2022/23 Rankings/ Standings/ NET/ Bracketology

[kiyoat]

latest Bracketology (pre-season) out:

link

Jacks #6-seed playing #11 Washington State in Louisville

Yotes #11-seed playing #6 Nebraska at UNC

I don't feel like this is an "at-large" year for us, but I do think we have earned the benefit of the doubt.

[soofooyote]

I like our team but I agree with the at-large comment. I do think this team will grow considerably as the season progresses though and could be formidable by tourney time!

[hoopsmom]

I am optimistic. While we did lose all of last year’s starters, we do have Jeniah and Morgan who have seen starting minutes, and Macy Grace, Natalie, and Alexi, who have played considerable minutes. Coach P recruited aggressively, bringing in high-quality players, including last year’s red-shirts, and they practiced against the starters every day for the past few years. In addition, we have the transfers. It seems that Nicole and Madison were very productive for their former teams, putting up some pretty good numbers. And our freshman look ready to contribute as well. I am not saying that we’re going to walk on the court and dominate like we have in the past few years, but I think the way that our schedule is set, these young ladies will have a good chance to create chemistry and put forth a quality product.

[gopheryote]

It seems to me the talent for an at-large will be there. I'm not sure the non-conference schedule will cut it though. I don't see a lot of schools that will be pulling our NET ranking up the way the schedule the past few years worked out. (Obviously playing the #1 team helped...)

[caliyote]

I think the idea of an at large bid is a dream with the schedule we are playing. We would need to beat Drake and Creighton and State twice in order to even be in consideration of an at large with this schedule. I think this is the first time in the division 1 era we do not play a power 5 program. The conference appears to be extremely down so the only chance for a quality win would be SDSU.
I am disappointed with the schedule but I am optimistic that we can be a very good team that plays great basketball. It is amazing how far this program has come in a very short time in division 1 that national media members recognize and respect our team. I guess a thank you to Coach Amy for starting the tradition and Coach P building on that tradition and taking it to new levels. Now it is time for Coach Kayla to maintain and continue to build. Her schedule concerns me but I am willing to give her a pass this year. However in the future if we plan on maintaining this level of our program we will need to increase the strength of our non conference opponents. Go Yotes!

[kiyoat]

I agree that this schedule won’t help us to an at-large bid, but let’s also remember two things:

1. Scheduling tough isn’t always just up to the coach. They don’t just choose opponents from a digital menu like ordering a happy meal from a kiosk at Mickey D’s….

Potential opponents are evaluating us, and our perceived strength too. Losing our “big three” probably took us off many teams’s radars as NET builders.

And coaching relationships built over time matter. A brand-new HC simply doesn’t have the same ability to schedule as easily as a Coach P or AJ does. It does appear that our staff is very relationship-oriented, though. That should pay dividends down the road, both in scheduling and recruiting.

2. Strength of schedule is important, but not the only way to get ahead in the NET. Remember the “net efficiency” stat? If we are beating our opponents soundly and efficiently, that can go a long way, too.

Overall I’m very excited to watch their development this year. Great coaches, great players, great facilities, great culture, great fans…. We have it pretty good. I’m just tempering my expectations a little.

[yotenation]

Oct 8, 2022 4:46:25 GMT -6 kiyoat said:

I agree that this schedule won’t help us to an at-large bid, but let’s also remember two things:

1. Scheduling tough isn’t always just up to the coach. They don’t just choose opponents from a digital menu like ordering a happy meal from a kiosk at Mickey D’s….

Potential opponents are evaluating us, and our perceived strength too. Losing our “big three” probably took us off many teams’s radars as NET builders.

And coaching relationships built over time matter. A brand-new HC simply doesn’t have the same ability to schedule as easily as a Coach P or AJ does. It does appear that our staff is very relationship-oriented, though. That should pay dividends down the road, both in scheduling and recruiting.

2. Strength of schedule is important, but not the only way to get ahead in the NET. Remember the “net efficiency” stat? If we are beating our opponents soundly and efficiently, that can go a long way, too.

Overall I’m very excited to watch their development this year. Great coaches, great players, great facilities, great culture, great fans…. We have it pretty good. I’m just tempering my expectations a little.

I think this schedule makes sense for this team this year. I don't like the word rebuilding, so I will call this a transition year. New coaching staff, a number of new faces, and some familiar faces being asked to play expanded roles. It will take some time to build chemistry and to figure out roles. This schedule gives them a good opportunity to do that and to get better as the season progresses. Looking forward to watching this group grow together.

[hoopsmom]

goyotes.com/news/2022/10/11/womens-basketball-larkins-voted-preseason-all-summit-coyotes-picked-second.aspx

USD was picked second preseason for Summit League, and Grace Larkins second team. Remember, pretty much every Summit team except for State is doing massive rebuilding this year due to transfers.

[kiyoat]

Preseason AP poll:

#23 SDSU (program first preseason ranking)

(#34) USD (received 9 votes)

fourth year in a row we have gotten votes

I don't think I'll track our rankings as closely as I have in past years.  Like charting it weekly.  Part of that was just to get a better understanding of how the NET worked.  seems like the "net efficiency" had a big impact on the final ranking, along with the normal W/L and SOS.

Of course, we won't ever know what the exact formula is, because the NCAA can potentially "tweak" it in the offseason each year, by emphasizing or de-emphasizing parts of the formula.

At the end of the day, this season will be more about development and discovery than about statistics and rankings.  And I'm here for it.

[kiyoat]

Well, it looks like we won't be using this thread much for bracketology stuff, so I'll just use it for putting in some statistical analysis.  Here's something I'd like to understand more:  Is our defense getting better or regressing?  I'll compare a few stats vs our D-1 opponents' averages....

opponent	PPG	vs	FG%	vs	3PT%	vs
Creighton	74.2	-0.2	45.2	+1.9	37.6	-12.6
Bradley	59.6	-6.6	38.0	-4.7	33.3	-2.9
St Louis	66.8	+0.2	40.4	+1.3	25.7	+0.6
Santa Clara	73.8	+1.2	43.1	+9.4	34.5	+3.6
Fordham	74.0	+4.0	41.7	-0.8	35.8	+16.1
Northern CO	72.6	-0.6	45.3	-6.5	40.9	-6.3
Drake	83.4	-0.4	50.4	+1.0	33.7	-11.5
Montana	64.8	+11.2	38.7	+9.6	35.0	+10.5

Looks like our scoring defense has been mostly close to the opponent's average offense, except for a good effort against Bradley, and poor against Fordham and Montana. 

We actually defended Northern Colorado very well, from a shooting efficiency standpoint.  But we took away Drake's perimeter and let them have their way in the paint.  Montana was a complete disaster.  We made them look like a good offensive team, which they are not. 

At least this shows we are capable of good defense, even against the better teams on our schedule.  one terrible second quarter each against Drake and Montana, where they were scoring at will in the paint, is killing the average.  We need consistency on defense if we want to compete for anything.

*Edit - fixed Drake's average FG%

[yotenation]

Dec 12, 2022 11:17:52 GMT -6 kiyoat said:

Well, it looks like we won't be using this thread much for bracketology stuff, so I'll just use it for putting in some statistical analysis.  Here's something I'd like to understand more:  Is our defense getting better or regressing?  I'll compare a few stats vs our D-1 opponents' averages....

opponent	PPG	vs	FG%	vs	3PT%	vs
Creighton	74.2	-0.2	45.2	+1.9	37.6	-12.6
Bradley	59.6	-6.6	38.0	-4.7	33.3	-2.9
St Louis	66.8	+0.2	40.4	+1.3	25.7	+0.6
Santa Clara	73.8	+1.2	43.1	+9.4	34.5	+3.6
Fordham	74.0	+4.0	41.7	-0.8	35.8	+16.1
Northern CO	72.6	-0.6	45.3	-6.5	40.9	-6.3
Drake	83.4	-0.4	35.8	+15.6	33.7	-11.5
Montana	64.8	+11.2	38.7	+9.6	35.0	+10.5

Looks like our scoring defense has been mostly close to the opponent's average offense, except for a good effort against Bradley, and poor against Fordham and Montana. 

We actually defended Northern Colorado very well, from a shooting efficiency standpoint.  But we took away Drake's perimeter and let them have their way in the paint.  Montana was a complete disaster.  We made them look like a good offensive team, which they are not. 

At least this shows we are capable of good defense, even against the better teams on our schedule.  one terrible second quarter each against Drake and Montana, where they were scoring at will in the paint, is killing the average.  We need consistency on defense if we want to compete for anything.

We don't defend well in the paint and I'm not sure how much that will change. Ugofsky is undersized, Demers is very young and learning, and we don't really have another post defender.

[Men's League Waterboy]

Drake shoots at a tad over 50 percent on the season and shot 51.4 against the U.

[kiyoat]

Dec 12, 2022 17:05:49 GMT -6 Men's League Waterboy said:

Drake shoots at a tad over 50 percent on the season and shot 51.4 against the U.

Thanks!  Yes, I was looking at Drakes FG% defense instead of offense.  Fixed it.  The NCAA extended stats site is hard to read with small print and long lead lines....

So we basically allowed Drake to shoot about their average inside the arc, and either took away the perimeter, or they just shot badly from the arc.  Hard for me to say.

[Men's League Waterboy]

No problem! I knew you wanted to bring your normal accuracy to the stats analysis.

Thanks for all the cool info you provide.