Top 25 talk

[Pat Coleman]

UTD graduated 3 starters and 4 of its top 8 rotation. 

Still will be better than anyone in the SLIAC.

I'll just counter with "??" ... hope the Webster kids are reading this....

I don't know why that would be bulletin board material. I don't think Webster is going to play itself and this year's UT-Dallas team is going to be better than anyone Webster would play in the SLIAC.

[hopefan]

UTD graduated 3 starters and 4 of its top 8 rotation. 

Still will be better than anyone in the SLIAC.

I'll just counter with "??" ... hope the Webster kids are reading this....

I don't know why that would be bulletin board material. I don't think Webster is going to play itself and this year's UT-Dallas team is going to be better than anyone Webster would play in the SLIAC.

Pat, you're saying UT Dallas is better than ANYONE in the SLIAC despite losing 4 players,,, Webster is in the SLIAC... the way I took it, you're saying they are still better than Webster, though you may not have meant it that way....You didn't say "better than anyone Webster plays in the SLIAC"...

[Pat Coleman]

Hopefan,

While I am sure you want to see a slight in every post about your adopted favorite team, I'm sure you can see the context in that I was talking about teams on Webster's schedule.

That, by definition, does not include Webster.

[hopefan]

Wrong twice Pat.. didn't catch the context, can't see it's a given, can't read your mind... maybe my senility strikes
AND
No, I think I've been very fair in this discussion, AND I support the entire SLIAC... Webster is by no means my adopted favorite team... When SLIAC plays SLIAC, I'm just rooting for a close entertaining game, going to Fulton or Jacksonville or Greenville or Louisville if that's the best game of the night... now of course, if Webster, or anyone else is pushing for recognition, then naturally I'm pulling for them to do whatever helps...

Hey.. no harm intended....

[Pat Coleman]

Well, it's unfortunate that you have to assume that it's a shot at Webster, because it isn't.

[WUPHF]

While I am sure you want to see a slight in every post about your adopted favorite team, I'm sure you can see the context in that I was talking about teams on Webster's schedule.

This is not how I read it either.

You said that Texas Dallas will still be better than anyone in the SLIAC.  Webster is anyone in the SLIAC.  Had you said anyone else in the SLIAC, that would have been more clear. 

[WUPHF]

UTD graduated 3 starters and 4 of its top 8 rotation. 

WUSTL also graduated three starters, including the point guard, and a key reserve who were responsible for 57% of the scoring.

In terms of returning starters, Palucki averaged 11.1 points and 6.9 rebounds per game.  Nick Burt average 7.8 points and 5.8 rebounds per game.  It all goes down hill from there.

I am definitely not conceding anything to Webster yet.

[Hugenerd]

Interestingly, MIT (#16 with 246 points) and Eastern Connecticut (#36 with 37 points) are both ranked higher than Plattsburgh State in the preseason poll yet Plattsburgh has more returning talent than either of these teams.

I honestly don't know anything about the Plattsburgh team (so I can't comment on returning talent for them), and I know they had a great game against MIT last year, but just wanted to point out that MIT is returning everybody from last year.  Literally everyone, they had no seniors on last year's squad (they have 5 this season, including 3 likely startes). They have made NCAAs I believe 6 years in a row now. 

I think they are placed pretty appropriately in the rankings, so no complaints here, but I just wanted to make the point about the returning talent in response to your comment.

Hello Hugenerd,
I know that MIT has everyone coming back, I saw that NCAA game and I was quite familiar with MIT's roster. I believe if Plattsburgh  and MIT happen to face off again this year that Plattsburgh will once again come out on top. I think the Cardinals will be better than they were last year.  I can see the Engineers having a decent season but I'll be surprised if they end up in the Top 15. And if they do then Plattsburgh should be in the Top 10.

Well, they will have plenty of opportunities to show they belong....they have 8 games this year against teams that are currently ranked or receiving votes.

[hopefan]

UTD graduated 3 starters and 4 of its top 8 rotation. 

WUSTL also graduated three starters, including the point guard, and a key reserve who were responsible for 57% of the scoring.

In terms of returning starters, Palucki averaged 11.1 points and 6.9 rebounds per game.  Nick Burt average 7.8 points and 5.8 rebounds per game.  It all goes down hill from there.

I am definitely not conceding anything to Webster yet.

I look for Burt to have a breakout year... he'll see the ball A LOT more... I think he could be a 15 ppg scorer...

[Gregory Sager]

Well, I guess we will see. None of our 25 voters even asked for Webster info. If they are worthy then we will get votes for them based on their non-conference results.

Should they have received it anyway, to refresh their memories? I feel it surely could have been made available... Is this a fallacy in the system that could be corrected in the future?

Someone has to have a school on their radar in order for us to ask for it. We're not going to ask for all 400 teams and then filter out afterward.

Indeed, I looked back at Webster's 2013-14 last year too to see what I was missing and yes, one close loss to a brand-name team (and one big loss to another) but when I asked the "who did they beat" question, I don't see what I'm supposed to be looking for.

Fontbonne took UMHB to the wire in the first round in 2008 as well and it wasn't a leading indicator of anything. Sometimes close losses happen in the first round and I would have thought Gregory would have known that. I'm perfectly OK with Webster not getting any votes. Hey, even in the most bare-bones analysis -- nobody that Webster beat last year got any votes, so there is no obvious logical fallacy.

This sounds a lot like eyeball test from a pretty biased observer (sorry, Hopefan) and Gregory fixating on one close loss ... I, on the other hand, will be glad to wait for a win.

I think Webster is a legitimate Top 25 candidate (they have some really impressive talent), and a team that voters should keep a very close eye on, but I think "glaring oversight" seems over the top.

IWU led Webster by 18 points in the 2nd half of that game.  Had the Titans won by 13 or 9 or something "comfortable", I don't think there would be mention of Webster here as a preseason Top 25 team.  I don't agree with the suggestion that because Webster made that impressive 2nd half comeback, and lost in a game that came down to the final seconds, that the Gorloks should be in the 2014-15 preseason poll.  There has to be more on the 2013-14 resume than a great 17 minutes to say "glaring oversight", doesn't there?

In my opinion, had Webster landed in the preseason Top 25 it would have been fair...and had Webster received some votes but not made it, it would have been fair...just as it's fair that they didn't get any votes at all.  As it worked out, I think Webster falls in the category of "teams to watch."  The Gorloks should be very good and will have a chance to open some eyes with their 2014-15 play.

I don't think that you guys are looking at this in the larger context.

We're talking about a preseason that is exceptionally jumbled up, to the point where: a) ten more teams got votes than was the case for last year's preseason poll; b) brand-name bias has, rightly or wrongly, again become a live issue, simply because so many programs that finished high last year have lost huge portions of last year's team, bringing up talk of ancillary and/or fallback methods for selecting teams for the preseason poll; and c) you yourself, Bob, have said:

From what I'm hearing and sensing, the 2014-15 picture is extremely fuzzy here in the preseason.

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.

I fully agree that Webster needs to be examined in the light of more than just last season's tournament loss to IWU. But, instead of just taking a cursory glance at Webster's W-L and Massey rating last season, why not look at the full context of Webster's 2012-13 season? To wit:

Knightslappy... you know as well as I do that Massey is just a bunch of numbers that don't take into account anything but scores...  those of us who have seen Webster regularly, and the knowledgeable CCIW fans who watched Webster give IWU the scare of a lifetime, know that they are worth generating a little excitement going into the season.... 

YOU haven't seen them play (otherwise if you came down to ST Louis, you should have contacted me... we'd have gone out to dinner)  and are likely unaware that Webster started out 5-5, missing starting forward Aaron Griffin for most of that time due to injury, and Hunter Ward for all but one game of the first 10 as he waited  for transfer eligibility that came in the 2nd semester.  Once Ward worked his way into the starting lineup, he average 17 ppg, including the 25 against IWU... The Massey numbers don't take that kind of info into account...

More importantly, of course, is what they're bringing to the table this season, which is their four leading scorers and three leading rebounders from a year ago:

Ahmad Smith (16.4 ppg)
Kevin Miller (14.6 ppg, 8.4 rpg)
Hunter Ward (11.1 ppg, 5.5 rpg)
Aaron Griffin (8.0 ppg, 5.7 rpg)

Given that the whole problem with putting together this preseason poll was the dearth of ranked and/or playoff teams that are bringing back all, or nearly all, of their starting lineups from last season intact, Webster stands out as a team that returns a sizeable amount of firepower.

I still believe that the lack of even one single solitary point for the Gorloks in the entire poll was an egregious oversight.

[WUPHF]

I look for Burt to have a breakout year... he'll see the ball A LOT more... I think he could be a 15 ppg scorer...

Nick Burt will be fun to watch this year.  He will go from being a UAA Honorable Mention in 2013-2014 to a First Team player in 2014-2015 if WUSTL is competitive in the conference.  Second Team otherwise.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I should point out... I have used historical bias and memory in my voting as well. Sometimes I give the benefit of the doubt to teams that have either shown despite losses are just as strong the next year, coaches who seem to have a knack of getting the most out of players even after a huge amount of losses, or those who continuing prove me wrong in similar situations. My original argument is that sometimes those kinds of points are outweighed greatly by a bias that the name simply is the name and a team is ranked too high, ranked in the first place, or another team is not ranked who may deserve it but has no history.

Case in point... Williams is ranked way to high and I can not figure out what off-season news would allow that to happen... besides the fact they finished second last year and are Williams.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Williams is too high every year; it's just tradition.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Because finishing second last year proved that theory?

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Because finishing second last year proved that theory?

Every rules needs an exception, right?