brackets are guesswork. drafts + data-backed scoring aren't. we’re building bracketball for march.
currently deep-diving on every single d1 team (6/365)
deep dive 6: washington huskies – a metrical anomaly
bracketball projection for 2026-2027:
14-18 (6-14); 16th in the big 10; miss ncaat
last season’s results:
16-17 (7-13); t-12th in the big 10
2025-26 roster breakdown:
*see media*
incoming recruits + transfers:
*see media*
deep dive:
danny sprinkle’s (hereafter, “danny”, “sprinkle” or “ds”) time in seattle could very well be coming to an end if he fails to exceed bracketball projections. after two very successful stints as head coach at montana state and utah state, where he had three 25+ win teams and made three trips to the ncaat in five years, washington has failed to break .500 with ds at the helm, finishing 18th (dead last) and t-12th in his first two seasons, respectively.
my confidence in sprinkle is starting to diminish a bit after this past year. year 1 anywhere, and especially in the big 10, is going to be tough, but sprinkle was gifted the 3rd best portal class according to on3 (13th best according to 247sports), in addition to one of the best, most dominant freshmen in the country in hannes steinbach and put together a very disappointing season. it is worth noting that washington did show promise and lost a lot of very close games. as a matter of fact, 7 of their losses were by 6 or less – 5 of those by 4 points or less – but their inability to finish games ultimately cost them. they played some of the big dogs (michigan, purdue, nebraska, illinois) tough, but also racked up a few bad losses against bottom feeders like penn state, maryland and oregon.
with the classes (transfer and recruiting) that sprinkle has been able to bring in these past few seasons, and the lack of success he has been able to produce with them, i have serious doubts about this husky team next year. their portal, recruiting and overall classes currently rank 43rd, 115th and 73rd, respectively, which is not horrible but the roster construction is just not adding up for me (i’ll speak more to this shortly). and with how little ds has been able to put together with great classes, i don’t see this class outperforming to the point where washington is even close to a top half big ten team, or a .500 team overall.
washington, metrically, had some bright spots. they were a t70 team in adj off and def efficiency; two pretty telling stats – 46/70 (~66%) and 28/30 (~93%) teams t70 and t30, respectively, in adj off efficiency this past year made the tournament. in terms of adj def efficiency, these splits were a little less extreme but still telling – 41/70 (~59%) and 22/30 (~73%). interestingly enough, washington was one of three teams t70 in both of these metrics to not make the tournament – the other two being indiana and new mexico. indiana was a first four out team and new mexico was a next four out team – both finished over .500, making washington the only team to finish t70 in both of these categories and finish the season with a losing record. this husky team was the first team since wvu in 2021-22 to finish t70 in both of these metrics whilst finishing with a losing record (wvu finished with the same 16-17 record). pretty insane.
some other positives for the huskies this past season came in the form of free throw shooting, rebounding and taking care of the ball/preventing fast breaks. washington was 43rd in the nation in team ft%. free throws always seem to be something that coaches and analysts harp on and while they are an incredibly important part of the game, i found this stat interesting: only 20 out of the 70 top free throw shooting teams in the nation (~28%) made the ncaat. i’d be interested to zoom in on this with @cbbanalytics and look at team clutch ft percentages (only have the free tier at this point which won’t allow me to look at this metric). teams like iowa state, north carolina, miami, tennessee, and more, were all bottom 100 in terms of team ft % and still made the ncaat, and in some cases still made a nice run. if i had to guess, these were teams that stepped up their percentages at important points of the game.
while the huskies shot a nice percentage, and were t50, from the free throw line this past year, they did not get there very often. their ft rate was .301 – 301st in the nation. so while they may have shot well when they got fouled and went to the line, they weren’t there very often. certainly not often enough. it would also be foolish, naïve, to extrapolate a stat like this and think that if they simply got to the line more with this ft %, they would have scored more points and won more games. but, with that being said, if they upped their ft rate just a little bit/got to the line a few more times a game, and, conservatively, their percentage was slightly worse (middle-of-the-pack – 72.5%), they would probably have a few more w’s to their name and, honestly, an outside shot at the tournament – some kind of postseason basketball at the very least. don’t forget, the huskies lost by 3 to wisco in the b10 tournament too.
it seems simple but in today’s college basketball landscape, efficient three-point shooting is imperative if you want a shot at success. washington, as a team, shot 31.5% from beyond the arc – 307th in the nation. to give you an idea of how likely it is that a team who shoots this poorly makes the tournament, only 2 of the bottom 50 teams in team 3p% made the field of 68 (4%). and only 8 of the bottom 150 teams made the field of 68 (~5%). short answer here is: shoot the ball well from beyond the arc and you give yourself a much better chance at dancing come march.
so where does sprinkle need to focus in order to get this program back on the right track? they’ve been to the ncaat once in the past 15 years. how can he make it twice? well, i think the obvious answer, after that last paragraph, would be add three-point shooting – and sprinkle has absolutely done this. as a matter of fact, the four guys that ds has gone out and got from the portal are all proven shooters; 3 of which average well over 3 three-point-attempts/game. friedrichsen shot over 40% from three this past year at davidson on 161 attempts (4.9/game), venters shot ~37% from three this past year at gonzaga on 98 attempts (3.6/game), watts shot ~32% from three this past year at tech on 78 attempts (2.4/game – he also shot over 40% in has previous two seasons at wazzu and ewu) and beasley shot ~33% from three this past year for the dons on 149 attempts (4.8/game). the volume, and efficiency, are certainly there with these guys – all of them shot better, in some cases significantly better, than washington did as a team this past year.
with all of that being said, the roster construction confuses me a little bit; washington has a few roster spots left and still really needs a solid big man, or two. hoping lathan sommerville takes the next step and becomes a 10+/6+ guy is just not something they should be banking on. he is definitely a solid player that i can absolutely see improving but he’s just not one of those bigs that’s going to bang around in the paint and do the dirty work and that is an essential part of any danny sprinkle team. there are very few size options left in the portal so if I had to guess, sprinkle will be going overseas for at least one more big guy before the offseason comes to a close.
see below for some of sprinkle’s international options:
kilian dueck (fc bayern muenchen 2nd team)
- 7’0 with nice touch and a solid frame. needs to strengthen a bit and is still a bit raw but there is certainly potential there. not necessarily the toughest guy on the floor either – will need to dig deep and find the grit before he steps on the college floor, especially with someone like sprinkle that needs you to battle for boards.
thomas acunzo (s. bernardo-cinelandia cantu u20)
- 6’10 with great touch around the basket and feel for the game. can step outside and hit shots as well. similar to dueck, needs to bulk a bit. looks to be physical inside and has terrific footwork.
mouhamadou landoure (dar city basketball team)
- 6’11 with really solid touch around the basket and feel for the game. i think this could be a realistic get and a guy that should be on coaches’ radar right now. college-ready body as well and can run the floor very well.
felix kiehlneker (orange academy ratiopharm)
- 6’10 with good instincts and feel for the game. very coordinated and physical with a complete understanding of the game. 2008-born. i think he could do well in this system
that is all for now.
cheers.
while it seems to be general consensus that the portal/nil era is bad, some might say terrible, for the sport, it has made the offseason insanely entertaining.
it’s quite literally professional free agency on steroids.
almost every single star has a huge decision to make (draft, stay, transfer) unless you’re a consensus top 5 pick or out of eligibility.
i don’t foresee this level of drama continuing as either congress, the ncaa or some other governing body regulates further, but it has certainly been fun these last few years.
feels like this past year was even more dramatic as there was so much more money being thrown around.
will be interesting to see where things go from here.
happy hump day everyone!
deep dives are currently on pause.
i am working on a world cup bracket game beta that i will be running for this upcoming tournament. it mirrors what i am building for march hoops.
let me know if you are interested and i will put you on the beta list
deep dive 6: washington huskies – a metrical anomaly
bracketball projection for 2026-2027:
14-18 (6-14); 16th in the big 10; miss ncaat
last season’s results:
16-17 (7-13); t-12th in the big 10
2025-26 roster breakdown:
*see media*
incoming recruits + transfers:
*see media*
deep dive:
danny sprinkle’s (hereafter, “danny”, “sprinkle” or “ds”) time in seattle could very well be coming to an end if he fails to exceed bracketball projections. after two very successful stints as head coach at montana state and utah state, where he had three 25+ win teams and made three trips to the ncaat in five years, washington has failed to break .500 with ds at the helm, finishing 18th (dead last) and t-12th in his first two seasons, respectively.
my confidence in sprinkle is starting to diminish a bit after this past year. year 1 anywhere, and especially in the big 10, is going to be tough, but sprinkle was gifted the 3rd best portal class according to on3 (13th best according to 247sports), in addition to one of the best, most dominant freshmen in the country in hannes steinbach and put together a very disappointing season. it is worth noting that washington did show promise and lost a lot of very close games. as a matter of fact, 7 of their losses were by 6 or less – 5 of those by 4 points or less – but their inability to finish games ultimately cost them. they played some of the big dogs (michigan, purdue, nebraska, illinois) tough, but also racked up a few bad losses against bottom feeders like penn state, maryland and oregon.
with the classes (transfer and recruiting) that sprinkle has been able to bring in these past few seasons, and the lack of success he has been able to produce with them, i have serious doubts about this husky team next year. their portal, recruiting and overall classes currently rank 43rd, 115th and 73rd, respectively, which is not horrible but the roster construction is just not adding up for me (i’ll speak more to this shortly). and with how little ds has been able to put together with great classes, i don’t see this class outperforming to the point where washington is even close to a top half big ten team, or a .500 team overall.
washington, metrically, had some bright spots. they were a t70 team in adj off and def efficiency; two pretty telling stats – 46/70 (~66%) and 28/30 (~93%) teams t70 and t30, respectively, in adj off efficiency this past year made the tournament. in terms of adj def efficiency, these splits were a little less extreme but still telling – 41/70 (~59%) and 22/30 (~73%). interestingly enough, washington was one of three teams t70 in both of these metrics to not make the tournament – the other two being indiana and new mexico. indiana was a first four out team and new mexico was a next four out team – both finished over .500, making washington the only team to finish t70 in both of these categories and finish the season with a losing record. this husky team was the first team since wvu in 2021-22 to finish t70 in both of these metrics whilst finishing with a losing record (wvu finished with the same 16-17 record). pretty insane.
some other positives for the huskies this past season came in the form of free throw shooting, rebounding and taking care of the ball/preventing fast breaks. washington was 43rd in the nation in team ft%. free throws always seem to be something that coaches and analysts harp on and while they are an incredibly important part of the game, i found this stat interesting: only 20 out of the 70 top free throw shooting teams in the nation (~28%) made the ncaat. i’d be interested to zoom in on this with @cbbanalytics and look at team clutch ft percentages (only have the free tier at this point which won’t allow me to look at this metric). teams like iowa state, north carolina, miami, tennessee, and more, were all bottom 100 in terms of team ft % and still made the ncaat, and in some cases still made a nice run. if i had to guess, these were teams that stepped up their percentages at important points of the game.
while the huskies shot a nice percentage, and were t50, from the free throw line this past year, they did not get there very often. their ft rate was .301 – 301st in the nation. so while they may have shot well when they got fouled and went to the line, they weren’t there very often. certainly not often enough. it would also be foolish, naïve, to extrapolate a stat like this and think that if they simply got to the line more with this ft %, they would have scored more points and won more games. but, with that being said, if they upped their ft rate just a little bit/got to the line a few more times a game, and, conservatively, their percentage was slightly worse (middle-of-the-pack – 72.5%), they would probably have a few more w’s to their name and, honestly, an outside shot at the tournament – some kind of postseason basketball at the very least. don’t forget, the huskies lost by 3 to wisco in the b10 tournament too.
it seems simple but in today’s college basketball landscape, efficient three-point shooting is imperative if you want a shot at success. washington, as a team, shot 31.5% from beyond the arc – 307th in the nation. to give you an idea of how likely it is that a team who shoots this poorly makes the tournament, only 2 of the bottom 50 teams in team 3p% made the field of 68 (4%). and only 8 of the bottom 150 teams made the field of 68 (~5%). short answer here is: shoot the ball well from beyond the arc and you give yourself a much better chance at dancing come march.
so where does sprinkle need to focus in order to get this program back on the right track? they’ve been to the ncaat once in the past 15 years. how can he make it twice? well, i think the obvious answer, after that last paragraph, would be add three-point shooting – and sprinkle has absolutely done this. as a matter of fact, the four guys that ds has gone out and got from the portal are all proven shooters; 3 of which average well over 3 three-point-attempts/game. friedrichsen shot over 40% from three this past year at davidson on 161 attempts (4.9/game), venters shot ~37% from three this past year at gonzaga on 98 attempts (3.6/game), watts shot ~32% from three this past year at tech on 78 attempts (2.4/game – he also shot over 40% in has previous two seasons at wazzu and ewu) and beasley shot ~33% from three this past year for the dons on 149 attempts (4.8/game). the volume, and efficiency, are certainly there with these guys – all of them shot better, in some cases significantly better, than washington did as a team this past year.
with all of that being said, the roster construction confuses me a little bit; washington has a few roster spots left and still really needs a solid big man, or two. hoping lathan sommerville takes the next step and becomes a 10+/6+ guy is just not something they should be banking on. he is definitely a solid player that i can absolutely see improving but he’s just not one of those bigs that’s going to bang around in the paint and do the dirty work and that is an essential part of any danny sprinkle team. there are very few size options left in the portal so if I had to guess, sprinkle will be going overseas for at least one more big guy before the offseason comes to a close.
see below for some of sprinkle’s international options:
kilian dueck (fc bayern muenchen 2nd team)
- 7’0 with nice touch and a solid frame. needs to strengthen a bit and is still a bit raw but there is certainly potential there. not necessarily the toughest guy on the floor either – will need to dig deep and find the grit before he steps on the college floor, especially with someone like sprinkle that needs you to battle for boards.
thomas acunzo (s. bernardo-cinelandia cantu u20)
- 6’10 with great touch around the basket and feel for the game. can step outside and hit shots as well. similar to dueck, needs to bulk a bit. looks to be physical inside and has terrific footwork.
mouhamadou landoure (dar city basketball team)
- 6’11 with really solid touch around the basket and feel for the game. i think this could be a realistic get and a guy that should be on coaches’ radar right now. college-ready body as well and can run the floor very well.
felix kiehlneker (orange academy ratiopharm)
- 6’10 with good instincts and feel for the game. very coordinated and physical with a complete understanding of the game. 2008-born. i think he could do well in this system
that is all for now.
cheers.
@pascalrager i think florida took that a little more lightly because they had just come off a national championship.
of course that means expectations are sky-high, but you don’t go and fire golden after he just conquered the sport the year before.
it would be a very different feeling.
great job by mark pope and kentucky to go get their guy in milan momcilovic. will be a massive piece for bbn this coming year
with that being said, this turns the heat up even higher on pope. he will need to coach this squad to a very high level.
i see anything less than a sweet 16 being a failure and i think bbn would generally agree.
back-to-back years that bbn will have the most expensive roster in the nation (~$20m+) with little-to-nothing to show for it.
let’s re-word this goodman quote to say:
if pope doesn’t get kentucky to a sweet 16 this coming year, he will no longer have a job in lexington.
love that point as well and was actually thinking about that.
what if kentucky goes out there, loses less than 5 games and gets the overall 1-seed but goes out early?
hard to tell but, in this case, if they go out to an 8 or 9 in r32 i could still see him getting the boot — although less likely.
@HoldThatMate seems like these numbers will pretty much never be public but i wouldn’t be surprised if bbn tops it out when everything is said and done
any interest out there in a draft/bracket game for the world cup?
aware most of my audience are college basketball junkies, like myself, but i already have the foundation/infrastructure laid out for my march madness bracket game so it would make this easy.
lmk in the replies!
@JacksonSm612 being overly reasonable with NIL valuations, their newcomers will cost them about $12m, returners bring them to $13.5m and freshman bring them to maybe $15m-$16m. i don’t think their total cost will eclipse $20m
deep dive 5: fordham rams
bracketball projection for 2026-2027:
21-14 (10-8); 6th in the a10; miss ncaat
last season’s results:
17-15 (8-10); t-8th in the a10; conf tourney first round loss
2025-26 roster breakdown:
*see media*
incoming recruits + transfers:
*see media – not pictured/mentioned is recent commit omar essam; essam is an unranked 6’11 C from LUHI*
deep dive:
i envision year 2 of the mike magpayo era in the bronx being another step forward. in the two years prior to madpayo’s arrival, fordham finished dead last (2025) and t-10th (2024) in the a10 standings; with 12 and 13 total wins, respectively. magpayo arrived in march of
2025 and led the team to a t-8th place finish in the a10 (8-10) and a 17-win season – the rams’ first above-.500 season since 2023 and just their 4th in the last 20 years (!!!). to give you more perspective on the state of this program, the rams have had more single digit win
seasons in the past 20 years than .500+ seasons. it has not been pretty.
magpayo saw plenty of success at his previous gig. in his five years at uc riverside, he compiled a record of 89-63 (.586), finished third in the conference three times and never finished lower than 6th. this was a program that was in a similar spot that fordham was in.
since their inaugural d1 season in 2001, uc riverside was largely a big west bottom feederand only had two .500+ seasons under their belt. insert magpayo and the highlanders go above .500 in 4/5 seasons, including two 20+ win seasons! incredible.
fordham has not made the ncaa tournament since joining the a10 in 1995. they last made the tournament in 1992 as a member of the patriot league, and before that in 1971. this program only has 4 ncaa tournament births ever. i feel pretty confident that it is only a
matter of time until magpayo changes that number.
let’s look at this past year for fordham and line up some magpayo team trends (see advanced metrics in media)
fordham, in the 2025-26 season, played at a very slow pace: 65.7 poss/40 – 321st nationally. magpayo teams will not play with a pace that is hard to keep up with – always around that 65.5-68 poss/40 mark. this doesn’t necessarily indicate good or bad – teams like illinois,
uconn, purdue, houston and iowa all were at that poss/40 level or lower, with iowa being dead last at 62.8 poss/40 – but, oftentimes, slowing down fast-paced squads can be more advantageous than the flip-side – we saw this with iowa, illinois and uconn’s ncaat runs. if
your guys are good enough, your scheme is strong enough and your squad is coachable enough (as important as anything else!) to make the other team play your game, success can absolutely find you.
magpayo teams, historically, are not teams that get to the line often. for whatever reason, this has not been a big piece of his coaching style. over the past 4 years, mm’s squads have ranked near the bottom of the barrel in ft rate consistently: 330th (2023), 295th (2024), 321st
(2025), 354th (2026). as a matter of fact, that 295th ranked finish in 2024 was the only magpayo-led team to finish below .500. i have a feeling this is less-so a metric that magpayo is trying to keep low, and more-so a by-product of trying to limit low-quality contested 2s – shots that are very low in the pecking order in types of shots you want your guys taking. we have a small sample size of just this past season with this nerdball
magpayo style in the a10 – a much more physical conference – but it seems to be working for now.
there are a few magpayo team rebounding metrics i also found interesting: trb% and opp orb%. this past year, fordham ranked 23rd in the nation in trb%. of the top 25 teams in this metric, 15 (60%) made the ncaa tournament. all but 4 won 20 games and 14/25 teams won 25+ games! want your team to win games? get guys – all over the floor – that can rebound the damn ball. magpayo understands this – his team is consistently t100 in this category and has been t30 twice in the last four years. he also has guys listed at 6’9, 6’10, 6’10 and
6’11 that will be playing significant minutes this coming year. and good rebounding guards to supplement. i bet this is a t50 rebounding team again this year.
another aspect of the game that magpayo teams seek to control/limit are opponent offensive rebounds. torvik’s rebounding metric, opp off reb%, shows that mm teams have been top 40 in this category 3 out of the last 4 years. 29th nationally this past year. insane
consistency.
there’s no denying that magpayo’s ‘nerdball’ approach works. he almost never has ‘elite offensive teams’. over the past four years, he hasn’t had a t100 team in adj off eff, a t175 team in eff fg%, a t150 team in 2p% or a t90 team in 3p% (three teams outside t190). despite the lack of emphasis on efficient offensive play, ucr and fordham have still found nice success. defensively, his teams aren’t partifularly special either. regardless, whatever
magpayo chooses to hone in on has worked.
i do think, with the few roster spots that fordham has left, they should fill some gaps at the wing spot and maybe nab one more guard. listing a few possibilities below.
- myles rice (maryland)
this may seem like a longshot but i really think this could be a match made in heaven. rice needs an opportunity to revamp his game and finish out his collegiate career strong and fordham could be a great fit. after dominating in his freshman year at wazzu, he was one of the most highly coveted transfers. he regressed in his sophomore year at indiana, and further regressed this past year at maryland but has all the tools to be a great player again.
- ty-laur johnson (san diego)
i really think this has legs if he doesn't wind up at a high-major. johnson is from brooklyn originally and is a really solid guard with high-major experience. has gone louisville ➡️ wake ➡️ san diego and can always get you a bucket while still being a very solid distributor. there was one guy in cbb with high usage (>25), ast% >30, stl% >4 and ft% > 80%. ty-laur johnson. he would bring in all his tools + experience. this should be a priority for mm if fordham has the funds.
cheers.
@JacksonSm612 being overly reasonable with NIL valuations, their newcomers will cost them about $12m, returners bring them to $13.5m and freshman bring them to maybe $15m-$16m. i don’t think their total cost will eclipse $20m