MUScoop

Some facts ....

Currently 11th in both polls (AP and USA)

Highest REGULAR SEASON MU ranking since the 1970s, #8 in 2002, 2007 and 2008.

-----------

I vote for #9 

The four teams with losses above us (#1 UK with 1 loss, #4 NC with 2 losses, #7 Duke with 1 loss, #9 Uconn with 1 loss) are going to see the undefeated teams move ahead of them. 

I think we jump Missouri (#10) as they have not beaten anyone in the last two weeks (NW State, 'nova who is not good and Navy) whereas we won at Wisc. and Wash on a neutral court. 

I also think we'll jump #9 Uconn because they have #1 loss and only beaten Ark and Harvard in the last two weeks.  Yes Harvard is ranked this week (first time in school history, and the school was founded in 1636!) but the game was at Uconn.

Unless someone in the 7-10 range loses tomorrow. UConn beat a ranked Harvard team
and Mizzou beat an overrated but still well-respected Villanova team. No one who lost will fall this far. 

We already got the UW-Madison bump.  The only thing the voters will be going on this week is the UWashington game and the UW-GB game that just ended.  No one near us lost so we won't move up at all, and I could see us losing a slot due to voters overrating Kansas' defeat of a Sullinger-less Ohio St. today.

Quote from: brewcity77 on December 10, 2011, 11:01:32 PM
Unless someone in the 7-10 range loses tomorrow. UConn beat a ranked Harvard team
and Mizzou beat an overrated but still well-respected Villanova team. No one who lost will fall this far. 

Everyone in the top 15 played today.  Have to go down to #16 Alabama to find a Sunday game (against Detroit).

Side question, with UK and OSU losing today, is current #3 Syracuse #1 next week?

Staying put at 11.

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on December 10, 2011, 11:08:42 PM
Everyone in the top 15 played today.  Have to go down to #16 Alabama to find a Sunday game (against Detroit).

Side question, with UK and OSU losing today, is current #3 Syracuse #1 next week?

Thought so. Syracuse #1 and Louisville #2.

OSU lost without Sullinger. Kentucky loses at the buzzer. They won't drop much. certainly won't drop behind us.

11 and holding.

I see Kansas jumping us and Cuse at 1.

Which poll AP or ESPN/USA today?

Quote from: AnotherMU84 on December 10, 2011, 11:08:42 PM
Everyone in the top 15 played today.  Have to go down to #16 Alabama to find a Sunday game (against Detroit).

Side question, with UK and OSU losing today, is current #3 Syracuse #1 next week?

I think they have to be.  Is it weird that I legitimately think that a fully healthy MU team could at least run with any of the top 10 teams in the nation?

Quote from: g0lden3agle on December 11, 2011, 02:28:12 AM
I think they have to be.  Is it weird that I legitimately think that a fully healthy MU team could at least run with any of the top 10 teams in the nation?

WTF? Obviously we can run with any of the top 10 healthy. We are 11 to start with.

Is it possible that Xavier would fall because of their unsportsman like conduct. Just thinking that's all.

Quote from: muwarrior69 on December 11, 2011, 06:45:04 AM
Is it possible that Xavier would fall because of their unsportsman like conduct. Just thinking that's all.

Why not?  The polls are based on the decisions of voters.  So they are wrapped in human emotion and irrationality.  

That is why a 2 loss UNC team is #4.  Voters are convinced they are the best team in the land and even losses are not going to get them downgraded.  (For the record they may be the best, but after 2 losses they should not even be in the top 15.  Let them win their way back up, which they will.  They just assume they will and ignore their losses.  No other team this this kind of treatment, not even Duke.)

How about this?  Syracuse gets #1 this week, and the Bernie Fine molestation case turns bad/embarrassing for Boeheim and/or Syracuse (just saying here), do they lose their #1 ranking as a protest?

Xavier's the one I could see falling if hefty suspensions come out today. It really seems like Syracuse will retain Boeheim...that midseason implosion seems unlikely.

But dropping UNC, why? They lost on the road at UNLV and were rightly dropped a few places. Then they lost by 1 to the top-rated team in the land. Saying they shouldn't be in the top-15 because of those two losses is like saying MU shouldn't be ranked if they went to Syracuse this week and lost by one.

As nice as top-ten would be, I'd take anything that resulted in a top-4 seed. That way you get two games as a favorite (provided you win) and then have to play really good teams the rest of the way.

Quote from: brewcity77 on December 11, 2011, 07:31:33 AM
Xavier's the one I could see falling if hefty suspensions come out today. It really seems like Syracuse will retain Boeheim...that midseason implosion seems unlikely.

But dropping UNC, why? They lost on the road at UNLV and were rightly dropped a few places. Then they lost by 1 to the top-rated team in the land. Saying they shouldn't be in the top-15 because of those two losses is like saying MU shouldn't be ranked if they went to Syracuse this week and lost by one.

As nice as top-ten would be, I'd take anything that resulted in a top-4 seed. That way you get two games as a favorite (provided you win) and then have to play really good teams the rest of the way.

I agree that Xavier's ranking will depend on the suspensions their team faces.  If no decisions are made by voting time, they will stay where they are.  If a few guys have to sit out several games, wouldn't be surprised to see them in the 12-15 range.

I am fairly certian more than one voter will leave Xavier off their Top 25 list as a matter of principle, regardless of suspensions.

Syracuse will be #1.  Kansas will probably jump us.  I'd say we hold at #11.

I voted #10, but I actually think we might fall to #12.

Kansas will most likely jump in front of us, and I don't see any team currently in front of us falling.

#1 Syracuse
#2 Kentucky
#3 tOSU
#4 UNC
#5 Louisville  (Should be filipped with UNC, but I don't see why it will change from last week)
#6 Baylor
#7 Duke
#8 Kansas
#9 Xavier
#10 UCONN
#11 Missou
#12 Marquette


I hope I am wrong..but it doesn't really matter.

Maybe 10?  The important thing is that I believe we are legit and will stay ranked around the top 10 all season.  That would be a great achievement!  If you're not excited about the future of this program,  you don't know "JACK SQUAT!" (in a Matt Foley voice)

I'm curious where Indiana will be ranked after the victory over UK

Indiana will jump us

^^^ This would surprise me. Mid-teens, maybe, but Indiana should NOT be in the top 10.

Quote from: boyonthedock on December 11, 2011, 06:32:02 PMIndiana will jump us

Funny  :D

In all honesty, IU will probably jump into the low-teens in the Coaches' Poll and into the 20s in the AP Poll. But no one win, especially at home, will jump a team from unranked into the top ten.

I understand what I am going to say is going to sound like blasphemy on this board, but why should Indiana not be in the top 10?  I know that they will NOT be ranked above Kentucky, but they should be.  They are undefeated and just beat the number one team in the country.  What more should a team have to do to be ranked in the top 10?  Just because they weren't ranked to start the year because of a few awful years in a row?  The voters now have the sample that they needed to see how they stack up against strong teams, and they passed with flying colors.  They have the biggest win of the year so far.  I hate Indiana, and I hate Tom Crean even more than I hate Indiana.  But I don't think there's any way you can justify not putting them above Kentucky.  Kentucky has 1 loss.  Indiana has 0 losses.  Kentucky and Indiana played each other, and Indiana won.  Indiana should be above Kentucky, who should be above North Carolina.  So if Indiana shouldn't be ranked in the top 10, then neither should those two teams.  Otherwise if the rankings came out and Wisconsin was ranked ahead of us on Monday, there should be no complaining.

Because they haven't really beaten anyone else. And the win was at home. If they played that game 10 times, how many would Indiana win? My guess is 2-3. And that's at home. Put it on a neutral court, or at Rupp, and their odds would get even slimmer.

Besides, I have nothing wrong with having to work your way up. UK went to a Final Four and returns many of the same players, and the ones that are new are more highly regarded. They beat Kansas and North Carolina. And if they continue to lose, they'll keep falling. But one game shouldn't determine rankings. MU doesn't deserve to be #1 just because UK, tOSU, Duke, and UNC ahead of them all have losses. By that logic, Murray State should also be top-10. I just don't see it yet.

And besides...the voters vote on history. Unless you can change the demographics of the voters, you won't likely change how they vote.

Quote from: brewcity77 on December 11, 2011, 08:13:34 PM
Because they haven't really beaten anyone else. And the win was at home. If they played that game 10 times, how many would Indiana win? My guess is 2-3. And that's at home. Put it on a neutral court, or at Rupp, and their odds would get even slimmer.

Besides, I have nothing wrong with having to work your way up. UK went to a Final Four and returns many of the same players, and the ones that are new are more highly regarded. They beat Kansas and North Carolina. And if they continue to lose, they'll keep falling. But one game shouldn't determine rankings. MU doesn't deserve to be #1 just because UK, tOSU, Duke, and UNC ahead of them all have losses. By that logic, Murray State should also be top-10. I just don't see it yet.

And besides...the voters vote on history. Unless you can change the demographics of the voters, you won't likely change how they vote.

No, by that logic Murray State should not be top 10.  Murray State did not beat the #1 team in the country.  If Indiana already had 3 losses, 2 losses, a bad loss, any loss whatsoever then you are right that they should not be ranked higher.  But the fact is they haven't lost AND they beat the #1 team in the country.  Again, I know the voters will not have them above Kentucky.  But there is no way to justify that.  I don't care who would win more if they played 10 times.  I don't care who would win if they played at the Rupp or on a neutral site.  They played at Indiana and Indiana won.  They won't play at Kentucky and they won't play 10 times.  The only thing we know is that Indiana beat Kentucky and Indiana has not lost a game.  Therefore Indiana should be ranked above Kentucky.  I get that Kentucky beat Kansas and North Carolina.  Maybe if those 2 teams had played Indiana and beat them then there is a way to justify keeping Indiana below Kentucky, but they haven't.  All we know is that Indiana beat Kentucky when they played.  We can't guess what would happen if they played in 9 more games, which won't happen.  We can't guess what would happen if they played at a different site, which won't happen.  That argument makes no sense.

Here is Seth Davis's ballot:

1. Ohio St 2. Syr 3. UK 4. UNC 5. Duke 6. Fla 7. Baylot 8. Lou 9. Xav 10. Mizzou 11. Kan 12. UConn 13. Marq 14. Gtown 15. Wisc 16. Vandy 17. Miss St 18. Mich St 19. IU 20. Pitt 21. Illinois 22. UNLV 23. Gonz 24. Harvard 25. Creighton

http://twitter.com/SethDavisHoops

Is UNLV rated higher than UNC.   Was Chaminade rated higher than Virginia 30 years ago (I know, they are (D3)?    Was DePaul better than us two years ago?   Voters vote on body of work.   HUGE win for IU and they should be proud, but Kentucky is still the better team.

Quote from: tower912 on December 11, 2011, 08:25:10 PM
Is UNLV rated higher than UNC.   Was Chaminade rated higher than Virginia 30 years ago (I know, they are (D3)?    Was DePaul better than us two years ago?   Voters vote on body of work.   HUGE win for IU and they should be proud, but Kentucky is still the better team.

That is my exact point.  No, UNLV is not rated higher because in their body of work they also have losses to Wichita State and to Wisconsin.  Chaminade had losses 30 years ago that Virginia did not.  DePaul won 1 game in the Big East 2 years ago.  The body of work of those teams are not the same as Indiana's.  Indiana's body of work is they are undefeated and beat the #1 team in the country.  There is no way to justify keeping Kentucky above them, or saying that "Kentucky is still the better team."  All we know is that Indiana and Kentucky have played once, and Indiana won the game.  Indiana also does not have a loss.  So their body of work makes it so that they should be ranked higher.  There is no other way to interpret their body of work.  Show me something in their body of work that suggests they should be ranked lower than Kentucky.  The win against Kentucky?  The loss that they don't have?

Quote from: wadesworld on December 11, 2011, 08:52:01 PM
That is my exact point.  No, UNLV is not rated higher because in their body of work they also have losses to Wichita State and to Wisconsin.  Chaminade had losses 30 years ago that Virginia did not.  DePaul won 1 game in the Big East 2 years ago.  The body of work of those teams are not the same as Indiana's.  Indiana's body of work is they are undefeated and beat the #1 team in the country.  There is no way to justify keeping Kentucky above them, or saying that "Kentucky is still the better team."  All we know is that Indiana and Kentucky have played once, and Indiana won the game.  Indiana also does not have a loss.  So their body of work makes it so that they should be ranked higher.  There is no other way to interpret their body of work.  Show me something in their body of work that suggests they should be ranked lower than Kentucky.  The win against Kentucky?  The loss that they don't have?

That they weren't expected to be any good, and they have won like 8 Big Ten games in the past three years.

Rankings are an average of what 30+ writers/coaches think. They don't mean much...and IU will not be in the Top 10 next week. And they shouldn't be.

Quote from: wadesworld on December 11, 2011, 08:52:01 PMThat is my exact point.  No, UNLV is not rated higher because in their body of work they also have losses to Wichita State and to Wisconsin.  Chaminade had losses 30 years ago that Virginia did not.  DePaul won 1 game in the Big East 2 years ago.  The body of work of those teams are not the same as Indiana's.  Indiana's body of work is they are undefeated and beat the #1 team in the country.  There is no way to justify keeping Kentucky above them, or saying that "Kentucky is still the better team."  All we know is that Indiana and Kentucky have played once, and Indiana won the game.  Indiana also does not have a loss.  So their body of work makes it so that they should be ranked higher.  There is no other way to interpret their body of work.  Show me something in their body of work that suggests they should be ranked lower than Kentucky.  The win against Kentucky?  The loss that they don't have?

Okay, for starters, strength of schedule. IU's opponents have a winning percentage of .438 and they have only beaten two teams all year with a winning record, including Kentucky. Meanwhile, UK's opponents have a winning percentage of .548 and they have beaten 4 teams with winning records, including two that are top-15 teams (Kansas and UNC).

In addition, home court is considered to add 3 points. On a neutral court, UK would be considered (based on the IU 1-point win) to be a 2-point winner, and a 5-point winner at home. Quite simply, winning at home is never as impressive as winning on a neutral site or on the road.

And quite simply, when it comes to voting, a single game never defines a season. IU had a massive win, but thus far, UK has still had a more impressive season. Six of IU's wins come against teams that have 3 wins or less. By contrast, UK has only played 2 such teams. It's not just about winning, but who you are winning against. Yes, IU has one great win, but other than that, they've pretty much done squat. And no matter how great one day may be, it's not as important as overall body of work.

Quote from: JamilJaeJamailJrJuan on December 11, 2011, 09:03:24 PM
That they weren't expected to be any good, and they have won like 8 Big Ten games in the past three years.

Rankings are an average of what 30+ writers/coaches think. They don't mean much...and IU will not be in the Top 10 next week. And they shouldn't be.

The past 3 years mean nothing for this year.  If that was the case, then why wasn't Butler ranked in the top 2 of the preseason polls?  They've made it to the National Championship each of the past 2 seasons.  New year.  New roster.

I know what polls are and what they mean.  If you truly believe that IU SHOULD not be (I know they WILL not be) in the top 10 next week, then you have to believe that Kentucky should not either.  There is no way to justify saying that Kentucky SHOULD be ranked higher than IU in next week's poll.  Now, if IU loses to University of (enter whatever no name school they play next week here) next week, then yes, you can make that argument because they lost to somebody.  But until they have a loss, I do not understand how one could justify ranking a team with 1 loss higher than a team that they lost to, who also has 0 losses for the year.

Quote from: brewcity77 on December 11, 2011, 09:14:34 PM
Okay, for starters, strength of schedule. IU's opponents have a winning percentage of .438 and they have only beaten two teams all year with a winning record, including Kentucky. Meanwhile, UK's opponents have a winning percentage of .548 and they have beaten 4 teams with winning records, including two that are top-15 teams (Kansas and UNC).

In addition, home court is considered to add 3 points. On a neutral court, UK would be considered (based on the IU 1-point win) to be a 2-point winner, and a 5-point winner at home. Quite simply, winning at home is never as impressive as winning on a neutral site or on the road.

And quite simply, when it comes to voting, a single game never defines a season. IU had a massive win, but thus far, UK has still had a more impressive season. Six of IU's wins come against teams that have 3 wins or less. By contrast, UK has only played 2 such teams. It's not just about winning, but who you are winning against. Yes, IU has one great win, but other than that, they've pretty much done squat. And no matter how great one day may be, it's not as important as overall body of work.

That's all great.  The fact of the matter is that Indiana has beaten everybody on their schedule.  We can not guess as to whether or not Indiana would be undefeated or not if they played Kentucky's schedule, because they don't.  And you can't try to discredit a team for getting a big win at home rather than on the road.  You provide Kentucky's win over UNC, yet that was a 1 point win at home.  So should we discredit that win?  Should UNC then be ranked higher than Kentucky?  They started the year ranked higher and lost on the road by 1, why should Kentucky have leaped them in that week's poll?

And you are right, a single game doesn't define a season.  But again, the Hoosiers have ZERO losses.  There is nothing that you can look at on IU's schedule and say "well, they lost this game, so they clearly just had a great game against Kentucky, got lucky, and their season is not good."  There is absolutely no way that anyone can possibly justify having an undefeated team ranked lower than a team that it just beat.  Again, if they had a loss to a different team, 4 losses on the year, I get that.  But they don't.  They haven't lost.  So these are the 2 things in Indiana's body of work vs. Kentukcky's body of work that SHOULD (I know it's not how it really goes) matter:

- Indiana: 0 loses - Kentucky: 1 loss - Indiana has the advantage here, but OK, their schedule isn't as tough so based solely on that you can't reason that Indiana should be ranked higher.  But here is where you HAVE to reason that they should:
- INDIANA BEAT KENTUCKY.  With Kentucky having a loss and Indiana being undefeated with a win over Kentucky, you cannot possibly reason Kentucky should be ranked higher.  Again, point out some kind of loss in Indiana's body of work, and we can talk.  Until then, there is no reason ranking a 1 loss Kentucky team ahead of an undefeated Indiana team that just beat them, regardless of who else has been on their schedule so far.

Indiana played a great game, but I don't think you'll see too many teams shoot 60% (9-15) from 3 point range.  In the second half, it seemed they never missed.

Personally, there are a number of things from the game on Sat that would cause me to vote Kentucky over IU if I had a vote.  First, at the end of the game IU's point guard was simply unable to guard Teague, and IU did not come up with an answer for that.  If that's the best defense that IU can play on a penetrating guard, that spells trouble down the road.  It seemed like Calipari spent the first 32 minutes or so waiting for Terrence Jones to show up and when he didn't, Calipari went somewhere else and it went pretty well.  Davis missed a lot of time and when he played his defense was compromised due to foul trouble.  That changed the game quite a bit.  Also, IU was not comfortable offensively down the stretch.  A lot of empty possessions.

Clearly, IU did things well.  IU scored at a higher rate than teams normally do against Kentucky.  Watford and Oladipo both looked pretty good.  Zeller looked like an underutilized asset that could improve the team if IU learns how to use him.

I just look at it as if I had to bet about which team would go further in the NCAA tournament based on what I've seen of the teams, I would bet on Kentucky to go probably 2 rounds further.  That's why I would vote them higher.

That being said, I could care less if a voter voted IU #1 and Kentucky #25, and another voter voted Kentucky #1 and IU #25.    It's not college football.  It doesn't matter.  Thank god.

All of the voters have their own criteria, but if I were a voter I would rank UK ahead of IU for one simple reason: I believe they are a better team. I know IU won, and that's a great win, but I still believe on a nightly basis Kentucky is a better team than Indiana. In my opinion, the ranking is about more than individual games. If it weren't, then every undefeated team would have to be ranked ahead of every team with one loss.

The rankings are based on the whole of the NCAA, not just individual comparisons. Maybe IU is Kentucky's kryptonite, but does that mean they'd perform as well against the rest of the top-25? For me, the rankings should be about who's generally the best team in the country and would win most often against the rest of the teams. Despite one night in December, I still think UK passes that criteria better than IU.

I expected a little more of a bump last week, Huggins week I'm more worried about kansas jumping us after beating OSU, but hopefully not since sullinger was out.  The one thing helping us will bebthebwisconsin win looking better and better every week.

Still 11th in Coaches poll