AP poll (preseason)

[Chalmers0]

so Duke should be #1 and X 16th? Frankly, The whole idea is comical to me with zero games played, but guess they have to throw something out there.

Not necessarily but do you think Wisconsin or Notre Dame is ranked based on their current roster? Because I don't think either of them would be in the Top 25 based on current roster makeup.

[GumbyDamnit!]

You said originally that is the only criteria the AP looks at with these polls...

I think recruiting/transfers have a lot to do with the polls. Definitely do. But I just don't think it should be any surprise that Nova in particular would get dinged right now.

Nova lost 60% of its starting lineup--2 of which were 4 year starters--and are still ranked right around the top 10. If that's "getting dinged" then I hope we get "dinged" every year. If anything that ranking shows how much respect Nova is given despite losing most of its starting 5.

[stever20]

but of the top 8 players lost only 3. Also bring in a top 25 player in Brunson. So Nova has a lot coming back- lets just say way more than most teams do.

If Nova had made the elite 8 or higher- do you really think they would be as low as they are? No way in hell. They'd be top 6-7 easily. you look at the 10 teams ahead of them- only Maryland, Kansas, Virginia, and Iowa St failed to make the sweet 16. The 3 teams right ahead of Nova- no way in hell Nova should be behind them- but the tourney performance dictated it- Oklahoma, Gonzaga, and Wichita St.

[DudeAnon]

I don't think its unfair to use tournament results for this kind of thing. These are rankings based on 0 games, ZERO. So pretty much any metric is fair because they are all untested so far.

[hoyahooligan]

BE getting no respect.

Also curious that the AP and coaches poll both have Butler ahead of Georgetown while the BE Coaches poll has Georgetown ahead of Butler.

[GumbyDamnit!]

but of the top 8 players lost only 3. Also bring in a top 25 player in Brunson. So Nova has a lot coming back- lets just say way more than most teams do.

If Nova had made the elite 8 or higher- do you really think they would be as low as they are? No way in hell. They'd be top 6-7 easily. you look at the 10 teams ahead of them- only Maryland, Kansas, Virginia, and Iowa St failed to make the sweet 16. The 3 teams right ahead of Nova- no way in hell Nova should be behind them- but the tourney performance dictated it- Oklahoma, Gonzaga, and Wichita St.

OK by making the statement that "of the teams ahead of them only MD, KU, UVA & ISU failed to make the SW16," you are basically admitting that your premise is off base. If tourney performance was such a big factor in how these teams are ranked, how do you explain 5/11 not fitting in your little box?

[stever20]

but of the top 8 players lost only 3. Also bring in a top 25 player in Brunson. So Nova has a lot coming back- lets just say way more than most teams do.

If Nova had made the elite 8 or higher- do you really think they would be as low as they are? No way in hell. They'd be top 6-7 easily. you look at the 10 teams ahead of them- only Maryland, Kansas, Virginia, and Iowa St failed to make the sweet 16. The 3 teams right ahead of Nova- no way in hell Nova should be behind them- but the tourney performance dictated it- Oklahoma, Gonzaga, and Wichita St.

OK by making the statement that "of the teams ahead of them only MD, KU, UVA & ISU failed to make the SW16," you are basically admitting that your premise is off base. If tourney performance was such a big factor in how these teams are ranked, how do you explain 5/11 not fitting in your little box?

So if Nova had done better in the tourney they'd be #11? Sorry but that's a bunch of crap. No way in hell Nova would be behind Oklahoma, Gonzaga, and Wichita St. And I think you know it. Nova being #11 is no sign of respect.

[GumbyDamnit!]

but of the top 8 players lost only 3. Also bring in a top 25 player in Brunson. So Nova has a lot coming back- lets just say way more than most teams do.

If Nova had made the elite 8 or higher- do you really think they would be as low as they are? No way in hell. They'd be top 6-7 easily. you look at the 10 teams ahead of them- only Maryland, Kansas, Virginia, and Iowa St failed to make the sweet 16. The 3 teams right ahead of Nova- no way in hell Nova should be behind them- but the tourney performance dictated it- Oklahoma, Gonzaga, and Wichita St.

"WAY more than most teams." Let's look at this misstatement as well.

1). UNC - returns 8 of top 9 players and added 2 recruits
2). UK is UK; blue blood; who's who of H.S. AA's
3). MD - only lost Wells and brought in a Top 10 player in Stone and two solid transfers
4). KU is KU; blue blood; brought in a great class; lose Alexander and Oubre & replace with Diallo and Bragg
5). Duke is Duke; blue blood; tremendous recruiting class and Coach K
6). UVA - return 6 of top 8 and earned this ranking by only losing twice in the ACC last year, not by losing in the R32 (which should have pushed them down the rankings per your theory)
7). ISU - return top 3 players including a 1st team preseason AA ad POY candidate in Niang; but also lost in the R32. Hmm.... According to you that should have cost them a few spots.
8). Oklahoma - return a preseason AA and POY candidate in Held; return 4 of their 5 starters whom each averaged over 30 min's / game
9). Gonzaga - bring back 7 of top 9 players including AA candidate Wiltjer
10). Wich State - bring back their All-American backcourt who are BOTH AA and POY candidates
11). Nova - Lost their best player who is now on an NBA roster + two other starters, one a former McD AA who started for 4 years in the program.

Looking at that list of teams ahead of them in the rankings how can you justify the "Nova has way more coming back than other teams" comment? Again just not even close to accurate.

Look, rankings are rankings--they are subjective and people can have a variety of reasons to ranks teams where they did. But for a team that lost 60% of its starting lineup to get voted in at #11 is not the indictment on tourney performance that you are making it out to be--especially when other teams who fared the same are ranked very highly.

Honestly Stever everything to you is trying to paint the BE glass as half empty at every turn and I simply am never going to just let those comments slide--especially when they have zero basis in fact. And then when proven wrong it is your MO to just slink back into the shadows until your next opportunity to play your little game.

Sort of like when you make the following declarative statements:
"The BE is (or will) struggle with recruiting." Wrong.
"The AAC will get 5 bids (last year)." Wrong.
"The Northeast is not the best area of the country for HS recruiting any longer." Wrong
"Nova is ONLY at 11 because of their poor March performance." Wrong.

Anything else or are we about done here?

[stever20]

but of the top 8 players lost only 3. Also bring in a top 25 player in Brunson. So Nova has a lot coming back- lets just say way more than most teams do.

If Nova had made the elite 8 or higher- do you really think they would be as low as they are? No way in hell. They'd be top 6-7 easily. you look at the 10 teams ahead of them- only Maryland, Kansas, Virginia, and Iowa St failed to make the sweet 16. The 3 teams right ahead of Nova- no way in hell Nova should be behind them- but the tourney performance dictated it- Oklahoma, Gonzaga, and Wichita St.

"WAY more than most teams." Let's look at this misstatement as well.

1). UNC - returns 8 of top 9 players and added 2 recruits
2). UK is UK; blue blood; who's who of H.S. AA's
3). MD - only lost Wells and brought in a Top 10 player in Stone and two solid transfers
4). KU is KU; blue blood; brought in a great class; lose Alexander and Oubre & replace with Diallo and Bragg
5). Duke is Duke; blue blood; tremendous recruiting class and Coach K
6). UVA - return 6 of top 8 and earned this ranking by only losing twice in the ACC last year, not by losing in the R32 (which should have pushed them down the rankings per your theory)
7). ISU - return top 3 players including a 1st team preseason AA ad POY candidate in Niang; but also lost in the R32. Hmm.... According to you that should have cost them a few spots.
8). Oklahoma - return a preseason AA and POY candidate in Held; return 4 of their 5 starters whom each averaged over 30 min's / game
9). Gonzaga - bring back 7 of top 9 players including AA candidate Wiltjer
10). Wich State - bring back their All-American backcourt who are BOTH AA and POY candidates
11). Nova - Lost their best player who is now on an NBA roster + two other starters, one a former McD AA who started for 4 years in the program.

Looking at that list of teams ahead of them in the rankings how can you justify the "Nova has way more coming back than other teams" comment? Again just not even close to accurate.

Look, rankings are rankings--they are subjective and people can have a variety of reasons to ranks teams where they did. But for a team that lost 60% of its starting lineup to get voted in at #11 is not the indictment on tourney performance that you are making it out to be--especially when other teams who fared the same are ranked very highly.

Honestly Stever everything to you is trying to paint the BE glass as half empty at every turn and I simply am never going to just let those comments slide--especially when they have zero basis in fact. And then when proven wrong it is your MO to just slink back into the shadows until your next opportunity to play your little game.

Sort of like when you make the following declarative statements:
"The BE is (or will) struggle with recruiting." Wrong.
"The AAC will get 5 bids (last year)." Wrong.
"The Northeast is not the best area of the country for HS recruiting any longer." Wrong
"Nova is ONLY at 11 because of their poor March performance." Wrong.

Anything else or are we about done here?

And that is 10 other teams. Sorry- but Nova does have way more than most teams do coming back...

Sorry but Nova does have way more than even some of the teams on the list. Kentucky, Duke, Kansas..

I think Virginia Kansas, and Iowa St probably did get hurt a bit in the ratings...

Also- you keep on bringing up the 60% of the lineup gone- but that's a bunch of crap. They had 6 guys play at least 60% of the minutes- and 3 are back- plus guys 7 and 8.

So tell me- do you really think if Nova had gone further in the tourney they'd still only be #11?

[stever20]

gotta love Gumby trying to paint Nova at 11 as a sign of respect for the Big East. Sorry but only a flaming BE homer would see it like that. Even other folks on here sure as hell don't see it as respect. Or the fact that the Big East only has 2 teams in the poll. Sorry- but not many folks on here see it as a sign of respect at all.

If you think tournament stuff doesn't matter with the poll, why in the hell are Wisconsin and Notre Dame ranked?