CHN Top 144 Countdown

[Da Coach]

This thread has veered off topic.
Please discuss any further differences using the PM feature.

[SFP]

This thread has veered off topic.
Please discuss any further differences using the PM feature.

Thank you Da Coach - I was going to say as much!

[tornado]

#110 North Texas
#109 IUPUI
#108 Boston College
#107 Belmont
#106 Arkansas

[LittleBrave]

#110 North Texas
#109 IUPUI
#108 Boston College
#107 Belmont
#106 Arkansas

I think we'll have 5 MVC schools in the Top 100. (not that it's important) Creighton & BU will likely be close to each other. I would have UNI at #5 behind both of them, but I don't know where these guys will have them.

[houstontxbrave]

This thread has veered off topic.
Please discuss any further differences using the PM feature.

This actually has become quite the entertaining thread. So long as you dont get dirt in your eyes from dirt flying from all the spining

[AZ BU Fan]

[QUOTE=tornado;190547]
....These guys are one of the only sources that actually hit this one on the head instead of trashing BU for their frontcourt....
"However, there are not a lot of Missouri Valley Conference teams that possess extremely talented, physical post players
so I doubt their inexperience down low will not be a detrimental to their season."

So are you saying, BU's lack of success in the Valley and in post season NCAA/NIT the past couple of years wasn't due to their inexperience (or perhaps lack of talent) down low, but, that the rest of the team wasn't good enough to win?

[tornado]

that is not what I am saying...
and as I have said elsewhere -- the Valley is full of teams that are weak in the frontcourt...almost NO Valley team can actually be described and strong and DEEP in the frontcourt...so why is BU the only Valley team that is always criticized for being weak in the frontcourt?

[BradleyJD]

so why is BU the only Valley team that is always criticized for being weak in the frontcourt?

It might have something to do with this being a Bradley board. BU is usually the team being discussed.

I personally do not care what other teams problems or weaknesses are unless it somehow impacts Bradley.

[amckillip]

It might have something to do with this being a Bradley board. BU is usually the team being discussed.

I personally do not care what other teams problems or weaknesses are unless it somehow impacts Bradley.

I fall somewhere in the middle of this argument, but you don't think Wichita State's/Creighton's/UNI's frontcourt depth (or lack thereof) is relevant to BU?

[tornado]

It might have something to do with this being a Bradley board. BU is usually the team being discussed.

I personally do not care what other teams problems or weaknesses are unless it somehow impacts Bradley.

no -- again I said this in the context of reading the previews for this coming season as published by CHN, Athlon, Lindy's, Sporting News, and a few dozen other locations..
The multiple references to Bradley being especially weak among the Valley frontcourts is what prompted my statement and nothing on this board.

[tornado]

These guys now rank Missouri State at #35 -- now where were the people debating whether they are credible??

http://thehoopsreport.com/article.aspx?id=558

they decide this on the strength of two factors...
---that MSU has 3 double digit scorers returning (so does BU and yet BU's 3 returning guy are way better scorers)
---and that they are deep at the post with
"multiple quality big men"......and they specifically cite Creekmore, Patterson, & Rhine -- whose combined stats in league play are roughly equal to the combined stats of Egolf, Singh, and AT...
This is exactly what I mean by the complete inconsistency we see where BU is cited to be horribly shallow in the post, but teams that have about the exact same depth we have are cited inexplicably as having "multiple quality big men"...



Also - these guys have Creighton at #61..and that's great -- the Valley needs whatever press they can get.........but........
the loss of 3 of their top 5 guys (including, according to these guys, someone named Jason Carter)
seems to have helped them get better...they should have some some homework and gotten the names right...

http://www.thesportsbank.net/college-bball/99-in-99-61-creighton-blue-jays/

[LittleBrave]

I still like MSU's chances to contend in the Valley this season.
They DO have a few quality big men - if you include 6'5" Malette. He plays bigger than that, like a TW. Creekmore is pretty solid and so is Weems.
I especially like the fact they have coaches like Cuanzo Martin & Kent Williams who know how to win and seem to have really good repoire with student-athletes.

I DO question whether they'll be as good as #35 to start the season, or if they'll even get consideration for Top 25 for the whole season.

[AZ BU Fan]

I guess until the Braves accomplish something on the court in the MVC and live up to the praises we give their current players and coaches, pundits will not share our optimism and give them the benefit of the doubt.

If BU's players and coaches are as good as we think they are, and vs everyone else in the MVC, you'd think BU would have something more to show for it.

BU finally winning something in the MVC this year will finally solve a lot of the issues T has with pollsters, sports writers, and other BU doubters!

[TNMSUFAN]

These guys now rank Missouri State at #35 -- now where were the people debating whether they are credible??

http://thehoopsreport.com/article.aspx?id=558

they decide this on the strength of two factors...
---that MSU has 3 double digit scorers returning (so does BU and yet BU's 3 returning guy are way better scorers)
---and that they are deep at the post with
"multiple quality big men"......and they specifically cite Creekmore, Patterson, & Rhine -- whose combined stats in league play are roughly equal to the combined stats of Egolf, Singh, and AT...
This is exactly what I mean by the complete inconsistency we see where BU is cited to be horribly shallow in the post, but teams that have about the exact same depth we have are cited inexplicably as having "multiple quality big men"...



Also - these guys have Creighton at #61..and that's great -- the Valley needs whatever press they can get.........but........
the loss of 3 of their top 5 guys (including, according to these guys, someone named Jason Carter)
seems to have helped them get better...they should have some some homework and gotten the names right...
http://www.thesportsbank.net/college...ton-blue-jays/

I don't agree with where they have us but I do agree our 5 spot is pretty solid...just looking at Creek and Patterson that is basically 15pts 7rbs every night from the 5 spot which is pretty good for the MVC. Creek and Patterson played in 36 games each and one or the other scored in double figures 25 times. Again I don't agree with us being at #35 but we are as good or better than an Valley team at the 5 spot.

[SFP]

I don't agree with where they have us but I do agree our 5 spot is pretty solid...just looking at Creek and Patterson that is basically 15pts 7rbs every night from the 5 spot which is pretty good for the MVC. Creek and Patterson played in 36 games each and one or the other scored in double figures 25 times. Again I don't agree with us being at #35 but we are as good or better than an Valley team at the 5 spot.

I'd have to say the 2nd 1/2 of the season and when Valley play begins CU will have by far the best front court by far. Lawson right now could be the best center and come Jan. he may even slip to starting at the 4. JMHO