Top 144 for 2014-15 (#144 = Fordham)

[Taj79]

Stoney Brook returns two guys who between them averaged over 27 ppg last year. And one of those was a 6'8" player who can dominate a lesser conference like the America East with ease. Our six returnees didn't come close to that total. Still .. here is a ton of ranks to come ......

[NH]

To be clear .... my belief is that we will not make this current Top 144 preseason listing that starts with Fordham at #144. It has nothing to do with kshoe's new statement about where we will end up, come the end of the year (if I interpret what kev is saying here to mean final 2014-15 ranks).

As to nate (NH), how does one equate sustained success into such a formula? Do I think sustained success is worth anything here? No. Our sustained success has all either graduated or died. Now the true test, the test of sustainability, comes to the fore. And I don't think I am being solely "gloomy." I am really excited and pumped for this season. I can't wait to see the kids grow. But with that growth, I expect growing pains. I do not intend to judge success this year on the won/loss record. The time to turn the page is here. Will we/can we be a top 144 team come March 2015? I sure hope so. I'd hate to be a team with a lot less talent than ours but I don't think anyone can judge our talent right now because half the team hasn't played an NCAA game yet. I don't think we'll be in the upper half of the NCAA in these preseason fluff pieces. While our returning veterans have experience being on a team that knows how to win, the accomplishment of those wins had very little to do with them and their actual production. They contributed yes and they were important no doubt. But seeing them now carry it themselves? I don't get a real warm 'n fuzzy over it. Of course, Grandy and John turn into Brian Conklin and we'll go nuts.

Still, I don't see that happening and I doubt any writers will do as well.

I don't think every season is played in a vacuum. Teams that have experience winning games and experience in a winning system have an advantage over teams that don't. I simply don't buy that if you inserted our roster next year into a team that hadn't won many games the previous 2-3 seasons, they would be as successful as players who have been in a winning program.

Now, I think some posters take that too far when projecting an NCAA or even NIT season next year. We have unproven players, and that generally is a far less reliable predictor of success than players with a track record. But to forecast a good possibility of finishing in the bottom 144, you are assuming a drop-off in play that hardly has precedent.

[Dwayne's_World]

I don't think every season is played in a vacuum. Teams that have experience winning games and experience in a winning system have an advantage over teams that don't. I simply don't buy that if you inserted our roster next year into a team that hadn't won many games the previous 2-3 seasons, they would be as successful as players who have been in a winning program.

Now, I think some posters take that too far when projecting an NCAA or even NIT season next year. We have unproven players, and that generally is a far less reliable predictor of success than players with a track record. But to forecast a good possibility of finishing in the bottom 144, you are assuming a drop-off in play that hardly has precedent.

Not to mention completely discrediting the coaching staff's ability to put an even somewhat decent team on the court next year.

[JettFlight5]

The same guy had SLU @ 215 coming off the Situation. That team went to the NCAA tournament.

[Box and Won]

I'm glad we're not playing Stony Brook this year.

[slu72]

I'm glad we're not playing Stony Brook this year.

Would it be a buy game, or a home and home?

[slu72]

I'm glad we're not playing Stony Brook this year.

I don't think they'd play us. We wouldn't help their RPI.

[thetorch]

My expectations are tempered. I don't expect a postseason berth. When we have had better RPi numbers before in bad season we played in the much stronger CUSA. We don't get that luxury anymore. I know the last time we had so many freshman coming in with very little experience coming back we went 5-23. Anything more than 12-14 wins this season, for me at least, will be a huge positive.

[Taj79]

@Dwayne'sWorld ----- "discredit the coaching staff's ability" ---- is not my intent but your response begs to another question, which will also start to be answered this year of which I am very curious about.

@NH --- I get your point and I subscribe to it. Winning begets winning (or at least a better understanding of what it takes to win). Having said that, talent plays another crucial role and I just don't believe or see it heavily defined on the returning roster. I expect it to emerge and define itself but based on a couple of cans of beans on the shelf, and hamburger patty in the freezer, making a chateaubriand is going to be tough.

Right now, we all hope Manning and Glaze emerge from "Conklin summers." We all hope McBroom is a do-it-all guard in the backcourt. We all hope a year of inactivity means no rust on Yacoubou. We all hope the sophomores are much better than their freshmen years showed. And we all hope the six-man recruiting class is a good one. We also hope Crews' system mimics the results of the HOF Majerus system in terms of results. But we know nothing.

Hope springs eternal. And I haven't seen the schedule, especially the OOC schedule, but I might believe that knowing what we do know, and thinking the coaching staff/AD knows the same, there might be a lot of weakness in that OOC schedule in order to allow for OJT and such to find some of those answers. Let's see if there is considerable bitching about that OOC schedule when it comes out. Winningin Wichita and Terre Haute is highly unlikely, beating Vandy at Chaifetz is doable. The rest ought to be interesting. Can't wait.

[Taj79]

#134 =University of Central Florida.

[TheA_Bomb]

I'm glad we're not playing Stony Brook this year.

I bet they get an invite to the NBE and we don't.

[Taj79]

#133 = Radford, Big South.

#132 = Fresno State. Mountain West.

#131 = Evansville, Missouri Valley.

#130 = Saint Mary's, West Coast Conference.

Last year, Mason was in the top 144 so stranger things have happened. But Mason also returned a two-senior backcourt. Time will still tell.

[brianstl]

#133 = Radford, Big South.

#132 = Fresno State. Mountain West.

#131 = Evansville, Missouri Valley.

#130 = Saint Mary's, West Coast Conference.

Last year, Mason was in the top 144 so stranger things have happened. But Mason also returned a two-senior backcourt. Time will still tell.

Mason finished 147 in the Sagarin Rankings this past season. Do you really believe that we are going to be worse than last season's 11-20 Mason team?

[waldo027]

The #144 team in the country is terrible. Dead last most years in the B10, B12, ACC, P12, NBE, bottom 2 or 3 in the SEC, A10, MWC. As kshoe stated, that 2005 team was approximately #144. That team won FIVE games on their home court all season. I will admit that, with injuries and underachievement from the new players, this season could be that bad. I'm hoping for at least a 7-11 conference record and a top 100 finish overall.

[JettFlight5]

RPI 144 last year was Utah Valley.

[slu72]

Since, we don't have any real knowns returning and those whose ppg avg totals less than 20 ppg, Taj Mahal may be right that we won't get listed. It really depends upon what the evaluators think of our Sophs, AY, and incoming FR. Also, JC's ability as a coach. I think we'll make the list but somewhere in the 110-125 range. Just too many unknowns to rate us much higher.

[kshoe]

I've changed my mind. After reading Taj's posts I am now convinced that after 3 straight NCAA tourney's and finishing inside the top 25 the last 2 years, national coach of the year awards, multiple conference titles, etc. the media (i.e. the publishers of this top 144 list) are going to figure that SLU is in for its worst season in the last 20 years and will completely exclude us from this list. This is my current projection/prediction based solely on Taj's inputs.

Please ignore the prediction I had earlier in this thread that we would be somewhere between 90-100 because that one was way too logical.

[Taj79]

Over the last 20 years, our worst record was 9 - 21 under Brad Sodeberg in 2004-2005. Sppon went 11 - 18 in the year prior to the Legend and Rick went 12 - 19 in the "Situation" year. Both Brad and Spoon posted their marks while in CUSA so it could be argued it was against tougher competition, although I don't know how you prove that or factor it in.

So based on that reasoning, I guess achieving the "worst season in the last 20 years" (again kshoe putting words in my mouth/posts) will be defined by achieving nine victories or less? Even in the quintessential, "most depressed" state possible, I can't see that happening. Especially if, as I noted previously, the OOC schedule is purposefully weak to enhance OJT without demoralizing the troops. By the way, Drexel comes in today at #129.

I like how this board has a SOP where if a writer praises us, they are on the positive and good side of the meter. When it's bad or less than we expect, the writer is poor (and should even consult with us for the "facts" before they print it). I also understand and accept that these types of pieces are true fluff pieces, with no real basis in fact, in an off-season devoid of any real "action." So it goes.

However, I am still standing behind my belief that no writer worth his salt (which may mean we DO get in this listing) would hazard a guess as to what we have right now and thereby place us on this list. Even if we do get listed, I can't wait to read what the rationale is.

Intangibles:

Three straight NCAA tourneys ---- all major contributors gone.

Finishing inside two Top 25 --- all major contributors gone.

National Coach of the Year awards --- all major conributors gone; not coaching Majerus' kids; this year will be a real test in that regard.

Multiple conference titles --- multiple? Two in a row, all major contributors gone.

Tangibles:

Returning starters --- none.

Returning mpg --- 68.6 out of 200 pg (Yacoubou averaged 11.3 over two Nova seasons) = 34% of game minutes

Returning ppg ---- 19.5 ppg (Yacoubou averaged 2.55 ppg over two Nova seasons) = 28% of total scoring

Returning rpg --- 11.4 rpg (Yacoubou averaged 1.75 rpg over two Nova Seasons) = 32% of rebounding totals

Bench depth ---- undetermined

Recruiting class --- 6 unknowns

I thinkmy logic is better. But only time will tell. Can't wait.

[DoctorB]

"no writer worth his salt" would list us in the top 144? wow, you are quite wrong, Taj -- all due respect.

I believe exactly the opposite: "no writer worth his salt" would list us outside the top 144--I would consider that writer a complete dunce.

This team, even with the lack of experience as you say, still should be in preseason top 100, and I would be shocked if we are not. If we are really and truly NOT top 144 for now, then we have failed utterly as a program. I just do not believe that to be the case. You really think Evansville and Drexel deserve more love than we do?? C'mon man! We had bench players last year who would definitely start on those teams, think about it just a little!

I'll say this too: by mid- to late- February I think top 50 is certainly within reason. Practice, bonding, and figuring out who the scorers are... That said, be prepared to lose in Terry Hote in Nov. That is a toughie on the road for a bunch of freshmen.

[kshoe]

Over the last 20 years, our worst record was 9 - 21 under Brad Sodeberg in 2004-2005. Sppon went 11 - 18 in the year prior to the Legend and Rick went 12 - 19 in the "Situation" year. Both Brad and Spoon posted their marks while in CUSA so it could be argued it was against tougher competition, although I don't know how you prove that or factor it in.

So based on that reasoning, I guess achieving the "worst season in the last 20 years" (again kshoe putting words in my mouth/posts) will be defined by achieving nine victories or less? Even in the quintessential, "most depressed" state possible, I can't see that happening. Especially if, as I noted previously, the OOC schedule is purposefully weak to enhance OJT without demoralizing the troops. By the way, Drexel comes in today at #129.

Taj, did you even look at my post #18 were I pointed out that in the 2004-05 season we went 9-21 and were ranked 150 by Pomeroy. In the 12-19 situation year we were ranked 129. My whole point was that even in those awful seasons we were still ranked at or near 144 and that 144 is a really low bar. Since you don't anticipate a repeat of those seasons, why do you insist that we will be or should be ranked below 144?

[Box and Won]

Taj, did you even look at my post #18 were I pointed out that in the 2004-05 season we went 9-21 and were ranked 150 by Pomeroy. In the 12-19 situation year we were ranked 129. My whole point was that even in those awful seasons we were still ranked at or near 144 and that 144 is a really low bar. Since you don't anticipate a repeat of those seasons, why do you insist that we will be or should be ranked below 144?

I think we'd probably finish near the bottom of Stony Brook's conference.

[brianstl]

I think we'd probably finish near the bottom of Stony Brook's conference.

The American East is rugged.

[Littlebill]

The American East is rugged.

SB Nation's early A10 power rankings have us at 7th: http://www.sbnation.com/college-basketball/2014/7/3/5834326/atlantic-10-basketball-preview-2015-2014

[Taj79]

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Won't be the first time, won't be the last. As for finishing 9 and 21 and opening at #150 in the Pomeroy, great. This review/list is not the Pomeroy. I respect the Pomeroy more, likely because it's statistically driven. This seems to deal in a lot of opinion. My opinion is that there is not a lot of solid proof coming back. Saying we will be Top 50 in February is "certainly within reason", sure do-do happens. And I have said I look forward to this season just to see if the unknowns provide answers. Would you agree with me if I said the current coach ran last year's roster into the ground by March? That's neither good nor bad --- he went with what he knew. And it worked. But none of the freshmen really developed. Unknowns.

I'm going to let this go. But I still stand by my thoughts and opinions. The latest ranking goes to Southern Miss. Can't wait.

[Taj79]

Also, as littlebill points out, his reference has us listed at #7. That also has Fordham at #14. In a 14-team conference. Yet this review has them at #144. Do I think ALL A10 teams will be in the Top 144? Absolutely not. But transposing one against the other says they will. Hmmmmmmm.