RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

college sports madness top 44
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32326



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/14/14 7:03 pm    ::: college sports madness top 44 Reply Reply with quote

Haven't seen a thread about this. Sorry if it's a repeat.

They are doing a countdown to #1 starting with #44. In the moment they have up #25 - 44.

The commentary is not always exactly what I think [surprise, surprise] but it is decently insightful.

http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/womens-basketball/top-44-previews

Edit to update:
#1 gee I wonder (holding breath waiting to find out????)
#2 South Carolina
#3 Tennessee
#4 Notre Dame
#5 Duke
#6 Texas A&M
#7 North Carolina
#8 Stanford
#9 Kentucky
#10 Baylor
#11 UCLA
#12 California
#13 Iowa
14. Louisville
15. Maryland
16. Michigan State
17. Nebraska
18. LSU
19. West Virginia
20. Penn State
21. Dayton
22. Syracuse
23. Purdue
24. Texas
25 - DePaul
26 - James Madison
27 - Georgia
28 - Oregon
29 - Gonzaga
30 - Florida State
31 - Oklahoma
32 - BYU
33 - Oregon State
34 - Minnesota
35 - St. Johns
36 - Ok State
37 - Arkansas
38 - USC
39 - Iowa State
40 - Rutgers
41 - Georgia Tech
42 - Florida
43 - Middle Tenn.
44 - Washington




Last edited by myrtle on 11/07/14 4:59 pm; edited 3 times in total
FollowtheCardinalRule



Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Posts: 5153
Location: Denver


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/14/14 8:02 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I mean, Kelly Graves is good, but I don't think it's justified putting Oregon ahead of Oregon State--especially after Oregon State's showing against South Carolina last year.

I'm sure I'll have other nitpicks to make once I see the full list.


myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32326



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/14/14 8:46 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

FollowtheCardinalRule wrote:
I mean, Kelly Graves is good, but I don't think it's justified putting Oregon ahead of Oregon State--especially after Oregon State's showing against South Carolina last year.

I'm sure I'll have other nitpicks to make once I see the full list.


yeah, that was the first thing that caught my eye. OSU finished the season really well and lost nobody.



_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
FollowtheCardinalRule



Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Posts: 5153
Location: Denver


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/14/14 10:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Also, putting a Gonzaga team without Kelly Graves, Haiden Palmer, or Jazmine Redmon at 29 seems a bit high. There are bound to be growing pains without Graves.

Also, a team like Florida State that loses a stalwart such as Natasha Howard along with an incredibly important role player in Cheetah Delgado has a lot of questions to answer to be ranked as a Top 30 Team.

University of Southern Cal to me appears to have a lot of unprovens--with the departure of Crook and Harberts--the backbone of the team that beat Stanford a season ago--this team is young and are going to have to grow quickly to get to where they are projected to be by CSM.

Arkansas? Arkansas beat Middle Tennessee and Louisiana State and have a lot returning. I've just never really thought of Arkansas as a Top 40 team--but I'm willing to give them the benefit of a doubt due to the good group of returners despite a questionable coach.


Matt5762



Joined: 27 Feb 2005
Posts: 607



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/15/14 7:49 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

FollowtheCardinalRule wrote:
Also, a team like Florida State that loses a stalwart such as Natasha Howard along with an incredibly important role player in Cheetah Delgado has a lot of questions to answer to be ranked as a Top 30 Team.


Of course, it's pretty unfair to talk about Florida State's prospects without discussing their wave of incoming transfers, at least 1 or 2 of whom will surely be starters. Completely unmentioned in the CSM prospectus are the addition of the #1 JuCo Adut Bulgak and eligibility this season for at least 2 BCS transfers - Richardson (Rutgers) & Conwright (UK).

On an individual team basis, the CSM analyses are in many cases a bit of a mess, but I do appreciate the detailed level of coverage they are providing and the team rankings overall don't look half bad as far as preseason rankings are concerned.


summertime blues



Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7746
Location: Shenandoah Valley


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/15/14 12:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Nice to see the JMU girls close to the top 25. I won't be too surprised if they crack it before the season is over. I wish they were in a better conference.



_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
Phil



Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1258



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/15/14 12:51 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I think RU will end higher.


NoDakSt



Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Posts: 4929



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/15/14 2:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

FollowtheCardinalRule wrote:
I mean, Kelly Graves is good, but I don't think it's justified putting Oregon ahead of Oregon State--especially after Oregon State's showing against South Carolina last year.

I'm sure I'll have other nitpicks to make once I see the full list.


I I agree. I also would put Oklahoma State over Oklahoma just based on last year and who's coming back.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15691
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/15/14 11:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Myrtloney, you contentious wench! Wherever do you find these Communist Propaganda sites? Oklahoma, a mere 31st? Hmph! Shocked

Laughing Laughing Laughing

For REAL? Interesting. I don't think I've seen this site and their analysis before. They at least seem spot on with personnel and recent histories (as far as I've investigated, at least).

Like others here, I think Reality will play out a bit differently. Rutgers is always capable of underperforming, but #40? I doubt they'll fare that poorly. And isn't USC supposed to be fairly decent this year? (....or am I mixing them up with UCLA?).

I also agree that OK-State should be much higher, and I'm thinking TX will be too. But--that's why we play the games, right? Nothing's guaranteed! Cool



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
FollowtheCardinalRule



Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Posts: 5153
Location: Denver


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/15/14 11:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
Myrtloney, you contentious wench! Wherever do you find these Communist Propaganda sites? Oklahoma, a mere 31st? Hmph! Shocked

Laughing Laughing Laughing

For REAL? Interesting. I don't think I've seen this site and their analysis before. They at least seem spot on with personnel and recent histories (as far as I've investigated, at least).

Like others here, I think Reality will play out a bit differently. Rutgers is always capable of underperforming, but #40? I doubt they'll fare that poorly. And isn't USC supposed to be fairly decent this year? (....or am I mixing them up with UCLA?).

I also agree that OK-State should be much higher, and I'm thinking TX will be too. But--that's why we play the games, right? Nothing's guaranteed! Cool


USC without Cassie Harberts and Ariya Crook?

It's going to be an interesting season for them.


Fighting Artichoke



Joined: 12 Dec 2012
Posts: 4040



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/16/14 8:35 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
Myrtloney, you contentious wench! Wherever do you find these Communist Propaganda sites? Oklahoma, a mere 31st? Hmph! Shocked

Laughing Laughing Laughing

For REAL? Interesting. I don't think I've seen this site and their analysis before. They at least seem spot on with personnel and recent histories (as far as I've investigated, at least).


I had not heard of them either, but while past performance does not guarantee future success, the site did pretty well last season: http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/9803

So he had the FF participants rated 1, 2, 3, and 9, which is better than the polls: http://espn.go.com/womens-college-basketball/rankings/_/week/1/seasontype/2


patsweetpat



Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 2306
Location: Culver City, CA


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/16/14 7:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

FollowtheCardinalRule wrote:
Howee wrote:
Myrtloney, you contentious wench! Wherever do you find these Communist Propaganda sites? Oklahoma, a mere 31st? Hmph! Shocked

Laughing Laughing Laughing

For REAL? Interesting. I don't think I've seen this site and their analysis before. They at least seem spot on with personnel and recent histories (as far as I've investigated, at least).

Like others here, I think Reality will play out a bit differently. Rutgers is always capable of underperforming, but #40? I doubt they'll fare that poorly. And isn't USC supposed to be fairly decent this year? (....or am I mixing them up with UCLA?).

I also agree that OK-State should be much higher, and I'm thinking TX will be too. But--that's why we play the games, right? Nothing's guaranteed! Cool


USC without Cassie Harberts and Ariya Crook?

It's going to be an interesting season for them.


I think they'll do just fine. They've got 3 McDonald's All-Americans (Vaioletama, Horn, and Adams). Few teams in the Pac can say that.


GEF34



Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14102



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/21/14 12:02 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

They've finally reached the top 20.

Here are teams that have been added since myrtle's first post.

24. Texas
23. Purdue
22. Syracuse
21. Dayton
20. Penn State
19. West Virginia


PickledGinger



Joined: 04 Oct 2013
Posts: 1350



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/21/14 3:50 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

patsweetpat wrote:

I think they'll do just fine. They've got 3 McDonald's All-Americans (Vaioletama, Horn, and Adams). Few teams in the Pac can say that.


Are you being sarcastic? Because those three (two of whom were only ever All-Americans because they played with Mosqueda-Lewis) are three of the biggest busts ever to come out of the McDonalds game.

As a comparison...those three players averaged 14.4 points per game between them. If we add up the scoring of Vaioletama, Barrett and Alofaituli (their leading returning scorers), it's still only 20.7 ppg. The trio of Plum, Davis and Walton at UW scored 50.8. Oregon's top 3 (although inflated by Paul-Ball)...56.7 ppg.

USC lost it's only consistant scorers, and pretty much everybody except Stanford got better. I just do not have faith that Cooper is a good enough coach to keep this roster competitive in this league this year. Too many other good teams with proven scorers.


PickledGinger



Joined: 04 Oct 2013
Posts: 1350



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/21/14 4:05 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

They have Penn State at 20 and Purdue at 23. All credibility out the window for me. Do they not realize what the Lions lost in last year's senior class??? Do they not even look at rosters and stats when they're doing this? Coquese is a great coach...no way she's that good of a coach. Purdue has 2 good returnees and a bunch of question marks. The rest of the B1G is way too good for either team to be ranked that high, before Minnesota or even teams that obviously were not included like Michigan or Northwestern.

IMO, so far this list is jacked from top to bottom.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/21/14 9:24 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PickledGinger wrote:
patsweetpat wrote:

I think they'll do just fine. They've got 3 McDonald's All-Americans (Vaioletama, Horn, and Adams). Few teams in the Pac can say that.


Are you being sarcastic? Because those three (two of whom were only ever All-Americans because they played with Mosqueda-Lewis) are three of the biggest busts ever to come out of the McDonalds game.

As a comparison...those three players averaged 14.4 points per game between them. If we add up the scoring of Vaioletama, Barrett and Alofaituli (their leading returning scorers), it's still only 20.7 ppg. The trio of Plum, Davis and Walton at UW scored 50.8. Oregon's top 3 (although inflated by Paul-Ball)...56.7 ppg.

USC lost it's only consistant scorers, and pretty much everybody except Stanford got better. I just do not have faith that Cooper is a good enough coach to keep this roster competitive in this league this year. Too many other good teams with proven scorers.


Cooper got a lot out of her talent last year, but obviously losing the top two scorers has to hurt.

Jordan Adams is an interesting case, as she just can't shoot at all at this level (14.6% from three, 51.5% from the free-throw line) -- which is very odd, because she was a good shooter in high school and AAU. I thought her challenge would be on defense, but you can't go six for 41 from beyond the arc and help a Pac-12 team.

Of course, both Adams and Vaioletama were hurt coming into college, and that might have had something to do with their success as well.

Still, there's a lot of potential on the Trojan roster (McKenzie Calvert is very good), so if the pieces fall into place, USC could be better than expected. But there's also a significant chance of a very bad year while the youngsters figure things out.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
mzonefan



Joined: 15 Oct 2005
Posts: 4878
Location: Ann Arbor, MI


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/21/14 11:16 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PickledGinger wrote:
They have Penn State at 20 and Purdue at 23. All credibility out the window for me. Do they not realize what the Lions lost in last year's senior class??? Do they not even look at rosters and stats when they're doing this? Coquese is a great coach...no way she's that good of a coach. Purdue has 2 good returnees and a bunch of question marks. The rest of the B1G is way too good for either team to be ranked that high, before Minnesota or even teams that obviously were not included like Michigan or Northwestern.

IMO, so far this list is jacked from top to bottom.


I agree the Penn State projection is off the wall. They lost 62% of their minutes and 57 points per game with the graduation of the four seniors.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/21/14 2:53 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mzonefan wrote:
PickledGinger wrote:
They have Penn State at 20 and Purdue at 23. All credibility out the window for me. Do they not realize what the Lions lost in last year's senior class??? Do they not even look at rosters and stats when they're doing this? Coquese is a great coach...no way she's that good of a coach. Purdue has 2 good returnees and a bunch of question marks. The rest of the B1G is way too good for either team to be ranked that high, before Minnesota or even teams that obviously were not included like Michigan or Northwestern.

IMO, so far this list is jacked from top to bottom.


I agree the Penn State projection is off the wall. They lost 62% of their minutes and 57 points per game with the graduation of the four seniors.


I think you are way underestimating Penn St.

Yes, they lost their seniors, but they have more talent than anyone in the conference with the possible exception of MD and NU. They had a terrific and large 2013 recruiting class. Those players didn't play much last year because Washington played her seniors, but they will likely be solid year. They have a junior college forward joining the team, and Sierra Moore - a McD AA transfer from Duke -- is now eligible to play. Candace Agee returns and is probably the best center in the league.

I don't think Penn St will win the conference, but they are probably fourth after NU, MSU, and MD.

Teams lose players every year. It's the nature and part of the fun of college basketball. But what's important is not who you lose, it's how you replace those you lose. PSU is in very sold position despite the losses.


patsweetpat



Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 2306
Location: Culver City, CA


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/21/14 4:19 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PickledGinger wrote:
patsweetpat wrote:

I think they'll do just fine. They've got 3 McDonald's All-Americans (Vaioletama, Horn, and Adams). Few teams in the Pac can say that.


Are you being sarcastic? Because those three (two of whom were only ever All-Americans because they played with Mosqueda-Lewis) are three of the biggest busts ever to come out of the McDonalds game.

As a comparison...those three players averaged 14.4 points per game between them. If we add up the scoring of Vaioletama, Barrett and Alofaituli (their leading returning scorers), it's still only 20.7 ppg. The trio of Plum, Davis and Walton at UW scored 50.8. Oregon's top 3 (although inflated by Paul-Ball)...56.7 ppg.

USC lost it's only consistant scorers, and pretty much everybody except Stanford got better. I just do not have faith that Cooper is a good enough coach to keep this roster competitive in this league this year. Too many other good teams with proven scorers.


I wasn't being sarcastic, fwiw. I realize those three have some stepping-up to do, but the talent is there, and with the WoT's two top scorers gone, the opportunity is now there too (Harberts and Crook, between them, took 850 shots last season... shots that others will now get to take). And Cooper's winning the Pac-12 Tourney says something to me. I'm not necessarily predicting a banner for them, but I think they'll be fine, at least until they come out and demonstrate otherwise.


tigermojo



Joined: 12 Aug 2010
Posts: 225



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/23/14 10:50 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

how about LSU 18th!!!!!!! please. Even as a rabid tiger fan, I see that as clearly inflated. they seem to think that Ballard and Moncrief can make up for all of our shortcomings

we have no frontcourt that we know of: a 6'3" junior transfer from Memphis of all places, a 6'1" frosh post from GA that wasn't in anybody's top 100, a 6"3" frosh from Australia who appears to be a total unknown in these circles (who I am hoping will be our savior), and senior 6'2" Shelia Boykin who has consistently underachieved in her 3 years. Does that sound like the number 18 team in the nation?

they mentioned nobody but Boykin and Amichia (frosh) in the frontcourt.

On a good note, they also didn't mention DaShawn Hardin or Jasmine Rhodes, two more very capable guards who will make substantial contributions to the team.

One thing they got right---we don't need to worry about our backcourt.

But 18th, I thought after I didn't see us in the 30s, we wouldn't make the list at all. I hope they're right and I'm wrong, but I just don't see how. I guess maybe a tremendous backcourt goes a long way.




Last edited by tigermojo on 10/23/14 11:27 am; edited 2 times in total
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/23/14 11:13 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Strikes me that DePaul, GaTech and Rutgers are all underranked here. Especially DePaul.

And notwithstanding my previous post that PSU is likely to be better than some were predicting, I sincerely doubt they deserve to be ranked ahead of Syracuse or Texas, each of which likely belongs in the mid teens.


GEF34



Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14102



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/02/14 11:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

College Sports Madness has been continuing to reveal their top 44.

Myrtle's post left off at #14 Louisville.

#13 Iowa
#12 California
#11 UCLA
#10 Baylor
#9 Kentucky
#8 Stanford
#7 North Carolina
#6 Texas A&M


myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32326



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/03/14 1:42 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
Strikes me that DePaul, GaTech and Rutgers are all underranked here. Especially DePaul.

And notwithstanding my previous post that PSU is likely to be better than some were predicting, I sincerely doubt they deserve to be ranked ahead of Syracuse or Texas, each of which likely belongs in the mid teens.


PSU's performance against poo-dunk yesterday was not exactly awe-inspiring. I too assumed they would be better, but it definitely looks like a rebuilding year.



_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15691
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/04/14 11:42 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Okay. This outfit decides Duke is deserving of #4? Hmmm. Rolling Eyes Credibility gone.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
Fighting Artichoke



Joined: 12 Dec 2012
Posts: 4040



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/05/14 8:19 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
Okay. This outfit decides Duke is deserving of #4? Hmmm. Rolling Eyes Credibility gone.

Actually, Notre Dame is 4th. Duke is listed as 5th. I guess he'll have Tennessee 3rd and South Carolina 2nd.

I agree that it seems incorrect. Duke at 5 seems high and ND at 4 seems low.


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin