(04-10-2017 07:31 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  1. Cincy...NCAA
2. SMU...NCAA
3. UCF...NCAA
4. Wichita State...NCAA or NIT
5. UH...NCAA or NIT
6. Tulsa....NIT
7. Temple...CBI
8. ECU
9. USF
10. Memphis....ITT Tech Challenge
11. UCONN....Devry Invitational
12. Tulane....loses in state high school semi finals


Edit...moved UH up, dropped Temple, UCONN and Memphis lower
also added my post season predictions
this looks pretty accurate

ECU 8th???!!!!!!!
LMFAO

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(04-10-2017 09:37 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 07:31 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  1. Cincy...NCAA
2. SMU...NCAA
3. UCF...NCAA
4. Wichita State...NCAA or NIT
5. UH...NCAA or NIT
6. Tulsa....NIT
7. Temple...CBI
8. ECU
9. USF
10. Memphis....ITT Tech Challenge
11. UCONN....Devry Invitational
12. Tulane....loses in state high school semi finals


Edit...moved UH up, dropped Temple, UCONN and Memphis lower
also added my post season predictions
this looks pretty accurate

ECU 8th???!!!!!!!
LMFAO

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

well this is due to me predicting Lebo will require another surgery and miss a bunch of games

(04-10-2017 09:30 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  ^^^^^^^really?!?!?!?!?

You WSU lay down too easily...come on man, work with me here lol

I'm down. Here are the recent years that WSU has finished higher than any other American team in Kenpom:

2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012

But you are dead on with your lucky to finish higher than 3rd comment. I mean you were talking about 2011 when UConn and Cincy were ranked higher than WSU, right?

Who is Houston losing? I think they're too 5 tbh.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(04-10-2017 09:36 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 09:31 PM)PonyExpressHoops Wrote:  The best way to break down the Outlook is into categories:
Championship Contenders/Tourney Teams: Cincy, WSU, SMU (w/Semi)
Best of Rest/Potential Tournament Reams: (UCF, SMU w/o Semi, UH (fringe, depends on how JuCo's translate, which is always a big question mark)
NIT Caliber: Temple, UConn
Top 150 teams: Tulsa, Maybe Memphis
Cellar: ECU, Tulane, USF

how is UCONN NIT caliber? They have had like 20 kids transfer out of that sinking ship

With Jalen Adams back, If Larrier and Gilbert (would have been 2 of their best guys last year) are healthy with Vital and some of their 4-star signees they should be 100-125, which with their name would get them into the NIT.

Not crazy to think they could win 19-20 games.

(04-10-2017 09:39 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Who is Houston losing? I think they're too 5 tbh.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Dotson and their really crappy frontcourt.

Question will be if the JuCo and Brooks can replaces Dotson's scoring and rebounding. The Grad-Transfer Big and Fabian White should be an improvement.

Should be top 5 if the JuCo's can translate.

Houston plays the softest defense I've ever seen...Sampson may want to teach the boys how to defend a little

------------------------- Title contenders
1. Cincy
2. WSU
3. SMU

-------------------------- battle for 4th bid
4. Houston / UCF (tough call one makes dance for sure)

--------------------------- could get crazy in here
6. Tulsa
7. UConn
8. Temple
9. Memphis

--------------------------- pile of dog turd
10. Tulane
11. USF

--------------------- beneath pile of dog turd
12. ECU

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(04-10-2017 09:20 PM)The Mad Hatter Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 09:08 PM)JFlight21 Wrote:  The best team WSU beat all year was #39 Dayton. UC beat #11 SMU, #17 Iowa State, #30 Kansas State and #31 Xavier. Yes, WSU returns everyone, but I happen to think the two guys UC loses (Caupain and Johnson) will have their minutes replaced by superior talents (Broome and Cumberland) and Cronin hinted as much at the closing banquet last week.

So you think that Kenpom is an accurate measure of how good a team is since you use it to evaluate the quality of opponents, correct?

Alright, let's look at Kenpom, then:

Wichita State: #8
SMU: #11
Cincy: #23

The whole point of metrics like Kenpom is to get a ranking that is adjusted for quality of opposition. Only using it to evaluate who someone played and not looking at that team's rank makes no sense and the fact that this is what the selection committee seems to do is exactly why they keep getting grief.

See this is an argument I don't really understand. Why should WSU have gotten higher than a 10 seed? Heading into the tournament they had beaten ZERO teams that would receive at large bids. They had chances but lost them all (0-3). Just because Archie Miller and Calipari complained about their draws doesn't make them right. WSU's entire claim as a great team last year is based on their Kenpom rating and playing well against but still losing to UK.

(04-10-2017 09:44 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  1. Cincy
2. WSU
3. SMU
4. Houston / UCF (tough call one makes dance for sure)

6. Tulsa
7. UConn
8. Temple
9. Memphis
10. Tulane
11. USF
12. ECU

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

If Temple stays healthy and finishes 8th in the league, it is going to be a great year for the AAC. Surely ECU with Flemming, I don't even know who else you have, won't finish 12th? How bad is Lebo?

(04-10-2017 09:49 PM)Heinro Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 09:44 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  1. Cincy
2. WSU
3. SMU
4. Houston / UCF (tough call one makes dance for sure)

6. Tulsa
7. UConn
8. Temple
9. Memphis
10. Tulane
11. USF
12. ECU

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

If Temple stays healthy and finishes 8th in the league, it is going to be a great year for the AAC. Surely ECU with Flemming, I don't even know who else you have, won't finish 12th? How bad is Lebo?

I believe ECU only has 1 green bigman.

(04-10-2017 09:46 PM)JFlight21 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 09:20 PM)The Mad Hatter Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 09:08 PM)JFlight21 Wrote:  The best team WSU beat all year was #39 Dayton. UC beat #11 SMU, #17 Iowa State, #30 Kansas State and #31 Xavier. Yes, WSU returns everyone, but I happen to think the two guys UC loses (Caupain and Johnson) will have their minutes replaced by superior talents (Broome and Cumberland) and Cronin hinted as much at the closing banquet last week.

So you think that Kenpom is an accurate measure of how good a team is since you use it to evaluate the quality of opponents, correct?

Alright, let's look at Kenpom, then:

Wichita State: #8
SMU: #11
Cincy: #23

The whole point of metrics like Kenpom is to get a ranking that is adjusted for quality of opposition. Only using it to evaluate who someone played and not looking at that team's rank makes no sense and the fact that this is what the selection committee seems to do is exactly why they keep getting grief.

See this is an argument I don't really understand. Why should WSU have gotten higher than a 10 seed? Heading into the tournament they had beaten ZERO teams that would receive at large bids. They had chances but lost them all (0-3). Just because Archie Miller and Calipari complained about their draws doesn't make them right. WSU's entire claim as a great team last year is based on their Kenpom rating and playing well against but still losing to UK.

By literally any metric, we were better than a 10 seed. KenPom had us in the Top Ten, which would indicate a 3-4 seed. We were Top 25 in both polls, which would indicate somewhere in the 4-6 seed range. We had an RPI of 32, which would indicate an 8 seed.

So tell us what data the Selection Committee used to seed us so low. Losses against tourney teams? We seem to be the only tourney team that had a rough November held against us. Lack of Top 50 wins? We scheduled as best as we could. We had trouble gelling quick, and the teams we did beat turned out to be butt. Nothing we could do.

(04-10-2017 09:49 PM)Heinro Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 09:44 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  1. Cincy
2. WSU
3. SMU
4. Houston / UCF (tough call one makes dance for sure)

6. Tulsa
7. UConn
8. Temple
9. Memphis
10. Tulane
11. USF
12. ECU

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

If Temple stays healthy and finishes 8th in the league, it is going to be a great year for the AAC. Surely ECU with Flemming, I don't even know who else you have, won't finish 12th? How bad is Lebo?

he won't make any difference. we are so thin down low it's pathetic, Riak transferred out. We are going to get destroyed in conference play. I hope this is Lebos last year but I have little faith in this ADs ability to make a good hire. Life of an ECU fan who likes basketball more than football.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

The honeymoon's over! Commence smack talk!

Even considering WSU for the NIT next year is irresponsible. This is a team that won 30 games, and it took half the year before they really started playing well. The AAC presents a significant upgrade in schedule, but even mighty Cincinnati lost 3 AAC games (swept by SMU) and still earned a 6 seed. We will not go undefeated in league play next year, but you're going to get sick and tired of us winning.

(04-10-2017 09:55 PM)Rocky Mountain Shock Wrote:  The honeymoon's over! Commence smack talk!

Even considering WSU for the NIT next year is irresponsible. This is a team that won 30 games, and it took half the year before they really started playing well. The AAC presents a significant upgrade in schedule, but even mighty Cincinnati lost 3 AAC games (swept by SMU) and still earned a 6 seed. We will not go undefeated in league play next year, but you're going to get sick and tired of us winning.

I agree. It would be a shock if the Shockers didn't make the tourney. But WSU isn't going to come into the AAC and roll everyone like some fans might think. Real good team though.

(04-10-2017 09:55 PM)Rocky Mountain Shock Wrote:  The honeymoon's over! Commence smack talk!

Even considering WSU for the NIT next year is irresponsible. This is a team that won 30 games, and it took half the year before they really started playing well. The AAC presents a significant upgrade in schedule, but even mighty Cincinnati lost 3 AAC games (swept by SMU) and still earned a 6 seed. We will not go undefeated in league play next year, but you're going to get sick and tired of us winning.

PREACH!

(04-10-2017 09:52 PM)fastbow Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 09:46 PM)JFlight21 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 09:20 PM)The Mad Hatter Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 09:08 PM)JFlight21 Wrote:  The best team WSU beat all year was #39 Dayton. UC beat #11 SMU, #17 Iowa State, #30 Kansas State and #31 Xavier. Yes, WSU returns everyone, but I happen to think the two guys UC loses (Caupain and Johnson) will have their minutes replaced by superior talents (Broome and Cumberland) and Cronin hinted as much at the closing banquet last week.

So you think that Kenpom is an accurate measure of how good a team is since you use it to evaluate the quality of opponents, correct?

Alright, let's look at Kenpom, then:

Wichita State: #8
SMU: #11
Cincy: #23

The whole point of metrics like Kenpom is to get a ranking that is adjusted for quality of opposition. Only using it to evaluate who someone played and not looking at that team's rank makes no sense and the fact that this is what the selection committee seems to do is exactly why they keep getting grief.

See this is an argument I don't really understand. Why should WSU have gotten higher than a 10 seed? Heading into the tournament they had beaten ZERO teams that would receive at large bids. They had chances but lost them all (0-3). Just because Archie Miller and Calipari complained about their draws doesn't make them right. WSU's entire claim as a great team last year is based on their Kenpom rating and playing well against but still losing to UK.

By literally any metric, we were better than a 10 seed. KenPom had us in the Top Ten, which would indicate a 3-4 seed. We were Top 25 in both polls, which would indicate somewhere in the 4-6 seed range. We had an RPI of 32, which would indicate an 8 seed.

So tell us what data the Selection Committee used to seed us so low. Losses against tourney teams? We seem to be the only tourney team that had a rough November held against us. Lack of Top 50 wins? We scheduled as best as we could. We had trouble gelling quick, and the teams we did beat turned out to be butt. Nothing we could do.

The reason WSU was seeded as a 10 was because they didn't beat a single tournament team in the regular season. Seems pretty simple to me. If Kenpom was an infallible metric, the committee would just use that to select and seed the at large teams.

(04-10-2017 09:55 PM)Rocky Mountain Shock Wrote:  The honeymoon's over! Commence smack talk!

Even considering WSU for the NIT next year is irresponsible. This is a team that won 30 games, and it took half the year before they really started playing well. The AAC presents a significant upgrade in schedule, but even mighty Cincinnati lost 3 AAC games (swept by SMU) and still earned a 6 seed. We will not go undefeated in league play next year, but you're going to get sick and tired of us winning.

UC was not swept by SMU. Beat them at home in January.

(04-10-2017 09:58 PM)PonyExpressHoops Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 09:55 PM)Rocky Mountain Shock Wrote:  The honeymoon's over! Commence smack talk!

Even considering WSU for the NIT next year is irresponsible. This is a team that won 30 games, and it took half the year before they really started playing well. The AAC presents a significant upgrade in schedule, but even mighty Cincinnati lost 3 AAC games (swept by SMU) and still earned a 6 seed. We will not go undefeated in league play next year, but you're going to get sick and tired of us winning.

I agree. It would be a shock if the Shockers didn't make the tourney. But WSU isn't going to come into the AAC and roll everyone like some fans might think. Real good team though.

WSU, SMU, Cincy is a real pick 'em at this point. It should be a tight conference race the whole way.

(04-10-2017 10:01 PM)JFlight21 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 09:52 PM)fastbow Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 09:46 PM)JFlight21 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 09:20 PM)The Mad Hatter Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 09:08 PM)JFlight21 Wrote:  The best team WSU beat all year was #39 Dayton. UC beat #11 SMU, #17 Iowa State, #30 Kansas State and #31 Xavier. Yes, WSU returns everyone, but I happen to think the two guys UC loses (Caupain and Johnson) will have their minutes replaced by superior talents (Broome and Cumberland) and Cronin hinted as much at the closing banquet last week.

So you think that Kenpom is an accurate measure of how good a team is since you use it to evaluate the quality of opponents, correct?

Alright, let's look at Kenpom, then:

Wichita State: #8
SMU: #11
Cincy: #23

The whole point of metrics like Kenpom is to get a ranking that is adjusted for quality of opposition. Only using it to evaluate who someone played and not looking at that team's rank makes no sense and the fact that this is what the selection committee seems to do is exactly why they keep getting grief.

See this is an argument I don't really understand. Why should WSU have gotten higher than a 10 seed? Heading into the tournament they had beaten ZERO teams that would receive at large bids. They had chances but lost them all (0-3). Just because Archie Miller and Calipari complained about their draws doesn't make them right. WSU's entire claim as a great team last year is based on their Kenpom rating and playing well against but still losing to UK.

By literally any metric, we were better than a 10 seed. KenPom had us in the Top Ten, which would indicate a 3-4 seed. We were Top 25 in both polls, which would indicate somewhere in the 4-6 seed range. We had an RPI of 32, which would indicate an 8 seed.

So tell us what data the Selection Committee used to seed us so low. Losses against tourney teams? We seem to be the only tourney team that had a rough November held against us. Lack of Top 50 wins? We scheduled as best as we could. We had trouble gelling quick, and the teams we did beat turned out to be butt. Nothing we could do.

The reason WSU was seeded as a 10 was because they didn't beat a single tournament team in the regular season. Seems pretty simple to me. If Kenpom was an infallible metric, the committee would just use that to select and seed the at large teams.

What was that?

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/at-last-the...36189.html