Jump to content

NCAA Tournament Needs (Building a Team)

basketballjones
 Share

Recommended Posts

basketballjones

basketballjones

Posted
Posted

As my dad used to say, "There's more than one way to skin a cat." So I understand there's lots of ways to build a NCAA Tournament Team - but from watching the last few NCAA Tournaments - what would you guys say are the general needs a team has got to have to get there and have some success? And this could be broken up by different levels/types of teams. For instance, if you're going to make noise as a mid-major, you absolutely gotta have __________________ and _______________? But I'm more curious to see what everyone think a team like us needs (assuming we'll never have the 5-star, NBA Lottery guys). 

Some things I have noticed, that teams like K-State, Tennessee, Missouri, etc... (P6 teams who aren't top tier):

- Gotta have some DAWGS at guard. Dudes that can absolutely get after you defensively. 
- Seems to help to have some dudes who look like they have a permanent address in the weight room. 
- Helps to be old, whether that's through transfers or not. 

- Have to be able to handle incredible physicality. 
- Shot makers. Not sure you have to have "pure shooters," but at least guys who can hit tough shots in the lane and tough shots at the end of shot clocks. 

 

Thoughts? 

aphilso1

aphilso1

Posted
Posted

"Have some success" can be interpreted a variety of ways.  I am choosing to interpret this question specifically as "how do you win your first round game, and potentially make it to the second weekend?"  Answer as follows.

 

Formula for mid-majors is pretty straightforward.  Shooters = upsets.  Shooters also = blowout losses when the shots aren't going in, but that's the whole nature of "live by the three, die by the three."  And no one really cares if you lose by 5 or by 25, so you might as well go high risk/high reward.  A couple of undersized Juwan Gary-esque rebounders helps, too.

 

Formula for the non-top tier P6 schools is: positive turnover margin + made free throws = avoid upsets to mid-majors.  If you're more talented than your opponent, then generally speaking you just need to win the turnover battle and not lose the game at the charity stripe.  As mentioned above, shooters = upsets, so having more possessions than a good shooting opponent is key to avoiding that opening round loss.

 

Formula for an elite team? Who knows.  I certainly didn't see Purdue or Zona getting bounced opening round.  Clearly there is some key to avoiding that opening round letdown that befuddles both me and Matt Painter.

Norm Peterson

Norm Peterson

Posted
Posted

I think you need athletes who are skilled as opposed to skilled guys who have some athleticism. Athleticism without skill and you don't see the floor and transfer at the end of the year (Denim Dawson); skill without athleticism and you're a walk-on.

 

I want bouncy guys who are long for their position. You can run a ~6 footer in there at guard and be OK, maybe two, but you better be long on balance because you need people who rebound well for their position.
 

Offensively, I want at least 3 guys on the floor at all times who are threats from outside (mid-30s or better), and the other two need to be able to score in the paint. And scoring in the paint can either mean posting up by a big man or attacking off the dribble and getting to the rim. I don't really want to see certainly any starter who's inept at scoring at his position. Have to be at least adequate, at least a threat. And at least one -- hopefully more than one -- are good at attacking off the dribble. And it's great if one of those dribble-drivers is also a good perimeter shooter.

 

At least one of your guys has to be a great rebounder and at least one of them has to be a 17+ ppg scorer. You have to have at least one guy who can get you a bucket when you absolutely need to have one. End-of-game situations when you're nursing a tiny lead, you cannot have empty possessions. You gotta have that James Palmer-type guy that their best defender just can't stop.

 

Seems to me, for the defensive system we run, your players don't have to each be this great individual defender, like a Bandoumel, as long as you understand your assignment and are committed to playing your role with a high degree of effort. Having a shut-down defender is nice, but not everyone has to be that guy. But they all have to be system guys. Which means understanding your job and executing it with intensity.

 

If you're as skilled as the other team, but on balance, more athletic, you probably win more often than not.

 

Here's a hypothetical roster that would have fit my bill:

 

PG Glynn Watson

SG James Palmer

SG Andrew White

PF Isaac Copeland

PF Isaiah Roby

 

This is Miles' last team except with Andrew White instead of Thomas Allen. We don't have that great rebounder, but it would be guys who are long and bouncy and everyone has at least some ability to score the ball.

roscoe

roscoe

Posted
Posted

Doesn't hurt to have a some luck/catch a break. The FAU/Memphis game was some of the sloppiest/least fundamental games I've watched in quite some time. But Memphis appears to secure loose ball and calls time out during scramble. Refs say it was a held ball and with FAU getting possession and hit go ahead/game winning shot.

B-town hoopsfan

B-town hoopsfan

Posted
Posted

I think for us to ever build a team that is able to consistently push the 20 win mark and hopefully receive tournament berths we need to value 3 things highly.  Rebounding, 3 point shooting, and free throws in that order.  Everything we do needs to be based around winning the rebounding battle every time we step on the court.  Ontop of a lot of other things that feels like what has really doomed us the last decade and a half. 
 


 

 

 

colhusker

colhusker

Posted
Posted
On 3/21/2023 at 5:49 PM, Handy Johnson said:

Here’s my Hypothetical Husker Contender: Not unlike the Illinois/Kentucky Rosters I mentioned yesterday. 
Glynn Watson

Beau Reid 

Tony Farmer 

Isaac Copeland 

Andre Smith 

Like this roster but would substitute Jerry Fort in for Reid.

royalfan

royalfan

Posted
Posted

The things needed for the tourney are not necessarily what is needed to get through our league.  That is why the league itself has struggled a bit in very recent years in the tourney.  
 

it seems as though all the big ten defenses are sort of designed to stop the types of teams in our league.  Then in tourney they are running into one more skilled guy or a little more speed and quickness.  That skill and extra speed probably wouldn’t hold up over the physical big ten grind.  But it causes big problems for our league in the dance.  
 

I think we are actually well positioned to play in a tourney game if we made it as our offense and defense are a bit unique.   

basketballjones

basketballjones

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, royalfan said:

The things needed for the tourney are not necessarily what is needed to get through our league.  That is why the league itself has struggled a bit in very recent years in the tourney.  
 

it seems as though all the big ten defenses are sort of designed to stop the types of teams in our league.  Then in tourney they are running into one more skilled guy or a little more speed and quickness.  That skill and extra speed probably wouldn’t hold up over the physical big ten grind.  But it causes big problems for our league in the dance.  
 

I think we are actually well positioned to play in a tourney game if we made it as our offense and defense are a bit unique.   

You've hit the nail on the head - and that is why I have recently advocated for not setting your sights/building a team on being a top 3/4 team in the league - but aiming to always finish in that 4-7 range. Typically guarantees you a trip to the tourney, and in my opinion, makes you a more versatile team. You're right though - a team built to win the big 10 is not a team built to have success in the tourney. 

Norm Peterson

Norm Peterson

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, basketballjones said:

You've hit the nail on the head - and that is why I have recently advocated for not setting your sights/building a team on being a top 3/4 team in the league - but aiming to always finish in that 4-7 range. Typically guarantees you a trip to the tourney, and in my opinion, makes you a more versatile team. You're right though - a team built to win the big 10 is not a team built to have success in the tourney. 

 

OK, so let's just wargame this a bit. Let's assume we get some of the players about whom there seems to be some credible rumors.

 

Chucky Hepburn and John Tonje were both ~39% 3-point shooters this last season.

 

Grant Nelson is a career 30+% 3-point shooter who's listed at 6'11 and put up about 18 and 9 this season.

 

Add those three to the list of guys who, as of now, are still listed on the roster, and what do we need to add to be that 4-7 finisher you're talking about that can do well in the tourney?

 

Is that good enough to the point that we can just add one more piece? If so, what one more piece would we need to add?

royalfan

royalfan

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

OK, so let's just wargame this a bit. Let's assume we get some of the players about whom there seems to be some credible rumors.

 

Chucky Hepburn and John Tonje were both ~39% 3-point shooters this last season.

 

Grant Nelson is a career 30+% 3-point shooter who's listed at 6'11 and put up about 18 and 9 this season.

 

Add those three to the list of guys who, as of now, are still listed on the roster, and what do we need to add to be that 4-7 finisher you're talking about that can do well in the tourney?

 

Is that good enough to the point that we can just add one more piece? If so, what one more piece would we need to add?

 

That piece would be a quick leaping guy that causes havoc in various ways.  Most of these teams have one.  Thinking in the mold of the Rutgers center(obviously would be a poor mans version of him).  Gary might be a tad too small to accomplish what I am thinking of.  

Vinny

Vinny

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

I know it might be premature since there's only a rumor that we reached out as soon as he entered the portal; HOWEVER, I think John Tonje meets the athleticism eyeball test.

He looks like what we wanted Shamiel Stevenson to be.

Norm Peterson

Norm Peterson

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, basketballjones said:

He looks like what we'd want CJ Wilcher to be. 

 

To be fair, CJ is not without his own merits.

 

He had a down year this year, but otherwise, he's been a fairly solid perimeter shooter over the course of his career. He'll never blow your mind with his athleticism, but he has a knack for disguising that weakness as much as possible. Reminds me a bit of Ryan Anderson, just not nearly as good of a shooter.

Vinny

Vinny

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, basketballjones said:

He looks like what we'd want CJ Wilcher to be. 

Maybe my memory is wrong but I remember shooting being the primary skill we were recruiting CJ for. He was always going to be purely a 2 guard. Tonje looks like someone who, yes can hit a shot, but also rebound better than his height and be effective as a slasher on the wing. Essentially play the 2-4 and give you flexibility at the other two spots. I know we’ve asked CJ to do that, and it’s been okay, but I don’t know if it’s something we want to keep doing.

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
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...