CollegeHoops.net Top 144 countdown -- 2008-09

[mportsch]

It does sound like some of the A10 hype got blown out of proportion before last season.

I actually really liked Duquesne when I watched them play Pitt in December - I thought they had a good chance to make the NCAA Tournament, as they gave Pitt a good game after losing a close one at Drake. They had a 5-in, 5-out substitution pattern that was pretty interesting to see, and Shawn James looked like a potential NBA player to me.

Of course, I was way off on that one, as Duquesne won only two games over top 100 teams, Dayton and Saint Joe's. Shawn James and Kojo Mensah unwisely hired agents and were not drafted, and three other good rotation players have graduated, so the excitement that surrounded the Duquesne program going into that Pitt game went absolutely nowhere.

[squirrel]

It does sound like some of the A10 hype got blown out of proportion before last season.

I actually really liked Duquesne when I watched them play Pitt in December - I thought they had a good chance to make the NCAA Tournament, as they gave Pitt a good game after losing a close one at Drake. They had a 5-in, 5-out substitution pattern that was pretty interesting to see, and Shawn James looked like a potential NBA player to me.

Of course, I was way off on that one, as Duquesne won only two games over top 100 teams, Dayton and Saint Joe's. Shawn James and Kojo Mensah unwisely hired agents and were not drafted, and three other good rotation players have graduated, so the excitement that surrounded the Duquesne program going into that Pitt game went absolutely nowhere.

The A-10 problem last year wasn't that their teams were bad. On the contrary, more teams were better than expected. Going into the season there were 5-6 teams expected to be far superior than the rest of the league. SLU and Fordham were big time disappointments, while a number of teams were big surprises of the good kind.

Only 4 teams had losing records out of 14. The reason they were not represented well in the RPI and NCAA were because there were only 3 games separating 9 teams (all between 7-10 wins). LaSalle (one of the teams with a losing record) with a few breaks nearly stole 2nd place. And if you take out Xavier who finished 3 games out and Bonnie who finished 3 games behind, you have the remaining 12 member schools separated by a grand total of 6 games.

Another season like this though, and I'm willing to bet the A-10 (+4) changes their scheduling scheme.

It would be the equivalent of 8 Valley teams winning between 7-10 conference games. We know our teams are better than that. But we won't get the RPI rankings or NCAA bids we'd like when the teams are beating each other up so badly.

[basketball nut]

.

It would be the equivalent of 8 Valley teams winning between 7-10 conference games. We know our teams are better than that. But we won't get the RPI rankings or NCAA bids we'd like when the teams are beating each other up so badly.

This sounds a lot like the MVC last year. Let me clarify that by saying that the MVC may not be quite as good as the A-10. Then again I really do not think there is much difference in the 2 conf. other then one has more east coast presence.
I feel that right now the MVC is getting more parady and that makes it look bad. Squirrel, it is just like you said, if teams are beating up on each other and you do not have 2-4 teams that really stand out then these so called experts think that you are a weak conf. This is what is starting to happen in the MVC. It always seems amazing to me that the BCS conf. can do this and everyone talks about how tough the conf is and they get rewarded w/ multiple invites to the dance but if you are a mid major then you get busted in the chops because you are a weak conf.
I started to see this last year when the MVC, other then Drake, had teams from top to bottom that could beat up on each other. Did this make the BU's, ISU's, and SIU's bad or is it a case where the other treams are starting to get better? I personally think that the conf., top to bottom, are all starting to get better and in the long run this is going to hurt the MVC

[Bradleyguy10]

This sounds a lot like the MVC last year. Let me clarify that by saying that the MVC may not be quite as good as the A-10. Then again I really do not think there is much difference in the 2 conf. other then one has more east coast presence.
I feel that right now the MVC is getting more parady and that makes it look bad. Squirrel, it is just like you said, if teams are beating up on each other and you do not have 2-4 teams that really stand out then these so called experts think that you are a weak conf. This is what is starting to happen in the MVC. It always seems amazing to me that the BCS conf. can do this and everyone talks about how tough the conf is and they get rewarded w/ multiple invites to the dance but if you are a mid major then you get busted in the chops because you are a weak conf.
I started to see this last year when the MVC, other then Drake, had teams from top to bottom that could beat up on each other. Did this make the BU's, ISU's, and SIU's bad or is it a case where the other treams are starting to get better? I personally think that the conf., top to bottom, are all starting to get better and in the long run this is going to hurt the MVC

This is exactly what I said during the season. We were considered a weak conference and I defended the MVC and always said that it wasn't that we were weak, it was just that our teams were better and could beat each other. I do see how in the long run it could hurt us. However, if the teams consistently put together good nonconference schedules and do well, then I suspect down the road they would admit that the MVC is just filled with pretty good teams. If we fully believe that having good teams in the MVC is going to hurt us then why on almost every conference realignment topic do we talk about getting rid of Evansville or bringing in the likes of SLU, Marquette, Xavier, Butler, etc. Yes those are more marquee teams but in essence its still the same. Teams betting up on each other that aren't BCS...

[BUBrave28]

This is exactly what I said during the season. We were considered a weak conference and I defended the MVC and always said that it wasn't that we were weak, it was just that our teams were better and could beat each other. I do see how in the long run it could hurt us. However, if the teams consistently put together good nonconference schedules and do well, then I suspect down the road they would admit that the MVC is just filled with pretty good teams. If we fully believe that having good teams in the MVC is going to hurt us then why on almost every conference realignment topic do we talk about getting rid of Evansville or bringing in the likes of SLU, Marquette, Xavier, Butler, etc. Yes those are more marquee teams but in essence its still the same. Teams betting up on each other that aren't BCS...

You make a good point. However, I think that -- if we were to realign and make the conference significantly better top to bottom by adding teams like you mentioned -- we would CLEARLY be the 6th best conference in the nation for men's bball. We would have no weak points really & I think that would sort of negate any negative perception that comes from parody.

[Bradleyguy10]

You make a good point. However, I think that -- if we were to realign and make the conference significantly better top to bottom by adding teams like you mentioned -- we would CLEARLY be the 6th best conference in the nation for men's bball. We would have no weak points really & I think that would sort of negate any negative perception that comes from parody.

Are you sure about that or would "they" STILL just be saying Oh man, Bradley, ISU, UNI, etc. beat Marquette, Xavier, etc.--hmm this must mean that the valley (or at least the "top" of the valley) is having a down year. I agree we should be a top 6 but when will the stigma really go away. What teams do we have to add, or what has to happen for us to be able to beat each other in a conference and be praised as a good conference rather than talked down to like it's a "down year"?

[Stryker]

Are you sure about that or would "they" STILL just be saying Oh man, Bradley, ISU, UNI, etc. beat Marquette, Xavier, etc.--hmm this must mean that the valley (or at least the "top" of the valley) is having a down year. I agree we should be a top 6 but when will the stigma really go away. What teams do we have to add, or what has to happen for us to be able to beat each other in a conference and be praised as a good conference rather than talked down to like it's a "down year"?

When every team in the conference has a major football program. Seriously though, it isn't going to stop until this BCS stuff is gone. (never). Or if teams from our conference start making the final 4.

[basketball nut]

This is exactly what I said during the season. We were considered a weak conference and I defended the MVC and always said that it wasn't that we were weak, it was just that our teams were better and could beat each other. I do see how in the long run it could hurt us. However, if the teams consistently put together good nonconference schedules and do well, then I suspect down the road they would admit that the MVC is just filled with pretty good teams. If we fully believe that having good teams in the MVC is going to hurt us then why on almost every conference realignment topic do we talk about getting rid of Evansville or bringing in the likes of SLU, Marquette, Xavier, Butler, etc. Yes those are more marquee teams but in essence its still the same. Teams betting up on each other that aren't BCS...

The one and only way this would help would be to, basically, make a new conf. that would be BB only and force the BCS to recognize it accordingly. Will it ever happen? I am sure it will not as some of these teams would never leave their present conf.
As long as we are a "mid-major" the so called experts will look at the MVC as inferior because we are all becoming so equal. If we (all teams) can improve our non-conf schedule and win those types of games then we could start to get recognised as a better conf. (doubt that will happen as the better teams are goingto refuse to play teams like us) In the meantime the conf that are having 2-4 teams beat up on everyone else are going to be considwered better then the MVC. The only way we can prove them wrong is the ESPN bracketbuster. All MVC teams need to win their game and not just barely but really put it ot the other team big time (like BU did to VCU on their home floor a couple of years ago)

[squirrel]

The one and only way this would help would be to, basically, make a new conf. that would be BB only and force the BCS to recognize it accordingly. Will it ever happen? I am sure it will not as some of these teams would never leave their present conf.
As long as we are a "mid-major" the so called experts will look at the MVC as inferior because we are all becoming so equal. If we (all teams) can improve our non-conf schedule and win those types of games then we could start to get recognised as a better conf. (doubt that will happen as the better teams are goingto refuse to play teams like us) In the meantime the conf that are having 2-4 teams beat up on everyone else are going to be considwered better then the MVC. The only way we can prove them wrong is the ESPN bracketbuster. All MVC teams need to win their game and not just barely but really put it ot the other team big time (like BU did to VCU on their home floor a couple of years ago)

The MVC would gain an incredible amount of respect if it supported FBS football. Football controls everything in college sports now. CUSA, MAC, MWC, WAC, and even Sun Belt members can and will get more recognition because of the lack of FBS football by MVC members.

[squirrel]

This sounds a lot like the MVC last year. Let me clarify that by saying that the MVC may not be quite as good as the A-10. Then again I really do not think there is much difference in the 2 conf. other then one has more east coast presence.
I feel that right now the MVC is getting more parady and that makes it look bad. Squirrel, it is just like you said, if teams are beating up on each other and you do not have 2-4 teams that really stand out then these so called experts think that you are a weak conf. This is what is starting to happen in the MVC. It always seems amazing to me that the BCS conf. can do this and everyone talks about how tough the conf is and they get rewarded w/ multiple invites to the dance but if you are a mid major then you get busted in the chops because you are a weak conf.
I started to see this last year when the MVC, other then Drake, had teams from top to bottom that could beat up on each other. Did this make the BU's, ISU's, and SIU's bad or is it a case where the other treams are starting to get better? I personally think that the conf., top to bottom, are all starting to get better and in the long run this is going to hurt the MVC

No sooner did I explain this, the A-10 has already adjusted its scheduling scheme:

http://www.oleantimesherald.com/articles/2008/07/04/sports/doc486d97bd958f8451685199.txt

Last year, each team was paired with 3 schools for home-and-homes that had similar conference finishes the previous year.

This year, they have divided the league into three tiers based on predicted order of finish and each school will play a home-and-home against a team from each tier, and everyone else once. The year before I believe it was done based on location.

Something to watch for this year, as the A-10 was a gigantic log jam last year. This in theory should solve that.

So they are actively trying to figure out how to make the 14-team single-division league work.

And for Macabre, this could also explain why Fordham may have been overrated (I don't think they were, they just disappointed) going into last season, because they had been paired in previous conference seasons against weaker schools like St. Bonnie and LaSalle.

[mportsch]

North Dakota State is an interesting case - they return two of the most efficient offensive players in the nation. Among players that used at least 24% of their team's possessions, Ben Woodside and Brett Winkelman ranked 28th and 45th in Offensive Rating, respectively. If you limit the list to only players returning this season, they rank 10th and 18th in the nation.

Of course, they did it against a weak schedule (232nd in opposing defense strength), but it's still impressive. Here's the only other teams that return two guys from last year's top 100:

Pittsburgh - Sam Young and DeJuan Blair
Missouri - Leo Lyons and DeMarre Carroll
Baylor - LaceDarius Dunn and Curtis Jerrells

For those wondering, the only MVC returnee that made the top 100 is Creighton's Booker Woodfox. The only Big Ten returnee on the list is Raymar Morgan of Michigan State.

[basketball nut]

No sooner did I explain this, the A-10 has already adjusted its scheduling scheme:

http://www.oleantimesherald.com/articles/2008/07/04/sports/doc486d97bd958f8451685199.txt

Last year, each team was paired with 3 schools for home-and-homes that had similar conference finishes the previous year.

This year, they have divided the league into three tiers based on predicted order of finish and each school will play a home-and-home against a team from each tier, and everyone else once. The year before I believe it was done based on location.

Something to watch for this year, as the A-10 was a gigantic log jam last year. This in theory should solve that.

So they are actively trying to figure out how to make the 14-team single-division league work.

And for Macabre, this could also explain why Fordham may have been overrated (I don't think they were, they just disappointed) going into last season, because they had been paired in previous conference seasons against weaker schools like St. Bonnie and LaSalle.

And we wonder why the A-10 gets more support-it is because they are doing it the smart way so the top 3-4 teams look very good and will get in the dance. This is one of the reasons why the Valley will not have more the 2 teams in it very often as the league top to bottom has a lot of balance.

(The MVC would gain an incredible amount of respect if it supported FBS football. Football controls everything in college sports now. CUSA, MAC, MWC, WAC, and even Sun Belt members can and will get more recognition because of the lack of FBS football by MVC members. -this is a quote from squirrell and i wanted to give him credit-i am not smart enough to do multi quotes a guess)

another very good point and wouldn't football be so much fun at BU-won't happen but it would be fun

[squirrel]

And we wonder why the A-10 gets more support-it is because they are doing it the smart way so the top 3-4 teams look very good and will get in the dance. This is one of the reasons why the Valley will not have more the 2 teams in it very often as the league top to bottom has a lot of balance.

But I also think we benefit from not having more than 10 schools as well, much like the West Coast Conference benefits from having only 8 schools. But you also can't manipulate your schedule.

When you don't have a handful of bottom-tier DI programs, your quality shows through, and the MVC has done that over the last half-dozen years or so getting steadily better.

[mportsch]

To me, Georgia Tech looks quite a bit better than 111th in the nation.

In the frontcourt, they've got a nice rotation that goes four deep (Peacock, Aminu, Lawal, and Dieng). Peacock and Aminu both had a good ORtg of 108 or higher, and both were good on the defensive glass. Lawal is a bit behind each of them in every facet except for shotblocking, but he's still a pretty decent backup big man. Bass Dieng transfers in from St. Francis (PA), where he put up excellent rebounding numbers (against weak competition) and didn't do a whole lot else. Still, as your 4th big man, Dieng should be adequate.

In the backcourt, they have a very promising PG in Maurice Miller, who shot 40% from downtown and put up a good ORtg of 109 as a freshman. Shumpert comes in as the #15 RSCI prospect in the class of 2008 - if he lives up to that billing, they form a really nice backcourt duo. That just leaves Georgia Tech needing mediocre senior wings D'Andre Bell and Lewis Clinch to improve a bit to give them a good 8-man rotation.

I see Georgia Tech easily being a top 100 team this season, and probably will be good enough to make the NIT.

[IheartBU]

#110 Indiana State

http://www.collegehoopsnet.com/new/200809-indiana-state-basketball-preview-110-53468