| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Who will win the new, expanded Big Ten |
| Iowa |
|
6% |
[ 3 ] |
| Maryland |
|
24% |
[ 11 ] |
| Michigan State |
|
8% |
[ 4 ] |
| Minnesota |
|
6% |
[ 3 ] |
| Nebraska |
|
22% |
[ 10 ] |
| Penn State |
|
6% |
[ 3 ] |
| Purdue |
|
2% |
[ 1 ] |
| Rutgers |
|
13% |
[ 6 ] |
| Other (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Northwestern, Ohio State, Wisconsin) |
|
8% |
[ 4 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 45 |
|
| Author |
Message |
bacabuck
Joined: 28 May 2009
Posts: 245
Back to top |
 Posted: 06/13/14 11:22 am ::: |
Reply  |
|
Just did some quick numbers on PSU as I predicted a major fall for them and some may take umbrage.
What I verified is that they have lost 65% of their points scored last season, 74% of their assists, 70% of their steals (defense), and 85% of their minutes played.
Recruiting, for the '14 class doesn't seem to be in the top 25 and if any of the current bench were good last year it is not apparent in the stats...........there doesn't seem to be anything under this team.
I have always kind of liked their coach, so if anyone knows the Penn State situation and thinks I have it dead wrong, please tell me what I am missing.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/13/14 11:23 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| People seem to be forgetting about the Hawkeyes. Iowa only loses one starter from this past season. They return Logic, Dixon, Disterhoft, and Doolittle. This team was in the Big Ten Final. |
Part of that tournament result was the way the bracket worked out. They didn't have to play PSU, MSU or Mich, and they lost to NU.
Iowa should be decent, but I expect them to be in that second pack along with Mich, NW, Rutgers, Minn and maybe Oh St. They lost to NU twice and to MSU last year. I'd expect them to be somewhat behind those two again as well as MD.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/13/14 11:37 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| bacabuck wrote: |
Just did some quick numbers on PSU as I predicted a major fall for them and some may take umbrage.
What I verified is that they have lost 65% of their points scored last season, 74% of their assists, 70% of their steals (defense), and 85% of their minutes played.
Recruiting, for the '14 class doesn't seem to be in the top 25 and if any of the current bench were good last year it is not apparent in the stats...........there doesn't seem to be anything under this team.
I have always kind of liked their coach, so if anyone knows the Penn State situation and thinks I have it dead wrong, please tell me what I am missing. |
Well they are going to be different and they are going to be young. Still have Agee in the middle. They lost a lot, but they have 6 sophmores, most of whom played little or none last year but several of which were highly rated recruits, plus Duke transfer Sierra Moore, who was also highly rated. They'll have a lot of size and a lot of unproven talent. I expect them to be pretty good.
Ohio St is also relying on unproven talent, isn't it?
Last edited by ArtBest23 on 06/13/14 11:39 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
dinkytown
Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 2591
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/13/14 11:39 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| People seem to be forgetting about the Hawkeyes. Iowa only loses one starter from this past season. They return Logic, Dixon, Disterhoft, and Doolittle. This team was in the Big Ten Final. |
They are good but I feel they play to the level of their opponent too often. Last year, besides Illinois and Wisconsin the last 10 minutes of the game they didn't really control anyone. A stronger B1G could create more problems. Chase Coley should help give them more of a post presence with Doolittle and I think she is the main key in them being a wildcard top 3 finisher.
|
|
bacabuck
Joined: 28 May 2009
Posts: 245
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/13/14 11:57 am ::: |
Reply |
|
"Ohio St is also relying on unproven talent, isn't it?"
You got that right!.......Currently one girl can outplay most any guard in the league, two others who can play in streaks, and one more who will contribute. As many as six more will be "who?".
The coach (who in my mind, IS proven), intends to play 9 or 10 girls! Thus, I am sure it will be a clown show at times, but the underlying talent will be apparent by the end of the year and I expect a good showing in the BIG tournament.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/13/14 1:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
Wow. I didn't know you were on the committee. You should call Henry and straighten her out.
One win by USF over a top 25 team and the losses wouldn't have mattered. That win over Gonzaga got BYU in despite a loss to #186. Both the men's and women's committees have consistantly said for years that you have to have shown you can win against tournament level competition. But if you want to ignore what they say and do, be my guest. |
Pretty sure that BYU having 25 wins and a top 35 RPI led them to being selected...not just that single win over Gonzaga.
Again, I was directly told to schedule carefully in regards to our non-conference games because a bad loss would absolutely kill us. I was at a mid-major at the time and we were going to be pretty good and possibly be in position for an at-large if something happened in our conference tournament.
You can continue to use little snide remarks all you want...your pompous, thinking you know everything attitude has certainly rubbed most people on here the wrong way. |
On BYU - the committee was so impressed by Gonzaga that they gave them a 6 seed, so it's not clear how big a win it was from the committee's perspective. Rutgers, just to pick a non-random example, beat a team that received an 8 seed, not really that different in the scheme of things.
And I will repeat what I said above. You need to watch what the committee does, not what it says. They provide contradictory reasons for selecting and not selecting teams, not just from year to year, but from question to question in the same press conference. Whatever Henry said was a post hoc justification, and you can't count on it to be the actual reason.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/13/14 1:29 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
Wow. I didn't know you were on the committee. You should call Henry and straighten her out.
One win by USF over a top 25 team and the losses wouldn't have mattered. That win over Gonzaga got BYU in despite a loss to #186. Both the men's and women's committees have consistantly said for years that you have to have shown you can win against tournament level competition. But if you want to ignore what they say and do, be my guest. |
Pretty sure that BYU having 25 wins and a top 35 RPI led them to being selected...not just that single win over Gonzaga.
Again, I was directly told to schedule carefully in regards to our non-conference games because a bad loss would absolutely kill us. I was at a mid-major at the time and we were going to be pretty good and possibly be in position for an at-large if something happened in our conference tournament.
You can continue to use little snide remarks all you want...your pompous, thinking you know everything attitude has certainly rubbed most people on here the wrong way. |
On BYU - the committee was so impressed by Gonzaga that they gave them a 6 seed, so it's not clear how big a win it was from the committee's perspective. Rutgers, just to pick a non-random example, beat a team that received an 8 seed, not really that different in the scheme of things.
And I will repeat what I said above. You need to watch what the committee does, not what it says. They provide contradictory reasons for selecting and not selecting teams, not just from year to year, but from question to question in the same press conference. Whatever Henry said was a post hoc justification, and you can't count on it to be the actual reason. |
I'm not sure what you're seeing. I said Rutgers' lack of meaningful wins would keep them out. It did. Same for USF and Minn. BYU having one significant win got them in. That Gonzaga win is the one big distinguishing characteristic.
You can speculate that there was some other reason, but I am watching what they did. I don't see how anything they did contradicts my explanation or hers.
You can't disregard what the chair says just because from the outside you have a different theory and don't like her explanation. It's not much but it's the best there is. And the notion that they want to see that you can beat a tourney caliber team is certainly not novel or bizarre. They've said that for years, men and women.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/13/14 4:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| You can't disregard what the chair says just because from the outside you have a different theory and don't like her explanation. It's not much but it's the best there is. And the notion that they want to see that you can beat a tourney caliber team is certainly not novel or bizarre. They've said that for years, men and women. |
I can disregard their public statements when they don't connect to what they actually do. (And, seriously, if you've been following the game as long as I think you have, you should know that the one thing the committee does best when discussing the bracket is contradict itself.) I have more than 10 years of data on who they take and who they don't, and your view is not consistent with that data. Personally, if I have to choose between the data and the public statements, I'll choose the data every time.
(It occurs to me that it is possible that you're thinking that my argument is that the number of wins by itself is determinative. To be clear, that is not what I'm saying. If all a team did was beat RPI 100+ opponents, that wouldn't get it any consideration. It's your claim that the committee requires wins over high-quality teams - call them RPI top 25 or top 50 teams, as you wish - that I think is incorrect.)
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/13/14 5:01 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| You can't disregard what the chair says just because from the outside you have a different theory and don't like her explanation. It's not much but it's the best there is. And the notion that they want to see that you can beat a tourney caliber team is certainly not novel or bizarre. They've said that for years, men and women. |
I can disregard their public statements when they don't connect to what they actually do. (And, seriously, if you've been following the game as long as I think you have, you should know that the one thing the committee does best when discussing the bracket is contradict itself.) I have more than 10 years of data on who they take and who they don't, and your view is not consistent with that data. Personally, if I have to choose between the data and the public statements, I'll choose the data every time.
(It occurs to me that it is possible that you're thinking that my argument is that the number of wins by itself is determinative. To be clear, that is not what I'm saying. If all a team did was beat RPI 100+ opponents, that wouldn't get it any consideration. It's your claim that the committee requires wins over high-quality teams - call them RPI top 25 or top 50 teams, as you wish - that I think is incorrect.) |
Requires? No. But when they get to those last few bubble teams, two I believe they way more heavily good wins than they do bad losses. Showing you're capable of winning a game in the tournament is important, and can get you in even if you have been inconsistent and have a couple of bad losses.
|
|
xwomynjoc
Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 426
Location: MD
Back to top |
|
NoDakSt
Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Posts: 4929
Back to top |
|
LegoMyEggo
Joined: 02 Apr 2010
Posts: 284
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/16/14 3:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Ohio State and Minnesota will be moving up in the conference standings. The new Minnesota coach walked into a team that is more than capable of an NCAA Tournament. Also, Lindsey (sp?) Spann returns from injury for Penn State. She will be a good point guard for them. Should own the position.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/16/14 3:30 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| LegoMyEggo wrote: |
| Ohio State and Minnesota will be moving up in the conference standings. The new Minnesota coach walked into a team that is more than capable of an NCAA Tournament. Also, Lindsey (sp?) Spann returns from injury for Penn State. She will be a good point guard for them. Should own the position. |
Ohio St should take another step forward in January when transfers Kianna Holland from Duke and Shayla Cooper from Georgetown become eligible to play just in time for conference competition.
|
|
NoDakSt
Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Posts: 4929
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/17/14 9:04 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| LegoMyEggo wrote: |
| Ohio State and Minnesota will be moving up in the conference standings. The new Minnesota coach walked into a team that is more than capable of an NCAA Tournament. Also, Lindsey (sp?) Spann returns from injury for Penn State. She will be a good point guard for them. Should own the position. |
Penn State is going to be interesting and opportunities abound for any player willing to work for significant playing time. Walder is the only player returning with starting experience but she's no shoo-in as the Post position is the one with the greatest number of viable candidates competing. I don't expect the same level of success from them next year as they've had the past 2-3 years; team is young, lots of skills to develop.
|
|
SocksTerp
Joined: 15 Jan 2009
Posts: 108
Back to top |
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1274
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/17/14 3:09 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
The BiG should be interesting this year. No one obviously dominating, but a number of teams with a good shot at taking it all.
Maryland might seem like the favorite, but the Terps lost 43% of their points and 53% of their rebounds, more than any top ten team sans Stanford. And the numbers may not fully reflect losing Thomas. Only one true top 100 frosh, but they get Harrison back, but I expect some slippage. Maybe still enough to stay ahead of Rutgers, Maybe but Rutgers should be in the mix for the title. As others have pointed out, it isn't a two team race, Nebraska and Iowa and others will be in the mix.
There could be some very good teams with a number of in conference losses.
|
|
NoDakSt
Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Posts: 4929
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/17/14 3:16 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Michigan State has a solid line-up with Aerial Powers leading the way from the wing position. TOri Jankoska will probably handle he point ; she's an exciting player who probably is more of a shoot first pass second option at that position. Becca Mills and Jasmine Hines are seniors who can anchor the paint. I doubt madison WIlliams will be back and I would be surprised if Kiana Johnson is still with the team so frosh players like Jasmine Lumpkin and Alexis Gussert will have to provide depth.
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15747
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
|
Colerr
Joined: 16 Mar 2012
Posts: 569
Location: Missouri
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/19/14 12:29 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I was kind of shocked that Rutgers will not be going to Iowa this year, and the only game between Iowa/RU in the regular season will be at Rutgers.
Still should be an emotional game for CVS nonetheless.
Is it November yet? So excited to get this season started,
|
|
bacabuck
Joined: 28 May 2009
Posts: 245
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/19/14 9:36 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| LegoMyEggo wrote: |
| Ohio State and Minnesota will be moving up in the conference standings. The new Minnesota coach walked into a team that is more than capable of an NCAA Tournament. Also, Lindsey (sp?) Spann returns from injury for Penn State. She will be a good point guard for them. Should own the position. |
Ohio St should take another step forward in January when transfers Kianna Holland from Duke and Shayla Cooper from Georgetown become eligible to play just in time for conference competition. |
All true............ Holland and Cooper have been in Columbus since last January and practicing with the team so they will be pretty well integrated with the team and could get good minutes next January. They will definitely be ahead of the Freshmen coming in this summer.
One Freshman that will start, however, is Kelsey Mitchell at PG. Makayla Waterman will also get good minutes early because the team is vertically challenged, and she is 6' 2"............. and really good.
|
|
bacabuck
Joined: 28 May 2009
Posts: 245
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/24/14 3:32 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Won't help tOSU this year but IS the added jolt we need for '15-'16.......commitment from Theresa Ekhelar, 6'6" post player Woodbridge NJ.
Prospect Nation 76 overall.
|
|
BallState1984
Joined: 27 Aug 2006
Posts: 1892
Location: Halfway between Muncie and West Lafayette
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/25/14 6:37 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| You mean the Big Ten or the Big Ten and the four interlopers?
_________________
Terminally afffected with Our Girl Syndrome and proud of it!
|
|
bacabuck
Joined: 28 May 2009
Posts: 245
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/25/14 8:44 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| BallState1984 wrote: |
| You mean the Big Ten or the Big Ten and the four interlopers? |
Ah yes, I can see that there could be some confusion on this point. "Meatchicken" was in the original 1896 conference but "quit" (dropped out), in 1908. By 1912, the stench from "that school up north" had wafted away and been forgotten, tOSU felt it could join the conference......and did.
Then, the fore mentioned came crawling back in 1917 and through dint of continual groveling and begging, were finally allowed back in. I DO consider them interlopers..........a few do not.
As to the rest of the wonderful BIG, I only wish that we had a couple more in the group. Perhaps you know of a school with the credentials to get in?
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32336
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/26/14 12:09 am ::: |
Reply |
|
1. Rutgers
2. Nebraska
3. Iowa
4. Minnesota
5. Maryland
6. Michigan St.
7. OSU
...the rest (egad, there are a lot of them too)
I think the B1G will be surprised by the Rutgers style of grind it out play.
Love Theriot and they will be good, but without Hooper, well, I'm not convinced. I actually didn't realize Hooper was as good as she is, but someone who plays as well as she does as a rookie in the W, well, my theory is that her team will miss her. Which is also why I plunk Maryland that low.
I love Banham and Zahui but they haven't proved themselves as a team yet so they are kind of the wild card in my mind.
|
|
NoDakSt
Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Posts: 4929
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/26/14 12:05 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| bacabuck wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| LegoMyEggo wrote: |
| Ohio State and Minnesota will be moving up in the conference standings. The new Minnesota coach walked into a team that is more than capable of an NCAA Tournament. Also, Lindsey (sp?) Spann returns from injury for Penn State. She will be a good point guard for them. Should own the position. |
Ohio St should take another step forward in January when transfers Kianna Holland from Duke and Shayla Cooper from Georgetown become eligible to play just in time for conference competition. |
All true............ Holland and Cooper have been in Columbus since last January and practicing with the team so they will be pretty well integrated with the team and could get good minutes next January. They will definitely be ahead of the Freshmen coming in this summer.
One Freshman that will start, however, is Kelsey Mitchell at PG. Makayla Waterman will also get good minutes early because the team is vertically challenged, and she is 6' 2"............. and really good. |
I could see Alston running plays and Mitchell starting at the two guard early on and then gradually swapping positions as Mitchell acclimates. I'm curious if Kalpana Beach ever makes it back. She started as a frosh in the front court and showed promise but the past two years she has been sidelined with injuries. The front court is going to be very inexperienced after last year's graduation but the talent seems to be there.
|
|
|
|
