Top 2500 returning college basketball players: Jae Crowder ranks 24th bestWritten by: jpudner@concentricgrasstops.com (bamamarquettefan1)As happens most years, most of the top 100 players in the country were either seniors or left for the NBA draft, and as a result Jae Crowder is the 24th most valuable player going into the 2011-12 season based on a very precise calculation to determine his Value Add (http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2011/05/how-to-determine-precise-offensive.html) to Marquette.
I've posted all 2500+ returning players by team below, but first a few comments.
DJO makes Marquette one of only 14 teams with two top 100 returning players and at least four top 500 players, and our only opponents to match up with us on that count are UConn, Georgetown and Vandy. Here are MUs marks:
table.tableizer-table {border: 1px solid #CCC; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;} .tableizer-table td {padding: 4px; margin: 3px; border: 1px solid #ccc;}
.tableizer-table th {background-color: #104E8B; color: #FFF; font-weight: bold;}
|
Rank
Fname
Lname
Feet
Inches
Team
Value Add BCS
Value Add Low D1
[/tr] | 24 | Jae | Crowder | 6 | 6 | Marquette | 4.11% | |
| 84 | Darius | Johnson-Odom | 6 | 2 | Marquette | 3.01% | |
| 403 | Davante | Gardner | 6 | 8 | Marquette | 1.32% | |
| 431 | Jamil | Wilson | 6 | 7 | 2010 Oregon | 1.23% | |
| 638 | Juan | Anderson | 6 | 6 | Marquette | 0.00% | |
| 691 | Chris | Otule | 6 | 11 | Marquette | 0.69% | |
| 1126 | Junior | Cadougan | 6 | 1 | Marquette | 0.17% | |
| 1533 | Vander | Blue | 6 | 4 | Marquette | 0.00% | 0.76% |
| 1676 | David | Singleton | 6 | 3 | 2010 High Point | 0.00% | 0.40% |
| NR | Todd | Mayo | 6 | 3 | Marquette | 0.00% | NA |
| NR | Jamail | Jones | 6 | 6 | Marquette | 0.00% | NA |
| NR | Derrick | Wilson | 6 | 1 | Marquette | 0.00% | NA |
(Edited paragraph to explain column added to original) Due to some understandable reader confusion, I had to break the “Value Add†column into two columns. The best 1,313 returning players this year played well enough to add offensive value at the highest level of play (BCS conferences). However, there were another 695 returning players who didn't play well enough to add points at the BCS-level, but played well enough to add points playing at a lower D1 school. For example, both Vander Blue (top 10% in steal percentage) and David Singleton (61st in the country in steal percentage in 2010) focused on defense and did not produce enough offense to help a BCS team score, but both played well enough to help a lower D1 team score by 0.76% and 0.40% respectively, and should add BCS scoring next year. I had originally tried to stick the “Value Add Low D1†figure in the same Value Add column but the italics didn’t show up to distinguish it from the “Vallue Add BCS†for higher ranked players.
I calculated the Value Add for the 2500+ who are returning after playing at least 4 minutes a game last year. I also added Rivals 150 freshman and assigned a projected Value Add equal to how the corresponding freshman did last year (e.g. Austin Rivers is the #1 ranked recruit according to Rivals, so we project he will do as well as Jared Sullinger did last year). This estimated ranking for freshman is not nearly as accurate as the Value Add formula for returning players, but it creates a comprehensive list, and gives us a feel that Juan Anderson could step right in and be Marquette's 5th best offensive player.
We are matching up against three of the top four players in the country in Wisconsin's Jordan Taylor (#1), Vandy's John Jenkins (#3) and Pitt's Ashton Gibbs (#4). However, we already shut down the #5 returning player in Xavier's Tu Holloway. We have some unexpected tough match-ups such as UWMs 6-foot-8 Tony Meier as the 42nd most valuable returning player.
Also, I can’t deny some former players and commits are looking awfully good out there. The real shame is that 6-foot-8 Trevor Mbakwe comes back to Minnesota as the 43rd player in the country. I certainly underestimated DJ Newbill as a low 3-star, as he was the 28th best freshman in the country at Southern Mississippi (147th most valuable overall). Tyshawn Taylor (343rd) of Kansas is on pace for the NBA next year, Nick Williams (404th) was Mississippi’s best player on a talented team after transferring from Indiana. Patrick Hazel almost cracked the Top 1000, and both he and Liam McMorrow were shot blocking machines. Only Jeronne Maymon at Tennessee has been a bust, but players averaging fewer than 4 minutes a game can’t be rated.
The one other team I wanted to pull out is Vanderbilt, who is scary loaded. As great as we played against them last year, I am glad they have to come to Milwaukee this year. Three of the top 50 players in the country will be tough.
table.tableizer-table {border: 1px solid #CCC; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;} .tableizer-table td {padding: 4px; margin: 3px; border: 1px solid #ccc;}
.tableizer-table th {background-color: #104E8B; color: #FFF; font-weight: bold;}
|
Rank
Fname
Lname
Feet
Inches
Team
Value Add BCS
Value Add Low D1
[/tr] | 3 | John | Jenkins | 6 | 4 | Vanderbilt | 6.18% | |
| 34 | Brad | Tinsley | 6 | 3 | Vanderbilt | 3.68% | |
| 48 | Festus | Ezeli | 6 | 11 | Vanderbilt | 3.48% | |
| 115 | Jeffery | Taylor | 6 | 7 | Vanderbilt | 2.71% | |
| 390 | Lance | Goulbourne | 6 | 8 | Vanderbilt | 1.36% | |
| 594 | Steve | Tchiengang | 6 | 9 | Vanderbilt | 0.87% | |
| 648 | Dai-Jon | Parker | 6 | 3 | Vanderbilt | 0.00% | |
| 765 | Kedren | Johnson | 6 | 4 | Vanderbilt | 0.00% | |
| 937 | Andre | Walker | 6 | 7 | Vanderbilt | 0.33% | |
| 1173 | Rod | Odom | 6 | 9 | Vanderbilt | 0.13% | |
| 2126 | Kyle | Fuller | 6 | 1 | Vanderbilt | 0.00% | 0.00% |
But with that I will let you pick what you want to browse through by presenting the other 343 teams (besides Vandy and MU above), with the returning players on each team listed by the highest Value Add and what their ranking is of all returning players in the country.
table.tableizer-table {border: 1px solid #CCC; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;} .tableizer-table td {padding: 4px; margin: 3px; border: 1px solid #ccc;}
.tableizer-table th {background-color: #104E8B; color: #FFF; font-weight: bold;}
|
Rank
Fname
Lname
Feet
Inches
Team
Value Add BCS
Value Add Low D1
[/tr] | 111 | Tom | Fow | 6 | 6 | Air Force | 2.78% | |
| 258 | Michael | Lyons | 6 | 6 | Air Force | 1.84% | |
| 703 | Todd | Fletcher | 6 | 2 | Air Force | 0.67% | |
| 788 | Mike | Fitzgerald | 6 | 6 | Air Force | 0.53% | |
| 860 | Zach | Bohannon | 6 | 7 | Air Force | 0.42% | |
| 870 | Taylor | Broekhuis | 6 | 10 | Air Force | 0.40% | |
| 1672 | Taylor | Stewart | 6 | 5 | Air Force | 0.00% | 0.41% |
| 2204 | Shawn | Hempsey | 6 | 2 | Air Force | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 352 | Brett | McClanahan | 6 | 4 | Akron | 1.51% | |
| 865 | Zeke | Marshall | 7 | 0 | Akron | 0.41% | |
| 878 | Nikola | Cvetinovic | 6 | 8 | Akron | 0.39% | |
| 1256 | Quincy | Diggs | 6 | 6 | Akron | 0.05% | |
| 1422 | Alex | Abreu | 5 | 9 | Akron | 0.00% | 1.15% |
| 29 | Tony | Mitchell | 6 | 6 | Alabama | 3.89% | |
| 161 | JaMychal | Green | 6 | 8 | Alabama | 2.39% | |
| 336 | Levi | Randolph | 6 | 5 | Alabama | 0.00% | |
| 386 | Trevor | Releford | 6 | 1 | Alabama | 1.36% | |
| 509 | Rodney | Cooper | 6 | 5 | Alabama | 0.00% | |
| 834 | Nick | Jacobs | 6 | 8 | Alabama | 0.00% | |
| 1005 | Andrew | Steele | 6 | 4 | Alabama | 0.27% | |
| 2130 | Charles | Hankerson | 6 | 5 | Alabama | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2449 | Ben | Eblen | 6 | 0 | Alabama | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 1404 | Demarquelle | Tabb | 6 | 5 | Alabama A&M | 0.00% | 1.23% |
| 1610 | Casey | Cantey | 6 | 5 | Alabama A&M | 0.00% | 0.53% |
| 2244 | Diamon | Alexander | 6 | 6 | Alabama A&M | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2312 | Jerome | Hunter | 6 | 10 | Alabama A&M | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2392 | Jeremy | Crutcher | 5 | 8 | Alabama A&M | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 552 | Ivory | White | 6 | 4 | Alabama St. | 0.93% | |
| 1201 | Kaylim | Noel | 6 | 4 | Alabama St. | 0.10% | |
| 1403 | Kenderek | Washington | 6 | 4 | Alabama St. | 0.00% | 1.24% |
| 1750 | Stephawn | Brown | 6 | 4 | Alabama St. | 0.00% | 0.28% |
| 1953 | Shareif | Adamu | 6 | 7 | Alabama St. | 0.00% | 0.06% |
| 2052 | Jeffery | Middlebrooks | 6 | 1 | Alabama St. | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2115 | Tramaine | Butler | 6 | 2 | Alabama St. | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2285 | Dwayne | Harvey | 5 | 11 | Alabama St. | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2369 | Patrick | Davis | 6 | 10 | Alabama St. | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2433 | Ryan | Watts | 6 | 1 | Alabama St. | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2463 | Ivan | Johnson | 6 | 4 | Alabama St. | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 541 | Luke | Devlin | 6 | 8 | Albany | 0.96% | |
| 582 | Logan | Aronhalt | 6 | 3 | Albany | 0.89% | |
| 996 | Billy | Allen | 6 | 6 | Albany | 0.28% | |
| 1153 | Mike | Black | 6 | 0 | Albany | 0.15% | |
| 1550 | Blake | Metcalf | 6 | 9 | Albany | 0.00% | 0.71% |
| 1687 | Ralph | Watts | 6 | 5 | Albany | 0.00% | 0.38% |
| 1730 | Jacob | Iati | 5 | 10 | Albany | 0.00% | 0.31% |
| 2316 | John | Puk | 6 | 10 | Albany | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2400 | Jake | Lindfors | 6 | 10 | Albany | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 858 | LeAntwan | Luckett | 6 | 5 | Alcorn St. | 0.00% | |
| 1426 | Marquis | Baker | 6 | 2 | Alcorn St. | 0.00% | 1.13% |
| 1627 | Michael | Starks | 6 | 8 | Alcorn St. | 0.00% | 0.49% |
| 1884 | Korey | Sanders | 6 | 8 | Alcorn St. | 0.00% | 0.13% |
| 1923 | Michael | Martin | 6 | 8 | Alcorn St. | 0.00% | 0.09% |
| 1981 | Jamar | Ragland | 6 | 5 | Alcorn St. | 0.00% | 0.03% |
| 2114 | Willis | Brownlee | 6 | 4 | Alcorn St. | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2251 | Kendrick | McDonald | 5 | 10 | Alcorn St. | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2282 | Alex | Savannah | 5 | 11 | Alcorn St. | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2310 | Chris | Davenport | 6 | 6 | Alcorn St. | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2399 | Ian | Francis | 6 | 8 | Alcorn St. | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2470 | Keith | Searcy | 6 | 4 | Alcorn St. | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2476 | Tony | Eackles | 6 | 2 | Alcorn St. | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2483 | Shaunvanta | Ingram | 6 | 3 | Alcorn St. | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 134 | Stephen | Lumpkins | 6 | 8 | American | 2.55% | |
| 502 | Troy | Brewer | 6 | 5 | American | 1.06% | |
| 1135 | Tony | Wroblicky | 6 | 10 | American | 0.17% | |
| 1252 | Daniel | Munoz | 6 | 1 | American | 0.06% | |
| 1815 | Charles | Hinkle | 6 | 5 | American | 0.00% | 0.21% |
| 2055 | Simon | McCormack | 6 | 4 | American | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 152 | Omar | Carter | 6 | 5 | Appalachian St. | 2.46% | |
| 429 | Andre | Williamson | 6 | 7 | Appalachian St. | 1.24% | |
| 838 | Petey | Hausley | 6 | 6 | Appalachian St. | 0.44% | |
| 914 | Nathan | Healy | 6 | 7 | Appalachian St. | 0.35% | |
| 1311 | Anthony | Breeze | 6 | 5 | Appalachian St. | 0.003% | |
| 2139 | Marcus | Wright | 6 | 1 | Appalachian St. | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2394 | Mitch | Woods | 6 | 3 | Appalachian St. | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 170 | Josiah | Turner | 6 | 3 | Arizona | 0.00% | |
| 245 | Nick | Johnson | 6 | 2 | Arizona | 0.00% | |
| 721 | Angelo | Chol | 6 | 8 | Arizona | 0.00% | |
| 779 | Sidiki | Johnson | 6 | 8 | Arizona | 0.00% | |
| 242 | Trent | Lockett | 6 | 4 | Arizona St. | 1.91% | |
| 351 | Jahii | Carson | 5 | 10 | Arizona St. | 0.00% | |
| 893 | Kyle | Cain | 6 | 7 | Arizona St. | 0.37% | |
| 936 | Chanse | Creekmur | 6 | 5 | Arizona St. | 0.33% | |
| 1172 | Carrick | Felix | 6 | 6 | Arizona St. | 0.13% | |
| 1274 | Corey | Hawkins | 6 | 1 | Arizona St. | 0.03% | |
| 1643 | Ruslan | Pateev | 7 | 0 | Arizona St. | 0.00% | 0.46% |
| 1675 | Jordan | Bachynski | 7 | 2 | Arizona St. | 0.00% | 0.40% |
| 1951 | Brandon | Dunson | 6 | 2 | Arizona St. | 0.00% | 0.06% |
| 2183 | Keala | King | 6 | 5 | Arizona St. | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 81 | Kevin | Parrom | 6 | 6 | Arizona | 3.03% | |
| 203 | Solomon | Hill | 6 | 6 | Arizona | 2.14% | |
| 341 | Kyle | Fogg | 6 | 3 | Arizona | 1.56% | |
| 396 | Jesse | Perry | 6 | 7 | Arizona | 1.34% | |
| 461 | Lamont | Jones | 6 | 0 | Arizona | 1.15% | |
| 477 | Jordin | Mayes | 6 | 2 | Arizona | 1.11% | |
| 613 | Brendon | Lavender | 6 | 5 | Arizona | 0.83% | |
| 796 | Kyryl | Natyazhko | 6 | 11 | Arizona | 0.52% | |
| 17 | Rotnei | Clarke | 6 | 0 | Arkansas | 4.41% | |
| 308 | B.J. | Young | 6 | 3 | Arkansas | 0.00% | |
| 343 | Ky | Madden | 6 | 5 | Arkansas | 0.00% | |
| 592 | Marshawn | Powell | 6 | 7 | Arkansas | 0.87% | |
| 685 | Glenn | Bryant | 6 | 7 | Arkansas | 0.69% | |
| 889 | Hunter | Mickelson | 6 | 10 | Arkansas | 0.00% | |
| 929 | Devonta | Abron | 6 | 8 | Arkansas | 0.00% | |
| 1006 | Mardracus | Wade | 6 | 2 | Arkansas | 0.27% | |
| 1133 | Aaron | Ross | 6 | 7 | Arkansas | 0.00% | |
| 1387 | Julysses | Nobles | 6 | 1 | Arkansas | 0.00% | 1.32% |
| 1563 | Jeff | Peterson | 6 | 0 | Arkansas | 0.00% | 0.67% |
| 1657 | Marvell | Waithe | 6 | 9 | Arkansas | 0.00% | 0.42% |
| 2034 | Michael | Sanchez | 6 | 8 | Arkansas | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2068 | Rickey | Scott | 6 | 3 | Arkansas | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 1018 | D'Andre | Williams | 5 | 10 | Arkansas Little Rock | 0.26% | |
| 1039 | Daylon | Guy | 5 | 10 | Arkansas Little Rock | 0.25% | |
| 1071 | Tramar | Sutherland | 6 | 3 | Arkansas Little Rock | 0.21% | |
| 1228 | Marlon | Louzeiro | 6 | 7 | Arkansas Little Rock | 0.08% | |
| 1706 | Courtney | Jackson | 6 | 6 | Arkansas Little Rock | 0.00% | 0.34% |
| 2013 | Eric | Kibi | 6 | 6 | Arkansas Little Rock | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2301 | Gus | Leeper | 6 | 9 | Arkansas Little Rock | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 1429 | Terrell | Kennedy | 6 | 6 | Arkansas Pine Bluff | 0.00% | 1.11% |
| 1522 | Savalance | Townsend | 6 | 2 | Arkansas Pine Bluff | 0.00% | 0.78% |
| 1843 | Gavin | Montgomery | 6 | 6 | Arkansas Pine Bluff | 0.00% | 0.18% |
| 2083 | Clay | Johnson | 6 | 0 | Arkansas Pine Bluff | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2108 | Daniel | Broughton | 6 | 8 | Arkansas Pine Bluff | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2475 | Marcel | Mosley | 5 | 11 | Arkansas Pine Bluff | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2501 | Lavoris | Weathers | 6 | 8 | Arkansas Pine Bluff | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 327 | Trey | Finn | 6 | 2 | Arkansas St. | 1.60% | |
| 1219 | Daniel | Bryant | 5 | 10 | Arkansas St. | 0.09% | |
| 1225 | Adam | Sterrenberg | 6 | 3 | Arkansas St. | 0.08% | |
| 1351 | Martavius | Adams | 6 | 8 | Arkansas St. | 0.00% | 1.68% |
| 1400 | Brandon | Peterson | 6 | 7 | Arkansas St. | 0.00% | 1.24% |
| 1498 | Malcoln | Kirkland | 6 | 8 | Arkansas St. | 0.00% | 0.85% |
| 1821 | Edward | Townsel | 6 | 0 | Arkansas St. | 0.00% | 0.20% |
| 241 | Ella | Ellis | 6 | 6 | Army | 1.91% | |
| 883 | Josh | Herbeck | 6 | 4 | Army | 0.38% | |
| 1420 | Julian | Simmons | 6 | 0 | Army | 0.00% | 1.16% |
| 1691 | Jason | Pancoe | 6 | 3 | Army | 0.00% | 0.37% |
| 1903 | Chris | Welker | 6 | 5 | Army | 0.00% | 0.11% |
| 1939 | Cart | Kincade | 6 | 3 | Army | 0.00% | 0.07% |
| 2051 | Mitch | McDonald | 5 | 7 | Army | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2138 | Jordan | Springer | 6 | 7 | Army | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2450 | C.J. | McElrath | 6 | 0 | Army | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 361 | Earnest | Ross | 6 | 5 | Auburn | 1.46% | |
| 646 | Andre | Malone | 6 | 5 | Auburn | 0.77% | |
| 657 | Willy | Kouassi | 6 | 10 | Auburn | 0.00% | |
| 864 | Frankie | Sullivan | 6 | 1 | Auburn | 0.41% | |
| 945 | Chris | Denson | 6 | 2 | Auburn | 0.32% | |
| 1130 | Kenny | Gabriel | 6 | 8 | Auburn | 0.17% | |
| 1135 | Cedrick | McAfee | 6 | 3 | Auburn | 0.00% | |
| 1572 | Rob | Chubb | 6 | 10 | Auburn | 0.00% | 0.65% |
| 1589 | Adrian | Forbes | 6 | 8 | Auburn | 0.00% | 0.58% |
| 1801 | Josh | Wallace | 5 | 10 | Auburn | 0.00% | 0.23% |
| 1989 | Josh | Langford | 6 | 7 | Auburn | 0.00% | 0.02% |
| 2269 | Allen | Payne | 6 | 6 | Auburn | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2365 | Tony | Neysmith | 6 | 5 | Auburn | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 230 | TyShwan | Edmondson | 6 | 4 | Austin Peay | 1.97% | |
| 286 | John | Fraley | 6 | 8 | Austin Peay | 1.74% | |
| 642 | Justin | Blake | 6 | 3 | Austin Peay | 0.79% | |
| 765 | Will | Triggs | 6 | 6 | Austin Peay | 0.57% | |
| 787 | Josh | Terry | 6 | 5 | Austin Peay | 0.53% | |
| 842 | Anthony | Campbell | 6 | 6 | Austin Peay | 0.43% | |
| 1008 | Marcel | Williams | 6 | 6 | Austin Peay | 0.27% | |
| 1509 | Melvin | Baker | 6 | 7 | Austin Peay | 0.00% | 0.82% |
| 1662 | Tyrone | Caldwell | 6 | 0 | Austin Peay | 0.00% | 0.42% |
| 276 | Randy | Davis | 5 | 11 | Ball St. | 1.77% | |
| 328 | Jarrod | Jones | 6 | 9 | Ball St. | 1.60% | |
| 342 | Chris | Bond | 6 | 4 | Ball St. | 1.56% | |
| 873 | Jesse | Berry | 6 | 1 | Ball St. | 0.39% | |
| 942 | Matt | Kamieniecki | 6 | 7 | Ball St. | 0.32% | |
| 986 | Jauwan | Scaife | 6 | 2 | Ball St. | 0.29% | |
| 1761 | Pierre | Sneed | 6 | 4 | Ball St. | 0.00% | 0.27% |
| 2209 | Tyrae | Robinson | 6 | 2 | Ball St. | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 112 | Perry | Jones | 6 | 10 | Baylor | 2.77% | |
| 120 | Quincy | Acy | 6 | 7 | Baylor | 2.65% | |
| 134 | Quincy | Miller | 6 | 8 | Baylor | 0.00% | |
| 175 | Anthony | Jones | 6 | 10 | Baylor | 2.32% | |
| 570 | Deuce | Bello | 6 | 4 | Baylor | 0.00% | |
| 1279 | J'mison | Morgan | 6 | 10 | Baylor | 0.03% | |
| 1286 | Fred | Ellis | 6 | 6 | Baylor | 0.02% | |
| 1369 | A.J. | Walton | 6 | 1 | Baylor | 0.00% | 1.50% |
| 1980 | Nolan | Dennis | 6 | 5 | Baylor | 0.00% | 0.03% |
| 2358 | Stargell | Love | 6 | 2 | Baylor | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 113 | Ian | Clark | 6 | 3 | Belmont | 2.72% | |
| 165 | Mick | Hedgepeth | 6 | 9 | Belmont | 2.37% | |
| 289 | Drew | Hanlen | 5 | 11 | Belmont | 1.72% | |
| 303 | Scott | Saunders | 6 | 10 | Belmont | 1.69% | |
| 392 | Kerron | Johnson | 6 | 1 | Belmont | 1.35% | |
| 763 | J.J. | Mann | 6 | 6 | Belmont | 0.58% | |
| 854 | Trevor | Noack | 6 | 7 | Belmont | 0.42% | |
| 1562 | Blake | Jenkins | 6 | 7 | Belmont | 0.00% | 0.67% |
| 1603 | Brandon | Baker | 6 | 6 | Belmont | 0.00% | 0.54% |
| 530 | C.J. | Reed | 6 | 3 | Bethune Cookman | 1.00% | |
| 556 | Garrius | Holloman | 6 | 6 | Bethune Cookman | 0.93% | |
| 1145 | Kevin | Dukes | 5 | 9 | Bethune Cookman | 0.16% | |
| 1471 | Stanley | Elliott | 6 | 3 | Bethune Cookman | 0.00% | 0.94% |
| 1553 | Javoris | Bryant | 6 | 6 | Bethune Cookman | 0.00% | 0.70% |
| 2079 | Mikel | Trapp | 6 | 2 | Bethune Cookman | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2086 | Aric | Miller | 6 | 3 | Bethune Cookman | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2332 | Raymoan | McAfee | 6 | 7 | Bethune Cookman | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 1226 | Kyrie | Sutton | 6 | 9 | Binghamton | 0.08% | |
| 1451 | Jimmy | Gray | 6 | 0 | Binghamton | 0.00% | 1.03% |
| 1653 | Taylor | Johnston | 6 | 7 | Binghamton | 0.00% | 0.43% |
| 1909 | Alex | Ogundadegbe | 6 | 8 | Binghamton | 0.00% | 0.10% |
| 2290 | Robert | Mansell | 6 | 4 | Binghamton | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 348 | Ryan | Watkins | 6 | 8 | Boise St. | 1.52% | |
| 686 | Jeff | Elorriaga | 6 | 2 | Boise St. | 0.69% | |
| 704 | Thomas | Bropleh | 6 | 5 | Boise St. | 0.67% | |
| 1617 | Tre | Nichols | 6 | 0 | Boise St. | 0.00% | 0.51% |
| 608 | Danny | Rubin | 6 | 6 | Boston College | 0.84% | |
| 1591 | Gabriel | Moton | 6 | 2 | Boston College | 0.00% | 0.57% |
| 1650 | Dallas | Elmore | 6 | 5 | Boston College | 0.00% | 0.44% |
| 325 | Matt | Griffin | 5 | 10 | Boston University | 1.61% | |
| 602 | D.J. | Irving | 6 | 0 | Boston University | 0.85% | |
| 973 | Jake | O'Brien | 6 | 8 | Boston University | 0.30% | |
| 1010 | Patrick | Hazel | 6 | 6 | Boston University | 0.27% | |
| 1319 | Darryl | Partin | 6 | 6 | Boston University | 0.00% | 2.13% |
| 1489 | Dom | Morris | 6 | 7 | Boston University | 0.00% | 0.88% |
| 2045 | Jeff | Pelage | 6 | 8 | Boston University | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2278 | Travis | Robinson | 6 | 5 | Boston University | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2359 | Mike | Terry | 6 | 0 | Boston University | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 538 | Dee | Brown | 6 | 3 | Bowling Green | 0.98% | |
| 896 | Torian | Oglesby | 6 | 7 | Bowling Green | 0.37% | |
| 1322 | Scott | Thomas | 6 | 6 | Bowling Green | 0.00% | 2.05% |
| 1370 | Jordon | Crawford | 5 | 6 | Bowling Green | 0.00% | 1.50% |
| 1421 | A'uston | Calhoun | 6 | 7 | Bowling Green | 0.00% | 1.15% |
| 1560 | Cameron | Black | 6 | 10 | Bowling Green | 0.00% | 0.67% |
| 1587 | Luke | Kraus | 6 | 2 | Bowling Green | 0.00% | 0.58% |
| 2185 | Craig | Sealey | 6 | 6 | Bowling Green | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2277 | Danny | McElroy | 6 | 8 | Bowling Green | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2447 | James | Erger | 6 | 6 | Bowling Green | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 747 | Dyricus | Simms-Edwards | 6 | 2 | Bradley | 0.60% | |
| 939 | Jake | Eastman | 6 | 4 | Bradley | 0.33% | |
| 1030 | Jordan | Prosser | 6 | 8 | Bradley | 0.25% | |
| 1435 | Will | Egolf | 6 | 9 | Bradley | 0.00% | 1.09% |
| 2167 | Walt | Lemon | 6 | 3 | Bradley | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2202 | Milos | Knezevic | 6 | 8 | Bradley | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2288 | Anthony | Thompson | 6 | 10 | Bradley | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 71 | Noah | Hartsock | 6 | 8 | Brigham Young | 3.14% | |
| 187 | Brandon | Davies | 6 | 9 | Brigham Young | 2.25% | |
| 405 | Charles | Abouo | 6 | 5 | Brigham Young | 1.32% | |
| 601 | Kyle | Collinsworth | 6 | 6 | Brigham Young | 0.85% | |
| 614 | Stephen | Rogers | 6 | 8 | Brigham Young | 0.83% | |
| 1212 | Brock | Zylstra | 6 | 6 | Brigham Young | 0.09% | |
| 2240 | James | Anderson | 6 | 10 | Brigham Young | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 555 | Andrew | McCarthy | 6 | 8 | Brown | 0.93% | |
| 674 | Tucker | Halpern | 6 | 8 | Brown | 0.71% | |
| 827 | Matt | Sullivan | 6 | 6 | Brown | 0.46% | |
| 849 | Dockery | Walker | 6 | 7 | Brown | 0.42% | |
| 876 | Sean | McGonagill | 6 | 1 | Brown | 0.39% | |
| 1789 | Tyler | Ponticelli | 6 | 8 | Brown | 0.00% | 0.24% |
| 253 | Frankie | Dobbs | 6 | 3 | Bryant | 1.86% | |
| 1064 | Corey | Maynard | 6 | 2 | Bryant | 0.22% | |
| 1567 | Vlad | Kondratyev | 6 | 8 | Bryant | 0.00% | 0.65% |
| 1825 | Alex | Francis | 6 | 6 | Bryant | 0.00% | 0.19% |
| 2015 | Matthew | Lee | 6 | 2 | Bryant | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2033 | Raphael | Jordan | 6 | 1 | Bryant | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 132 | Bryson | Johnson | 6 | 1 | Bucknell | 2.55% | |
| 205 | Mike | Muscala | 6 | 10 | Bucknell | 2.13% | |
| 699 | Cameron | Ayers | 6 | 5 | Bucknell | 0.67% | |
| 1389 | Joe | Willman | 6 | 6 | Bucknell | 0.00% | 1.31% |
| 1842 | Bryan | Cohen | 6 | 5 | Bucknell | 0.00% | 0.18% |
| 2274 | Colin | Klebon | 6 | 8 | Bucknell | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2461 | Ryan | Hill | 6 | 2 | Bucknell | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 170 | Zach | Filzen | 6 | 3 | Buffalo | 2.35% | |
| 194 | Javon | McCrea | 6 | 6 | Buffalo | 2.18% | |
| 1028 | Mitchell | Watt | 6 | 9 | Buffalo | 0.26% | |
| 1125 | Tony | Watson | 6 | 2 | Buffalo | 0.17% | |
| 1515 | Dave | Barnett | 6 | 5 | Buffalo | 0.00% | 0.81% |
| 1613 | Titus | Robinson | 6 | 7 | Buffalo | 0.00% | 0.52% |
| 2371 | Jarod | Oldham | 6 | 3 | Buffalo | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 51 | Andrew | Smith | 6 | 11 | Butler | 3.36% | |
| 430 | Khyle | Marshall | 6 | 7 | Butler | 1.23% | |
| 897 | Chase | Stigall | 6 | 4 | Butler | 0.37% | |
| 985 | Garrett | Butcher | 6 | 7 | Butler | 0.29% | |
| 1054 | Roosevelt | Jones | 6 | 4 | Butler | 0.00% | |
| 1674 | Ronald | Nored | 6 | 0 | Butler | 0.00% | 0.40% |
| 182 | David | Hanson | 6 | 5 | Cal Poly | 2.30% | |
| 915 | Maliik | Love | 6 | 3 | Cal Poly | 0.35% | |
| 1138 | Will | Donahue | 6 | 8 | Cal Poly | 0.16% | |
| 1598 | Chris | O'Brien | 6 | 4 | Cal Poly | 0.00% | 0.55% |
| 1755 | Jordan | Lewis | 6 | 5 | Cal Poly | 0.00% | 0.28% |
| 2154 | Jamal | Johnson | 6 | 0 | Cal Poly | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2401 | Drake | U'u | 6 | 5 | Cal Poly | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 593 | Alex | Johnson | 5 | 10 | Cal St. Bakersfield | 0.87% | |
| 596 | Rashad | Savage | 6 | 6 | Cal St. Bakersfield | 0.86% | |
| 1625 | Reynaul | Baker | 6 | 2 | Cal St. Bakersfield | 0.00% | 0.49% |
| 1948 | James | Albright | 6 | 6 | Cal St. Bakersfield | 0.00% | 0.06% |
| 2022 | Stephon | Carter | 6 | 3 | Cal St. Bakersfield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2105 | Donald | Johnson | 6 | 8 | Cal St. Bakersfield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2179 | Kregg | Jones | 6 | 8 | Cal St. Bakersfield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2409 | De'Aundray | Robinson | 6 | 5 | Cal St. Bakersfield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 532 | Perry | Webster | 6 | 1 | Cal St. Fullerton | 1.00% | |
| 801 | Isiah | Umipig | 6 | 1 | Cal St. Fullerton | 0.51% | |
| 817 | Orane | Chin | 6 | 7 | Cal St. Fullerton | 0.48% | |
| 1197 | Andre | Hardy | 6 | 6 | Cal St. Fullerton | 0.11% | |
| 1520 | Orlando | Brown | 6 | 1 | Cal St. Fullerton | 0.00% | 0.79% |
| 1828 | Roger | Guardia | 6 | 4 | Cal St. Fullerton | 0.00% | 0.19% |
| 1912 | Sedric | Martin | 6 | 6 | Cal St. Fullerton | 0.00% | 0.10% |
| 2162 | Steve | Jurich | 6 | 7 | Cal St. Fullerton | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 1051 | Vinnie | McGhee | 6 | 0 | Cal St. Northridge | 0.23% | |
| 1060 | Joshua | Greene | 6 | 0 | Cal St. Northridge | 0.23% | |
| 1176 | Thomas | Jacobs | 6 | 6 | Cal St. Northridge | 0.13% | |
| 1818 | Aqeel | Quinn | 6 | 4 | Cal St. Northridge | 0.00% | 0.20% |
| 1976 | Jordan | Mitchell | 6 | 9 | Cal St. Northridge | 0.00% | 0.03% |
| 2292 | Allen | Jiles | 6 | 4 | Cal St. Northridge | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2416 | John | Hayward-Mayhew | 6 | 8 | Cal St. Northridge | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2423 | Frankie | Eteuati | 6 | 9 | Cal St. Northridge | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 59 | Harper | Kamp | 6 | 8 | California | 3.28% | |
| 86 | Allen | Crabbe | 6 | 4 | California | 2.99% | |
| 169 | Jorge | Gutierrez | 6 | 3 | California | 2.35% | |
| 423 | Richard | Solomon | 6 | 8 | California | 1.26% | |
| 1114 | Brandon | Smith | 5 | 11 | California | 0.18% | |
| 1229 | Bak | Bak | 6 | 9 | California | 0.08% | |
| 2228 | Gary | Franklin | 6 | 2 | California | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2270 | Nigel | Carter | 6 | 4 | California | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2327 | Emerson | Murray | 6 | 3 | California | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 313 | Lorne | Merthie | 6 | 2 | Campbell | 1.64% | |
| 1206 | Eric | Griffin | 6 | 8 | Campbell | 0.10% | |
| 1488 | Marvelle | Harris | 6 | 6 | Campbell | 0.00% | 0.88% |
| 1695 | Rico | Ferguson | 6 | 2 | Campbell | 0.00% | 0.36% |
| 1737 | Martell | Jackson | 6 | 10 | Campbell | 0.00% | 0.30% |
| 1800 | Amir | Celestin | 6 | 1 | Campbell | 0.00% | 0.23% |
| 1810 | Keishawn | Mayes | 6 | 7 | Campbell | 0.00% | 0.22% |
| 1935 | Anthony | Horton | 6 | 8 | Campbell | 0.00% | 0.08% |
| 1376 | Alshwan | Hymes | 6 | 2 | Canisius | 0.00% | 1.44% |
| 1413 | Gaby | Belardo | 6 | 2 | Canisius | 0.00% | 1.20% |
| 2070 | Chris | Manhertz | 6 | 6 | Canisius | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2155 | Reggie | Groves | 6 | 2 | Canisius | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2019 | Maxx | Nakwaasah | 6 | 1 | Centenary | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2095 | Logan | Lowery | 6 | 5 | Centenary | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2206 | Jeron | Trotman | 6 | 6 | Centenary | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2226 | Andrew | Rebol | 6 | 8 | Centenary | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2306 | Aaron | Harwell | 5 | 11 | Centenary | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2390 | Baba | Diallo | 6 | 8 | Centenary | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2460 | Travis | Sims | 6 | 6 | Centenary | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 1132 | Chris | Henson | 6 | 8 | Central Arkansas | 0.17% | |
| 1405 | Mark | Rutledge | 6 | 4 | Central Arkansas | 0.00% | 1.23% |
| 1967 | T.K. | Smith | 6 | 2 | Central Arkansas | 0.00% | 0.04% |
| 2049 | Dewan | Clayborn | 5 | 11 | Central Arkansas | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2227 | Terry | Tidwell | 6 | 8 | Central Arkansas | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2354 | Ryan | Williams | 6 | 4 | Central Arkansas | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 8 | Ken | Horton | 6 | 6 | Central Connecticut | 5.06% | |
| 846 | Chris | Baskerville | 6 | 5 | Central Connecticut | 0.43% | |
| 1298 | Terrell | Allen | 6 | 6 | Central Connecticut | 0.01% | |
| 1315 | Robby | Ptacek | 6 | 3 | Central Connecticut | 0.00% | 2.28% |
| 1536 | Joseph | Efese | 6 | 6 | Central Connecticut | 0.00% | 0.75% |
| 1648 | Vince | Rosario | 5 | 10 | Central Connecticut | 0.00% | 0.44% |
| 2349 | Devan | Bailey | 6 | 2 | Central Connecticut | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2419 | De'Angelo | Speech | 6 | 5 | Central Connecticut | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 96 | Keith | Clanton | 6 | 8 | Central Florida | 2.91% | |
| 275 | Marcus | Jordan | 6 | 3 | Central Florida | 1.77% | |
| 487 | Isaac | Sosa | 6 | 3 | Central Florida | 1.10% | |
| 574 | Michael | Chandler | 6 | 10 | Central Florida | 0.00% | |
| 714 | Dwight | McCombs | 6 | 8 | Central Florida | 0.65% | |
| 969 | Isaiah | Sykes | 6 | 5 | Central Florida | 0.30% | |
| 1003 | P.J. | Gaynor | 6 | 8 | Central Florida | 0.27% | |
| 1086 | A.J. | Rompza | 5 | 9 | Central Florida | 0.21% | |
| 1817 | David | Diakite | 6 | 6 | Central Florida | 0.00% | 0.20% |
| 1262 | John | Morris | 5 | 10 | Central Michigan | 0.04% | |
| 1479 | Derek | Jackson | 6 | 0 | Central Michigan | 0.00% | 0.89% |
| 1746 | Andre | Coimbra | 6 | 9 | Central Michigan | 0.00% | 0.29% |
| 1952 | Trey | Zeigler | 6 | 5 | Central Michigan | 0.00% | 0.06% |
| 1994 | Finis | Craddock | 6 | 1 | Central Michigan | 0.00% | 0.02% |
| 2136 | Colin | Voss | 6 | 7 | Central Michigan | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 38 | Kelvin | Martin | 6 | 5 | Charleston Southern | 3.56% | |
| 689 | Sheldon | Strickland | 6 | 0 | Charleston Southern | 0.69% | |
| 857 | Johnathan | Brooks | 6 | 7 | Charleston Southern | 0.42% | |
| 940 | Kenny | Mitchell | 6 | 7 | Charleston Southern | 0.33% | |
| 956 | Troy | Pierce | 6 | 6 | Charleston Southern | 0.31% | |
| 962 | Matt | Kennedy | 6 | 3 | Charleston Southern | 0.31% | |
| 1033 | Jeremy | Sexton | 6 | 2 | Charleston Southern | 0.25% | |
| 1120 | Zimmy | Nwogbo | 6 | 7 | Charleston Southern | 0.17% | |
| 1947 | Chris | Grier | 6 | 3 | Charleston Southern | 0.00% | 0.06% |
| 919 | Javarris | Barnett | 6 | 6 | Charlotte | 0.35% | |
| 1002 | Gokhan | Sirin | 6 | 9 | Charlotte | 0.27% | |
| 1106 | Chris | Braswell | 6 | 9 | Charlotte | 0.19% | |
| 1158 | Jamar | Briscoe | 5 | 10 | Charlotte | 0.14% | |
| 1178 | K.J. | Sherrill | 6 | 7 | Charlotte | 0.13% | |
| 1318 | Derrio | Green | 6 | 2 | Charlotte | 0.00% | 2.16% |
| 553 | Keegan | Bell | 6 | 1 | Chattanooga | 0.93% | |
| 557 | Omar | Wattad | 6 | 5 | Chattanooga | 0.92% | |
| 736 | Ricky | Taylor | 6 | 5 | Chattanooga | 0.62% | |
| 1277 | Chris | Early | 6 | 7 | Chattanooga | 0.03% | |
| 1669 | Dontay | Hampton | 6 | 1 | Chattanooga | 0.00% | 0.41% |
| 1823 | Josh | Odem | 6 | 5 | Chattanooga | 0.00% | 0.20% |
| 2271 | Jahmal | Burroughs | 6 | 6 | Chattanooga | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2441 | Sam | Watson | 6 | 7 | Chattanooga | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 1972 | Victor | Scott | 6 | 3 | Chicago St. | 0.00% | 0.04% |
| 2440 | Ardarius | Simmons | 5 | 10 | Chicago St. | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2498 | Steve | Martin | 5 | 10 | Chicago St. | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 79 | Dion | Dixon | 6 | 3 | Cincinnati | 3.05% | |
| 146 | Yancy | Gates | 6 | 9 | Cincinnati | 2.50% | |
| 148 | Sean | Kilpatrick | 6 | 4 | Cincinnati | 2.49% | |
| 279 | Cashmere | Wright | 6 | 0 | Cincinnati | 1.77% | |
| 766 | Shaquille | Thomas | 6 | 6 | Cincinnati | 0.00% | |
| 1060 | Jermaine | Sanders | 6 | 4 | Cincinnati | 0.00% | |
| 1946 | Justin | Jackson | 6 | 8 | Cincinnati | 0.00% | 0.07% |
| 2326 | Jaquon | Parker | 6 | 3 | Cincinnati | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 40 | Andre | Young | 5 | 9 | Clemson | 3.54% | |
| 478 | Tanner | Smith | 6 | 5 | Clemson | 1.11% | |
| 619 | Devin | Booker | 6 | 8 | Clemson | 0.82% | |
| 774 | Bernard | Sullivan | 6 | 7 | Clemson | 0.00% | |
| 1105 | Bryan | Narcisse | 6 | 6 | Clemson | 0.19% | |
| 1107 | Milton | Jennings | 6 | 9 | Clemson | 0.18% | |
| 1865 | Cory | Stanton | 5 | 10 | Clemson | 0.00% | 0.16% |
| 103 | Trevon | Harmon | 6 | 1 | Cleveland St. | 2.85% | |
| 528 | Josh | McCoy | 6 | 4 | Cleveland St. | 1.01% | |
| 591 | Tim | Kamczyc | 6 | 6 | Cleveland St. | 0.87% | |
| 728 | Jeremy | Montgomery | 6 | 2 | Cleveland St. | 0.63% | |
| 1108 | Joe | Latas | 6 | 11 | Cleveland St. | 0.18% | |
| 1248 | Aaron | Pogue | 6 | 9 | Cleveland St. | 0.06% | |
| 1714 | Charlie | Woods | 6 | 7 | Cleveland St. | 0.00% | 0.34% |
| 2164 | Ludovic | Ndaye | 6 | 9 | Cleveland St. | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 191 | Desmond | Holloway | 6 | 3 | Coastal Carolina | 2.22% | |
| 236 | Sam | McLaurin | 6 | 6 | Coastal Carolina | 1.94% | |
| 347 | Anthony | Raffa | 6 | 0 | Coastal Carolina | 1.52% | |
| 635 | Dexter | Moore | 6 | 1 | Coastal Carolina | 0.80% | |
| 726 | Brandon | Crawford | 6 | 5 | Coastal Carolina | 0.63% | |
| 795 | Jon | Pack | 6 | 11 | Coastal Carolina | 0.52% | |
| 886 | Kierre | Greenwood | 6 | 1 | Coastal Carolina | 0.38% | |
| 1047 | Danny | Nieman | 6 | 1 | Coastal Carolina | 0.24% | |
| 783 | Nick | Pascale | 6 | 10 | Colgate | 0.54% | |
| 1260 | Mike | Venezia | 6 | 1 | Colgate | 0.05% | |
| 1330 | Yaw | Gyawu | 6 | 5 | Colgate | 0.00% | 1.88% |
| 1556 | Sterling | Melville | 6 | 4 | Colgate | 0.00% | 0.69% |
| 1616 | Brandon | James | 6 | 6 | Colgate | 0.00% | 0.51% |
| 1778 | Pat | Moore | 6 | 5 | Colgate | 0.00% | 0.25% |
| 1897 | John | Brandenburg | 6 | 11 | Colgate | 0.00% | 0.12% |
| 2157 | Mitch | Rolls | 6 | 0 | Colgate | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 2333 | Chad | Johnson | 6 | 3 | Colgate | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| 57 | Trent | Wiedeman | 6 | 8 | College of Charleston | 3.28% | |
| 254 | Willis | Hall | 6 | 6 | College of Charleston | 1.86% | |
| 316 | Adjehi | Baru | 6 | 9 | College of Charleston | 0.00% | |
| 432 | Andrew | Lawrence | 6 | 1 | College of Charleston | 1.23% | |
| 1998 | James | Carlton | 6 | 7 | College of Charleston | 0.00% | 0.02% |
| 168 | Andre | Roberson | 6 | 7 | Colorado | 2.35% | |
| 234 | Austin | Dufault | 6 | 9 | Colorado | 1.95% | |
| 682 | Nate | Tomlinson | 6 | 3 | Colorado | 0.70% | |
| 1074 | Damiene | Cain | 6 | 7 | Colorado | 0.00% | |
| 1136 | Spencer | Dinwiddie | 6 | 4 | Colorado | 0.00% | |
| 1152 | Shannon | Sharpe | 6 | 1 | Colorado | 0.15% | |
| 336 | Pierce | Hornung | 6 | 5 | Colorado St. | 1.57% | |
| 580 | Wes | Eikmeier | 6 | 3 | Colorado St. | 0.89% | |
| 820 | Dorian | Green | 6 | 2 | Colorado St. | 0.47% | |
| 935 | Jesse | Carr | 6 | 2 | Colorado St. | 0.33% | |
| 952 | Greg | Smith | 6 | 6 | Colorado St. | 0.32% | |
| 1141 | Will | Bell | 6 | 6 | Colorado St. | 0.16% | |
| 1841 | Dwight | Smith | 6 | 4 | Colorado St. | 0.00% | 0.18% |
| 76 | Brian | Barbour | 6 | 1 | Columbia | 3.07% | |
| 490 | Mark | Cisco | 6 | 8 | Columbia | 1.09% | |
| 984 | Meiko | Lyles | 6 | 3 | Columbia | 0.29% | |
| 998 | Noruwa | Agho | 6 | 3 | Columbia | 0.28% | |
| 1111 | Dyami | Starks | 6 | 2 | Columbia | 0.18% | |
| 1148 | Matt | Johnson | 6 | 7 | Columbia | 0.15% | |
| 1508 | Steve | Frankoski | 6 | 2 | Columbia | 0.00% | 0.83% |
| 1717 | John | Daniels | 6 | 7 | Columbia | 0.00% | 0.33% |
| 1894 | Van | Green | 6 | 3 | Columbia | 0.00% | 0.12% |
| 37 | Jeremy | Lamb | 6 | 5 | Connecticut | 3.59% | |
| 66 | Alex | Oriakhi | 6 | 9 | Connecticut | 3.18% | |
| 345 | Roscoe | Smith | 6 | 8 | Connecticut | 1.53% | |
| 346 | Shabazz | Napier | 6 | 0 | Connecticut | 1.52% | |
| 449 | Ryan | Boatright | 5 | 10 | Connecticut | 0.00% | |
| 469 | Jamal | Coombs-McDaniel | 6 | 7 | Connecticut | 1.13% | |
| 1231 | Niels | Giffey | 6 | 7 | Connecticut | 0.08% | |
| 1943 | Tyler | Olander | 6 | 9 | Connecticut | 0.00% | 0.07% |
| 317 | Michael | Harper | 6 | 4 | Coppin St. | 1.63% | |
| 740 | Antonio | Williams | 6 | 6 | Coppin St. | 0.61% | |
| 808 | Jordan | Lee | 6 | 4 | Coppin St. | 0.49% | |
| 1246 | Michael | Murray | 6 | 5 | Coppin St. | 0.06% | |
| 1388 | Tony | Gallo | 5 | 11 | Coppin St. | 0.00% | 1.32% |
| 1418 | Akeem | Ellis | 6 | 6 | Coppin St. | 0.00% | 1.16% |
| 1797 | Collin | Johnson | 6 | 4 | Coppin St. | 0.00% | 0.23% |
| 1856 | Branden | Doughty | 6 | 8 | Coppin St. | 0.00% | 0.16% |
| 167 | Chris | Wroblewski | 6 | 0 | Cornell | 2.35% | |
| 245 | Andrew | Ferry | 6 | 4 | Cornell | 1.90% | |
| 1113 | Errick | Peck | 6 | 6 | Cornell[ |
I am sorry but these rankings mean diddly squat to me. 2,500 players?? Someone is simply wasting their time.
Quote from: Bertface on May 12, 2011, 12:52:30 AM
I am sorry but these rankings mean diddly squat to me
If you don't understand or appreciate statistics then maybe you should stay away from the heavy statistical analysis threads.
Hey yeah that is a great idea
or maybe
Don't tell me what to do.
Quote from: Bertface on May 12, 2011, 12:57:44 PM
Hey yeah that is a great idea
or maybe
Don't tell me what to do.
Is this your son Skat?
Quote from: Bertface on May 12, 2011, 12:57:44 PM
Hey yeah that is a great idea
or maybe
Don't tell me what to do.
......or I'll take my ball and go home!
Hey I appreciate numbers and stats for an overall snapshot of the game and understand that weeks and weeks of work are being put into these rankings.
However, how do you measure a players heart and desire to excel in the game?
I am sure Tractor Traylor's numbers were much higher than Dirk's at the point they were drafted. Now Traylor dead in an apartment in Puerto Rico and Dirk top 5 players in the NBA.
So I do appreciate these stats however just feel that they are not the end all be all.
oh yeah!?!? well whatsamatta boface!?!
Quote from: Bertface on May 12, 2011, 01:27:55 PM
I am sure Tractor Traylor's numbers were much higher than Dirk's at the point they were drafted. Now Traylor dead in an apartment in Puerto Rico and Dirk top 5 players in the NBA.
Nice....jackwagon.
They're stats, and you are a moron.l
Quote from: ringout on May 12, 2011, 01:00:27 PM
Is this your son Skat?
If it was I'd stop paying child support.
How am I a moron? Do you think Buzz recruits on stats alone? Or are the the All-NBA teams based on stats alone?
Quote from: Bertface on May 12, 2011, 02:12:09 PM
How am I a moron? Do you think Buzz recruits on stats alone? Or are the the All-NBA teams based on stats alone?
Stat geeks get very upset when people discount their fancy equations.
Quote from: Bertface on May 12, 2011, 02:12:09 PM
How am I a moron? Do you think Buzz recruits on stats alone? Or are the the All-NBA teams based on stats alone?
Not entirely, but all NBA teams and MVP awards are largely based on stats. And my Guess is Buzz isn't flying to Houston to watch some dude who averages 9 PPG.
As for the moron part, that was directed towards you comment on Tractor Taylor....a 34 year old dies of a heart attack and you take cheap shots.
Davante is pretty proud of himself
http://twitter.com/#!/DGardner_54/status/68690773956235264
just found out I was ranked 403 in the NCAA out of 2500 players....this season coming is going to be crazy haha got something up my sleeve
Quote from: Bertface on May 12, 2011, 02:12:09 PMHow am I a moron? Do you think Buzz recruits on stats alone? Or are the the All-NBA teams based on stats alone?
I'll take a crack at this one. How are you a moron. Well, first, I believe that it's fairly common knowledge that not all things are for all people. Some sports fans like basketball, some football, some even like soccer. Does that make Europeans morons, because they like soccer? What about food? Is the person whose favorite food is hamburger smarter or dumber than a person who loves pizza? Is it better to like coffee than tea?
You are coming into a thread and attacking the OP (who's probably the smartest stat analyst on this site) for putting effort into something he's passionate about. You may not care about it, and aren't obligated to, but the idea that you would belittle his work and troll throughout the thread, especially while seemingly dissing a dead guy, is simply uncalled for, pointless, and more than a bit moronic.
As far as Traylor and Nowitzki, ugh...could anything be less timely? Talk about completely tasteless. But in terms of quantitative stats, they were apples and oranges. Traylor was a dominant college player while Nowitzki was racking his numbers up overseas. Both were considered lottery picks. Some lottery picks prove worth the pick, like Nowitzki, and some aren't, like Traylor. But were Traylor's numbers in college definitively better than Nowitzki's? Traylor's last year at UM he put up 16.2 ppg and 10.1 rpg. Pretty darn impressive. Meanwhile, Nowitzki was putting up 28.2 ppg for DJK Wurzberg in Germany. I couldn't find rebounding numbers, but he did put up 33 points and 14 rebounds in a victory at the Nike Hoop Summit where an International team defeated a heavily favored team of American collegiate all-stars. In terms of sheer numbers, there seems to be little doubt that Nowitzki's were much better, but against a different level of competition. Again, apples and oranges, but trying to make this comparison is moronic.
And while Buzz doesn't recruit on stats alone, I can assure you that stats will gain a coach's attention. As he doesn't have time to scout every single high school player in the country, he has to pick and choose which players he shows interest in, and stats will help garner that interest. And while All-NBA teams may not be picked on stats alone, I would say that stats are probably 95% of the determining factors. What, did you think LeBron and Wade routinely make those teams because of their good looks? Asserting that any other factor is more important is moronic.
So suffice to say, there are many reasons you are coming across like a moron. Attacking bama, the Traylor reference, and the ignorance of the importance of stats in basketball all contribute heavily.
Hope that helps :)
Understood, the Tractor remark was a low blow but it was the first thing that came to mind and I apologize to anyone who was offended or has been affected personally or within their family by a heart attack, I have had close friends experience this and know the pain that comes with it for everyone.
I didn't belittle anyones work I said it was a waste of time that could have been cut off say 100 or maybe 150 players.
I feel these ranking will change every day and by including all these players it takes away from the credibility of the rankings.
Everything brewcity said plus this:
Quote from: Bertface on May 12, 2011, 12:57:44 PM
or maybe
Don't tell me what to do.
Ska posted at 6:53 am
You responded with that at 12:57 pm
In 6 hours and 4 minutes. you came up with "Don't tell me what to do." 6 hours and that was your best quip? As you hit the "Post" button, were you smiling from ear to ear thinking "That'll show him"?
great math skills and I had no time to get to the Internet until then so I will make sure to be on top of my muscoop.com surfing while I am taking part in a thread.
Quote from: Bertface on May 12, 2011, 03:27:01 PM
Understood, the Tractor remark was a low blow but it was the first thing that came to mind and I apologize to anyone who was offended or has been affected personally or within their family by a heart attack, I have had close friends experience this and know the pain that comes with it for everyone.
I didn't belittle anyones work I said it was a waste of time that could have been cut off say 100 or maybe 150 players.
I feel these ranking will change every day and by including all these players it takes away from the credibility of the rankings.
The rankings were explained in another thread/CS post that is still on the front page. The rankings won't change every day because they are based on the returning players from the 2010-11 season. Unless someone manages to prove that all of the stats collected from that season were inaccurate, there is absolutely no way these stats will change before the season starts. It's simply not possible.
And cutting it off at the top 150 would really limit what you would see in the totality of the article (found on CS.com). That wouldn't even include one player per team in all of D1.
Again, if you don't like it, or if you don't have the time to read it, then don't bother. But calling an extraordinary amount of work that appeals greatly to stats aficionados a "waste of time" only shows a difference of opinion, and certainly there isn't any need to spend post after post trying to defend your misguided attack on it. Easier to apologize and move on, but then again, who ever does that on the Internet?
Quote from: Ari Gold on May 12, 2011, 03:28:10 PM
Everything brewcity said plus this:
Ska posted at 6:53 am
You responded with that at 12:57 pm
In 6 hours and 4 minutes. you came up with "Don't tell me what to do." 6 hours and that was your best quip? As you hit the "Post" button, were you smiling from ear to ear thinking "That'll show him"?
The correct term is "that'll learn him."
Quote from: Bertface on May 12, 2011, 03:36:15 PM
great math skills and I had no time to get to the Internet until then so I will make sure to be on top of my muscoop.com surfing while I am taking part in a thread.
I think you're already doing that seeing as how the time it takes between 10 and 45 minutes you to respond to criticism with increasingly witty responses
Quote from: Bertface on May 12, 2011, 03:27:01 PM
I didn't belittle anyones work I said it was a waste of time
How is calling his work unnecessary NOT belittling it?
Quote from: Skatastrophy on May 12, 2011, 06:53:51 AM
If you don't understand or appreciate statistics then maybe you should stay away from the heavy statistical analysis threads.
Can't blame him.
If Singleton, who didn't play a second, is a better player then nearly 1,000 others who return the relevance is clearly in the eye of the beholder.
Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on May 12, 2011, 04:30:49 PMCan't blame him.
If Singleton, who didn't play a second, is a better player then nearly 1,000 others who return the relevance is clearly in the eye of the beholder.
Why's that? If there is an average of 12 players, including scholarship and walk-on players, on a D1 team, there will be over 4,000 players in D1 next season, and that's probably a low estimate. Of those, less than 900 would be BCS, or "high-major" players. You don't think it's possible that the bottom of most BCS rosters feature players that are equal to the middle level of the mid-major rosters? That's about what it would take for him to be ranked where he is if you account for his growth and other players' matriculation.
Bama's premise is that Singleton would add value to a low-level D1 team approximately equal to what Jared Berggren adds to Wisconsin. Doesn't seem like an unreasonable assessment.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 12, 2011, 02:50:36 PM
Stat geeks get very upset when people discount their fancy equations.
Told you.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 12, 2011, 07:16:23 PM
Told you.
Disagree, I didn't get at all upset when some people don't like equations. I've been getting emails and calls from around the country asking for the spreadsheet all day (the Vandy guys in particular got pretty excited of course), so I'm glad a lot of people like rankings like this, but I don't get upset that other people have no interest at all.
It's not for everyone, and by now you probably know if one pops up from me it may focus on statistics. As I pointed out in the post leading up to it though, the history is that the teams that started using stats that really measured how many games players were winning for them (best example Oakland A's) started beating better funded teams that didn't. This goes way back - the Dallas Cowboys early Superbowls occurred right after they were the first to go to spreadsheets to evaluate all incoming talent. Teams highered Bill James to determine which players should be in the majors, etc. But obviously there are other people that are very good at watching a player and seeing potential and which ones can take it to another level - so I believe it's smart to draw from all perspectives when making decisions for a program.
On the rating 100 players vs. 2500 players, I appreciate anyone worried about me spending too much time on this stuff, but the fact is once you are in the spreadsheet it takes just as long to rank 5 players as 2500. The hard part is making sure the formula works, but once it does, you copy the formula down the column and sort the players by the results.
Quote from: Ari Gold on May 12, 2011, 03:09:03 PM
Davante is pretty proud of himself
http://twitter.com/#!/DGardner_54/status/68690773956235264
just found out I was ranked 403 in the NCAA out of 2500 players....this season coming is going to be crazy haha got something up my sleeve
Thanks for passing that on! I'm not a tweeter, but happy that Davante saw it and liked it. Fact is his offensive numbers are pretty unbelievable for a guy who got that few minutes. Hope we see a bit more of him on the court next year.
Quote from: bamamarquettefan on May 13, 2011, 02:41:15 AM
Thanks for passing that on! I'm not a tweeter, but happy that Davante saw it and liked it. Fact is his offensive numbers are pretty unbelievable for a guy who got that few minutes. Hope we see a bit more of him on the court next year.
Nice...that confirms 2 players reading CS, Crowder tweeted about an article on there too :)
Quote from: bamamarquettefan on May 13, 2011, 02:31:41 AM
On the rating 100 players vs. 2500 players, I appreciate anyone worried about me spending too much time on this stuff, but the fact is once you are in the spreadsheet it takes just as long to rank 5 players as 2500. The hard part is making sure the formula works, but once it does, you copy the formula down the column and sort the players by the results.
Great stuff--especially in the off-season. Since you have so much time, perhaps if you revealed what the data said coming into the 2010-11 season to validate, this would help to convince the non-quant jocks? :D
We have had this argument many times on this board about the advanced stats...with coaches like Buzz and Brad Stevens highly reliant on the stats, and others like Calhoun who rely solely on their experience. The technology to capture and quantify/scout teams' tendencies is leading-edge (a ESPN video of a game is in digital, so it can be converted to numbers), and has allowed the up-and-comers to close the gap/gain an edge over the old salty dogs--and has allowed mid-majors or 11th place conference teams to advance deep.
Who's right? Both
Quote from: bamamarquettefan on May 13, 2011, 02:31:41 AM
It's not for everyone, and by now you probably know if one pops up from me it may focus on statistics. As I pointed out in the post leading up to it though, the history is that the teams that started using stats that really measured how many games players were winning for them (best example Oakland A's) started beating better funded teams that didn't.
Which better funded teams did the A's beat when it mattered? In their 5 "Moneyball" trips to the Playoffs, they won exactly one series and that was against Minnesota. They also lost a series to Minnesota as well as to the Yankees twice and the Red Sox and Tigers once. Granted, they won a lot of regular season games but when it came to playing the big boys in the postseason, they failed.
Personally, I'm not opposed to Sabermetrics and other basketball-specific statistical data, but I do feel that it is overvalued in today's sports world.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on May 13, 2011, 07:45:50 AM
Great stuff--especially in the off-season. Since you have so much time, perhaps if you revealed what the data said coming into the 2010-11 season to validate, this would help to convince the non-quant jocks? :D
If the data is predictive with any sort of accuracy, it would also be interesting to apply it to incoming recruits as well.
Then we'd be able to know if we have any legitimate chance at beating St. Johns over the next few years
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on May 13, 2011, 07:45:50 AM
We have had this argument many times on this board about the advanced stats...with coaches like Buzz and Brad Stevens highly reliant on the stats, and others like Calhoun who rely solely on their experience. The technology to capture and quantify/scout teams' tendencies is leading-edge (a ESPN video of a game is in digital, so it can be converted to numbers), and has allowed the up-and-comers to close the gap/gain an edge over the old salty dogs--and has allowed mid-majors or 11th place conference teams to advance deep.
If true, the implications of this would be interesting. Good coaching has always been defined as some alchemy of recruiting skill, personality and experience.
If coaching can be distilled down to decisions based on numbers and formulae, it would create some interesting issues.
1. Are the formulae and stats that Buzz is developing and using as MU's coach his own intellectual property or does it belong to MU?
2. If the data belongs to MU (or Butler in the case of Stevens), it would seem to decrease the important of who the coach is as long as they can apply the formulas appropriately when recruiting and coaching.
3. What happens once everyone buys into the theory? Is the current success of teams like Butler and MU a result of being the college basketball equivalent of the Oakland A's under Beane--experiencing a transitory success until the old guard catches up? Or a permanent advantage that will last as long as Stevens or Buzz are the program's respective coaches?
If nothing else, if these theories become more widely accepted I would think school athletic departments would have to become much more involved in the day-to-day coaching activities and data ownership. The university-owned assets that drive success are no longer limited to databases of donors, ticket sales data, and top-notch facilities. Player data would seem to be just as important.
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 13, 2011, 08:18:29 AM
If the data is predictive with any sort of accuracy, it would also be interesting to apply it to incoming recruits as well.
Then we'd be able to know if we have any legitimate chance at beating St. Johns over the next few years
If true, the implications of this would be interesting. Good coaching has always been defined as some alchemy of recruiting skill, personality and experience.
If coaching can be distilled down to decisions based on numbers and formulae, it would create some interesting issues. I will leave this to BAMA
1. Are the formulae and stats that Buzz is developing and using as MU's coach his own intellectual property or does it belong to MU? A service that MU can customize. The whole court is digitalized. I will try and find a write-up to share. When you hear Buzz say "# of paint touches" or "our opponents score 63% out of a time out or 78% of a in-bounds under our own basket", he is quoting these facts.
2. If the data belongs to MU (or Butler in the case of Stevens), it would seem to decrease the important of who the coach is as long as they can apply the formulas appropriately when recruiting and coaching. True, it is an edge now but it will be commonplace tomorrow, so how to stay ahead of the game or technology--same issues but different aspects as 1977.
3. What happens once everyone buys into the theory? Is the current success of teams like Butler and MU a result of being the college basketball equivalent of the Oakland A's under Beane--experiencing a transitory success until the old guard catches up? Or a permanent advantage that will last as long as Stevens or Buzz are the program's respective coaches? I think both. Stats can help you exploit match-ups or lessen disadvantages. Stats definitively helped MU gameplan for Xavier. They new the exact spot Holloway liked to shoot from, receive the ball, how many times he shot off a curl, created his own off the dribble and where. Yet, they had an match-up advantage in JFB to shut him down. Mo Acker could have known all the tendencies as well, but he could not have stopped Tu.
On the A's, drug testing may have been a bigger equalizer in the end but Beane and his disciples (Epstein, et al) have continued to do well. Old dogs like LaRussa have adapted. Sweet Lou? Not all all which is why he is out the door and retired.
If nothing else, if these theories become more widely accepted I would think school athletic departments would have to become much more involved in the day-to-day coaching activities and data ownership. The university-owned assets that drive success are no longer limited to databases of donors, ticket sales data, and top-notch facilities. Player data would seem to be just as important.
Here is the NYT article I have quoted before:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE2DF1331F937A15750C0A9679D8B63
Marquette uses Synergy Sports Technology (link below). Pretty cheap, considering--$5000-$7500.
QuotePrograms like Virginia Commonwealth, Ohio State, Marquette and Butler use KenPom's statistics as a complement to Synergy Sports Technology, a video scouting system that has become popular in the past five years. (The full Synergy package costs $5,000 to $7,500 each year.)
Synergy is so advanced that the Butler assistant coaches Matthew Graves and Micah Shrewsberry said they could take a player like Old Dominion guard Kent Bazemore, whom they faced in their first game of the N.C.A.A. tournament, and find out that he drives to the right 75 percent of the time (despite being left-handed).
The Synergy statistics back up what is shown in the clips. With a few clicks, Butler coaches can watch clips of every post move on the right block that Wisconsin forward Jon Leuer made this season and how many times he turned over his left and right shoulder.
http://www.synergysportstech.com/
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 13, 2011, 08:16:40 AM
Which better funded teams did the A's beat when it mattered? In their 5 "Moneyball" trips to the Playoffs, they won exactly one series and that was against Minnesota. They also lost a series to Minnesota as well as to the Yankees twice and the Red Sox and Tigers once. Granted, they won a lot of regular season games but when it came to playing the big boys in the postseason, they failed.
Personally, I'm not opposed to Sabermetrics and other basketball-specific statistical data, but I do feel that it is overvalued in today's sports world.
First off, I think that the key fact is that every major league team adopted most of Moneyball once the book was out, and I don't believe every team was wrong.
But the point is they were making the playoffs over lots of teams who had much more money to work with and many more of the old pros to work with. Once in the baseball playoffs I think you are in a crapshoot talking about playing 4 to 7 games vs. playing 162 games. I believe I saw at one point that the team with the better record going into a playoff series had something like a 55% winning percentage, but i'd have to look it up - may have been over a stretch of time.
Certainly your final sentence is valid, and I'll even argue the exceptions against myself. I believe every program has to decide how much WEIGHT to put on Sabermetrics. A good friend of mine, Riki Ellison, came out of USC and travelled to the Cowboys camp with Roger Craig to go through all their drills for their spreadsheets that they'd been using to get better players than the competition for several years. After they ran their numbers, they called them both in to tell them they would never play in the NFL. Well, Riki shows me his 3 Superbowl Rings from his days as a starting linebacker for the 49ers when they took out the Cowboys. That's clearly an example of someone getting so wrapped up in stats that they overemphasize them and completely disregard the heart of a hard-working player who is just below the cut in strength and speed and whatever else they measured then but was going to succeed.
But the folks in scouting departments who went to the other extreme of disregarding sabermatrix were unemployed before too long. When new evidence is discovered that says, "you know your favorite player with the nice .292 batting average who never draws a walk or gets an extra base is killing you by eating up your first base position," and you insist the stat guys don't know baseball, then you are going to start losing games pretty soon and be out of a job. So I'm not disagreeing with your first post completely, but EVERY team in EVERY spot has had to start using Sabermatrix as a certain percentage of their evaluation process because the personnel who didn't started losing games. Everyone adoped Moneyball after it came out - no one still weights batting averages heavier than On Base PErcentage + Slugging Percentage because it is demonstable that a team with a much higher OBP+SP will kills an opposing team with a much higher BA over the course of a season.
On the question of predicting future seasons, that is never as precise of course. With thousands of test cases every year, you can verify that Oliver's estimates add up and measure how much a player contributed. Many predicting models have worked pretty well in most cases, but obviously there are guys with huge potential who could be much better than they were last year (Yancy Gates). So you can't say this list is really a predictor other than to say, "If only the players returning next year played last year, then here is how the seasons would have turned out." I'm sure there are people on this list who played through bad injuries and are much better players than what they produced last year, but the figures I'm listing are a very accurate account of what they produced for their team's last year, so they at least produce a nice starting point.
My next study is to take all of the seniors from last year who played 4 straight years at the same school and see what the typical progression is between each year. If looking for prediction, that is probably a better indicator. On the much simpler Win Credits system, it does appear that 5-star players seemed to make huge jumps after their freshman year, and 4-stars after their sophomore year, but this will be a much bigger pool and therefore much more accurate as far as "predicting" next year.
In my mind, the balance I strike is:
1. part this objective measurement that even if you disagree with it is unbiased - I can't move someone up or down because I like him more or less and it gives the same criteria to every player whether or not i can see him play, balanced with
2. what people much smarter than me think about the potential of players - where were they rated by the Scouting Services and where are they predicted to go in the NBA draft boards.
Some of you may be much better at simply watching a player and seeing the potential - that's just not my talent so I stay focused on the piece of the puzzle I'm good at and leave the rest to folks who have actually coached or played at high levels.