Top 144

[Taj79]

We are up to #30 and still no .......... Dayton. C'mon, anybody here believe Dayton is one of the top thirty teams in the nation this year? Right now? Again, debate point. I certainly think VCU is.

[slu72]

UDs getting the dreaded carryover big expectations effect that comes w/ a sweet 16 appearance. I think they'll be in the 20-25 range. LaSalle got lots of preseason love last year, but didn't help 'em come game time. You really need to buy yourself an SV.

[Taj79]

No SV for me but this is what happens when your best SLU undergrad friend is a YouDee season ticket holder and you know the team doctor.

Dayton in at #27 with only VCU left, We shall see.

Can't wait.

[slu72]

I'll bite, 16 for Spikes favorite team.

[Taj79]

We have moved intothe Top 25 now with Dayton at #27 as the A10's near miss. I agree on your call regarding VCU. Didn't the ESPN poll put them at #16? Of ocurse, whar does ESPN know. How can they be considered credible?

[Deutschkind]

We have moved intothe Top 25 now with Dayton at #27 as the A10's near miss. I agree on your call regarding VCU. Didn't the ESPN poll put them at #16? Of ocurse, whar does ESPN know. How can they be considered credible?

So you're saying this guy has SLU ranked in the top 25?

[Taj79]

No. That's not what I'm saying. The list is into the Top 25 teams. Dayton missed being Top 25 by two spots. We have long been an afterthought on this list. I can see anyone believing this team is Top 25 in the nation without being a complete homer.

[cheeseman]

Gee should we start calling those who said we would not make the list savants? After all we were right on with our prediction. Of course not - common sense said we were not going to be on the list.

[kwyjibo]

I still have absolutely no idea why anyone would care how Joel Welser rates college basketball teams in the preseason. It is not a particularly well-read or respected source. More importantly it is not that accurate (I have not seen the preseason college basketball rankings compared directly but I have seen Welser's other predictions compared to peers in other areas and he is shockingly bad). That is the problem right there, this person loves to "predict" and so does it across many things and does not do any of them particularly well. It makes no sense that SLU is not in the 144 as KShoe mentioned early in this thread. Clearly the consensus of A10 beat writers and A10 coaches at A10 media day is that SLU finishes 9th (this is an infinitely more relevant and likely more accurate appraisal but yet garnered little to no comment on this board). It is not common or sensical to say that SLU is outside of the top 144 teams (it could happen but then again SLU could be in the tournament as well and I am predicting neither).

Pomeroy has had much more accurate and interesting analytic method (he has argued that Hanner at ESPN does an even better job). TeamRankings.com at least tries an analytic method. I get it is a timing thing as none of these are public yet (Pomeroy should be out any day now but Hanner is InsideESPN) but there at least 20 people on this board who could do a better job than Welser.

EDIT: Dan Hanner writes for RealGM.com and predicted SLU 10th. Again, I have no idea how accurate the guy is but it seems like his A-10 preview is far more reasoned and researched at least. His comments on SLU:

St. Louis: The only reason I’m not picking St. Louis to finish even lower in the A10 is because Jim Crews kept the defense playing at a high level after taking over for Rick Majerus. If he can get a young group of players to play defense, they can be competitive. But on paper, this looks like the worst offense in the A10. No player projects to have an ORtg over 100 at this point.

(For those of you who care about the details, while Austin McBroom had an ORtg over 100 last year, with 71% of the team’s minutes leaving, over 71% of the team’s points leaving, and most of the replacements being sub 3-star recruits, McBroom will probably see even fewer open shots than last year. Similarly, Tanner Lacona had a decent ORtg last year, but he only took 33 shots all year. Not only don’t we have enough data to know if Lacona is good, he’s going to have to be more aggressive this year, and that should hurt his efficiency.)

Villanova transfer Achraf Yacoubout will get his chance, but if fans in St. Louis have suffered through some ugly games the last few years, things could be even more ugly this season.

http://basketball.realgm.com/article/234666/College-Basketball-Preview-14-15-Atlantic-10

[TheA_Bomb]

The dude that wrote the article long forgot about it and we're still discussing the merits. He's wrong on SLU being outside the top 144 and may have just been an oversight. You guys that bet we wouldn't be in the list were right. But SLU will be in the top 144 teams if not something really really went wrong.

[kshoe]

Gee should we start calling those who said we would not make the list savants? After all we were right on with our prediction. Of course not - common sense said we were not going to be on the list.

Huh? Common sense says this upcoming season is going to be one of the worst in the schools history over the past 20 years? Because that is what it means if we are not in the top 144 teams at the end of the season.

No, a more measured approach would to say that SLU is in a rebuilding year and certainly shouldn't be expected to achieve the success its had over the past 3 years but that doesn't mean it is going to fall off the face of the earth (which is what being below 144 effectively is).

Just because there is a lot of uncertainty about where we belong doesn't mean we should be excluded from consideration from a list like this. Put differently, saying we aren't in the top 144 is the same as saying we are going to be awful. And common sense does not say that we are going to be awful.

[ACE]

I still have absolutely no idea why anyone would care how Joel Welser rates college basketball teams in the preseason. It is not a particularly well-read or respected source. More importantly it is not that accurate (I have not seen the preseason college basketball rankings compared directly but I have seen Welser's other predictions compared to peers in other areas and he is shockingly bad). That is the problem right there, this person loves to "predict" and so does it across many things and does not do any of them particularly well. It makes no sense that SLU is not in the 144 as KShoe mentioned early in this thread. Clearly the consensus of A10 beat writers and A10 coaches at A10 media day is that SLU finishes 9th (this is an infinitely more relevant and likely more accurate appraisal but yet garnered little to no comment on this board). It is not common or sensical to say that SLU is outside of the top 144 teams (it could happen but then again SLU could be in the tournament as well and I am predicting neither).

Pomeroy has had much more accurate and interesting analytic method (he has argued that Hanner at ESPN does an even better job). TeamRankings.com at least tries an analytic method. I get it is a timing thing as none of these are public yet (Pomeroy should be out any day now but Hanner is InsideESPN) but there at least 20 people on this board who could do a better job than Welser.

EDIT: Dan Hanner writes for RealGM.com and predicted SLU 10th. Again, I have no idea how accurate the guy is but it seems like his A-10 preview is far more reasoned and researched at least. His comments on SLU:

http://basketball.realgm.com/article/234666/College-Basketball-Preview-14-15-Atlantic-10

So this is guy we're talking about? http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/author/joel-welser-0 Looks like he really knows his stuff. Now if you will excuse me, I want to get back to reading his West Virginia women's basketball preview.

[brianstl]

Huh? Common sense says this upcoming season is going to be one of the worst in the schools history over the past 20 years? Because that is what it means if we are not in the top 144 teams at the end of the season.

No, a more measured approach would to say that SLU is in a rebuilding year and certainly shouldn't be expected to achieve the success its had over the past 3 years but that doesn't mean it is going to fall off the face of the earth (which is what being below 144 effectively is).

Just because there is a lot of uncertainty about where we belong doesn't mean we should be excluded from consideration from a list like this. Put differently, saying we aren't in the top 144 is the same as saying we are going to be awful. And common sense does not say that we are going to be awful.

To add to what kshoe, is saying the situation team finished with a Pomeroy rating of 129. The really awful 9-21 team in 04-05 finished with a Pomeroy rating of 150. To believe we would finish outside the top 144 would mean you think we would be as bad or worse than the 04-05 team. That team was beset with injuries, started a freshman Polk at point guard all season, and was starting Vas'shun Newborne for over half of the season.

I think it is going to be a tough season, but there is no way we will be that awful.

[cheeseman]

Huh? Common sense says this upcoming season is going to be one of the worst in the schools history over the past 20 years? Because that is what it means if we are not in the top 144 teams at the end of the season.

No, a more measured approach would to say that SLU is in a rebuilding year and certainly shouldn't be expected to achieve the success its had over the past 3 years but that doesn't mean it is going to fall off the face of the earth (which is what being below 144 effectively is).

Just because there is a lot of uncertainty about where we belong doesn't mean we should be excluded from consideration from a list like this. Put differently, saying we aren't in the top 144 is the same as saying we are going to be awful. And common sense does not say that we are going to be awful.

You need to reread my post - I never said this was going to be the worst team in the past 20 years just that we would not make the list of 144. I would bet that there will be teams who finish with a 500 or close to record who are not on the list of 144. Did you not forget the 9-20something that BS had? or the 12 win season that RM had? I would think we would be at least better than BS bad year and hopefully better than RM's

I don't mind you disagreeing with me but when you start making things up that I never said then that is where I draw the line.

[slu72]

My original prediction on the list was we'd be 90-100. I recall we always made this list even under Brad. And can't recall us ever finishing outside the top 150 by season's end. I'd agree with the ESPN guy, as No one knows who's going to provide our scoring. I think we're in store for some really ugly games at the beginning, and it's going to be frustrating to watch games where we have a few 6-8 minute scoring droughts. Hope I'm totally wrong, but until a couple of our guys prove they can put the ball in the hoop fairly consistently this is going to be a long season.

[Westy03]

going to be frustrating to watch games where we have a few 6-8 minute scoring droughts.

Hell we had these droughts pretty consistently the last two seasons. The biggest adjustment this year wont be scoring the ball but being able to defend like we have the past few seasons.

[brianstl]

Hell we had these droughts pretty consistently the last two seasons. The biggest adjustment this year wont be scoring the ball but being able to defend like we have the past few seasons.

Exactly. I would be mildly surprise if we weren't actually better offensively this season than last. We were a below average when it came to offensive efficiency last season.

[TheChosenOne]

We also have a fairly forgiving schedule, so we should be able to get to a respectable win total regardless of how well we are playing.

[kshoe]

You need to reread my post - I never said this was going to be the worst team in the past 20 years just that we would not make the list of 144. I would bet that there will be teams who finish with a 500 or close to record who are not on the list of 144. Did you not forget the 9-20something that BS had? or the 12 win season that RM had? I would think we would be at least better than BS bad year and hopefully better than RM's

I don't mind you disagreeing with me but when you start making things up that I never said then that is where I draw the line.

Read BrianSTL's post (#238) to see how our rankings have been in those horrible seasons. They have been inside of, or just outside of the top 144. That is what people are missing. Even when we were horrible those years we were still in or around the top 144. So by definition, if somebody thinks it is "common sense" that we aren't going to be in the top 144, they are saying it is common sense we are going to have an awful season.

[Taj79]

Again, it (Joel Welser) doesn't matter. Just preseason discussion.

I have to admit Brian's post quoted by kshoe was pretty amazing. Those bad years and we were within the Top 144 or so. Do I think it can be done? Sure. This is just a launch point. Just like winning 11 games (or 12 or 14) is a launch point. Call it the preseason Mendoza Line. It's not that big of a deal. But our talent is suspect at best. We need to nurture it and let it grow. The A10 bloggers said 9th. Athlon's 10th. No mention by ESPN. Norlander says 6th. Somebody else said 9th. Another 10th. And Welser. Whatever.

I just think that the measure of success for this team is a few years off. Now Glaze is hurt. And Manning has an ankle problem. It should be worrisome when two of your three knowns are hobbled. But they haven't shown much to this point anyway so my expectations for them is low to begin with. They instill less excitement fo rme then watching the kids come in and play. If those injuries lead to more time and development by our three sophomores and six freshman, that might be our "win." Patience will be needed. Sure, the OOC is extremely weak and even if we swept through it (losing only to Wichita, Indiana State and let's say Vandy) are we so good or is it because the challenges were not there? I think the conference play and record will be interesting as it sits right now. And that's a statement made knowing very little in terms of our talent. Our recruits and players go from Ash's 3.3 down to Mike Crawford's 2.0. And I like Crawford's game anyway. Grandy was a 3 star. Was that warranted? And again, so what ---- it'll be however they play out for Jim Crews. I think I have no expectations but want to see how they grow. That goal gets submarined if we don't see them all play and play some useful minutes.

Can't wait. Last week of October is nearly here.

[For-DaLove]

Again, it (Joel Welser) doesn't matter. Just preseason discussion.

I have to admit Brian's post quoted by kshoe was pretty amazing. Those bad years and we were within the Top 144 or so. Do I think it can be done? Sure. This is just a launch point. Just like winning 11 games (or 12 or 14) is a launch point. Call it the preseason Mendoza Line. It's not that big of a deal. But our talent is suspect at best. We need to nurture it and let it grow. The A10 bloggers said 9th. Athlon's 10th. No mention by ESPN. Norlander says 6th. Somebody else said 9th. Another 10th. And Welser. Whatever.

I just think that the measure of success for this team is a few years off. Now Glaze is hurt. And Manning has an ankle problem. It should be worrisome when two of your three knowns are hobbled. But they haven't shown much to this point anyway so my expectations for them is low to begin with. They instill less excitement fo rme then watching the kids come in and play. If those injuries lead to more time and development by our three sophomores and six freshman, that might be our "win." Patience will be needed. Sure, the OOC is extremely weak and even if we swept through it (losing only to Wichita, Indiana State and let's say Vandy) are we so good or is it because the challenges were not there? I think the conference play and record will be interesting as it sits right now. And that's a statement made knowing very little in terms of our talent. Our recruits and players go from Ash's 3.3 down to Mike Crawford's 2.0. And I like Crawford's game anyway. Grandy was a 3 star. Was that warranted? And again, so what ---- it'll be however they play out for Jim Crews. I think I have no expectations but want to see how they grow. That goal gets submarined if we don't see them all play and play some useful minutes.

Can't wait. Last week of October is nearly here.

Serious question: If we beat a team by 15 points do you ***** to your buddies all week about what we could have done to win by 25?

[Deutschkind]

No. That's not what I'm saying. The list is into the Top 25 teams. Dayton missed being Top 25 by two spots. We have long been an afterthought on this list. I can see anyone believing this team is Top 25 in the nation without being a complete homer.

Geez. Joking

[Taj79]

@DaLove: Serious answer --- no.

@Deutsch: I did not comprehend your joking intent. I could not interpret your facial expressions, tone, pitch, non-verbals, etc. ... because they are not readily available in a two-dimensional image. And I don't do emoto-cons.

[cheeseman]

Read BrianSTL's post (#238) to see how our rankings have been in those horrible seasons. They have been inside of, or just outside of the top 144. That is what people are missing. Even when we were horrible those years we were still in or around the top 144. So by definition, if somebody thinks it is "common sense" that we aren't going to be in the top 144, they are saying it is common sense we are going to have an awful season.

I read his post - the problem with using Pomroy's rankings is that the top 144 list we are discussing is not the same thing - it is apples and oranges. Is Pomroy's rating more valid - probably - but the two are very different lists at different times of the season - one is a preseason and the other is the end of the year based on stats. Given what we lost, it does not surprise me that we are not listed in the 144 preseason. Where we actually end is still unknown.

[kshoe]

I read his post - the problem with using Pomroy's rankings is that the top 144 list we are discussing is not the same thing - it is apples and oranges. Is Pomroy's rating more valid - probably - but the two are very different lists at different times of the season - one is a preseason and the other is the end of the year based on stats. Given what we lost, it does not surprise me that we are not listed in the 144 preseason. Where we actually end is still unknown.

To me its more like green apples and red apples. The point of a pre-season poll is to predict how the top 144 would look at the end of the the season. It seems illogical for someone to say that they don't think we should be in the top 144 pre-season but anticipate that at the end of the year after all the games are played we'd be in the top 144.

The whole point of looking at those really bad seasons in SLU history and realizing that even in those years we ended around 144 was to show that for anyone to make the statement that we don't belong in the top 144 is actually them making a statement that we are going to be really bad. I don't think we are going to be particularly good, but I sure don't think this team is going to be historically bad.