Picked 9th out of 10, ahead of DePaul.
With BR, key is to see who the author is. They've done a decent job the last few years of bringing in guys and gals from reputable newspapers and online sites, but they also still have contributors that don't fit the bill. Chalk this guy up to the latter category. No way this team finishes 9th. I'll say 4th.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2119826-predicting-the-2014-15-big-east-college-basketball-standings
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 05, 2014, 09:59:41 AM
Picked 9th out of 10, ahead of DePaul.
With BR, key is to see who the author is. They've done a decent job the last few years of bringing in guys and gals from reputable newspapers and online sites, but they also still have contributors that don't fit the bill. Chalk this guy up to the latter category. No way this team finishes 9th. I'll say 4th.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2119826-predicting-the-2014-15-big-east-college-basketball-standings
It's just some kid typing up nonsense. If you're going to quote this, might as well quote 19 million other kids typing up similar nonsense. Trash.
BR is as bad as Huffington Post.
Everyone brace yourselves, I don't think this is the last 9th place prediction we'll see. I'm betting 7th-9th place being the norm.
Read the actual analysis. He says that Nick is coming in this year and besides Fischer there isn't a person over 6'7" when we have Steve Taylor. Awful.
I think you will see a lot of low predictions from people. The team underachieved last year and there are a lot of questions about how good a lot of these guys can be. Also, we will not be at full strength until after the first semester. I would rather this team go into the season with a chip on the shoulder to prove the talent was there last year but the coaching/rotations were lacking and being picked only ahead of DePaul can only add more logs to the fire.
Quote from: chitownwarrior2011 on July 05, 2014, 10:26:45 AM
Read the actual analysis. He says that Nick is coming in this year and besides Fischer there isn't a person over 6'7" when we have Steve Taylor. Awful.
Yeah, just read that too about Noskowiak. It's not worth paying attention to based on that alone. No writer worth their salt does that little homework before putting their name to a story.
Quote from: chitownwarrior2011 on July 05, 2014, 10:26:45 AM
Read the actual analysis. He says that Nick is coming in this year and besides Fischer there isn't a person over 6'7" when we have Steve Taylor. Awful.
Putting Noskowiak on this year's team is pathetic, but I've always seen Taylor listed as 6'7". It's not like he's 6'10" and that statement was made. They are a very small team, that part isn't inaccurate.
Quote from: HutchwasClutch on July 05, 2014, 10:32:34 AM
Putting Noskowiak on this year's team is pathetic, but I've always seen Taylor listed as 6'7". It's not like he's 6'10" and that statement was made. They are a very small team, that part isn't inaccurate.
Yes, MU has always listed Steve at 6'7". Indeed, this is a rather small team, especially until Fischer is eligible to play.
But he plays like 6'10" with broad shoulders.
He projects Derrick Wilson and Sandy Cohen to start. Humm.....
"The Golden Eagles will have some great senior guards in Wilson, Carlino and Mayo..."
My guess is that this is written by some sloob who is a fan of one of the other programs, and has just a passing interest in everyone else in the league.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on July 05, 2014, 10:05:09 AM
BR is as bad as Huffington Post.
All depends on the author. They have some contributors now from NY Times, LA Times, SI, etc. They also have a lot of nonsense.
Quote from: LittleMurs on July 05, 2014, 10:45:00 AM
He projects Derrick Wilson and Sandy Cohen to start. Humm.....
I stopped reading after I saw Noskowiak's name. Sandy Cohen starting, boy that is truly bad analysis. Nothing against Cohen at all, seems to have really strong potential, but I can't see it happening out of the gate.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 05, 2014, 10:45:25 AM
All depends on the author. They have some contributors now from NY Times, LA Times, SI, etc. They also have a lot of nonsense.
And this boy who you brought our attention to is nonsense.
Quote from: Jay Bee on July 05, 2014, 10:49:22 AM
And this boy who you brought our attention to is nonsense.
Yet its out there, and people click on those links and read that stuff. The average Joe may not know. Good to understand what folks are saying. I don't disagree with you, but I am not going to ignore that its there either.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 05, 2014, 11:00:59 AM
Yet its out there, and people click on those links and read that stuff. The average Joe may not know.
Especially the average Joe that's getting this post from BR's TeamStream thingamajig.
This won't be the last prediction like this so you may as well get used to it, relax, and let it go. Because the bottom line is that next year's team is small, not deep up front, with 1.5 proven scorers, Carlino and Mayo. Every other player that we can all name MAY be really good, but at that point it is just a hope. If absolutely everything falls into place correctly, this could be a good team. But that can be said about many, if not most, teams.
I'm actually pretty excited that no one is taking us seriously.
When we're cutting down nets in late March, we'll see who isn't taking us seriously!
'Bout as accurate as the pundits were by pickin' us to win the Big East last season, hey?
Quote from: tower912 on July 05, 2014, 02:01:54 PM
This won't be the last prediction like this so you may as well get used to it, relax, and let it go. Because the bottom line is that next year's team is small, not deep up front, with 1.5 proven scorers, Carlino and Mayo. Every other player that we can all name MAY be really good, but at that point it is just a hope. If absolutely everything falls into place correctly, this could be a good team. But that can be said about many, if not most, teams.
I agree with your comments. This Marquette team has more "if's" than any I can recall.
Quote from: Jay Bee on July 05, 2014, 10:04:55 AM
It's just some kid typing up nonsense. If you're going to quote this, might as well quote 19 million other kids typing up similar nonsense. Trash.
Well, they was right about Matt Carlino committing to Marquette 3 days before he made his decision
Quote from: ThatDude on July 05, 2014, 04:15:00 PM
Well, they was right about Matt Carlino committing to Marquette 3 days before he made his decision
They? Meaning the boy that chicos quoted? As chicos noted, belcher report has made some decent additions.. but it's overflowing with dumbasses. I'd rather read dirty toilet paper than most 'slideshows'.
I'll take the low expectations and with good reason (unproven HEAD coach, questionable chemistry, lack of a proven go-to guy, front court depth, etc.).
Any finish higher will be a surprise. A surprise I welcome with open arms and a smile.
We are going to be substantially better than I thought, if Cohen is good enough to start over Burton.
Quote from: Jay Bee on July 05, 2014, 04:17:36 PM
I'd rather read dirty toilet paper
Page 3 of The Sun?
What most of these writers do for these articles is look at the conference standings from last season. They then look at what each team is losing an what each team is gaining. They then determine based on that "analysis" whether a team is probably moving up or down in the rankings.
When they look at Marquette, they see a team that finished 6th last season, who loses over 50% of it's offense and its head coach while only gaining a midseason transfer who barely played, a top 100 wing, and untested PG who is back from injury. Its not a far jump from that analysis to predicting a 9th place finish.
On one level, its understandable. We can't expect amateur writers who basically do this stuff for fun to know the specifics of our team like Marquette being desperate for scoring PG. Getting Carlino solved that problem and potentially cures what really ailed this team.
However, at least get your facts straight. Noskowiak coming in next season? Bush league.
I think the most accurate prediction for the Big East standings next season is
1. Villanova
2. Crapshoot
3. Crapshoot
4. Crapshoot
5. Crapshoot
6. Crapshoot
7. Crapshoot
8. Crapshoot
9. Crapshoot
10. Depaul
1) Bleacher Report is terrible and I never give credence to anything written there.
2) I don't think he's far off. I would switch providence and Butler in his rankings, but besides that it's not far off in my opinion.
3) But I of course don't expect Marquette fans to feel that way nor do I expect to convince anyone otherwise.
4) I think Marquette is one of the bigger question marks in the conference. They could finish 9th, but they could also finish in the top 4 and make the NCAAs. I think they're closer to the former than the latter, but I'm always skeptical of brand new coaches. Marquette lost a lot from last years team, the entire front court and your only 3 point shooter.
Quote from: hoyasincebirth on July 06, 2014, 04:44:18 PM
1) Bleacher Report is terrible and I never give credence to anything written there.
2) I don't think he's far off. I would switch providence and Butler in his rankings, but besides that it's not far off in my opinion.
3) But I of course don't expect Marquette fans to feel that way nor do I expect to convince anyone otherwise.
4) I think Marquette is one of the bigger question marks in the conference. They could finish 9th, but they could also finish in the top 4 and make the NCAAs. I think they're closer to the former than the latter, but I'm always skeptical of brand new coaches. Marquette lost a lot from last years team, the entire front court and your only consistent 3 point shooter.
Besides DePaul fans I might be the only one who thinks DePaul does not finish in last place this year. I am not sure who I would put there, but I think it will not be DePaul.
Quote from: hoyasincebirth on July 06, 2014, 04:44:18 PM
1) Bleacher Report is terrible and I never give credence to anything written there.
Never, always, every, etc...words without purpose.
BR has a lot of really sh!tty stuff, then again they also have some good stuff from competent writers, so putting them in the never ever category doesn't work for me.
Regardless, it's it in the echo chamber of what people read, what recruits might read, and certainly what others might take as gospel. Perceptions can become realities. Best to know what is out there than to merely dismiss it.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 06, 2014, 07:35:13 PM
Regardless, it's it in the echo chamber of what people read, what recruits might read, and certainly what others might take as gospel. Perceptions can become realities. Best to know what is out there than to merely dismiss it.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't think you need to start threads about slideshows of this nature. (i.e., when a young boy slideshows nonsense and a quick look at it should tell you the boy is talking about that which he doesn't know [i.e., 'facts' are way off].) This is an example of one that all Scoopers need not know about...
But, I know you get twinkly-eyed when you see "reputable" (in your eyes) sources like "BR" or "ESPN". smh
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 06, 2014, 07:35:13 PM
Never, always, every, etc...words without purpose.
BR has a lot of really sh!tty stuff, then again they also have some good stuff from competent writers, so putting them in the never ever category doesn't work for me.
Regardless, it's it in the echo chamber of what people read, what recruits might read, and certainly what others might take as gospel. Perceptions can become realities. Best to know what is out there than to merely dismiss it.
Never is what should be used in relation to BR. By giving the site recognition by reading any of the drivel there, one gives credibility to a bunch of people who defile everything that is supposed to be true about journalism. Fact based analysis, intensive research, accurate reporting.
The fact that sites like that exist are part of the problem we have nowadays with uninformed people gaining credibility and people believing the information reported by them.
A great example is famous people, like Jenny McCarthy, who are given a platform that is respected (Oprah) and then people believing things like vaccines cause autism and causing lots of kids to go unvaccinated and lead to a return of once dead diseases.
Looking back at the past few years, every time we were picked to be "bad" and finish in the bottom half of the conference, we exceeded expectations and finished well (remember our first year in the BE?). Last year, we were picked to win it and...well...you know what happened. I think most would rather be the underdog and prove everyone wrong, than be picked the frontrunner and have to live up to expectations. No matter the source, let them put us down low in the predictions, then we'll be talked about when we're at the top (hopefully).
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 06, 2014, 07:35:13 PM
Never, always, every, etc...words without purpose.
BR has a lot of really sh!tty stuff, then again they also have some good stuff from competent writers, so putting them in the never ever category doesn't work for me.
Regardless, it's it in the echo chamber of what people read, what recruits might read, and certainly what others might take as gospel. Perceptions can become realities. Best to know what is out there than to merely dismiss it.
Do you work for bleacher report or something? Most people do not respect BR or it's content. Not sure why you're on a 1 man PR campaign to change people's minds. Maybe they've gotten a few well respected writers to contribute as you claim. But they have a long uphill battle to be an actual good source of news. I also personally hate the slide show lay out of their stories.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on July 06, 2014, 01:21:27 PM
I think the most accurate prediction for the Big East standings next season is
1. Villanova
2. Crapshoot
3. Crapshoot
4. Crapshoot
5. Crapshoot
6. Crapshoot
7. Crapshoot
8. Crapshoot
9. Crapshoot
10. Depaul
11.* Dayton
Fixed
Industry report that came out today entitled "Young Adult TV Usage - Myth vs Reality" had some interesting online information.
Bleacher Report is #2 sports website for 18 to 24 year old (regardless of gender), trailing only ESPN. For women (18-24), it was 4th for sports websites.
We may not like it, but people are consuming it, especially young adults.
Top 5 Sports Websites Age 18-24 All
1) ESPN
2) Bleacher Report
3) NBC Sports Network
4) USA Today
5) Fox Sports on MSN
April 2014 Comscore
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 07, 2014, 01:47:16 PM
Industry report that came out today entitled "Young Adult TV Usage - Myth vs Reality" had some interesting online information.
Bleacher Report is #2 sports website for 18 to 24 year old (regardless of gender), trailing only ESPN. For women (18-24), it was 4th for sports websites.
We may not like it, but people are consuming it, especially young adults.
We need to find someone to be the Marquette Bleacher Report beat writer. Michigan State has a guy, Adam Biggers, that writes for Bleacher Report and sees everything through rose colored glasses.
The guys at Anonymous Eagle and Paint Touches do a very good job in that format. Maybe one of them can re-purpose their work for Bleacher Report.
Quote from: Texas Western on July 07, 2014, 01:56:31 PM
We need to find someone to be the Marquette Bleacher Report beat writer. Michigan State has a guy, Adam Biggers, that writes for Bleacher Report and sees everything through rose colored glasses.
The guys at Anonymous Eagle and Paint Touches do a very good job in that format. Maybe one of them can re-purpose their work for Bleacher Report.
I nominate NERS, since we like to argue with him already.
Looks like the "key players leaving" is just a copy + paste of all the seniors rofl.
Quote from: Jay Bee on July 06, 2014, 07:56:02 PM
I understand what you're saying, but I don't think you need to start threads about slideshows of this nature. (i.e., when a young boy slideshows nonsense and a quick look at it should tell you the boy is talking about that which he doesn't know [i.e., 'facts' are way off].) This is an example of one that all Scoopers need not know about...
But, I know you get twinkly-eyed when you see "reputable" (in your eyes) sources like "BR" or "ESPN". smh
I consider the authors of certain works reputable, not the news organization they work for.
Quote from: hoyasincebirth on July 06, 2014, 09:08:52 PM
Do you work for bleacher report or something? Most people do not respect BR or it's content. Not sure why you're on a 1 man PR campaign to change people's minds. Maybe they've gotten a few well respected writers to contribute as you claim. But they have a long uphill battle to be an actual good source of news. I also personally hate the slide show lay out of their stories.
Nope, don't work for them. Yes, I said in the VERY FIRST post that I'm not wild about BR, I'm just not ignoring what people read and consume.
Dumbing down \ low information society been going on for a long time, but that doesn't mean I ignore it. If you don't know who the people are that are consuming products, what they are reading, watching, consuming on a daily basis, you are behind the 8 ball. Ignore if you wish. It doesn't make them right, doesn't make your wrong, in fact I side with you on this, but you and I can say that all day until the cows come home as educated people, but that doesn't always square up with what people believe or think is correct, especially in their daily lives. Divorce rate is 50%. Nope, but the vast majority of Americans think it is because they read it or heard it somewhere and it is perpetuated time and time again.
This article is laughable and I agree with TAMU the Big East is an absolute crapshoot right now. Plus making predictions this far from the season is a mistake every sports outlet falls into, they are never very accurate.
Jon Rothstein @JonRothstein 26m
14-15 Big East Preseason Power Rankings: 1. Villanova 2. SJU 3. Gtown 4. Xavier 5. PC 6. Butler 7. SHU 8. Creighton 9. Marquette 10. DePaul
Good thing we're not in the old BE, hey?
Quote from: hoyasincebirth on July 08, 2014, 10:13:00 AM
Jon Rothstein @JonRothstein 26m
14-15 Big East Preseason Power Rankings: 1. Villanova 2. SJU 3. Gtown 4. Xavier 5. PC 6. Butler 7. SHU 8. Creighton 9. Marquette 10. DePaul
SJU, ha.
Quote from: hoyasincebirth on July 08, 2014, 10:13:00 AM
Jon Rothstein @JonRothstein 26m
14-15 Big East Preseason Power Rankings: 1. Villanova 2. SJU 3. Gtown 4. Xavier 5. PC 6. Butler 7. SHU 8. Creighton 9. Marquette 10. DePaul
Not far off from what I personally think:
1. Villanova
2. St. John's
3. Georgetown
4. Xavier
5. Seton Hall
6. Marquette
7. Providence
8. Butler
9. Creighton
10. Depaul
But again, 2-9 are a crapshoot
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on July 08, 2014, 12:00:14 PM
Not far off from what I personally think:
1. Villanova
2. St. John's
3. Georgetown
4. Xavier
5. Seton Hall
6. Marquette
7. Providence
8. Butler
9. Creighton
10. Depaul
But again, 2-9 are a crapshoot
I like the BR prediction. I felt quite uneasy last year when Marquette finally got some respect and got picked for first. It turned out I (and many others) were correct there. That's not to say that this will be the year when an unrespected MU squad fights its way into the top two. I see some where middle of the pack.
Question: How can anyone who follows college basketball, at all, miss how much Creighton lost this year? They must all think that that McDermott is the only one who left. Wragge is almost as important. Wragge and the other two are together a bigger loss than McDermott will be alone. The way I see it, Creighton is replacing the equivalent of
two players of the year.
Quote from: LittleMurs on July 08, 2014, 12:10:43 PM
I like the BR prediction. I felt quite uneasy last year when Marquette finally got some respect and got picked for first. It turned out I (and many others) were correct there. That's not to say that this will be the year when an unrespected MU squad fights its way into the top two. I see some where middle of the pack.
Question: How can anyone who follows college basketball, at all, miss how much Creighton lost this year? They must all think that that McDermott is the only one who left. Wragge is almost as important. Wragge and the other two are together a bigger loss than McDermott will be alone. The way I see it, Creighton is replacing the equivalent of two players of the year.
Creighton is certainly losing a lot. But not as much as you may think. They are losing 65% of their offense. That is the most in the Big East. But they are pretty close to Seton Hall (53%), Xavier (54%), Depaul (56%), Marquette (56%), and Providence (59%).
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on July 08, 2014, 12:27:40 PM
Creighton is certainly losing a lot. But not as much as you may think. They are losing 65% of their offense. That is the most in the Big East. But they are pretty close to Seton Hall (53%), Xavier (54%), Depaul (56%), Marquette (56%), and Providence (59%).
The attention McDermott drew from the defenses had a lot to do with Creighton getting open shots. I do not think the percentage lost matters in this case. The loss is bigger than that.
Quote from: hoyasincebirth on July 06, 2014, 09:08:52 PM
Do you work for bleacher report or something? Most people do not respect BR or it's content. Not sure why you're on a 1 man PR campaign to change people's minds. Maybe they've gotten a few well respected writers to contribute as you claim. But they have a long uphill battle to be an actual good source of news. I also personally hate the slide show lay out of their stories.
If the posts here were saying what a great site BR is, then Chicos would be telling us it was crap. He lives to disagree.
Quote from: bilsu on July 08, 2014, 02:16:14 PM
The attention McDermott drew from the defenses had a lot to do with Creighton getting open shots. I do not think the percentage lost matters in this case. The loss is bigger than that.
Agreed. Loss of open looks by returning players is the missing stat. Wragge's loss will be a part of that, too.