adoraz wrote:Well deserved by Creighton.
SJU doesn't belong on this list because I don't expect them to be nationally relevant, but I still expect them top be top 5 in terms of improvement.
Reasons why:
1. Awful, awful, awful last year. No where to go but up. 245 RPI.
2. #23 ranked class incoming
3. That doesn't include LoVett, our best recruit from the prior year's class who was ineligible last year
4. That doesn't include Bashir Ahmed, the #2 ranked JUCO transfer
Other reasons as well but those are the big ones. They could improve 100 spots and probably be top 5 in terms of RPI improvement.
milksteak wrote:adoraz wrote:Well deserved by Creighton.
SJU doesn't belong on this list because I don't expect them to be nationally relevant, but I still expect them top be top 5 in terms of improvement.
Reasons why:
1. Awful, awful, awful last year. No where to go but up. 245 RPI.
2. #23 ranked class incoming
3. That doesn't include LoVett, our best recruit from the prior year's class who was ineligible last year
4. That doesn't include Bashir Ahmed, the #2 ranked JUCO transfer
Other reasons as well but those are the big ones. They could improve 100 spots and probably be top 5 in terms of RPI improvement.
Jury is definitely still out on Mullin. This year will tell us much, much more regarding his potential for longevity.
adoraz wrote:I misspoke about Ahmed- the 247 system does include JUCOsmilksteak wrote:adoraz wrote:Well deserved by Creighton.
SJU doesn't belong on this list because I don't expect them to be nationally relevant, but I still expect them top be top 5 in terms of improvement.
Reasons why:
1. Awful, awful, awful last year. No where to go but up. 245 RPI.
2. #23 ranked class incoming
3. That doesn't include LoVett, our best recruit from the prior year's class who was ineligible last year
4. That doesn't include Bashir Ahmed, the #2 ranked JUCO transfer
Other reasons as well but those are the big ones. They could improve 100 spots and probably be top 5 in terms of RPI improvement.
Jury is definitely still out on Mullin. This year will tell us much, much more regarding his potential for longevity.
Of course... but just on paper they should see a substantial improvement next year.
Last year:
1. Lost all their players (aside from a few bench players)
2. #27 incoming class- mostly due to volume- 3 four stars but highest ranked players sat the entire year. LoVett (#95- 4 stars) and Williams (#10 JUCO- 4 star). So wasn't close to being the #27 class.
Last year we lost all our starters, returned a few bench players and brought in a class where 2 of the 3 top ranked players didn't play.
This year:
1. Returning most players
2. #23 incoming class- 3 four stars who are ranked higher than last year's four stars and should actually play
3. Adding two of three 4 star players from last year's class who didn't play (LoVett and Williams- see above)
I agree the pressure is on Mullin this year, but there's no reason to be pessimistic of last year's results. That was not a Big East caliber team.
ChelseaFriar wrote:Agree on not judging Mullin yet. Cooley was 15-17/4-14 his first season at PC. The following season he made the NIT quarterfinals. Then 3 straight NCAA appearances.
GoldenWarrior11 wrote:My only concern with Mullen was the situation with Slice Rohrssen. Never a good sign when your top assistant leaves/dismissed/part ways after just one season.
Return to Big East basketball message board
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 29 guests