Premature 2012-2013 Top 25 (subject to change)

I am sure everyone has seen this and where we stack up according Andy Katz. I think this deserves its own thread just because we can talk not just about Duke, but others across the country. I usually like Andy and respect his work, but I don't agree with where he ranks us. I think he is totally basing this on where we finished this year which was a sour note. I think were better than 15 and I think we should be ahead of UNC. What are other thoughts? Kentucky too high? Indiana too high possibly?


http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bask...nges-elsewhere

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChicagoCrazy84

I am sure everyone has seen this and where we stack up according Andy Katz. I think this deserves its own thread just because we can talk not just about Duke, but others across the country. I usually like Andy and respect his work, but I don't agree with where he ranks us. I think he is totally basing this on where we finished this year which was a sour note. I think were better than 15 and I think we should be ahead of UNC. What are other thoughts? Kentucky too high? Indiana too high possibly?


http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bask...nges-elsewhere

---

Cody Zeller is going to be a 1st team All-American. He's got all the skills Tyler has, but is more athletic and will be the focal point of that offense. I can see him putting up 18 and 12 every night.

UK will be a notch below where they were this year. I dont see Noel as being as good as Davis was on the offensive end; Davis had the ball comfortably in his hands in the high post/on the perimeter a lot. Also, they captured magic in a bottle, blending in the freshmen with the existing roster. Well, there's no existing roster coming back for next year (most likely).

NC State has too much up in the air right now and Unc has no proven go-to guy. Kansas wont have a go-to guy either. I dont see Withey as much more than a complimentary player, and Elijah will be good but not an All-American. Michigan is very intriguing with a 3-headed monster in Burke, Hardaway and McGary. UCLA could climb this list if they add Parker. Duke would climb a lot with Parker as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChicagoCrazy84

I am sure everyone has seen this and where we stack up according Andy Katz. I think this deserves its own thread just because we can talk not just about Duke, but others across the country. I usually like Andy and respect his work, but I don't agree with where he ranks us. I think he is totally basing this on where we finished this year which was a sour note. I think were better than 15 and I think we should be ahead of UNC. What are other thoughts? Kentucky too high? Indiana too high possibly?


http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bask...nges-elsewhere

---

I have said it in a couple of other threads, but I think Katz has Kansas way too high, Syracuse too high, and us too low. He probably has Kentucky too high as well, though they'll be pretty good. I just don't think Harrow, Goodwin, Poythress, Wiltjer, and Noel with Cauley off the bench are as good as Teague, Lamb, Kidd-Gilchrist, Jones, and Davis with Wiltjer and Miller off the bench. I also think Michigan State is too high. It's not a very well thought out list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CDu

I have said it in a couple of other threads, but I think Katz has Kansas way too high, Syracuse too high, and us too low. He probably has Kentucky too high as well, though they'll be pretty good. I just don't think Harrow, Goodwin, Poythress, Wiltjer, and Noel with Cauley off the bench are as good as Teague, Lamb, Kidd-Gilchrist, Jones, and Davis with Wiltjer and Miller off the bench. I also think Michigan State is too high. It's not a very well thought out list.

---

I didn't even notice Michigan State there. Number 10 is way too high for them losing Green, Thornton, and Wood. I'm beginning to think as well he did not think this through very well. I don't understand how a nucleus of Curry, Dawkins, Kelly, and Plumlee is not better than McAdoo, Strickland, Bullock, and Hairston or Appling and Payne.

Not sure if this will be a popular opinion but I don’t really care…I like our spot on the list. The seniors on this team are National Champions and they have lost in the first round. They have experience on both ends. They have seen the highs and lows. I think 15 is a number that will motivate this team to prove something. Most Duke teams are chased from the start but this one will be fighting from the tip, pun intended. We will move up in the rankings next year. All due respect to A.R. but it was obvious, even to the mediocre Duke fans, that chemistry was not there this year. Experience and youth will drive this team. Sure, Parker and Jefferson would be nice but I like what we have to put on the floor. I think Murphy has a lot to offer and Seth has the chance to shine. Going to be a good year!

BTW just turned on the Heat, Bulls game. Deng hit a three then Boozer backed it up with a jumper. I LOVE DUKE!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CDu

I have said it in a couple of other threads, but I think Katz has Kansas way too high, Syracuse too high, and us too low. He probably has Kentucky too high as well, though they'll be pretty good. I just don't think Harrow, Goodwin, Poythress, Wiltjer, and Noel with Cauley off the bench are as good as Teague, Lamb, Kidd-Gilchrist, Jones, and Davis with Wiltjer and Miller off the bench. I also think Michigan State is too high. It's not a very well thought out list.

---

He also has Arizona and Creighton too low.

Goodman and Parrish update their premature top 26, giving Duke some credit for Mason's return and bumping us up to 12.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DevilBen02

Goodman and Parrish update their premature top 26, giving Duke some credit for Mason's return and bumping us up to 12.

---

I'd say that's spot on for pre-season Duke. Not quite in the Top 10, but not too far below it.

North C*rolina at ten is a joke of sorts.

Florida should be higher. I really like its returning players, even considering the loss of Beal.

Indiana's benefiting from a lot of wishful thinking. Putting a lot of pressure on sophomores and freshmen to perform. Everyone wants Indiana to be good because everyone likes Tom Crean and the lore of Indiana basketball. The Hoosiers will continue to improve and be a top 10 team, but yeesh.

I think Duke's ranking is about right at 12th. Most people remember Duke's lack of perimeter defense last year and how our offense looked stagnant at year's end. I also notice that they have listed Missouri as Alex Oriakhi's choice of schools. I hope they are correct and he does not end up at unc. But if his attitude is bad, then I might have to reconsider that hope. GoDuke!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Corey

North C*rolina at ten is a joke of sorts.

Florida should be higher. I really like its returning players, even considering the loss of Beal.

Indiana's benefiting from a lot of wishful thinking. Putting a lot of pressure on sophomores and freshmen to perform. Everyone wants Indiana to be good because everyone likes Tom Crean and the lore of Indiana basketball. The Hoosiers will continue to improve and be a top 10 team, but yeesh.

---

Agreed that UNC is at least 5 spots high, especially in preseason.

My biggest problem is Kentucky. Yes, they have another great recruiting class, but they won't have the good experienced players next season that they did this season (Jones (late lottery), Lamb (fringe 1st round) and Miller (leadership/glue guy) to go along with those freshman. Wiltjer and Harrow are the only "experience" 2013 UK will have. Also, other than Noel none of these freshman are close to the level of Davis, Kidd-Gilchrist or even Teague. Davis and Kidd-Gilchrist were game-changers and will be top 3 picks in the Draft. I think people see another #1 recruiting class and assume the players will be as good as this year's class. Not likely, IMO. They'll be top 10, but preseason #1 seems like a reach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gary

I'd say that's spot on for pre-season Duke. Not quite in the Top 10, but not too far below it.

---

Just curious, anyone know what we were pre-season 2009-10? Also, if that's where we come in, I guess our streak of being in the Top 10 will be broken without having played another game. That's kind of sad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rich

Just curious, anyone know what we were pre-season 2009-10? Also, if that's where we come in, I guess our streak of being in the Top 10 will be broken without having played another game. That's kind of sad.

---

According to Wikipedia, we were #9 (AP) and #8 (coaches) in the 2009-10 preseason polls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tbyers11

Agreed that UNC is at least 5 spots high, especially in preseason.

My biggest problem is Kentucky. Yes, they have another great recruiting class, but they won't have the good experienced players next season that they did this season (Jones (late lottery), Lamb (fringe 1st round) and Miller (leadership/glue guy) to go along with those freshman. Wiltjer and Harrow are the only "experience" 2013 UK will have. Also, other than Noel none of these freshman are close to the level of Davis, Kidd-Gilchrist or even Teague. Davis and Kidd-Gilchrist were game-changers and will be top 3 picks in the Draft. I think people see another #1 recruiting class and assume the players will be as good as this year's class. Not likely, IMO. They'll be top 10, but preseason #1 seems like a reach.

---

I agree with all of this. I think the following will become clear once people actually see games:

- Indiana is very good, but not necessarily great. I don't have a problem with them being rated high because they have a lot of returning talent and some nice incoming players.
- Kentucky has a decent dropoff at PG, they lose a lot of shooting ability and ballhandling in Miller, Lamb, and Kidd-Gilchrist, and Noel isn't as good as Davis offensively, and they aren't as deep. There's talent there, but that's putting a lot of pressure on some very unproven players, and it isn't anywhere near the same skill set that departed.
- Kansas has several nice complementary players, but they were REALLY reliant on Robinson and Taylor to create the offense. Without them, they'll still be very good defensively but not overly impressive offensively.
- MSU being ranked in the top 10 is a joke. That team lived and breathed by way of Draymond Green. Without him and without the other two good shooters, they're completely unproven inside and outside. They'll have talented wings and rugged inside guys, but they won't have the difference maker like Green. They'll probably lose a bunch early, because Izzo always plays a tough non-conference schedule.
- Syracuse in the Top 10 is similarly a joke. They lost all of their PG, their best player, their best interior player, and 4 of their 5 best scorers. They'll have talent, but they'll have limited depth (especially on the perimeter) and a lot of unproven guys. They'll win a lot early because they don't play anybody away from home until conference play, but they're not going to be that good.
- UNC at 10 is less ridiculous, but still too high. Like Kansas, they have nobody who has proven to be able to create their own shot. They'll have a talented and experienced backcourt, but they'll lack in inside play unless they add somebody else. They could be great if McAdoo is great, but they could also be outside the top 25 if he isn't elite and the PG situation struggles (see 2010).

CBS also posted some Tempo-free predictions for 2012-13, and these numbers suggest that Duke will win the ACC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Corey

North C*rolina at ten is a joke of sorts.

---

The best kind of joke, assuming that they fail to live up to those expectations -- which I think is a fair assumption. I would love nothing more than to watch another "promising" season in Chapel Hill go skidding off the rails. Rank 'em #1!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DevilBen02

CBS also posted some Tempo-free predictions for 2012-13, and these numbers suggest that Duke will win the ACC.

---

I actually think these stats are completely reasonable. I might predict a bit more success for Florida and a little less success for Kentucky than his model is predicting, but otherwise I agree with a lot of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DevilBen02

CBS also posted some Tempo-free predictions for 2012-13, and these numbers suggest that Duke will win the ACC.

---

From the article:

Quote:

---

The model says that based on history, Mike Krzyzewski won't have a bad defensive team two years in a row. Whether it will be recruit Rasheed Sulaimon or Tyler Thornton, someone will get more minutes on the perimeter and become a defensive stopper.

---

I agree with this, but a lot is riding on just how well Rasheed Sulaimon plays on the defensive end next season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Corey

Indiana's benefiting from a lot of wishful thinking. Putting a lot of pressure on sophomores and freshmen to perform. Everyone wants Indiana to be good because everyone likes Tom Crean and the lore of Indiana basketball. The Hoosiers will continue to improve and be a top 10 team, but yeesh.

---

If Austin Rivers decided to return to Duke AND Duke landed two additional top 50 recruits, would you have a problem with Duke being that high? Because that's basically Indiana's situation right now. The ranking is deserved.

IIRC, last October it was commonly thought, among the experts, that there were 3, possibly 4, likely-great teams for the 2011-'12 season: UNC, UK, tOSU, and [because of the very late addition of Drummond], UConn.

As the season progressed, UK emerged more or less as predicted as [what passes these days for] a great team. Syracuse emerged as really good, but although they kept winning, skeptics chimed in that the 'Cuse was good, but not great. Then Melo was lost.

UNC was excellent at times, and despite whatever [undoubtedly justified] venom toward the Heels might have emerged in these threads, plenty of folks were simply waiting to see if UNC, and HB, would wake up to give the country a great NC game v. UK. Then Marshall went down.

At tOSU, Sullinger didn't quite dominate, and they were challenged by MichSt, UM, Wisc, even IU; so even though they were still a possible FF team, they were no longer perceived to be anywhere near great.

UConn? No, something quite other than great in 2011-'12.

Here we are with the way-early prognostications. With the possible, but in my view unlikely, exception of UK, I doubt we'll hear, next October, much talk about likely-great teams. In fact what is really striking to me is how close all these way-early top 25 teams are.

Anybody want to assert that, on paper, any of these teams look to be as strong as October-2011 UNC/UK/tOSU, in terms of talent, experience, and depth?

I'm even surprised that there's, so far, an "expert consensus" on the top 3 [UK, IU, and UL in some order] and next 3 [KU, UM, Baylor in exactly that order]. KU as #4 is especially puzzling, for sure. But even if one says, "OK, I'll accept a consensus top 5 of UL, UK, IU, UM, and Baylor," I doubt many would predict any of those to be likely-great, and therefore really "safe" bets to be in the FF.

It looks wide-open to me. Duke at 12 is no different from Duke at, say, 8 or 17. UNC at 10/11 is no different from UNC at 8 or 15. NCSt, even with Leslie, at Katz's #7 is no different from NCSt at Goodman/Parrish's #18 [!!].

In the ACC, too, it looks wide-open between NCSt, Duke, and UNC, with Miami and maybe Md and FSU capable of challenging those 3. Certainly hard to imagine any team going 15-3 in ACC, right?

If Duke starts out at #12-15, they'll have a tough road to rise in early-season up to top 5-6, as they have a very, very challenging early schedule. A strong Big 10-ish opponent, preceded by....

http://www.thechampionsclassic.com/about-champions

http://www.atlantis.com/promotions/b...4atlantis.aspx