College Basketball 2009-10

[SouthSideRyan]

Is Wall even going to play?

 

I'd bet somebody's life on it. Not mine, but somebody's.

[ELCABALLO45]

Well I hope he does, It will be fun watching his one year he plays in college.

[TheVolCub08]

I'm a little lost on Kentucky and Texas. How can they be unranked and 23rd respectively to end last year and then debut in the top 5 when there are teams behind them that return practically everyone? I don't understand that. If a team that finishes last season ranked 15 and returns everyone of importance plus has a good recruiting class how can they be behind a team that finished ranked below them?

 

Kentucky is the one that bothers me most. They didn't even make the tourny last year nor win the NIT and yet they are top 5? Goes to show you how stupid the media is.

 

Kentucky brought in a couple of one-and-done type prospects to add to Patrick Patterson and crew. I don't think they should be Top 5, but Top 10-15 is absolutely where they belong.

[Guest]

I'm a little lost on Kentucky and Texas. How can they be unranked and 23rd respectively to end last year and then debut in the top 5 when there are teams behind them that return practically everyone? I don't understand that. If a team that finishes last season ranked 15 and returns everyone of importance plus has a good recruiting class how can they be behind a team that finished ranked below them?

 

Kentucky is the one that bothers me most. They didn't even make the tourny last year nor win the NIT and yet they are top 5? Goes to show you how stupid the media is.

 

John Wall is very, very good (if he is allowed to play). It's not just a matter of who returns but who else you add.

 

I agree and that is why they should go from unranked and barely a .500 team to ranked in the 15-20 range. To me the top 5 is reserved for the teams who played close or at that level the year before and return a lot. The top 5 is not for a team that has been mediocre for years now and get a great recruit who no one really knows how good he will be because he has yet to play. They are top 5 simply because they have been talked about all off-season.

 

They should be ranked where AP feels they stack up, not based on past history.

 

Wall isn't the only great freshman they have, he's just the best one they have. They are definitely a top 10 team.

[TheVolCub08]

I'm a little lost on Kentucky and Texas. How can they be unranked and 23rd respectively to end last year and then debut in the top 5 when there are teams behind them that return practically everyone? I don't understand that. If a team that finishes last season ranked 15 and returns everyone of importance plus has a good recruiting class how can they be behind a team that finished ranked below them?

 

Kentucky is the one that bothers me most. They didn't even make the tourny last year nor win the NIT and yet they are top 5? Goes to show you how stupid the media is.

 

John Wall is very, very good (if he is allowed to play). It's not just a matter of who returns but who else you add.

 

I agree and that is why they should go from unranked and barely a .500 team to ranked in the 15-20 range. To me the top 5 is reserved for the teams who played close or at that level the year before and return a lot. The top 5 is not for a team that has been mediocre for years now and get a great recruit who no one really knows how good he will be because he has yet to play. They are top 5 simply because they have been talked about all off-season.

 

That's just it... they didn't add A great recruit. They added 5 players, the lowest of which was ranked #40 by Rivals. They added the #1, #2, #22, #23, and #40 players in America. That's a Top 10 class- EVER. In an era where one and done types lead teams to FInal Fours, you have to think that a team who adds two to a solid existing roster is going to be vastly improved.

[snoodmonger]

I'm a little lost on Kentucky and Texas. How can they be unranked and 23rd respectively to end last year and then debut in the top 5 when there are teams behind them that return practically everyone? I don't understand that. If a team that finishes last season ranked 15 and returns everyone of importance plus has a good recruiting class how can they be behind a team that finished ranked below them?

 

Kentucky is the one that bothers me most. They didn't even make the tourny last year nor win the NIT and yet they are top 5? Goes to show you how stupid the media is.

 

John Wall is very, very good (if he is allowed to play). It's not just a matter of who returns but who else you add.

 

I agree and that is why they should go from unranked and barely a .500 team to ranked in the 15-20 range. To me the top 5 is reserved for the teams who played close or at that level the year before and return a lot. The top 5 is not for a team that has been mediocre for years now and get a great recruit who no one really knows how good he will be because he has yet to play. They are top 5 simply because they have been talked about all off-season.

 

They should be ranked where ESPN feels they stack up, not based on past history.

 

Wall isn't the only great freshman they have, he's just the best one they have. They are definitely a top 10 team.

 

Wall's good, but the hype is a little outrageous. He can't shoot. And that will really impair his ability to use his quicks. People talk like he's the best guard we'll have seen in a long time. He's not. Dude isn't as good as Rose or Gordon.

[illiniguy]

I'm a little lost on Kentucky and Texas. How can they be unranked and 23rd respectively to end last year and then debut in the top 5 when there are teams behind them that return practically everyone? I don't understand that. If a team that finishes last season ranked 15 and returns everyone of importance plus has a good recruiting class how can they be behind a team that finished ranked below them?

 

Kentucky is the one that bothers me most. They didn't even make the tourny last year nor win the NIT and yet they are top 5? Goes to show you how stupid the media is.

 

John Wall is very, very good (if he is allowed to play). It's not just a matter of who returns but who else you add.

 

I agree and that is why they should go from unranked and barely a .500 team to ranked in the 15-20 range. To me the top 5 is reserved for the teams who played close or at that level the year before and return a lot. The top 5 is not for a team that has been mediocre for years now and get a great recruit who no one really knows how good he will be because he has yet to play. They are top 5 simply because they have been talked about all off-season.

 

They should be ranked where ESPN feels they stack up, not based on past history.

 

Wall isn't the only great freshman they have, he's just the best one they have. They are definitely a top 10 team.

 

Wall's good, but the hype is a little outrageous. He can't shoot. And that will really impair his ability to use his quicks. People talk like he's the best guard we'll have seen in a long time. He's not. Dude isn't as good as Rose or Gordon.

His high school team went 17-13 in the small class last year. I am gonna need to see a bit more, I doubt he can sniff Rose.

[Guest]

He isn't as good as Rose. But he doesn't have to be (along with the Orton, Cousins, Hood, etc.) to make Kentucky a top 10 team in a down year.

[shnsajax]

I'm a little lost on Kentucky and Texas. How can they be unranked and 23rd respectively to end last year and then debut in the top 5 when there are teams behind them that return practically everyone? I don't understand that. If a team that finishes last season ranked 15 and returns everyone of importance plus has a good recruiting class how can they be behind a team that finished ranked below them?

 

Kentucky is the one that bothers me most. They didn't even make the tourny last year nor win the NIT and yet they are top 5? Goes to show you how stupid the media is.

 

As for Texas they are pretty much bringing most everyone back outside of Abrams, had maybe the 2nd best class behind Kentucky (Jordas Hamilton and Avery Bradley) and a transfer of Jai Lucas from U of Florida. Damion James and Dexter Pittman should be very good this season too.

[SpongeWorthy]

I'm a little lost on Kentucky and Texas. How can they be unranked and 23rd respectively to end last year and then debut in the top 5 when there are teams behind them that return practically everyone? I don't understand that. If a team that finishes last season ranked 15 and returns everyone of importance plus has a good recruiting class how can they be behind a team that finished ranked below them?

 

Kentucky is the one that bothers me most. They didn't even make the tourny last year nor win the NIT and yet they are top 5? Goes to show you how stupid the media is.

 

John Wall is very, very good (if he is allowed to play). It's not just a matter of who returns but who else you add.

 

I agree and that is why they should go from unranked and barely a .500 team to ranked in the 15-20 range. To me the top 5 is reserved for the teams who played close or at that level the year before and return a lot. The top 5 is not for a team that has been mediocre for years now and get a great recruit who no one really knows how good he will be because he has yet to play. They are top 5 simply because they have been talked about all off-season.

 

They should be ranked where ESPN feels they stack up, not based on past history.

 

Wall isn't the only great freshman they have, he's just the best one they have. They are definitely a top 10 team.

 

Wall's good, but the hype is a little outrageous. He can't shoot. And that will really impair his ability to use his quicks. People talk like he's the best guard we'll have seen in a long time. He's not. Dude isn't as good as Rose or Gordon.

 

Most hotshot PG prospects have little jumper to speak of because they never have to use it in high school.

[Butterscup1679666578]

Hey, Mizzou is #32. Neat.

Didn't they lose most of their team?

 

Carroll, Lyons, and Lawrence, or in other words, their frontcourt. They'll be really guard heavy, and how good they end up being will depend on how guys like Safford and Bowers respond to more minutes.

 

I hope the young guys can get it together so we can at least make a run at the tourney. The NIT would be ok, but no NIT or NCAA would be a huge step back for the program. I'm excited to see what the new guys bring, because they've definitely got talent. Also excited to see Kimmie get the chance to go off all season long.

[snoodmonger]

I'm a little lost on Kentucky and Texas. How can they be unranked and 23rd respectively to end last year and then debut in the top 5 when there are teams behind them that return practically everyone? I don't understand that. If a team that finishes last season ranked 15 and returns everyone of importance plus has a good recruiting class how can they be behind a team that finished ranked below them?

 

Kentucky is the one that bothers me most. They didn't even make the tourny last year nor win the NIT and yet they are top 5? Goes to show you how stupid the media is.

 

As for Texas they are pretty much bringing most everyone back outside of Abrams, had maybe the 2nd best class behind Kentucky (Jordas Hamilton and Avery Bradley) and a transfer of Jai Lucas from U of Florida. Damion James and Dexter Pittman should be very good this season too.

 

 

IIRC, the thing about Texas is they didn't have a trustworthy PG last year. That (and Abrams not being quite the player they expected) really hurt them. The addition of Bradley alone will improve the Horns dramatically.

[CubbieBum]

I'm a little lost on Kentucky and Texas. How can they be unranked and 23rd respectively to end last year and then debut in the top 5 when there are teams behind them that return practically everyone? I don't understand that. If a team that finishes last season ranked 15 and returns everyone of importance plus has a good recruiting class how can they be behind a team that finished ranked below them?

 

Kentucky is the one that bothers me most. They didn't even make the tourny last year nor win the NIT and yet they are top 5? Goes to show you how stupid the media is.

 

As for Texas they are pretty much bringing most everyone back outside of Abrams, had maybe the 2nd best class behind Kentucky (Jordas Hamilton and Avery Bradley) and a transfer of Jai Lucas from U of Florida. Damion James and Dexter Pittman should be very good this season too.

 

 

IIRC, the thing about Texas is they didn't have a trustworthy PG last year. That (and Abrams not being quite the player they expected) really hurt them. The addition of Bradley alone will improve the Horns dramatically.

 

Oh so Texas returned just about everyone? So did half a dozen teams who fared better last year than Texas.

 

Oh and if Purdue makes the Final Four in Indy I might have to drop a crap load of money and get a ticket. At the very least I think I would fly home and stay in Indy for the Final Four.

[SouthSideRyan]

I'm a little lost on Kentucky and Texas. How can they be unranked and 23rd respectively to end last year and then debut in the top 5 when there are teams behind them that return practically everyone? I don't understand that. If a team that finishes last season ranked 15 and returns everyone of importance plus has a good recruiting class how can they be behind a team that finished ranked below them?

 

Kentucky is the one that bothers me most. They didn't even make the tourny last year nor win the NIT and yet they are top 5? Goes to show you how stupid the media is.

 

As for Texas they are pretty much bringing most everyone back outside of Abrams, had maybe the 2nd best class behind Kentucky (Jordas Hamilton and Avery Bradley) and a transfer of Jai Lucas from U of Florida. Damion James and Dexter Pittman should be very good this season too.

 

 

IIRC, the thing about Texas is they didn't have a trustworthy PG last year. That (and Abrams not being quite the player they expected) really hurt them. The addition of Bradley alone will improve the Horns dramatically.

 

How does Bradley help the problem of not having a PG?

[Guest]

I'm a little lost on Kentucky and Texas. How can they be unranked and 23rd respectively to end last year and then debut in the top 5 when there are teams behind them that return practically everyone? I don't understand that. If a team that finishes last season ranked 15 and returns everyone of importance plus has a good recruiting class how can they be behind a team that finished ranked below them?

 

Kentucky is the one that bothers me most. They didn't even make the tourny last year nor win the NIT and yet they are top 5? Goes to show you how stupid the media is.

 

As for Texas they are pretty much bringing most everyone back outside of Abrams, had maybe the 2nd best class behind Kentucky (Jordas Hamilton and Avery Bradley) and a transfer of Jai Lucas from U of Florida. Damion James and Dexter Pittman should be very good this season too.

 

 

IIRC, the thing about Texas is they didn't have a trustworthy PG last year. That (and Abrams not being quite the player they expected) really hurt them. The addition of Bradley alone will improve the Horns dramatically.

 

Oh so Texas returned just about everyone? So did half a dozen teams who fared better last year than Texas.

 

Oh and if Purdue makes the Final Four in Indy I might have to drop a crap load of money and get a ticket. At the very least I think I would fly home and stay in Indy for the Final Four.

 

So what if teams return everyone? Why do you ignore teams adding talented players?

[SouthSideRyan]

I'm a little lost on Kentucky and Texas. How can they be unranked and 23rd respectively to end last year and then debut in the top 5 when there are teams behind them that return practically everyone? I don't understand that. If a team that finishes last season ranked 15 and returns everyone of importance plus has a good recruiting class how can they be behind a team that finished ranked below them?

 

Kentucky is the one that bothers me most. They didn't even make the tourny last year nor win the NIT and yet they are top 5? Goes to show you how stupid the media is.

 

As for Texas they are pretty much bringing most everyone back outside of Abrams, had maybe the 2nd best class behind Kentucky (Jordas Hamilton and Avery Bradley) and a transfer of Jai Lucas from U of Florida. Damion James and Dexter Pittman should be very good this season too.

 

 

IIRC, the thing about Texas is they didn't have a trustworthy PG last year. That (and Abrams not being quite the player they expected) really hurt them. The addition of Bradley alone will improve the Horns dramatically.

 

Oh so Texas returned just about everyone? So did half a dozen teams who fared better last year than Texas.

 

Oh and if Purdue makes the Final Four in Indy I might have to drop a crap load of money and get a ticket. At the very least I think I would fly home and stay in Indy for the Final Four.

 

So what if teams return everyone? Why do you ignore teams adding talented players?

 

Because Purdue isn't.

[Andy]

AP poll is out too.

 

1 Kansas

2 Michigan State

3 Texas

4 Kentucky

5 Villanova

6 North Carolina

7 Purdue

8 West Virginia

9 Duke

10 Tennessee

11 Butler

12 Connecticut

13 California

14 Washington

15 Michigan

16 Ohio State

17 Oklahoma

18 Mississippi State

19 Louisville

20 Georgetown

21 Dayton

22 Georgia Tech

23 Illinois

24 Clemson

25 Minnesota

[CubbieBum]

 

IIRC, the thing about Texas is they didn't have a trustworthy PG last year. That (and Abrams not being quite the player they expected) really hurt them. The addition of Bradley alone will improve the Horns dramatically.

 

Oh so Texas returned just about everyone? So did half a dozen teams who fared better last year than Texas.

 

Oh and if Purdue makes the Final Four in Indy I might have to drop a crap load of money and get a ticket. At the very least I think I would fly home and stay in Indy for the Final Four.

 

So what if teams return everyone? Why do you ignore teams adding talented players?

 

Because Purdue isn't.

 

No, because I have always taken the stance that until freshman prove they can play they shouldn't be used as THE reason to bump somebody way up into the top 5. A top recruiting class should help you in the polls a little but they should never be used as the reason you leap frog over teams that return just about everyone from a team that already competed with top teams the year before. One team you know is capable of playing at that level based on the year before. The other team is a big ? that you have a strong reason to believe will be much better.

 

And by saying teams that return everyone I'm talking about more than just Purdue. I would say Purdue is in the range they should be. In my opinion they should be ranked between 5-7 and they are. Purdue has one big question mark and that is who backs up Johnson. That issue costs them top 5 and rightfully so.

[Guest]

 

IIRC, the thing about Texas is they didn't have a trustworthy PG last year. That (and Abrams not being quite the player they expected) really hurt them. The addition of Bradley alone will improve the Horns dramatically.

 

Oh so Texas returned just about everyone? So did half a dozen teams who fared better last year than Texas.

 

Oh and if Purdue makes the Final Four in Indy I might have to drop a crap load of money and get a ticket. At the very least I think I would fly home and stay in Indy for the Final Four.

 

So what if teams return everyone? Why do you ignore teams adding talented players?

 

Because Purdue isn't.

 

No, because I have always taken the stance that until freshman prove they can play they shouldn't be used as THE reason to bump somebody way up into the top 5. A top recruiting class should help you in the polls a little but they should never be used as the reason you leap frog over teams that return just about everyone from a team that already competed with top teams the year before. One team you know is capable of playing at that level based on the year before. The other team is a big ? that you have a strong reason to believe will be much better.

 

And by saying teams that return everyone I'm talking about more than just Purdue. I would say Purdue is in the range they should be. In my opinion they should be ranked between 5-7 and they are. Purdue has one big question mark and that is who backs up Johnson. That issue costs them top 5 and rightfully so.

 

So you want an inaccurate poll to start the season?

[Old Style]

Texas is always overrated. Rick Barnes is a terrible coach.

[UMFan83]

Wow I didn't think Michigan would be 15 in both polls. I think Michigan and Illinois should swap, and I'm a Michigan fan.

[CubbieBum]

 

So you want an inaccurate poll to start the season?

 

The polls are always going to be inaccurate. You never know what teams will fall apart and which teams come out of no where. You'd be a lot better off in all sports betting on teams with experience and players you have a good idea what they can do than inexperienced teams with a bunch of unknowns. Kentucky and Texas may prove to be top 5 but they should have to prove it first. Maybe their freshman pan out and maybe they don't.

[SpongeWorthy]

Texas is always overrated. Rick Barnes is a terrible coach.

 

Yeah, Rick Barnes makes offensively bad coaching decisions all of the time. It's pretty hilarious.

[NeifiIsMyHomeBoy]

23 isn't bad. I think that is about where Illinois should be. I'll take it.

[CubbieBum]

23 isn't bad. I think that is about where Illinois should be. I'll take it.

 

I'm happy you guys are ranked. 6 of 11 teams are ranked. Sweet.