Posted by jsajsa on 8/22/2014 1:45:00 PM (view original):
Agree with you guys, emy and gilllispie. 35-0 is a very nice achievement and should be applauded. It's nice to do, but as someone who plays in some ridiculous conferences and rarely uses my best lineup until the NT, it's not something I go into a season especially trying to accomplish.

Could you care to explain I don't understand this, are you purposefully not putting your best line-up for a reason, or are you not finding your best line-up until then?

If you are doing purposefully is this some tactic I should know of?

Thanks

Most may not agree, however it is my belief when ranking several undefeated teams, margin of victory should come into play. Of course a 20 pt win against a 200RPI team isn't the same as a 20 point win against a sub 50 RPI team. You might have to create some type or formula possibly. Some teams play uptempo/FCP and some play slow down/zone, therefore you might come up with a percentage. An 80-40 score would be the same as a 60-30 score. etc. In both instances, the winning team scored 67% of the points.

Team statistics aren't saved for past teams.  No way to know what historical undefeated teams' margins of victory were.

My margin of victory with that 35-0 DePauw team was something like 20-30+ ppg...But that's because in conference that year I won games by an average of 40-50 points per game. Then in non-con and in the post-season it was closer to 5-10 ppg. 

But yeah, that historical data isn't kept. It would be interesting to see though. 

This is a great list though. Thanks Gill, great work. 

Posted by the0nlyis on 8/22/2014 3:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jsajsa on 8/22/2014 1:45:00 PM (view original):
Agree with you guys, emy and gilllispie. 35-0 is a very nice achievement and should be applauded. It's nice to do, but as someone who plays in some ridiculous conferences and rarely uses my best lineup until the NT, it's not something I go into a season especially trying to accomplish.

Could you care to explain I don't understand this, are you purposefully not putting your best line-up for a reason, or are you not finding your best line-up until then?

If you are doing purposefully is this some tactic I should know of?

Thanks

I often during the regular season purposely don't put out by best win-now lineup. It's better long term imo to start players for whom it is strategically important that they grow into their abilities faster. So a freshmen or a few underclassmen are usually starting for my team over better players throughout the season even if it doesn't optimize regular season results. Honestly, if you are recruiting well anyway, it doesn't hurt much. I've only had 3 teams ever, on teams with all my own players, that were ever worse than a #4 seed in the NT. Do it right and it works.

Nice job. I love looking at things like this. I had a couple at Palm Beach Atlantic. It definitely requires a very good team, and some luck, or lack of bad luck.

what a lye

Posted by jsajsa on 8/22/2014 5:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by the0nlyis on 8/22/2014 3:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jsajsa on 8/22/2014 1:45:00 PM (view original):
Agree with you guys, emy and gilllispie. 35-0 is a very nice achievement and should be applauded. It's nice to do, but as someone who plays in some ridiculous conferences and rarely uses my best lineup until the NT, it's not something I go into a season especially trying to accomplish.

Could you care to explain I don't understand this, are you purposefully not putting your best line-up for a reason, or are you not finding your best line-up until then?

If you are doing purposefully is this some tactic I should know of?

Thanks

I often during the regular season purposely don't put out by best win-now lineup. It's better long term imo to start players for whom it is strategically important that they grow into their abilities faster. So a freshmen or a few underclassmen are usually starting for my team over better players throughout the season even if it doesn't optimize regular season results. Honestly, if you are recruiting well anyway, it doesn't hurt much. I've only had 3 teams ever, on teams with all my own players, that were ever worse than a #4 seed in the NT. Do it right and it works.

this is absolutely true and i used to always do it, but have to give a word of caution. having deep runs and winning titles is almost always pretty much a crap shoot, very few teams are good enough to "expect" a championship. im sure jsa has had some killer teams there based on the resume he's got, where the chance of a title was high, and the advantage over peers, substantial - that makes the difference between say the #1 overall seed and the 4th 1 seed, very very small. but if you are a mere mortal and you are looking at the difference between say the 4th 1 seed and the 1st 3 seed (9th overall, 5 spots lower), that can be pretty meaningful. 

generally, i think there is value for coaches who are competitive but not just totally dominant, to use this strategy some - say with a sophmore or junior who could possibly be a key offensive contributor down the stretch if you gave him the start. but in general, you have to largely play to win. only when you are a major favorite can you just totally abandon the regular season.

kind of shocked that I have the #3 and #6 teams on the list. Didn't know they stacked up so well vs. those other undefeated teams. 

great list, billyg!!!

finally made a cbg list - even if it is 7th from the bottom. FWIW my Shaw team that made it was very, very dominant, even if this particular metric doesn't show it... 4 of Shaw's all time leading scorers were on that team. #1 (Johnny Fox) is still the no. 2 alltime D2 scorer in Rupp.