating (DRtg) Table (note: bolded line):

Championship Team | ORtg | DRtg |
2024-25 | 117.8 (1st of 362) | 75.2 (1st of 362) |
2015-16 | 122.2 (1st of 349) | 67.1 (1st of 349) |
2014-15 | 123.4 (1st of 349) | 67.2 (1st of 349) |
2013-14 | 115.7 (1st of 349) | 67.4 (1st of 349) |
2012-13 | 113.4 (1st of 345) | 68.4 (1st of 345) |
2009-10 | 112.1 (1st of 343) | 63.9 (1st of 343) |
2008-09 | 119.4 (3rd of 343) | 76.0 (6th of 343) |
2003-04 | 111.0 (1st of 325) | 79.1 (6th of 325) |
2002-03 | 107.8 (9th of 323) | 77.1 (2nd of 323) |
2001-02 | Not Available | Not Available |
1999-00 | Not Available | Not Available |
1994-95 | Not Available | Not Available |

 

[DefenseBB]

Nothing is ever done in a vacuum, meaning using only one statistic cannot really give you complete insight for an absolute conclusion.

Points per game, while not a "perfect" single statistic, is actually a very good single indicator whereas, the points allowed statistic has flaws, mainly the quality of the opponents. But let's address a couple of questions comments made:

For @YKCornelius, yes, have a top scoring offense did guarantee you success at winning a TITLE and getting to the FINAL FOUR, more so than having a top-rated defense guaranteed that. Having a good defense is absolutely critical but evaluating a "defense" requires more subjective assessments (like Strength of schedule and home/away games) which gets into a heavy analytical discussion.

Yes, EVERY Final Four since 2000 has had a top 15 scoring offense in it, so your statement that the entire top 15 did not get past the Sweet 16 in any given year is wrong. I reran the data and there were 7 teams not ranked in the top 15 of offense that made it to the final four. So 93 of the 100 teams with TOP 15 scoring offenses made it to the FINAL FOUR. The 2007 FF had two teams that were abysmal offensively: LSU #275 and Rutgers #153 (Tennessee who won was #4 and UNC was #1). The best scoring offensive Final Four was the 2019 FF with Baylor #6, UConn #4, ND #1 and Oregon #3. The only Final Four without a top 10 team was 2022 with UConn #12, Louisville #46, SC #15 and Stanford #13. But please go and look at the data for yourself to make further claims.

For @NycUcWbbFan, the analysis, is a "simple" refutation of the adage "defense wins championships". The 25 years of FF participants shows a stronger correlation to the Top 15 scoring offenses winning titles more than the top 15 defenses. And I did not assert any absolute statement about future success but would agree with the continued probability that a Top15 Point scoring offense will have much better success in the NCAAT than a top 15 defense. I am not casually dismissing Geno or CD's defense observations but merely highlighting that UConn has been the pre-eminent offensive team in the sport since 2000. The problem with any stat, both offensive and defensive, is how to weigh appropriately the quality of the opponent. The conferences that UConn have been in since 2013-14 are not of elite quality (ranking 6th or 7th in conference ranking with the P5 and 5th now with the P4). While Geno schedules a quality OOC schedule to best assess the team, the majority of the schedule is played against much weaker opponents that inflate both sets of data, more so the defensive stats. Offensive is a more skilled trait so when playing teams in conference since 2013-14, the lack of skilled players means those offenses are not as good as conferences with the plethora of top ranked players (SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Big 12 and the former PAC12). My point is there are limitations on both sets of data so while I do appreciate your retort as thought provoking, I am merely noting "gaps" in your own assertions in pointing out the UConn ORtg and DRtg. If I may ask, where did you get those stats from?

An added sidenote, SC has notoriously been known as a defensive minded program, but using the simple, PPG stat also proves Dawn has very good offenses that are better than her defenses. She too, preaches both ends and is why she has had the success she's had. But the whole point is to outscore the opponent and is why she went out and got Latson this past portal season-she needs a proven scorer to add to Edwards.

There are other threads that go deeper into the analysis and while this thread was about the 90+PPG per game assessment, it leads itself to the focus on why teams like Tennessee are redefining their focus to score and by using defensive pressure.

I still stand by my assertion that OFFENSE is more important than DEFENSE to truly attain a title. I am not stating DEFENSE should be ignored as it is critical but the correlation on high scoring teams making the Final Four and winning the title is more evident than a defensive elite team winning it.

In my mind this theoretical discussion will be played out over the next few years as very offensive minded coaches Kim Caldwell and Jennie Baranczyk try to achieve success vs. a solely defensive minded coach like Kara Lawson. Scott Rueck is another noted defensive minded coach, but his conference affiliation has severely hampered his recruiting so whether he can re-establish a national presence will be interesting. My bet is Jennie and Kim fair better than Kara but we shall see.

 

[NycUcWbbFan]

Nothing is ever done in a vacuum, meaning using only one statistic cannot really give you complete insight for an absolute conclusion.

Points per game, while not a "perfect" single statistic, is actually a very good single indicator whereas, the points allowed statistic has flaws, mainly the quality of the opponents. But let's address a couple of questions comments made:

For @YKCornelius, yes, have a top scoring offense did guarantee you success at winning a TITLE and getting to the FINAL FOUR, more so than having a top-rated defense guaranteed that. Having a good defense is absolutely critical but evaluating a "defense" requires more subjective assessments (like Strength of schedule and home/away games) which gets into a heavy analytical discussion.

Yes, EVERY Final Four since 2000 has had a top 15 scoring offense in it, so your statement that the entire top 15 did not get past the Sweet 16 in any given year is wrong. I reran the data and there were 7 teams not ranked in the top 15 of offense that made it to the final four. So 93 of the 100 teams with TOP 15 scoring offenses made it to the FINAL FOUR. The 2007 FF had two teams that were abysmal offensively: LSU #275 and Rutgers #153 (Tennessee who won was #4 and UNC was #1). The best scoring offensive Final Four was the 2019 FF with Baylor #6, UConn #4, ND #1 and Oregon #3. The only Final Four without a top 10 team was 2022 with UConn #12, Louisville #46, SC #15 and Stanford #13. But please go and look at the data for yourself to make further claims.

For @NycUcWbbFan, the analysis, is a "simple" refutation of the adage "defense wins championships". The 25 years of FF participants shows a stronger correlation to the Top 15 scoring offenses winning titles more than the top 15 defenses. And I did not assert any absolute statement about future success but would agree with the continued probability that a Top15 Point scoring offense will have much better success in the NCAAT than a top 15 defense. I am not casually dismissing Geno or CD's defense observations but merely highlighting that UConn has been the pre-eminent offensive team in the sport since 2000. The problem with any stat, both offensive and defensive, is how to weigh appropriately the quality of the opponent. The conferences that UConn have been in since 2013-14 are not of elite quality (ranking 6th or 7th in conference ranking with the P5 and 5th now with the P4). While Geno schedules a quality OOC schedule to best assess the team, the majority of the schedule is played against much weaker opponents that inflate both sets of data, more so the defensive stats. Offensive is a more skilled trait so when playing teams in conference since 2013-14, the lack of skilled players means those offenses are not as good as conferences with the plethora of top ranked players (SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Big 12 and the former PAC12). My point is there are limitations on both sets of data so while I do appreciate your retort as thought provoking, I am merely noting "gaps" in your own assertions in pointing out the UConn ORtg and DRtg. If I may ask, where did you get those stats from?

An added sidenote, SC has notoriously been known as a defensive minded program, but using the simple, PPG stat also proves Dawn has very good offenses that are better than her defenses. She too, preaches both ends and is why she has had the success she's had. But the whole point is to outscore the opponent and is why she went out and got Latson this past portal season-she needs a proven scorer to add to Edwards.

There are other threads that go deeper into the analysis and while this thread was about the 90+PPG per game assessment, it leads itself to the focus on why teams like Tennessee are redefining their focus to score and by using defensive pressure.

I still stand by my assertion that OFFENSE is more important than DEFENSE to truly attain a title. I am not stating DEFENSE should be ignored as it is critical but the correlation on high scoring teams making the Final Four and winning the title is more evident than a defensive elite team winning it.

In my mind this theoretical discussion will be played out over the next few years as very offensive minded coaches Kim Caldwell and Jennie Baranczyk try to achieve success vs. a solely defensive minded coach like Kara Lawson. Scott Rueck is another noted defensive minded coach, but his conference affiliation has severely hampered his recruiting so whether he can re-establish a national presence will be interesting. My bet is Jennie and Kim fair better than Kara but we shall see.

Re: Source of OffRtg and DefRtg

In the table in my post, there are yearly hyperlinks from SRCBB where, if you click on “More School Info”, you will see these statistics as well as SOS and SRS.

SRCBB provides the SRS statistic which blends OffRtg, DefRtg and SOS into one single statistic.

• It is doing what you are doing but in a more scientific and transparent way and ranks every WCBB team.

This will sound trite, but I and many others look at your explanations — which you think proves your point — but to us (and I am very mathematically and statistically fluent), it is a black box.

• I am used to reading and interpreting very dry statistics, but I haven’t seen any supporting iota of your work;
• We take you for your word &0 on your work and even then, don’t really think you have proven your point on “offense rather than defense” wins championships with ironclad proof;
• All I can discern is that you have pointed general observations on the limitations of point statistics and that SOS muddles normative measurement (on a chicken-egg factor-method exercise to explain winning a championship) which you try to rectify but your approach is yours alone, not-peer reviewed, and is subjective.

Again SRCBB has a better approach than you do and it is their livelihood expertise to have a better (not perfect — none can be) statistic to explain a WCBB team’s performance.

• They don’t even seem to even try to isolate SRS into an offensive and defensive factor &1 whereas you think you have a better way of doing so.

&0 I do find it odd that you are prickly on contrary viewpoints — we have not been on yours — even though your blackbox analysis is certainly not canon and certainly not dispositive.

&1 For example, in the 2002-03 season, SRCBB shows UConn was first in SRS, 9th in OffRtg, 2nd in DefRtg and 10th in SOS. And leaves it at that. You have taken the extra leap to say that Offense rather than Defense wins championships over the past 26 years.

 

[RSHERMVIKES]

I'm not as analytical or stats wise as most of you BYers that have expressed theories above!
IMHO If you have a defense so strong that they can hold any opponent to score only in the 50's Their offense doesn't have to be capable of scoring in the 80's!
So a team such as UConn this coming season, with players, 1 through 10 that can score major individual points, will be almost impossible to beat!
And UConn won't have to depend on 1 player to score a certain # of points to help them win! If the "star" has an off night the strength of the others will more than make up for those missing points!
Just an OLD man's lessons learned over 30+ years of coaching!

 

[hoophuskee]

There is no answer. Everything is a blend. Depending on coaching style, the type of team vs other teams, pace of play, injuries etc.

But 1 thing is for certain is that Geno specifically said after losing to Iowa that he could count much less the number of his games that his teams lost in NCAA Tourney with his defense vs his offense. It used to be on YT if anyone wants to listen.

But Geno has a great advantage over other coaches in that he gets many more #1 recruits who are mostly #1 rated because of their offense. I’ve heard many times over many years following hoop that defenses can be learned and I’m implying that it’s through team concepts and strategies.

Anyone can go back on YT and find the game in Maya’s sr year vs Baylor, Griner’s soph year. At the end of the half Geno was asked what is the key in 2nf half. He said Offense. When Kim came out of tunnel she asked what the key would be. She said Defense. Who knows how much time they put for both but imo because Geno is landing so many #1 recruits, his Offense is usually stacked. And who would have thought 2 years ago he would have put Paige at the PF spot? Imagine Pat Summitt doing this when she has been known to say “Offense sells tickets, Defense wins game, and Rebounding wins championships?” OFC UCONN didn’t win it all but it’s how he thinks and that’s why he gets as many #1 recruits as he does, because imo ” it’s exactly as Dawn said to her team; “UCONN wants to play pretty basketball.” What is “pretty basketball?” It’s Offense.

And way back years ago Griner’s team lost to Louisville; major upset. Meg asked Geno about the game or Griner and he said if he coached her, he would have also had her play outside some, not just keep her inside. And what did we see this past year? How much were we concerned with Geno playing Sarah at the 5 vs bigger teams? On the flipside Kim Mulkey has won 3 titles. Pat Summit won 8. Were they wrong? Nope.

Anyhow, look for another Big 3 again from UCONN this year and maybe a 4th if Blanca is elite. UCONN wins championships with it’s superstars. And they don’t try to embarrass any team, therefore 90 pts hard to achieve as an average because some nights it won’t click for 20 year olds.

 

[Majic Hands]

Found myself flipping my thumb to get through this thread.

According to Geno. Defense wins championships, your ability to score determine by how much.

That’s good enough for me

 

[hoophuskee]

Found myself flipping my thumb to get through this thread.

According to Geno. Defense wins championships, your ability to score determine by how much.

That’s good enough for me

I'm not arguing. But when did he say this? Because after the iowa loss, the above isn't what he said. If he did say the above then we're again trying to figure out "Geno-speak." Which imo is even more the reason there is no set in stone way.

 

[HopJim]

With the squad we have returning in 2025-26, many have postulated we will easily score 90+ point per game. I did a full analysis of the last 26 years of data for WCBB 1999-00 to 2024-25 and for UConn in particular (all 26 seasons during this time frame). Details are below but to coin the phrase from MythBusters- "PLAUSIBLE" however not probable.

Historical background: History shows that only 3 teams have ever averaged more than 90 points per game:

1. 2014 Oregon 93.2 but they went 16-16 and did not make the NCAAT. Their primary factor for scoring was hoisting an absurd 81.5 shots per game including 31.4 three-point attempts.
2. 2024 Iowa 91.0 who were runner up in the NCAAT to LSU. This team was efficient with only 65.2 shots per game (49.6% FG), 29.0 three-point attempts (37.6%) and 78% from the FT line but with a paltry rotation of only 7 players with more than 10 min per game.
3. 2021 Maryland 90.8 who lost in the Sweet 16 round. Another efficient team with 67.6 shots per game (49.6% FG as well), 20.4 three point attempts (40.0%) and 79.0% from the FT line. This team had an 8-player rotation of 10 min or more (coincidentally, Angel Reese was hurt most of this year).

On average, the top 10 teams during this analysis averaged 89.5 pts, 66.2 shots per game, 19.3 3-pt attempts and an 8 player rotation.
There were 3 UConn teams in the top 10 all-time scoring:

1. 2018 Final Four team 89.5 pts with an absurd FG% 53.3 and 3 pt FG% of 40.0. This team had took 65.5 shots, with 22.8 assists per game and also only had an 8-player rotation.
2. 2015 Title Team 89.4 pts with and even more absurd 54.0% FG, 40.6% from 3-pt and 64.4 shots per game. This squad also only had an 8 player list with 10 min or more per game
3. 2016 Title Team 88.1 pts with 53.0% FG, 38.1% 3-pt FG, 64.6 shots per game. This team had 9 players with 10 min or more.

In looking at all the data, key factors are smaller rotations 7/8/9, highly efficient shooting, and >65 shots per game. This past year, UConn had 81.7 pts per game, 62.8 shots (50.9%), 22.5 3-pt attempts (38.2%) and 10 players with 10 min or more. But that is a bit misleading as Aubrey missed most of the season and when she came back, Morgan went down so we only had 9. UConn in the last 5 years has only averaged 61.1 shots per game and 78.5 pts. In the 11 championship seasons (ignoring 1995) the UConn team averages 82.7 points, 61.6 shots (50.9%), 19.3 3-pt attempts (37.9%) and 9.1 player rotation.

Key points to consider before the "rebuttals" of "but, but, but":

• Geno focuses on the half court offense as he is committed that this is what wins titles in March/April so he will not start pressing the whole game to get more shots.
• Geno regardless of the amount of talent he has, rotates only 9 or 10 players on title squads with significant depth. Who those players will be is currently unknown but we have conjectured.
• Three point shooting has increased over the past 10 years so there is an opportunity to gain more points with highly efficient shooting. This past year, we took more 3 pt shots per game than ever with 22.5 but we did lose one of the best shooters we have ever have in Paige.
• The more players you try to incorporate into a rotation, the less efficient you become, the less shots you make. This current team has oodles of talent and I do think Geno will try to play for the right combinations which will limit the scoring.
• The most shots UConn has ever taken per game was the 2018 team with 8 player rotation and 65.5 shots. They came close with 89.5 points per game and is the reason why I think the answer is "PLAUSIBLE". The noted pitfalls are too much depth as Geno tries to incorporate 2 quality transfers and a 15 person team (for the 1st time ever!).

Like I said, this team does have scoring potential but with too much talent, it's hard to find a rhythm to be great, night in, night out. The inhibiting factors are limited shots per game and too many players to incorporate.

Of the top 10 scoring teams since 2000, Baylor in 2017 with 89.5 pts. The primary factor for this team was rebounding and FG% efficiency (49.8% and 40.3% from 3). They had a 10-player rotation, but they also had 7 games with 100+ points, including a few absurd wins like 140-32 over Winthrop or 118-43 over Houston Baptist which we know Kim and her early home cooking of cupcakes that Geno will not do.

Like I said, it is a curious and plausible situation but anyone who states unequivocally that we will score 90+ per game is just plain guesing and is simply just convinced they will win the Lotto tonight as well.

While not normally a fan of lengthy posts, this was a factual assessment that was interesting to review.