Taj79 Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Yeah, yeah, way too early but the Top 144 is breaking daily and number 144 are those lowly Rose Hill Rams. http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/9320 This begs to the question will we be ranked higher than those lowly Rams when all 144 are done? I know the CNNSI early look had us higher but if Fordham is here, I can't believe another eight or nine A10 teams will make this list. I can see VCU, Dayton, GeeDubya, Umass, Rhode Island and Richmond (as well as us) being better than Fordham. But logic tells me that won't happen. Hmmmm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slu72 Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Are you saying, we don't make the list? C'mon, Taj Mahal 79, that's outrageous even for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bauman Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Yeah, yeah, way too early but the Top 144 is breaking daily and number 144 are those lowly Rose Hill Rams. http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/9320 This begs to the question will we be ranked higher than those lowly Rams when all 144 are done? I know the CNNSI early look had us higher but if Fordham is here, I can't believe another eight or nine A10 teams will make this list. I can see VCU, Dayton, GeeDubya, Umass, Rhode Island and Richmond (as well as us) being better than Fordham. But logic tells me that won't happen. Hmmmm. Whatever we are ranked in that listing, we will be better. We are not going to fall apart like some think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACE Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Yeah, yeah, way too early but the Top 144 is breaking daily and number 144 are those lowly Rose Hill Rams. http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/9320 This begs to the question will we be ranked higher than those lowly Rams when all 144 are done? I know the CNNSI early look had us higher but if Fordham is here, I can't believe another eight or nine A10 teams will make this list. I can see VCU, Dayton, GeeDubya, Umass, Rhode Island and Richmond (as well as us) being better than Fordham. But logic tells me that won't happen. Hmmmm. Why? Nine A-10 teams finished in the Top 100 last year, so why is it hard to believe that 8 or 9 would be in the preseason Top 144? Plus, Rhode Island was just outside the Top 144 last year and they figure to be better this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 I think we'll be in the 90-100 range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JettFlight5 Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 GW didn't make the Top 144 last season...until they started playing games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taj79 Posted June 25, 2014 Author Share Posted June 25, 2014 I could be right; I could be wrong. It sounds like 50/50 ...... Seriously though, I see the A10 as VCU, GeeDubya and Rhode Island as the top three. I see the next tier as Dayton (not buying a chance run in March to mean anything is taken for granted this year ala La Salle last year), Umass (Chaz will be hard to replace and he, Putney and Carter ate major minutes last year), and Richmond (their youth got some tough OJT last year with injuries and defections). Then is a whole bunch of known unknowns at St. Joe's (only 1.5 starters return -- not high on Chris Wilson) , La Salle (they do return Zack, Wright, Petersen and Lewis), Mason (the whole front line is back), and us. The unknown unknown that is Davidson, and the proverbial not-yet-good-enoughs at Bonaventure, Duquesne and Fordham. All I'm saying is this #144 ranking for a team I consider 12-13-14 in our league makes me wonder, that's all. On one hand, I do not disagree with kshoe and his opinion as to where we will fall (90 to 100), but I also find it hard to comprehend that our returning core will warrant such a placement. So again, I can't wait to see this season unfold. It will be like Forrest's box of chocolates .... you never know what your going to get (from night to night). Can't wait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taj79 Posted June 26, 2014 Author Share Posted June 26, 2014 Y'know what larry72, after further review, I am going to completely disagree with kshoe and drop outrageous on you .... yes, we will NOT be rated in the top 144. I don't see it. Glaze and Manning are, well, er, Glaze and Manning. Their combined PPG growth over their first three years does not instill confidence. Glaze has shown no outside game, and seems to get easily outjumped and blocked on the inside, even making layups an adventure. He's a short 6'6". Manning has shown some flashes, and I like his defense, but he has demonstarted a severe inability to stay out of foul trouble and on the court. I can't wait to see how that plays out in the OOC schedule. Until then, very little confidence here in our returning fourth-year guys.. The backcourt is a one-man show in terms of tangibles and that's McBroom. And everyone knows how he started to down slope late last year. This will be the first year in a few we don't have a tri-headed monster in the backcourt (Mitchell/McCall/Jett or McCall/Jett/McBroom). It is going to be different for sure. And the running mate is likely a guy coming off a redshirt year who didn't exactly light it up at Nova his two years there. Again, skeptical. All the rising sophomores are all rising quertion marks with no body of worthwhile record upon which to bank. Add six freshmen to the potential chaos and there seems no way we make this list. But stranger things have happened. I'll probably be the only guy to say it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Y'know what larry72, after further review, I am going to completely disagree with kshoe and drop outrageous on you .... yes, we will NOT be rated in the top 144. I don't see it. Glaze and Manning are, well, er, Glaze and Manning. Their combined PPG growth over their first three years does not instill confidence. Glaze has shown no outside game, and seems to get easily outjumped and blocked on the inside, even making layups an adventure. He's a short 6'6". Manning has shown some flashes, and I like his defense, but he has demonstarted a severe inability to stay out of foul trouble and on the court. I can't wait to see how that plays out in the OOC schedule. Until then, very little confidence here in our returning fourth-year guys.. The backcourt is a one-man show in terms of tangibles and that's McBroom. And everyone knows how he started to down slope late last year. This will be the first year in a few we don't have a tri-headed monster in the backcourt (Mitchell/McCall/Jett or McCall/Jett/McBroom). It is going to be different for sure. And the running mate is likely a guy coming off a redshirt year who didn't exactly light it up at Nova his two years there. Again, skeptical. All the rising sophomores are all rising quertion marks with no body of worthwhile record upon which to bank. Add six freshmen to the potential chaos and there seems no way we make this list. But stranger things have happened. I'll probably be the only guy to say it. 7-9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westy03 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 7-9 More like 7-23 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheA_Bomb Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Not even top 144? Really? Even in an off year we are top 144. Come on. SLU is like 72 right now. I think they have potential and I always have hope for better. Should be at least .500 in a good league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwayne's_World Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Not even top 144? Really? Even in an off year we are top 144. Come on. SLU is like 72 right now. I think they have potential and I always have hope for better. Should be at least .500 in a good league. No reason to be way too pessimistic about next season... It's not like the entire program is falling off a cliff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoctorB Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 just stopping in for a quick hello -- are you guys serious?? some of you do not think we are preseason top 144? really ?!?!? that's just silly. 3 tourneys straight, great recruits, excellent coach and staff. If Fordham makes it and SLU does not, it may be the end, folks. I'll bite: definitely DESERVE top 60 or lower... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmith19 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 SLU will battle it out with SIUE for a spot in the top 320. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 just stopping in for a quick hello -- are you guys serious?? some of you do not think we are preseason top 144? really ?!?!? that's just silly. 3 tourneys straight, great recruits, excellent coach and staff. If Fordham makes it and SLU does not, it may be the end, folks. I'll bite: definitely DESERVE top 60 or lower... It's not some of us. It's one person. And that person's track record in predicting/projecting past billiken records is not exactly the most accurate... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taj79 Posted June 27, 2014 Author Share Posted June 27, 2014 I said it and I'm sticking with it. Maybe a 50/50 chance of being correct. Either we are listed or not. I think they are up to 136 or so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetorch Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Have to agree with Taj on this one. I think we'll be in there 100-120 range but there really is no reason why we should be. Our to returners are a backup point guard and a SG who averaged a couple points a game for Villanova 2 years ago. Not what early season prognosticators want to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Have to agree with Taj on this one. I think we'll be in there 100-120 range but there really is no reason why we should be. Our to returners are a backup point guard and a SG who averaged a couple points a game for Villanova 2 years ago. Not what early season prognosticators want to see.Taj said we won't be ranked in the top 144. You are saying we will be 100-120 so I'm not sure that you actually agree with him (unless I misread and you are saying that we are going to end up 100-120 but won't be in the top 144 preseason).Whether we deserve to be in the top 144 is another question. But I will gladly bet anyone just about anything that we will finish higher than 144 this season. And believe me I'm not one of these dreamers that think we are going to the NCAA tourney or even the nit. But 144 is a pretty low bar. To point, we haven't been below 150 in kenpom since he started tracking it in 2002. We were exactly 150 in the 9-21 2005 season and 150 in the 16-15 2008 season. The recent 12-19 campaign in 2011 had us 129 (I think sagarin had us 122 for the eternal joke). No way are we going to struggle that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
For-DaLove Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Taj said we won't be ranked in the top 144. You are saying we will be 100-120 so I'm not sure that you actually agree with him (unless I misread and you are saying that we are going to end up 100-120 but won't be in the top 144 preseason). Whether we deserve to be in the top 144 is another question. But I will gladly bet anyone just about anything that we will finish higher than 144 this season. And believe me I'm not one of these dreamers that think we are going to the NCAA tourney or even the nit. But 144 is a pretty low bar. To point, we haven't been below 150 in kenpom since he started tracking it in 2002. We were exactly 150 in the 9-21 2005 season and 150 in the 16-15 2008 season. The recent 12-19 campaign in 2011 had us 129 (I think sagarin had us 122 for the eternal joke). No way are we going to struggle that much. So what you're saying is we're ranked 122 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NH Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 I'm with KShoe. Don't think we will be that great but c'mon. Is there no value given to sustained, systematic success? We've made the tournament the last three years as a good team. And now people on here are saying we won't be in the upper half of the entire NCAA? There are going to be a lot of teams with a lot less talent than us. Not to mention, our returners know what it takes for a team to win games and have been playing for an NCAA Tourney program. I'm excited to see what the freshmen bring. I think a finish of an NIT bubble team or maybe slightly below is a fair guess. Anyone who thinks we arent a top 144 team is far too gloomy if you ask me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slu72 Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Just to put Taj Mahal's prognostication into perspective. Stony Brook is ranked 135 and they lost 4 starters. I would hope our backups are held in higher esteem than Stony Brook's. I put us somewhere between 90-80. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Box and Won Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Y'know what larry72, after further review, I am going to completely disagree with kshoe and drop outrageous on you .... yes, we will NOT be rated in the top 144. I don't see it. Glaze and Manning are, well, er, Glaze and Manning. Their combined PPG growth over their first three years does not instill confidence. Glaze has shown no outside game, and seems to get easily outjumped and blocked on the inside, even making layups an adventure. He's a short 6'6". Manning has shown some flashes, and I like his defense, but he has demonstarted a severe inability to stay out of foul trouble and on the court. I can't wait to see how that plays out in the OOC schedule. Until then, very little confidence here in our returning fourth-year guys.. The backcourt is a one-man show in terms of tangibles and that's McBroom. And everyone knows how he started to down slope late last year. This will be the first year in a few we don't have a tri-headed monster in the backcourt (Mitchell/McCall/Jett or McCall/Jett/McBroom). It is going to be different for sure. And the running mate is likely a guy coming off a redshirt year who didn't exactly light it up at Nova his two years there. Again, skeptical. All the rising sophomores are all rising quertion marks with no body of worthwhile record upon which to bank. Add six freshmen to the potential chaos and there seems no way we make this list. But stranger things have happened. I'll probably be the only guy to say it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old guy Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Does it matter what pre season rating we actually do get? We lost 5 seniors and our current line up performance is not really known, this is a fact. I believe once more we will be very good this year and probably surprise the living ___ out of everyone else, this is belief or faith if you wish. It is faith in the quality of our players and recruits, the ability of our coach, and the spirit of our team. Can this faith be shown to be actual fact before we start playing? I do not think so. So let the miscreants rate us the way they will, If I am correct in my belief or faith they will be proven wrong. I know basketball is not a religion, but I think in some cases a bit of faith helps a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACE Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Taj said we won't be ranked in the top 144. You are saying we will be 100-120 so I'm not sure that you actually agree with him (unless I misread and you are saying that we are going to end up 100-120 but won't be in the top 144 preseason). Whether we deserve to be in the top 144 is another question. But I will gladly bet anyone just about anything that we will finish higher than 144 this season. And believe me I'm not one of these dreamers that think we are going to the NCAA tourney or even the nit. But 144 is a pretty low bar. To point, we haven't been below 150 in kenpom since he started tracking it in 2002. We were exactly 150 in the 9-21 2005 season and 150 in the 16-15 2008 season. The recent 12-19 campaign in 2011 had us 129 (I think sagarin had us 122 for the eternal joke). No way are we going to struggle that much. Just Taj being Taj... the board's Chicken Little. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taj79 Posted June 27, 2014 Author Share Posted June 27, 2014 To be clear .... my belief is that we will not make this current Top 144 preseason listing that starts with Fordham at #144. It has nothing to do with kshoe's new statement about where we will end up, come the end of the year (if I interpret what kev is saying here to mean final 2014-15 ranks). As to nate (NH), how does one equate sustained success into such a formula? Do I think sustained success is worth anything here? No. Our sustained success has all either graduated or died. Now the true test, the test of sustainability, comes to the fore. And I don't think I am being solely "gloomy." I am really excited and pumped for this season. I can't wait to see the kids grow. But with that growth, I expect growing pains. I do not intend to judge success this year on the won/loss record. The time to turn the page is here. Will we/can we be a top 144 team come March 2015? I sure hope so. I'd hate to be a team with a lot less talent than ours but I don't think anyone can judge our talent right now because half the team hasn't played an NCAA game yet. I don't think we'll be in the upper half of the NCAA in these preseason fluff pieces. While our returning veterans have experience being on a team that knows how to win, the accomplishment of those wins had very little to do with them and their actual production. They contributed yes and they were important no doubt. But seeing them now carry it themselves? I don't get a real warm 'n fuzzy over it. Of course, Grandy and John turn into Brian Conklin and we'll go nuts. Still, I don't see that happening and I doubt any writers will do as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.