Members

[Anonymous]

Well he was consistently bad when he played early in the season and now Smith has tightened up the rotation. From what I saw, he played wild/out of control (TO prone) and shoots very poorly (his shooting form is FUGLY). He got yanked multiple times for wtf-type plays almost immediately after entering the game. He was given opportunities and repeatedly underperformed.

38% FG, 11% 3P, 65% FT, 1.33 A/TO. Awful numbers for a PG and consider most of his minutes came against cupcakes. This is Saunders’ third year at D1/P6 and it looks like he’s just not cut out for this level.

[Anonymous]

I’m guessing between -6 to -7.5. I think we lose by 10+.

[Anonymous]

In these two games we were -22 TO’s (-19 steals).

This team plays hard, but it’s obvious they are severely lacking in talent and athleticism.

Our true bigs are slow and soft. Brandon Carlson, supposedly our best player, is easily out-physical’ed into being a non-factor. Keita is an exception, but he is extremely raw.

Other than Madsen, we have no decent 3pt shooters. Worster, Stefanovic and Saunders are pathetic shooters for guards.

The newcomers haven’t shown much. Saunders has been terrible. Ben Carlson is Riley Battin 2.0. Baxter is physically limited. Exacte and Keita have shown some flashes of ability, but both have a lot of development to do before they can be reliable contributors. Tarlac hasn’t played enough to judge.

Overall I’m not seeing much reason to think this team will be much better than last year.

[Anonymous]

I don’t know, but what I do know is that we have no decent 3pt shooters other than Madsen. Worster, Stefanovic, Saunders are pathetic shooters for guards. Coach Smith claims Exacte is a good shooter, but his shot has looked awful so far.

[Anonymous]

This team unquestionably lacks talent and athleticism, but I’m becoming a believer in Smith’s coaching ability. What he is getting out of this team is impressive – they are overperforming and consistently play with effort and belief despite often being outmatched, which indicates great coaching and a positive culture. The big outstanding question is whether Smith can recruit and develop better talent because so far the recruiting has been lackluster. If he can get what he’s getting out of this talent, I think there’s good reason to be very optimistic about the program’s potential if he can get legit P6-level talent.

Also, I think it’s unfair/unrealistic to use Majerus as a measure of success standard – he was a truly a special all-time basketball mind who we were very, very lucky to have had. Look at the 1998 roster that made it the championship game. What other coach could have made that roster a legit championship-level team? The only comparable success-talent ratio teams I can think of since then are the Brad Stevens Butler teams that made it to the championship game back-to-back in 2010-11. I’ve been a Utah basketball fan for over 30 years and I have come to realize that it’s unrealistic to think that we will/should ever achieve the same heights as the 90s Majerus era.

[Anonymous]

Saunders has been objectively bad. He’s shooting 33% (12% 3pt) and -1.7 A/TO ratio (and most his minutes so far have been against cupcakes). Worster is shooting 46% (27% 3pt) and +1.75 A/TO ratio. He is averaging 2.0 TO/game, which is not really bad for 30 min/game.

Saunders is quick, but plays wild/out of control. In his short Miss St stint he had multiple wtf plays; I understand Smith yanking him. Even when Worster fouled out of the GT game, Smith opted to use Stef at PG instead of bringing in Saunders. This is Saunder’s third season at D1, his game should be more polished by now. I’m not a Worster fan either, but I think he is clearly the steadiest option we have at PG right now.

[Anonymous]

“Why add degree of difficulty when you’ve got around a 95% chance of tying the game?”

Because extending the game greatly favors the superior team, which was clearly OSU at that point. With the way the play was trending, Utah was essentially toast after losing Rising and OSU scoring the go-ahead TD. Mad respect for Barnes, but realistically that TD was an extreme improbability. Utah was very fortunate to get that TD and it gave them a glimmer of hope of still winning by trying for 2 and potentially going up with the game condensed to two minutes. An outmatched team’s best chance is to shorten the game, take some higher-than-normal risk to try to “steal” an advantaged position, and some luck. At that point there was no way you could reasonably expect Utah to be able to match or outplay OSU in an extended game. I think taking a chance to convert 2, stealing the lead, putting OSU in a position where they had to score with some time pressure, and hoping your defense could provide enough resistance for two minutes was their best chance.

[Anonymous]

I get the value of base analytics, but I think there are clearly cases when there are unique extenuating factors that are significant and the analytics can’t account for. As such, the base analytics have their limitations and there are cases when subjective human assessment and override would be appropriate. I think more subjective assessment was warranted in this case.

For example, I don’t think the abstract 50/50 probability of OT outcome is at all realistic in this case considering the game trend and extenuating factors with Utah’s QB situation, floundering defense, bad kicker, etc. OSU would have been heavily favored had it gone to OT, I think moreso than Utah going for 2 (realistic 50%+ chance of converting) and condensing the game to a situation where Utah has the lead and OSU is forced to score under time pressure. As I said before, extending the game favors the superior team, which was clearly OSU in this case. An inferior team’s chances are better when the game is shortened, some higher-than-normal risks are taken to try to “steal” an advantaged position, and some luck.

[Anonymous]

“Isn’t that exactly what the analytics are doing? And your initial post implies that the analytics told Whitt that going for 1 was more favorable.”

The computational analytics don’t/can’t account for every possible significant factor, and there were several significant extenuating factors in this case (e.g. game trend, QB situation, floundering defense, bad kicker). The computational analytics are useful as baseline guide, but they have their limitations and there are going to be situations where substantial subjective human assessment and judgement is appropriate.

[Anonymous]

“Anyone that is super successful in any career minimizes emotional decisions while allowing their extensive experience to allow for flexibility. This is why Whitt has a $4M salary. And no one in this group is likely to have that salary. (There is still the possibility that OnlyU is Whitt 🤪).”

Sorry, but this is very flawed reasoning as a rebuttal to my specific point. Sustained success indicates high net-positive decision-making; an extremely competent/successful person can/will still be wrong and make mistakes at times. I’m not at all questioning Whitt’s overall competence, I’m simply thinking analytically about one specific decision.