Shooting Bricks- This Year Just Next Year's Rehearsal?

pjislife — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:29:13 -0800

SHOOTING BRICKS- CONSISTENTLY OFF-TARGET COMMENTARY

Is this year just next year’s rehearsal?

We’ve heard all season that this is the year of the freshman. However, even some teams considered to be loaded with senior leadership have a majority of their key pieces returning next season. With so many top teams in college basketball this year with returning players, sans the early entry players, it begs the question…Are we in for more of the same from these same teams next year?

I went to go through the top 16 teams listing all seniors that are contributing at least 10 min of PT. If you’re not playing 10 MPG then you’re not really contributing (or at least not for the purpose of this blog entry). Finally, a summary of senior contribution in regards to team scoring and rebounding is calculated:

Note- I understand this maybe be a slightly futile discussion as it doesn’t take into account all the early entries at the end of the year but hey what do you want me to talk about the 5th grade girls YMCA game between USC and Arizona State? They had 7 points in the 1st 7 minutes of play and that was with a three-pointer at the 13:05 mark! No thanks I’ll pass…

For the sake of this entry I am using the AP poll’s top 16 (ESPN you are SO burned!!).

1. Wisconsin- 3 Players
Alando Tucker- 32 mpg, 20.4 ppg, 5.5 rpg
Kammron Taylor- 32.2 mpg, 13.1 ppg, 2.5 rpg
Jason Chappell- 15.2 mpg, 3.5 ppg, 3.1 rpg
Senior Contribution- 50.4% of team scoring, 30.9% of team rebounding

2. Ohio State- 2 Players
Ron Lewis- 27.3 mpg, 11.4 ppg, 3.6 rpg
Ivan Harris- 20.6 mpg, 8.8 ppg, 3.5 rpg
Senior Contribution- 26.6% of TS, 21.3% of TR

3. Florida- 2 Players
Lee Humphrey- 29.4 mpg, 10.2 ppg, 1.4 rpg
Chris Richard- 17.7 mpg, 5.0 ppg, 3.3 rpg
Senior Contribution- 18.8% of TS, 12.6% of TR

4. UCLA- No seniors

5. North Carolina- 2 Players
Reyshawn Terry- 21.3 mpg, 9.6 ppg, 5.9 rpg
Wes Miller- 11.8 mpg, 2.6 ppg, .6 rpg
Senior Contribution- 13.9% of TS, 15.3% of TR

6. Kansas- No seniors

7. Memphis- 1 Player
Jeremy Hunt- 23.2 mpg, 13.8 ppg, 2.8 rpg
Senior Contribution- 17.8% of TS, 7.1% of TR

8. Texas A&M- 3 Players
Acie Law IV- 32.8 mpg, 17.0 ppg, 3.0 rpg
Antanas Kavaliauskas- 27.7 mpg, 12.1 ppg, 6.2 rpg
Marlon Pompey- 15.8 mpg, 3.6 ppg, 2.7 rpg
Senior Contribution- 42.1% of TS, 32.6% of TR

9. Washington State- 1 Player
Ivory Clark- 26.1 mpg, 9.5 ppg, 5.3 rpg
Senior Contribution- 14.3% of TS, 17.6% of TR

10. Pittsburgh- 3 Players
Aaron Gray- 29.0 mpg, 14.5 ppg, 10.0 rpg
Antonio Graves- 28.2 mpg, 9.7 ppg, 2.1 rpg
Levon Kendall- 25.7 mpg, 5.0 ppg, 5.5 rpg
Senior Contribution- 40.5% of TS, 49.5% of TR

11. Nevada- 3 Players
Nick Fazekas- 29.5 mpg, 20.6 ppg, 11.5 rpg
Kyle Shiloh- 29.5 mpg, 9.7 ppg, 3.3 rpg
Denis Ikovlev- 25.3 mpg, 6.5 ppg, 4.0 rpg
Senior Contribution- 45.6% of TS, 47.2% of TR

12. Georgetown- No seniors

13. Southern Illinois- 1 Player
Jamal Tatum- 32.1 mpg, 14.5 ppg, 3.0 rpg
Senior Contribution- 22.3% of TS, 10.6% of TR

14. Air Force- 5 Players
Dan Nwaelele- 31.4 mpg, 14.9 ppg, 3.4 rpg
Jacob Burtschi- 31.0 mpg, 13.5 ppg, 5.7 rpg
Matt McCraw- 34.2 mpg, 11.2 ppg, 3.6 rpg
Nick Welch- 26.8 mpg, 9.6 ppg, 3.7 rpg
John Frye- 10.1 mpg, 2.1 ppg, 1.9 rpg
Senior Contribution- 71.6% of TS, 64.4% of TR

15. Butler- 4 Players
Brandon Crone- 27.3 mpg, 10.5 ppg, 4.5 rpg
Julian Betko- 21.5 mpg, 4.5 ppg, 2.3 rpg
Brian Ligon- 18.4 mpg, 3.7 ppg, 3.2 rpg
Marcus Nellems- 13.3 mpg, 2.9 ppg, 1.7 rpg
Senior Contribution- 31.1% of TS, 38.5% of TR

16. Marquette- 1 Player
Jamil Lott- 11.3 mpg, 2.5 ppg, 2.1 rpg
Senior Contribution- 3.2% of TS, 6.2% of TR

Some interesting findings from this exercise:
- Only 5 teams had more than a 40% contribution in either category
(Wisconsin, Texas A&M, Pittsburgh, Nevada, Air Force)
- 8 teams had less than a 20% contribution in both categories
(Florida, UCLA, UNC, Kansas, Memphis, Washington State, Georgetown, Marquette)
- Only 7 seniors play more than 30 min/game on the top 16 teams in the country (3 on AF)
- Average senior contribution of the top 16 teams:
o Scoring- 24.9%
o Rebounding- 22.1%

What does this tell us other than I like crunching numbers on a Monday afternoon? The item that stood out the most was how even some of the strong mid-majors, who are typically known for their “senior leadership” will be bringing back a lot of the talent they have next season. As far as early entries, your Durant’s and Oden’s of the world won’t stick around for next season (although Kevin’s father is saying he’s thinking about it…I don’t buy it). However, we may see some really quality players stick around as they become comfortable in their surroundings and enjoy the college life instead of if they were in high school trying to jump right to the pros. We saw it happen in Gainesville earlier last year into this year and I believe it will be a trend that will continue.

Also you’ve got teams that have quite a bit of firepower across their bench where if they lose a player, for example an Arron Afflalo on UCLA, there’s so much non-senior talent and depth at many of these top schools that they won’t take that much of a hit, if at all come next season. Either way the future looks bright for college basketball fans as statistics like these show we could be heading toward a renaissance of the sport in the years to come.

LET IT RAIN!
Travis

underclassmen

Shooting Bricks- This Year Just Next Year's Rehearsal?