Jump to content

Villanova


Recommended Posts

With Villanova winning its 2nd championship in the past 3 years and 3rd overall to tie Kansas (Louisville is back down to 2 after vacating) for 7th place all-time, there is little to no doubt they are now a premier program in NCAA basketball. My take away is that I don't see anything Villanova/Wright has done that IU/Miller couldn't do. It gives me a lot of hope and optimism for our program if we are patient enough and remember that Wright took over in 2001 and didn't win the first title until 2016 (15years). Their recruits aren't all that highly ranked, so I think Archie can recruit higher ranked players to IU, but getting the "Wright" roster construction like Nova does is key. 

2014 - Booth 4* 75th (247 composite national ranking), Bridges 4* 81st

2015 - DiVincenzo 4* 124th, Brunson 5* 22nd, Delaney 3* 186th

2016 - Spellman 5* 20th, Painter 3* 136th

2017 - Samuels 4* 46th, Cosby-Roundtree 4* 97th, Gillespie 3* 200th

Also, here is my updated program rankings of multi-championship schools. It takes the year the championship was won and subtracts the year the first championship was won by a multi-championship team (1940 IU). For example, Villanova gets 78 points for last nights championship. It gives bias to more recent championships since to be honest they are more relevant. Villanova's win moved them in front of IU for 6th place and Louisville vacating 2013 drops them to 11th. 

Rank Team Score Titles
1 UCLA 349 11
2 North Carolina 323 6
3 Duke 309 5
4 Kentucky 270 8
5 Connecticut 268 4
6 Villanova 199 3
7 Indiana 137 5
8 Florida 133 2
9 Kansas 128 3
10 Michigan State 99 2
11 Louisville 86 2
12 North Carolina State 77 2
13 Cincinnati 43 2
14 San Francisco 31 2
15 Oklahoma State 11 2
Edited by cybergates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I largely agree with you on what Wright's done and optimism for CAM.

I don't really agree though with your ranking. Nova is doing great right now, but with 3 total NCAA championships I don't think that pushes them past IU.

Among other things, we played for the title in 01-02,  we are 7th all time in the AP poll, we have 8 Final Fours, we have three SW16's since 2011-12,  we were in the NCAA tourney every year from 1986-2003, and so on. Recent is good, but it doesn't trump everything else.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

I largely agree with you on what Wright's done and optimism for CAM.

I don't really agree though with your ranking. Nova is doing great right now, but with 3 total NCAA championships I don't think that pushes them past IU.

Among other things, we played for the title in 01-02,  we are 7th all time in the AP poll, we have 8 Final Fours, we have three SW16's since 2011-12,  we were in the NCAA tourney every year from 1986-2003, and so on. Recent is good, but it doesn't trump everything else.

Yes, the ranking is flawed that it only looks at NCAA championships and how recent they are. It is just a formula that doesn't account for anything else.

Kansas is certainly a more marquee program than us at this point and yet they sit at 9th. They'd certainly be moved ahead of us if a human element or additional data points were added to the ranking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't really have anywhere to put this, so figured this thread would work. It's amazing to me in looking at Villanova's stats and IU stats, and it just goes to show how hamstrung IU was with poor shooting, and how important it is to have guys all over the floor that can knock down shots and hit 3's. I realize Villanova was an historic 3pt shooting team, so it's maybe not the best example, but still...

Of their top 6 scorers, Villanova had 4 guys that shot over 40% from 3. The other two guys shot 35.6% and 37.9%. 

Indiana had one guys in their top 6 scorers shoot over 34%, Rojo at 37.3%. Villanova's center shot 10 percentage points higher from 3 than our point guard (Devante Green). He shot 13% higher than Newkirk. 

To some of the discussions about size and team building, in this day and age of basketball the bottom line is that you need guys all over the court that can spread the floor and shoot. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, BGleas said:

Didn't really have anywhere to put this, so figured this thread would work. It's amazing to me in looking at Villanova's stats and IU stats, and it just goes to show how hamstrung IU was with poor shooting, and how important it is to have guys all over the floor that can knock down shots and hit 3's. I realize Villanova was an historic 3pt shooting team, so it's maybe not the best example, but still...

Of their top 6 scorers, Villanova had 4 guys that shot over 40% from 3. The other two guys shot 35.6% and 37.9%. 

Indiana had one guys in their top 6 scorers shoot over 34%, Rojo at 37.3%. Villanova's center shot 10 percentage points higher from 3 than our point guard (Devante Green). He shot 13% higher than Newkirk. 

To some of the discussions about size and team building, in this day and age of basketball the bottom line is that you need guys all over the court that can spread the floor and shoot. 

The Golden State Warriors are the blueprint for success.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...