PDA

View Full Version : SI's Preseason Top 10



TNDukeFan
11-18-2009, 01:38 PM
It doesn't include Duke. Here it is:
1. Kansas
2. Michigan State
3. Villanova
4. Texas
5. Kentucky
6. Purdue
7. NC
8. West Virginia
9. Washington
10. Connecticut

Battierfan01
11-18-2009, 01:53 PM
It doesn't include Duke. Here it is:
1. Kansas
2. Michigan State
3. Villanova
4. Texas
5. Kentucky
6. Purdue
7. NC
8. West Virginia
9. Washington
10. Connecticut

Neither does ESPN's. I think they have us at 12.

proelitedota
11-18-2009, 02:25 PM
All the better when we whip a supposedly top 5 team for 30 points.

Battierfan01
11-18-2009, 02:32 PM
All the better when we whip a supposedly top 5 team for 30 points.

Thats right!! Man I love flying under the radar.

uh_no
11-18-2009, 02:36 PM
It doesn't include Duke. Here it is:
1. Kansas
2. Michigan State
3. Villanova
4. Texas
5. Kentucky
6. Purdue
7. NC
8. West Virginia
9. Washington
10. Connecticut

my take:

kansas: very good
MSU: also very good
villanova: will get beat up by some of the bigger teams in the big east
UK: OVERRATED.....people forget very quickly that they didn't make the tournament last year....a great recruiting class ensures that won't happen again, but a bunch of great freshman doesn't make them a title contender this year....anyone who saw them almost lose the other night knows they looked absolutely terrible....it wans't that they missed shots...they just sucked
purdue: big10 team....everyone says big10 teams are good...then they get smacked by other conferences....hence why they always lose the big10 ACC challenge...
UNC: lost a lot of their scoring....will have several losses on the year....hopefully 2 to us
WV: very good
UW: really?
uconn: should be good even losing their three guys....dyson walker and stanley robinson are very formidable....i think with dyson they win the nat'l championship last year.....but have looked not good in their first games, offense isn't clicking....will know much more next week in MSG

davekay1971
11-18-2009, 03:05 PM
Here's hoping the only poll that actually matters - the end of the year poll - has Duke number 1 (and Carolina out of the top 10).

Olympic Fan
11-18-2009, 03:39 PM
It's interesting to compare preseason polls with the final poll to see whether teams are underrated or overrated. How is it worked for Duke in recent years? Let's see (using the AP poll as a measure).

Year Preseason rank/Final rank Status
2009 8/6 UNDERRATED
2008 13/9 UNDERRATED
2007 12/UNRANKED OVERRATED
2006 1/1
2005 11/3 UNDERRATED
2004 2/6 OVERRATED
2003 6/7 OVERRATED
2002 1/1
2001 2/1 UNDERRATED
2000 10/1 UNDERRATED
1999 1/1
1998 3/3
1997 10/8 UNDERRATED
1996 UNR/UNR

So in the 14 seasons since K returned from his leave of absence, Duke has been underrated six times, rated exactly right five times and overrated three times -- twice by very small margins (in 2003 and 2004). In the last five years since Duke's last Final Four appearance, Duke has been underrated three times, overrated once and rated exactly right once.

Actually 2007 is the only year since 1995 that Duke has been significantly overrated. If you go back to the 1984-94 era, I think you'll find that Duke was underrated far more often than not.

My point is that Duke was picked No. 9 in this year's preseason AP poll. I think the odds are very good that Duke will finish higher than that in the final AP poll.

feldspar
11-18-2009, 04:15 PM
It's interesting to compare preseason polls with the final poll to see whether teams are underrated or overrated. How is it worked for Duke in recent years? Let's see (using the AP poll as a measure).

Year Preseason rank/Final rank Status
2009 8/6 UNDERRATED
2008 13/9 UNDERRATED
2007 12/UNRANKED OVERRATED
2006 1/1
2005 11/3 UNDERRATED
2004 2/6 OVERRATED
2003 6/7 OVERRATED
2002 1/1
2001 2/1 UNDERRATED
2000 10/1 UNDERRATED
1999 1/1
1998 3/3
1997 10/8 UNDERRATED
1996 UNR/UNR

So in the 14 seasons since K returned from his leave of absence, Duke has been underrated six times, rated exactly right five times and overrated three times -- twice by very small margins (in 2003 and 2004). In the last five years since Duke's last Final Four appearance, Duke has been underrated three times, overrated once and rated exactly right once.

Actually 2007 is the only year since 1995 that Duke has been significantly overrated. If you go back to the 1984-94 era, I think you'll find that Duke was underrated far more often than not.

My point is that Duke was picked No. 9 in this year's preseason AP poll. I think the odds are very good that Duke will finish higher than that in the final AP poll.

I'm not sure if I agree with your criteria of what is "underrated and overrated."

If you pick a team #2 in the preseason and they win the NC, I don't really think you can say they were all that underrated. Every year, the top 4/5 teams usually are seen as legitimate contenders for the NC.

Also, when you pick a team 8th and they finish 6th, it's tough to call that underrated as well.

Now, if you go from being ranked 14th and end up being ranked #3, that's definitely an underrating.

So, I'd edit your list thusly:

2009 8/6
2008 13/9 UNDERRATED
2007 12/UNRANKED OVERRATED
2006 1/1
2005 11/3 UNDERRATED
2004 2/6 SLIGHTLY OVERRATED
2003 6/7
2002 1/1
2001 2/1
2000 10/1 UNDERRATED
1999 1/1
1998 3/3
1997 10/8
1996 UNR/UNR

So, out of 14 years, Duke was overrated twice, slightly overrated once, and legitimately underrated twice.

ChicagoCrazy84
11-18-2009, 04:35 PM
Everyone does know that this is the same magazine that picked the Chicago Bears to represent the NFC in the Super Bowl, right?

Just sayin...

bdh21
11-18-2009, 05:10 PM
So, I'd edit your list thusly:

2009 8/6
2008 13/9 UNDERRATED
2007 12/UNRANKED OVERRATED
2006 1/1
2005 11/3 UNDERRATED
2004 2/6 SLIGHTLY OVERRATED
2003 6/7
2002 1/1
2001 2/1
2000 10/1 UNDERRATED
1999 1/1
1998 3/3
1997 10/8
1996 UNR/UNR

So, out of 14 years, Duke was overrated twice, slightly overrated once, and legitimately underrated twice.

That 2004 team may have dropped to 6th in the final poll (released after the conference tournaments, not after the big one) because they gave away a heartbreaker to Maryland, but there was absolutely nothing overrated about that Duke team. I would rank them 2nd (behind 2001) out of all the 2000-2009 editions of Duke Basketball.

juise
11-18-2009, 05:24 PM
I would rank them 2nd (behind 2001) out of all the 2000-2009 editions of Duke Basketball.

Well, that's pretty safe since they were the only other team (beside 2001) to make it past the Sweet 16. ;)

Kedsy
11-18-2009, 05:31 PM
Well, that's pretty safe since they were the only other team (beside 2001) to make it bast the Sweet 16. ;)

So many people around here want to bash the 2006 team, but I don't get it. The team was pre-season #1, end of regular season #1, ACC regular season champion and ACC tournament champion, had two first-team All-Americans, and only lost by 8 points to a very athletic Final Four team on a night when the national player of the year shot 3 for 18. I get so tired of the mentality that the last game is the entire season.

Greg_Newton
11-18-2009, 05:59 PM
It's interesting to compare preseason polls with the final poll to see whether teams are underrated or overrated. How is it worked for Duke in recent years? Let's see (using the AP poll as a measure).

Year Preseason rank/Final rank Status
2009 8/6 UNDERRATED
2008 13/9 UNDERRATED
2007 12/UNRANKED OVERRATED
2006 1/1
2005 11/3 UNDERRATED
2004 2/6 OVERRATED
2003 6/7 OVERRATED
2002 1/1
2001 2/1 UNDERRATED
2000 10/1 UNDERRATED
1999 1/1
1998 3/3
1997 10/8 UNDERRATED
1996 UNR/UNR


Interesting idea, but I'm not sure how much it matters because the final AP poll doesn't take into account tournament performance. For example, Duke's preseason/postseason rankings were 5/11 and 11/16 in 2009 and 2008, respectively, in the final ESPN poll (which takes tourney performance into account). This turns those two "underrated" years into "overrated" years.

I'm very excited about this team, but it's not because of recent past performance.

juise
11-18-2009, 06:30 PM
So many people around here want to bash the 2006 team, but I don't get it. The team was pre-season #1, end of regular season #1, ACC regular season champion and ACC tournament champion, had two first-team All-Americans, and only lost by 8 points to a very athletic Final Four team on a night when the national player of the year shot 3 for 18. I get so tired of the mentality that the last game is the entire season.


Whoa there, chief. I am not bashing the 2006 team. I was just pointing out that the 2004 team stands out as the other final four team. I think that 2002 and 2004 were actually pretty close in talent, but I would give 2004 the nod over 2006. To me, 2004 should have a title. I mean, the win over UConn was in our grasps. We had them. (And let's not forget that UConn was loaded with talent as well... much more so than 2006 LSU.)

Here's a simple and incredibly subjective comparison of the starters:

Senior Duhon >> Freshman Paulus (Duhon was a better scorer and defender)
Junior Ewing >> Senior Dockery (Sean was a warrior, but Daniel was a MUCH more complete player)
Senior Redick > Sophomore Redick
Freshman Deng > Freshman McRoberts (Luol was a versatile match-up nightmare)
Senior Williams > Sophomore Williams

Anyway, I think the gaps at point guard and wing (Ewing/Dockery) are pretty significant. I loved the 2006 team, but I would take the 2004 on a wager.

sagegrouse
11-18-2009, 08:30 PM
So many people around here want to bash the 2006 team, but I don't get it. The team was pre-season #1, end of regular season #1, ACC regular season champion and ACC tournament champion, had two first-team All-Americans, and only lost by 8 points to a very athletic Final Four team on a night when the national player of the year shot 3 for 18. I get so tired of the mentality that the last game is the entire season.

The 2006 record was phenomenal. In retrospect, that team does not look as strong. JJ and Shel were backed up by seniors Lee Melchionni and Sean Dockery, sophomore Markie Nelson, and freshman starters McRoberts and Paulus. Markie as a senior was terrific, but none of the rest had scintillating careers. In the ultimate game, when LSU devoted their efforts to stopping JJ, the other guards were 3 for 17. No one, except Shelden, stepped up to take advantage of the overplay on JJ.

I might compare 2006 to 2000, when a heavily freshman team lost its first two games, and then roared through the rest of the schedule until losing in the round of 16. Not sure how the 2000 team won 15 conference games, but it was an amazing accomplishment.

sagegrouse

Kedsy
11-18-2009, 09:25 PM
The 2006 record was phenomenal. In retrospect, that team does not look as strong. JJ and Shel were backed up by seniors Lee Melchionni and Sean Dockery, sophomore Markie Nelson, and freshman starters McRoberts and Paulus. Markie as a senior was terrific, but none of the rest had scintillating careers. In the ultimate game, when LSU devoted their efforts to stopping JJ, the other guards were 3 for 17. No one, except Shelden, stepped up to take advantage of the overplay on JJ.

I might compare 2006 to 2000, when a heavily freshman team lost its first two games, and then roared through the rest of the schedule until losing in the round of 16. Not sure how the 2000 team won 15 conference games, but it was an amazing accomplishment.

sagegrouse

This is exactly what I'm talking about. The 2000 team could be characterized as overachievers. It seemed like it at the time. The 2006 team was pre-season #1 and was #1 going into the tournament in every poll and every rating system. According to the RPI they played the (#1) toughest schedule in the country and they only lost two games before their tourney exit (in 2000 the SOS was 23rd, which may partially explain the 27-4 record going into the tourney).

You don't go 30-2 against the toughest schedule in the country by overachieving. If JJ had shot 8 for 18 against LSU and Duke had made the Final Four, the 2006 team would be spoken about with reverence around here. Because they lost to LSU they're "overachievers."


Whoa there, chief. I am not bashing the 2006 team. I was just pointing out that the 2004 team stands out as the other final four team. I think that 2002 and 2004 were actually pretty close in talent, but I would give 2004 the nod over 2006.

My intent was not to single you out. In another thread a few days ago people were saying the 2006 team couldn't even be considered a title contender, which is a patently ludicrous assertion. I interpretated your post to say the 2004 team was a no-brainer as the 2nd best Duke team of the decade just because they made the Final Four, and that set me off again.

Obviously the 2004 team was a good team, and they may have been the 2nd best Duke team of the decade (although I don't think they were). I was simply objecting to the idea that just because that team made the Final Four they were automatically better than 2006.

Oddly, I had forgotten all about 2002. Now that you remind me, I'd say that team was better than both 2004 and 2006. But again, nobody talks about the 2002 team because Jason Williams missed two free throws and Carlos Boozer got fouled.

Anyway, sorry if I offended you. I still think too many people around here judge an entire season based on the last game.

juise
11-18-2009, 09:36 PM
Anyway, sorry if I offended you. I still think too many people around here judge an entire season based on the last game.

Thanks for the apology. I wasn't offended as much as I wanted to make it clear that my post wasn't intended to "bash" the 2006 team (since I didn't even reference them).

The last Duke game that I had the pleasure of seeing in person was the December 2005 dismantling of #2 Texas by #1 Duke in New Jersey. It was amazing. JJ was unbelievable. I agree that comparing them to the 2006 team is not fair because they went into the season with two pre-season first team All-Americans who broke all sorts of records that year (as expected).