Legacy Examined: How Good Was Carleton?

With Dave Smart now at Texas Tech and possibly a candidate to be hired for a D1 job this offseason in this analysis, we delve into the heyday of Carleton basketball and their 2 decades of domination to try to understand out how good they really were. A critical examination of Carleton’s notable exhibition wins vs D1 and the composition of its rosters during the peak of Dave Smart’s tenure serves as a lens through which we aim to gauge the caliber of performance the team might have exhibited in the NCAA. The success achieved by Carleton under Smart’s guidance prompts a compelling exploration of how this Canadian powerhouse might have fared on the broader stage of American collegiate basketball.

The Accomplishments

Carleton University has captured the Canadian National championship 17 times and are the reigning national champions (2023). Under Dave Smart they won 13 and had a 591-48 record. Notably, Carleton’s prowess extended beyond its national borders, with victories in exhibitions over esteemed NCAA D1 teams. In total Carleton has 35 wins over D1 competition and the list of defeated opponents reads like a who’s who of college basketball, including the likes of Baylor, TCU, Wisconsin, Mississippi, Cincinnati, Providence, Vanderbilt, Alabama, Wichita State, Texas Tech, Memphis, Vermont, Saint Louis and many others. It’s crucial to highlight that some of these teams were highly ranked.

Wichita State, for instance, fell victim to Carleton in a staggering 25-point defeat, only to conclude the season 31-5 and ranked 8th on Kenpom. The Canadian powerhouse also triumphed by 13-points over Wisconsin, a team that made it to the Final Four that year and finished top 5. They dominated a 24-9 South Dakota State team ranked 92nd in Kenpom by an astonishing 62-point margin. During a remarkable stretch, Carleton boasted a 16-1 record against D1 teams at one point. Critics may point out that a significant portion of these victories occurred on Canadian soil, with a 24 second shot clock, but this doesn’t explain some of these margins of victory.

A closer examination of the rosters from this period reveals a team composition that challenges conventional expectations. Carleton’s squads featured D1 transfers who had previously served as role players at mid-major schools, a composition not typically associated with consistently defeating P5 teams or dominating.

Exhibitions With NCAA Teams

2018

In August of that year, these teams visited, and Carleton delivered a level of destruction that was truly remarkable, especially considering the quality of the opponents, many of whom were NCAA or NIT teams. Ole Miss, an 8 seed, Cincinnati, a 7 seed, and South Dakota State, an NIT participant later that year, were all on the receiving end of this dominance, with Carleton securing victories by 18, 17, 62, and 19 points, respectively.

The Carleton team continued their outstanding performance throughout the season, finishing with a stellar record of 22-1 and claiming the Canadian National title. The average margin of victory throughout the season was an astonishing 32 points. “Domination” is truly the only word that aptly describes their exceptional achievements.

Players with D1 experience On This Team

These are the best seasons from the transfers from 2016-18

Eddie Ekiyor emerged as one of the standout players on that team, posting impressive averages of 13.9 points per game, 6.2 rebounds per game, and 1 block per game as a junior. Although he started his college career at Xavier, he never saw playing time for them. His high school ranking of 140th on 247, coupled with offers from prestigious programs such as Florida, Oregon, and Kansas State, highlighted his status as a highly sought-after recruit. Standing at 6-9 and weighing 215 pounds, he showcased his quality and size, leading Carleton in scoring during that season.

Munis Tutu, another key contributor, averaged 11.5 points per game and 4 assists per game for Carleton that season. Tutu initially started his collegiate journey at Loyola Marymount, ranked 218th, where he averaged 3.9 points per game and 3.0 assists per game with a 10.5 PER as a freshman, reaching his peak performance in that season. However, he had limited playing time in his sophomore year.

Isiah Osborne began his career at UTEP, a team ranked 240th that season, where he averaged 9.5 points per game and had an 11.2 PER. For Carleton, he maintained a steady contribution, averaging 8.6 points per game.

The two other notable players on that team, both Carleton exclusive, were Tj Lall and Yasiin Joseph, both averaging 12 points per game. These five players formed the core of the team, showcasing their talents and contributing significantly to Carleton’s success.

2017

The 2017 team closely mirrored the 2018 one, with all the mentioned players being key contributors, albeit a year younger. Eddie Ekiyor emerged as their best player that season, boasting averages of 14.3 points per game, 7.6 rebounds per game, and 1.0 block per game. Joseph also showcased his scoring prowess with an average of 14.7 points per game, making them the sole double-digit scorers.

In addition to the core players, seniors Emmanuel Owootoah and Troy Reid-Knight made notable contributions to the team. Owootoah, a 5-11 guard who began his career at Fresno State, averaged 3.8 points per game with a 7 PER in his best season for a team ranked 203rd. Remarkably, he increased his production at Carleton, averaging 7.8 points per game and 2.8 assists per game in this season.

Reid-Knight, who had previously played for Maine, averaged 6.5 points per game with an 11 PER as a freshman for the 339th-ranked team. However, his performance declined over the next two years at Maine, averaging 4 points per game with an 8 PER. In his season at Carleton, he only averaged 2.3 points per game, highlighting the significant improvement of this team. This serves as valuable information for players who have experienced both NCAA and Canadian basketball environments.

2017 Exhibitions

10-2

This year stands out due to the majority of games being played on neutral courts, even securing a victory on the road against Providence, ranked 63rd at the time and a 10 seed in the NCAA that season. Alabama, a 9 seed that advanced to the second round, and Northern Colorado, the CIT champions, were also among the teams they defeated.

While losses to Towson and JMU indicate they weren’t invincible, the team managed 5 wins over eventual top 100 teams, including two on neutral courts and one on the road against an NCAA team. Although this team can be seen as almost the same as the 2018 version, the latter seemed to operate as a well-oiled machine, reaching its peak performance. Altogether, the team boasts a record of 15-2 with 10 top 100 wins against D1 teams and a point differential of +20.7. Their Canadian Championship victory, combined with a 23-0 record, extends their dominance to 55-1 in Canada over the two seasons. Essentially, this core represents a team that achieved a remarkable 70-3 record with 10 top 100 D1 wins in those 2 seasons.

2016

Many of the core players from 2018 became key contributors on this team, despite having been role players or deeper reserves. Eddie Ekiyor saw his first college action in these exhibitions as a redshirt freshman and would go on to average 9.5 points per game and 6.5 rebounds per game on the season. Leading the team was Connor Wood, a homegrown Carleton talent averaging 19 points per game. Additionally, Kaza Kajami-Keane, who averaged 15.5 points per game, 5.2 assists per game, and 4.1 rebounds per game, was a transfer from Cleveland State/Illinois State.

Remarkably, Kaza Kajami-Keane only averaged 2 points per game in his two years at ISU and 4.3 points per game with an 11 PER at Cleveland State, which was ranked 89th. Yet again, another mid-major player, who barely saw playing time and had uninspiring performances in D1, played a leading role on the team.

The 100-75 beat down of 31-5 Wichita State is truly impressive. They would go on to finish 19th in the AP poll, 8th in Kenpom. Future NBA players Landry Shamet and Austin Reeves were on this team.

Others

There were many other good wins and close losses over the years. We won’t list them all but highlight some. If you preform this well over a decade plus it becomes really hard to not to see the obvious.

So How Good Were They

Eddie Ekiyor appears to be a legitimate talent who could have started for Xavier or many teams in power conferences. However, he was still an underclassman during two of the years when they faced most of these D1 teams. The other players with D1 experience were mainly role players on mid-majors ranked 200 or higher. Even the homegrown players with no NCAA experience don’t stand out, with the best averaging around 12 points per game. Nevertheless, they seamlessly fit into their system.

It is truly remarkable that these rosters could dominate any D1 team, let alone top 50 or 100 teams repeatedly. Even when given a second chance two days later, they either convincingly won again or played competitively, proving it wasn’t a fluke. With nearly 15 years of evidence from wins and competitive games, it has to be considered real.

Certainly, having many games on their home court was a significant advantage, an opportunity they wouldn’t have if they were just some CAA or American East conference school. Playing with a 24-second shot clock also aided their success, but it doesn’t fully explain their consistent achievements. The question arises: how did a roster seemingly lacking in D1 talent beat these teams so decisively or play with them year after year? The answer likely lies in the coaching and the unique defensive system.

When a player like Tutu couldn’t get on the court for a struggling Loyola Marymount but becomes the starting PG and one of Carleton’s best players two years later, it raises questions about how they achieved what they did. None of the D1 transfers who eventually became key players were standouts in their previous teams. These weren’t the typical players any D1 team would expect as transfers, and one would think they wouldn’t suddenly dominate NCAA and NIT teams.

This provides insight into the talent. Despite the skepticism about the roster’s talent, one must acknowledge the results and coaching. This emphasizes the coaching even more. It would be easier to explain if none of these players had D1 experience or if there was a player averaging 20+ points with extraordinary stat lines. The stat lines of these players don’t jump off the page in that way. It seems the success was truly built on coaching and a unique defensive system that forced players to their weak hand more than any other team, possibly at any level in basketball.

By all indications, this would have been a top 25 team for three seasons, a legitimate national title contender. Even if they were playing in D1 conferences, teams would likely be better prepared for them, seeing them twice a year. Going on the road, they might lose some games, but given the way they beat these teams, one has to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Their unique defense was probably one of the best in college basketball during that season. Even if you consider their Canadian schedule similar to the Northeast Conference, which is considered the weakest conference, if any team were to go 27-1 with four top 100 wins, as they did in 2018, with those margins and beating everyone by an average of 30+, that team would be highly ranked. The computers would love them too. In our opinion, from 2016-2018, this program, if it were in the NCAA, would likely have been ranked in the top 25, received top 5 seeds in the NCAA, and been a contender. The evidence is clear. What is also clear is that some program should hire Dave Smart who built that and who is now at Texas Tech as an assistant. He would likely do a spectacular job anywhere he is at, and the coaching genius is what most stands out here to us. Perhaps the only way you can explain some of these scores with the rosters.