Related pages Coach's comments Box score Season stats Possession analysis Explanation of NEP

UNC-Asheville limped into town and will crawl out. KU was the recipient of some very difficult scheduling by their opponent. UNC-Asheville flew to Oklahoma City and played OU earlier in the week. They bused to Lawrence on Tuesday and have been in town for several days. These guys have been on the road for 5 or 6 days on the heels of a holiday. Worst of all they have had back-to-back games against top 20 teams. I don’t think UNCA is a great team, but they aren’t quite as bad as they showed tonight. On the other hand I do believe KU is that good. KU is ranked 18th in the coaches poll. I would like to ask those coaches if they would be willing to match up against KU right now for all the marbles instead of one of the 17 higher ranked teams. If a coach had to decide which team to play, my guess is KU might not get many votes. In other words, I don’t think anyone really thinks KU is the 18th best team in the country. But who really cares at this point? Personally I kind of like the prospect of entering the Big 12 season ranked 4th in the conference. As for the UNCA game, it is hard to make too much of this game since UNCA was not much competition. On the other hand, a great team executes greatly in these situations. KU is a great team and they executed pretty well. Their running game was as good early on as it has ever been. They were hustling and controlling the ball. They were making smart decisions in the transition and the half court game. They were continually going to option one, the inside game, and option one kept delivering. It would be easy to say Kirk had an off game, but I mostly disagree for two reasons. Number one, what was Kirk’s role in this type of game? His role was to set up option one by screening, assisting, and decoying. When option one breaks down he needs to be in position to receive the outlet pass for a shot. Tonight the outlet pass was not too necessary. Simien and Collison were very effective down low. The second reason I think Kirk’s performance was fine is the theme of this game was clearly get Graves and Lee some quality minutes. This game was more than anything a good chance to build some confidence for Graves and help him learn the offense from the standpoint of being more of the focus. If we had needed Kirk tonight, I am quite sure he would have stepped up and could have scored 15 or 20. I think Roy had a plan to get Graves up to speed in a game situation. There is a difference in practicing in an empty gym and playing in a game, even a tune-up type game, in a packed Allen Fieldhouse. I think Kirk deferred much of his normal offense in lieu of the bigger picture plan. He had a season high 9 assists against ZERO TOs. That is a great night all by itself. The third and less valid reason was it might have been a little hard for him to get too excited about this game. That might be the reason for the 1 for 5 from three pointers. Everyone can have an off night shooting, and Kirk is no exception. Kirk did what we needed tonight, period. The team had pretty gaudy numbers across the board. Even the walk-ons posted some outstanding numbers. Before I get too far into the discussion take a look at the NEP data for this game. Top 10 NEP Since 1996-97 Season Date Opponent NEP n-NEP A/TO A/FG FG% 2FG% 3FG% FT% SE Pts /FGA 3-13-98 Prarie View 239.3 47.85 1.67 0.73 59.4 64.7 44.4 66.7 59.1 1.59 1-09-97 Niagara 236.0 47.68 2.43 0.77 72.1 76.6 57.1 73.1 71.3 2.20 11-26-99 Xavier 224.1 44.82 2.12 0.75 59.3 61.2 50.0 57.1 58.4 1.37 1-02-03 UNC-Asheville 219.6 43.92 4.57 0.74 62.3 68.6 44.4 57.1 60.0 1.48 3-09-02 Texas Tech 219.4 43.88 1.48 0.84 55.2 53.7 61.5 66.7 56.6 1.34 1-07-98 Colorado 210.6 42.13 2.33 0.64 66.7 69.2 57.1 75.0 66.9 1.68 12-4-97 Emporia State 207.7 41.54 1.16 0.63 49.3 54.1 20.0 73.2 52.8 1.44 12-14-02 Emporia State 203.6 40.71 1.73 0.60 62.3 73.9 39.1 66.7 60.1 1.64 1-10-98 Texas 202.7 34.95 1.39 0.61 44.1 43.5 45.8 69.2 48.2 1.29 1-28-98 Baylor 198.7 39.74 1.30 0.68 61.3 67.4 43.8 84.6 61.4 1.52 You can see from the above table this is the 4th best overall performance in the last 6+ seasons. Of particular note is the A/TO ratio of 4.57. This is BY FAR the best team A/TO ratio in the last 6+ seasons. It is almost remarkable. It is the second best assist total. The A/FGM ratio was also an astounding 0.74. You just have to look at the data of all the teams in Division I to appreciate this stat. The Jayhawks have been like highly trained assassins in the last four games. The second table down shows the assist data for the last 4 games. With the exception of the 18 TOs against California, the assist and TO data in these games have been outstanding. This data is a strong statement to the KU system and the KU backcourt. In the last four games we are witnessing as good of a backcourt performance as perhaps KU has ever had. Those are pretty big words but bear in mind I am limiting it to 4 games. If they continue this kind of production throughout the rest of the season they will earn the moniker of best backcourt ever. In tonight’s game they had 18 assists against only 1 TO. That TO was a good TO also. If you recall Aaron’s leading pass to Michael Lee on the fast break that just barely scooted by Michael. It was oh so close to being another assist. Date W/L Opponent A TO A/TO A/FG 1/2/2003 W UNC-Asheville 32 7 4.57 0.74 2/27/2002 W Kansas State 23 7 3.29 0.62 2/18/2002 W Iowa State 25 10 2.50 0.56 11/21/1997 W UNLV 22 9 2.44 0.63 1/9/1997 W Niagara 34 14 2.43 0.77 2/13/1999 L Texas Tech 14 6 2.33 0.42 1/7/1998 W Colorado 28 12 2.33 0.64 1/4/2000 W Pennsylvania 27 12 2.25 0.64 3/9/2000 W Kansas State 27 12 2.25 0.82 2/24/2002 W Nebraska 20 9 2.22 0.61 Date W/L Opponent A TO A/TO A/FG 12/14/2002 W Emporia State 26 15 1.73 0.60 12/21/2002 W UCLA 22 11 2.00 0.73 12/28/2002 W California 22 18 1.22 0.71 1/2/2003 W UNC-Asheville 32 7 4.57 0.74 Player of the Game: My heart really wants to give this to Michael Lee who played the best game of his career, but I am compelled to go with.... Screw that, I’m going to give it to Michael Lee. He came off the bench to score a career high 11 points, hitting all 4 of his shots including one three pointer, he grabbed 2 rebounds, had 3 assists to only 1 TO, and stole the ball three times. He accomplished all this in only 19 minutes. NEP n-NEP A/TO SE Simien 32.81 54.69 2.00 73.08% Collison 30.86 53.67 0.00 90.91% Hinrich 30.75 43.93 0.00 33.33% Miles 27.30 47.48 9.00 30.43% Langford 25.79 41.26 1.00 75.00% Lee 21.62 45.51 3.00 84.62% Graves 16.01 33.70 0.00 30.00% Hawkins 11.37 34.99 0.67 50.00% Moody 7.36 73.64 0.00 100.00% Vinson 6.03 48.20 0.00 71.43% Niang 4.59 26.21 0.00 100.00% Nash 3.02 20.11 0.00 0.00% Olson 2.08 20.84 0.00 40.00% He had a very strong n-NEP of 45.5 which ranks as the 27th best n-NEP in the last 6+ years for a non-starter. When you consider the guys who make up the 26 performances ahead of him it looks a little more impressive. (See the table below.) Drew Gooden accounts for nine, Kenny Gregory 3, Eric Chenowith 4, Kirk 2, Billy Thomas 2, Wayne Simien 2, Marlon London 2, Keith Langford 1, and Nick Bradford 2. Consider this, Wayne Simien and Keith Langford combined only had three better performances off the bench last year than did Michael Lee against UNC Asheville. So what is my point? My point is simply that Michael Lee is really starting to catch on to his role on this team and learning and feeling more comfortable in the system. This is very very good news for the Jayhawks, because we desperately need a strong contributor off the bench. Michael has made great strides this season. Look for him to continue to get more minutes since he has the capability to play the off guard or small forward. I suspect Michael will play close to 20 minutes against UMKC on Saturday. Roy surely wants to use these two games to prepare Michael and Jeff Graves for conference play. It is looking more and more like a 7 man rotation. Opponent Date Player NEP n-NEP A/TO SE Emporia State 12/4/1997 Gregory 28.39 63.10 0.00 65.63% Brown 1/2/1997 Thomas 23.57 62.86 0.00 67.74% UNLV 11/21/1997 Gregory 21.73 62.08 0.00 81.25% Niagara 1/9/1997 Thomas 25.66 60.38 4.00 70.83% Xavier 11/26/1999 Hinrich 26.58 59.07 9.00 41.67% Texas A&M 1/20/2001 Gooden 27.44 57.76 1.00 67.86% Georgia Tech 11/27/1999 Gooden 26.79 53.58 0.00 66.67% Oregon 3/24/2002 Langford 29.13 52.96 1.00 86.96% Pennsylvania 1/4/2000 Gregory 26.21 52.41 3.00 66.67% St. Louis 12/30/1999 Gooden 23.47 52.16 0.00 75.00% Texas 2/11/2002 Simien 24.69 51.97 0.50 80.95% Pennsylvania 1/4/2000 Gooden 26.84 51.13 0.00 68.97% Nebraska 2/23/2000 Bradford 30.48 50.80 1.00 67.86% Missouri 3/5/2000 Gooden 34.19 50.66 4.00 66.67% Pennsylvania 1/4/2000 Bradford 23.55 49.58 3.00 69.23% Colorado 2/16/1998 Chenowith 20.90 49.17 1.50 65.22% Kansas State 3/9/2000 London 28.12 48.90 3.50 76.92% Pennsylvania 1/4/2000 Hinrich 20.73 48.77 5.00 100.00% Colorado 1/8/2000 London 21.64 48.08 0.00 66.67% Colorado 3/8/2002 Simien 22.80 48.00 2.00 47.83% Xavier 11/26/1999 Gooden 23.98 47.95 2.50 36.00% Prarie View 3/13/1998 Chenowith 20.32 47.82 2.00 60.00% Pennsylvania 1/4/2000 Chenowith 22.22 46.78 0.00 70.00% Pittsburg State 12/11/1999 Gooden 24.40 46.48 0.00 50.00% Emporia State 12/4/1997 Chenowith 25.55 46.45 1.00 50.00% Boise State 11/20/2000 Gooden 28.87 46.18 0.50 86.96% UNC-Asheville 1/2/2003 Lee 21.62 45.51 3.00 84.62% Significant Stats of the Game: We already discussed the 4.57 A/TO ratio. It doesn’t get much more significant than that. KU had 19 steals which ties for the second best in the last 6+ seasons. The 32 KU assists ranks third best in last 6+ seasons. The bench scored 31 points or about 31% of the total. This is the best total scoring performance of the season for the bench. Only the Emporia State game comes close with 27 points. The big difference in the Asheville game was the Pts/FGA of 1.63 versus 1.23 in the Emporia State game. In other words the subs were more effective in addition to being more prolific. I said opening this column, we should not make too much of this game, but these are certainly encouraging signs. Highlighted Evaluation Prior to the start of the 2002-03 season many of the pundits and talking heads projected the Jayhawk starting five as the best in the country. When the Jayhawks limped home from Oregon as a 0.500 team many of those pundits were shaking in their conjectural boots. They had not only labeled the KU fab five as the best in the country but they had tabbed KU as the number 2 team in the nation. These sages proclaim credibility and insight as their stock in trade and all of the sudden they were at risk of being (shall I use the “W” word?) W R O N G!!! Egad!! To add insult to injury for many of these wise men, they had picked Missouri just last year as the number 2 team in the land only to see them fall into obscurity as they lost 4 of 6 and could manage only 9 wins in 18 games following an 11-0 start. My gosh, if things continued at this pace Dick Vitale might be speechless or Digger Phelps might learn how to pronounce Collison (not Callison). To steal a phrase from the angels of the bible, “Fear Not.” All is right with the world and the Jayhawks are indeed the premier starting five in the country. If you pick Mizzou as the number 2 team in the country you deserve to have your credibility questioned when they implode. When you pick KU, you can bank on it. For those doubting Thomas’s there is now irrefutable proof the KU starting five are unparalleled in the nation in 2002-03. I have downloaded and evaluated the statistics of all 4000+ Division I players. I have calculated the NEP, n-NEP, and NEP Rating. The NEP rating is an attempt to coalesce all team and individual stats into a single rating for each player. It does include an adjustment for players who are the focus of their teams offense and hence run up gaudy statistics. It also includes an adjustment for the teams' strength of schedule. Below are the top 100 players according to the NEP Rating. Rank Rating Player Team NEP NEP /Game n-NEP A/TO SE TO /Touch 1 32.49 Wade, Dwyane Marquette 266.23 29.58 38.31 1.82 61.3 8.8 2 30.74 Collison, Nick Kansas 280.97 28.10 36.02 0.79 60.3 11.6 3 30.74 Anthony, Carmelo Syracuse 235.64 29.46 33.31 1.71 52.6 5.4 4 29.87 Korver, Kyle Creighton 265.53 26.55 36.50 2.75 54.6 6.3 5 29.71 Ridnour, Luke Oregon 279.95 27.99 33.13 2.09 45.9 13.6 6 29.49 Green, Marques St. Bonaventure 278.81 27.88 32.71 1.70 45.5 15.7 7 29.31 Gaines, Reece Louisville 209.97 26.25 35.44 2.00 52.3 12.7 8 29.19 Emmett, Andre Texas Tech 247.54 27.50 32.57 1.18 59.1 6.7 9 29.03 Sweetney, Mike Georgetown 191.80 23.97 39.14 0.92 56.7 5.3 10 28.92 Bell, Troy Boston College 256.59 28.51 29.75 1.58 48.9 7.7 11 28.84 Jackson, Luke Oregon 264.59 26.46 33.60 1.38 53.1 12.9 12 28.49 Daniels, Marquis Auburn 292.68 26.61 32.25 1.38 60.5 12.0 13 28.35 Bernard, Wayne Davidson 191.49 23.94 37.18 1.29 49.1 25.6 14 28.08 Smith, Craig Boston College 226.79 25.20 33.85 0.36 63.4 9.8 15 27.89 Stepp, Blake Gonzaga 320.56 26.71 30.24 1.63 47.9 20.6 16 27.89 Gomes, Ryan Providence 210.16 26.27 31.13 1.38 65.3 6.0 17 27.85 Sidney, Ryan Boston College 243.77 27.09 29.37 2.00 43.0 10.3 18 27.81 Gordon, Ben Connecticut 202.23 25.28 32.88 1.38 54.5 13.8 19 27.57 Thompson, Dijon UCLA 142.94 23.82 35.08 1.36 55.1 11.1 20 27.57 Banks, Marcus UNLV 260.63 26.06 30.57 1.56 53.9 14.1 21 27.49 Domercant, Henry Eastern Illinois 254.09 25.41 31.66 0.93 46.4 8.5 22 27.06 Granger, Danny Bradley 232.42 23.24 34.69 0.59 56.3 8.8 23 27.04 Cook, Brian Illinois 176.49 25.21 30.69 0.95 57.8 11.6 24 27.02 Miles, Aaron Kansas 250.61 25.06 30.94 2.17 44.8 24.1 25 26.86 Cuffle, Clint Evansville 210.23 26.28 28.03 1.55 62.1 6.8 26 26.80 Okafor, Emeka Connecticut 195.83 24.48 31.46 0.18 59.4 7.5 27 26.69 Romero, Hector New Orleans 249.01 24.90 30.27 0.47 53.3 10.5 28 26.61 Miller, Dan Notre Dame 274.48 24.95 29.92 1.50 52.9 8.3 29 26.57 Ford, T.J. Texas 219.53 24.39 30.92 1.80 43.5 23.1 30 26.53 Bailey, Martell Illinois-Chicago 246.04 24.60 30.38 2.14 54.9 25.4 31 26.44 Lenzly, Mike Wofford 222.78 24.75 29.80 1.26 50.7 16.3 32 26.39 Blake, Steve Maryland 218.97 24.33 30.52 2.03 43.1 21.3 33 26.37 Carroll, Matt Notre Dame 265.42 24.13 30.86 1.58 49.8 4.6 34 26.31 Bosh, Chris Georgia Tech 212.49 23.61 31.72 1.06 57.3 8.1 35 26.29 Walsh, Matt Florida 288.29 24.02 30.83 0.80 59.8 21.7 36 26.28 Williams, Demetrice South Alabama 252.16 25.22 28.41 2.15 50.0 13.2 37 26.09 Warrick, Hakim Syracuse 184.98 23.12 32.03 1.58 57.6 6.1 38 25.95 Dux, Brian Canisius 222.98 24.78 28.31 3.28 47.8 11.5 39 25.94 Sonn, Adam Belmont 258.62 23.51 30.79 0.88 43.2 13.2 40 25.89 Nicholas, Drew Maryland 211.58 23.51 30.66 1.59 50.9 9.2 41 25.88 Simien, Wayne Kansas 231.37 23.14 31.37 0.25 63.4 6.8 42 25.86 Slay, Ron Tennessee 168.52 24.07 29.44 0.84 51.6 9.8 43 25.84 Clemons, Ricky Missouri 164.32 23.47 30.57 1.50 52.3 18.4 44 25.84 Drevo, Andrew Nebraska 207.71 23.08 31.35 1.24 48.2 7.9 45 25.77 McCants, Rashad North Carolina 258.78 23.53 30.27 0.71 55.9 10.1 46 25.76 Davis, Chris North Texas 241.68 24.17 28.94 0.97 43.8 15.0 47 25.66 Howard, Josh Wake Forest 156.85 22.41 32.17 0.89 47.5 10.9 48 25.64 Emerson, Scott Mercer 162.47 23.21 30.51 0.69 72.5 11.1 49 25.57 Mark, Adam Belmont 251.91 22.90 30.91 0.59 61.7 11.4 50 25.50 Johnson, Ian Davidson 175.11 21.89 32.73 1.00 54.9 7.5 51 25.39 King, Bernard Texas A&M 205.94 22.88 30.40 1.65 48.1 18.0 52 25.33 Hall, Jermaine Wagner 165.60 23.66 28.68 0.48 59.8 12.2 53 25.33 Martin, Kevin Western Carolina 176.65 22.08 31.83 0.00 51.1 0.5 54 25.28 Williams, Maurice Alabama 215.40 23.93 27.97 1.50 43.9 16.7 55 25.26 Hinrich, Kirk Kansas 212.07 23.56 28.66 1.50 51.2 11.9 56 25.24 Bogans, Keith Kentucky 213.48 23.72 28.27 1.40 50.6 11.2 57 25.19 Duhon, Chris Duke 164.94 23.56 28.44 2.26 44.1 19.7 58 25.15 Felton, Raymond North Carolina 261.02 23.73 27.99 1.95 38.3 21.4 59 25.15 Knight, Brandin Pittsburgh 206.34 22.93 29.58 2.48 38.8 14.4 60 25.13 Brown, Dee Illinois 212.85 23.65 28.10 2.20 48.6 12.1 61 25.10 Miggins, Jimmy Pepperdine 290.97 24.25 26.82 1.28 55.8 16.3 62 25.09 Finley, Morris UAB 221.15 22.11 31.04 2.20 51.8 7.6 63 25.07 Meade, Jave Holy Cross 212.08 23.56 28.09 3.16 42.8 13.9 64 25.03 Hanavan, Ian Evansville 176.80 22.10 30.88 0.70 59.3 19.5 65 25.03 Mallory, Hodari Canisius 197.75 21.97 31.14 0.69 54.4 8.3 66 24.99 Gillingham, James Bradley 230.96 23.10 28.78 1.48 51.0 13.5 67 24.91 Bailey, David Loyola-Chicago 241.71 21.97 30.79 1.58 37.0 14.1 68 24.77 Kinloch, Damien Tennessee Tech 247.24 22.48 29.35 0.66 58.0 14.2 69 24.71 Daniels, Chris Georgia 193.98 21.55 31.04 1.33 58.9 14.5 70 24.70 Eidson, Chuck South Carolina 208.93 23.21 27.67 1.42 48.3 15.8 71 24.69 Bishop, Jeremy Quinnipiac 145.14 20.73 32.62 1.07 57.1 9.1 72 24.68 Powell, Kasib Texas Tech 203.91 22.66 28.72 2.92 53.8 7.3 73 24.68 Wright, Bracey Indiana 235.06 23.51 27.02 1.00 46.1 11.7 74 24.68 Hollingsworth, Johnny Akron 212.72 23.64 26.76 1.81 53.2 10.0 75 24.57 Elder, B.J. Georgia Tech 173.54 21.69 30.31 1.83 49.6 7.9 76 24.55 Thompson, TJ George Washington 209.96 23.33 27.00 1.86 44.3 27.5 77 24.55 Hatten, Marcus St. John's 183.97 23.00 27.67 0.77 43.8 12.7 78 24.44 Henning, Adrian Austin Peay 219.04 21.90 29.50 0.74 63.0 10.5 79 24.41 Slattery, Mike Delaware 208.74 23.19 26.85 2.21 42.1 17.4 80 24.29 Gaines, Charles Southern Miss 191.58 21.29 30.29 0.33 63.5 6.9 81 24.28 Keep, Jason San Diego 229.48 20.86 31.12 0.23 62.0 13.7 82 24.27 Kaman, Chris Central Michigan 183.84 22.98 26.84 0.15 63.3 14.5 83 24.25 Ere, Ebi Oklahoma 174.89 21.86 29.03 0.95 49.0 12.0 84 24.25 Brown, Brandon Tulane 247.33 22.48 27.79 1.35 56.2 9.3 85 24.23 Paulding, Rickey Missouri 157.09 22.44 27.80 0.89 47.0 10.5 86 24.20 Sola, J.J. Drake 232.59 21.14 30.30 1.32 58.5 10.5 87 24.14 Marsh, Ricardo Old Dominion 170.25 21.28 29.87 0.71 53.9 9.1 88 24.10 Newton, Jeff Indiana 228.15 22.81 26.68 0.64 47.7 8.2 89 24.10 Monroe, Chris George Washington 202.05 22.45 27.40 0.61 45.4 11.7 90 24.09 Gruber, David Northern Iowa 197.97 22.00 28.28 0.70 66.0 12.6 91 24.09 Penney, Kirk Wisconsin 226.04 22.60 27.07 1.79 47.1 8.6 92 24.07 Langford, Keith Kansas 219.22 21.92 28.38 1.28 53.1 9.0 93 24.03 Karangwa, Prosper Siena 204.76 22.75 26.59 1.13 42.9 17.9 94 24.03 Baxter, Jimmy South Florida 224.44 22.44 27.20 1.78 51.0 9.6 95 23.97 Duany, Kueth Syracuse 163.95 20.49 30.93 2.45 55.3 8.0 96 23.96 Ramelli, Phillip Samford 206.13 20.61 30.65 1.36 62.7 19.2 97 23.95 Meeking, Antonio Louisiana Tech 132.10 22.02 27.81 0.41 58.0 11.2 98 23.91 Boyd, Brad Louisiana-Lafayette 247.64 22.51 26.70 1.13 43.3 13.0 99 23.91 Sparks, Patrick Western Kentucky 251.26 22.84 26.04 1.75 39.2 19.7 100 23.89 Conley, Jason VMI 225.10 22.51 26.64 0.52 46.6 9.8 KU is the only team with 5 players among the top 100. In fact, Boston College and Syracuse have three players each and no other school has more than 2. Are you convinced yet? How about looking at the cumulative rating for the 5 starters for every team in the country. Let’s see where KU’s solid cinco rate. Cumulative Rating for Starting Five Rank Team Players Total Rating 1 Kansas Collison, Nick / Miles, Aaron / Simien, Wayne / Hinrich, Kirk / Langford, Keith 133.0 2 Syracuse Anthony, Carmelo / Warrick, Hakim / Duany, Kueth / McNamara, Gerry / Pace, Josh 121.0 3 Davidson Bernard, Wayne / Johnson, Ian / Anderer, Peter / Grace, Conor / McKillop, Matt 115.6 4 Oregon Ridnour, Luke / Jackson, Luke / Davis, James / Johnson, Robert / Joseph, Andre 112.7 5 Boston College Bell, Troy / Smith, Craig / Sidney, Ryan / Hinnant, Louis / Bryant, Andrew 111.7 6 Marquette Wade, Dwyane / Jackson, Robert / Diener, Travis / Merritt, Scott / Townsend, Todd 111.2 7 Florida Walsh, Matt / Hamilton, Justin / Lee, David / Bonner, Matt / Roberson, Anthony 110.9 8 North Carolina McCants, Rashad / Felton, Raymond / May, Sean / Williams, Jawad / Manuel, Jackie 109.4 9 Missouri Clemons, Ricky / Paulding, Rickey / Johnson, Arthur / McKinney, Jimmy / Bryant, Travon 107.0 10 Georgia Tech Bosh, Chris / Elder, B.J. / Jack, Jarrett / Lewis, Marvin / Muhammad, Isma'il 105.5 11 Indiana Wright, Bracey / Newton, Jeff / Coverdale, Tom / Leach, George / Strickland, Marshall 105.2 12 Wake Forest Howard, Josh / Danelius, Vytas / Gray, Justin / Williams, Eric / Downey, Taron 104.6 13 Illinois Cook, Brian / Brown, Dee / Williams, Deron / Harrington, Sean / Powell, Roger 102.5 14 Wisconsin Penney, Kirk / Harris, Devin / Tucker, Alando / Wilkinson, Michael / Owens, Freddie 101.4 15 Texas Tech Emmett, Andre / Powell, Kasib / Tomaszek, Robert / Chavis, Will / Storozynski, Pawel 101.1 16 Minnesota Bauer, Michael / Hargrow, Maurice / Rickert, Rick / Burleson, Kevin / Holman, Jerry 101.1 17 South Florida Baxter, Jimmy / Kohn, Reggie / McDonald, Will / Bryant, Marlyn / Leather, Terrence 100.3 18 Kentucky Bogans, Keith / Estill, Marquis / Fitch, Gerald / Hayes, Chuck / Camara, Souleymane 100.1 19 Evansville Cuffle, Clint / Hanavan, Ian / Lytle, Dan / Wagner, Lucious / Burton, Andre 99.9 20 Bradley Granger, Danny / Gillingham, James / Gilbert, Phillip / Robinson, Marcello / Paul, Joey 99.8 25 Colorado Harrison, David / Pelle, Stephane / Morandais, Michel / Wilson, Blair / Wright, James 98.5 27 California Tamir, Amit / Shipp, Joe / Wethers, Brian / Midgley, Richard / Diggs, A.J. 97.8 29 Holy Cross Meade, Jave / Szatko, Tim / Wilson, Brian / Lufkin, Nate / Whearty, Patrick 96.6 36 UCLA Thompson, Dijon / Kapono, Jason / Bozeman, Cedric / Young, Ray / Cummings, T.J. 94.8 40 Alabama Williams, Maurice / Dudley, Erwin / Walker, Kenny / Pettway, Antoine / Meade, Terrance 94.0 46 Oklahoma Ere, Ebi / Price, Hollis / White, Quannas / Brown, Jabahri / Bookout, Kevin 92.9 49 Tulsa Johnson, Kevin / Swanson, Dante / Parker, Jason / Glenn, Jarius / Reed, Antonio 91.3 54 Baylor Roberts, Lawrence / Lucas, John / Thomas, Terrance / Taylor, Kenny / Guinn, RT 90.5 69 Nebraska Drevo, Andrew / Muhleisen, Jake / Johnson, Nate / Turek, John / Simms, Corey 87.6 I included the top 20 plus another 12 teams of interest. Please do not confuse this list as being equivalent to a rating of the best teams in America. Obviously, sixth, seventh, and eighth men can be critical to teams with the luxury of depth. This list can also be a little misleading because players who get more minutes will have a better chance of building stats and hence receiving a higher rating. Although one factor in the Rating is the n-NEP which is independent of (or more accurately normalized to) minutes played. When you look at cumulative rating for KU players (133.0) compared to the second place Syracuse Orangemen (121.0) you sense that it wouldn’t matter too much if KU received fewer minutes since their lead is so commanding. We have now resolved the issue of the best starting five in the country. Let’s look at a few other comparisons. TV announcers and commentators always like to talk about the “best backcourt” or “best frontcourt” or the “best 1-2 combination” in the country. Who really are the best 1-2 and 1-2-3 combo in the country? Wonder no more! I can tell you exactly who the best 1-2 and 1-2-3 combos in the country are. Let’s look at the 1-2 combos. Best 1-2 NEP Combined Rating Rank Team Players Total Rating 1 Oregon Ridnour, Luke / Jackson, Luke 58.6 2 Kansas Collison, Nick / Miles, Aaron 57.8 3 Boston College Bell, Troy / Smith, Craig 57.0 4 Syracuse Anthony, Carmelo / Warrick, Hakim 56.8 5 Marquette Wade, Dwyane / Jackson, Robert 56.2 6 Connecticut Gordon, Ben / Okafor, Emeka 54.6 7 Texas Tech Emmett, Andre / Powell, Kasib 53.9 8 Davidson Bernard, Wayne / Johnson, Ian 53.9 9 Notre Dame Miller, Dan / Carroll, Matt 53.0 10 St. Bonaventure Green, Marques / Gansey, Mike 52.7 11 Maryland Blake, Steve / Nicholas, Drew 52.3 12 Illinois Cook, Brian / Brown, Dee 52.2 13 Bradley Granger, Danny / Gillingham, James 52.1 14 Evansville Cuffle, Clint / Hanavan, Ian 51.9 15 Belmont Sonn, Adam / Mark, Adam 51.5 16 Louisville Gaines, Reece / Myles, Ellis 51.0 17 Canisius Dux, Brian / Mallory, Hodari 51.0 18 North Carolina McCants, Rashad / Felton, Raymond 50.9 19 Georgia Tech Bosh, Chris / Elder, B.J. 50.9 20 Georgetown Sweetney, Mike / Riley, Gerald 50.8 21 Missouri Clemons, Ricky / Paulding, Rickey 50.1 22 New Orleans Romero, Hector / Smith, Johnell 50.0 28 Indiana Wright, Bracey / Newton, Jeff 48.8 30 UCLA Thompson, Dijon / Kapono, Jason 48.5 34 Texas A&M King, Bernard / Wright, Antoine 47.6 36 Alabama Williams, Maurice / Dudley, Erwin 47.2 41 Oklahoma Ere, Ebi / Price, Hollis 46.9 43 Creighton Korver, Kyle / Deren, Brody 46.9 48 Kentucky Bogans, Keith / Estill, Marquis 46.2 49 Wake Forest Howard, Josh / Danelius, Vytas 46.2 50 Old Dominion Marsh, Ricardo / Wright, Rasheed 45.8 51 Nebraska Drevo, Andrew / Muhleisen, Jake 45.7 53 Texas Ford, T.J. / Mouton, Brandon 45.6 54 Holy Cross Meade, Jave / Szatko, Tim 45.4 56 Tulsa Johnson, Kevin / Swanson, Dante 45.3 57 Hawaii English, Carl / Shimonovich, Haim 45.2 60 Stanford Childress, Josh / Davis, Justin 44.9 61 Duke Duhon, Chris / Redick, J.J. 44.9 62 Arizona Gardner, Jason / Anderson, Rick 44.7 68 Pittsburgh Knight, Brandin / Zavackas, Donatas 44.2 71 Colorado Harrison, David / Pelle, Stephane 44.0 81 Baylor Roberts, Lawrence / Lucas, John 42.9 164 California Famulener, Conor / Tamir, Amit 32.4 The two Luke’s of Oregon are officially the best 1-2 combo in America at present (at least as far as the NEP Rating is concerned). Hot on their tails are Collison and Miles of our beloved KU. Note that Missouri also has a solid 1-2 punch that doesn’t include anyone named McKinney. If you add in the 3rd leg to these dynamic duos you have the following tremendous trios. Best 1-2-3 NEP Combined Rating Rank Team Players Total Rating 1 Boston College Bell, Troy / Smith, Craig / Sidney, Ryan 84.9 2 Kansas Collison, Nick / Miles, Aaron / Simien, Wayne 83.6 3 Syracuse Anthony, Carmelo / Warrick, Hakim / Duany, Kueth 80.8 4 Oregon Ridnour, Luke / Jackson, Luke / Davis, James 80.4 5 Marquette Wade, Dwyane / Jackson, Robert / Diener, Travis 77.6 6 Connecticut Gordon, Ben / Okafor, Emeka / Brown, Taliek 76.9 7 Davidson Bernard, Wayne / Johnson, Ian / Anderer, Peter 75.9 8 Bradley Granger, Danny / Gillingham, James / Gilbert, Phillip 73.8 9 Texas Tech Emmett, Andre / Powell, Kasib / Tomaszek, Robert 73.7 10 Maryland Blake, Steve / Nicholas, Drew / Randle, Ryan 73.6 11 Notre Dame Miller, Dan / Carroll, Matt / Francis, Torin 73.5 12 Georgia Tech Bosh, Chris / Elder, B.J. / Jack, Jarrett 73.1 13 St. Bonaventure Green, Marques / Gansey, Mike / Prato, Patricio 72.5 14 North Carolina McCants, Rashad / Felton, Raymond / May, Sean 72.1 15 Indiana Wright, Bracey / Newton, Jeff / Coverdale, Tom 72.0 16 Missouri Clemons, Ricky / Paulding, Rickey / Johnson, Arthur 72.0 17 Belmont Sonn, Adam / Mark, Adam / Drabyn, Steve 71.2 18 Louisville Gaines, Reece / Myles, Ellis / Garcia, Francisco 71.0 19 Evansville Cuffle, Clint / Hanavan, Ian / Lytle, Dan 71.0 20 Illinois Cook, Brian / Brown, Dee / Williams, Deron 70.1 21 Florida Walsh, Matt / Hamilton, Justin / Lee, David 69.8 24 Alabama Williams, Maurice / Dudley, Erwin / Walker, Kenny 69.0 37 California Tamir, Amit / Shipp, Joe / Wethers, Brian 67.1 44 Kentucky Bogans, Keith / Estill, Marquis / Fitch, Gerald 65.8 50 UCLA Thompson, Dijon / Kapono, Jason / Bozeman, Cedric 64.7 51 Colorado Harrison, David / Pelle, Stephane / Morandais, Michel 64.7 52 Stanford Childress, Josh / Davis, Justin / Barnes, Julius 64.5 53 Oklahoma Ere, Ebi / Price, Hollis / White, Quannas 64.3 57 Holy Cross Meade, Jave / Szatko, Tim / Wilson, Brian 63.7 58 Duke Duhon, Chris / Redick, J.J. / Jones, Dahntay 63.5 60 Creighton Korver, Kyle / Deren, Brody / Mckinney, Tyler 63.4 61 Pepperdine Miggins, Jimmy / Acker, Alex / Johnson, Terrance 63.2 62 Tulsa Johnson, Kevin / Swanson, Dante / Parker, Jason 63.1 63 Arizona Gardner, Jason / Anderson, Rick / Frye, Channing 63.1 65 Pittsburgh Knight, Brandin / Zavackas, Donatas / Page, Julius 63.0 85 Nebraska Drevo, Andrew / Muhleisen, Jake / Johnson, Nate 61.0 89 Texas A&M King, Bernard / Wright, Antoine / Turner, Kevin 60.6 90 Baylor Roberts, Lawrence / Lucas, John / Thomas, Terrance 60.4 94 Texas Ford, T.J. / Mouton, Brandon / Ivey, Royal 59.5 Somehow the cream seems to always work its way to the top. The trio of Collison, Miles, and Simien rate as the 2nd best 1-2-3 combo in the country behind Boston College’s stellar trio of Bell, Smith, and Sydney. No matter how you slice it, KU has a strong starting 5 and you would be hard pressed to find a starting lineup top-to-bottom that could match up against KU. Perhaps this isn’t completely definitive, but at least it lends a little mathematical credence to KU’s claim of dominion at the head of the class of starting lineups. Stats all for now, folks.

Email Don