Early Basketball Rankings

[Dual-Threat Rigby 8,762]

That post is 4 paragraphs long and it was still hard to get to everything presented in the post I quoted lol

Like I said, our starting 5 is probably better than theirs if you go position by position, but I think it's also fair to mention that there's some positions that should be weighed differently than others. Again, in the modern game of basketball, the most important position is the PG one. They had a guy who was prob the best at that in the nation as the season ended (either him or Kolek IMO). The 5 position matters alot more to us than it does to them. Even if Cliff is just a defensive guy, he's an acclaimed defensive guy that would be matching up against the greatest strength Auburn has. Broome is also a guy that had a noticeable dip in production once he got to playing guys with a physique advantage (that weren't just slow plodding fat guys). They don't need Cliff to be Broome level offensively, the same way they were doing fine in the NCAA with Pringle just being a high energy, lob threat. 

For me, they have the best guy between either teams because an elite PG is better than a non-Edey level elite center. If you aren't of the Luka Garza, Keegan Murray, Edey level where you're a big that's an entire offensive hub, a PG brings more value (esp one with the ability to steady a ship in tight moments like Sears did). There's at least 2 losses that Bama would've had in the NCAAT if they had a guy even marginally worse as a floor general than him, and Broome, as with most centers on the college level, can't do that. Past that, the guy that I would think that'd be predicted to be the 3rd best player between either team would be Grant. Their offense was basically unstoppable in the tourney when he got going offensively, and that was with teams getting to sag off. The reason why you'd put him this high is because all he really needs to do is be what he showed at the end of the year more often. Not even thinking about it from a potential perspective where if he becomes a 34% 3 point shooter instead of a 27% guy, he's basically unguardable for 99% of bigs. CBM would be fourth to me bc while he may have been better last year as a whole, the version of Grant we saw at the end would be a better player and from what I saw out of Chad, I just think he's closer to what his absolute best case scenario would be. He was a 42% from 3 guy, 88% from the stripe, was asking to play point forward for a few months, made a ton of ridiculously hard shots, etc. I don't think there's much more room to grow for him (which Auburn should be fine with what they get out of him if he was just who he was as a full time starter). 

[AUSCalum87 194]

8 hours ago, Dual-Threat Rigby said:

Alright so I'll just break this down to different points you're presenting

1. Point: I'm giving an unfair POV about potential for Alabama's HS guys as compared to Auburn's 

- Response:  Here's a piece from the post you quoted: "unless you think Pettiford and Howard are so talented that they essentially can make up for Bama doubling up on quality backups". We have two HS guys. They have 4, not incl Aden. They have the highest rated HS recruit out of the 4 and all 4 are higher than Howard (per On3). So not only do they have the numbers game, you would think they'd produce more contributors right away with their guys being better (than at least Howard). The earlier post of mine is saying that unless you think Howard and Pettiford can be at least as impactful as two of their incoming guys combined, there's no real way that Auburn's HS guys can be better. Numbers wise, it's virtually impossible as we'd need both of our guys to hit and they'd need at least 2 of their guys to not. 

2. Proven production with the bench 

- Response: We don't have a bench yet. Like the buck could honestly stop there if we were being honest. But Addarin Scott, Chris Moore and Dylan Cardwell is a not very good bench. Your proven production is a Juco center, Chris Moore who couldn't get minutes over Lior Berman, and Dylan who's effectively been the same player 3 straight years. Let's say Wrightsell remains on the bench for whatever reason (him and Rylan switched spots with each other iirc, so he'd logically start but just doing a mental exercise here). That guy may be able to get pretty close to approximating our returning bench production. How many non-Auburn fans would take those three over Wrightsell and Aden? Or if it's Youngblood and Aden instead? This Mallette kid they got who we haven't mentioned is also a career 37.5% 3 point shooter and shot 42% from 3 last season. As of this moment, our bench doesn't win the potential or proven production argument 

3. Last season. So I think you and I just look at the way a schedule goes somewhat differently. For you, if they lose a game they lost a game. The context of the loss doesn't seem to aid a team's projection (from what I can tell, I could be wrong). For me, losing to Clemson in a competitive game, losing to Purdue in Canada in a competitive game, losing to Creighton on the road by 3, that is a positive to me. You haven't asked it, but I would say that the Baylor loss did more for Auburn than beating down the rest of their pretty middling (at best) OOC in my eyes. I can't give them a pass for intending on scheduling hard teams but the hard teams ended up being bad. Auburn was metrically about equal while playing 4-5 less hard games, which probably would've been losses for us with how we played on the road and in neutral-sites against elite teams. That stuff just matters to me when doing projections. I honestly don't care much about the way the SEC went, just because that's the most comfortable a team is going to be. You're going to have opponents that have tape on you and know your tendencies, but the same works in the reverse. There are conferences that looked god awful in the regular season that excelled in single-elim moments, and that just says more to me about the quality of their in-game coaching and how quickly they can adjust. I think we're also at a point where some teams and even conferences are gaming the NET by beating the hell out of bad teams, so when they go up and play each other, it looks like you're 8-12 deep with metrically incredible teams. Wins mean more and losses mean less in that structure. 

In closing, I'd like to also mention that while we are comparing Auburn to Alabama, my original intention was to look at why Alabama would be considered a #1 for a neutral voter/fan, not necessarily why they'd be better than Auburn. That's one reason why us winning the season series against them last year hasn't really factored into any talking point of mine. It didn't mean much when they finished as a better team than us overall (which is the opinion I've seen from neutral rankings/voters) 

First, can I say I am loving this discussion and I am going I am not coming across as argumentative towards you? If I do, I apologize. 

Ok, in saying that, this is where I think people do not do a deep dive into how both coaches’ systems work and taking each player at face value. This is what I mean.
Let’s first go to your opinion about the high school recruits comparison. Yes, I agree, on the surface they have 4 recruits who highly rated and rated a little above then Jakhi. After watching a lot of basketball and playing it myself along with understanding the nuances of high school recruiting rankings, unless you are in the top 10, for me anyways, there’s very little difference to me between the 15th ranked best player and the 40th ranked best player. It becomes really subjective in rankings after the top 10. I mean, look at Okoro. He was rated between 50-75 but became a lottery pick. That’s what I mean, there’s really negligible difference in these high school players unless they are like a Jabari Smith, Brandon Miller, Cade Cunningham, etc. Those players were sure fire lottery picks and it was obvious they were going to the NBA no matter where they played. However, as I told you earlier, there are 0 UAT players in the mock drafts for next year that I have seen. Auburn has had 2, with shockingly Pettiford being projected as a first rounder and Broome a second rounder. So getting back to the high school comparisons, all 5 stars are not the same. And this goes into the bench production between the two teams and how the coaches are different.

Their coach for most of his career has only played between 7-8 players, especially down the stretch of the season where he keeps it to 7. I’m not seeing where these highly rated recruits are going to be able to compete at a consistently high level when you are only getting 5-10 minutes, if that, a game. You know that it takes time to gel on the court and it’s a rhythm game. So yes, they have the 4 freshmen plus Aden coming off the bench but in reality only 2, maybe 3 of those guys will get more than double digit minutes. Now if their coach had a system like Auburn where the subs play at least 15 minutes a game, then I would say you have valid point, but that’s not his style. I mean, they had JD Davidson coming off the bench and he was a sure fire NBA pick and for the most part he had little impact in the game because of the lack of playing time. And that’s my point with their roster. Not all 5 of their backups are going to play double digit minutes, in reality maybe 2 will. 

And that brings me to Auburn. Yes, our bench needs to be shored up and hopefully we can get these last players to commit to make it a formidable bench. But even then, Pettiford and Howard have a higher probability in making an impact on the game and having significant minutes than UAT’s bench because of Bruce’s system. That’s my point. I know that their bench is more talented, but it’s the systems of the coaches that allow our bench to have more impact on the game than their coach. All of this in saying that I believe Cardwell would still be able to hold his own against a true freshman. I believe Pettiford and their freshmen guards are a wash. It depends on who we get as backup guard, but CMO will be able to handle a freshman as well. And if we get Achor Achor I have confidence that Chaney would be able to handle another freshman. Experience matters in college basketball more than most people think. Auburn will be probably the most experienced team in the SEC with only two freshmen and the rest seniors.

 

[mustache eagle 2,416]

Man … you guys are gonna get carpal tunnel syndrome …

[AUSCalum87 194]

So I had to do the same thing as you, and start a new post. But lastly, about the schedule part. Again, not arguing about how UAT had the tougher schedule, that’s a fact. What I am saying is that their schedule gave them no advantage during the regular season. They did the exact same thing Auburn did, and you continue to disregard that Auburn was only had two double digit losses the whole season while UAT had like 5-6. So yes, I believe losses need to have context. That context says to me that UAT was inconsistent the whole year and only did well in the tournament due to the fact that they didn’t have to play a formidable foe until UCONN. Anybody who watched basketball knew UNC was overrated, had been all year. And that’s another thing, you are not acknowledging that UAT had one of the easiest paths ever to the final 4, another fact. And that’s why it’s frustrating for me to discuss about what constitutes success in basketball. It was only successful for UAT because of their Final 4 run that’s it. Like I said before, if they flamed out like Auburn did in the first round it was a pretty mediocre year for them given the talent they had. I mean, in 2014 I believe Syracuse was a mediocre team that went to the Final 4. Would you consider them a great team and a success? No. They just got hot for 4 games, it doesn’t just magically erase all of the other games they played during the year. So yea, I believe UAT is getting way to much credit for their success in the tournament and people are overvaluing their roster due to that success.

[AUSCalum87 194]

10 hours ago, Dual-Threat Rigby said:

That post is 4 paragraphs long and it was still hard to get to everything presented in the post I quoted lol

Like I said, our starting 5 is probably better than theirs if you go position by position, but I think it's also fair to mention that there's some positions that should be weighed differently than others. Again, in the modern game of basketball, the most important position is the PG one. They had a guy who was prob the best at that in the nation as the season ended (either him or Kolek IMO). The 5 position matters alot more to us than it does to them. Even if Cliff is just a defensive guy, he's an acclaimed defensive guy that would be matching up against the greatest strength Auburn has. Broome is also a guy that had a noticeable dip in production once he got to playing guys with a physique advantage (that weren't just slow plodding fat guys). They don't need Cliff to be Broome level offensively, the same way they were doing fine in the NCAA with Pringle just being a high energy, lob threat. 

For me, they have the best guy between either teams because an elite PG is better than a non-Edey level elite center. If you aren't of the Luka Garza, Keegan Murray, Edey level where you're a big that's an entire offensive hub, a PG brings more value (esp one with the ability to steady a ship in tight moments like Sears did). There's at least 2 losses that Bama would've had in the NCAAT if they had a guy even marginally worse as a floor general than him, and Broome, as with most centers on the college level, can't do that. Past that, the guy that I would think that'd be predicted to be the 3rd best player between either team would be Grant. Their offense was basically unstoppable in the tourney when he got going offensively, and that was with teams getting to sag off. The reason why you'd put him this high is because all he really needs to do is be what he showed at the end of the year more often. Not even thinking about it from a potential perspective where if he becomes a 34% 3 point shooter instead of a 27% guy, he's basically unguardable for 99% of bigs. CBM would be fourth to me bc while he may have been better last year as a whole, the version of Grant we saw at the end would be a better player and from what I saw out of Chad, I just think he's closer to what his absolute best case scenario would be. He was a 42% from 3 guy, 88% from the stripe, was asking to play point forward for a few months, made a ton of ridiculously hard shots, etc. I don't think there's much more room to grow for him (which Auburn should be fine with what they get out of him if he was just who he was as a full time starter). 

I agree that Mark Sears would be number one because he plays the most important position and yes, without him, they would be really mediocre. However, after him, of the starting 5, I would take Denver, Broome and CBM off of production from last year. Again, I think you are looking too much at hypotheticals instead of known facts right now and those players have produced more than UAT’s other players. And I ask you this: why is it that UAT players can make a big jump next year and play better than they did last year and their high schoolers will live up to their potential but Auburn’s can’t? That’s another thing that rubs me the wrong way. You are assuming UAT players will play lights out and gel automatically and Auburn players will be the same as they were last year even though we have more core players coming back from a team that won the SEC tournament and beat that UAT team by 20. I mean, is it possible that Denver, CBM, Broome and Chaney play even better than last year and that Pegues plays at least close to what he did at Furman and Pettiford lives up to his hype? Or is that just reserved for UAT players? That’s what my issue is. Again; not saying they don’t have more talented players. I’m saying that they are replacing a lot of production from their team and you and others and the media are automatically assuming the players coming in will get and they will be unstoppable. Also, I think your perception is skewed because of their final 4 run. If they made it to the Sweet 16, I can guarantee you most media wouldn’t even have them in the top 10, but because they won 2 more games it’s time to tout UAT.

[Dual-Threat Rigby 8,762]

5 hours ago, AUSCalum87 said:

I agree that Mark Sears would be number one because he plays the most important position and yes, without him, they would be really mediocre. However, after him, of the starting 5, I would take Denver, Broome and CBM off of production from last year. Again, I think you are looking too much at hypotheticals instead of known facts right now and those players have produced more than UAT’s other players. And I ask you this: why is it that UAT players can make a big jump next year and play better than they did last year and their high schoolers will live up to their potential but Auburn’s can’t? That’s another thing that rubs me the wrong way. You are assuming UAT players will play lights out and gel automatically and Auburn players will be the same as they were last year even though we have more core players coming back from a team that won the SEC tournament and beat that UAT team by 20. I mean, is it possible that Denver, CBM, Broome and Chaney play even better than last year and that Pegues plays at least close to what he did at Furman and Pettiford lives up to his hype? Or is that just reserved for UAT players? That’s what my issue is. Again; not saying they don’t have more talented players. I’m saying that they are replacing a lot of production from their team and you and others and the media are automatically assuming the players coming in will get and they will be unstoppable. Also, I think your perception is skewed because of their final 4 run. If they made it to the Sweet 16, I can guarantee you most media wouldn’t even have them in the top 10, but because they won 2 more games it’s time to tout UAT.

Well I explain the jump part with the Chad vs Grant example in the previous post. You got one guy who played much, much higher than expectations and in just looking at the stats, the type of shots he generated, there's not much space for him to take a big jump. For him to take a big jump from there, he'd effectively be the best wing player offensively in the league lol. Grant didn't play up to the potential they expected and certainly not what he showed to close the season out for the majority of the season. That was the frustrations Bama had with him. Simply put, CBM played closer to what a reasonable ceiling would be for him, very often. Grant didn't. But what he did show during the closing stretch of the season, that would be the best player between either guy. 

I also don't know what jump those other guys you listed are supposed to take. Broome took the jump this past year. He shot like 35% from 3, was an All American, metrically graded out as a NPOY contender, etc. No offense, but I don't think you're considering floor vs ceiling here. Auburn ended up with a lot of high floor guys by the end of the season. Dudes who were primarily safe in their role and usually pretty consistent. They failed because they had a gaping hole in the point guard spot. But realistically, many of their guys shouldn't get much better. Again you didn't ask the question which I would if I were debating myself, but Mark Sears - I don't have him getting much better if at all. Because he played up to his ceiling. 

Denver would have to show me something more to believe in. The dude sucks at finishing at the rim and it pisses me off lol. I don't know how a 3rd year player that averaged 20 points is just bad at semi-uncontested layups, but he is. What more can Denver be if he can't lay the ball up? He gave you a great 3 ball, great defense, a good feel for getting to his spots and that's a great complementary player. That type of guy rarely becomes more than a complementary player in his 4th year of CBB. What big jump do you see him having? If we go down the roster of returnees, who's taking the leap? Is 45 year old Dylan Cardwell doing that, or C-Mo, or Addarin? The value of Auburn's core is that they have a high floor and a bunch of guys that have already largely achieved their potential; as you mentioned that's a pro, but you can't acknowledge it and then also get rubbed the wrong way when I suggest Bama, who you've also acknowledged has a ton of potential, would have more room to make a leap. 

I also don't expect they'll gel automatically, but when you have the offensive pedigree Oats does, plus you have two of your guards returning (Sears + Wrightsell) and your possible breakout player (Grant), they already have a solid foundation to build off of. You're making it seem like they are building from zero. Not to mention, a large part of the offense revolved around Sears and his gravity. That also greatly reduces the adjustments needed. 

[Dual-Threat Rigby 8,762]

7 hours ago, AUSCalum87 said:

First, can I say I am loving this discussion and I am going I am not coming across as argumentative towards you? If I do, I apologize. 

Ok, in saying that, this is where I think people do not do a deep dive into how both coaches’ systems work and taking each player at face value. This is what I mean.
Let’s first go to your opinion about the high school recruits comparison. Yes, I agree, on the surface they have 4 recruits who highly rated and rated a little above then Jakhi. After watching a lot of basketball and playing it myself along with understanding the nuances of high school recruiting rankings, unless you are in the top 10, for me anyways, there’s very little difference to me between the 15th ranked best player and the 40th ranked best player. It becomes really subjective in rankings after the top 10. I mean, look at Okoro. He was rated between 50-75 but became a lottery pick. That’s what I mean, there’s really negligible difference in these high school players unless they are like a Jabari Smith, Brandon Miller, Cade Cunningham, etc. Those players were sure fire lottery picks and it was obvious they were going to the NBA no matter where they played. However, as I told you earlier, there are 0 UAT players in the mock drafts for next year that I have seen. Auburn has had 2, with shockingly Pettiford being projected as a first rounder and Broome a second rounder. So getting back to the high school comparisons, all 5 stars are not the same. And this goes into the bench production between the two teams and how the coaches are different.

Their coach for most of his career has only played between 7-8 players, especially down the stretch of the season where he keeps it to 7. I’m not seeing where these highly rated recruits are going to be able to compete at a consistently high level when you are only getting 5-10 minutes, if that, a game. You know that it takes time to gel on the court and it’s a rhythm game. So yes, they have the 4 freshmen plus Aden coming off the bench but in reality only 2, maybe 3 of those guys will get more than double digit minutes. Now if their coach had a system like Auburn where the subs play at least 15 minutes a game, then I would say you have valid point, but that’s not his style. I mean, they had JD Davidson coming off the bench and he was a sure fire NBA pick and for the most part he had little impact in the game because of the lack of playing time. And that’s my point with their roster. Not all 5 of their backups are going to play double digit minutes, in reality maybe 2 will. 

And that brings me to Auburn. Yes, our bench needs to be shored up and hopefully we can get these last players to commit to make it a formidable bench. But even then, Pettiford and Howard have a higher probability in making an impact on the game and having significant minutes than UAT’s bench because of Bruce’s system. That’s my point. I know that their bench is more talented, but it’s the systems of the coaches that allow our bench to have more impact on the game than their coach. All of this in saying that I believe Cardwell would still be able to hold his own against a true freshman. I believe Pettiford and their freshmen guards are a wash. It depends on who we get as backup guard, but CMO will be able to handle a freshman as well. And if we get Achor Achor I have confidence that Chaney would be able to handle another freshman. Experience matters in college basketball more than most people think. Auburn will be probably the most experienced team in the SEC with only two freshmen and the rest seniors.

 

I can understand and appreciate the point about systems mattering here. But it also matters to have optionality and styles. Bama may not end up going 12 deep as they could (not many teams would). But they can go 7-9 and still have other options. They're less susceptible to deal with injury issues and in theory, they won't have to rely on guys who aren't participating because of optionality. 

I also think the same could be flipped; Pearl has shown to want to play 10 guys, but he may not get to 10 capable players. What then? We saw in the Samford game when his rotations were thrown off, they never really had a great feel for making up the Chad minutes. They couldn't run that full court defense nearly as well. Guys looked multiple steps slower in the back half than they have for most of the season. I also think to something like 2019 where they didn't have quality guard depth, and that was a very rough SEC grind at times, with them still trying to throw Tyrell Jones and even Cook (a former walk on) to man the point. Pearl was GOING to try to manifest another PG body that just wasn't there. If Pettiford starts out slow or never really lives up to his potential, then what? That's what optionality does for you. If I factor in systems, Pearl: A. needs to have great guards to go anywhere in March and B. needs a really quality backup guard to go anywhere in March. He has one backup guard option and it's a true freshman. That guy HAS to be ready to go day 1 or Auburn has to land a guy of that caliber before the season starts. Would that not be a point docked? 

I also would generally trust Oats to get more out of guards and wings than I would from Pearl, especially freshmen. More so because Auburn's lack of success there than anything. I don't think you mentioned that - Aden was disappointing, Tre was up and down his first year, and Tyrell Jones stunk overall (no offense to him). He missed on the Westry evaluation. That's one HS PG recruit (Cooper, for about 10 games) that played on a truly rotation level in the last 5 years. I'm fine if people want to trust that Pettiford is the one that breaks the trend, but I'd like to actually see it first. 

[arktiger1975 549]

6 hours ago, AUSCalum87 said:

So I had to do the same thing as you, and start a new post. But lastly, about the schedule part. Again, not arguing about how UAT had the tougher schedule, that’s a fact. What I am saying is that their schedule gave them no advantage during the regular season. They did the exact same thing Auburn did, and you continue to disregard that Auburn was only had two double digit losses the whole season while UAT had like 5-6. So yes, I believe losses need to have context. That context says to me that UAT was inconsistent the whole year and only did well in the tournament due to the fact that they didn’t have to play a formidable foe until UCONN. Anybody who watched basketball knew UNC was overrated, had been all year. And that’s another thing, you are not acknowledging that UAT had one of the easiest paths ever to the final 4, another fact. And that’s why it’s frustrating for me to discuss about what constitutes success in basketball. It was only successful for UAT because of their Final 4 run that’s it. Like I said before, if they flamed out like Auburn did in the first round it was a pretty mediocre year for them given the talent they had. I mean, in 2014 I believe Syracuse was a mediocre team that went to the Final 4. Would you consider them a great team and a success? No. They just got hot for 4 games, it doesn’t just magically erase all of the other games they played during the year. So yea, I believe UAT is getting way to much credit for their success in the tournament and people are overvaluing their roster due to that success.

Exactly! The path they went through to make the Final Four was basically a joke. Three of the teams (Kansas, UNC, and Kentucky) we beat in our run in 2019 were significantly better than the overrated UNC team they beat. The other 3 teams they beat to make it- Charleston, Grand Canyon, and a Clemson team that lost, what, 13 games? 

[AUSCalum87 194]

5 hours ago, Dual-Threat Rigby said:

I can understand and appreciate the point about systems mattering here. But it also matters to have optionality and styles. Bama may not end up going 12 deep as they could (not many teams would). But they can go 7-9 and still have other options. They're less susceptible to deal with injury issues and in theory, they won't have to rely on guys who aren't participating because of optionality. 

I also think the same could be flipped; Pearl has shown to want to play 10 guys, but he may not get to 10 capable players. What then? We saw in the Samford game when his rotations were thrown off, they never really had a great feel for making up the Chad minutes. They couldn't run that full court defense nearly as well. Guys looked multiple steps slower in the back half than they have for most of the season. I also think to something like 2019 where they didn't have quality guard depth, and that was a very rough SEC grind at times, with them still trying to throw Tyrell Jones and even Cook (a former walk on) to man the point. Pearl was GOING to try to manifest another PG body that just wasn't there. If Pettiford starts out slow or never really lives up to his potential, then what? That's what optionality does for you. If I factor in systems, Pearl: A. needs to have great guards to go anywhere in March and B. needs a really quality backup guard to go anywhere in March. He has one backup guard option and it's a true freshman. That guy HAS to be ready to go day 1 or Auburn has to land a guy of that caliber before the season starts. Would that not be a point docked? 

I also would generally trust Oats to get more out of guards and wings than I would from Pearl, especially freshmen. More so because Auburn's lack of success there than anything. I don't think you mentioned that - Aden was disappointing, Tre was up and down his first year, and Tyrell Jones stunk overall (no offense to him). He missed on the Westry evaluation. That's one HS PG recruit (Cooper, for about 10 games) that played on a truly rotation level in the last 5 years. I'm fine if people want to trust that Pettiford is the one that breaks the trend, but I'd like to actually see it first. 

I have really enjoyed the discussion and getting long winded myself and probably making others bored , 🤣. Anyways, I’ll say one last thing though about what you wrote. And I apologize if in my previous posts I didn’t cover all of your points, kind of difficult for me to type that much on a phone, 🤣. I agree that their coach runs an NBA guard oriented friendly system, which is why they get very many talented guards. However, we’re gong to just have to agree to disagree on Nelson. Just because he played well in 3 of their 4 games doesn’t constitute him being able to take the next step. Now remember, this is also my opinion. When I watch him play, he plays soft and really not much athleticism to me. I mean, I love Broome but he’s not the toughest big guy I’ve seen and Broome outright just bullied Nelson in both games. I just don’t see the talent like you do. As for Denver, if you go look back at the stats of our last 10 games I believe, he scored in double digits in all of those games and was getting close to around 45% from 3. Those stats you used on him were from the beginning of the year, where I agree he struggled, but to me he showed a lot of promise in the last two months. 

Again, it seems like we will just disagree on our perception of both teams. Outside of Chaney, and if Sears comes back, I don’t think they have any other advantages in their starting 5. As for backups, I still don’t think their coach will do what Bruce does because that’s not his style and his bench is literally a bunch of talented guys who have proven nothing at the college level, so logically yes, I would go with guys who have played in the SEC for about 3-4 years over someone who hasn’t ever played college basketball. I mean, it’s you see so many upsets from senior laden teams who beat the very talented but inexperienced teams. Experience matters in basketball. UK was a prime example at what happens when you trot out talented but inexperienced players.

I will end it at this. Both UAT and Auburn are 41-18 in the SEC in the last 3 years. Which team has had more talent in that time frame? UAT. Their coach hasn’t done anything miraculous there. His teams just have outperformed ours in the NCAA. And as you said, it’s been because of our guard play, which has been underwhelming since Sharife Cooper left. However, Pegues is also the most experienced and talented point guard we have had since Cooper and Harper were here, which makes me think if he can just perform around what he did at Furman here, he’ll be able to end our struggles in the tournament. Also, I’m really interested in seeing how this roster plays out, because that also will determine what floor and ceiling Auburn will have.