Top 25 talk

[wilburt]

Pat I never said that Division III was automatically bad.  But by the same token, Division III is not automatically good either.  There are some very good aspects to the Division.  However, as with everything in life it is not the perfect eutopia as you and others seem to like to fantasize about.  Yes, I tend to point out a few shortcomings with some frequency.  Moreover, my view(s) may be or may not be narrow, but they are based upon my experiences and observations. I am not naive to think I would change your mind or any of my rabid followers minds   but it is good to challenge the status quo every now and then. Until we meet again Pat on another issue - have a great day!

[Gregory Sager]

Pat I never said that Division III was automatically bad.  But by the same token, Division III is not automatically good either.  There are some very good aspects to the Division.  However, as with everything in life it is not the perfect eutopia as you and others seem to like to fantasize about.

Wilburt, you are completely mischaracterizing both Pat and the people who regularly post on this site. "Perfect utopia"? Who has ever characterized D3 with this sentiment, and where?

I know that you have frequented the GSAC board, and you've posted here and on a couple of the other Multi-Regional Topics boards as well. But you've never graced the General Division III Issues section (or if you have, you've only lurked there), where ongoing concerns within the division are aired in an incisive manner by folks such as Ralph Turner. Spend some time in the General Division III Issues section, and it'll become apparent to you that this site's regulars do not consider D3 to be a "perfect utopia." Or log in while we're involved in one of our epic gripe sessions about D3's national-selection-using-regional-criteria methodology for choosing at-large bids to national tournaments (particularly in basketball).

This site's regulars, Pat among them, believe strongly in the mission and principles of NCAA Division III athletics. But that doesn't mean that they believe that the division has achieved anything close to perfection either in theory or in practice. As a matter of fact, the opposite is true; the more that people care about D3, the more likely they are to speak up when they see something about it that needs improvement.

[wilburt]

Gregory Sager: I'm very much through talking about this matter. (I am sure others would like that as well) I have neither the time nor inclination to continue to discuss this matter any further.  My initial response that drove this discussion was to my friend scottiedoug and others took it upon themselves to respond when scottiedoug did not for whatever reason.  You made your valid points, Pat made his valid points and I made my valid points.  No one's mind is going to change. Let's just agree to disagree! Have a good day!

[sac]

[Gregory Sager]

Well played, sac!

[Mr. Ypsi]

To return to top 25 ...

Memo to Wash U (and why Titan Q has mentioned he doesn't at all rule them out for future top 25, though he can't vote for them now): don't abandon hope!  See 1996 and 1997 IWU teams.  In 1996 they made the FF (for the first time ever), but graduated SIX of their top 7 players.  In 1997, they won it all.

Experience trumps inexperience, but only rarely does it (by itself) trump talent, hard work, and determination.  If the bench players, JV, and newcomers are good enough (and determined enough), they'll be fine no matter how much talent graduated.

(Just let them still look like rookies on December 18th! )

[Mr. Ypsi]

Oh, and kudos to sac.  Since Wilburt was desperately trying to end the conversation, that was MUCH more apropos than the dead horse!

[John Gleich]

To return to top 25 ...

Memo to Wash U (and why Titan Q has mentioned he doesn't at all rule them out for future top 25, though he can't vote for them now): don't abandon hope!  See 1996 and 1997 IWU teams.  In 1996 they made the FF (for the first time ever), but graduated SIX of their top 7 players.  In 1997, they won it all.

Experience trumps inexperience, but only rarely does it (by itself) trump talent, hard work, and determination.  If the bench players, JV, and newcomers are good enough (and determined enough), they'll be fine no matter how much talent graduated.

(Just let them still look like rookies on December 18th! )

Though, when that one is Bryan Crabtree it isn't like the cupboard was bare...

[Titan Q]

To return to top 25 ...

Memo to Wash U (and why Titan Q has mentioned he doesn't at all rule them out for future top 25, though he can't vote for them now): don't abandon hope!  See 1996 and 1997 IWU teams.  In 1996 they made the FF (for the first time ever), but graduated SIX of their top 7 players.  In 1997, they won it all.

But that 1997 IWU team ended up having 3 1st Team All-Americans in the starting lineup (1997 CCIW MOP/D3 POY Bryan Crabtree, 1998 CCIW MOP Brent Niebrugge, and 1999/2000 CCIW MOP Korey Coon).  In other words, they had great players in 1997 when they won it all.

For Wash U to remain a national power this season, they will need...

* 6-3 JR G/F Dylan Richter (6.9 ppg, 2.7 rpg in 18 minutes per game last year) to realize his potential.  I predicted he would be an All-American someday after seeing him as a freshman but he was a non-factor in most Wash U games I saw last year.  I still think he has all the talent to be a great player, but his 2009-10 season kind of confused me.

* 6-6 SR F Spencer Gay (9.5 ppg, 5.8 rpg) to have a much bigger season, and

* At least one of the freshmen, or maybe one of the returnees who did not play last year, to emerge in a big way.

(I think 6-6 SR F Caleb Knepper and 6-7 JR C Alex Toth are very solid, but I don't really see them as huge difference makers.)

It's very possible all three of these things will happen, but I also don't see a Crabtree/Niebrugge/Coon trio on the roster.

It won't surprise me if the 2010-11 Bears end up being a Top 25 team by later in the season (they have a ton of talent), but it would surprise me if they end up a Top 10 or 15 team and make a deep NCAA run.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Q, certainly true, but at the beginning of the '96-'97 year Niebrugge was an unknown quantity and Coon was an incoming freshman!  I'm by no means predicting that Wash U will be the '97 Titans (heck, I'm hoping this year's Titans will be the '97 Titans! ), just pointing out that graduation losses are not ALWAYS the 'kiss of death'.

Though it is certainly reasonable to assume that for pre-season prognostication.

PS, Bryan Crabtree was certainly a great starting point, but him and #8 on down combining for a title??!!   If there had been a d3hoops.com pre-season Top 25 back then, I doubt the Titans would have been in it.

[Pat Coleman]

Oh, and kudos to sac.  Since Wilburt was desperately trying to end the conversation ...

That's what most people would do when you're losing an argument badly.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I have no real inside info, but it seems like a school of WashU's calibre with their recent basketball success and the graduation of so many key players makes it a pretty nice destination for incoming freshmen.

I think it's much more a "when" rather than "if" scenario for them to be back near the top.

[nescac1]

Titan Q, I think most of your New England rankings in the top 25 look good, except that RIC is, I think WAY too high at number ten.  I realize they beat Midd to make the sweet 16 last year, but that game was a bit flukey in my view as if memory serves, all sort of guys on RIC who were horrible shooters all year were nailing deep contested three's, and Midd just could not buy a shot from outside (even for a poor shooting team, it was unreal).  RIC loses its most dynamic individual scorer in Grimes, and they did lose eight games last year against a not-terribly-impressive schedule.  Also, RIC often is very unstable and lots of guys come and go from the program unexpectedly.  I actually think Western Conn, who lost, barely, to RIC in the LEC championship, will be the LEC favorite, considering they have essentially everybody back from a very young team that was just about equal to RIC last year.  I also think that the top three NESCAC teams, and top two NEWMAC squads, all have a bit more talent overall than RIC.  I see them as no better than a team in the 20-30 range, and I still think Williams and Midd are the co teams-to-beat in New England, with MIT just a half-step behind.   

[Titan Q]

Titan Q, I think most of your New England rankings in the top 25 look good, except that RIC is, I think WAY too high at number ten.  I realize they beat Midd to make the sweet 16 last year, but that game was a bit flukey in my view as if memory serves, all sort of guys on RIC who were horrible shooters all year were nailing deep contested three's, and Midd just could not buy a shot from outside (even for a poor shooting team, it was unreal).  RIC loses its most dynamic individual scorer in Grimes, and they did lose eight games last year against a not-terribly-impressive schedule.  Also, RIC often is very unstable and lots of guys come and go from the program unexpectedly.  I actually think Western Conn, who lost, barely, to RIC in the LEC championship, will be the LEC favorite, considering they have essentially everybody back from a very young team that was just about equal to RIC last year.  I also think that the top three NESCAC teams, and top two NEWMAC squads, all have a bit more talent overall than RIC.  I see them as no better than a team in the 20-30 range, and I still think Williams and Midd are the co teams-to-beat in New England, with MIT just a half-step behind.    

And I'll admit that as I've been looking over my Top 25, Rhode Island is the team I feel the least comfortable about (in terms of where I have them now).  I probably will slide them down a bit, and behind the two NESCAC teams.

[Gregory Sager]

I also think that the top three NESCAC teams, and top two NEWMAC squads, all have a bit more talent overall than RIC.  I see them as no better than a team in the 20-30 range

So you see five, maybe six, Northeast Region teams as being among the top 25 teams in the country?

I have no real inside info, but it seems like a school of WashU's calibre with their recent basketball success and the graduation of so many key players makes it a pretty nice destination for incoming freshmen.

I think it's much more a "when" rather than "if" scenario for them to be back near the top.

No team exists in a vacuum, and Wash U is no exception. The UAA looks to be a bit down this year, at least on paper from a preseason perspective. That could mean that Wash U would sport a better record than it would under normal circumstances, which could affect the team's seeding if it makes the tourney -- but it could likewise mean that the Bears won't be as battle-tested as they have been in previous years.