PDA

View Full Version : NBAdraft.net's top 25 for upcoming season



mcdukie
08-04-2009, 09:19 AM
We are 18th.http://www.nbadraft.net/node/9879

Hancock 4 Duke
08-04-2009, 10:27 AM
I bet we can all agree Duke deserves to be higher up on this list. I could argue that we will be better than West Virginia and Minnesota. Maybe even UNC. Connecticut and Louisville definitely don't belong that far down.

COYS
08-04-2009, 10:54 AM
I bet we can all agree Duke deserves to be higher up on this list. I could argue that we will be better than West Virginia and Minnesota. Maybe even UNC. Connecticut and Louisville definitely don't belong that far down.

I'd say it's an odd list. They don't give Mp2 any chance of having a significant impact and also didn't even bother to mention Nolan. I know that he struggled for a while last year, but he started the season well and ended the season well and I would expect to see him both improve over last season and play at a more consistent level. Either way, with one of the best players in the nation in Singler plus a strong supporting cast and added depth and talent in the front court, we're definitely higher than 18.

Carlos
08-04-2009, 11:08 AM
Interestingly enough, the author is a Maryland graduate.

SilkyJ
08-04-2009, 11:15 AM
I bet we can all agree Duke deserves to be higher up on this list. I could argue that we will be better than West Virginia and Minnesota. Maybe even UNC. Connecticut and Louisville definitely don't belong that far down.

Maybe a little, but I think its pretty reasonable to put us in the low-mid teens. With only 3 guards on the roster, one of which is a frosh and some lingering question marks about post play, its hard to gauge how we'll do. I'll look forward to watching our young guys grow b/c I think the plumlees can give us a serious punch down low this year, but its not crazy for the media to question how good we will be when we lost our best player and continue to have questions regarding our post play; after all many people seem to think the best guy could be a freshman whose never played a minute of college ball, and while I love MP2, he isn't coming in with a John Wall reputation for being a can't miss lottery pick in 1-2 years.

BulldogDancer81
08-04-2009, 11:15 AM
Yeah I wouldn't put much emphasis on that article because the author clearly didn't do very much research. His analysis on Butler is riddled with mis-information, so I'm not really surprised that his Duke evaluation is a big off as well.

Oh and I agree that Duke should be higher than 18.

ChicagoCrazy84
08-04-2009, 01:00 PM
There are some stretches on there, that is for sure. I don't think California, Michigan, or Oklahoma is that high. I think for us, we will consistently be ranked #10-18 throughout the preseason. I would certainly think this will be the lowest we will see Duke, especially when Dawkins becomes official.

Azdukefan
08-04-2009, 09:13 PM
I am going to just call it what it is (the #18 ranking), flat out stupid! Those guys should stick to handling individual talent and leave the team stuff to the guys on the DBR forums! :p

FireOgilvie
08-04-2009, 09:41 PM
I am going to just call it what it is (the #18 ranking), flat out stupid! Those guys should stick to handling individual talent and leave the team stuff to the guys on the DBR forums! :p

I agree. They have Duke way too low and they have a few teams way too high (California at 10... no way). I think that going into the tournament, Duke will be in the top 10. I think Andre Dawkins is actually a step up over Elliot due to his shooting ability, and I think Henderson was our 3rd most important player at the end of the year. It obviously hurts to lose him, but we still have Singler and Scheyer, who we would miss a lot more, IMO. I also think that we're going to be a lot better down low with Mason, Ryan, an improved Miles (who has a ton of upside), and a healthy Zoubek. I think Nolan is going to have a breakout year and we're going to end up just as good, if not better, than we were last year (barring injury to a guard).

SilkyJ
08-04-2009, 10:24 PM
I agree. They have Duke way too low and they have a few teams way too high (California at 10... no way). I think that going into the tournament, Duke will be in the top 10. I think Andre Dawkins is actually a step up over Elliot due to his shooting ability, and I think Henderson was our 3rd most important player at the end of the year. It obviously hurts to lose him, but we still have Singler and Scheyer, who we would miss a lot more, IMO. I also think that we're going to be a lot better down low with Mason, Ryan, an improved Miles (who has a ton of upside), and a healthy Zoubek. I think Nolan is going to have a breakout year and we're going to end up just as good, if not better, than we were last year (barring injury to a guard).

Hey Ozzie- when did you change your handle?! ;):D

FireOgilvie
08-04-2009, 10:38 PM
Hey Ozzie- when did you change your handle?! ;):D

Haha, I really think we have a good reason to be optimistic next year; especially in a guard-deprived ACC.

brevity
08-05-2009, 12:55 AM
I bet we can all agree Duke deserves to be higher up on this list. I could argue that we will be better than West Virginia and Minnesota. Maybe even UNC. Connecticut and Louisville definitely don't belong that far down.

I don't necessarily agree. As a preseason ranking (or in this case, pre-preseason), #18 is at the low end of a reasonable range. I'm not prepared at this point to make a nationwide evaluation, but I could see ranking at least 12 teams ahead of the Blue Devils. They eventually deserve to be higher up the list, maybe even a few weeks into the season, but everyone's 0-0 right now and evaluators are looking at basic things like returning starters.

The last time I paid much attention to the college basketball landscape was Championship Night -- this one in particular made me want to look ahead -- and I considered teams like Kansas, Purdue, Ohio State, California, and West Virginia. They lost the least to graduation and/or the draft, and I would certainly rank all 5 ahead of Duke, at least right now.

FireOgilvie
08-05-2009, 02:22 AM
I don't necessarily agree. As a preseason ranking (or in this case, pre-preseason), #18 is at the low end of a reasonable range. I'm not prepared at this point to make a nationwide evaluation, but I could see ranking at least 12 teams ahead of the Blue Devils. They eventually deserve to be higher up the list, maybe even a few weeks into the season, but everyone's 0-0 right now and evaluators are looking at basic things like returning starters.

The last time I paid much attention to the college basketball landscape was Championship Night -- this one in particular made me want to look ahead -- and I considered teams like Kansas, Purdue, Ohio State, California, and West Virginia. They lost the least to graduation and/or the draft, and I would certainly rank all 5 ahead of Duke, at least right now.

No, no, no. You named 5 teams and only Kansas "certainly" deserves to be ranked ahead of Duke next year. California lost their center and brings in no one. They lost to Maryland in the first round of the tournament last year. They were 11-7 in the Pac-10. Jamal Boykin is by far their best rebounder and he would still be sitting on our bench if he hadn't transferred. Duke would destroy California. Duke beat Purdue last year by 16 on their home court and Henderson scored 2 points in that game. Elliot scored 0 in 3 minutes. Purdue brings in no one and loses their fifth leading scorer and they were 11-7 in the Big Ten last year. West Virginia loses their 2nd leading scorer Alex Ruoff. They bring in a few guys that aren't ranked that high (much lower than the 3 we're bringing in) and they were 10-8 in the Big East last year and lost to 11th seeded Dayton by 8 in the NCAA Tournament. No way West Virginia deserves to be ranked ahead of the reigning ACC Champions. Ohio State has a lot of talent returning, except for their fifth leading scorer and center Mullens, and brings in no one onto their squad that was 10-8 in the Big Ten last year. They lost to Siena in the 1st round of the tournament. They lost to Purdue 2 out of 3 times, a Purdue team that Duke destroyed on their home court. So, in conclusion, there's no way that these teams should "certainly" be ranked ahead of Duke in the preseason polls. In fact, it's a complete joke that they are ALL ranked ahead of Duke.

Most people believe Duke is going to be roughly just as good as UNC next year. In fact, a lot of sports writers are predicting Duke to win the ACC. UNC is 6th in this top 25 poll, and I think they are underrated. Texas is number 4 in this poll and Duke beat them last year in the tournament. Texas loses their leading scorer Abrams and another key role player but brings in two highly rated players to replace them. Duke also loses their top scorer and a role player and brings in 3 highly ranked players. I'd give Texas a slight edge next year based on who they are bringing in, but it's crazy to think that they are ranked 4th while Duke is 18th.

Oh, and Oklahoma losing 4 of their top 6 scorers and still ranked 11th ahead of Duke is completely ridiculous. There's also no way that Michigan State will be 3rd at the end of the year after losing Suton. They bring in two very low rated centers that won't be close to being able to replace him. Remember when Michigan St. played UNC without Suton? They lost by 35. They lost by 17 (even though it could have been much more) with him. Michigan St. ranked 3rd in the country shows how wide-open it's going to be next year outside of Kansas and Kentucky.

FireOgilvie
08-05-2009, 02:58 AM
Okay, I've decided that I'm going to throw out the teams that I think should be ranked ahead of Duke next year. I have:

1. Kansas
2. Kentucky
3. Texas
4. UNC
5. Villanova
6. Duke

Michigan St. is probably 7th. These are my "First Tier" teams. After that, it's really wide open.

I expect KU to blow everyone out next year in the regular season. The same goes for UK. I think they'll be 1-2 all year. I would say that Texas has a shot (they definitely have the talent), but I don't think Rick Barnes can coach his way out of a paper bag.

brevity
08-05-2009, 06:23 AM
Notice the difference:


I would certainly rank all 5 ahead of Duke, at least right now.


So, in conclusion, there's no way that these teams should "certainly" be ranked ahead of Duke in the preseason polls. In fact, it's a complete joke that they are ALL ranked ahead of Duke.

One is what I would do, the other is what you believe should be done. Welcome to plurality of opinion.

I appreciate your optimism, but I subscribe to the school of tempered expectations. It's still a couple of months before I would think about exact numerical rankings, but I suppose I could divide the top teams into tiers as follows:

Tier 1: Kansas, Michigan State, Villanova, Tennessee
Tier 2: West Virginia, Purdue, Kentucky, California
Tier 3: Ohio State, UNC, Texas, Duke

In retrospect, ranking Duke in 5 seed territory is probably too low. They could be all over the map as other preseason polls roll in, ranked anywhere from #5 to #15. This particular poll feels like an outlier.

I'm not as high on Kentucky as everyone else because I have a hard time visualizing so many new factors coming into play. On talent alone, I can understand a #2 ranking, but putting them above more known quantities at the preseason stage makes me extremely uncomfortable. They may end up being the 2nd best team in the land, but I'll need to see a little bit of success and dominance first before I believe in them.

I agree with you about Oklahoma; even ranking them 11th on paper feels like a faith-based leap at this point. And I agree with you that Texas and Duke should be closer in rank, though I have them both ranked much lower than you.

whereinthehellami
08-05-2009, 12:36 PM
They definately seem to give too much credit to freshman. Freshman can put you over the top but you need to have that solid foundation/leadership. Kentucky is an intersting case study as they have quite the class coming in. I'll be following them curiously all year. Chemistry can be a tricky little gremlin, especially with guys that have one eye on draftexpress.

FireOgilvie
08-05-2009, 12:59 PM
Here are a couple preseason polls from Andy Katz and Dick Vitale that have Duke 10th and 5th, respectively:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=katz_andy&id=4262039

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/dickvitale/news/story?id=4361336

These pretty much go with my previous poll, although Purdue is ranked too high, IMO.

Also, brevity, I understand plurality of opinion. What I don't understand is how a team that wasn't getting top 25 votes at the end of the season suddenly catapults up 30 spots into the top 10 without any major additions. I'm sure Cal will be better this year just because they bring almost everyone back, but to suddenly put them into the top 10 makes no sense to me; especially without any contributor returning over 6'8".

Huh?
08-05-2009, 08:03 PM
Okay, I've decided that I'm going to throw out the teams that I think should be ranked ahead of Duke next year. I have:

1. Kansas
2. Kentucky
3. Texas
4. UNC
5. Villanova
6. Duke

Michigan St. is probably 7th. These are my "First Tier" teams. After that, it's really wide open.

I expect KU to blow everyone out next year in the regular season. The same goes for UK. I think they'll be 1-2 all year. I would say that Texas has a shot (they definitely have the talent), but I don't think Rick Barnes can coach his way out of a paper bag.

I like it, UK way overrated though, I'm ready for the season to start so these guys will understand this isn't the AAU circuit, D matters and hitting a jumper here and there is also helpful.
Villanova..? They will really miss Cunningham, anxious to see how J. Wright steers this ship.
I know UNC has Ed Davis back, he has great upside, Thompson is OK at best, but Hansborough was the heart and soul and Lawson made that team go. No PG, no SG? I'm skeptical. And I hate Carolina so they can suck it.
Kansas should be number one, Texas will get a HUGE boost from Avery Bradley, love his game. If their James and Pittman get more consistent, look out.
Overall I feel we will have a Final Four with 3 of these teams in it and a dark horse.

brevity
08-05-2009, 08:16 PM
I'm sure Cal will be better this year just because they bring almost everyone back, but to suddenly put them into the top 10 makes no sense to me; especially without any contributor returning over 6'8".

Fair point. There are two types of sins we commit when composing a preseason poll:

1. Too much faith in the unknown (freshmen, new coach, etc.)
2. Too much faith in the known (returning starters, program ready to take the next step, etc.)

Most people commit the first sin. I commit the second. In many ways, California 2009-2010 could be Notre Dame 2008-2009, a team that burned me in ways I didn't think I could get burned.

Cal is in my top 10 not because I think that's where they'll end up in March, but because I crave stability in a college hoops landscape that gets a little more depleted every year. I can't find 10 teams right now that I'm comfortable ranking ahead of them.

Even Kansas, the only team that we know looks as good on the court as it does on paper, isn't as good as the frontrunners of previous seasons. Should they win the 2010 title, people will consider them the best of a weak season, and a pale imitation of the 2008 squad.