SI.com Preseason Power Ranking

[CDu]

Yeah, Luke Winn is falling prey to some poor logic here in his assertion that the team's defensive strategy should stay basically the same as last year. Using 2010's success and 2007's failure is cherry-picking.

Why use 2007 as an argument for why we should stick with last year's approach? Why not look at 2001, when we played pressure defense with very quick guards/wings?

Why assume that the 2010 strategy (which had more experience and arguably better rebounding) will work with the 2011 team?

The 2011 team is going to be VERY different than the 2007 team and also different than the 2010 team. Using those two seasons as examples as to why we should stick with the less-pressure approach is irrelevant.

[Welcome2DaSlopes]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/column...ndy&id=5179956

[Jaymf7]

I think his two key questions -- can we replace Zou's D and Jon's 3pt shooting -- are pretty far off. The Plumlees should be able to intimidate and defend (and hopefully rebound close to Zou's level). Guys like Curry and Dawkins should easily shoot like Scheyer. Silly questions if you ask me.

If I were drafting his one paragraph piece, I might replace his points with:

1) Will a team that replaces 3 seniors with a talented influx of newcomers have the chemistry and character needed to advance in the face of adversity in March?

and

2) Will the Plumlees (and the limited frontcourt bench) stay out of foul trouble and avoid injuries that could leave the roster imbalanced?

If we answer both of these in the affirmative, I think expecting another final four (at least) would be reasonable. Both issues should be largely influenced by our coaching staff, which will surely do a great job as always.

[gumbomoop]

If we stick precisely to 2 criteria - preseason and on paper - it's Duke, and it's easy.

I do not deny that MichSt, Purdue, and possibly some unspecified team or 2 will emerge to challenge Duke for top spot once play begins. But right now, and until November, Duke is the obvious frontrunner, based on talent, enough experience, coaching, depth to 8-10-men. Any team that has seniors KS and NS, plus realest-new-dealer KI, is going to be very tough to beat, no matter the remainder of the roster [marginally, but only marginally, hyperbolic].

I would argue [and am apparently doing so, just now] that the only serious ?, re Duke's upper limit, is how improved will MP2 be. Seems reasonable to assume some improvement by both MPs. I do not discount the possibility that MP1 will bust out. But if - a perfectly mundane possibility here - MP2 busts out, big time, then, then... geez....

[BleedsP287]

Just thought I would blow my own horn. Luke Winn wrote a story last week about Duke next year and I wrote him about how I thought Duke would be different on defense next year, and he used what I said in his story this week for the Duke being #1 in the Power Ranking. The name Stephen is me. Sorry, I was just so shocked to see my name in print like that. Never thought that would happen. Guess he thought I made a good point. Here is the link to the Power Rankings.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...tml?eref=sihp#

Congrats. It's great that he credited you and must be cool to see your name in the article. And a good point you made as well.

[BleedsP287]

In the words of the former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan, it appears that UNC supports may be experiencing irrational exuberance when it comes to their expectations for next year’s team.

I don't think the Heels are going to be anywhere near as bad this coming year as last. They had major chemistry issues (among other problems, injuries, etc.) last year. With HB coming in and all the losses I think they have a good chance to rebuild the lost chemistry and they will have good talent with which it's possible Roy can craft a quality team. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see them 3rd in the ACC, and possibly 2nd if they have luck and their recruits mature quickly. I think 10th in the nation is a stretch, but I'd predict top 25 in mid season form. I'm betting Duke beats them twice though, which would be awesome to see for a second year. Not being a big hater type I don't wish them ill, but I do love to see Duke stomp them good heads up.

[hedevil]

Great articles on this thread.

Question:Can the bullseye on Dukes chest get any bigger?

Preseason #1, defending National Champions, higher expectations going into this season than last years', and the fact that Duke is Duke.

Answer: Yes!

Not that the Devil's don't play hard every game, every year, but this year is going to be insane. Even for Duke standards, I feel like these guys will have to step it up a notch, if that's even possible. All the haters will be salivating to see Duke lose (what's new).

I like to hear that Nolan and Kyle are up for the challenge (no surprise). Cousin's (what a clown).

[Big Pappa]

Didn't want to start new thread, but FYI:

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bask...efending-title

Great article although I think it is a stretch to say that both Nolan and Kyle were consensus first round picks. I feel strongly that Kyle would have landed in the back 5-8 picks in the first but I don't think Nolan had a very good chance at the first round.

[hq2]

This reminds me a little of what happened in 1979, when Duke was the consensus preseason #1. What people forget is that if a guy from Rhode Island had hit a wide open layup in the last minute of the 1978 tournament, Duke would never have even gotten out of the first round. In which case, would they have been preseason #1 the next year? No.

The media tend to overrate who ever was good the previous year, assuming they are returning a decent nucleus. Make no mistake about it, we'll be as good as anyone next year. But supposing in the Baylor game that Baylor had gotten that rebound for the put back instead of Duke, and then hit a basket or two and Duke would have lost. Would we be preseason #1 for next year? I think not. So taking any preseason #1 hype seriously at this point is silly. The media (Jay Bilas excepted) don't know squat. I never take their predictions seriously.

[ice-9]

You're right in your premise that preseason rankings don't mean much, and perhaps are too overly influenced by what happens in the tournament.

However, even if Baylor had defeated us, I believe Duke would have still be a preseason top 5 team; definitely top 10. We weren't "lucky" to win the tournament last season -- most computer rankings had us as heavy favorites and we were #3 in the human polls.

[Kedsy]

The media tend to overrate who ever was good the previous year, assuming they are returning a decent nucleus. Make no mistake about it, we'll be as good as anyone next year. But supposing in the Baylor game that Baylor had gotten that rebound for the put back instead of Duke, and then hit a basket or two and Duke would have lost. Would we be preseason #1 for next year? I think not.

While I agree that the media tend to overrate the good teams from the year before and pre-season rankings are next to useless, I think you're wrong about where we'd be ranked. If Duke lost to Baylor we'd still be #1 or #2 in the 2010-11 pre-season rankings.

Look at Purdue. Yes, they had an injury to their best player, but they lost in the 3rd round of the NCAAT and Winn, Goodman, and Katz all have them in the top 3. (Although personally I think they're all underestimating the loss of a two-time Big 10 defensive player of the year (Kramer). Purdue will be good, but not top 5 good, in my opinion.)

[hq2]

Even if we had lost to Baylor, I agree that we would not have been ranked lower than 3rd next year; we have too much talent and too many good players returning. However, I don't think the media would be jumping on the Duke #1 bandwagon that they're on now.

And on another line, we will miss Zoubs much more than people think. Without him, that 4th banner would not be in the rafters. Hopefully, the Plumlees will (finally) step up and show us what they can do.

[Clipsfan]

Didn't want to start new thread, but FYI:

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bask...efending-title

I like Katz' stuff, but found it odd that he called Zoubek the defensive stopper, not Lance.

[MCFinARL]

Even if we had lost to Baylor, I agree that we would not have been ranked lower than 3rd next year; we have too much talent and too many good players returning. However, I don't think the media would be jumping on the Duke #1 bandwagon that they're on now.

And on another line, we will miss Zoubs much more than people think. Without him, that 4th banner would not be in the rafters. Hopefully, the Plumlees will (finally) step up and show us what they can do.

I think we may also miss Lance much more than people think. His floor leadership, defensive focus, and "glue guy" role were pretty important, despite his lack of offense.

[soccerstud2210]

it will be interesting to see who steps up. there are three big holes that are left from the seniors leaving.

do we have the guys to fill them? yes

will those guys fill them? TBD

[MChambers]

Don't think I saw this preview mentioned in this thread, but DeCourcy, who I respect (like Katz and Goodman), has MSU #1, Duke #2, and Purdue #3.

http://www.sportingnews.com/college-...obref=obinsite

Personally, I could care less where Duke is ranked before March. The lower, the better. And I think it's fair to rate a team that has to replace three starters lower than teams that do not.

I do note that the two teams consistently mentioned as being on a par with Duke, MSU and Purdue, each have a key player returning from a major injury. I hope Lucas and Hummel are recovered, but I'm glad Duke doesn't have to deal with that (knock on wood).

[Big Pappa]

Don't think I saw this preview mentioned in this thread, but DeCourcy, who I respect (like Katz and Goodman), has MSU #1, Duke #2, and Purdue #3.

http://www.sportingnews.com/college-...obref=obinsite

Personally, I could care less where Duke is ranked before March. The lower, the better. And I think it's fair to rate a team that has to replace three starters lower than teams that do not.

I do note that the two teams consistently mentioned as being on a par with Duke, MSU and Purdue, each have a key player returning from a major injury. I hope Lucas and Hummel are recovered, but I'm glad Duke doesn't have to deal with that (knock on wood).

Here is a pretty nice little article about it:

You're right about us not having to replace a key guy coming back from injury, but neither one of those teams are replacing three starters.