http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/news?slug=jn-bigeastrank082809&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
Marquette – No team in the Big East is in more of a rebuilding mode than Marquette, which lost three of its top four scorers in Dominic James, Wesley Matthews and All-Big East, first-team selection Jerel McNeal. Making matters worse is that last year's team wasn't very deep, with four players averaging more than 30 minutes. That means the Golden Eagles' 2009-10 squad is loaded with players who have little or no experience in crunch-time situations. Lazar Hayward is an NBA talent in the paint, and the Golden Eagles signed one of the country's top recruiting classes highlighted by juco transfer Dwight Buycks and freshman Junior Cadougan, both of whom are guards.
Quote from: Pakuni on August 28, 2009, 10:59:44 AM
Marquette – No team in the Big East is in more of a rebuilding mode than Marquette
Technically true I guess, though Providence is neck and neck. Interesting that they placed St. John's 13th but said they should definitely be an NIT team (though I guess they finished 13th last year and ended up in the CBIT? Despite an overall record below .500).
Until we see how these kids play, I think #11 sounds a little low - but not outright stupid.
The pre-season polls are based on returning starters. Since we only have 1 and only 1 other with any significant experience, how can we expect to be much higher than 11?
Quote from: rivals.yahoo.com
b]Lazar Hayward is an NBA talent in the paint[/b]
A bit generous, I think. He does well in the paint as an undersized 4, but I don't think what he was doing this past year would translate well in the NBA.
However, Lazar's gotten some hops according to something I read (I don't remember where) and I'm sure he's overall improved his game, so who knows, maybe he is now...we all know that it would definitely be great if he is now a legitimate NBA talent!
Quote from: AlumKCof93 on August 28, 2009, 11:50:13 AM
The pre-season polls are based on returning starters. Since we only have 1 and only 1 other with any significant experience, how can we expect to be much higher than 11?
Pitt, loses 4 starters and is picked 6th.
Quote from: Marquette84 on August 28, 2009, 01:46:33 PM
Pitt, loses 4 starters and is picked 6th.
Yeah, but they have Wanamaker returning!
On behalf of Mr. Hayward, I propose we immediately eliminate Yahoo Sports since they are negative and a dangerous detriment to Marquette.
(Sorry can't put in teal via the blackberry).
Quote from: Marquette84 on August 28, 2009, 01:46:33 PM
Pitt, loses 4 starters and is picked 6th.
Pitt has more contributers coming back...Brown, Wanamaker, Gibbs, and Dixon.
Quote from: GOMU1104 on August 28, 2009, 03:21:54 PM
Pitt has more contributers coming back...Brown, Wanamaker, Gibbs, and Dixon.
Did they start?
Quote from: AlumKCof93 on August 28, 2009, 11:50:13 AM
The pre-season polls are based on returning starters. Since we only have 1 and only 1 other with any significant experience, how can we expect to be much higher than 11?
Quote from: Marquette84 on August 28, 2009, 05:07:12 PM
Did they start?
It doesnt matter. Anyone who looks only at the returning starters, as a basis for their rankings, is not very smart.The fact that they have a good number of contributers coming back justifies their ranking, despite losing 4 starters. UCONN and SYR lose 3 starters, should they be dropped too?
Quote from: AlumKCof93 on August 28, 2009, 11:50:13 AM
The pre-season polls are based on returning starters contributors. Since we only have 1 and only 1 other with any significant experience, how can we expect to be much higher than 11?
better?
Quote from: muwarrior87 on August 28, 2009, 09:28:52 PM
better?
If that's the case, then DePaul has more returning contributors than Pitt, MU, UL, Syracuse, UConn, or Providence.
Quote from: GOMU1104 on August 28, 2009, 06:12:55 PM
It doesnt matter. Anyone who looks only at the returning starters, as a basis for their rankings, is not very smart.The fact that they have a good number of contributers coming back justifies their ranking, despite losing 4 starters. UCONN and SYR lose 3 starters, should they be dropped too?
Seriously? Ashton, Gibbs Wannamaker and Dixon justify a top 6 finish in the league? If so, then it's going to be a mighty weak season in the Big East.
because quality has to be considered you schmuck. DePaul sucked last year and there is no indication that they will improve by leaps and bounds this year. Use your head for once so the rest of us don't have to constantly spell it out for you. Sheesh
Quote from: muwarrior87 on August 28, 2009, 10:10:34 PM
because quality has to be considered you schmuck. DePaul sucked last year and there is no indication that they will improve by leaps and bounds this year. Use your head for once so the rest of us don't have to constantly spell it out for you. Sheesh
Let me spell it out for YOU:
AlumKofC93 said that pre-season polls are based on returning STARTERS and when you lose that number of STARTERS you can't be picked to finish better than 11th.
I pointed out that Pitt also lost four STARTERS but is picked 6th.
News flash: 6th is better than 11th.
Now, for most normal people--that would have ended it. Quite obviously, pre-season picks AREN"T based on the number of STARTERS returning nor does losing four STARTERS preclude a team from being picked higher than 11th place--the obvious case of Pitt proves it.
Instead YOU try and twist the argument and make the equally boneheaded contention that, no its not the number of starters--it's the number of "contributors" that matter. Based on the players you named, I have to believe that you have a very loose definition of "contributor"--and quality could not possibly have anything to do with it.
To prove how boneheaded that statement is, all I have to do is point out that DePaul has more contributors returning.
So then I get your pithy "quality has to be considered."
Really, Einstein? Quality matters? Who knew!
Of COURSE quality matters. That was MY point in the first place.
Not the number of starters.
Not the number of "contributors"--whatever THAT means.
I should have just called you out on putting forth the notion that you think a team anchored by Wannamaker, Dixon, Gibbs and Ashton will be a league contender.
Quote from: Marquette84 on August 28, 2009, 10:54:20 PM
I should have just called you out on putting forth the notion that you think a team anchored by Wannamaker, Dixon, Gibbs and Ashton will be a league contender.
Who said they would be a contender? Do I think they are poised to win the league?...No
But...the fact that they have 4 talented contributers coming back, justifies their ranking.
We lost 4 starters, only have 2 players coming back that did anything last year, 6 new players, and a 2nd year head coach...one can expect a low pre-season prjection.
Pitt lost 4 starters, but has 4 talented players coming back, ready to step in to starting roles...
Are you able to see the difference?
(edit: /quote fixed)
Quote from: GOMU1104 on August 29, 2009, 08:08:35 AM
Who said they would be a contender? Do I think they are poised to win the league?...No
But...the fact that they have 4 talented contributers coming back, justifies their ranking.
We lost 4 starters, only have 2 players coming back that did anything last year, 6 new players, and a 2nd year head coach...one can expect a low pre-season prjection.
Pitt lost 4 starters, but has 4 talented players coming back, ready to step in to starting roles...
Are you able to see the difference?
(edit: /quote fixed)
God help us this season if Ashton Gibbs or Brad Wannamaker are better players than DJO and Buycks. If you truly think that Gibbs and Wannamaker will become better quality starters in the Big East, then I don't think you're actually doing anything more than looking at the roster and claiming by default that a returning player must be better.
Quote from: Marquette84 on August 29, 2009, 11:32:29 AM
God help us this season if Ashton Gibbs or Brad Wannamaker are better players than DJO and Buycks. If you truly think that Gibbs and Wannamaker will become better quality starters in the Big East, then I don't think you're actually doing anything more than looking at the roster and claiming by default that a returning player must be better.
What makes you so confident that Odom and Buycks won't be less quality then Gibbs or Wannamaker?
Quote from: Marquette84 on August 28, 2009, 10:54:20 PM
Let me spell it out for YOU:
AlumKofC93 said that pre-season polls are based on returning STARTERS and when you lose that number of STARTERS you can't be picked to finish better than 11th.
I pointed out that Pitt also lost four STARTERS but is picked 6th.
News flash: 6th is better than 11th.
Now, for most normal people--that would have ended it.
Actually, most normal people wouldn't get this fired up about the Yahoo pre-season BE power rankings.