Granted it is Vitale but,
MU not on it, although the rodents checked in at 27
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/dickvitale/news/story?id=5292918
St.John's #39, we'll see.
I think MU belongs on this list, but at the same time i like flying under the radar, I think teams plays better with no preassure or big expectations.
Quote from: mupanther on June 18, 2010, 01:08:51 PM
St.John's #39, we'll see.
They should be a NCAA team this year.....for clarity, that is a PREDICTION...I hope Dimes is keeping note. PREDICTION
33. Minnesota: "Never count out Tubby Smith's club. The return of Blake Hoffarber is a key for the Golden Gophers"
I stopped reading after that....too bad I had to get all the way down to 33 before I realized this article was horse crap.
We lost a lot with our three seniors last year. There are question marks at PG and Center. No one knows if DJO is a one hit wonder. No one knows how Butler will come out next year. I am excited for the team next year, but for the people who only watch MU in passing, I can understand not putting MU on there.
MU has a lot to prove. Jimmy can put up a big game against Kyle Singler on both ends of the floor and we can upset the champs in Kansas City to catch everyone's eye.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 18, 2010, 01:26:54 PM
They should be a NCAA team this year.....for clarity, that is a PREDICTION...I hope Dimes is keeping note. PREDICTION
We better finish above St. John's
Who cares? I'm just glad Crean's gone!!
Go Marquette! Go Go Go Go!
Reading Vitale's team by team description-- you can tell he's doing very little homework--almost phoning it in--and he is picking some on sheer historical/coach reputation(not even naming any players).
I remember some years ago, during a game broadcast , Dicky V kept gushing over his ENRON stock, and telling all the viewers to invest in ENRON---way to pick 'em Dick!
I'm not worried at all about Butler. The time for that was prior to last season, but he stepped up better than anyone had a right to expect.
Quote from: flash on June 18, 2010, 01:14:39 PM
I think MU belongs on this list, but at the same time i like flying under the radar, I think teams plays better with no preassure or big expectations.
based on what? We have tons of question marks.
Quote from: houwarrior on June 18, 2010, 05:00:40 PM
Reading Vitale's team by team description-- you can tell he's doing very little homework--almost phoning it in--and he is picking some on sheer historical/coach reputation(not even naming any players).
I remember some years ago, during a game broadcast , Dicky V kept gushing over his ENRON stock, and telling all the viewers to invest in ENRON---way to pick 'em Dick!
This is why I don't like pre-season polls....the coaches and writers do the same thing...phone it in.
Quote from: Boone on June 18, 2010, 06:12:46 PM
I'm not worried at all about Butler. The time for that was prior to last season, but he stepped up better than anyone had a right to expect.
I'm not worried either but I think that the national pollsters would probably be suspicious. It is not fair to the guys, but if you are not a highly ranked recruit people will be a little suspicious of your output because the player might be lucky. Not everyone, of course, but some will. DJO and Butler do not have the usual resume out of high school for the possible All-Big East players that they are, so some in the media will want them to prove it again before giving a team that they lead a strong ranking. Not that these guys probably werent good in high school and JUCO, but they did not have the hype that drives preseason rankings.
On a related note, I was having a discussion with a buddy about the Pistons drafting Darko with a lot of players on board in 2003. He thinks that the Pistons could have been right to be suspicious of Wade since he kind of came out of nowhere from high school nationally and there is no way to know if he got lucky in the tourney. He thinks Wade proved to be a lottery pick while at MU, but not to take that high. My buddy thinks passing on Melo was inexcusable, but not necessarily Wade if you keep the context of Darko's hype in mind. Miami made out all right I think, but that type of arguement exemplies the credence people might give to reputations out of high school and the hype of the rankings.
OK, Hoops. I see what you mean now.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 18, 2010, 01:26:54 PM
They should be a NCAA team this year.....for clarity, that is a PREDICTION...I hope Dimes is keeping note. PREDICTION
You said last year that they would be a tournament team last year i believe and other people were talking them up. I was right there with you, I thought they would be a tough team. However, they fell pretty flat. So I'm not sure I'm ready to call them a NCAA tournament team.
Quote from: cheebs09 on June 18, 2010, 09:26:42 PM
You said last year that they would be a tournament team last year i believe and other people were talking them up. I was right there with you, I thought they would be a tough team. However, they fell pretty flat. So I'm not sure I'm ready to call them a NCAA tournament team.
Don't think so. I just went into the search function and went back 2 years and couldn't find anything where I said they would make the NCAA.
I did say it three times in the last 5 months that they will make it in 2010-11...perhaps that is what you are referencing?
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=20509.0
Quote from: HoopsMalone on June 18, 2010, 07:13:44 PM
I'm not worried either but I think that the national pollsters would probably be suspicious. It is not fair to the guys, but if you are not a highly ranked recruit people will be a little suspicious of your output because the player might be lucky. Not everyone, of course, but some will. DJO and Butler do not have the usual resume out of high school for the possible All-Big East players that they are, so some in the media will want them to prove it again before giving a team that they lead a strong ranking. Not that these guys probably werent good in high school and JUCO, but they did not have the hype that drives preseason rankings.
On a related note, I was having a discussion with a buddy about the Pistons drafting Darko with a lot of players on board in 2003. He thinks that the Pistons could have been right to be suspicious of Wade since he kind of came out of nowhere from high school nationally and there is no way to know if he got lucky in the tourney. He thinks Wade proved to be a lottery pick while at MU, but not to take that high. My buddy thinks passing on Melo was inexcusable, but not necessarily Wade if you keep the context of Darko's hype in mind. Miami made out all right I think, but that type of arguement exemplies the credence people might give to reputations out of high school and the hype of the rankings.
But similar to the idea that Wade "got lucky" in the tourney, remember that Melo was only a freshman. Yes, highly touted coming out of high school and leading Syracuse to the national championship, but teams might have justifiably wondered whether he "got lucky" for a season and might not perform as well in the NBA. There is a degree of speculation in the draft, and teams sometimes get lucky and sometimes do not.
Quote from: mug644 on June 19, 2010, 01:27:08 AM
But similar to the idea that Wade "got lucky" in the tourney, remember that Melo was only a freshman. Yes, highly touted coming out of high school and leading Syracuse to the national championship, but teams might have justifiably wondered whether he "got lucky" for a season and might not perform as well in the NBA. There is a degree of speculation in the draft, and teams sometimes get lucky and sometimes do not.
I'd say putting up 20-10-7 in the national championship game isn't "getting lucky."
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=234000063
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 18, 2010, 10:29:43 PM
Don't think so. I just went into the search function and went back 2 years and couldn't find anything where I said they would make the NCAA.
I did say it three times in the last 5 months that they will make it in 2010-11...perhaps that is what you are referencing?
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=20509.0
Sorry maybe it was just that they would finish ahead of us. I remember there were some preseason rankings that had them ahead of us, and people were upset. Either way I agreed with that and thought they had a lot of experienced talent, but they were pretty disappointing. So I guess I'm just skeptical about their chances to be a top 40 team this year.
Not surprised we are not in his top 40 - lots of unknowns on our team this year - so hopefully we will surprise.....
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 18, 2010, 06:58:37 PM
This is why I don't like pre-season polls....the coaches and writers do the same thing...phone it in.
Dick Vitale's pre-season poll has St Johns 39th and 7th in the Big East which would certainly result in an NCAA bid. CBB's pre-season poll isn't as specific but also has the Johnnies in the tournament. Vitale is "phoning in" his projection but Chico is not? Based on what?
Quote from: HoopsMalone on June 18, 2010, 07:13:44 PM
On a related note, I was having a discussion with a buddy about the Pistons drafting Darko with a lot of players on board in 2003. He thinks that the Pistons could have been right to be suspicious of Wade since he kind of came out of nowhere from high school nationally and there is no way to know if he got lucky in the tourney. He thinks Wade proved to be a lottery pick while at MU, but not to take that high. My buddy thinks passing on Melo was inexcusable, but not necessarily Wade if you keep the context of Darko's hype in mind. Miami made out all right I think, but that type of arguement exemplies the credence people might give to reputations out of high school and the hype of the rankings.
Wade dropped, not because he "came out of nowhere," but because teams were suspicious of his outside shooting.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on June 21, 2010, 09:15:33 AM
Wade dropped, not because he "came out of nowhere," but because teams were suspicious of his outside shooting.
Wade ended up being drafted higher than anyone had him projected. To say he "dropped" is inaccurate.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 21, 2010, 09:27:28 AM
Wade ended up being drafted higher than anyone had him projected. To say he "dropped" is inaccurate.
You are right because a lot of people thought the Bulls would get Wade at 7. I remember that TJ Ford was projected ahead of him even. He did go higher than expected. James, Melo, and Bosh were ahead of him, and all justifiably so at the time. The senseless gamble was taking Darko with all of that talent on the board. Both Wade and Melo proved their worth in the tourney and the Pistons took Darko, the next Dirk supposedly. Who knows what they saw, but even picking Kirk Hinrich probably would have been enough of a boost to win game 7 against the Spurs in the Finals a few years back. Big mistake by the Pistons.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 21, 2010, 09:27:28 AM
Wade ended up being drafted higher than anyone had him projected. To say he "dropped" is inaccurate.
Yes, you are correct. I used the wrong term. I should have said that he wasn't graded as high because of concerns over his outside shooting.
Steve Lavins...new St John coach is Vitales buddy from ESPN...picking the Johnnies to be in his top 40 was soely to help his buddy & also with his recruiting.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 21, 2010, 08:59:43 AM
Dick Vitale's pre-season poll has St Johns 39th and 7th in the Big East which would certainly result in an NCAA bid. CBB's pre-season poll isn't as specific but also has the Johnnies in the tournament. Vitale is "phoning in" his projection but Chico is not? Based on what?
I say phoning it because these guys don't look at all 350 teams to be able to say this team is 39th best. It's absurd.
You'll note that I didn't make any prediction like that in terms of where they are slotted. I'm basing my evaluation on what they did last year, how many close games they had which they should win this year with another year under their belt, they return most of their team and they have a new coach.
By the way, is it 66% or 75%.....
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 21, 2010, 12:22:20 PM
I say phoning it because these guys don't look at all 350 teams to be able to say this team is 39th best. It's absurd.
You'll note that I didn't make any prediction like that in terms of where they are slotted. I'm basing my evaluation on what they did last year, how many close games they had which they should win this year with another year under their belt, they return most of their team and they have a new coach.
By the way, is it 66% or 75%.....
First of all, it's not really necessary to look at any more than about 120 teams when compiling a top 25 or top 40 since the bottom 230 are basically irrelevant to the discussion. And of course 39 is really a "grouping" (30-50) which translates into approximately a 7th place Big East finish and a 7-10 seed in the NCAA tournament. That's pretty much where I figured you also had St Johns slotted when you said you thought they would make the tournament. I don't know Vitale's methodology, but is it unrealistic to think he included last year's results (including the closeness of some losses), returning players and a new coach? No offense, but these are hardly groundbreaking concepts.
The point is that whether it's Dick Vitale, the Blue Ribbon Yearbook or fans like us, there is plenty of data available on which to base projections. And when that data leads prognosticators to similar conclusions they're right more often than not. Over the long haul I'll trust their judgement over someone who's an unabashed fan or hater. That also goes for someone who manipulates the data to conform with a prejudice or agenda (not talking about you).
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 21, 2010, 02:26:23 PM
First of all, it's not really necessary to look at any more than about 120 teams when compiling a top 25 or top 40 since the bottom 230 are basically irrelevant to the discussion. And of course 39 is really a "grouping" (30-50) which translates into approximately a 7th place Big East finish and a 7-10 seed in the NCAA tournament. That's pretty much where I figured you also had St Johns slotted when you said you thought they would make the tournament. I don't know Vitale's methodology, but is it unrealistic to think he included last year's results (including the closeness of some losses), returning players and a new coach? No offense, but these are hardly groundbreaking concepts.
The point is that whether it's Dick Vitale, the Blue Ribbon Yearbook or fans like us, there is plenty of data available on which to base projections. And when that data leads prognosticators to similar conclusions they're right more often than not. Over the long haul I'll trust their judgement over someone who's an unabashed fan or hater. That also goes for someone who manipulates the data to conform with a prejudice or agenda (not talking about you).
Fair enough....in fact I agree that they probably only look at the top 120. That makes the point even more valid. Only looking at 120 teams and still getting so many wrong from preseason to reality is very poor on their part, especially for their so called expertise. They should do a much better job then they do. They pick the top 25 each year out of those 100 or 125 schools, and yet they miss by more than 40%. Not a good track record considering they live and breathe this stuff (allegedly) every day.
The 66% and 75% is bothering me, did I mess up calculation or did one of us just count the teams wrong? I'm referencing the number it takes to kick someone out of the league.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 21, 2010, 02:26:23 PM
First of all, it's not really necessary to look at any more than about 120 teams when compiling a top 25 or top 40 since the bottom 230 are basically irrelevant to the discussion. And of course 39 is really a "grouping" (30-50) which translates into approximately a 7th place Big East finish and a 7-10 seed in the NCAA tournament. That's pretty much where I figured you also had St Johns slotted when you said you thought they would make the tournament. I don't know Vitale's methodology, but is it unrealistic to think he included last year's results (including the closeness of some losses), returning players and a new coach? No offense, but these are hardly groundbreaking concepts.
The point is that whether it's Dick Vitale, the Blue Ribbon Yearbook or fans like us, there is plenty of data available on which to base projections. And when that data leads prognosticators to similar conclusions they're right more often than not. Over the long haul I'll trust their judgement over someone who's an unabashed fan or hater. That also goes for someone who manipulates the data to conform with a prejudice or agenda (not talking about you).
As I am the one first referring to Vitale "phoning it in" such is based on 2 things-
Point 1 -years of watching vitale be enthused for diaper dandies, horrible unreasoned picking by him in NCAA, and if you ever noticed---whoever won the last round game in the most convincing way becomes his new favorite to go all the way--point one is generally, and historically--Dicky is not a Jay Bilas--hes more a cheerleader/homer rooter, than an analyst workhorse.
Point 2-- look at the textual explanations next to his ESPN 2011 picks --some just say things like---so and so's team are always tough....or some dont even mention any player name---it appears he was slotting some without Bilas like study, or any real reasons...and some were slotted on sheer historical likelihood, and/or program/coach reputation---
to me that is phoning it in---something ,imo, Dicky V does more than others--
we still watch , and enjoy him (me included) for the over the top way he talks--I just dont take his pronouncements very seriously.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 21, 2010, 03:34:47 PM
Fair enough....in fact I agree that they probably only look at the top 120. That makes the point even more valid. Only looking at 120 teams and still getting so many wrong from preseason to reality is very poor on their part, especially for their so called expertise. They should do a much better job then they do. They pick the top 25 each year out of those 100 or 125 schools, and yet they miss by more than 40%. Not a good track record considering they live and breathe this stuff (allegedly) every day.
The 66% and 75% is bothering me, did I mess up calculation or did one of us just count the teams wrong? I'm referencing the number it takes to kick someone out of the league.
[/quote
College basketball is hard to project. Only five guys play at a time. Losing one starter can move a top 15 team out of the top 25. Sometimes the keys to a team's season are players who haven't even played in a D1 game (or any college game). All things considered I don't think the "experts" do that badly.
You are absolutely correct on the 75%. Guess with all the expansion talk I inadvertantly added two teams to the Big East.
Quote from: houwarrior on June 21, 2010, 03:49:01 PM
As I am the one first referring to Vitale "phoning it in" such is based on 2 things-
Point 1 -years of watching vitale be enthused for diaper dandies, horrible unreasoned picking by him in NCAA, and if you ever noticed---whoever won the last round game in the most convincing way becomes his new favorite to go all the way--point one is generally, and historically--Dicky is not a Jay Bilas--hes more a cheerleader/homer rooter, than an analyst workhorse.
Point 2-- look at the textual explanations next to his ESPN 2011 picks --some just say things like---so and so's team are always tough....or some dont even mention any player name---it appears he was slotting some without Bilas like study, or any real reasons...and some were slotted on sheer historical likelihood, and/or program/coach reputation---
to me that is phoning it in---something ,imo, Dicky V does more than others--
we still watch , and enjoy him (me included) for the over the top way he talks--I just dont take his pronouncements very seriously.
My experience is that Vitale, while being a serious Al McGuire wannabe, is also well informed when it comes to various teams and their strengths and weaknesses. The one criticism I have of him regarding his prognostications is that he is always on the chalk.