Jump to content

Top 144


Taj79

Recommended Posts

The reason we should be on anybody's top 144 list is simple: it would be a historically bad season for us not to be. We have been in the top 150 every season that Sagarin has done his rankings dating back to 2002.

One can pontificate all they want about how we don't have many returning contributors or speculate about how good the incoming freshmen are, but the fact remains that if someone predicts us not to be in the top 144 they are predicting us to have one of the worst seasons in the past 20 years. I surely don't believe that is how next season will play out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 274
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

kshoe brings up an interesting point ... someone predicting us having one of the worst seasons in the past 20 years. How would we measure that? Number of victories? What other way is there? I don't think it is fair to take this so-called "Top 144" ranking subjectively done in the preseason and compare it to a Sagarin rank based on a full season's body of work and computerized nomenclature. But the comparisons are inevitable because there is no clear way of defining it. kshoe makes it an interesting argument to say the least.

The preseason facts eventually become more anecdotal, making a true comparison with real hard numbers at the end almost impossible and likely irrelevant. But in the last 20 years, we have had "low" seasons of 11 - 18 under Spoon in 96/97; a 9 and 21 year under Brad our last season in CUSA 04/05; and a 12 - 19 year under Majerus that was Majerus' only losing record, the year post-situation, with Reed and Mitchell getting suspended. In the noted Brad year we were Sagarin ranked at 175; in the Majerus year, we were actually right at 150. I could not find numbers for the Spoon year. So that is 32 victories divided by three years. Meaning 11 wins is the "mendoza" line? So can we agree that a disastrous year is 11 victories or less? I'm okay with that as a baseline.

I just have to believe this team wins more than 11 games. I am sure you all feel the same. But until a definitive schedule is out, until I see sophomores that developed, transfers that became eligible, seniors do more work on the hardwood than the pinewood, and a bunch of freshmen who can play at this level, I'll reserve judgment as to if that can be accomplished. I think it can.

Good debate point kshoe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taj/KShoe

Using a simple margin of victory method (used by Sports-Reference.com) SLU ranked 151st in 1996-7.

The general point about arguing across seasons is valid--it is just not the same. When SLU was in the Midwestern Cities/Collegiate conference (now Horizon) the SOS was MUCH lower than people recognize today. 5-23 in the Great Midwest in 91-92 is still 170 but 5-23 in the first season of the MCC is 225th out 270 teams ('82-'83). I should note that the MCC itself got better but in general the point stands. When KShoe says worse season in twenty years (I assumes he is referring to 91-92), the computer ranking was still 170th (despite a poor record in 92-93 the team was around 80th in the simple computer rankings).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kshoe brings up an interesting point ... someone predicting us having one of the worst seasons in the past 20 years. How would we measure that? Number of victories? What other way is there? I don't think it is fair to take this so-called "Top 144" ranking subjectively done in the preseason and compare it to a Sagarin rank based on a full season's body of work and computerized nomenclature. But the comparisons are inevitable because there is no clear way of defining it. kshoe makes it an interesting argument to say the least.

The preseason facts eventually become more anecdotal, making a true comparison with real hard numbers at the end almost impossible and likely irrelevant. But in the last 20 years, we have had "low" seasons of 11 - 18 under Spoon in 96/97; a 9 and 21 year under Brad our last season in CUSA 04/05; and a 12 - 19 year under Majerus that was Majerus' only losing record, the year post-situation, with Reed and Mitchell getting suspended. In the noted Brad year we were Sagarin ranked at 175; in the Majerus year, we were actually right at 150. I could not find numbers for the Spoon year. So that is 32 victories divided by three years. Meaning 11 wins is the "mendoza" line? So can we agree that a disastrous year is 11 victories or less? I'm okay with that as a baseline.

I just have to believe this team wins more than 11 games. I am sure you all feel the same. But until a definitive schedule is out, until I see sophomores that developed, transfers that became eligible, seniors do more work on the hardwood than the pinewood, and a bunch of freshmen who can play at this level, I'll reserve judgment as to if that can be accomplished. I think it can.

Good debate point kshoe.

we might have 11 wins by the time a10 play starts. the non con schedule is going to be a joke outside of wichita st.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are only 13 non-con games this season (as a result of an 18-game A-10 slate), so we'll all be giddy if the Bills are 11-2 at the start of conference play.

I thought about that, but I still stand by my original statement. @Wichita is probably a loss. But what after that? Maybe home vs Vandy? Maybe we trip up in another game or 2. Even then, we're at 8 or 9 wins.

I think people (both writers and people on this board) are greatly underestimating the sophomores. They're ready to play and they're going to contribute majorly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought about that, but I still stand by my original statement. @Wichita is probably a loss. But what after that? Maybe home vs Vandy? Maybe we trip up in another game or 2. Even then, we're at 8 or 9 wins.

I think people (both writers and people on this board) are greatly underestimating the sophomores. They're ready to play and they're going to contribute majorly.

I've seen a lot of very good mentions of Mike Crawford...which is good.

I still worry about him a bit because he couldn't push Jake Barnett out of the lineup last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could care less what this guy... joel20headshot1.jpg thinks of SLU this season. But if you guys want me to, I'll drive a wooden stake right up his strada-chocolata and put him out of his misery. I ain't afraid of no vampires.

For me, it will be fun to watch this young team grow regardless of our record. It would be folly not to expect at least some growing pains...but I strongly suspect we will finish in the Top 144. Like 96.33(repeating, of course)% sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought about that, but I still stand by my original statement. @Wichita is probably a loss. But what after that? Maybe home vs Vandy? Maybe we trip up in another game or 2. Even then, we're at 8 or 9 wins.

I think people (both writers and people on this board) are greatly underestimating the sophomores. They're ready to play and they're going to contribute majorly.

We play at Indiana St. Unfortunately, I expect a loss there. I also think losing a game in the Corpus Christi tourney is not unreasonable. We'll be 10-3 when conference play starts is my guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But until a definitive schedule is out, until I see sophomores that developed, transfers that became eligible, seniors do more work on the hardwood than the pinewood, and a bunch of freshmen who can play at this level, I'll reserve judgment as to if that can be accomplished.

Taj. What is being missed here is that we graduated 5 Seniors who played most all of our minutes - and not just last year but before that. Like it or not, JC decided to go with our veterans at the expense of mixing in a youth movement. We are/will pay for that this year. I fully concede that JM and GG never took minutes away from RL, DE and others and that the Sophs did not play all that much last year. At the same time, we went with our five (5) Seniors plus AM and we used the rest of the bench merely to gives our Seniors a small amount of rest. Also, our "most ready" freshman (RA) last year was injured early and often. What are people expecting? Large turnovers and unproven players does not equal bad players/team and a poor season.

On a related note, it is much easier to look at Kentucky's new Freshmen each year and say that they are so good that there won't be much of a dropoff from the prior year, but every team that graduates 5 Seniors should be treated more similarly. Sure, I understand not putting SLU in the Top 40 again this year ... but not including us in the Top 144? Now that's the real joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kshoe brings up an interesting point ... someone predicting us having one of the worst seasons in the past 20 years. How would we measure that? Number of victories? What other way is there? I don't think it is fair to take this so-called "Top 144" ranking subjectively done in the preseason and compare it to a Sagarin rank based on a full season's body of work and computerized nomenclature. But the comparisons are inevitable because there is no clear way of defining it. kshoe makes it an interesting argument to say the least.

The preseason facts eventually become more anecdotal, making a true comparison with real hard numbers at the end almost impossible and likely irrelevant. But in the last 20 years, we have had "low" seasons of 11 - 18 under Spoon in 96/97; a 9 and 21 year under Brad our last season in CUSA 04/05; and a 12 - 19 year under Majerus that was Majerus' only losing record, the year post-situation, with Reed and Mitchell getting suspended. In the noted Brad year we were Sagarin ranked at 175; in the Majerus year, we were actually right at 150. I could not find numbers for the Spoon year. So that is 32 victories divided by three years. Meaning 11 wins is the "mendoza" line? So can we agree that a disastrous year is 11 victories or less? I'm okay with that as a baseline.

I just have to believe this team wins more than 11 games. I am sure you all feel the same. But until a definitive schedule is out, until I see sophomores that developed, transfers that became eligible, seniors do more work on the hardwood than the pinewood, and a bunch of freshmen who can play at this level, I'll reserve judgment as to if that can be accomplished. I think it can.

Good debate point kshoe.

Taj/KShoe

Using a simple margin of victory method (used by Sports-Reference.com) SLU ranked 151st in 1996-7.

The general point about arguing across seasons is valid--it is just not the same. When SLU was in the Midwestern Cities/Collegiate conference (now Horizon) the SOS was MUCH lower than people recognize today. 5-23 in the Great Midwest in 91-92 is still 170 but 5-23 in the first season of the MCC is 225th out 270 teams ('82-'83). I should note that the MCC itself got better but in general the point stands. When KShoe says worse season in twenty years (I assumes he is referring to 91-92), the computer ranking was still 170th (despite a poor record in 92-93 the team was around 80th in the simple computer rankings).

Per Pomery*, we were 150 in 2005 (9-21) which was out last year in CUSA. In 2008, we were 16-15 but also finished at 150 because we played a soft non-conference schedule and Xavier was the only good team in the A-10.

I will gladly take all bets that this team will finish in the top 144 of whatever computer methodology one wishes to use. Seems like that is as good a metric as any for whether a team really is in the top 144 and is a fair way to balance for differences in schedule strength over different seasons.

*I realize I mis-spoke earlier when I said Sagarin when I really meant Pomeroy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clock, I think Old Guy put it best, we are a blank canvas even to us fans. We just don't have a body of work to base any kind of prediction on how this team will fare. If we the fans don't know, and we do have some knowledgeable guys on here, how's some outsider supposed to know. He's taking 144 days to evaluate some 360 teams. I'll wager his metrics are in order: 1.) Who's returning to the teams that were good last year and how much did they contribute. 2.) What was said about their newbies, be they transfers or Frosh, ie star ratings, performance at JUCOs, etc. 3.) What's their conference look like.

Pretty sure when he came to SLU, he saw we lost 80% of our mpg and ppg. Nothing of note about who's returning and the transfers and FR are not that well known. Playing in the tough A-10, he concludes these guys are in for a tough season. That said, it ain't gonna mean zippo come late October. Let the games begin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would take that in a heartbeat given our situation.

10-3 seems do-able based on what we know about the schedule, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if we drop one that we never would have dreamed of losing in the recent past. I expect a stinker or two in the first month of the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Full schedule sounds like it'll be released later today, so I'll save an exact prediction until then. But anything less than 9 wins in the non conference schedule is a pretty big disappointment to me. The schedule will be extremely weak and we will be better than people think. I said it yesterday and I'll say it again....The sophomores are being very overlooked by this board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Full schedule sounds like it'll be released later today, so I'll save an exact prediction until then. But anything less than 9 wins in the non conference schedule is a pretty big disappointment to me. The schedule will be extremely weak and we will be better than people think. I said it yesterday and I'll say it again....The sophomores are being very overlooked by this board.

What are you basing your comments about the SOPHs on? Have you seen them practice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you basing your comments about the SOPHs on? Have you seen them practice?

I've heard from multiple people closely connected to the program, that the sophomores have been extremely impressive all summer. I assume Agbeko is still getting back to full strength after his surgery, but Crawford and Lancona both have been working their asses off this summer and have been impressive. They know they're going to be required to have significant roles and they're putting in the time and effort to be able to take on that role.

Manning is another player who will be big this season. Still worry about his ability to stay out of foul trouble, but he's going to be good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last listing stopped with Davidson at #76. We now have Toledo at #75; Illinois State at #74. And today the Ragin' Cajuns of Louisiana come home to roost at #73. With 72 more teams to come, I went back and checked the last listing of a team in a conference, for example K State. I think they were listed as like the 8th best team in the Big 12 ---- meaning seven more to come from that conference, if logic holds. Based on that premise, here's what's coming:

Two more teams from the Mo Valley. Six more from the A10. Three from the Mountain West. Seven from the noted Big 12. Ditto seven for the SEC. Six from both the Big East and the American. A whopping eight from the PAC-12. And likely 10 EACH from both the ACC and the Big Ten. Added up, that's 65 teams (ignoring the rather interesting parallel to 64 teams (plus 4 play-in spots) in the Big Dance). So, much like the Louisiana's and Toledo's of the world, seven spots remain for teams not in those leagues. And the Power Five dominate as usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@larry72: it will be only six more teams from the A10 if my premise proves correct. You and I agree on the top four. The question becomes what other A10 two are in there? Us. Richmond. Rhode Island. And maybe even Bonaventure could all be in the mix.

I am back to believing it's not us. Having Davidson and Duquesne jumping in already is extremely disconcerting to say the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We now will be no worse than 67 on this website's top 144. Surely they wouldn't pick a school with our recent winning tradition to finish out of the 144 running, which would make us worse than Fordham. Ain't going to happen, 72 and Taj!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@bauman: going to have to disagree with you here. Temple @ #72; San Francisco @ #71. NC State at #70. Cleveland State at #69 and Cal at #68. I think we've even passed throguh the kshoe zone which he expected us to be at 90 thru 100..... he last expressed surprise when we weren't called by #83.

While I agree on "our recent winning tradition" but that and a dollar will get you any size coffee at McDonald's. The reality is that entire roster is gone and these ranks --- bluffs even if you want to call them that --- are based on at least a casual once-over-the-top kind of analysis. Again, I look at our team and see little at this point upon which to base anything. But I am still waiting because it will be one hellova write up, if and when it comes.

Can't wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...