Top 144

[NH]

Taj,

What makes you interested in these rankings? I don't understand their appeal at all. Just curious.

[kshoe]

Taj,

What makes you interested in these rankings? I don't understand their appeal at all. Just curious.

I am curious as to this response too. Its almost as if Taj thinks these rankings are going to be an accurate reflection of the coming season. Can't wait for Taj's response.

[slu72]

I share Taj Mahal 79's curiosity about these rankings re SLU's upcoming season. Pretty sure we're out of the loop at this point, but if we're in the author/analyst's reasoning would make for interesting reading. Since we're sooo short on any empirical evidence of how this team will perform, a ranking in the low 60s would seem impossible to justify.

[Clock_Tower]

I share Taj Mahal 79's curiosity about these rankings re SLU's upcoming season. Pretty sure we're out of the loop at this point, but if we're in the author/analyst's reasoning would make for interesting reading. Since we're sooo short on any empirical evidence of how this team will perform, a ranking in the low 60s would seem impossible to justify.

I am not so sure we are out yet. Like many, I would have ranked our team by now. Should we be out is another question. At the same time, "journalists" are quite lazy and I would be quite surprised if this author even knew that we graduated 5 Seniors last year and that we have 9 unproven youngsters. Instead, the lazy reporter looks and sees that SLU has always been one of the better A10 teams, we were really good these past 3 years, we had HOF RM as our coach, we replaced him with Coach of Year Jim Crews and the wins kept coming.... therefore our quality play likely will continue.

[slufan13]

I don't understand how some people are so interested in some no name writer's rankings and previews who has no idea what's going on with our team, yet they aren't interested at all in the information that those on this board have provided about how the team has looked throughout the summer. I get the feeling that if guys like DoctorB had posted negative things about the guys or nothing at all, that people would be using that as a way to justify a bad season, but they won't use the positive things to justify a decent season.

[Clock_Tower]

I don't understand how some people are so interested in some no name writer's rankings and previews who has no idea what's going on with our team, yet they aren't interested at all in the information that those on this board have provided about how the team has looked throughout the summer. I get the feeling that if guys like DoctorB had posted negative things about the guys or nothing at all, that people would be using that as a way to justify a bad season, but they won't use the positive things to justify a decent season.

13. Wait a minute. Why do you say posters are not interested in the information presented? I believe everyone is very interested and appreciative in reading the information. Also, I would suggest that people are not as fixated on the previews and rankings as you suggest. Instead, posters on the board are simply hungry for info and possibly impatient during this, the offseason, when there is little other to talk about.

Frankly, I share your optimism about this year's team. I do believe our 6 Frosh have real talent and I still believe that our 3 Sophs are real ability and promise as well. At the same time, it is a fact that RA contributed little on the stats sheet last year and neither TL nor MC could take much time away from either JB (a weak link) and an undersized DE battling on the interior last year. Furthermore, JM has proven little over 3 years and GG has proven even less. As to AM, he is very, very small and most likely a role player so real concern does exist.

[slufan13]

13. Wait a minute. Why do you say posters are not interested in the information presented? I believe everyone is very interested and appreciative in reading the information. Also, I would suggest that people are not as fixated on the previews and rankings as you suggest. Instead, posters on the board are simply hungry for info and possibly impatient during this, the offseason, when there is little other to talk about.

This from Taj in the other thread

Can't wait. Clock's perspective is an interesting one. So too is Billikan/Bilikenswin. I understand and accept both. Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass about the grapevine, hearing things said, good spirits and weightlifting. Proof will be in results and my measuring stick will be a little different for this year. I'm not going to argue "what ifs." Proof will be in the product. Surprise me.

This from MB in the other thread

"I heard from someone close to the program that "-------" is looking great." Balderdash.

That is bs, wrong most of the time, we hear that every year, from some of the same posters.

Some loose pickup games at the gym and posters are telling us who is improving, looking much much improved. .

Last year GG lost that bulk, made him quicker, many thought that would be a big upside, but that actually backfired, hurt his game, he occupies space, is a banger, and the lost bulk didn't help, it hurt. Like Richie Incognito losing weight to get quicker.

No one has a clue, admit it and wait.

Come on, we hope Reggie will emerge as a great inside scorer, Lancona will pop three's a la Cody Ellis, and Manning will be a solid physical role player, play stout D and get 8-10 rebounds a game up front, and so on.

But no one has a clue, we'll have to wait until January to see how they ALL look. It will be a tryout for 2-3 months, good thing we play a weak early schedule.

Most all of the returners could go either way: improve, or not. Freshmen, who knows?

[Taj79]

@slufan13: this "no name writer's" ranking is indeed immaterial. All it serves is for a discussion jump off point. Don't focus on Welser. Focus on the debate. Which has been great IMO. Same would be true if the author's name was Gottleib, Rothstein, Vitale, or Timmerman. Conversely, the same can be said of your input, DocB's, mine--- anyone's for that matter. I don't care down into the nuts and bolts what this guy says but I do care that it generates discussion here among friends. No matter the projection/predicition, the proof will be in the product when all is said and done. I don't have to go back to last year and do a comparison, I am sure he flunked out on many. We all would.

As for your or DocB's input regarding how this team "looks" in the summer --- paint me skeptical. I've heard that before. My very good friend and confidant, self-banished from this board, once said "this is the greatest assembly of talent I've ever seen in Billiken history." I know that involved Chris Sloan in either his freshman or sophomore year. Those two years were quite mediocre --- 17-win and 14-win seasons --- in my opinion, probably in no small part because of the expectations set by those practice reports. Romar even hit the road the year after Sloan's sophomore season. Does that mean I doubt you and the others? Yes and no. What are your credentials or DocB's credentials? Are you astutue in the ways of basketball scouting? Even if you were -- no disrespect --- what happens on a practice court in the summer is one thing vis-a-vis on a real practice court in October and then in a half-empty or full-to-the-rafters college venue in the season. This is not a slap at anyone, I am in no position any better than yours. But let's not forget, other, more credentialed folks have predicted all sorts of good things for many incoming recruits (and I'll spare NH and kshoe the walk down memory lane) and in many cases, they too were wrong. Now, Majerus did alter things and skew up our status quo. But he too whiffed --- Thompson, Cotto, Smith, Jordan, Reid, Remekun, etc. But even that remains one of my seven questions --- can Crews recruit decent talent? Crews' success these past two years were based on a Majerus team on relative auto-pilot. Even he said that himself a few times.

@NH and kshoe --- can I assume the question is answered?

@Clock --- your point on lazy reporters is spot on. That is why I have said I can't wait to see what his justification is going to be for putting us in here. Three winning seasons in a row is absolutely great, but even a quick glance over our roster would beg to another of my questions and that is who scores? Even the laziest of writers is going to need some fill for the format one sees on these rankings: a lead, a record recount, who's out, who's in, who to watch, starting five and lastly a final projection (interesting word there projection, eh kshoe ---- did you project or predict we'd be ranked between 90 and 100? Go with project -- you can change then based on trends). So there is some at-a-glance research that is needed.

If I were to look at our starting five, here's what I got:

Austin McBroom, Guard, 7.3 points per game.

Ash Yacoubou, Guard, did not play last year.

John Manning, Center, 2.5 points per game.

Grandy Glaze, Forward, 3.8 points per game.

Tanner Lancona, Forward (traditional line up), 2.3 points per game.

Mike Crawford, Forward (three guard lineup), 2.0 points per game.

That by itself tells me it is not the 67 best team in the nation (or whatever we are up to). Adding up, 15.9 or 15.6 ppg doesn't win many ball games last I looked. And tow of those five have trended badly in three previous years of work. Even if we go on another assumption where Tonka said 9 ppg per so many starters would work, only McBroom is close to that now. There's a lot of great stuff I'm gathering from this thread and the "W/L Prediction" thread, the "schedule" thread, and the "7th or 8th" thread.

This is not about some immaterial ranking, it's the other stuff that is more fun and more stimulating.

[For-DaLove]

@slufan13: this "no name writer's" ranking is indeed immaterial. All it serves is for a discussion jump off point. Don't focus on Welser. Focus on the debate. Which has been great IMO. Same would be true if the author's name was Gottleib, Rothstein, Vitale, or Timmerman. Conversely, the same can be said of your input, DocB's, mine--- anyone's for that matter. I don't care down into the nuts and bolts what this guy says but I do care that it generates discussion here among friends. No matter the projection/predicition, the proof will be in the product when all is said and done. I don't have to go back to last year and do a comparison, I am sure he flunked out on many. We all would.

As for your or DocB's input regarding how this team "looks" in the summer --- paint me skeptical. I've heard that before. My very good friend and confidant, self-banished from this board, once said "this is the greatest assembly of talent I've ever seen in Billiken history." I know that involved Chris Sloan in either his freshman or sophomore year. Those two years were quite mediocre --- 17-win and 14-win seasons --- in my opinion, probably in no small part because of the expectations set by those practice reports. Romar even hit the road the year after Sloan's sophomore season. Does that mean I doubt you and the others? Yes and no. What are your credentials or DocB's credentials? Are you astutue in the ways of basketball scouting? Even if you were -- no disrespect --- what happens on a practice court in the summer is one thing vis-a-vis on a real practice court in October and then in a half-empty or full-to-the-rafters college venue in the season. This is not a slap at anyone, I am in no position any better than yours. But let's not forget, other, more credentialed folks have predicted all sorts of good things for many incoming recruits (and I'll spare NH and kshoe the walk down memory lane) and in many cases, they too were wrong. Now, Majerus did alter things and skew up our status quo. But he too whiffed --- Thompson, Cotto, Smith, Jordan, Reid, Remekun, etc. But even that remains one of my seven questions --- can Crews recruit decent talent? Crews' success these past two years were based on a Majerus team on relative auto-pilot. Even he said that himself a few times.

@NH and kshoe --- can I assume the question is answered?

@Clock --- your point on lazy reporters is spot on. That is why I have said I can't wait to see what his justification is going to be for putting us in here. Three winning seasons in a row is absolutely great, but even a quick glance over our roster would beg to another of my questions and that is who scores? Even the laziest of writers is going to need some fill for the format one sees on these rankings: a lead, a record recount, who's out, who's in, who to watch, starting five and lastly a final projection (interesting word there projection, eh kshoe ---- did you project or predict we'd be ranked between 90 and 100? Go with project -- you can change then based on trends). So there is some at-a-glance research that is needed.

If I were to look at our starting five, here's what I got:

Austin McBroom, Guard, 7.3 points per game.

Ash Yacoubou, Guard, did not play last year.

John Manning, Center, 2.5 points per game.

Grandy Glaze, Forward, 3.8 points per game.

Tanner Lancona, Forward (traditional line up), 2.3 points per game.

Mike Crawford, Forward (three guard lineup), 2.0 points per game.

That by itself tells me it is not the 67 best team in the nation (or whatever we are up to). Adding up, 15.9 or 15.6 ppg doesn't win many ball games last I looked. And tow of those five have trended badly in three previous years of work. Even if we go on another assumption where Tonka said 9 ppg per so many starters would work, only McBroom is close to that now. There's a lot of great stuff I'm gathering from this thread and the "W/L Prediction" thread, the "schedule" thread, and the "7th or 8th" thread.

This is not about some immaterial ranking, it's the other stuff that is more fun and more stimulating.

We get it, no matter what we return you're going to be skeptical. Same , different year. Your pessimistic bs is nauseating.

You clearly do care about this top 144 preview or you wouldn't post an update when each new team is released.

[ACE]

@slufan13: this "no name writer's" ranking is indeed immaterial. All it serves is for a discussion jump off point. Don't focus on Welser. Focus on the debate. Which has been great IMO. Same would be true if the author's name was Gottleib, Rothstein, Vitale, or Timmerman. Conversely, the same can be said of your input, DocB's, mine--- anyone's for that matter. I don't care down into the nuts and bolts what this guy says but I do care that it generates discussion here among friends. No matter the projection/predicition, the proof will be in the product when all is said and done. I don't have to go back to last year and do a comparison, I am sure he flunked out on many. We all would.

As for your or DocB's input regarding how this team "looks" in the summer --- paint me skeptical. I've heard that before. My very good friend and confidant, self-banished from this board, once said "this is the greatest assembly of talent I've ever seen in Billiken history." I know that involved Chris Sloan in either his freshman or sophomore year. Those two years were quite mediocre --- 17-win and 14-win seasons --- in my opinion, probably in no small part because of the expectations set by those practice reports. Romar even hit the road the year after Sloan's sophomore season. Does that mean I doubt you and the others? Yes and no. What are your credentials or DocB's credentials? Are you astutue in the ways of basketball scouting? Even if you were -- no disrespect --- what happens on a practice court in the summer is one thing vis-a-vis on a real practice court in October and then in a half-empty or full-to-the-rafters college venue in the season. This is not a slap at anyone, I am in no position any better than yours. But let's not forget, other, more credentialed folks have predicted all sorts of good things for many incoming recruits (and I'll spare NH and kshoe the walk down memory lane) and in many cases, they too were wrong. Now, Majerus did alter things and skew up our status quo. But he too whiffed --- Thompson, Cotto, Smith, Jordan, Reid, Remekun, etc. But even that remains one of my seven questions --- can Crews recruit decent talent? Crews' success these past two years were based on a Majerus team on relative auto-pilot. Even he said that himself a few times.

@NH and kshoe --- can I assume the question is answered?

@Clock --- your point on lazy reporters is spot on. That is why I have said I can't wait to see what his justification is going to be for putting us in here. Three winning seasons in a row is absolutely great, but even a quick glance over our roster would beg to another of my questions and that is who scores? Even the laziest of writers is going to need some fill for the format one sees on these rankings: a lead, a record recount, who's out, who's in, who to watch, starting five and lastly a final projection (interesting word there projection, eh kshoe ---- did you project or predict we'd be ranked between 90 and 100? Go with project -- you can change then based on trends). So there is some at-a-glance research that is needed.

If I were to look at our starting five, here's what I got:

Austin McBroom, Guard, 7.3 points per game.

Ash Yacoubou, Guard, did not play last year.

John Manning, Center, 2.5 points per game.

Grandy Glaze, Forward, 3.8 points per game.

Tanner Lancona, Forward (traditional line up), 2.3 points per game.

Mike Crawford, Forward (three guard lineup), 2.0 points per game.

That by itself tells me it is not the 67 best team in the nation (or whatever we are up to). Adding up, 15.9 or 15.6 ppg doesn't win many ball games last I looked. And tow of those five have trended badly in three previous years of work. Even if we go on another assumption where Tonka said 9 ppg per so many starters would work, only McBroom is close to that now. There's a lot of great stuff I'm gathering from this thread and the "W/L Prediction" thread, the "schedule" thread, and the "7th or 8th" thread.

This is not about some immaterial ranking, it's the other stuff that is more fun and more stimulating.

Different people & reporters build up or lose credibility over time based on the quality of their reports. Not all sources are created equal. I think Doc B has built up a certain amount credibility based on his early reports on Dwayne Evans, which he was accused of being too optimistic about. He has also been correctly optimistic about the team in recent years. Your friend on the other hand did not build up the same level of credibility. Through his eyes everything including recruiting was looking great during the Sodie and Romar years.

[slufan13]

Taj - I no doubt appreciate the discussion. It makes this board interesting even during the boring summer and early fall. I love discussing college basketball all times of year. And trust me, I'm skeptical of what I've seen and heard about the team this summer too, but I'd much rather hear that than hear negative things or nothing at all. Plus, I've heard the same things from lots of different people which to me is a good sign, but yes, nothing will be answered definitively until about January or February. I've heard plenty of negative things too, but I figure no one on here wants to read that.

Again, I do appreciate the discussion/debate. But it appears neither side is remotely willing to change their opinion.

[kshoe]

Taj, in the past 3 years people have been optimistic in the pre-season and that has born fruit. In fact, the board likely underestimated how good we would be in the 2011-12 and 2012-13 years. Remember when a bunch of posters thought the 2011-12 season was going to be a disaster because we lost an exhibition game to Carlton?!?! Or that we weren't going to make the NCAA tourney in 2012 because Majerus was gone? It flows both ways and recent history certainly suggests this board, as a whole, has the capacity to understate how good the team can actually be.

Now I'm sure you tell us again about some time from the Soderberg or Grawer era where some random person gave you a too optimistic prediction that didn't come true and you now can tell us why those bad predictions mean that anyone predicting a winning record this season is just drinking the kool-aid.

I think For-DaLove said it best "We get it, no matter what we return you're going to be skeptical. Same ######, different year. Your pessimistic bs is nauseating."

[brianstl]

I think some are being way too pessimistic and others are being way too optimistic.

[slu72]

I don't get the piling on Taj Mahal 79. Basically, all he's saying is there's just nothing solid to build a case for this being a 20 w team. There is potential but potential and a $1 will get you a coffee at McDs. Of course, being Bills fans we want to be surprised and hope for the best, but until we see how this new product performs predictions are pretty meaningless at this point. That's why I guessed almost right down the middle w/o paying much attention to each game. There's just too many unknowns and I think that's all TM79's saying.

[Westy03]

I don't get the piling on Taj Mahal 79. Basically, all he's saying is there's just nothing solid to build a case for this being a 20 w team. There is potential but potential and a $1 will get you a coffee at McDs. Of course, being Bills fans we want to be surprised and hope for the best, but until we see how this new product performs predictions are pretty meaningless at this point. That's why I guessed almost right down the middle w/o paying much attention to each game. There's just too many unknowns and I think that's all TM79's saying.

I would agree with you if Taj wouldnt be saying this before every season.

[ACE]

At least we won't have to read "JJ can't shoot the mid-range shot" this year.

[Billiken Rich]

EVERY time we've had a freshman dominiated team, since I've been watching the Billikens, we've struggled. That's the way of the world. Even if the freshman live up to my expectations we'll struggle this year. Given our schedule looks pretty easy I wouldn't be shocked if we win 20. I also won't be shocked if we end up about .500. Anyone counting on Vandy or even Vermont or any conference road game as a victory is advised not to bet the farm on the Bills.

[slufan13]

EVERY time we've had a freshman dominiated team, since I've been watching the Billikens, we've struggled. That's the way of the world. Even if the freshman live up to my expectations we'll struggle this year. Given our schedule looks pretty easy I wouldn't be shocked if we win 20. I also won't be shocked if we end up about .500. Anyone counting on Vandy or even Vermont or any conference road game as a victory is advised not to bet the farm on the Bills.

I agree with you, but I don't think this will be as freshman dominated as a lot of people think. Also, still not sold on Vermont being that difficult. They lost 5 starters and 6 seniors. We lost the same and "there are too many unknowns". So to be consistent, we have to say the Vermont game is an unknown. Not easy. Not difficult.

[billslasttermdropout]

I hate to do this, but.......

50/50

[Taj79]

NH and kshoe asked about my fixation with the Welser Top 144. You have my answer. Again, I am very curious and very amped up to see how this year develops. I will be pleasantly stunned this time next year if any of us say "...how the hell are we going to replace Glaze or Manning?" But I doubt that happens. I will miss all five seniors this year -- Barnett included. Do not underestimate what he added to the mix even if it was somewhat under the radar. Because whatever it was, it was enough to keep Lancona and Crawford on the bench. Isn't that a scary thought? Think about that for a moment.

Bythe way, JJ could not shot the mid-range jumper. Back his layups out of his FG% and you'll see. I was right on that one. You can roll about in the dung heap of denial all you want. JJ won games on last second shots that were "lay-ups." La Salle. Mason. Umass. teams dared him to take the jumper. Any student of the game could have seen that. he played to his strength. I would also.

@kshoe -- I got the last three years. Frankly, those were the Majerus years and despite my friend's reluctance to admit so, these will go down as the high water marks of SLU modern basketball. UNLESS ---- Crews obliterates them. He has done so record-wise so far but those were with Majerus' troops. Grandy and John count more into the Crews mix then the Majerus one IMO. Crews has coached these two for essentially 67% of their college lives. Majerus only got 33%. So I see them as more Crews' guys than Rick's guys. Definitely so for Mcbroom. All the rest are on Crews. Let the litmus test begin.

Again, what is the mendoza line? If wins are the only meassuring stick, what's the pass/fail divider for this season? Are we agreed that it's 12? Anything below 12 and it's that" worstest season in 20 years" that kshoe alluded to in another post? Even with that kind of win total, i could see tons of progress and advancement being made. Lots of querstions to answer. Lots of questions.

Pessimistic? Chicken Little? Debbie Downer? Don't care -- call it what you want. I'll still be here.

[kshoe]

I don't get the piling on Taj Mahal 79. Basically, all he's saying is there's just nothing solid to build a case for this being a 20 w team. There is potential but potential and a $1 will get you a coffee at McDs. Of course, being Bills fans we want to be surprised and hope for the best, but until we see how this new product performs predictions are pretty meaningless at this point. That's why I guessed almost right down the middle w/o paying much attention to each game. There's just too many unknowns and I think that's all TM79's saying.

Says the guy that predicted 14-16 and thinks that was a "realistic" pick.

[brianstl]

Barring injuries we will be above .500, but we won't win 20 games either. It is going to be a building year and that is OK.

[kshoe]

I think some are being way too pessimistic and others are being way too optimistic.

Maybe, but I went and looked at the W/L projection thread. Only 15 people actually put a record down but the average was 18.3 wins and 11.7 losses (I ignored the 30- prediction as it was obviously a joke). The highs in wins were Bauman and Jimbo with 22 and the low was SLU72 with 14. The Standard deviation was only 2.3, meaning 2/3 of the people think we will win between 16-20 games.

I don't think any of that is unreasonable. With this the soft non-con schedule and 17 home games, 18 wins seems about right.

[slu72]

Says the guy that predicted 14-16 and thinks that was a "realistic" pick.

I'll repeat- very realistic.

[slufan13]

I'll repeat- very realistic.

If there are so many "unknowns", then how is making any prediction "very realistic"