| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18371
Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
 Posted: 10/16/06 12:20 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| dtsnms wrote: |
| and in this case, Cam is DOWN PLAYING how good his team may be. |
I think Duke is 7th or 8th, which is actually consistent with the experts' preseason picks. Duke lost Currie and Williams, the top two scorers...and two of the four leading rebounders. The recruiting class did not have a stud frontcourt player to replace Williams...the highest rated ranking of the class was 7th. And Joy Cheek will struggle to get off the bench this year (literally...she needs to drop weight). Black is largely unproven...big upside, but unproven. Smith had a horrible postseason. There is no returning bench player who regularly played last year.
7th or 8th in the preseason is about right, given the losses the questions surrounding the returning players.
|
|
dtsnms
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 18815
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/16/06 12:21 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
| dtsnms wrote: |
| and in this case, Cam is DOWN PLAYING how good his team may be. |
I think Duke is 7th or 8th, which is actually consistent with the experts' preseason picks. Duke lost Currie and Williams, the top two scorers...and two of the four leading rebounders. The recruiting class did not have a stud frontcourt player to replace Williams...the highest rated ranking of the class was 7th. And Joy Cheek will struggle to get off the bench this year (literally...she needs to drop weight). Black is largely unproven...big upside, but unproven. Smith had a horrible postseason. There is no returning bench player who regularly played last year.
7th or 8th in the preseason is about right, given the losses the questions surrounding the returning players. |
I agree.
|
|
BBallFanCT729
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 2666
Location: UConn Territory
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/16/06 12:22 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Duke has a very strong backcourt: Lindsey Harding, Wanisha Smith, Abby Waner...plus a now healthy Emily Waner & Brittany Mitch to back them up. Emily & Brittany can prove their worth this year following injuries last year. They have the potential to be one of the best, if not the best, backcourt in the nation.
Their post game is more questionable. There's no questioning of Alison Bales' or Chante Black's talent...the question is if each of them can bring a high level of play night in and night out. Alison, when on, is pretty much unstoppable inside. Chante is a strong post defender, but unproven on the offensive end, as well as having a tendency of getting in foul trouble quickly...which if that occurs this year, will leave Duke vulnerable, as Carrem Gay is pretty much the only bench post. Keturah Jackson and Bridgette Mitchell are more "W's" who will be counted on most likely to be defensive stopper/slash to the basket type of players...while Joy Cheek might not see much PT (not in shape for the level Duke plays at).
If all the ingredients come together, can Duke be a Top 4 team? Yes...that's why I went on a limb and predicted them for the FF  . However, each player needs to play up to their potential...especially Alison & Chante...because they don't have dependable Mistie and Monique there anymore.
Last edited by BBallFanCT729 on 10/16/06 12:25 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18371
Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
|
BBallFanCT729
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 2666
Location: UConn Territory
Back to top |
|
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18371
Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/16/06 12:31 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| BBallFanCT729 wrote: |
| Yes...Duke hasn't yet proven how they will handle the losses of Currie & Williams, who were key to last years' team. Can they? That remains to be seen...if they do, they'll be ranked high at the end of the season. Until then, I agree with the 6-8 range. There's ? marks around Duke just like there is around UConn, but both teams have the potential to be there at the end if the pieces fit together correctly. |
Which is what I have been saying all along...
|
|
BBallFanCT729
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 2666
Location: UConn Territory
Back to top |
|
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18371
Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
|
dtsnms
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 18815
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/16/06 1:06 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I think the difference you pointed out there, the pre- vs post- analysis is the key ingredient here. I think a lot of people see pre-season rankings and try to predict the final four.
I can't say that's the case here, but I've seen it all the time. Under the same theory of pre-season, I'm not sure you can put UConn as high as they are with the inclusion of so many unproven pieces.
End of season though, who knows where they'll end up? I wouldn't be surprised to see them in the Final four. I also wouldn't be surprised to see them knocked out in the Sweet 16 area.
|
|
luvDhoops
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 8229
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/16/06 2:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| bballjunkee212 wrote: |
| Sorry, but I'm having trouble gagging down the notion that cp3 (Candace Parker) is a better player than CP3 (Courtney Paris), especially after the numbers both of them put up last season. At some point, actual performance should count more than potential or expectations. Parker may prove to be "all that" this season, but as of right now, Paris is clearly the better player, and clearly would be the better player to build a team around. |
They're two different players and shouldn't really be compared. Paris is one of the best 5's in the country (I think Fowles is another). Parker is the best all-around player in the country. Paris had better numbers last season because Paris took more shots (about 5 more) last season than Parker. Having the guards around you to feed you does make a difference, just look at what Parker did with the national team when she had capable guards around her and they looked to feed her. Now, do you want to build a team around a strong center or a strong all-around player is up to the individual.
On another note, I do believe Georgia is deserving of a high ranking. They lost a lot in Baker, but GA's frontcourt this season should be considered among the best in the country.
|
|
bballjunkee212
Joined: 07 Nov 2004
Posts: 1906
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/16/06 4:28 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| PurdueBBall3 wrote: |
| bballjunkee212 wrote: |
I think OHST will win the B10, but I'm not sure that Nancy doesn't have them rated a bit high. They might be a one-dimensional team.
(The B10 should be interesting. On paper, OHST should win the conference. But Purdue has some talent. And don't forget Iowa. They don't have any bona fide stars, but they tend to play smart. They may steal a few games, and if they don't contend for the conference title, they could be the king-makers; a few seasons ago, a loss at Iowa City decided the conference title between Minnesota and PSU. The same thing could happen this season, because nobody is so talent-laden that they couldn't lose a road game against a middle of the pack opponent.) |
Uhhhhhhhhhhh. Excuse me? Why do you think OSU "should win" the Big Ten? Purdue stands every bit as much of a go at the title as the Buckeyes. I watched the Boilers practice this afternoon. Coach Versyp is doing a wonderful job and I saw some VERY VERY fine moves, intensity, and speed. It's my opinion that Purdue will take the conference title this year. I realize I'm partial, but even as thin as our bench is this year (though with tryouts it should be deeper), I see no strong enough answers to the Gearlds, Lawless, Wisdom-Hylton, and Malone combo this year and that's a prediction I'll happily take to the bank right now. |
Isn't OHST returning more starters, including Davenport? And they have continuity in coaching which Purdue doesn't have. Not to say anything bad about Versyp, but it may take some time to get everybody in synch in competition-- time which OHST might not need. That might make the difference in the conference. But, as I said before, even if OHST should win on paper, Purdue has what it takes to win too.
_________________
~Bill
|
|
dtsnms
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 18815
Back to top |
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19760
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/17/06 2:04 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| dtsnms wrote: |
I think the difference you pointed out there, the pre- vs post- analysis is the key ingredient here. I think a lot of people see pre-season rankings and try to predict the final four.
I can't say that's the case here, but I've seen it all the time. Under the same theory of pre-season, I'm not sure you can put UConn as high as they are with the inclusion of so many unproven pieces.
End of season though, who knows where they'll end up? I wouldn't be surprised to see them in the Final four. I also wouldn't be surprised to see them knocked out in the Sweet 16 area. |
Which is an interesting theory in itself. When a team is ranked, are you ranking how good they are Now, or how good they will be when the actual ranking counts, end of march/early April.
I always assumed, that a ranking in the preseason was a prediction of where the teams will be, come March. Seeing as you can't say who the best team is now, because no teams have played yet. (and, it's pretty much pointless to do so.) Thus potential has to be included in rankings. When actual games have been played, at that point, the polls are listing the current top teams, actual merit (how many teams you've beaten, what teams were they..) can be used to rank, but it's impossible to do that in the preseason. You have to look at the potential, and you have to look at the history of a program. That's why, In 2004-2005, Uconn was ranked as high as 4, even though Diana and Maria had left. Duke has been a top 5 team for how many years now? They made the finals last year, they have plenty of potential, so in a preseason ranking, of where they are going to be at the end of the year, I put them pretty high, certainly top five. Now, they could lose five games before march, and be around 6-8, but come post season, if they make the final four, they are a top four team..
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16359
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/17/06 2:09 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| dtsnms wrote: |
I think the difference you pointed out there, the pre- vs post- analysis is the key ingredient here. I think a lot of people see pre-season rankings and try to predict the final four.
I can't say that's the case here, but I've seen it all the time. Under the same theory of pre-season, I'm not sure you can put UConn as high as they are with the inclusion of so many unproven pieces.
End of season though, who knows where they'll end up? I wouldn't be surprised to see them in the Final four. I also wouldn't be surprised to see them knocked out in the Sweet 16 area. |
Which is an interesting theory in itself. When a team is ranked, are you ranking how good they are Now, or how good they will be when the actual ranking counts, end of march/early April.
I always assumed, that a ranking in the preseason was a prediction of where the teams will be, come March. Seeing as you can't say who the best team is now, because no teams have played yet. (and, it's pretty much pointless to do so.) Thus potential has to be included in rankings. When actual games have been played, at that point, the polls are listing the current top teams, actual merit (how many teams you've beaten, what teams were they..) can be used to rank, but it's impossible to do that in the preseason. You have to look at the potential, and you have to look at the history of a program. That's why, In 2004-2005, Uconn was ranked as high as 4, even though Diana and Maria had left. Duke has been a top 5 team for how many years now? They made the finals last year, they have plenty of potential, so in a preseason ranking, of where they are going to be at the end of the year, I put them pretty high, certainly top five. Now, they could lose five games before march, and be around 6-8, but come post season, if they make the final four, they are a top four team.. |
When I do a ranking, it is based on if the two teams right now played on a neutral court 10 times, who do I think would win the most. So that means I don't look into the future and try to judge them now based on where they will finish in the tournament or which team will gel faster or better by the end of the season. For me, my Final Four teams aren't the same as the Top 4 teams in the preseason rankings. The Top 4 teams in the preseason rankings are who I think would win the most games out of 10 as of the first day of the season.
|
|
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18371
Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/17/06 2:15 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| I always assumed, that a ranking in the preseason was a prediction of where the teams will be, come March. Seeing as you can't say who the best team is now, because no teams have played yet. (and, it's pretty much pointless to do so.) Thus potential has to be included in rankings. When actual games have been played, at that point, the polls are listing the current top teams, actual merit (how many teams you've beaten, what teams were they..) can be used to rank, but it's impossible to do that in the preseason. |
Why? It would be were the teams are as of now. You don't do that after one game is played, so why do it before?
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| You have to look at the potential, and you have to look at the history of a program. That's why, In 2004-2005, Uconn was ranked as high as 4, even though Diana and Maria had left. Duke has been a top 5 team for how many years now? They made the finals last year, they have plenty of potential, so in a preseason ranking, of where they are going to be at the end of the year, I put them pretty high, certainly top five. Now, they could lose five games before march, and be around 6-8, but come post season, if they make the final four, they are a top four team.. |
Uh, no. Look at the history? You are talking about completely differnet players. Who does a ranking based on history? You look at the CURRENT team. That would be like Oklahoma being ranked in the top five in 2002-2003, after losing Dales, Ross, Caufield, etc.
UConn was ranked as high as 4 (though I don't believe they were in hte preseason...taking your word for it) because they had the top recruiting class two years earlier that had been to two Final Fours. They returned Turner, Strother, etc., plus brought in a top-five class. It was based on what they returned and brought in, NOT on history.
|
|
bballfan2005
Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 25315
Location: Somewhere here and there
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/17/06 2:53 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I hope those who've posted on here don't take this the wrong way, but why are you putting so much stock into what Nancy Lieberman thinks/predicts? Don't you realize by now that:
1. Any team she hypes up is doomed due to the notorious "Lieberman kiss of death"?
2. She repeatedly allows personal relationships to guide her decision-making?
She's just another bandwagon whore associated with that Bristol hype machine that is ESPN.
_________________
Avatar: The King has his ring!
Mathies to LA 2013
|
|
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18371
Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/17/06 3:06 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| bballfan2005 wrote: |
| 1. Any team she hypes up is doomed due to the notorious "Lieberman kiss of death" |
She got one right...Detroit Shock.
Wow, saying that leaves a bad taste in my mouth (well, since I am typing it...leaves a bad taste in my fingers).
|
|
bballfan2005
Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 25315
Location: Somewhere here and there
Back to top |
|
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18371
Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/17/06 3:23 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| bballfan2005 wrote: |
| Technically, she chose the Shock but didn't stick with them all season. Detroit was her preseason choice (well, she and her colleagues chose Detroit so let's not give her too much credit) but she reneged on them big-time when the playoffs came around. |
Yeah, but she is going to ride that wave as long as it goes, much like a pimp does with his oldest hooker. Just wait...Hall of Famer and expert predictor, Nancy Lieberman.
|
|
bullsky
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
Posts: 20310
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/17/06 3:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Didn't Detroit fire her? Maybe she TRIED to jinx them and it didnt work....for once.
_________________
"Don't do something until you get it right, do it until you can't do it wrong."
- Geno Auriemma
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19760
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/17/06 5:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Quote: |
[quote="CamrnCrz1974"]
Why? It would be were the teams are as of now. You don't do that after one game is played, so why do it before? |
My biggest point being that, no it isn't were the teams are right now, because no teams have played. You can ASSume things based on last season, but you can't rank where teams are now without predicting, without considering potential because no games have been played yet. So then, my point being, why predict the rankings of teams the first day of games. As of right now there is no merit to any rankings. We haven't seen any teams play, we don't know what players made what improvements, we don't know what teams will have chemistry problems in the begining of the year. There is no point to ranking teams based on the first day of games in the preseason because there are too many variables. But, if you base the rankings off of whom you believe are the best teams, than there are less variables involved. And by ranking who you think the best teams are, you are simply predicting who will be at the final four.
| Quote: |
mercfan3 wrote:
You have to look at the potential, and you have to look at the history of a program. That's why, In 2004-2005, Uconn was ranked as high as 4, even though Diana and Maria had left. Duke has been a top 5 team for how many years now? They made the finals last year, they have plenty of potential, so in a preseason ranking, of where they are going to be at the end of the year, I put them pretty high, certainly top five. Now, they could lose five games before march, and be around 6-8, but come post season, if they make the final four, they are a top four team..
CamrnCrz1974 wrote:
Uh, no. Look at the history? You are talking about completely differnet players. Who does a ranking based on history? You look at the CURRENT team. That would be like Oklahoma being ranked in the top five in 2002-2003, after losing Dales, Ross, Caufield, etc.
UConn was ranked as high as 4 (though I don't believe they were in hte preseason...taking your word for it) because they had the top recruiting class two years earlier that had been to two Final Fours. They returned Turner, Strother, etc., plus brought in a top-five class. It was based on what they returned and brought in, NOT on history. |
See, now your kidding yourself. If those players were on a different, team, without the major "Uconn" factor, and you really looked at the team, they wouldn't have been ranked fourth. They were ranked that high because they are Uconn. Oklahoma doesn't have that major program edge to it, or it didn't then. IMO, there is always a ranking bias. The biggest, most prominant programs will always get certain leeway, people whom vote will always give those teams more than they should, because of years before. In essence, they are overranked because they are who they are, and in preseason polls, what those programs have done in the recent past DOES influence the polling.
Oh, and I know Stacy Dales and Nancy both had Uconn ranked that high, (In fact, I think Stacy still had Uconn that high after Uconn got their butt kicked by Michigan State...I should have known Uconn was doomed then, when Stacey and Nancy had Uconn pinned down as a top four team..) I remember Uconn being ranked that high, preseason in actual polls too.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18371
Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/17/06 6:07 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| My biggest point being that, no it isn't were the teams are right now, because no teams have played. You can ASSume things based on last season, but you can't rank where teams are now without predicting, without considering potential because no games have been played yet. |
Yet you want to do it on history...based on performances by players who aren't even there anymore!!!
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| See, now your kidding yourself. If those players were on a different, team, without the major "Uconn" factor, and you really looked at the team, they wouldn't have been ranked fourth.They were ranked that high because they are Uconn. |
You were right about 4th, but you are understimating the ability of people to ACTUALLY look at what people return and what people bring in as far as recruiting. The reason why UConn was ranked that high was because others teams lost MUCH more to graduation (e.g., Duke, who lost Beard, Tillis, Krapohl, and Hunter...and this was before Harding was suspended). Stanford lost Powell, among others. Texas and LSU returned a lot, so they were ranked higher than UConn.
Topping the poll is Tennessee with 15 first place votes followed by LSU, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Duke, Stanford, Baylor, Ohio State and Texas Tech in the top 10
http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=22760&SPID=1846&DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=148464 (scroll to the bottom for the list)
|
|
bballfan2005
Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 25315
Location: Somewhere here and there
Back to top |
|
|
|
