Interesting look back at 2009 preseason poll

[Namtilal]

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bask...1/seasontype/2

I didn't realize that we were ranked just two spots ahead of Butler in each of the polls heading into the season.

Also interesting: UNC was ranked 15 spots ahead of Dayton in the AP and 18 spots ahead in the coaches poll. OK, that's not really interesting, but it was fun to point out!

[wtm001]

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bask...1/seasontype/2

I didn't realize that we were ranked just two spots ahead of Butler in each of the polls heading into the season.

Also interesting: UNC was ranked 15 spots ahead of Dayton in the AP and 18 spots ahead in the coaches poll. OK, that's not really interesting, but it was fun to point out!

I just love the fact that UNC was ranked ahead of us in both polls

[dukebluelemur]

Got to love UNCs one #1 vote in each pole... bet he/she feels silly.

[FireOgilvie]

What's really crazy is that Baylor didn't get a single vote in either poll. Of course they ended up as a 3 seed in the tournament and made it to the Elite 8.

[Greg_Newton]

Interesting that the entire preseason top 12 teams in the AP ended up as either 1) A top 8 overall seed, 2) A top 8 tourney finisher, or 3) a complete disaster. In order, you had:

1) 1-seed
2) Final Four
3) Disaster (8-seed?)
4) 1-seed
5) 2-seed
6) Disaster (NIT) <-- Guess who?
7) 1/2-seed pre-injury*
8) 2-seed
9) 1-seed
10) Elite 8
11) Title game
12) Disaster (NIT)

You'd think there would be a little more in between.

(*Purdue was a 1 or 2 seed before Hummel's injury, which the voters couldn't have foreseen)

[ACCBBallFan]

Interesting that the entire preseason top 12 teams in the AP ended up as either 1) A top 8 overall seed, 2) A top 8 tourney finisher, or 3) a complete disaster. In order, you had:

1) 1-seed
2) Final Four
3) Disaster (8-seed?)
4) 1-seed
5) 2-seed
6) Disaster (NIT) <-- Guess who?
7) 1/2-seed pre-injury*
8) 2-seed
9) 1-seed
10) Elite 8
11) Title game
12) Disaster (NIT)

You'd think there would be a little more in between.

(*Purdue was a 1 or 2 seed before Hummel's injury, which the voters couldn't have foreseen)

4 teams UK, TX, UConn and UNC palyed one aother and split exept for UNC only losing by 2 to UK and by 13 to TX. UCONN beat TX by 13 but lost to UK by only 3. So TX split beating UNC by 13 but losing to UCONN by 14.

UK barely beat UNC an barely beat UCONN.

So teams that were not all that good except UK, playing one another failed to expose that the others were over-hyped too, as oipposed to pre-conceived notion that they were all good.

[Jderf]

So teams that were not all that good except UK, playing one another failed to expose that the others were over-hyped too, as oipposed to pre-conceived notion that they were all good.

I don't necessarily see the issue as one of being "over-hyped." I see it as an issue of potential. I think those teams (especially UNC and Texas) really did have the talent and pieces to be as good as projected, only they failed to live up to it for some reason: perhaps due to coaching failures, or chemistry issues, lack of the right attitudes, etc. If you look at their rosters, there are loads of players you would still want on your team (skill-wise), yet they didn't manage to pan out. That should serve as a lesson of caution for this season (though all signs indicate it won't have to).

[Tom B.]

My favorite site for historical AP poll information is statsheet.com. You can select any season since the AP poll has been in existence and pull up the first poll for that year, then you can put the poll "in motion" to see how teams moved around in the poll from week to week over the course of the season. Being able to watch the poll in motion gives you a good sense, for instance, of just how dramatically UNC imploded (note how fast they dropped from #9 to out of the poll) in the span of just a couple of weeks in January of 2010.

(And if you're a masochist, you can pull up the 1994-95 season and watch the same thing happen to Duke.)