UDPride Discussion Forums    
     

Go Back   UDPride Discussion Forums

» Log in
User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!
» Advertisement
UDPride Discussion Forums

UDPride Discussion Forums (http://www.udpride.com/forums/index.php)
-   Mens Basketball (http://www.udpride.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Top 144 countdown, 2018-19 edition (http://www.udpride.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32210)

ud2 06-30-2018 11:46 AM

Top 144 countdown, 2018-19 edition
 

UD62 06-30-2018 01:20 PM

Wonder if we will crack the top 100?

MNFats 06-30-2018 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UD62 (Post 553839)
Wonder if we will crack the top 100?

I honestly wonder if we make the list at all...

San Diego Flyer 06-30-2018 11:10 PM

Seriously? With 4 returning starters and a gaggle of bench strength coming in? Not even show up on the list? egad.

OSU Flyer 07-01-2018 12:02 AM

I'd be shocked to be below Grambling

hawkoooo 07-01-2018 12:05 AM

Lol you don't think we're better than Grambling? Get real.

Cunningham by himself should get us on this list. 4 returning starters total and a guy who almost certainly would've started last year had he been healthy (Mikesell). If Kostas was coming back we might even be getting some hype.

ud2 07-01-2018 12:36 AM

FWIW, we were #146 in the rpi last year.

We got worse in year 2 under 3 out of our last 4 head coaches, Archie, BG, and JOB.

We went 7-20 in year 1 under OP, no where to go but up there.

We might not be on this top 144 list this year.

San Diego Flyer 07-01-2018 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ud2 (Post 553859)
FWIW, we were #146 in the rpi last year.

We got worse in year 2 under 3 out of our last 4 head coaches, Archie, BG, and JOB.

We went 7-20 in year 1 under OP, no where to go but up there.

We might not be on this top 144 list this year.

Remember how far off you were on Kostas being drafted? You need to polish off your crystal ball.

How much wampum or Monopoly money do you want to bet we won't be in the top 144? :)

springborofan 07-01-2018 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ud2 (Post 553859)
FWIW, we were #146 in the rpi last year.

We got worse in year 2 under 3 out of our last 4 head coaches, Archie, BG, and JOB.

We went 7-20 in year 1 under OP, no where to go but up there.

We might not be on this top 144 list this year.

Stop with your "Fuzzy Math" UD2! Show me some dependent and independent variables ( other than a meaningless fact about a coaches second year) to support your hypothesis. I see a future in politics for you...or maybe CNN 😀

OSU Flyer 07-01-2018 01:41 PM

Wright State at 141

MNFats 07-01-2018 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hawkoooo (Post 553858)
Lol you don't think we're better than Grambling? Get real.

Cunningham by himself should get us on this list. 4 returning starters total and a guy who almost certainly would've started last year had he been healthy (Mikesell). If Kostas was coming back we might even be getting some hype.

I would agree with the Grambling comparison and I agree we are better. However, just about every ranking system (RPI, BPI, Kenpom) had us outside the top 144 last year (and yes, we had Cunningham last year). In some cases we were in the 170's. So the question is, are we materially better than last year? Probably? Maybe?

Losing DD hurts. Losing the other guys maybe not so much, but we still don't really know what we have in Obi, Frankie, Matos and Cohill.

Are those unknowns enough to move us up into the top 144? I hope so, but I won't be shocked if it doesn't.

ud2 07-01-2018 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by San Diego Flyer (Post 553862)
Remember how far off you were on Kostas being drafted? You need to polish off your crystal ball.

How much wampum or Monopoly money do you want to bet we won't be in the top 144? :)

Did you honestly think we would be #146 and 9th place in the A10 last year, before the season started?

ud2 07-01-2018 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OSU Flyer (Post 553870)
Wright State at 141

The Horizon League has really bottomed out in the conference rpi rankings since Butler and Valeo departed. HL #26 out of 32 leagues last year.

Used to be as high as #11 with Butler and Valpo...as high as #12 with just Valpo, without Butler.

OSU Flyer 07-01-2018 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ud2 (Post 553878)
The Horizon League has really bottomed out in the conference rpi rankings since Butler and Valeo departed. HL #26 out of 32 leagues last year.

Used to be as high as #11 with Butler and Valpo...as high as #12 with just Valpo, without Butler.

it's one of the worst conferences in America now. They've slid down the seed line in the NCAAs

Gave Northern Kentucky an opportunity to come in and be a contender

Even if Wright State has an excellent season they're probably a 12 seed at best if they win the Horizon tourney

San Diego Flyer 07-01-2018 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ud2 (Post 553877)
Did you honestly think we would be #146 and 9th place in the A10 last year, before the season started?

For sure, no. No where did I read where Xeyrius Williams would be a head case. Ryan Mikesell had genetic defects. Kostas really did not want to be there with us. Svoboda would be almost totally underdeveloped for D1 competition. And so on.

NCkevi 07-01-2018 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ud2 (Post 553859)
We got worse in year 2 under 3 out of our last 4 head coaches, Archie, BG, and JOB.

I think this is more a product of the what the previous coaches left behind
Archie and BG were left with good-decent talent

BG's 2nd season he had lost from the previous year the top 3 scorers, the top 2 re-bounders and the assist leader

AM from year 1 to 2 lost 4 of his top 6 scorers

When AM left, he had just graduated the top 3 scorers, re-bounders and assist leaders from his last team at UD leaving AG those holes to fill

ud2 07-01-2018 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by San Diego Flyer (Post 553880)
For sure, no. No where did I read where Xeyrius Williams would be a head case. Ryan Mikesell had genetic defects. Kostas really did not want to be there with us. Svoboda would be almost totally underdeveloped for D1 competition. And so on.

If we re-litigate last year's problems, then we are left with the question of who is to blame, the head coach or the players?

On the one hand, perhaps Grant is very hard to get along with and is not good at player development, thus the departures of KA, Crosby, Williams, Davis, and Svoboda. And perhaps we will have more friction this year between the head coach and his players.
And perhaps Grant did not do a good enough job of coaching up the team, thus the losing record and the 9th place A10 finish.

On the other hand, perhaps KA, Crosby, Williams, and Davis were the problems, and Archie missed on evaluating Svoboda. And perhaps we will have a more harmonious relationship this year between the head coach and his players. And perhaps Archie left Grant with a depleted roster.

Who knows where the truth lies?

But, I think there is enough uncertainty to cast serious doubt on whether we will be included in this top 144 list.

UD62 07-01-2018 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ud2 (Post 553883)
If we re-litigate last year's problems, then we are left with the question of who is to blame, the head coach or the players?

On the one hand, perhaps Grant is very hard to get along with and is not good at player development, thus the departures of KA, Crosby, Williams, Davis, and Svoboda. And perhaps we will have more friction this year between the head coach and his players.
And perhaps Grant did not do a good enough job of coaching up the team, thus the losing record and the 9th place A10 finish.

On the other hand, perhaps KA, Crosby, Williams, and Davis were the problems, and Archie missed on evaluating Svoboda. And perhaps we will have a more harmonious relationship this year between the head coach and his players. And perhaps Archie left Grant with a depleted roster.

Who knows where the truth lies?

But, I think there is enough uncertainty to cast serious doubt on whether we will be included in this top 144 list.

I vote for "the other hand". Only I would swap Pierce for Davis. Don't see how you can call Davis a problem, but to be fair I don't see a lot of your posts.

The Fly 07-01-2018 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ud2 (Post 553883)
On the other hand, perhaps KA, Crosby, Williams, and Davis were the problems, and Archie missed on evaluating Svoboda. And perhaps we will have a more harmonious relationship this year between the head coach and his players. And perhaps Archie left Grant with a depleted roster.

Who knows where the truth lies?

I, too, vote for the other hand. Crosby had two years under Archie, so we know that was simply a flawed evaluation when he was recruited. Good kid, unwise use of a scholarship. And did you see Svoboda play? Again, good kid, but yeah, another botched evaluation by Archie. No one can deny Williams and Grant didn’t agree on what was expected of him, and Kostas was done with school even had Archie stayed. So your speculation and eagerness to point a finger at Grant is fueled more by your distaste for him than by reality. And your “1 percent chance Kostas gets drafted” pretty much undercuts your prognostic abilities.

Now, none of this is to suggest Grant is sitting on a powerhouse or even that he’s the best thing since sliced bread. But to create a straw man argument that “maybe” he’s incapable of building “harmonious” relationships with his players seems foolish, as does your statement that “perhaps” Archie left Grant with a depleted roster. Really? “Perhaps”?

Why not quit GUESSING what Coach Grant can do and watch what he DOES do. We’ll know in another year or two whether he’s the man for the job.

Viperstick 07-01-2018 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by San Diego Flyer (Post 553880)
For sure, no. No where did I read where Xeyrius Williams would be a head case. Ryan Mikesell had genetic defects. Kostas really did not want to be there with us. Svoboda would be almost totally underdeveloped for D1 competition. And so on.


I do remember reading on some draft prediction website that both Kostas & Svoboda would be going pro this year.

We are a big unknown this coming year. Last year, the prognosticators & fans all expected a drop off from a 7-seed 2016-17, but only to 1-2 seed NIT territory. We were much worse than that. Do the prognosticators give us the benefit of the doubt and put us in the top-100? I doubt it.

Our offense last year was pedestrian; our defense was horrible. I don't think we've done anything to substantially alter that perception going forward. Adding a 4-star Cohill is nice and Cunningham is a beast, but those are two bright spots in an otherwise murky picture. Obi, Frankie, & Matos, despite our perceptions of them as hidden gems, were not players we stole from UK or Duke. Getting Mikesell back will help, but he wasn't an all-conference player before and there's no indication he'll be one going forward. Excising the metastasized cancer from the team will invariably help, but we are now down two bodies (four if you consider two of our acquisitions are ineligible for the 2018-19 season). We will be a lot quicker with all the SG/SFs we have, but we're going to be an undersized team with one true PG on scholarship. Grant is a solid recruiter and a well liked coach, but while he succeeded at VCU he stumbled at 'Bama, so even he's not a sure bet.

I want to believe we're going to surprise this year; I want to believe we are better than what we will be predicted to do. But I don't see the hard evidence pointing to the pleasant surprise. Are we better than Grambling? I hope and think so, but I think we'd better be ready to see our name in the next week or so on that 144 countdown...

ud2 07-02-2018 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Fly (Post 553887)
I, too, vote for the other hand. Crosby had two years under Archie, so we know that was simply a flawed evaluation when he was recruited. Good kid, unwise use of a scholarship. And did you see Svoboda play? Again, good kid, but yeah, another botched evaluation by Archie. No one can deny Williams and Grant didn’t agree on what was expected of him, and Kostas was done with school even had Archie stayed. So your speculation and eagerness to point a finger at Grant is fueled more by your distaste for him than by reality. And your “1 percent chance Kostas gets drafted” pretty much undercuts your prognostic abilities.

Now, none of this is to suggest Grant is sitting on a powerhouse or even that he’s the best thing since sliced bread. But to create a straw man argument that “maybe” he’s incapable of building “harmonious” relationships with his players seems foolish, as does your statement that “perhaps” Archie left Grant with a depleted roster. Really? “Perhaps”?

Why not quit GUESSING what Coach Grant can do and watch what he DOES do. We’ll know in another year or two whether he’s the man for the job.

Crosby...I think he would have improved in his final 2 years under Archie, sometimes it takes a couple years for a player to develop...we will never know since Archie left.

Svoboda...hard to say either way definitively after only one year, we will never know since Archie left.

KA...hard to say how long he would have stayed had Archie stayed, we will never know.

5 players leaving in 1 year, that is pretty unusual, I stand by the friction/harmonious comments.

Depleted roster...I disagree, CBS's bracketology had us in the first four out in the off-season last year...in addition, some places had us finishing around 4th or better in the A10 last year, we underachieved, per those polls, in finishing 9th.

And even if we know that Grant is not the man for the job in 2 years, it won't make a difference, he will likely get 5 years regardless.

Message boards are big on speculation, absent speculation, the amount of discussion would greatly decrease.

ud2 07-02-2018 12:31 AM

We can disagree on whether the roster was depleted last year, some experts thought it was depleted, some did not...depends on who you ask.


CBS bracketology during the off-season...first 4 out.

Top 144 countdown: #53, 3rd place, NIT

A10 poll...5th place

Street and Smith's...8th

Athlon 4th place

Lindy's 6th place

Sports Illustrated 5th place

NBC 5th place

Three man weave, 7th place, NIT projection.

UD62 07-02-2018 08:16 AM

All your perseason data doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Williams quit on the team, Pierce never was a part of the team. Svoboda tried but the game was too fast for him. Kostas, long on potential was short on performance. I know you are not a fan of AG, to put it mildly, but he had a short roster of capable players. Thankfully the situation has been corrected.

CE80 07-02-2018 08:19 AM

What I don't get is Flyer fans that want to debate how bad we were or are going to be. I recognize that our team may at times not be what we want them to be but it is what it is I have no desire to make arguments to prove that we are or will be not as good as we would like them to be.

The Fly 07-02-2018 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ud2 (Post 553893)
Crosby...I think he would have improved ...

Svoboda...hard to say ...

KA...hard to say ...

I stand by the friction/harmonious comments.

Depleted roster...I disagree ...

Message boards are big on speculation ...

You’re great at using phrases like “I think” and “hard to say” even when the performance we all witnessed is about as clear as it can get. Crosby had three years to prove himself and didn’t get it done. Period. Svoboda had oodles of playing time and was a disappointment. Period. Both left for opportunities more befitting their talent level and not because of “disharmony” with Grant. Period. And the coaching staff openly acknowledged that Kostas was NEVER going to play more than a year or two in Dayton. Period.

You can stick to your guns if you choose, but you’re firing blanks. And yes, boards like this are big on speculation. I mean, I could speculate that Josh Cunningham is going to sprout four inches over the summer and be an NBA lottery pick. But I know the difference between fiction and fact. Your brand of speculation simply ignores what most of us SAW on the court or heard from reliable sources.

Period.

MNFats 07-02-2018 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CE80 (Post 553908)
What I don't get is Flyer fans that want to debate how bad we were or are going to be. I recognize that our team may at times not be what we want them to be but it is what it is I have no desire to make arguments to prove that we are or will be not as good as we would like them to be.

There isn't really a way to talk about last season without talking about how bad we were at times. So are we not allowed to talk about last season? Are we only allowed to talk about the home game against VCU?

And when we talk about the upcoming season, there is room for optimism and I believe we will be one of the best 144 teams. That doesn't mean the guy assembling this list agrees with that - which is what this thread and debate is about.

And before you get all uppity about Flyer fans acknowledging our short-comings, you are the one who "got no joy" from Kostas getting invited to the combine. So while we debate whether or not we will be any good (we all want us to be good) you can continue not giving a crap if former Flyers have continued success.

That's one that I will never understand.

Flyers98 07-02-2018 10:28 AM

I have no problem with people criticizing the program or pointing out where we are bad and need to get better. It is however disappointing when after one year it is clear that there are folks on this board who, for whatever reason, dislike AG more than they love the program and therefore are, in my opinion, rooting for him to fail even though that means that the team and program fail as well.

CE80 07-02-2018 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MNFats (Post 553912)
There isn't really a way to talk about last season without talking about how bad we were at times. So are we not allowed to talk about last season? Are we only allowed to talk about the home game against VCU?

And when we talk about the upcoming season, there is room for optimism and I believe we will be one of the best 144 teams. That doesn't mean the guy assembling this list agrees with that - which is what this thread and debate is about.

And before you get all uppity about Flyer fans acknowledging our short-comings, you are the one who "got no joy" from Kostas getting invited to the combine. So while we debate whether or not we will be any good (we all want us to be good) you can continue not giving a crap if former Flyers have continued success.

That's one that I will never understand.

We're even - I guess I don't understand you and you don't understand me.

Fair enough on the "got no joy" on Kostas being invited to the combine. I said I was "indifferent". I don't think that is quite the same as "not giving a crap" but to you I guess not. That's fair.

Uppity? It is not the acknowledging of the shortcomings, its the point after point after point to prove the negative points.

To each his own. We all get what we want out of reading and posting on this board.

longtimefan 07-02-2018 01:02 PM

Certain people who didn't like the Grant hire continue to point out all the negative stuff to belittle Grant and prove they were right that he was a bad hire. They point to the pre-season predictions (which mean basically nothing) to show that we fell short of expectations - therefore Grant is a bad coach. Therefore they were right about the hire.

MNFats 07-02-2018 01:19 PM

I just want to be on record as a very pro-Grant guy.

But at the same time, I'm not going to pretend last year didn't happen. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

What's my point? You can be disappointed in how the team did and still support AG. You can be skeptical about the upcoming season, and still support AG.

TXFlyerFan 07-02-2018 01:46 PM

I'll just say that last year, IMO, has no relation to any issues Grant may have had at Alabama. I know people will try to draw correlations but it's simply not possible. Grant isn't the same guy he was then, the players aren't the same, the university isn't the same, etc.

Grant should be solely judged on what he does here. Was last year bad? Yes. Was it Grant
s fault? To some degree. Is he accountable for it? Yes, even though some things may have been out of his control. As much as I want my Flyers to win, I believe Grant needs to be given sufficient time to build his team, his culture, etc. I'm sure the duration of such is debatable, and that doesn't mean that he is immune from criticism, but he still must be and will be given time to correct course.

As such, I couldn't care less about pre-season rankings, pre-season tournament projections, etc. They are meaningless, and just published to generate clicks/discussion during a slow time for college basketball. I'd much rather talk about summer practices, who we are interviewing to hire for the S&C and assistant coaching positions, recruits, etc, than whether we are in some kind of top 144 something or other.

I'm not saying anyone who wants to discuss shouldn't, just that in the overall scheme of things, some writer's determination of top 144 teams doesn't amount to anything.

ud2 07-02-2018 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Fly (Post 553910)
You’re great at using phrases like “I think” and “hard to say” even when the performance we all witnessed is about as clear as it can get. Crosby had three years to prove himself and didn’t get it done. Period. Svoboda had oodles of playing time and was a disappointment. Period. Both left for opportunities more befitting their talent level and not because of “disharmony” with Grant. Period. And the coaching staff openly acknowledged that Kostas was NEVER going to play more than a year or two in Dayton. Period.

You can stick to your guns if you choose, but you’re firing blanks. And yes, boards like this are big on speculation. I mean, I could speculate that Josh Cunningham is going to sprout four inches over the summer and be an NBA lottery pick. But I know the difference between fiction and fact. Your brand of speculation simply ignores what most of us SAW on the court or heard from reliable sources.

Period.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

Some players have improved a lot vs. their earlier years in the program: Kavanaugh, Benson, and Oliver. Just because Crosby, Svoboda, and KA did not impress initially, does not mean that they could not have blossomed later on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by longtimefan (Post 553922)
Certain people who didn't like the Grant hire continue to point out all the negative stuff to belittle Grant and prove they were right that he was a bad hire. They point to the pre-season predictions (which mean basically nothing) to show that we fell short of expectations - therefore Grant is a bad coach. Therefore they were right about the hire.

All 3 of the last 3 head coaches have received sharp criticism at some point.

Quoting MNFats:

Quote:

Originally Posted by MNFats (Post 553926)
You can be disappointed in how the team did and still support AG. You can be skeptical about the upcoming season, and still support AG.


ud2 07-03-2018 10:33 AM

2018 Battle 4 Atlantis participant, #137 Stanford.

http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/16361

Flyer 86 07-03-2018 06:25 PM

I will hazard a guess of between 118 and 128 for us.

San Diego Flyer 07-04-2018 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ud2 (Post 553969)
2018 Battle 4 Atlantis participant, #137 Stanford.

http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/16361

Stanford is an interesting comparison. They lost about 60% of their rebounding and scoring and only return two 10 point scorers from a one-and-done NIT team. The returnees are very young plus they are enjoying 5 new Freshmen players. There is a positive vibe with a third year coach showing progress each year, and projected to be a CBI/CIT team this season.

San Diego Flyer 07-04-2018 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ud2 (Post 553937)

Some players have improved a lot vs. their earlier years in the program: Kavanaugh, Benson, and Oliver. Just because Crosby, Svoboda, and KA did not impress initially, does not mean that they could not have blossomed later on.

Crosby did improve, but also had clearly topped out. Svoboda was a puzzle as to how several coaches, while scouting, did not either see him in action, or got desperate and took a chance. Didn't work, and then he became the casualty of a new regime that think they can do better. That course was heavily supported.
Kostas is going to get a lot better, but it wasn't going to be at Dayton. His choice. I love the one NBA scout's comment that Kostas was a few years away from being a few years away. Do forget, Kostas did not understand college in general as an ingredient to success.

Flyer2 07-04-2018 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by San Diego Flyer (Post 554058)
Crosby did improve, but also had clearly topped out. Svoboda was a puzzle as to how several coaches, while scouting, did not either see him in action, or got desperate and took a chance. Didn't work, and then he became the casualty of a new regime that think they can do better. That course was heavily supported.
Kostas is going to get a lot better, but it wasn't going to be at Dayton. His choice. I love the one NBA scout's comment that Kostas was a few years away from being a few years away. Do forget, Kostas did not understand college in general as an ingredient to success.

Crosby did improve early on and then regressed...... he tried too hard and didn’t handle criticism that well. With all of the video out there rival coaches adjusted there offense and defense. Svoboda was a crap shoot by Archie......I believe he was just getting bodies. He did not fit Archie’s system or Grants with Archie being a huggie feel guy and Grant a disciplinarian.

Social media, 24 hour sports with all the talking heads, makes it hard for a these kids. They don’t realize that it is not the coaches responsibility to make them stars. Mikesell has the type of work ethic that I like.

ud2 07-07-2018 12:34 PM

Tulsa #130...playing them at Mohegan Sun casino.

http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/16378

Alberto Strasse 07-07-2018 06:25 PM

Tulsa
 
should be favored to win by the wise guys.

OSU Flyer 07-08-2018 02:00 PM

VCU the first A10 team on the list at 128. Picked to finish 8th in the conference

http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/16381

ud2 07-08-2018 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OSU Flyer (Post 554251)
VCU the first A10 team on the list at 128. Picked to finish 8th in the conference

http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/16381

They have not missed consecutive NCAAT's since 2005 and 2006...Rhoades will be expected to deliver this year.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...etball_seasons

Viperstick 07-11-2018 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OSU Flyer (Post 554251)
VCU the first A10 team on the list at 128. Picked to finish 8th in the conference

http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/16381

.

Are there seven teams in conference better than us? I don’t think so, but if we see a couple more A-10 squads and not our own, I’m going to get worried.

CE80 07-12-2018 08:58 AM

Last season we were overrated preseason. Maybe this year we will be underrated preseason. I like our chances of surprising some people this season.

San Diego Flyer 07-23-2018 08:12 PM

I'm seeing some resume's much closer to ours. That is to say with holes, but still enough potential to get the blood flowing. We may be getting close.

IMO we lost very little next to VCU losing Tillman and Williams, who both gave us fits.

ud2 07-25-2018 02:20 PM


San Diego Flyer 07-25-2018 04:25 PM

According to these projections the CBI and CIT are going to have a heck of a big field.

ud2 07-25-2018 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by San Diego Flyer (Post 555517)
According to these projections the CBI and CIT are going to have a heck of a big field.

Yeah, I think I counted only 8 non-CBI/CIT teams so far, so that is already 32 CBI/CIT teams. So, about every 5th team is a non-CBI/CIT team. 40/8=5.

Last year, #86 I think was the 1st NIT team. So, maybe about 4 more non-CBI/CIT teams before #86.

The CBI took 16 teams last year, and the CIT took 26, so the CBI/CIT cutoff should be around #140, not 144, instead of using the large majority of everybody above #86 as a CBI/CIT catch-all.

144-86=58

58-12-16-26=4.

ud2 07-25-2018 07:02 PM

But, then again, I guess I am off by 2 somewhere, so maybe the CBI/CIT cutoff should be around #142.

Top 46 taken by NCAAT, plus the auto bids of about the bottom 22 conferences, which would not get an at-large bid, is 68 teams.

Plus 32 NIT, plus 42 CBI/CIT, is 142 teams.

San Diego Flyer 07-25-2018 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ud2 (Post 555513)

I think one failing of this exercise is ignoring the SOS of these teams. Duquesne was 16-16, but their SOS of 313 was somewhere in the neighborhood of 2x the rest of the average of the A10. I think their record of 16-16 is significantly over rated as a result. We may have been 14-17, but our SOS of 57 trumps a lot .500 teams.

Our returning 4 starters, and one being a potential first team player, plus our strong SOS, makes a strong argument that we are an NIT team, with a possible bubble NCAA.

Of course I'm biased. :) I'm enjoying reading the synopsis of each team.

Viperstick 07-26-2018 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ud2 (Post 555513)


I believe the Dukes are being underestimated. They're going to compete for the top of the league sometime in the near future. If not this year, then next.

ud2 07-26-2018 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viperstick (Post 555585)
I believe the Dukes are being underestimated. They're going to compete for the top of the league sometime in the near future. If not this year, then next.

Rothstein has DU at #10, that seems more likely, although I expect DU to improve under Dambrot eventually.

SLU #1, SJU #2...VCU again in the middle...surprising.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JonRothst...42686411849728:

Atlantic 10 Offseason Power Rankings:
1. Saint Louis
2. Saint Joseph's
3. Davidson
4. Rhode Island
5. George Mason
6. St. Bonaventure
7. Dayton
8. UMass
9. VCU
10. Duquesne
11. Richmond
12. La Salle
13. George Washington
14. Fordham

Buckleyma 07-26-2018 04:39 PM

Harvard came in at 104 on this 144 list. Harvard is picked to win the ivy league. Seth Towns out of Columbus Northland plays on the Harvard team. I saw Seth Towns play in a tournament in Myrtle Beach South Carolina back when Dayton was reported to be recruiting him. I thought that he was a smooth athletic guy who was a bit skinny. I never dreamed that he would be averaging 16 points per game at the division 1 level. Wow, i kind of underestimated that guy.
Posted via Mobile Device

OSU Flyer 07-27-2018 11:53 AM

I think he means CBI/CIT caliber, not all teams take those bids if offered

San Diego Flyer 07-29-2018 10:36 AM

Food for thought on an off-day.
 
Here's a note on "CIT caliber" teams. I hope we never stoop to this--- per Wiki:

"The CIT is part-bracket, part-racket. The tournament charges a fee for teams to host home games. In 2012, it was reported as $30,000 per home game; in 2014, it was reported as $36,000 per home game; and this year, CollegeAD.com reported it was $38,500 to host a game."

Read:

"It takes $100,000 or 10,000 miles to get college basketball's fourth-best trophy, and to some schools, that's worth it".

https://www.sbnation.com/college-bas...mbia-uc-irvine

For certain schools, at appropriate times and situations, The CIT might be an advancement for the basketball program. Lord help us if we ever stoop to this level.

Buster Goode 07-30-2018 10:09 AM

Are we even going to make this list?

jack72 07-30-2018 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buster Goode (Post 555706)
Are we even going to make this list?

I wonder the same thing. On the other hand, who cares? Being high on that list, or any other pre-season list, and a buck will not even buy you a coke.

Lifelong Flyer Fan 07-30-2018 11:12 AM


UD62 07-30-2018 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lifelong Flyer Fan (Post 555714)

Has the Flyers as numero uno in the A-10, with SLU at 77, UR at 80, SJU at 88 and Dukes at 94. Maybe we should cancel the season, declare ourselves the champs and move to the Dance, then again just maybe things don't end up this way.

ud2 07-30-2018 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lifelong Flyer Fan (Post 555714)

That is an interesting list.

Some interesting rankings:

St. John's 2018-2019 bpi #27...vs rpi #92 last year

Marquette 4!?!?...58

IPFW 64...209

Utah State 71...152

Richmond 80...176

DePaul 85...186

Yale 90...183

Louisiana Tech 98...192

jack72 07-30-2018 01:30 PM

Interesting they are so bullish on Richmond. Not aware that they have picked up much or have much coming back, other than the big kid.

UD62 07-30-2018 01:35 PM

Looks like a really subjective list but good news is always welcome, regardless of the source.

OSU Flyer 07-30-2018 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jack72 (Post 555722)
Interesting they are so bullish on Richmond. Not aware that they have picked up much or have much coming back, other than the big kid.

they've got two guards back, Nick Sherod and Jacob Gilyard, that are pretty good

jack72 07-30-2018 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OSU Flyer (Post 555735)
they've got two guards back, Nick Sherod and Jacob Gilyard, that are pretty good

I see they also have a pretty good 6'9" freshman from the Harlem, named Koureissi.

ud2 07-31-2018 09:39 AM

Oklahoma #99...Battle 4 Atlantis participant.


http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/16453:


Oklahoma had an up-and-down 2017-18 as they started the year unranked, climbed to fourth in the AP Poll and finished the year losing 9 of their last 11 games, including a first round exit in the NCAA Tournament. The Trae Young experience lasted only one year, for better or worse. Young led the team in scoring and assists and was a joy to watch play, but many believed he was the root of the Sooners’ late season problems.

Oklahoma must now transition to life without Trae Young, and that will include replacing his 27.4 points and 8.7 assists per game.

TerryK_67 07-31-2018 12:32 PM

Oklahoma has a GREAT coach.... I would bet he was not at all happy with Young trying to do sooooo much by himself. My guess is that there was some kind of agreement that he would be "da man" for the one and done year.... talk about addition by subtraction....

MNFats 07-31-2018 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TerryK_67 (Post 555780)
Oklahoma has a GREAT coach.... I would bet he was not at all happy with Young trying to do sooooo much by himself. My guess is that there was some kind of agreement that he would be "da man" for the one and done year.... talk about addition by subtraction....

Don't forget "da man" led the country in points and assists. Only 4 players in the country got to the line more last year and he made 86% of those. He is also not a bad defender (1.9 steals per game).

Yes - he took a ton of shots and forced things too often, but that team is not better last year without him.

San Diego Flyer 08-02-2018 05:32 PM

It's getting more and more interesting reading these resume's. We spoke of the influence of SOS that appears to not be a criteria. Also one has to wonder how these folks weigh the different Conferences in strength.

Is a 12-6 record in a one-bid conference and a 4th place finish, better than a .500 record or worse in a three-bid conference? Who knows. But more importantly what do these projectionists think? How much do they weigh last years results vs the returnees impact and potential?

According to the review, Western Kentucky at #97 loses quite a bit from a nice season of 27-11 and 3rd in Conf USA. But a gaggle of newcomers is touted to shore up only a good pair of returning guards. Then they pour cold water on the scene by predicting an NIT team of last year becomes a CBI team this coming season.

If we are in this count down it's going to be very interesting how they rationalize it. I still believe through #97 we are in there somewhere.

San Diego Flyer 08-07-2018 05:58 PM

I think we match up pretty good with #94 UConn who is coming off a transition year. He puts them in the CIT class. Huskie nation would go bonkers if that ever happened.

OSU Flyer 08-08-2018 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by San Diego Flyer (Post 555944)
It's getting more and more interesting reading these resume's. We spoke of the influence of SOS that appears to not be a criteria. Also one has to wonder how these folks weigh the different Conferences in strength.

Is a 12-6 record in a one-bid conference and a 4th place finish, better than a .500 record or worse in a three-bid conference? Who knows. But more importantly what do these projectionists think? How much do they weigh last years results vs the returnees impact and potential?

According to the review, Western Kentucky at #97 loses quite a bit from a nice season of 27-11 and 3rd in Conf USA. But a gaggle of newcomers is touted to shore up only a good pair of returning guards. Then they pour cold water on the scene by predicting an NIT team of last year becomes a CBI team this coming season.

If we are in this count down it's going to be very interesting how they rationalize it. I still believe through #97 we are in there somewhere.

This is pure speculation on my part but I think for the "non power" conferences they put a lot of weight on what the proven returning production is along with transfers and build out from that

It's rare that a team in a league like the A10, C-USA, Mountain West, etc is going to bring a freshman that's on paper highly rated by the recruiting services or regarded enough that's gonna be some someone that easily projects to make a big impact. Kellan Grady at Davidson for instance was a four star guy outside the top 100 but I don't think any previews I saw predicted him having the kind of year he did.

If you're counting on freshman in a league like the A10 that's not a recipe for success

It's tough to project which guy is gonna make the leap like Trey Landers did and which guy is the next John Crosby especially when they don't have big recruiting pedigree behind them. It's safer to just default to what the returning production is and what you can infer off of transfers

That said I think there are instances where the name of the front of jersey makes a difference. I think we saw that last year with some of the more favorable projections Dayton had. Someone like Belmont who's been pretty consistently near the top of the OVC I think would get the benefit of doubt over say Morehead State with areas that are question marks

San Diego Flyer 08-08-2018 09:43 AM

Our story is only marginally compelling this year. In Archie's run, it always seemed like we had several by-lines. Pollard was wing man for Jabari Parker. Sibert the deadly shooter transfer from OSU. Arch was Sean Miller's brother. No player over 6'6". You know what I mean. Some will gag, but Kostas was a story if he came back.

Anthony Grant returns to his alma mater won't move the needle.

We need to win, now, starting in Atlantis or there is no story.

I'm still intrigued with where we fit in this countdown, if at all.

ud2 08-08-2018 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by San Diego Flyer (Post 553856)
Seriously? With 4 returning starters and a gaggle of bench strength coming in? Not even show up on the list? egad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by San Diego Flyer (Post 553862)
Remember how far off you were on Kostas being drafted? You need to polish off your crystal ball.

How much wampum or Monopoly money do you want to bet we won't be in the top 144? :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by San Diego Flyer (Post 556278)
I'm still intrigued with where we fit in this countdown, if at all.

Hmmm, I sense a change in tune. Lol.

San Diego Flyer 08-08-2018 01:00 PM

I'm further educated by some of the write ups. I still think we are there so don't serve the crow until it's over. :) I would bet some Monopoly money right now, but I'm short.

CraSch 08-08-2018 10:24 PM

What does your height have to with it?

T-Bone 84 08-08-2018 11:45 PM

Tomorrow, they name #90. I have to believe that we’ll either be named in the next 2 weeks (75-90), or we won’t be named at all.
Posted via Mobile Device

ud2 08-11-2018 11:59 AM

UMass #88, #6 A10...NIT


http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/16491:


Key Returning Players:
Luwane Pipkins, Junior, Guard, 21.2 ppg

ud2 08-11-2018 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by San Diego Flyer (Post 555530)
Of course I'm biased. :) I'm enjoying reading the synopsis of each team.

Since it sounds like you are reading each synopsis, is UMass the first NIT team in the top 144?

TXFlyerFan 08-11-2018 12:46 PM

If UMass is #6 in the A10 and UD has been predicted at somewhere between 7-10, it sounds like we will be outside the top 144.

San Diego Flyer 08-11-2018 08:18 PM

Actually the UMass synopsis gives hope. I believe they are the first team with an NIT projection. Also they may be the first team mentioned that actually had a losing record last season, and they are from the A10 and not a P5.

The above glove fits our hand as well.

MNFats 08-12-2018 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by San Diego Flyer (Post 556438)
Actually the UMass synopsis gives hope. I believe they are the first team with an NIT projection. Also they may be the first team mentioned that actually had a losing record last season, and they are from the A10 and not a P5.

The above glove fits our hand as well.

I would agree, but at this point it's a numbers game. There are 5 A10 teams left on this countdown. St. Louis is on there. George Mason is on there (they finished ahead of us last year and return everyone). Davidson is on there.

That leaves two spots.

I think Richmond is on there. They finished 9-9 in conference last year and return their top 4 scorers.

That leaves one spot for: Dayton, St Bonnies, Rhode Island, St. Joes. The other 3 finished top 4 last year.

I know the other three lost a lot, but if we take off our red and blue glasses and view this from the perspective of the national media, they think we lost a lot too. And we did - we lost 30+ppg.

Good news is that this is a conversation for August and come November none of this means squat. I'm excited for the season, but I'm sticking to my original assessment when they started the list...we're not on it.

m21eagle45 08-12-2018 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MNFats (Post 556441)
I would agree, but at this point it's a numbers game. There are 5 A10 teams left on this countdown. St. Louis is on there. George Mason is on there (they finished ahead of us last year and return everyone). Davidson is on there.

That leaves two spots.

I think Richmond is on there. They finished 9-9 in conference last year and return their top 4 scorers.

That leaves one spot for: Dayton, St Bonnies, Rhode Island, St. Joes. The other 3 finished top 4 last year.

I know the other three lost a lot, but if we take off our red and blue glasses and view this from the perspective of the national media, they think we lost a lot too. And we did - we lost 30+ppg.

Good news is that this is a conversation for August and come November none of this means squat. I'm excited for the season, but I'm sticking to my original assessment when they started the list...we're not on it.

Richmond only returns 3 of their top 5 scorers. Buckingham and Fore were both kicked off the team. They have 3 guys returning that averaged double figures and then nobody that averaged more than 3.7ppg. They destined for middle of the pack again.

San Diego Flyer 08-12-2018 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MNFats (Post 556441)
I would agree, but at this point it's a numbers game. There are 5 A10 teams left on this countdown. St. Louis is on there. George Mason is on there (they finished ahead of us last year and return everyone). Davidson is on there.

That leaves two spots.

I think Richmond is on there. They finished 9-9 in conference last year and return their top 4 scorers.

That leaves one spot for: Dayton, St Bonnies, Rhode Island, St. Joes. The other 3 finished top 4 last year.

I know the other three lost a lot, but if we take off our red and blue glasses and view this from the perspective of the national media, they think we lost a lot too. And we did - we lost 30+ppg.

Good news is that this is a conversation for August and come November none of this means squat. I'm excited for the season, but I'm sticking to my original assessment when they started the list...we're not on it.

Good analysis. It almost makes me want to look for some crow recipes. But not yet. A lot of us are bolstered by the fact that most of those -30 points not only can easily be replaced by the incoming talent, but also are actually addition by subtraction. But your point is really relevant that the press is not tuned in to our homespun logic. That alone weighs on our prospects. Still reading the resume's with interest.

A lot of Kostas detractors were feeling pretty good after the 59th pick in the NBA draft. And then what happened? :)

MNFats 08-12-2018 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by m21eagle45 (Post 556443)
Richmond only returns 3 of their top 5 scorers. Buckingham and Fore were both kicked off the team. They have 3 guys returning that averaged double figures and then nobody that averaged more than 3.7ppg. They destined for middle of the pack again.

Forgot about that!

San Diego Flyer 08-14-2018 10:22 AM

This is an interesting read on Wake Forest.

http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/16502

We must be better than that.

OSU Flyer 08-18-2018 04:24 PM

If I had to guess I'd say it's St. Joes and Rhode Island for those last two spots

Buckleyma 08-21-2018 03:41 PM

Rhode island is being picked fifth in the conference with their first year coach. Rhode island loses a lot of players off last years team.
Posted via Mobile Device

UD62 08-21-2018 04:42 PM

Real possibility we draw a blank, hope not but getting more difficult to see us making the list. however whether we make it or not really is of no consequence, just win baby.

San Diego Flyer 08-21-2018 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buckleyma (Post 556838)
Rhode island is being picked fifth in the conference with their first year coach. Rhode island loses a lot of players off last years team.
Posted via Mobile Device

I've been pretty much in line with their analysis so far. But I don't see what Rhody had coming back fitting into this current group. I give them a lot of credit for last year, but they lost a lot. This one is a puzzler.

OSU Flyer 08-21-2018 08:03 PM

He must be putting a premium on having Jeff Dowtin back

Buckleyma 08-21-2018 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OSU Flyer (Post 556860)
He must be putting a premium on having Jeff Dowtin back

Or it could be Jermaine Harris, 6’8” giving them inside scoring along with Cyril Langevine 6’8”.
Posted via Mobile Device

OSU Flyer 08-22-2018 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buckleyma (Post 556885)
Or it could be Jermaine Harris, 6’8” giving them inside scoring along with Cyril Langevine 6’8”.
Posted via Mobile Device

Build out with a good PG, those guys and Fats Russell and Rhody should be pretty competitive
Posted via Mobile Device

San Diego Flyer 08-22-2018 09:35 AM

Ok class, let's summarize what they just said.
 
"Jeff Dowtin is the LONE STARTER returning from last year and expected to be their BEST player.
Russell was an exciting freshman, averaging 7.0 points in just 17.9 minutes per game. Langevine started THREE games as a sophomore and will be expected take a step forward in his junior season as the Rams’ starting center.
Mike Layssard, Ryan Preston and Michael Tertsea all PLAYED MINIMALLY last year, and will need to produce in EXTENDED PLAYING TIME this season. Those three collectively averaged 2.7 pts/game.

Getting back to the NCAA Tournament isn’t likely to happen, but Rhode Island shouldn’t take too much of a step backwards this year and should compete in the A10."

-------------------------------------------------------------

Really? No, just read what they said. I don't get it. This guy must be a Rhody grad.

The Fly 08-22-2018 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by San Diego Flyer (Post 556903)
"Jeff Dowtin is the LONE STARTER returning from last year and expected to be their BEST player.
Russell was an exciting freshman, averaging 7.0 points in just 17.9 minutes per game. Langevine started THREE games as a sophomore and will be expected take a step forward in his junior season as the Rams’ starting center.
Mike Layssard, Ryan Preston and Michael Tertsea all PLAYED MINIMALLY last year, and will need to produce in EXTENDED PLAYING TIME this season. Those three collectively averaged 2.7 pts/game.

Getting back to the NCAA Tournament isn’t likely to happen, but Rhode Island shouldn’t take too much of a step backwards this year and should compete in the A10."

-------------------------------------------------------------

Really? No, just read what they said. I don't get it. This guy must be a Rhody grad.

All that and a new coach to boot. I don’t know if he’s a Rhody grad, but it’s pretty clear with that selection that he’s written Dayton out of his top 144. It’s all guesswork anyway and matters not a bit, save for a couple paragraphs of free publicity. I’m just fine with the Flyers using this for fodder and proving the writer wrong by their performance — not in print, but on the court.

sheg 08-22-2018 09:53 AM

Somebody that doesn't follow the Flyers is going to look at them and see the team that finished 14-17 last year and:

- graduated one of it's top two scorers
- lost a player to the NBA draft
- lost a transfer who had been a starter
- lost three other players even if they weren't huge contributors

- adds a sometimes-starter coming off an injury redshirt year
-adds an academic redshirt player that wasn't highly touted coming in (but we're excited to watch)
-adds a Juco that didn't get much national run
-adds a highly touted freshman

There is no way they're in this ranking if they hadn't been mentioned already.

We all believe the team will be better next year, and I think rightfully so. But I will be shocked if an outsider can look at this team, what they did last year, what they lost, and predict they'll do so much better than last year so as to climb to the top four of the conference.

NJFlyr71 08-22-2018 11:51 AM

I hope this listing surprises me!

Go Fly Boys err MEN ;)

CE80 08-22-2018 01:26 PM

I really don't care about the preseason ranking. Post season is another story.

T-Bone 84 08-25-2018 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Fly (Post 556909)
All that and a new coach to boot. I don’t know if he’s a Rhody grad, but it’s pretty clear with that selection that he’s written Dayton out of his top 144. It’s all guesswork anyway and matters not a bit, save for a couple paragraphs of free publicity. I’m just fine with the Flyers using this for fodder and proving the writer wrong by their performance — not in print, but on the court.

Agreed. I’m not sure I could objectively put our FlyGuyz in the preseason Top 4 in the A10. But I sure as h@!! think URI is overrated at #5, considering all they’ve lost. Remember, it was only a year ago we were in almost the exact, same situation, and we all know how 2017-18 turned out for us.

Oh, well. Turn it into bulletin board fodder, Gentlemen!
Posted via Mobile Device

CT Flyer 08-27-2018 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T-Bone 84 (Post 557171)
Agreed. I’m not sure I could objectively put our FlyGuyz in the preseason Top 4 in the A10. But I sure as h@!! think URI is overrated at #5, considering all they’ve lost. Remember, it was only a year ago we were in almost the exact, same situation, and we all know how 2017-18 turned out for us.

Oh, well. Turn it into bulletin board fodder, Gentlemen!
Posted via Mobile Device

As much as I dislike URI, I think a lot of people are underestimating Dowtin. He has a chance to be the best player in the A10 next year.

MNFats 08-27-2018 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CT Flyer (Post 557204)
As much as I dislike URI, I think a lot of people are underestimating Dowtin. He has a chance to be the best player in the A10 next year.

And I think Langevine is a stud. I see a lot of Cunningham in him. He's 6-8, 225. He shot 64% last year and averaged more rebounds per 40 minutes than Josh. Josh is the better scorer, but I like Langevine will be one of the better A10 bigs this year.

Add to that the #1 recruiting class in the A10 (according to 247) that includes a top 100 recruit.

There are still some things to like about RI on the court.

CE80 08-27-2018 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MNFats (Post 557210)

There are still some things to like about RI on the court.

Also, don't forget Hurley is gone.

MNFats 08-27-2018 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CE80 (Post 557221)
Also, don't forget Hurley is gone.

Good point. That means there is something to like about RI off the court too!


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:18 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement System V2.6 By   Branden

     
 
Copyright 1996-2012 UDPride.com. All Rights Reserved.