Future Projections, Portal vs etc.

3

 




Current NET


2Houston
44Memphis
66UCF
104Wichita St.
114Cincinnati
155Tulane
166East Carolina
198South Florida
208Temple
245Tulsa
291SMU


Projected NET

1Houston
30Memphis
62UCF
93Cincinnati
110Wichita St.
135Tulane
190Temple
208East Carolina
211South Florida
252Tulsa
260SMU


ECU is projected to finish the season at 15-16 (6-12) similar to last year. The difference is the conference is worse and pretty much set now with the OOC complete. Each team in the AAC will be cutting mostly from the same pie now.  It's nice to be 9-4 on the surface but you have to understand the competition too to have a context of what's going on.


I've heard some in the community already talking about how ignoring the portal was the way to go. If you can keep Small, Johnson, Felton, and Ausar until they graduate, or at least make it to an NIT next year before transferring, maybe you can try to make some case. It's the 3 transfers/JUCO's he recruited that have helped. The other freshmen also have to do something. There still a lot to prove longterm in that respect. Even having a winning record probably only gets you barely top 200 this year. 

 

It's also taken an utterly unprecedented leap from Small to go from a 4.4 PER guy to playing like a top 50 to 100 player in the nation to even get ECU into the 165-210 type of range it's currently and projected.  If he had a normal career trajectory coming off of what he did last year then this ECU team is likely 250+. He didn't even play like this in high school. As one of those posters making the point even said, no one could see that coming.

 

Ignoring the portal to sign 5 freshmen still isn't great when only one has produced. It ignores how much better the team could have been with 2 or 3 more proven portal transfers just with 2 or 3 fewer freshmen or Debaut. You could have potentially put an NIT team around a top-100 player like Small this year. 

 

They retained last year's players and have put them in a position to be successful which is a different conversation than the actual recruiting. What been added around them hasn't really moved the needle that much. As good as Ausar has looked some of his plus-minus numbers aren't actually that impressive meaning he's not impacting the winning as much as his individual stats would indicate. He's really the only freshmen you can point to as positively helping as well.

 

There is also the fact the team only has 2 playable big men, and that they choose to bring back Debaut. Unlike Small or Felton who were at least young where you could expect improvement Debaut was a written with how old and many years he has been around. You don't bring back 5th-year seniors to play the role he is IMO. That roster spot or Pinedo's/Jones certainly could have been used in the portal to upgrade at big and add depth.


The one thing this does highlight if they finish somewhere in the 166-208th range like they currently are/projected is what a joke it was for people worried about "tearing down" a 183th ranked program.  Like they had a choice with Tristen Newton and all the money he was going to get offered anyway. Like a 180th peak was worth preserving and advocating for a multi year extension at top 100 pay. Being left Gardner no less. I think this staff has already  proven  how ridiculous those posters were.


They have essentially taken the scrub back ups off that team and the one good freshman they brought in to same spot in the rankings. I do think Schwartz can coach and I like his offense and defense, The only issues I've seen with rotations are mostly minor. I see no walk on starting over the 2nd best payer on the team for example. The recruiting and retention are still the unknowns until this becomes his team fully of main contributors.

Tags

Post a Comment

3Comments
  1. I agree that the projected NET is not necessarily something to write home about but there are times when I watch them that I see making plays on both ends that I have not seen an abundance of in more recent years---going back to Coach Lebo forward. Have you?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The way I judge this year was comparing it to Dooley's first year. I expected 11 wins. This team is light years ahead of the Dooley first year team which shows how bad Dooley did that year. I can honestly say this is the first year I like the trajectory of our program in a long time. Schwartz seems to be getting the most out of his guys and has shortened the bench after seeing who could do what. That is a change. No Ludgy but just a few minutes is a plus. I expect no blowouts but maybe houston or memphis. And I hope some of the leaps these guys have are because of the coaching they have received. We are putting guys in position to succeed. You touched on Small but his jump is basically inconceivable. I wanted him to transfer and now he is all conference.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think from the evidence we have Schwartz is a much better coach. Their are still questions about the recruiting and overall philosophy that probably won't be fully answered for another year or two when he's got a team of his own players leading it and graduates them. Most of the management, development, and offense/defense seem really good.

    I don't think if you gave him the roster 2 or 3 years ago with Gardner and Newton they finish 180th/208. I've seen enough to believe he'd actually do something with that level of talent. If you gave him the same roster in Dooley's first year I don't think he's finishing 258 in NET either with Gardner, LeDay, Flemings, and Williams. That's the difference to me.

    ReplyDelete
Post a Comment