alabamagrizzly
Well-known member
In this thread I’m just wanting to compare each teams incoming experience from 2019/20 with how this season compared to that experience, obviously with a nod towards how young our team is and how much their experience, or lack there of, compared to other teams in the league along with their achieved success.
*I always apologize at the beginning of these posts if any of the info is confusing to follow. I sometimes add a bit too much info and abbreviate a lot and hope I come across as easy to understand as possible. I hope for the best. Anyway...
First I posted the regular season/tournament finishes for reference.
Regular season finish
*(*)post season finish
1)(3rd)SUU 12-2 .857(19-3 .864)
2)(1st)EWU 12-3 .800(13-7 .650)
3)(5th)WSU 12-3 .800(17-5 .773)
4)(6th)ISU 8-6 .571(13-10 .565)
5)(2nd)MSU 8-6 .571(11-9 .550)
6)(4th)UM 7-9 .438(13-12 .520)
7)(7th)UNC 6-8 .429(10-10 .500)
8)(9th)PSU 6-8 .429(9-12 .429)
9)(10th)SacS 5-9 .357(8-11 .421)
10)(8th)NAU 4-10 .286(5-15 .250)
11)(11th)IU 1-17 .056(1-20 .048)
This section compares each teams returning experience from games played by returning players for their respective team.
They are in order of most experienced team from returning players in the system(games started/games played)
(*)place listed is regular season standings finish.
(2nd)EWU 203/455
(7th)UNC 210/341
(1st)SUU 174/373
(10th)NAU 116/258
(5th)MSU 116/223
(9th)SacS 111/254
(11th)IU 107/254
(3rd)WSU 101/182
(6th)UM 46/180
(4th)ISU 72/119
(8th)PSU 15/76
EWU and SUU definitely used their team experience and cohesiveness to finish high in the standings where teams like NAU and UNC could not do the same. Teams like WSU and ISU were able to make the most of their limited experience and earn themselves bye’s in the con tournament but then ISU lost to the more experienced MSU and WSU fell to the slightly less experienced UM.
Here I compare each teams overall returning experience including all games played by all transfers.
They are listed in order of most experienced team from returning players including transfers(games started/games played)
(*)place listed is regular season standings finish.
(2nd*)number of transfers on team, including transfers from past years.
(9th)SacS(11) 450/773
(1st)SUU(8) 352/736
(8th)PSU(10) 343/679
(5th)MSU(7) 347/646
(3rd)WSU(10) 286/703
(7th)UNC(4) 351/602
(4th)ISU(9) 334/576
(11th)IU(7) 296/573
(2nd)EWU(0) 203/455
(6th)UM(4) 195/457
(10th)NAU(3) 118/318
Notice EWU drops from the most experienced team with in-system returning players to the 9th most experienced overall due to EWU not having a single transfer on their roster including a lot of home grown talent with five kids from Wash and four more kids from Id, Ore, and BC.
Other teams like SUU, MSU, ISU, and WSU relied pretty heavily this year on transfers for success while other teams like Sac, PSU, and IU did not get the same success from the heavy dose of transfers they received.
UNC and NAU, like UM and EWU tried to rely more on recruited talent and like those two, UNC did ok but NAU did not, but they had other issues we’ll discuss later.
Here’s a team by team breakdown of how each team was represented on the court this year by class. Teams are listed in alphabetical order.
EWU 120gs 4800m
Sr 19(16%) 899(19%)
Jr 48(40%) 1379(29%)
So 53(44%) 2280(48%)
Fr 0(0%) 242(5%)
Eastern was a very well balanced team with 48% of min going to four upperclassmen along with 48% going to their sophomores. With how this team recruits and builds up from inside, they are structured to be good for a long time.
IU 110gs 4430m
Sr 67(61%) 2114(48%)
Jr 11(10%) 545(12%)
So 21(19%) 674(15%)
Fr 11(10%) 1097(25%)
60% of min coming from upperclassmen. 24% from three freshman but over one third of those are transferring out in one player, along with most of their upperclassmen.
ISU 120gs 4700m
Sr 29(24%) 1308(28%)
Jr 48(40%) 1845(39%)
So 43(36%) 1125(24%)
Fr 0(0%) 422(9%)
ISU was another seasoned team with 67% of their min going to upperclassmen. They also had 24% coming from two sophomores in this transfer heavy team.
UM 140gs 5675
Sr 19(14%) 468(8%)
Jr 13(9%) 1042(18%)
So 48(34%) 2091(37%)
Fr 60(43%) 2074(37%)
By far the youngest group in the league with only 23% of starts and 26% of min coming from upperclassmen and the Fr and So splitting the other 74% of min. Fr led the team and all teams Fr with getting 43% of the starts. With that much returning experience for the next two years, UM is easily one piece away from taking command of the con.
MSU 115gs 4675m
Sr 68(59%) 2164(46%)
Jr 23(20%) 900(19%)
So 6(5%) 943(20%)
Fr 18(16%) 668(14%)
MSU was a very seasoned team with 59% of starts and 46% of min coming from the Sr class with the Jr’s bringing the upperclassmen total to 65%. It’ll be interesting to see how many Sr’s return to a team that came up short in the con championship game.
NAU 110gs 4425m
Sr none
Jr 63(57%) 2189(49%)
So 20(18%) 1162(26%)
Fr 27(25%) 1074(24%)
Due to no seniors on the team, NAU was forced to play 50% of their min with So and Fr and it showed in the season standings. Jr’s played in 49% of min but one fourth of that is transferring out in one player, hurting next years Sr leadership. Hopefully the growing pains of 43% of the starts coming from Fr and So will pay off.
UNC 110gs 4425m
Sr 1(1%) 203(5%)
Jr 99(90%) 3209(73%)
So 5(5%) 525(12%)
Fr 5(5%) 488(11%)
With a whopping 90% of starts and 73% of min coming from the Jr’s, NC will be returning a wealth of experience, although 700 of those 3400 upperclassmen min will be transferring out.
PSU 110gs 4425m
Sr 62(56%) 1999(45%)
Jr 19(17%) 1045(23%)
So 10(9%) 670(15%)
Fr 19(17%) 711(16%)
PSU was a very balanced team as far as spreading out their min with Sr’s leading at 45% and all upperclassmen totaling 68%. The sophs and frosh accounted for 31% though mostly spread out between four players(two So and two Fr) growing their experience.
SacS 100gs 4083m
Sr 77(77%) 2512(62%)
Jr 17(17%) 1093(27%)
So 0(0%) 162(4%)
Fr 6(6%) 316(8%)
With 89% of min going to upperclassmen, this teams finish in the standings, didn’t match their maturity level. This could be why one of their players who started in 94% of the games he played in(80% of team games) is transferring out.
SUU 120gs 4825m
Sr 67(56%) 1850(38%)
Jr 52(43%) 2731(57%)
So 0(0%) 93(2%)
Fr 1(1%) 151(3%)
With a whopping 95% of min going to upperclassmen, this team definitely showed a higher maturity level while winning the con regular season title. With the So and Fr only getting 5%, it’ll be interesting to see if any of the Sr(37% min) return for unfinished business after winning the reg season title but losing in the con tourney semis.
WSU 115gs 4668m
Sr 69(60%) 2274(49%)
Jr 21(18%) 721(15%)
So 23(20%) 1183(25%)
Fr 2(2%) 490(10%)
WSU had 64% of their min go to upperclassmen while the majority of their 25% of sophomore min came from one player. Their con FrotY accounted for 10% of their min while only starting two games.
Normally here I’d want to compare how much returning experience each team will have but with the bonus senior season awarded by the NCAA and the massive influx to the transfer portal, it’ll be too hard to estimate who’s losing what. Mostly I just wanted to show a far too overly detailed look at what has already been discussed here ad nauseam about how young this team is and how bright the future is. Enjoy and Go Griz!
*I always apologize at the beginning of these posts if any of the info is confusing to follow. I sometimes add a bit too much info and abbreviate a lot and hope I come across as easy to understand as possible. I hope for the best. Anyway...
First I posted the regular season/tournament finishes for reference.
Regular season finish
*(*)post season finish
1)(3rd)SUU 12-2 .857(19-3 .864)
2)(1st)EWU 12-3 .800(13-7 .650)
3)(5th)WSU 12-3 .800(17-5 .773)
4)(6th)ISU 8-6 .571(13-10 .565)
5)(2nd)MSU 8-6 .571(11-9 .550)
6)(4th)UM 7-9 .438(13-12 .520)
7)(7th)UNC 6-8 .429(10-10 .500)
8)(9th)PSU 6-8 .429(9-12 .429)
9)(10th)SacS 5-9 .357(8-11 .421)
10)(8th)NAU 4-10 .286(5-15 .250)
11)(11th)IU 1-17 .056(1-20 .048)
This section compares each teams returning experience from games played by returning players for their respective team.
They are in order of most experienced team from returning players in the system(games started/games played)
(*)place listed is regular season standings finish.
(2nd)EWU 203/455
(7th)UNC 210/341
(1st)SUU 174/373
(10th)NAU 116/258
(5th)MSU 116/223
(9th)SacS 111/254
(11th)IU 107/254
(3rd)WSU 101/182
(6th)UM 46/180
(4th)ISU 72/119
(8th)PSU 15/76
EWU and SUU definitely used their team experience and cohesiveness to finish high in the standings where teams like NAU and UNC could not do the same. Teams like WSU and ISU were able to make the most of their limited experience and earn themselves bye’s in the con tournament but then ISU lost to the more experienced MSU and WSU fell to the slightly less experienced UM.
Here I compare each teams overall returning experience including all games played by all transfers.
They are listed in order of most experienced team from returning players including transfers(games started/games played)
(*)place listed is regular season standings finish.
(2nd*)number of transfers on team, including transfers from past years.
(9th)SacS(11) 450/773
(1st)SUU(8) 352/736
(8th)PSU(10) 343/679
(5th)MSU(7) 347/646
(3rd)WSU(10) 286/703
(7th)UNC(4) 351/602
(4th)ISU(9) 334/576
(11th)IU(7) 296/573
(2nd)EWU(0) 203/455
(6th)UM(4) 195/457
(10th)NAU(3) 118/318
Notice EWU drops from the most experienced team with in-system returning players to the 9th most experienced overall due to EWU not having a single transfer on their roster including a lot of home grown talent with five kids from Wash and four more kids from Id, Ore, and BC.
Other teams like SUU, MSU, ISU, and WSU relied pretty heavily this year on transfers for success while other teams like Sac, PSU, and IU did not get the same success from the heavy dose of transfers they received.
UNC and NAU, like UM and EWU tried to rely more on recruited talent and like those two, UNC did ok but NAU did not, but they had other issues we’ll discuss later.
Here’s a team by team breakdown of how each team was represented on the court this year by class. Teams are listed in alphabetical order.
EWU 120gs 4800m
Sr 19(16%) 899(19%)
Jr 48(40%) 1379(29%)
So 53(44%) 2280(48%)
Fr 0(0%) 242(5%)
Eastern was a very well balanced team with 48% of min going to four upperclassmen along with 48% going to their sophomores. With how this team recruits and builds up from inside, they are structured to be good for a long time.
IU 110gs 4430m
Sr 67(61%) 2114(48%)
Jr 11(10%) 545(12%)
So 21(19%) 674(15%)
Fr 11(10%) 1097(25%)
60% of min coming from upperclassmen. 24% from three freshman but over one third of those are transferring out in one player, along with most of their upperclassmen.
ISU 120gs 4700m
Sr 29(24%) 1308(28%)
Jr 48(40%) 1845(39%)
So 43(36%) 1125(24%)
Fr 0(0%) 422(9%)
ISU was another seasoned team with 67% of their min going to upperclassmen. They also had 24% coming from two sophomores in this transfer heavy team.
UM 140gs 5675
Sr 19(14%) 468(8%)
Jr 13(9%) 1042(18%)
So 48(34%) 2091(37%)
Fr 60(43%) 2074(37%)
By far the youngest group in the league with only 23% of starts and 26% of min coming from upperclassmen and the Fr and So splitting the other 74% of min. Fr led the team and all teams Fr with getting 43% of the starts. With that much returning experience for the next two years, UM is easily one piece away from taking command of the con.
MSU 115gs 4675m
Sr 68(59%) 2164(46%)
Jr 23(20%) 900(19%)
So 6(5%) 943(20%)
Fr 18(16%) 668(14%)
MSU was a very seasoned team with 59% of starts and 46% of min coming from the Sr class with the Jr’s bringing the upperclassmen total to 65%. It’ll be interesting to see how many Sr’s return to a team that came up short in the con championship game.
NAU 110gs 4425m
Sr none
Jr 63(57%) 2189(49%)
So 20(18%) 1162(26%)
Fr 27(25%) 1074(24%)
Due to no seniors on the team, NAU was forced to play 50% of their min with So and Fr and it showed in the season standings. Jr’s played in 49% of min but one fourth of that is transferring out in one player, hurting next years Sr leadership. Hopefully the growing pains of 43% of the starts coming from Fr and So will pay off.
UNC 110gs 4425m
Sr 1(1%) 203(5%)
Jr 99(90%) 3209(73%)
So 5(5%) 525(12%)
Fr 5(5%) 488(11%)
With a whopping 90% of starts and 73% of min coming from the Jr’s, NC will be returning a wealth of experience, although 700 of those 3400 upperclassmen min will be transferring out.
PSU 110gs 4425m
Sr 62(56%) 1999(45%)
Jr 19(17%) 1045(23%)
So 10(9%) 670(15%)
Fr 19(17%) 711(16%)
PSU was a very balanced team as far as spreading out their min with Sr’s leading at 45% and all upperclassmen totaling 68%. The sophs and frosh accounted for 31% though mostly spread out between four players(two So and two Fr) growing their experience.
SacS 100gs 4083m
Sr 77(77%) 2512(62%)
Jr 17(17%) 1093(27%)
So 0(0%) 162(4%)
Fr 6(6%) 316(8%)
With 89% of min going to upperclassmen, this teams finish in the standings, didn’t match their maturity level. This could be why one of their players who started in 94% of the games he played in(80% of team games) is transferring out.
SUU 120gs 4825m
Sr 67(56%) 1850(38%)
Jr 52(43%) 2731(57%)
So 0(0%) 93(2%)
Fr 1(1%) 151(3%)
With a whopping 95% of min going to upperclassmen, this team definitely showed a higher maturity level while winning the con regular season title. With the So and Fr only getting 5%, it’ll be interesting to see if any of the Sr(37% min) return for unfinished business after winning the reg season title but losing in the con tourney semis.
WSU 115gs 4668m
Sr 69(60%) 2274(49%)
Jr 21(18%) 721(15%)
So 23(20%) 1183(25%)
Fr 2(2%) 490(10%)
WSU had 64% of their min go to upperclassmen while the majority of their 25% of sophomore min came from one player. Their con FrotY accounted for 10% of their min while only starting two games.
Normally here I’d want to compare how much returning experience each team will have but with the bonus senior season awarded by the NCAA and the massive influx to the transfer portal, it’ll be too hard to estimate who’s losing what. Mostly I just wanted to show a far too overly detailed look at what has already been discussed here ad nauseam about how young this team is and how bright the future is. Enjoy and Go Griz!
