Started By
Message
re: Tide Hoops | Please Anchor
Posted on 1/6/22 at 8:00 am to Chadaristic
Posted on 1/6/22 at 8:00 am to Chadaristic
Mizzou trying to mess up our zero Q4 games status in a conference road game. lol
This post was edited on 1/6/22 at 8:06 am
0
Posted on 1/6/22 at 8:03 am to ETT2001
quote:
SIAP: When is Rojas expected to return? Has he played yet this year? Was the win at UF a Q1 win?
Rojas 2-3 weeks away per Oats. UF was a Q1 win.
Posted on 1/6/22 at 8:08 am to ETT2001
quote:
SIAP: When is Rojas expected to return? Has he played yet this year?
Not sure. He hasn't played this year. Sounds like he is expected to but haven't heard anything about that being imminent.
quote:
Was the win at UF a Q1 win?
They dropped to Net 49 but still a Quad 1 win. I think a road win versus top 75 is considered a Quad 1 win. Unless they changed that.
Posted on 1/6/22 at 8:10 am to Chadaristic
Auburns conference schedule is easy…..they should be the CLEAR favorites.
Their 2x opponents are Alabama, Georgia, Ole Miss, South Carolina, Florida
Their 2x opponents are Alabama, Georgia, Ole Miss, South Carolina, Florida
Posted on 1/6/22 at 8:12 am to Chadaristic
quote:
at Missouri (No. 235)
vs. Auburn (No. 6)
at Mississippi State (No. 37)
vs. LSU (No. 5)
vs. Missouri (No. 235)
at Georgia (No. 238)
vs. Baylor (No. 1)
at Auburn (No. 6)
Absolutely cannot lose to Missouri and Georgia obviously.
Hopefully can hold serves versus Auburn and LSU at home before we play them on the road later in the year.
Posted on 1/6/22 at 8:13 am to Chadaristic
Excuse me if this has already been posted.
Last night's box score was one of the most impressive that I have ever seen:
All starters scored in double digits,
All starters had at least one: Offensive rebound, defensive rebound, steel and assist.
Four starters hit at least one 3.
Starters hit 14 0f 17 free throws
That kind of numbers will win a bunch of games!
LINK
Last night's box score was one of the most impressive that I have ever seen:
All starters scored in double digits,
All starters had at least one: Offensive rebound, defensive rebound, steel and assist.
Four starters hit at least one 3.
Starters hit 14 0f 17 free throws
That kind of numbers will win a bunch of games!
LINK
This post was edited on 1/6/22 at 8:20 am
Posted on 1/6/22 at 8:14 am to elposter
quote:
Feels about right for how the team has played.
Objective resume wise, however, it still feels a little low.
I would agree with you if I hadn't watched multiple games this season involving a few teams above us in NET who are just as flawed as we are, if not moreso, with less impressive resumés. Notably UTk, Illinois, and Villanova. At this point I'd love to hear an explanation from an NCAA official for why their own formula places a team who is 4-3 in Q1 games and has played 0 Q4 games barely inside the top 20, and why that isn't a problem. I guess my question is, if you replaced those games we played against Soufh Dakota State, La Tech, South Alabama, and Oakland with 4 275+ opponents we beat by 25+ would we be higher in NET right now? If the answer is yes then the formula is even worse than RPI.
This post was edited on 1/6/22 at 8:17 am
Posted on 1/6/22 at 8:16 am to Chadaristic
Here is your NET nugget for the day.
13-1 Iowa State, whose only loss is by 5 to #1 Baylor, beat a RANKED Texas Tech last night (albeit extremely shorthanded), and moved DOWN 4 spots in NET from #19 to #23 with their Q1 win.
13-1 Iowa State, whose only loss is by 5 to #1 Baylor, beat a RANKED Texas Tech last night (albeit extremely shorthanded), and moved DOWN 4 spots in NET from #19 to #23 with their Q1 win.
This post was edited on 1/6/22 at 8:20 am
Posted on 1/6/22 at 8:22 am to DLev45
Whatever their new formula is…..it’s bullshite
Posted on 1/6/22 at 8:25 am to Robot Santa
quote:
If the answer is yes then the formula is even worse than RPI.
Bama is actually #1 in RPI right now. Lol
Posted on 1/6/22 at 8:39 am to DLev45
Looks like Ala has had a couple stretches in conference like this one (21-2)
First over 3 seasons in the 50's, they went 23-2 (6-1 to end '54-55, 14-0 in '55-'56 and 3-1 to start '56-57).
In 73-74, they went 16-2 to end the season and then 14-1 to start '74-75 for a 30-3 mark over that stretch (they were 21-2 at one point as well).
First over 3 seasons in the 50's, they went 23-2 (6-1 to end '54-55, 14-0 in '55-'56 and 3-1 to start '56-57).
In 73-74, they went 16-2 to end the season and then 14-1 to start '74-75 for a 30-3 mark over that stretch (they were 21-2 at one point as well).
This post was edited on 1/6/22 at 8:41 am
Posted on 1/6/22 at 9:06 am to McGregor
Just sort of curious - what is the deal with Arkansas?
I’ve been too busy to watch non-Alabama basketball, but they seem to be really underachieving.
Seems like they sort of started slowly last year (we trounced them early in the season after they got hammered by LSU), and then got really hot. Maybe it’s a Muss/transfer portal thing?
It seems like a good roster on paper.
(I know this isn’t really the thread for this, but there is an Arkansas fan on here, and I’m not venturing over to the Rant for something like this).
I’ve been too busy to watch non-Alabama basketball, but they seem to be really underachieving.
Seems like they sort of started slowly last year (we trounced them early in the season after they got hammered by LSU), and then got really hot. Maybe it’s a Muss/transfer portal thing?
It seems like a good roster on paper.
(I know this isn’t really the thread for this, but there is an Arkansas fan on here, and I’m not venturing over to the Rant for something like this).
This post was edited on 1/6/22 at 9:07 am
Posted on 1/6/22 at 9:12 am to Crede15
quote:
what is the deal with Arkansas?
Bottom line inconsistency
They play like a very good team in stretches, especially on the offensive end but as a whole have too many wtf stretches in a game.
No true point guard is a real killer for this team. We have asked certain players to fill that void and overall it just isn't working. The three players that returned off the elite 8 team (Williams, Davis and Notae) haven't taken a big enough step up from last year.
quote:
It seems like a good roster on paper.
I think plenty of these players would do great in their correct roles on other teams but it just doesn't fit right now. I'm sure they will turn a corner of sorts down the road but believe it will be too late by then and probably not enough.
Posted on 1/6/22 at 9:20 am to rockiee
Isn't most of your team freshmen and transfers? That much roster turnover is bound to create a lot of headaches early on unless you're Kentucky and can just out-talent 80% of the teams on your schedule until things start to click.
Posted on 1/6/22 at 9:37 am to mistaken4193
Anybody got the plus/minus from last night? I’d like to see JDs. It just seems like everytime he was in the game Florida made a run
Posted on 1/6/22 at 9:41 am to tattoo
quote:
don't get it
Hopefully this team follows Mr Anderson and develops the “we are underdogs” attitude. Nothing motivates like disrespect!
Posted on 1/6/22 at 9:43 am to DLev45
quote:
13-1 Iowa State, whose only loss is by 5 to #1 Baylor, beat a RANKED Texas Tech last night (albeit extremely shorthanded), and moved DOWN 4 spots in NET from #19 to #23 with their Q1 win.
The NET is bad math. Doesn't add up. Somebody posted on another site that the NET isn't supposed to measure which teams are best. Well, what the hell is it supposed to measure if the NCAA uses it to place teams in the tournament? Does it have a tv ratings set of numbers factored in? Iowa State has low tv ratings, so drop them? We beat Gonzaga there, and they have 8 quad 4 games, but tv likes them, so keep them high? I'm really not a conspiracy theorist, but there needs to be more transparancy about what NET measures.
This post was edited on 1/6/22 at 9:46 am
Posted on 1/6/22 at 9:49 am to AbSnopes
From the latest Athletic mock draft
quote:
23. Houston Rockets (via MIA)
JD Davison | 6-3 guard | 19 years old | Alabama
JD Davison has had a fascinating season. On the plus side, he’s an absolutely electric athlete whose explosiveness both in terms of first step and bounce have translated at a high level. But the problems here are pretty evident. He’s a non-shooter right now, having hit just 28 percent from 3 overall and 2-for-14 on pull-up attempts so far. He’s also not really capable of truly running the show as a distributor for Alabama right now, as his handle and poise aren’t quite good enough at this point. He’s playing off the ball often next to Jahvon Quinerly and making plays attacking off the catch. He’s also a bit of a turnover machine right now too. I’m a bit lower on Davison than this, but teams do see real upside if they can get him into their system because he is truly an elite athlete from the lead guard spot. I’m not totally convinced he’s a one-and-done, but we’ll see where things settle in SEC play.
Posted on 1/6/22 at 9:50 am to AbSnopes
quote:
The NET is bad math. Doesn't add up. Somebody posted on another site that the NET isn't supposed to measure which teams are best. Well, what the hell is it supposed to measure if the NCAA uses it to place teams in the tournament? Does it have a tv ratings set of numbers factored in? Iowa State has low tv ratings, so drop them? We beat Gonzaga there, and they have 8 quad 4 games, but tv likes them, so keep them high? I'm really not a conspiracy theorist, but there needs to be more transparancy about what NET measures.
The thing though is the NCAA doesn't seed teams purely based on the NET "rankings". And when they discuss the rankings they talk a lot more about wins/losses than "this team is ranked blank in the NET".
Our "profile" would be looked at much higher than our actual ranking if the tournament started tomorrow. I'd feel very good about it.
Posted on 1/6/22 at 10:02 am to SummerOfGeorge
I think if you average out our performance (top 25ish) and our resumé (top 3) we'd end up in the 8-12 range and a 3 seed, which all of us would take in a heartbeat. Obviously our performance can get better and our resumé can get worse, but I think if the season ended today we'd be a 3 seed on upset alert in round 1.
Page 417 of 1054
Latest Alabama News
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News