1 through 351

[thenagemj02]

The Eye On College Basketball staff at CBS decided to go ahead and give some attention to all of the NCAA DI teams by ranking all of them. Obviously, there are going to be some predictions that are way off but I think it's a fun read if you're a big college hoops fan and excited for the upcoming season:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebas...g-of-every-college-basketball-team-from-1-351

Boiler Up

 

[punaj]

#26... not a lot of love for the Boilers there. I think that gives them another article to hang in the locker room and open some eyes this year.

 

[punaj]

Here's another CBS article of the 100 best college players.

AJ: 43
Vince: 100

I think the Boilers will shock some people this year. Boiler up!

 

[CRBoiler]

From an outsider's perspective, I think Purdue has plenty to prove, especially guard play. I personally think our guards WILL prove it, but at this point I can see why we're scattered between 15th and 30th in the various pre-season rankings.

However, it is hard to understand how IU is consistently projected higher than we are. When you look at how the two teams did last year and then look at returning & new personnel, I just don't see them leap-frogging us. Difficulty of conference schedule will be something of a factor, but not THAT much. Seems like people are mainly looking at the offensive stats of IUs returning players, and they're forgetting about all the question marks on defense (& also question marks about the coach).

Whatever - it'll be that much sweeter when we beat them in Bloomington on February 20.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

From an outsider's perspective, I think Purdue has plenty to prove, especially guard play. I personally think our guards WILL prove it, but at this point I can see why we're scattered between 15th and 30th in the various pre-season rankings.

However, it is hard to understand how IU is consistently projected higher than we are. When you look at how the two teams did last year and then look at returning & new personnel, I just don't see them leap-frogging us. Difficulty of conference schedule will be something of a factor, but not THAT much. Seems like people are mainly looking at the offensive stats of IUs returning players, and they're forgetting about all the question marks on defense (& also question marks about the coach).

Whatever - it'll be that much sweeter when we beat them in Bloomington on February 20.

26 seems low to me, but I like the low ranking because I think that seeing the lower ranking is more motivating for the players than only reading how great they are. Based on how Purdue finished last season, plus considering additions and subtractions, I think that a strong case can be made that Purdue should be ranked in the top 15, but the national media generally doesn't see it that way.

 

[punaj]

These polls just reinforce that it is mainly just name recognition at this time of year - see IU at 14 with 1 new player and still not playing defense. Hopefully Purdue proves the polls wrong. I'm sure there are teams below us that feel the same way.

 

[mathboy]

These polls just reinforce that it is mainly just name recognition at this time of year - see IU at 14 with 1 new player and still not playing defense. Hopefully Purdue proves the polls wrong. I'm sure there are teams below us that feel the same way.

Putting us at 25-26 makes sense if you look at this impatially. They may have used last year's NCAA results as the starting point. If I had to do this kind of exercise, that is where I would start. (Add the NIT as needed, then conference finish positions). So if this is the starting point, then Purdue lost to Xavier and has roughly the same players as last year. Neither X nor Purde made the sweet sixteen. Lots of teams in the top 25 added 5-star players. Biggie who?

So with the first 16 positons set by last year's NCAA, then what? Who added and who subtracted big time players? Reshuffle with that in mind, and start on the next 16. Wait a minute. Somehow we have Indiana too low because (1) they have all these 5* kids, and (2) this preseason poll (authored by an IU homie) listed them in the top 10, and (3) It's Indiana. Okay bump them up.

I guess what I am saying is that this ranking is just a blind shot in the dark, so I would not put too much faith in it. It does provide "proof" to some trolls that IU is going to be great, long before anyone plays a game. When someone uses this in an argument, all you can do is point and laugh.

Frankly, I like this situation because some of the currently arrogent will get knocked down, and Purdue will be seen as a CInderella type team with the attendant good publicity. This will make the whole year entertaining as hell.

 

[mathboy]

I went back and looked at the list of 25. There are some laughable decisions in that list. Here are some of the best, with notes from the list:

• #6 Iowa State has a new coach, but he is going to take this team to #6, after they finished at #9 last year? Just 3-4 seniors that graduated, but hey, they should be just fine. Hummm - plausible. So the coach is not important in this ranking, eh?
• #10 Gonzaga has to replace their entire back court, but they are going to finish in the top 10 with just a good front line? Well how about that team in West Laffy?
• #13 IU is good because of the high school ranking of players that have been in college for 4 years? I guess the coach doesn't matter that much. Okay, I can buy that. They finished 7th in the BIG last year, but hey, this is a new year.
• #15 Arizona lost all 4 of their top scorers, but still are going to finish at 15th? Wow, just wow. Must be the great coach, but I thought the coach didn't matter?
• But wait, it gets better. #17 Wisconsin lost all 5 top scorers, but still get ranked at 17th? Well, Bo is back, so I guess the coach is important to the ranking... hey, wait a minute.

I want some of what this guy is smoking. It's got to be great stuff to dream up this list.

 

[gelesen]

I went back and looked at the list of 25. There are some laughable decisions in that list. Here are some of the best, with notes from the list:

• #6 Iowa State has a new coach, but he is going to take this team to #6, after they finished at #9 last year? Just 3-4 seniors that graduated, but hey, they should be just fine. Hummm - plausible. So the coach is not important in this ranking, eh?
• #10 Gonzaga has to replace their entire back court, but they are going to finish in the top 10 with just a good front line? Well how about that team in West Laffy?
• #13 IU is good because of the high school ranking of players that have been in college for 4 years? I guess the coach doesn't matter that much. Okay, I can buy that. They finished 7th in the BIG last year, but hey, this is a new year.
• #15 Arizona lost all 4 of their top scorers, but still are going to finish at 15th? Wow, just wow. Must be the great coach, but I thought the coach didn't matter?
• But wait, it gets better. #17 Wisconsin lost all 5 top scorers, but still get ranked at 15? Well, Bo is back, so I guess the coach is important to the ranking... hey, wait a minute.

I want some of what this guy is smoking. It's got to be great stuff to dream up this list.

Spot on....I don't think sports writers have brains anymore or at the very least are so lazy they do little if any research.

 

[SIBoiler2]

Spot on....I don't think sports writers have brains anymore or at the very least are so lazy they do little if any research.

To prove your hypothesis I give you Bob Krapitz as exhibit A.

 

[since1980]

From an outsider's perspective, I think Purdue has plenty to prove, especially guard play. I personally think our guards WILL prove it, but at this point I can see why we're scattered between 15th and 30th in the various pre-season rankings.

However, it is hard to understand how IU is consistently projected higher than we are. When you look at how the two teams did last year and then look at returning & new personnel, I just don't see them leap-frogging us. Difficulty of conference schedule will be something of a factor, but not THAT much. Seems like people are mainly looking at the offensive stats of IUs returning players, and they're forgetting about all the question marks on defense (& also question marks about the coach).

Whatever - it'll be that much sweeter when we beat them in Bloomington on February 20.

I totally agree. Not sure why the IU hype since they don't play defense and have lost a couple of key players. Also I think Purdue's success will be determined by what guard will step up and be the prime playmaker for the team...something you absolutely need in college basketball to advance in the tournament.

 

[proudopete]

26 seems low to me, but I like the low ranking because I think that seeing the lower ranking is more motivating for the players than only reading how great they are. Based on how Purdue finished last season, plus considering additions and subtractions, I think that a strong case can be made that Purdue should be ranked in the top 15, but the national media generally doesn't see it that way.

I like being undervalued early on.
I would imagine if all goes as planned. We should be flirting with top 10 around the beginning of conference play.

 

[klmLB]

I think these polls are completely meaningless until the you get to the middle of conference play and then it takes more meaning going into the NCAA tourney and seeding. So, I'm okay with the ranking. That's probably where any outsider would and should put us ... and go back and look at any preseason poll and judge them by the end of season rankings. Every year these polls have teams that flame out and other teams not on the list that are highly ranked and finish the year strong.

Also, my feeling is that Purdue teams have done well with underdog/disrespected mindsets versus being favored. I'd rather be in this position.

The Eye On College Basketball staff at CBS decided to go ahead and give some attention to all of the NCAA DI teams by ranking all of them. Obviously, there are going to be some predictions that are way off but I think it's a fun read if you're a big college hoops fan and excited for the upcoming season:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebas...g-of-every-college-basketball-team-from-1-351

Boiler Up

 

[mathboy]

I think these polls are completely meaningless until the you get to the middle of conference play and then it takes more meaning going into the NCAA tourney and seeding. So, I'm okay with the ranking. That's probably where any outsider would and should put us ... and go back and look at any preseason poll and judge them by the end of season rankings. Every year these polls have teams that flame out and other teams not on the list that are highly ranked and finish the year strong.

Also, my feeling is that Purdue teams have done well with underdog/disrespected mindsets versus being favored. I'd rather be in this position.

People say early pre-season poles are surprizingly accurate in some respects. I guess if you look at the fuzzy results they predict, they cover a number of widely different outcomes. Odds are that the FF teams are somewhere in the tope 25 list, so I guess that is "accurate"?

 

[klmLB]

First, apologies for the long reply. Secondly, I shouldn't have said preseason polls are completely meaningless, but rather inconsequential especially for teams in the 15+ rankings.

If you look at preseason Top 25 polls - at least since 2010 - they consistently have anywhere from 9-13 teams that aren't in the final Top 25 poll. That's anywhere from 36-52% of the teams they get wrong. Most of the incorrect teams are in the 15-25 range, but you do have some occasional Top 10 or 5 teams that are unranked by season's end (rare, but it does happen). So, to me the Top 25 preseason is pretty meaningless - especially when you consider the range of rankings that we are considered for at the moment (15-30 range). IMO, teams that are ranked between 15-30 preseason are pretty much interchangeable. That's why, to me, it doesn't really matter where they put us. Truthfully, our ranking will be fine after non conference provided we don't have any N Fla or Garner Webb games.

Now, to your point that polls matter for the Final Four, I agree. To make E8 or F4 you usually are in the Top 15 preseason.

That doesn't bode well for us, but there are some exceptions. Realistically, I think we'll have a strong year, finish in Top 3 B1G, at least Sweet Sixteen, finish - at least - in Top 15 in final poll. If the match-ups are favorable, perhaps E8 and if the stars truly align F4. (also, I think our year will be predicated on how well our guards can play, so the combination of Stephens/Mathias/Hill need to be big for us to have a chance at E8/F4. Keep turnovers to a minimum, consistently make 35% of our 3s, be able to feed the post, solid defense. Not asking for any 18 PPG scorers from our guards, just really solid guard play).

People say early pre-season poles are surprizingly accurate in some respects. I guess if you look at the fuzzy results they predict, they cover a number of widely different outcomes. Odds are that the FF teams are somewhere in the tope 25 list, so I guess that is "accurate"?

 

[rgarlitz]

#26 is fine with me. We do have a ton of guards. All but Ray Day need to show more consistency.

The front line would seem to be the bigger story: 7`2", 7`0", 6`9", 6`9", 6`7", 6`6" from Haas to Basil. Not many teams can say that. Has Purdue ever had a team that big?