Top 25 talk

[Mr. Ypsi]

But you can't vote for a team partially. its a whole vote or nothing. You can give 1/2 a vote. And as far as IWU, you would think people would know they lost Ziemnik and Davis, each of whom is a big loss and together a HUGE loss. A team with great guard play, a vast unknown at the forward(s) and a marginal center is not the #4 team in the country-at least not going in. As far as the person who voted them #1, not only out to lunch, but out to dinner too.

The 'partially' refers to reason for the vote (i.e., partially on reputation but also on whatever info is available that early in the season), not give them a 'partial vote'.

[smedindy]

What if you write your vote in for North...

[Titan Q]

But you can't vote for a team partially. its a whole vote or nothing. You can give 1/2 a vote. And as far as IWU, you would think people would know they lost Ziemnik and Davis, each of whom is a big loss and together a HUGE loss. A team with great guard play, a vast unknown at the forward(s) and a marginal center is not the #4 team in the country-at least not going in. As far as the person who voted them #1, not only out to lunch, but out to dinner too.

#4 sounds too high to me too (based on what I think a "#4 team" is), but it still comes down to the voters having to figure out who should be ranked higher than IWU (or Amherst, Williams, etc).  From what I'm hearing and sensing, the 2014-15 picture is extremely fuzzy here in the preseason.  When one analyzes 1) 2013-14 results, and 2) returning players for 2014-15 (the two high level factors that generally go into preseason poll voting), I'm not sure that produces a list of teams that should clearly be ranked ahead of a team like IWU.

I think most would agree that UW-Whitewater, the defending champs, should be in the preseason top 2 -- the Warhawks lost some important players but return a lot.  I personally believe Augustana - which returns their entire rotation from a 20-8/NCAA tournament team - is a good top two pick as well.  After that, it sounds like a lot of candidates for spots 3 down to, heck, 25. 

This has been said already, but I do think teams with a proven track record often get the benefit of the doubt in preseason polls like this one (where this is not much clarity).  In the case of IWU, Ron Rose has led the Titans to 5 consecutive NCAA tournament appearances (five 20+ win seasons), with 4 Sweet 16s, 3 Elite 8s, and 2 Final Fours in that span.  Like other coaches at strong programs, he's proven himself as a really good "reloader" - able to plug new guys in (usually from IWU's JV program - Eliud Gonzalez, Kevin Reed, Victor Davis, Andrew Ziemnik, Dylan Overstreet, etc ) and able to mesh those with returnees. 

Regarding 2014-15 personnel, the Titans do have a lot of returning talent from a CCIW championship/Final Four team -- an elite backcourt and the starting center.  I believe IWU has more talent at the open forward spots than some realize.

While I think #4 is too high for IWU (and that the #1 vote was bizarre), in a preseason with this much uncertainty, I don't think it's a bad thing for voters to go with some of the proven programs as they wait for games to sort things out.  I really haven't heard anyone make a strong case for who should be ranked higher than some of the "name brands" that landed at the top. 

[Titan Q]

The biggest CCIW-related head-scratcher I see in the preseason poll is that Carthage has 2 poll points.  Carthage was 16-10/9-5 last year and I just don't see any type of preseason Top 25 case to be made...

Carthage (16-10, 9-5)
G - Donte Logan, 5-11/160 Jr
G - Malcom Kelly, 6-0/185 Sr    1st Team All-CCIW
G - Kevin Sykes Jr, 6-3/160 Sr
F - Marlon Senior, 6-5/195 Sr    2nd Team All-CCIW
C - Mike Kastel, 6-7/235 Jr

[Pat Coleman]

We were sent Reese Herth as a returning starter too, if that means anything. 57% of their scoring and 76% of the rebounding returns.

[AndOne]

Only Bosko could figure out how to start 6 guys. 

* Hearth started primarily in the beginning of the season when Carthage was waiting for Malcom Kelly to return to the team in December.

[smedindy]

I think total returnees is more important than starters, per se. Some teams start a player and he plays just 10-15 minutes a game by design, while the benchies take most of the minutes.

[Pat Coleman]

Agreed. We also ask for number of returnees who averaged 10-plus minutes per game. (Carthage noted it had five.)

[sac]

Agreed. We also ask for number of returnees who averaged 10-plus minutes per game. (Carthage noted it had five.)

Out of curiosity do you ask for class make-up?  Such as how many Sr's, Jr's, So's.

[David Collinge]

Here is Wooster's wins by season for the past 24 seasons:
26, 24, 26, 31, 25, 23, 23, 29, 26, 27, 26, 30, 21, 24, 26, 25, 22, 23, 19, 26, 18, 21, 26, 25
(Yes, Wooster have benefited from a weak conference, although that is less true now than in years past.)

Knowing absolutely nothing else about the 2014-15 Scots, I would not be uncomfortable ranking them at #10.

During this period, Wooster has had 5 D3hoops.com All-Americans (2 1st team) graduate and not return the next season. Some years they have had severe graduation losses, others lots of contributors returned. As far as I know, we have no 25th year seniors suiting up for the 2014-15 season.

I'm not trying to blow Wooster's horn; I'm just saying at the D3 level, the concept of "reload not rebuild" has credibility at certain "name brand" programs. I don't know what % of points and rebounds were lost by how many graduating starters in any of those years, but the program has filled those holes and moved on. The same is more or less true at maybe two dozen other schools ranging from Amherst to UWSP to IWU to VWC. Pedigree as a sole factor may be a poor reason for ranking a team high in the preseason, but in my estimation is is a factor.

[AndOne]

But consider (with regard to ranking by pedigree) the possibility that:

1. Unfortunately, there probably is a poster or two who DOES rank a team or a few teams solely due to pedigree.

2. Using this criteria would seem to make it difficult for a historically middle of the pack or weaker team that is about to have their best season in many years, to receive the attention it deserves.

If anybody thinks I'm wrong, please tell me why.

[smedindy]

Only early on, and usually I've seen the teams separate logically in any poll. Of course, polls don't matter - it's the tournament that does!

[David Collinge]

It's a little hard for me to imagine the circumstance where the historically middle-of-the-pack team on the verge of the great season could be spotted in the preseason, at least by those not close to the program. Maybe they return everyone, but that's everyone from an admittedly middle-of-the-pack team. Short of spending their summers dominating NBA players in three-on-three tournaments, this team is going to start the season off the radar, regardless of who is in the preseason poll.

As smeds points out, if they have the great season, they'll find their way into the poll, and then into the tournament where, to paraphrase Drew Carey (and Aisha Tyler) "everything is made up and the polls don't matter."

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I have gotten lucky once calling a team like you describe, David... I am hoping I am lucky a second time this year... but once in how many years as a pollster? Oof.

[sac]

Since the subject has been broached, how about throwing out the names of teams that didn't receive votes that maybe should be on the radar.

I'd like to see a roster first but Albion might be one of those teams.  Should return all but one senior from last years team.  Certainly not pre-season top 25 material but they might end up being a pretty good team this year, a lot of players will be in their 3rd year of varsity play.  Very experienced.



From the OAC, Marietta.  Return all 3 players who received all league honors.  19-7 last year and struggled with injuries to their two top players all year.  One of those, Andy Dollman, returns

I'm a little surprised they received no attention at all, but with Mt. Union the probable OAC favorite not enough room for 2 OAC's on the ballot I would guess.  I would have thought someone might take that flyer, Jon VanderWal's made tham a good program.