Top 144

[bauman]

14 minutes ago, wgstl said:

Can someone explain to me why either SLU or Richmond will make the cut?

Because no way in hell, I dont care whos drinking what kool-aid, is SLU on the same level as Texas southern, UoSanFran, Albany, and Idaho. Besides, this also means a below .500 record. 

 

 

Wg, if you look back a few pages you can find an explanation , but simply the first team listed from a conference tells you how many schools from that conference will make the top 144 rankings.  The first A-10 school was Lasalle  and they are shown as the 9th best team in the A-10, meaning that there will be 8 more A-10 teams in the Top 144 listing.

Since then GMU has been ranked 108 and 8th best team in the conference; Davidson is #84 and the 7th best team in the conference; and St Joe is #72 and 6th best team in the A-10.  I think URI, VCU, Dayton and the Bonnies are locks which leaves one spot in the conference to still make the list, basically what I would assume will be the 5th best team in the A-10.  I believe the only two somewhat realistic possibilities out of the remaining A-10 teams are Richmond and SLU.  It has to be one of them, if not then all the previous conference rankings would be off by one.

I hope that makes sense.

And i will add that I think we will actually be better than that projection of 5th.

Edited September 5, 2017 by bauman

[wgstl]

1 minute ago, bauman said:

Wg, if you look back a few pages you can find an explanation , but simply the first team listed from a conference tells you how many school from that conference will make the top 144 rankings.  The first A-10 school was Lasalle  and they are shown as the 9th best team in the A-10, meaning that there will be 8 more A-10 teams in the Top 144 listing.

Since then GMU has been ranked 108 and 8th best team in the conference; Davidson is #84 and the 7th best team in the conference; and St Joe is #72 and 6th best team in the A-10.  I think URI, VCU, Dayton and the Bonnies are locks which leaves one spot in the conference to still make the list, basically what I would assume will be the 5th best team in the A-10.  I believe the only two somewhat realistic possibilities out oif the remaining A-10 teams are Richmond and SLU.  It has to be one of them, if not then all the previous conference rankings would be off by one.

I hope that makes sense.

It does. thanks. 

[bauman]

5 minutes ago, hsmith19 said:

I don't think either team will be below 144 at the end of the year. But if you don't know much about our transfers and look at our terrible RPI and other numbers from last year, I can see how you would bump us off the list. I don't really see a rationale for bumping Richmond off the list entirely. Yeah, they lost two senior starters, but they were a pretty balanced team last year and spread the scoring around.

I might be confusing them, but I thought they had one outstanding star-Cline and he is gone.  Also, I agree with you tha recruiting ranking are not the only thing that matters to national writers, normally.  However, I think the fact that we have added 7 new players, all of whom (so says the Wiz) are better than anyone we have returning, is a fact that any national writer worth his salt would be aware of and give significant consideration to.

We'll see soon.

[ACE]

12 minutes ago, bauman said:

Wg, if you look back a few pages you can find an explanation , but simply the first team listed from a conference tells you how many schools from that conference will make the top 144 rankings.  The first A-10 school was Lasalle  and they are shown as the 9th best team in the A-10, meaning that there will be 8 more A-10 teams in the Top 144 listing.

Since then GMU has been ranked 108 and 8th best team in the conference; Davidson is #84 and the 7th best team in the conference; and St Joe is #72 and 6th best team in the A-10.  I think URI, VCU, Dayton and the Bonnies are locks which leaves one spot in the conference to still make the list, basically what I would assume will be the 5th best team in the A-10.  I believe the only two somewhat realistic possibilities out of the remaining A-10 teams are Richmond and SLU.  It has to be one of them, if not then all the previous conference rankings would be off by one.

I hope that makes sense.

And i will add that I think we will actually be better than that projection of 5th.

I could see Dayton ranking fairly high on some guy's list based on reputation, but I'm not so sure they will be better than Richmond this year.

[bauman]

6 minutes ago, ACE said:

I could see Dayton ranking fairly high on some guy's list based on reputation, but I'm not so sure they will be better than Richmond this year.

I agree with you, Dayton has lost a lot, but my thinking is that they will make the list due to reputation.  I guess it is not out of the question that Dayton will be the next team called in the Top 144 list, but probably not.  I still think it will be Richmond or SLU. actually I think it will be SLU.

[TFord and TRavs]

7 minutes ago, bauman said:

I agree with you, Dayton has lost a lot, but my thinking is that they will make the list due to reputation.  I guess it is not out of the question that Dayton will be the next team called in the Top 144 list, but probably not.  I still think it will be Richmond or SLU. actually I think it will be SLU.

I never saw that reputation spill over when the Jordair and co seniors left in any pre season rankings 

[Old guy]

I do not understand all the worry and tribulation about being included in such a flawed instrument as the 144 list. I posted the predicted rankings by the 144 list last year, versus the actual rankings at the end of the season. The authors included 26 teams within the 144 rankings that actually missed the 144 mark altogether at the end of the season, included one of the teams that ranked well into the 300's at the end of the season. Of course including all of these teams in the list indicates that 26 teams that did make up to 144 rank at the end of the season were not included in the list. This list as a predictive tool is a waste of time, its function is primarily to provide a subjective description of 144 teams they like. Do not see the reason to waste any sleep over this.

[Quality Is Job 1]

18 minutes ago, Old guy said:

I do not understand all the worry and tribulation about being included in such a flawed instrument as the 144 list. I posted the predicted rankings by the 144 list last year, versus the actual rankings at the end of the season. The authors included 26 teams within the 144 rankings that actually missed the 144 mark altogether at the end of the season, included one of the teams that ranked well into the 300's at the end of the season. Of course including all of these teams in the list indicates that 26 teams that did make up to 144 rank at the end of the season were not included in the list. This list as a predictive tool is a waste of time, its function is primarily to provide a subjective description of 144 teams they like. Do not see the reason to waste any sleep over this.

Don't sweat it, Old guy; I don't think anyone is saying that SLU's inclusion in this list has any bearing on the team's performance.  That would be almost superstitious.  But they just want to see SLU's name come up.  I don't think there's anything wrong with that.  It's like being in Who's Who Among American High School Students.

[Old guy]

OK you are probably right

[Taj79]

And I don't understand why you don't understand ---- it's the off season and you need things to talk about.  I'd rather hear/read external reviews of our prospects on the season then who's going to lead in minutes, who will lead in scoring, and when Gordon will decommit and go to Mizzou.

No matter the amount of our transfers, I now don't believe this service will put a three-season bad team, with no returning core of any collective worth, coupled with four guys sitting out a year and two freshmen, into their logs.  We will then get to go out and shock the world.

As for Richmond, I am guessing four or five guys who played serious minutes last year are a better bet than six of our guys who did not.  I disagree, but I can see the logic. 

 

[bauman]

45 minutes ago, Old guy said:

I do not understand all the worry and tribulation about being included in such a flawed instrument as the 144 list. I posted the predicted rankings by the 144 list last year, versus the actual rankings at the end of the season. The authors included 26 teams within the 144 rankings that actually missed the 144 mark altogether at the end of the season, included one of the teams that ranked well into the 300's at the end of the season. Of course including all of these teams in the list indicates that 26 teams that did make up to 144 rank at the end of the season were not included in the list. This list as a predictive tool is a waste of time, its function is primarily to provide a subjective description of 144 teams they like. Do not see the reason to waste any sleep over this.

Old Guy you have made this point before, so seriously, I recommend that you not bother with coming to this thread anymore.

No one is wasting any sleep over this Top 144 list, but it does provide a source of information to be discussed on a college basketball message board,  That's all it is, so you don't need to continually point out the same thing and refer to you prior analysis, which I did find interesting.

[bauman]

27 minutes ago, Taj79 said:

And I don't understand why you don't understand ---- it's the off season and you need things to talk about.  I'd rather hear/read external reviews of our prospects on the season then who's going to lead in minutes, who will lead in scoring, and when Gordon will decommit and go to Mizzou.

No matter the amount of our transfers, I now don't believe this service will put a three-season bad team, with no returning core of any collective worth, coupled with four guys sitting out a year and two freshmen, into their logs.  We will then get to go out and shock the world.

As for Richmond, I am guessing four or five guys who played serious minutes last year are a better bet than six of our guys who did not.  I disagree, but I can see the logic. 

 

+1, especially the part about Gordon!

[hsmith19]

1 hour ago, bauman said:

I might be confusing them, but I thought they had one outstanding star-Cline and he is gone.  Also, I agree with you tha recruiting ranking are not the only thing that matters to national writers, normally.  However, I think the fact that we have added 7 new players, all of whom (so says the Wiz) are better than anyone we have returning, is a fact that any national writer worth his salt would be aware of and give significant consideration to.

We'll see soon.

I think they lost Cline and Jones but still return a couple double digit scorers.

[hsmith19]

1 hour ago, TFord and TRavs said:

I never saw that reputation spill over when the Jordair and co seniors left in any pre season rankings 

We didn't have the same reputation as Dayton even after the three year run. And as things turned out we didn't deserve to spill anything over once the Majerus kids left.

[Glorydays2013]

Just now, hsmith19 said:

We didn't have the same reputation as Dayton even after the three year run. And as things turned out we didn't deserve to spill anything over once the Majerus kids left.

Dayton literally has nothing now though. I can't see how the A10 is not locked to be SLU and RI on top with Bonnies behind and the rest left for scrap. VCU and Dayton are in serious down years

[almaman]

40 minutes ago, Old guy said:

OK you are probably right

indeed I hate it haven't ever really seen it or needed to but it's hot stove time around here and there ain't a lot to chat about w/o getting into cat fights and bitching about the usual sacred topics. I am surprised that they get 118 of the actual end of season list.

[Taj79]

VCU listed at #65.  Still no Richmond.  Is Richmond better than VCU?  Are we better than Richmond?  Are we better than VCU?  I'd go No-Yes-No but that's me.  I can't believe Richmond's two decent returnees in Fore and Buckingham go this far.  Nobody is going to replace TJ Cline.  I don't know what the cutoff is in top teams across the land ...... 15, 20, 30 ..... but there seems to be a huge, precipitous drop off from tier one to the next level right now.

[HoosierPal]

You read the VCU write-up in 144, and from a 10,000 foot level, it isn't far off from what the Billiken team will look like.  They have 8 new players, (same as SLU), and team chemistry is a key.

If all the new faces can mesh together and form chemistry, they have the talent to compete for an NCAA Tournament appearance. However, if there are too many new pieces for Rhoades to fit together, the Rams could have a rocky season ahead.

Let's not get caught up on whose transfers are better, whose freshmen are better, or whose team chemistry will mesh first.  It will all be evident when the ball goes up.

[slu72]

18 minutes ago, Taj79 said:

VCU listed at #65.  Still no Richmond.  Is Richmond better than VCU?  Are we better than Richmond?  Are we better than VCU?  I'd go No-Yes-No but that's me.  I can't believe Richmond's two decent returnees in Fore and Buckingham go this far.  Nobody is going to replace TJ Cline.  I don't know what the cutoff is in top teams across the land ...... 15, 20, 30 ..... but there seems to be a huge, precipitous drop off from tier one to the next level right now.

Kind of surprising, if indeed Richmond or SLU gets listed ahead of VCU. Granted, VCU lost some recruits, some SRs, and have a new HC, but how good are those returning Spiders or their new "who's ins"? Pretty sure at this point we won't make it. Three miserable seasons in a row and a not too impressive returning core, as Taj Mahal 79 pointed out, pretty much will be our undoing.

I guess the guy ignores the fact that our 3 of our transfers are coming from P5 conferences and that Henriquez is not that impressive. He's also discounting our incoming FR. Really, this list is good for discussion purposes only until they get to the final 25 to 30 teams. Of course, we would like some recognition after suffering thru the 3 worst years in Billiken history and want someone in the national media to confirm our belief that we're on the road to recovery.  

[brianstl]

37 minutes ago, HoosierPal said:

You read the VCU write-up in 144, and from a 10,000 foot level, it isn't far off from what the Billiken team will look like.  They have 8 new players, (same as SLU), and team chemistry is a key.

If all the new faces can mesh together and form chemistry, they have the talent to compete for an NCAA Tournament appearance. However, if there are too many new pieces for Rhoades to fit together, the Rams could have a rocky season ahead.

Let's not get caught up on whose transfers are better, whose freshmen are better, or whose team chemistry will mesh first.  It will all be evident when the ball goes up.

A couple of things VCU has going for it is they return an all-conference player in Tillman and a guy in Williams who ranks in the top 3 for returning players in the conference in assist to turnover ratio.  

[MattyMo213]

It's also surprising to me that Dayton is predicted higher than VCU. I thought they lost way more than VCU and didn't land as many impact recruits/players

[Glorydays2013]

21 hours ago, Glorydays2013 said:

Dayton literally has nothing now though. I can't see how the A10 is not locked to be SLU and RI on top with Bonnies behind and the rest left for scrap. VCU and Dayton are in serious down years

 

1 hour ago, MattyMo213 said:

It's also surprising to me that Dayton is predicted higher than VCU. I thought they lost way more than VCU and didn't land as many impact recruits/players

 

2 hours ago, HoosierPal said:

Let's not get caught up on whose transfers are better, whose freshmen are better, or whose team chemistry will mesh first.  It will all be evident when the ball goes up.

But we are better, more talented and it will be evident 

[bauman]

5 hours ago, HoosierPal said:

You read the VCU write-up in 144, and from a 10,000 foot level, it isn't far off from what the Billiken team will look like.  They have 8 new players, (same as SLU), and team chemistry is a key.

If all the new faces can mesh together and form chemistry, they have the talent to compete for an NCAA Tournament appearance. However, if there are too many new pieces for Rhoades to fit together, the Rams could have a rocky season ahead.

Let's not get caught up on whose transfers are better, whose freshmen are better, or whose team chemistry will mesh first.  It will all be evident when the ball goes up.

One thing about the new players-two of VCU's are JUCOs  so they have no experience with the VCU "system."  Also, they have 4 incoming freshmen so that is four more players who have no background in the VCU system or with the new coach.  Of course, no one on the team has any background with the new HC and finally, of their 4 FR it does not look like any of them were ranked in the top 150, which I think is the Top 144s cutoff for Freshmen rankings.

So inspite of the numbers of new players, we really have a much different situation.  We have 4 transfers who have a year (or a half year for Graves) working in the SLU system and with the Head Coach.  Then we are only needing to fit 2 FR into the SLU system and, more importantly, THEY ARE BOTH HIGHER RANKED FR THAN ANY OF VCU,s 4 FR.  Finally we have a few likely bench players who at least have a year in the TF system.

So while at a 10,000 ft level look there are many similarities between VCU and SLU, I think it is easy to distinguish between the two in SLU's favor.

I will admit that VCU being rated lower than either Richmond or SLU did surprise me.  Now we just need to find out which one misses the cut, unless the site recognizes the problems at Dayton and excludes them, while keeping both Richmond and us in the top 144.  I last picked us at #65 in their rankings so I give up.  Four A-10 teams to come, in the top 64 out of the fivesome of URI, St Bon, Dayton, Richmond and SLU,  with one of those being viewed as worse than # 144.

[3star_recruit]

Note: VCU also has a top 50 sophomore coming back from injury.

[hsmith19]

VCU is an unknown/unproven quantity with some brand recognition. Dayton's in the same boat. I'd expect to see Dayton very soon on this list as well, maybe even before Richmond/SLU.