|
Post by swenocha on Oct 13, 2015 19:20:30 GMT -6
CBS pre-season rankingsCan't say that I disagree with this, though it's a very safe "could be good, but could be bad" type of prediction...
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Oct 13, 2015 19:24:21 GMT -6
Well below ipfw abd iupui
|
|
|
Post by swenocha on Oct 13, 2015 19:27:27 GMT -6
Other MAC teams:
|
|
|
Post by swenocha on Oct 13, 2015 19:32:12 GMT -6
Well below ipfw abd iupui and well below Longwood, Elon, USC Upstate, Grand Canyon, Incarnate Word, and a bunch of other unknown teams... sigh... To be in 1990 or so again...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2015 20:42:21 GMT -6
In response to # 284: Deadspin.com
Wonder if it worked with any of the recruit's Moms.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 14, 2015 8:00:28 GMT -6
If all this has any strong basis in fact, the MAC is significantly weaker than normal. Despite relative parity in college basketball over the last two decades where the MAC has had some teams that could play in the middle of the B10, this year almost 3/4 of the B10 teams are not just better than the best MAC team, most of them far better.
There are 2 or 3 other of the B10 that would fit right in the MAC, actually top half of the MAC. But, hey, the worst MAC team may be better than worst B10 team, which is interesting, and both Rutgers and Nebraska may not win many B10 games, and would probably have losing records in the MAC.
This preseason talk is not exactly rocket science. It's pretty easy to pick 100 teams that are pretty likely to be in the top 100, just based on recruiting history and coaching. It's a lot harder to rank the next 100. Granted, that among 300+ D1 teams the bottom 100 are usually the bottom 100, but I'm still skeptical about trying to rank that many teams where so many could be ranked 50 higher or 50 lower in the rankings depending on a breakout, or a bust, with a single player. A Sagarin rating of +/- 5 points difference can mean a ranking difference of 100 places in the middle of the pack.
Since preseason rankings are just so much mist and smoke anyway, who expects much accuracy, but down there in the bottom 100 where we are ranked, there is not much reason given for the rankings in most cases, so it is even less substance and I don't think we should take it too seriously.
Overall, I buy that the MAC is down. There are good reasons to think some of the stronger teams last year are much weaker, not much reason to expect anybody to surprise. Maybe every MAC fan thinks this for their team in October, but I see reasons for us to expect to be better than the ranking. Being under the radar, and being so weak last year, there is not much reason for this article to be looking all that close at teams like BSU.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Oct 14, 2015 12:57:08 GMT -6
I'd like to be indignant about a 271 preseason ranking, but...you know...on what grounds?
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 14, 2015 20:31:44 GMT -6
I'd like to be indignant about a 271 preseason ranking, but...you know...on what grounds? Sure, we have to prove we are improved and make some visible progress before we have a right to claim we deserve much recognition. Can't really complain much when it is reasonable to base projection on recent history. But, I don't mind saying "I told you that you were wrong." at the end of the year. As somebody pointed out above the article is hedging bets. And, they are taking a bit of a cheap shot with that "could fall on its face" remark. Hell, that applies to nearly any team.
|
|