Predictions for 2023-24 With A Twist

[DocCas86]

Rather than the typical poll of the board regarding how many wins for 2023-24, I thought I would put out 10 separate metrics and we could have a little friendly competition.  Please note that any stats like PPG, 2P%, etc. applies only to MAC conference games only.  So here are the categories along with benchmark.  What I am suggesting is that you indicate for each question you state: better, same or worse.  I hope this will be fun and generate a bit more chatter about the team.

I'll go first:

1 Better 2. Same 3. Better 4. Better 5. Worse 6. Better 7. Worse 8. Worse 9. Better 10. Worse

To be fair - please complete prior to first game Monday evening. 

For rank hope everyone is ok with using kenpom.

Edited November 4, 2023 by DocCas86
Accept suggested change.

[capencaper]

Can I make a suggestion? Maybe I'm overthinking it, but instead of "lower" or "higher" - how about "better" or "worse" ...that way there's no confusion about what is considered higher or lower (rank vs statistic). 

[DocCas86]

20 minutes ago, capencaper said:

Can I make a suggestion? Maybe I'm overthinking it, but instead of "lower" or "higher" - how about "better" or "worse" ...that way there's no confusion about what is considered higher or lower (rank vs statistic). 

Makes sense to me..especially if it encourages participation 🙂

[Tee4three]

1. Rank - Better

2. Mac Wins - same

3. Ppg for - worse

4. Ppg against - better 

5. Ppg top 3 - worse

6. Ppg Fr - worse

7. 2pt % - better

8. 3pt % - better

9. FT% - better

10. Turnovers - worse

[capencaper]

1. Rank - Better

2. Mac Wins - Better

3. Ppg for - Worse

4. Ppg against - better 

5. Ppg top 3 - Worse

6. Ppg Fr - Better

7. 2pt % - Better

8. 3pt % - Better

9. FT% - Worse

10. Turnovers - Better

[Ubbullsfan09]

1. Worse

2. Worse

3. Worse

4. Worse

5. Better

6. Worse

7. Worse

8. better

9. Better

10. Worse

[skrabukes]

1 - I hope that it will be better, but our non-league schedule seems very lean, so I'm not sure that it will be, unless our league record is better than I anticipate. They could realistically win 5 games in November and I'm not sure it'd move the needle of the ranking too much based on the schedule strength (I think). December is surely much more daunting. For now, I'll say worse.

2 - Worse

(Only those top 2 matter in my eyes, but I'll try my best on the rest).

3 - Worse

4 - Worse

5 - Better (for our top 3 scorers, not necessarily the 3 named players)

6 - Better (I hope)

(Complete guesswork now...)

7 - Worse

8 - Better

9 - Better

10 - Worse

I hope to be very, very wrong on #1 & 2, especially #2. I really don't want to be in the 9-12 seed come March.

We'll see what happens from the men and women starting on Monday. It sure would be nice to come away with 2 wins and have a nice crowd. I'm not sure I'd bet on either, but I will surely be there in 2 days supporting the squads. Go Bulls.

[DocCas86]

Thank you to those who have offered their thoughts.  Hoping to get some more people to weigh in.

One thing I forgot is to offer up a why I picked as I did.  I expect the team to do slightly better than 250 for the following reasons.  I think that they will do a little better defensively than what ranking sites have stated.  Also I am hopeful that the FR perform a little better than anticipated. 

I hope those who are saying the team shoots better than 35% from three are right, this would likely put UB near the top of MAC 3pt shooting.  Here are stats from last year.  Note Toledo shot close to 40% and wasn't in the view.

[DocCas86]

5 minutes ago, skrabukes said:

1 - I hope that it will be better, but our non-league schedule seems very lean, so I'm not sure that it will be, unless our league record is better than I anticipate. They could realistically win 5 games in November and I'm not sure it'd move the needle of the ranking too much based on the schedule strength (I think). December is surely much more daunting. For now, I'll say worse.

2 - Worse

(Only those top 2 matter in my eyes, but I'll try my best on the rest).

3 - Worse

4 - Worse

5 - Better (for our top 3 scorers, not necessarily the 3 named players)

6 - Better (I hope)

(Complete guesswork now...)

7 - Worse

8 - Better

9 - Better

10 - Worse

I hope to be very, very wrong on #1 & 2, especially #2. I really don't want to be in the 9-12 seed come March.

We'll see what happens from the men and women starting on Monday. It sure would be nice to come away with 2 wins and have a nice crowd. I'm not sure I'd bet on either, but I will surely be there in 2 days supporting the squads. Go Bulls.

Thanks for the candor as far as relevancy.  I was an attempting to get folks expectation re team strengths and weaknesses. Possible I should have just asked that.    I realized I missed rebounding and steals.  Rebounding in my mind could be a challenge for this team, but we shall see.

I guess it can be fun to see how we did at the end of the year.

[Bluebird96]

1. Rank: BETTER than 250 (maybe wishful thinking, as realistically looking at the schedule I can only see UB with 10-12 wins.  Obviously hoping for a few more than that)

2. MAC wins:  WORSE than 8 (can’t see winning any games vs top 4, so would have to go 8-2 vs all others to get to 8 wins. I think 5-7 wins is more realistic, which hopefully is good enough to get at least the 8 seed)

3. PPG for: WORSE than 72 ppg

4. PPG against: BETTER than 75 ppg

5. PPG Top 3: BETTER than 43 ppg 

6. PPG Fr: BETTER than 10 ppg

7.  2PT FG%: WORSE than 51%

8. 3PT FG%: WORSE than 35%

9. FT%: BETTER than 71%

10. Turnovers:  WORSE than 13 (lack of ball handlers and experienced PGs seems to be a common critique of this roster, so it stands to reason that TOs could be an issue)

 

Edited November 5, 2023 by Bluebird96

[MuchMany]

Going to steal Bluebird's format, thanks.

1. Rank: WORSE than 250

2. MAC wins:  WORSE than 8

3. PPG for: WORSE than 72 ppg

4. PPG against: BETTER than 75 ppg

5. PPG Top 3: WORSE than 43 ppg 

6. PPG Fr: BETTER than 10 ppg

7.  2PT FG%: WORSE than 51%

8. 3PT FG%: WORSE than 35%

9. FT%: BETTER than 71%

10. Turnovers:  WORSE than 13

[DocCas86]

Maybe we can get a few more responses today.   I will take advantage of the extra hour and start summarizing those submitted - goal of midday tomorrow to release final results.  Thanks for the participation so far.

Edited November 5, 2023 by DocCas86

[rma]

1. Rank: BETTER than 250

2. MAC wins:  BETTER than 8

3. PPG for: WORSE than 72 ppg

4. PPG against: BETTER than 75 ppg

5. PPG Top 3: BETTER than 43 ppg 

6. PPG Fr: WORSE than 10 ppg

7.  2PT FG%: WORSE than 51%

8. 3PT FG%: WORSE than 35%

9. FT%: BETTER than 71%

10. Turnovers:  WORSE than 13

I don't know how much offensive production we're going to get, hoping defense keeps us in games this year.

Edited November 5, 2023 by rma
changed 7 to worse

[DocCas86]

Not sure if we get any more submissions, it is clear there is concern about scoring this season.  Most concerns are with turnovers and 2pt shooting.  There is some optimism that the team will be a good 3pt / ft shooting team.  The other common theme is this team will need to rely on defense.

For those who think the Bulls will win less than 8 games in the MAC, what are your expectations? 

[MuchMany]

6-12. I don't think we have very much talent. This is my objective, kinda cold view of the team (after getting home from the Bengals-Bills game caveat.)

Chapman should be good right away, but not sure how often we can get him the ball in scoring positions. He'll have to grind out a lot of his own offense on OREB and broken plays.

Adams could have a big year statistically and really should as an established talent at this level.

Graham being eligible would be huge just as another confirmed D1 talent when I'm a little concerned about that on the roster as a whole.

Jo should do his thing and I think he's totally fine in his role in the MAC.

Kanye and Zaakir, I really don't know what to expect but I'm not optimistic tbh.

The real problem for me is the guards. MAC guard talent in the last 5-10 years has been extremely strong. Killer upperclassmen that could/did transfer to high-majors, a couple NBA talents. I don't think it's at that level this year (Sullinger, Ohio's 3 guys, Tribble, plenty I'm forgetting). Still I'm shocked that we only have Fulcher (So.)/Sabol(Fr.) as our PG depth in a conference where most teams reserve 80+ MPG for strong, quick ball-handlers between 5'10-6'3. Fulcher looks like a potentially electric talent, but he's going to garner a ton of defensive attention if he is actually good. I can't believe we didn't bring in a couple more transfer guards to help guide our green team through what could be a real conference slog.

As far as freshmen, I have the highest hopes for Wilson and McVeigh.

Wilson is an A+ athlete at the MAC level, jacked and high-flying at 18. Comes from a really good HS conference in the DMV that produces lots of D1 guys. There's a chance he starts to break out by conference tournament time.

McVeigh is relatively experienced for a freshman, I think he's 20. He's played a couple years of varying levels of pro ball in Australia - his older brother a good established pro in the NBL. Great size for his position and competitiveness that will earn him PT if this staff values what I think they do.

Hard to say on Famakinde, but he could move the needle if he ends up as a solid contributor.

Boldin has the name, but I don't know where he fits on the court. He's not a shooter or a primary ball-handler. It seems like this staff had a type in it's last minute recruiting, the tweener wing who lacks a certain skill that caused them to be leftover. I get it as a way to build a versatile core moving forward out of the guys who hit, but it feels like we're going to get stuck playing misfits at the 2 through 4 at different times.

But my biggest variable is how the coaching staff has the team play and how they develop our talent. I have no argument against Halcovage's pedigree and ability - now he just has to show us what he's got as the head guy. I expect us to reign in a lot of the wild play that was awkwardly left over from Oats, play at a slower pace, transition to 'Nova screen/drive/pivot/shoot basketball (even though we don't have the guards to pull it off yet). I expect the "blue collar" brand to remain and GH3 to push team-wide hustle as a base principle and a tool to help navigate a challenging season. I like the rest of our collection of coaches and I'm interested to see who contributes to where.

And as always, I'm interested in our recruiting for next year. Not sure how many scholarships we'll have open, but we've missed out on a half dozen targets since the end of summer. It would be nice to see a few new targets pop up given the fall signing period is already next week.

Go Bulls Go Bills

[UBinMD]

7 hours ago, MuchMany said:

6-12. I don't think we have very much talent. This is my objective, kinda cold view of the team (after getting home from the Bengals-Bills game caveat.)

Chapman should be good right away, but not sure how often we can get him the ball in scoring positions. He'll have to grind out a lot of his own offense on OREB and broken plays.

Adams could have a big year statistically and really should as an established talent at this level.

Graham being eligible would be huge just as another confirmed D1 talent when I'm a little concerned about that on the roster as a whole.

Jo should do his thing and I think he's totally fine in his role in the MAC.

Kanye and Zaakir, I really don't know what to expect but I'm not optimistic tbh.

The real problem for me is the guards. MAC guard talent in the last 5-10 years has been extremely strong. Killer upperclassmen that could/did transfer to high-majors, a couple NBA talents. I don't think it's at that level this year (Sullinger, Ohio's 3 guys, Tribble, plenty I'm forgetting). Still I'm shocked that we only have Fulcher (So.)/Sabol(Fr.) as our PG depth in a conference where most teams reserve 80+ MPG for strong, quick ball-handlers between 5'10-6'3. Fulcher looks like a potentially electric talent, but he's going to garner a ton of defensive attention if he is actually good. I can't believe we didn't bring in a couple more transfer guards to help guide our green team through what could be a real conference slog.

As far as freshmen, I have the highest hopes for Wilson and McVeigh.

Wilson is an A+ athlete at the MAC level, jacked and high-flying at 18. Comes from a really good HS conference in the DMV that produces lots of D1 guys. There's a chance he starts to break out by conference tournament time.

McVeigh is relatively experienced for a freshman, I think he's 20. He's played a couple years of varying levels of pro ball in Australia - his older brother a good established pro in the NBL. Great size for his position and competitiveness that will earn him PT if this staff values what I think they do.

Hard to say on Famakinde, but he could move the needle if he ends up as a solid contributor.

Boldin has the name, but I don't know where he fits on the court. He's not a shooter or a primary ball-handler. It seems like this staff had a type in it's last minute recruiting, the tweener wing who lacks a certain skill that caused them to be leftover. I get it as a way to build a versatile core moving forward out of the guys who hit, but it feels like we're going to get stuck playing misfits at the 2 through 4 at different times.

But my biggest variable is how the coaching staff has the team play and how they develop our talent. I have no argument against Halcovage's pedigree and ability - now he just has to show us what he's got as the head guy. I expect us to reign in a lot of the wild play that was awkwardly left over from Oats, play at a slower pace, transition to 'Nova screen/drive/pivot/shoot basketball (even though we don't have the guards to pull it off yet). I expect the "blue collar" brand to remain and GH3 to push team-wide hustle as a base principle and a tool to help navigate a challenging season. I like the rest of our collection of coaches and I'm interested to see who contributes to where.

And as always, I'm interested in our recruiting for next year. Not sure how many scholarships we'll have open, but we've missed out on a half dozen targets since the end of summer. It would be nice to see a few new targets pop up given the fall signing period is already next week.

Go Bulls Go Bills

We have this answer now, which really hurts in the short term. Let's see if they make any progress on this. The NCAA is such a group of buffoons. Their processes are so subjective it's ridiculous, similar to no allowing JMU, a top 25 team in the country in football, to participate in conference championships or bowl games simply because of an antiquate "rule" they put in place for some unknown reason.

[DocCas86]

9 hours ago, MuchMany said:

6-12. I don't think we have very much talent. This is my objective, kinda cold view of the team (after getting home from the Bengals-Bills game caveat.)

Chapman should be good right away, but not sure how often we can get him the ball in scoring positions. He'll have to grind out a lot of his own offense on OREB and broken plays.

Adams could have a big year statistically and really should as an established talent at this level.

Graham being eligible would be huge just as another confirmed D1 talent when I'm a little concerned about that on the roster as a whole.

Jo should do his thing and I think he's totally fine in his role in the MAC.

Kanye and Zaakir, I really don't know what to expect but I'm not optimistic tbh.

The real problem for me is the guards. MAC guard talent in the last 5-10 years has been extremely strong. Killer upperclassmen that could/did transfer to high-majors, a couple NBA talents. I don't think it's at that level this year (Sullinger, Ohio's 3 guys, Tribble, plenty I'm forgetting). Still I'm shocked that we only have Fulcher (So.)/Sabol(Fr.) as our PG depth in a conference where most teams reserve 80+ MPG for strong, quick ball-handlers between 5'10-6'3. Fulcher looks like a potentially electric talent, but he's going to garner a ton of defensive attention if he is actually good. I can't believe we didn't bring in a couple more transfer guards to help guide our green team through what could be a real conference slog.

As far as freshmen, I have the highest hopes for Wilson and McVeigh.

Wilson is an A+ athlete at the MAC level, jacked and high-flying at 18. Comes from a really good HS conference in the DMV that produces lots of D1 guys. There's a chance he starts to break out by conference tournament time.

McVeigh is relatively experienced for a freshman, I think he's 20. He's played a couple years of varying levels of pro ball in Australia - his older brother a good established pro in the NBL. Great size for his position and competitiveness that will earn him PT if this staff values what I think they do.

Hard to say on Famakinde, but he could move the needle if he ends up as a solid contributor.

Boldin has the name, but I don't know where he fits on the court. He's not a shooter or a primary ball-handler. It seems like this staff had a type in it's last minute recruiting, the tweener wing who lacks a certain skill that caused them to be leftover. I get it as a way to build a versatile core moving forward out of the guys who hit, but it feels like we're going to get stuck playing misfits at the 2 through 4 at different times.

But my biggest variable is how the coaching staff has the team play and how they develop our talent. I have no argument against Halcovage's pedigree and ability - now he just has to show us what he's got as the head guy. I expect us to reign in a lot of the wild play that was awkwardly left over from Oats, play at a slower pace, transition to 'Nova screen/drive/pivot/shoot basketball (even though we don't have the guards to pull it off yet). I expect the "blue collar" brand to remain and GH3 to push team-wide hustle as a base principle and a tool to help navigate a challenging season. I like the rest of our collection of coaches and I'm interested to see who contributes to where.

And as always, I'm interested in our recruiting for next year. Not sure how many scholarships we'll have open, but we've missed out on a half dozen targets since the end of summer. It would be nice to see a few new targets pop up given the fall signing period is already next week.

Go Bulls Go Bills

This is a fair summary - and with Graham anouncement - possible it may prove to be optimistic.  Here is that summary of those who offered an opinion on season expectations - which is very consistent with the above.

I will still be rooting for these young men to prove us wrong.

[MuchMany]

8 minutes ago, DocCas86 said:

I will still be rooting for these young men to prove us wrong.

100%, forgot to add that but meant to. I'm excited about the season and the game tonight. I have my sober realist and fervent supporter hats fully separated this year. Let's get this show on the toad, Go Bulls. 

[DocCas86]

Are they doing extra pregame activities or what?

[121Merrimac]

29 minutes ago, DocCas86 said:

Are they doing extra pregame activities or what?

The women’s game just ran a few minutes long, I’m pretty sure that’s all. 

[121Merrimac]

11.  Rebounds: 49 - exceeded expectations.

(FDU had 39)

12.  Steals: 2 - did not meet expectations. 

(FDU had 7)

[DocCas86]

20 minutes ago, 121Merrimac said:

11.  Rebounds: 49 - exceeded expectations.

(FDU had 39)

12.  Steals: 2 - did not meet expectations. 

(FDU had 7)

Yeah I should have had included these stats.  Smith was big on offensive boards.  In the end it was not enough defense and turnovers (although they were right on target not worse for turnovers).

I give the team credit for battling back.  Also time will tell, but I feel there is enough remnants of the team that beat Purdue to say FDU will be better than a 300+ ranked team.

[DocCas86]

On 11/6/2023 at 1:17 AM, MuchMany said:

...As far as freshmen, I have the highest hopes for Wilson and McVeigh.

Wilson is an A+ athlete at the MAC level, jacked and high-flying at 18. Comes from a really good HS conference in the DMV that produces lots of D1 guys. There's a chance he starts to break out by conference tournament time.

McVeigh is relatively experienced for a freshman, I think he's 20. He's played a couple years of varying levels of pro ball in Australia - his older brother a good established pro in the NBL. Great size for his position and competitiveness that will earn him PT if this staff values what I think they do.

 

I am curious, are both these guys injured?  Wilson played 1 minute vs Daemen, and McVeigh has yet to play.  UB could use the added depth.

[MuchMany]

3 hours ago, DocCas86 said:

I am curious, are both these guys injured?  Wilson played 1 minute vs Daemen, and McVeigh has yet to play.  UB could use the added depth.

Both warmed up fully, so no injuries. I think they're just raw and buried behind more experienced guys at the moment. They're both college 3s unfortunately because if they were true ball-handling guards I think they'd be seeing the floor. Even still, I expect them to break into the rotation at some point this season.

[C1ubP1fanaticM7]

1.) Worse than 250, mainly because I don’t know what the leniency for a Same selection would be on this. I think they’ll be really close to that 250 mark.

2.) Worse than 8 wins, realistically 5-7 wins. 0-8 vs the top 4, 3-4 wins vs the Michigan schools, and 2-3 wins vs the rest. 

3.) Worse than 72 PPG. Thinking 69-70.

4.) Better than 75 PPG. Thinking 70-71.

5.) Worse than 43 PPG. Could see both Chatman and Adam’s getting close to 15 a game but have a tough time seeing Fulcher enough to cover that. 

6.) Better than 10 PPG (FR).

7.) Better than 0.51 2ptFG%

8.) Better than 0.35 3ptFG%

9.) Better than 0.71 FT%

Hoping that Halcovage’s system leads to more efficient basketball being played.

10.) Worse than 13 TOV, being that we have a lack of ball handlers.

*** After last nights game, wouldn’t be shocked if 3-6 are wrong.

Adam’s is a far better scorer than he was last year. Chatman scored 10 without appearing to try, and Fulcher is a microwave shooter.

We’re either slow laterally on defense, or FDU is very quick. I’m guessing the former is correct, but at least we contest well at the rim. We are going to have to have great help D this year. No ball stoppers.

Regarding Freshman scoring, Jr. played well but Sabol looked like a deer in headlights out there. Appears to be a hell of a shooter though. Just lacks confidence and is a step slow. ***