AP poll (preseason)

[GumbyDamnit!]

what you are saying about Nova would make more sense- if it was a team like a PC a few years ago where the bench didn't play much. Nova loses 3 guys that none of played more than 70% of the teams minutes- also 2 of the 3 were the 2 worst offensive players that played much last year for Nova(by Ken Pom).... Still have 5 of the top 8 guys(all of whom played at least 36% of the minutes last year)- including the Big East co-player of the year last year. And Brunson coming in. Sorry- but in this day and age- that's a LOT coming back. I don't know for sure- but I think that would be in the top 25 in terms of what's coming back this year pretty easily. Teams just don't bring back as much as you think IMO

Also- you failed to answer my question. Do you really think you would be only #11 if you had gone further in the tourney? I think you're crazy if you think that.

Sorry but for a team that is 62-8 last 2 years, and has as much coming back as they have, in my mind, they should be MUCH higher than 11. I think if you had gone further in the tourney, you'd be like in the top 6-7 quite frankly right now. To act like the tourney has no bearing on the next years poll is a complete joke.

Actually if they had gone further last year, how they progressed would have surely determined how voters saw them this year. If Hilliard and JVP carried them to the E8 voters would have probably dropped Nova lower this year--recognizing that they lost 2 players who had such a big impact on their success. If they went on a run fueled by Hart and Booth than surely that would have affected voters too. It's not unlike what happened with Grayson and Duke. The kid looked great in the Championship game--almost out of nowhere. Now many think he is ready to step up at Duke and it probably helped where they were ranked (and also b/c they are just Duke and are always ranked high in the preseason).

But again where is this empirical proof that Nova has more coming back than anyone else? Where are the data points that show that teams who do poorly in the tourney are penalized the next year. I at least gave you real facts. As you saiad as moderator on the AAC Board:
"It's ok to have a debate. Bring the facts and you are good IMO."

Well, I'm waiting on some facts Steve-o, moderator of all things AAC.

http://aacmessageboard.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=106&sid=4ca848b32d9a5eb4e1c72569882e2331

[BEX]

I like the SI poll - 5 teams in:

http://www.si.com/college-basketball/20 ... cky-kansas

[hoyahooligan]

I like the SI poll - 5 teams in:

http://www.si.com/college-basketball/20 ... cky-kansas

Much better. Hoyas 18th. Much more realistic. Dan Hanner's preseason rankings were much more accurate than any other preseason rankings last year. Hoyas totally underrated by the human pollsters.

[DudeAnon]

I like the SI poll - 5 teams in:

http://www.si.com/college-basketball/20 ... cky-kansas

That is because they actually used stats and math to make their ranks rather than giving the public degree mills the benefit of the doubt.

[stever20]

what you are saying about Nova would make more sense- if it was a team like a PC a few years ago where the bench didn't play much. Nova loses 3 guys that none of played more than 70% of the teams minutes- also 2 of the 3 were the 2 worst offensive players that played much last year for Nova(by Ken Pom).... Still have 5 of the top 8 guys(all of whom played at least 36% of the minutes last year)- including the Big East co-player of the year last year. And Brunson coming in. Sorry- but in this day and age- that's a LOT coming back. I don't know for sure- but I think that would be in the top 25 in terms of what's coming back this year pretty easily. Teams just don't bring back as much as you think IMO

Also- you failed to answer my question. Do you really think you would be only #11 if you had gone further in the tourney? I think you're crazy if you think that.

Sorry but for a team that is 62-8 last 2 years, and has as much coming back as they have, in my mind, they should be MUCH higher than 11. I think if you had gone further in the tourney, you'd be like in the top 6-7 quite frankly right now. To act like the tourney has no bearing on the next years poll is a complete joke.

Actually if they had gone further last year, how they progressed would have surely determined how voters saw them this year. If Hilliard and JVP carried them to the E8 voters would have probably dropped Nova lower this year--recognizing that they lost 2 players who had such a big impact on their success. If they went on a run fueled by Hart and Booth than surely that would have affected voters too. It's not unlike what happened with Grayson and Duke. The kid looked great in the Championship game--almost out of nowhere. Now many think he is ready to step up at Duke and it probably helped where they were ranked (and also b/c they are just Duke and are always ranked high in the preseason).

But again where is this empirical proof that Nova has more coming back than anyone else? Where are the data points that show that teams who do poorly in the tourney are penalized the next year. I at least gave you real facts. As you saiad as moderator on the AAC Board:
"It's ok to have a debate. Bring the facts and you are good IMO."

Well, I'm waiting on some facts Steve-o, moderator of all things AAC.

http://aacmessageboard.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=106&sid=4ca848b32d9a5eb4e1c72569882e2331

You are right that I can't prove it. But it feels like a team who loses only 3 guys- none of whom played more than 70% of the minutes- does have an awfully lot coming back. 3 good guys gone no doubt- but still have 5 good guys coming back(to include the BE player of the year), and a guy who could challenge for newcomer of the year award. It just feels to me that 11 is a bit low. I'd personally have them over Wichita for sure.

And I just feel like how you end your prior season is remembered to some degree when doing the next seasons initial poll. I don't see how it couldn't influence things. Your prior season definitely influences the poll for the next year(just compare last years initial AP poll to this year and you'll see that.

[stever20]

I'm going to say something that you've been waiting a while for....

I was wrong....

ESPN had their preseason top 25 power ratings.... they had 26 teams in it as 25 tied.
first off- the ratings for the Big East about what you'd expect: Nova 9, Georgetown 23, Butler t25

well in the preview they had the percentage of points returning from last year....

I was really shocked when I computed all 26 teams that Nova was actually #22 in terms of % of points returning. Only Arizona, Wisconsin, Duke, and Kentucky lost more than Nova did(all 4 lost at least 20% more btw).
Michigan 92.5%
UNC 88.1%
Indiana 82.9%
Purdue 82.4%
Vandy 81.6%
Kansas 79.1%
Oklahoma 75%
Butler 74.8%
Virgina 73.5%
Utah 72.5%
Cal 71.7%
Iowa St 71.5%
Baylor 69.1%
UConn 66.6%
Maryland 65.6%
Wichita 64.1%
Michigan St 63.3%
SMU 62.6%
Gonzaga 58.5%
Georgetown 56.8%
LSU 56.4%
Nova 56.2%
Arizona 36.1%
Wisconsin 34.3%
Duke 23.2%
Kentucky 14.1%

1 of those things that it felt a lot different than reality. Maybe that's why Wright pushed for the easier Gavitt games opponent in Nebraska to kind of ease the team into the season if you know what I mean?

[stever20]

I'm going to say something that you've been waiting a while for....

I was wrong....

ESPN had their preseason top 25 power ratings.... they had 26 teams in it as 25 tied.
first off- the ratings for the Big East about what you'd expect: Nova 9, Georgetown 23, Butler t25

well in the preview they had the percentage of points returning from last year....

I was really shocked when I computed all 26 teams that Nova was actually #22 in terms of % of points returning. Only Arizona, Wisconsin, Duke, and Kentucky lost more than Nova did(all 4 lost at least 20% more btw).
Michigan 92.5%
UNC 88.1%
Indiana 82.9%
Purdue 82.4%
Vandy 81.6%
Kansas 79.1%
Oklahoma 75%
Butler 74.8%
Virgina 73.5%
Utah 72.5%
Cal 71.7%
Iowa St 71.5%
Baylor 69.1%
UConn 66.6%
Maryland 65.6%
Wichita 64.1%
Michigan St 63.3%
SMU 62.6%
Gonzaga 58.5%
Georgetown 56.8%
LSU 56.4%
Nova 56.2%
Arizona 36.1%
Wisconsin 34.3%
Duke 23.2%
Kentucky 14.1%

1 of those things that it felt a lot different than reality. Maybe that's why Wright pushed for the easier Gavitt games opponent in Nebraska to kind of ease the team into the season if you know what I mean?

[stever20]

interesting from the college sports madness previews:
http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/12132

Nova #11.

but this part is really interesting:
Those two were a big reason why Villanova ranked 14th in the country in three-pointers made per game.(talking about Hillard and Ennis).

Maybe with those 2 gone Nova won't rely quite as much on the 3 point shot(which could improve their game to where they wouldn't have a game like NC State last year). The 3 games Nova lost, they shot only 21-75 from 3 point range.

The old saying, you live by the 3, you die by the 3.

[marquette]

Who hacked stever?

[GumbyDamnit!]

interesting from the college sports madness previews:
http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/12132

Nova #11.

but this part is really interesting:
Those two were a big reason why Villanova ranked 14th in the country in three-pointers made per game.(talking about Hillard and Ennis).

Maybe with those 2 gone Nova won't rely quite as much on the 3 point shot(which could improve their game to where they wouldn't have a game like NC State last year). The 3 games Nova lost, they shot only 21-75 from 3 point range.

The old saying, you live by the 3, you die by the 3.

Wow Stever glad to see you are man enough to admit when wrong. Good for you.

In terms of this team vs last you might see more 3's than less. Brunson and Booth replace Hilliard and Ennis and both of those guys can stroke the three. But more significantly Jenkins, Hart and Bridges who replace JVP can all shoot from 3. Whether they live by the 3 or die, we'll see in time. But I'd rather lose playing our game than lose trying to be something you are not. They only lost 3 games last year so they lived by the 3 much more than died. But we'll see.

Also 21/74 is 42% eFG%. Not great but not so significant that it explains why they lost.