# vote week 9 Top 25 Vote



## kansasalumn (Jun 9, 2002)

Time to vote again. Voting counts Sunday games Closed monday Jan 15 10:30pm CDT or after KU/Missouri game what ever comes first.


----------



## Yoyo (Oct 16, 2005)

1. Florida
2. UCLA
3. Wisconsin
4. Kansas
5. UNC
6. Ohio State
7. Pittsburgh
8. Texas A&M
9. Butler
10. Oregon
11. Oklahoma State
12. LSU
13. Arizona
14. Alabama
15. Clemson
16. Air Force
17. Memphis
18. Duke
19. Nevada
20. Tennessee
21. Notre Dame
22. Washington State
23. Marquette
24. Connecticut
25. Texas

Edit: Update of rankings after Arizona-Oregon game.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

1. Wisconsin 
2. Florida 
3. UCLA
4. Kansas
5. UNC
6. Ohio State
7. Pittsburgh
8. Butler 
9. Arizona 
10. Oregon 
11. Air Force 
12. Texas A&M
13. Oklahoma State
14. Alabama
15. Duke 
16. LSU
17. Clemson
18. Memphis
19. Nevada
20. Tennessee
21. Notre Dame
22. Washington State
23. Virginia Tech
24. Connecticut
25. Georgia Tech


----------



## BlueBaron (May 11, 2003)

1. Florida
2. Wisconsin
3. Kansas
4. UCLA
5. UNC
6. Pitt
7. Ohio St.
8. Butler 
9. Air Force
10. Oregon 
11. Arizona
12. Texas A&M
13. Oklahoma State
14. Alabama
15. Clemson
16. LSU
17. Nevada
18. Memphis
19. Tennessee
20. Kentucky
21. Duke
22. Notre Dame
23. UConn
24. Virginia Tech
25. Washington St.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

UK above Duke?!?!

:laugh:

HOMER


----------



## kansasalumn (Jun 9, 2002)

1 Wisconsin
2 UCLA
3 UNC
4 Florida
5 Kansas
6 Pittsburgh
7 Ohio State
8 Oregon
9 Alabama
10 Air Force
11 Arizona
12 Nevada
13 Notre dame
14 Duke
15Oklahoma State
16 Texas A&M
17 Butler
18 LSU
19 Clemson
20 Memphis
21 Washington State
22 Texas
23 Tennessee 
24 Virginia tech
25 Maruqette

why eveyone has Buter so shigh they lost this week to Illinois-Chicago


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

1 Florida
2 UCLA
3 Wisconsin
4 UNC
5 Kansas
6 Pittsburgh
7 Ohio State
8 Oregon
9 Texas A&M
10 Arizona
11 Alabama
12 Air Force
13 Nevada
14 Oklahoma State
15 Notre Dame
16 Duke
17 LSU
18 Butler
19 Clemson
20 Memphis
21 Washington State
22 Virginia Tech
23 Kentucky
24 Marquette
25 USC


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

1. Florida
2. UCLA
3. Wisconsin
4. UNC
5. Kansas
6. Texas A&M
7. Ohio State
8. Pitt
9. Alabama
10. Oregon
11. Arizona
12. LSU
13. Duke
14. Air Force
15. Notre Dame
16. Butler
17. Oklahoma State
18. Maryland
19. Tennessee
20. Memphis 
21. Clemson
22. Washington State
23. Texas
24. Virginia Tech
25. Nevada

When UConn beats a team that deserves to be in the Top 100 (according to kenpom.com their win over #91 Ole Miss is their only one), then maybe I'll consider putting them back on here. As it stands now they don't deserve it more than any team on this list right now. No impressive wins and no experience. Duke didn't slide more because the teams around them also have lost recently. This is really starting to solidify though, only a few teams with good resumes outside these 25. The Valley is really beating up on itself.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

1	UCLA
2	Wisconsin
3	Florida
4	North Carolina
5	Kansas
6	Oregon
7	Texas A&M
8	Ohio St
9	Pitt
10	Notre Dame
11	Air Force
12	Duke
13	Clemson
14	Oklahoma St
15	Alabama
16	Kentucky
17	Butler
18	Arizona

19	Virginia Tech
20	Maryland
21	LSU
22	Washington St
23	UConn
24	Missouri St
25	Nevada


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

1.UCLA
2.Wisconsin
3.Florida
4.North Carolina
5.Kansas
6.Pittsburgh
7.Texas A&M
8.Ohio State
9.Arizona
10.Oregon
11.Nevada
12.Oklahoma State
13.Alabama
14.Duke
15.Memphis
16.Air Force
17.Clemson
18.Butler
19.Notre Dame
20.Virginia Tech
21.LSU
22.Texas
23.Kentucky
24.Maryland
25.West Virginia


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

1. Florida
2. UCLA
3. Wisconsin
4. Carolina
5. Kansas
6. Pitt
7. OSU
8. Texas A&M
9. Oklahoma St.
10. Oregon
11. Arizona
12. Air Force
13. Nevada
14. Alabama
15. Memphis
16. Duke
17. Butler
18. Clemson
19. LSU
20. Notre Dame
21. Stanford
22. Washington St.
23. Marquette
24. UCONN
25. USC


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

JuniorNoboa said:


> 1	UCLA
> 2	Wisconsin
> 3	Florida
> 4	North Carolina
> ...


If you are going to put VaTech at 19, I think it is safe to say that Creighton deserves to be in as well. They have five losses, but have beaten Missouri State, UNI, and Wichita in MVC play. 

How can UConn be ranked but not your Orange? That sure doesn't make much sense...

I also wonder about Maryland. Sure, they beat Clemson on Saturday. But what about losing to Miami at home earlier in the week? Their wins over Michigan State and Illinois sure don't look as good in retrospect...


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

1- Florida
2- Wisconsin
3- Oregon
4- UCLA
5- Ohio State
6- North Carolina
7- Kansas
8- Texas A&M
9- Pittsburgh
10- Nevada
11- Oklahoma State
12- Arizona
13- Clemson
14- Butler
15- Air Force
16- Washington State
17- Alabama
18- Memphis
19- Virginia Tech
20- Tennessee
21- Texas
22- Marquette
23- Southern California
24- Connecticut
25- Duke


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

1. Florida
2. UCLA
3. UNC
4. Wisconsin
5. Kansas
6. Texas A&M
7. Ohio St.
8. Pittsburgh
9. Duke
10. Air Force
11. Arizona
12. Oregon
13. Memphis
14. Alabama
15. Notre Dame
16. Clemson
17. Butler
18. LSU
19. Maryland
20. West Virginia
21. UConn
22. Virginia Tech
23. Indiana
24. Kentucky
25. Texas

Dropped from my last week's rankings: No. 17 Oklahoma St., No. 22 Georgetown, No. 24 Tennessee, No. 25 Arkansas

Honorable Mention: Oklahoma St., Georgia Tech, Marquette, Tennessee, Nevada


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

Did I see Stanford in somebody's rankings? 

Dude, the only way they'll even make the dance is if they win their conference tournament.


----------



## BlueBaron (May 11, 2003)

TM said:


> UK above Duke?!?!
> 
> :laugh:
> 
> HOMER


Duke has lost 2 of their last 3 (one at home :clap2: ) giving them 3 losses, same as Kentucky who have won 10 in a row and is 3-0 in the SEC. It only makes sense. How people still have Duke in the top 10 is way beyond me. :biggrin:


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

BlueBaron said:


> Duke has lost 2 of their last 3 (one at home :clap2: ) giving them 3 losses, same as Kentucky who have won 10 in a row and is 3-0 in the SEC. It only makes sense. How people still have Duke in the top 10 is way beyond me. :biggrin:


It's actually pretty simple to understand:

Duke is the best defensive team in the country (or at least one of the top 5). Teams that play defense go deep in March. It's a fact. It's why teams like Arizona and Pittsburgh could easily lose before the Sweet 16. Duke won't.

Duke has beaten quality teams: Air Force, Indiana, Georgetown, Gonzaga. You could take the number of quality wins by Alabama and Oklahoma St, add them together, and it would be less than the number of quality wins that Duke has.

There's not a lot of standout teams this year. Duke's resume is just as strong as an Oregon or Arizona, and should be a ranked in the top 10. I don't understand why people have so much hatred towards Duke, but they're a very good basketball team, whether you want to believe it or not.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

coolpohle said:


> Did I see Stanford in somebody's rankings?
> 
> Dude, the only way they'll even make the dance is if they win their conference tournament.


They may not warrant a Top 25 ranking in your eyes, but im showing them some respect for beating two good teams, including the top team in the Pac-10. 

Also, I completely disagree that Stanford has to win the Pac-10 tournament to make the NCAAs. They have an RPI of 42, are 11-4, and have won three impressive games in a row (@ Virginia, vs. Washington, vs. Washington St.). The next two weeks are huge for them, because if they end up 2-2 in their next 4 (@ Oregon, @ Oregon St., USC, UCLA) they will be in good shape going into the 2nd half of Pac-10 play. If they beat Oregon or UCLA they are in great shape.

One last thing... You are complaining about me ranking Stanford, yet you have Texas, West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia Tech, Kentucky, and Indiana ranked, while Oklahoma St isnt?


----------



## BlueBaron (May 11, 2003)

I wouldn't neccesarily call Gonzaga a quality win. If that's the case, Kentucky's beaten Indiana, Louisville,& UMass. 2 of Kentucky's 3 losses were to UNC and UCLA with their third being to Memphis. It's not like Kentucky's been getting beat by everyone. They have won 10 in a row. I probably should've ranked them higher. JN has them at 16. That's probably where they shouild be. Duke's not really been too impressive with their losses to Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, & Marquette.


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

Yes, they beat two *good* teams, but both at home by a combined four points. That's not that impressive. Also, remember that 16 point home loss to (gulp) Santa Clara? And the last time I checked, UCLA was the best team in the Pac 10, not Washington St.

RPI means nothing right now...but if you think it does, I guess Southern Illinois is a top ten team right now. They didn't schedule a very tough non conference strength of schedule, either, so an 11-4 record shouldn't stand out, especially since the've had a fairly easy start to their conference schedule.

As far as Oklahoma St. goes, they're very overrated in my eyes. Definitely one of the weaker defensive teams that's ranked in the polls right now, and with a weak defense, a lot of games that you should win comfortably can become relatively close (remembering them squeaking by Baylor at home last week?). Also, Ok. St. schedule a cakewalk non conference strength of schedule, so their record makes them look a lot better than they really are. Maybe when Texas beats them tomorrow you'll see how average they really are.


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

BlueBaron said:


> I wouldn't neccesarily call Gonzaga a quality win. If that's the case, Kentucky's beaten Indiana, Louisville,& UMass. 2 of Kentucky's 3 losses were to UNC and UCLA with their third being to Memphis. It's not like Kentucky's been getting beat by everyone. They have won 10 in a row. I probably should've ranked them higher. JN has them at 16. That's probably where they shouild be. Duke's not really been too impressive with their losses to Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, & Marquette.


My hat's off to Gonzaga for actually scheduling a tough out of conference schedule. Heck, they could've scheduled the way Oklahoma St. did and be 15-2 right now.

I don't know how this turned into an argument about Kentucky. I have them ranked. A lot of people don't. In fact, a couple weeks ago I posted about how underrrated they were.


----------



## BlueBaron (May 11, 2003)

coolpohle said:


> My hat's off to Gonzaga for actually scheduling a tough out of conference schedule. Heck, they could've scheduled the way Oklahoma St. did and be 15-2 right now.
> 
> I don't know how this turned into an argument about Kentucky. I have them ranked. A lot of people don't. In fact, a couple weeks ago I posted about how underrrated they were.


Actually, it started over Duke. I think. It's all TM's fault. :biggrin: 
Btw, Kentucky is underrated...


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

> Yes, they beat two *good* teams, but both at home by a combined four points. That's not that impressive. Also, remember that 16 point home loss to (gulp) Santa Clara? And the last time I checked, UCLA was the best team in the Pac 10, not Washington St.


A win is a win, no matter if it is by 2 or by 15. Stanford needs wins they dont need style points. Also, last time I checked WSU was tied for first in the Pac-10, until they lost to Stanford.



> RPI means nothing right now...but if you think it does, I guess Southern Illinois is a top ten team right now. They didn't schedule a very tough non conference strength of schedule, either, so an 11-4 record shouldn't stand out, especially since the've had a fairly easy start to their conference schedule.


You are missing the point with the RPI... They have a RPI of 42 right now, despite losing to Santa Clara and not playing anyone OOC. Two trips through the best conference in the nation will only increase your RPI, especially if Stanford can pull off a few big wins like they did last week.




> As far as Oklahoma St. goes, they're very overrated in my eyes. Definitely one of the weaker defensive teams that's ranked in the polls right now, and with a weak defense, a lot of games that you should win comfortably can become relatively close (remembering them squeaking by Baylor at home last week?). Also, Ok. St. schedule a cakewalk non conference strength of schedule, so their record makes them look a lot better than they really are. Maybe when Texas beats them tomorrow you'll see how average they really are.


I think they are overrated as well, but they defiantly deserve to be in the Top 25.


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

An RPI of 42 isn't that good anyways...there was a team last year that had an RPI of 21 and didn't even make the dance.

And I'd disagree that a win is a win. If you beat the crap out of someone it sure makes you look a lot better. When you're barely beating teams at home that aren't even top 25 teams, you don't stand out. However, if they beat those teams by double digits, then you might have a case. Seriously, look at Stanford's schedule the rest of the way. It's absolutely brutal. Can you honestly even say that they'll finish the regular season at 18-11?


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

coolpohle said:


> Did I see Stanford in somebody's rankings?
> 
> Dude, the only way they'll even make the dance is if they win their conference tournament.


Completely disagree. If the Pac 10 gets 6 teams in, right now Stanford is that 6th. They're playing well.


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

DaBruins said:


> Completely disagree. If the Pac 10 gets 6 teams in, right now Stanford is that 6th. They're playing well.


You're supposed to beat bubble teams at home. It's okay, you guys can think Stanford is better than they actually are. But when they go through that nasty stretch of games (UCLA, USC, Gonzaga, @ Cal, @ Wash. St, @ Wash), you'll see how average at best their resume will look.

btw...after the obvious four in the Pac 10, Washington St., Washington, and Cal all have better chances of getting in.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

Jonathan Watters said:


> If you are going to put VaTech at 19, I think it is safe to say that Creighton deserves to be in as well. They have five losses, but have beaten Missouri State, UNI, and Wichita in MVC play.
> 
> How can UConn be ranked but not your Orange? That sure doesn't make much sense...
> 
> I also wonder about Maryland. Sure, they beat Clemson on Saturday. But what about losing to Miami at home earlier in the week? Their wins over Michigan State and Illinois sure don't look as good in retrospect...


Creighton has not beat Wichita St... 5-1 in conference play is solid, and if they continue in first in that conference they will certainly move up. Problem is 10 of their 16 games were non-conference and they loss all there away games to decent but not top teams. Obviously Virginia Tech is riding this ranking off there wins vs Duke and UNC... wins that Creigtib can;t match, especially the road victory. Both teams struggled on the road out of conference, but 3-0 with wins vs Duke and UNC, is more impressive then 5-1 with home Wins against UNI and Missouri St.

UConn - not sure why I ranked them. It was early in the morning.. I still like the team for some reason.

From about 15 on, it becomes hard to put a team in the top 25... not much separation. Is there a better candidate... perhaps.. but it will be tough to make a strong convincing case.


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

Creighton? I could think of probably three teams in the Missouri Valley alone more worthy of a top 25 ranking than Creighton.


----------



## BlueBaron (May 11, 2003)

coolpohle said:


> Creighton? I could think of probably three teams in the Missouri Valley alone more worthy of a top 25 ranking than Creighton.


Who?


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

Missouri St., Southern Illinois, Wichita St.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

coolpohle said:


> You're supposed to beat bubble teams at home. It's okay, you guys can think Stanford is better than they actually are. But when they go through that nasty stretch of games (UCLA, USC, Gonzaga, @ Cal, @ Wash. St, @ Wash), you'll see how average at best their resume will look.
> 
> btw...after the obvious four in the Pac 10, Washington St., Washington, and Cal all have better chances of getting in.


The obvious four includes Washington St. USC would be the bubble team that is getting in right now. Washington is playing dreadful, Cal has almost no chance of getting in. I think Stanford will hit 19 wins and get in.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

coolpohle said:


> An RPI of 42 isn't that good anyways...there was a team last year that had an RPI of 21 and didn't even make the dance.


Again, you arent reading what im posting. They have an RPI of 42 right now... They still have to play the rest of their Pac-10 schedule which will only help their RPI, not to mention if they can beat 3 of UCLA, UA, Oregon, USC, UW, Gonzaga, WSU. The Pac-10 could get 7 teams into this year's tournament and Stanford has a very realistic shot of being one even if the NCAA only takes 6.



> And I'd disagree that a win is a win. If you beat the crap out of someone it sure makes you look a lot better. When you're barely beating teams at home that aren't even top 25 teams, you don't stand out. However, if they beat those teams by double digits, then you might have a case.


So in your eyes Oregon's 2 point win against UA doesnt mean as much, because Aaron Brooks hit the game winner with 2 seconds left? Stanford's win vs UW and WSU means nothing because they didnt win by 10 each game? In Stanford's case a win is a win, I dont see how you can argue with that, considering you dont even think they can win 18 games.



> Seriously, look at Stanford's schedule the rest of the way. It's absolutely brutal. Can you honestly even say that they'll finish the regular season at 18-11?


Yes, I can honestly say that Stanford will win 7 more games.

Games I think Stanford has a shot to win:

1/18 - @ Oregon
1/20 - @ OSU
1/25 - USC
1/28 - UCLA
1/31 - Gonzaga
2/3 - @ Cal
2/11 - @ UW
2/15 - OSU
2/17 - Oregon
3/1 - ASU

Those are 10 games I think Stanford has a shot of winning. They wont win all 10 of those, but I think they have a chance. I think one game that isnt listed that could be an upset is the last game of the season at home against Arizona. I think Stanford will give UCLA all they can handle at Maples Pavilion, but I think UCLA wins easily at home. Stanford is tailor made to beat Oregon, Washington, and Arizona. Gonzaga is going to be in trouble if the Lopez twins are on their game.

I think it is safe to say the Stanford can win 7 games to close the season, not including the Pac-10 tournament.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

coolpohle said:


> btw...after the obvious four in the Pac 10, Washington St., Washington, and Cal all have better chances of getting in.


Well the obvious four would include Washington St. if you ask me...

Cal has no shot at all to make the tournament without Hardin. Ubaka is not going to be able to carry Cal much longer. Anderson is good, but he isnt a good enough 2nd option to help Ubaka.

Edit: Funny, I just noticed I posted almost the same exact thing DaBruins posted. 



> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to DaBruins again.


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

DaBruins said:


> The obvious four includes Washington St. USC would be the bubble team that is getting in right now. Washington is playing dreadful, Cal has almost no chance of getting in. I think Stanford will hit 19 wins and get in.


It's funny how you say Cal has no chance when they won at Stanford a week and a half ago. I guess both teams have no chance then...

I'm curious...of Stanford's 13 remaining games, which 8 do you see them winning?


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

TucsonClip said:


> Again, you arent reading what im posting. They have an RPI of 42 right now... They still have to play the rest of their Pac-10 schedule which will only help their RPI, not to mention if they can beat 3 of UCLA, UA, Oregon, USC, UW, Gonzaga, WSU. The Pac-10 could get 7 teams into this year's tournament and Stanford has a very realistic shot of being one even if the NCAA only takes 6.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A win over a top 15 team on the road is a very good win no matter how much you win it by. However, there's a difference when you're at home against average teams. Just squeaking by those teams isn't enough. 

You may try to convince yourself otherwise, but Stanford has no chance of winning at Oregon, no chance of beating UCLA, and they couldn't even beat Cal at home. Even if they do win 7 of those games, you're looking at an 18-11 team, and that's probably not going to be good enough, plain and simple.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

coolpohle said:


> However, there's a difference when you're at home against average teams. Just squeaking by those teams isn't enough.


So you are saying Washington St (who was in 1st place in the Pac-10 by a 1/2 game) is an average team?



> You may try to convince yourself otherwise, but Stanford has no chance of winning at Oregon, no chance of beating UCLA, and they couldn't even beat Cal at home. Even if they do win 7 of those games, you're looking at an 18-11 team, and that's probably not going to be good enough, plain and simple.


I am not trying to convince myself of anything. I have watched the games, I know that Stanford is good. I also know that they have one of the best match up advantages in the Pac-10 with Brook Lopez, Robin Lopez, and Lawrence Hill as their front court. That front line has given the best teams in the Pac-10 fits and they will continue to.

Oregon has NO post players and they size Ernie Kent has, he cuts in half because they sit on the bench for 40 minutes. 

USC exposed the Ducks and give a blueprint to the rest of the Pac-10 on how to beat them. Taj Gibson dominated Oregon in the paint and he is 6'8. 

ASU, the worst team in the conference nearly pulled off the upset, because Jeff Pendergraph dominated the paint.

UCLA killed Oregon on the glass but just came up short.

Arizona's Marcus Williams exploded for 34 and 12, but nobody beside Shakur came to play.

That is why I say Stanford is tailor made to beat teams like Oregon. Stanford will dominate the glass, block shots, and will slow down the tempo and I think they beat Oreogn in Eugene, because it will be the first time Oregon has faced a front line like Stanford all season.

If Stanford finishes 18-11 going into the Pac-10 tournament I think you will see them make the tournament, especially if they beat Oregon, UA, or UCLA.


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it all plays out.

And yes, Washington St. is an average team. You can't just look at their 15-3 record and assume they're a top 20 team. Just like Oklahoma St., they scheduled a piece of cake non conference schedule.


----------



## Quasi-Quasar (Jul 18, 2002)

coolpohle said:


> I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it all plays out.
> 
> And yes, Washington St. is an average team. You can't just look at their 15-3 record and assume they're a top 20 team. Just like Oklahoma St., they scheduled a piece of cake non conference schedule.


Their players are quite average, but they're perhaps the best defensive team in the nation right now and they play with great teamwork and coaching (Tony Bennett taking over for his dad). If not the best D, one of the best for sure... When Lowe's shot is falling and Cowgil is screening out on the boards, they're extremely difficult to beat. Take virtually any team in the top 25 and Wazzou has a shot to beat them (Florida would run their anti-UCLA gameplan, probably with the same results though) via defense, coaching and sheer physicality (ask Arizona, USC, almost UCLA, etc). Depth, FTs and Lowe's streak shooting are their big limiting factors, but smart and calculating play solves most of those issues. If Lowe goes on a shooting run in the Tourney, they could find life pleasant in March. Lowe is one of those guys like Steve Nash, that can just score on good/great man defenders when they run spread-iso sets (denying him the dribble is the way to beat Wazzou's iso sets)... Wazzou has no 1st round pick on their team, although Weaver and Cowgil will get 2nd round looks, and they don't play in a media market, but they are for real no matter how ugly their games are.


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

Washington St.'s got a good defense, but it's nothing outstanding, and certainly not top 5. Sure, they give up around only 59 points per game, but you cant look at that and say it's one of the best defenses because of that. They play at such a slow pace, thus, most of their games are very low scoring. A team like UNC, for example, is much better defensively even though they give up about 8 more points per game because they play at such a faster pace.


----------



## apelman42 (Apr 8, 2005)

coolpohle said:


> It's actually pretty simple to understand:
> 
> Duke is the best defensive team in the country (or at least one of the top 5). Teams that play defense go deep in March. It's a fact. It's why teams like Arizona and Pittsburgh could easily lose before the Sweet 16. Duke won't.
> 
> ...


Pittsburgh's a run and gun team? They don't play defense and the half court game?

...That's news to me....I must've been watching the Pittsburgh women team...silly me.


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

When did I ever say that Pittsburgh just runs the floor? If you run the floor, that doesn't automatically make you a bad defensive team, or vice versa. They're giving up 63 ppg despite playing at one of the slowest paces in the NCAA. That's not very good, especially for a top ten team.


----------



## Quasi-Quasar (Jul 18, 2002)

coolpohle said:


> Washington St.'s got a good defense, but it's nothing outstanding, and certainly not top 5. Sure, they give up around only 59 points per game, but you cant look at that and say it's one of the best defenses because of that. They play at such a slow pace, thus, most of their games are very low scoring. A team like UNC, for example, is much better defensively even though they give up about 8 more points per game because they play at such a faster pace.


Defense, as a comprehensive category isn't limited to steals, blocks, opp FG%, and indeed steal and blocks may not be indicative of a good D... But scores per 100 possessions allowed, points per 40 min allowed and possessions allowed per 40 min are good measures of a good, tempo controlling D. Wazzou imposes their pace on the other team and grinds them down into that scoring range. Not only is it a better D towards the top, it's towards the top in terms of controlling the game... Sometimes, as in this case, the better defense is the one that always stays in front of the offense, limits possessions and derails offensive gameplans. Getting steals, fastbreaks, attacking 3 or 4 on the offensive glass, etc is nice (and works for some teams), but the stay in front transition focused D is very controlling in terms of tempo and sets. 

The bottom line is, they don't play at a slow pace for no reason, they force that grueling, ugly pace. Arizona found out the hard way that shutting down the transition game and defending well on 3s limits the run/score-them-off-the-court style. Sure, there's a pretty way to limit teams to 59 points, but if you don't have the players for it, the ugly way can be just as effective a D.


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

Washington State is the #29 team in the country in terms of points allowed per posession. That's top 9%. But past that, Dick Bennett was one of the best defensive coaching minds of the past 25 years and his son has a lot of that knowledge plus the ability to consult with him at any time. Just remember that talent wise, this Wazzou team is 10 times the team Dick Bennett's 2000 Wisconsin team was. That team went to the Final Four.


----------



## Quasi-Quasar (Jul 18, 2002)

Nimreitz said:


> Washington State is the #29 team in the country in terms of points allowed per posession.


That's pretty good without even factoring in the tempo control (possessions per 40 min, etc). Tony still needs to mature as a coach on offense, but he's his father's son for sure.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

BlueBaron said:


> Duke has lost 2 of their last 3 (one at home :clap2: ) giving them 3 losses, same as Kentucky who have won 10 in a row and is 3-0 in the SEC. It only makes sense.


With 1 "quality" win against... Indiana.

3-0 against might Miss St., Auburn, and Miss. uke:

I had the opportunity to go to the USC-UK game tomorrow nite, by the way. Unfortunately, I have work.


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

Quasi-Quasar said:


> That's pretty good without even factoring in the tempo control (possessions per 40 min, etc). Tony still needs to mature as a coach on offense, but he's his father's son for sure.


Yup, that's good. It's not the #1 or without a doubt a top 5 defense.


----------



## YoungMufan34 (Dec 1, 2006)

1 Florida
2 Wisconsin
3 UCLA
4 UNC
5 Kansas
6 Pittsburgh
7 Ohio State
8 Oregon
9 Texas A&M
10 Alabama
11 Nevada
12 Air Force
13 Arizona
14 Oklahoma State
15 Notre Dame
16 Duke
17 LSU
18 Butler
19 Clemson
20 Memphis
21 Marquette
22 Virginia Tech
23 Washington State
24 Maryland
25 Texas


----------



## apelman42 (Apr 8, 2005)

coolpohle said:


> When did I ever say that Pittsburgh just runs the floor? If you run the floor, that doesn't automatically make you a bad defensive team, or vice versa. They're giving up 63 ppg despite playing at one of the slowest paces in the NCAA. That's not very good, especially for a top ten team.


63 ppg is a lot? That's also news to me...I don't think it matters how you play, a win is a win and a loss is a loss.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

coolpohle said:


> It's funny how you say Cal has no chance when they won at Stanford a week and a half ago. I guess both teams have no chance then...
> 
> I'm curious...of Stanford's 13 remaining games, which 8 do you see them winning?


Yes Cal has almost 0 chance. Do you really need to compare a head-to-head game to definitively say that one team is better than the other? I guess Virginia Tech is just miles above UNC then....

I think Stanford wins 7 more games, then another 1 in the conference tournament. If I had to make a list, I'd say the 7 wins would be: @OSU, USC, Gonzaga, @Cal, OSU, ASU, and 1 of the games from the Washington road trip.


----------



## kansasalumn (Jun 9, 2002)

Thread is stlll open for talk, but voting is closed. no voiting count after this post. thanks


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

JuniorNoboa said:


> From about 15 on, it becomes hard to put a team in the top 25... not much separation. Is there a better candidate... perhaps.. but it will be tough to make a strong convincing case.


Fair enough, JN. I certainly agree with the portion of your post that I quoted. It was a tough week...


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

apelman42 said:


> 63 ppg is a lot? That's also news to me...I don't think it matters how you play, a win is a win and a loss is a loss.


Read what I wrote bro. I said 63 ppg when you play at one of the slowest paces in the NCAA is a lot.


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

DaBruins said:


> Yes Cal has almost 0 chance. Do you really need to compare a head-to-head game to definitively say that one team is better than the other? I guess Virginia Tech is just miles above UNC then....
> 
> I think Stanford wins 7 more games, then another 1 in the conference tournament. If I had to make a list, I'd say the 7 wins would be: @OSU, USC, Gonzaga, @Cal, OSU, ASU, and 1 of the games from the Washington road trip.


Of course it's a bad indicator, but I think it proves my point that both teams have very little chance of making it in. You may try to convince yourself otherwise, but there's no way an 18-11 team is making it in from the Pac 10. It's just not possible.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

coolpohle said:


> You may try to convince yourself otherwise, but there's no way an 18-11 team is making it in from the Pac 10. It's just not possible.


That might be the most ridiculous claim yet. The Pac-10 is the best conference in the nation this year, can we agree on that? In previous years teams from the Pac-10 have made the tournament with records similar to 18-11, while the conference was not very good.

Here are some Pac-10 teams from the past years who went into the tournament with similar records; seed in parenthesis:

2006: (8) Arizona (19-12)
2005: (11) UCLA (18-10)
2005: (8) Stanford (18-12)
2004: (8) Washington (19-11)
2003: (10) Arizona St (18-11)
2002: (8) UCLA (19-11)
2001: (8) California (20-10)
2000: (6) UCLA (19-11)
1999: (7) Washington (16-11)


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

TucsonClip said:


> 2000: (6) UCLA (19-11)


how in the world did they get a 6th seed?


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

The best? That's a joke right? You could maybe argue that they're the fourth best conference, but I'd be much more comfortable saying it's the 5th best. An 18-11 team won't make it (although they probably won't even win that many games), especially an 18-11 team with a non conference strength of schedule that will probably be around the 125-150 range. 

If you take a look at rpiforecast.com, they project Stanford to finish with an RPI of 64 and a record of 17-12. That's very realistic...and you know what, I'd be absolutely stunned if a team with an RPI of 64 and a record of 17-12 made it in the dance. 

If you take a look at Lunardi's bracketology, Stanford isn't even one of his first 8 teams out of the dance. I mean, if you give Stanford an at-large, that means your snubbing a Wichita St. or a Florida St., and those teams have much stronger resumes than Stanford.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

coolpohle said:


> The best? That's a joke right? You could maybe argue that they're the fourth best conference, but I'd be much more comfortable saying it's the 5th best. An 18-11 team won't make it (although they probably won't even win that many games), especially an 18-11 team with a non conference strength of schedule that will probably be around the 125-150 range.


You have got to be kidding me... You lost any credibility right there. The Pac-10 is the #1 RPI conference, has the best winning percentage in the nation, has 4 teams in the top 25 (3 in top 12), and has 3 teams receiving votes. If you think the Pac-10 is clearly the 4th or 5th best conference in the nation you arent watching the same season as the rest of the nation.



> If you take a look at rpiforecast.com, they project Stanford to finish with an RPI of 64 and a record of 17-12. That's very realistic...and you know what, I'd be absolutely stunned if a team with an RPI of 64 and a record of 17-12 made it in the dance.


So you are saying that this website predicts Stanford finishing 17-12? That is fine with me, no argument about that. However, you said Stanford would not win 18 games and no team in the Pac-10 would make the tournament with an 18-11 record... I clearly pointed out to you that Pac-10 teams have made the tournament with worse records. Stanford has every opportunity to finish the regular season with 18 wins, especially if you include the Pac-10 tournament. I think Stanford can beat Oregon, UW, and even UA. I also think they have a shot to takeout UCLA, if you dont know why I think this, then its clear you havent seen them play. The Lopez twins and Lawrence Hill are a match up nightmare for teams like Oregon, UA, USC, ect...


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

Some of you guys are way too obsessed with RPI. It's not the bible, fellas. Maybe you're a little biased because the Pac-10 is your conference? The SEC and the ACC are definitely better than the Pac 10, and I'm guessing that most people would agree with me on that. I would argue that the Big 10 and the Big East are better as well.

The Pac-10 only has 3 teams ranked in the AP poll. However, the SEC has 5 teams ranked, and the ACC has 4. The ACC also has 3 teams receiving votes. You can do the math. Of course, this doesn't alone make those conferences better. I can go into further detail of why they are better if you'd like.

I'm not counting the Pac-10 tournament in my final record of Stanford. In the past that record may have been good enough, but it won't be this year. Every year is different.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

The RPI might not mean much in terms of is a team will make the tournament or not at this point. However, it is the best way to compare conferences. 

I still dont see how the Big-10, ACC, SEC, and Big East are better then the Pac-10.

Ill leave it at that, in fact I think this would make an interesting debate, so I think im going to create a thread on this...


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

coolpohle said:


> The best? That's a joke right? You could maybe argue that they're the fourth best conference, but I'd be much more comfortable saying it's the 5th best. An 18-11 team won't make it (although they probably won't even win that many games), especially an 18-11 team with a non conference strength of schedule that will probably be around the 125-150 range.
> 
> If you take a look at rpiforecast.com, they project Stanford to finish with an RPI of 64 and a record of 17-12. That's very realistic...and you know what, I'd be absolutely stunned if a team with an RPI of 64 and a record of 17-12 made it in the dance.
> 
> If you take a look at Lunardi's bracketology, Stanford isn't even one of his first 8 teams out of the dance. I mean, if you give Stanford an at-large, that means your snubbing a Wichita St. or a Florida St., and those teams have much stronger resumes than Stanford.


The Pac 10 is easily a top 3 conference, there's just no other way around that. And yes, if Stanford goes to 18-11, and then wins a game in the conference tournament, I think they're getting in at 19-12. Wichita St is definitely having a bad year, I don't think I'd include them in the tournament as of now.


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

It's funny how all the people that say the Pac 10 is such a good conference are from the West Coast.


----------



## Quasi-Quasar (Jul 18, 2002)

coolpohle said:


> It's funny how all the people that say the Pac 10 is such a good conference are from the West Coast.


A lot of it is because people not from the West Coast don't get the Fox Sports West Coast stations, and can't see many of the Pac-10's games... Have you ever considered that the natural sports bias against the West Coast (which has been around forever), compounded by the viewing issue, explains the discrepancy.


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

Quasi-Quasar said:


> A lot of it is because people not from the West Coast don't get the Fox Sports West Coast stations, and can't see many of the Pac-10's games... Have you ever considered that the natural sports bias against the West Coast (which has been around forever), compounded by the viewing issue, explains the discrepancy.


All of the digital cable viewers up here have Fox Sports Pacific and they also show a lot of Pac 10 games on Fox Sports North as well. I can't speak for others but I'm not biased at all. The Pac 10 just isn't the best conference in my eyes.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

coolpohle said:


> It's funny how all the people that say the Pac 10 is such a good conference are from the West Coast.


I would say a majority of the analysts who claim the Pac-10 is the best team in the nation are not from the west coast. Just because there are only 3 people responding (all whom happen to be Pac-10 fans) doesnt mean we are the only ones who think that.


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

I'm sure there's plenty of people out there who think the Pac 10 is the best. I'd just bet that there's more people that think the ACC or SEC is better.


----------



## Quasi-Quasar (Jul 18, 2002)

coolpohle said:


> I'm sure there's plenty of people out there who think the Pac 10 is the best. I'd just bet that there's more people that think the ACC or SEC is better.


The Pac-10 beats the SEC outside of Florida (and don't tell me LSU can beat the top four or five in the Pac, heck LSU lost to Washington and almost to Oregon St.) and the ACC has a few highly regarded teams that are just suspect right now (not UNC and the Arizona loss shouldn't have happened, that was a coaching letdown). Missouri Valley is good, but throw them in with the wolves and I don't think they'd look as good. If you get rid of the two bottom outliers in the Pac-10, the RPI gap is substantially larger too. Just because Florida and UNC are great teams, doesn't mean their conference is the best. Right now the SEC rankings are inflated, particularly LSU and Bama, and don't point to Bama's record, look at who they beat (LSU being the only good win, and that's a circular argument: saying Bama is good because of the SEC and the SEC is good because of Bama)... The ACC is good, but the dropoff from UNC is huge.

As for more people thinking either the ACC or SEC is better, that is a reflection of opinion which is somewhat a function of viewership (which the Pac-10 sorely lacks) and isn't the same thing as the actual best necessarily.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

Quasi-Quasar said:


> As for more people thinking either the ACC or SEC is better, that is a reflection of opinion which is somewhat a function of viewership (which the Pac-10 sorely lacks)


which is a result of your stupid conference. stop signing retarded deals with crud networks and more people may actually get to see you play.

btw, i still generally watch at least 1 Pac 10 game a week, despite the fact that i have to watch them on fox networks.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

Not only does Fox sports suck, but ESPN doesn't give equal coverage because we've rejected them. Not to mention a lot of our games start at 10:30pm eastern. It's natural to have a bias.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

doesn't give equal coverage? your conference signed your games away. how is that ESPN rejecting them?


----------



## Quasi-Quasar (Jul 18, 2002)

TM said:


> which is a result of your stupid conference. stop signing retarded deals with crud networks and more people may actually get to see you play.
> 
> btw, i still generally watch at least 1 Pac 10 game a week, despite the fact that i have to watch them on fox networks.


:sigh: I wish the Pac-10 would put more thought into it, but after all, it's still about money for them at some level.


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

Well, let's compare the ACC and the Pac 10 in depth a little bit.

*ACC*
UNC (15-2)
Duke (14-3)
Clemson (17-1)
Maryland (15-3)
Virginia Tech (13-4)
Georgia Tech (13-4)
Boston College (12-4)
Florida St. (12-5)
Virginia (9-6)
NC State (11-6)
Miami (Fl.) (9-9)
Wake Forest (9-7)

*Pac 10*
UCLA (15-1)
Arizona (13-3)
Oregon (16-1)
USC (13-5)
Washington St. (15-3)
Washington (11-6)
California (11-6)
Stanford (11-4)
Oregon St. (9-9)
Arizona St. (6-11)

Okay, now that I've ranked the teams, let's do some analysis. 

Obviously, it's a little tough because there's two more teams in the ACC, so bare with me here.

Let's look at the top tier in each conference:

In the ACC, that includes UNC, Duke, Clemson, and Maryland.
In the Pac 10, that includes UCLA, Arizona, and Oregon.

I think it's safe to say that the Pac 10 has a slight edge here. Both UNC and Duke are just as good as UCLA and Arizona. However, Oregon is definitely better than Clemson or Maryland.

Let's take a look at the middle tier in each conference:

In the ACC, that includes Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Boston College, Florida St., 
In the Pac 10, that includes USC, Washington St., Washington, and California

This is where the ACC really stands out in my opinion. Va. Tech is ranked while USC is not, Georgia Tech is very underrated (no losses at home and only lost by a point at Clemson) and Boston College and Florida St. have better chances of making it in the dance than Washington and California.

Now let's take a look at the bottom tier:

In the ACC, that includes Virginia, NC State, Miami (Fl.), and Wake Forest.
In the Pac 10, that includes Stanford, Oregon St., and Arizona St.

Obviously, Stanford has the edge over Virginia since they won at Virginia. However, Oregon St. and Arizona St. are very bad, and provide much easier wins, even at home than Miami or Wake Forest. This is where I think the ACC gets the edge and maybe why some people don't see the ACC as being better because nobody cares about the garbage teams. 

I guess it all goes about how you analyze. I think the ACC's better but that's just one man's opinion. As the season goes on, we will only find out more.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

TM said:


> doesn't give equal coverage? your conference signed your games away. how is that ESPN rejecting them?


Obviously they wont televise the games, but ummmm, how about discussing pac 10 teams?? How about showing highlights?? They're pretty rare.


----------



## apelman42 (Apr 8, 2005)

Coophole, you say that Ga Tech is underrated but than you say Pitt is overrated all based on defense. Pitt gives up what, 54 points tonight to UCONN? Ga Tech might be one of the worst defensive and sloppiest teams in the country...watch there games. They give up no footers all night long and average like 20 turnovers a game.


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

apelman42 said:


> Coophole, you say that Ga Tech is underrated but than you say Pitt is overrated all based on defense. Pitt gives up what, 54 points tonight to UCONN? Ga Tech might be one of the worst defensive and sloppiest teams in the country...watch there games. They give up no footers all night long and average like 20 turnovers a game.


I never said Pitt was overrated. In fact, if you look at my rankings, I ranked Pitt 8th in nation. I just said that their defense isn't as good as a lot of the other ranked teams, which could cause them to leave the tourney earlier than they expect. Obviously, UConn has had its woes on offense all year, but Pitt did look good last night. Georgia Tech is stronger offensively, but their defense is still pretty good as well. They give up around 67 ppg, but also play at a very fast pace.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

Just thought I would point this out...



TucsonClip said:


> They have an RPI of 42, are 11-4, and have won three impressive games in a row (@ Virginia, vs. Washington, vs. Washington St.).





coolpohle said:


> Yes, they beat two *good* teams, but both at home by a combined four points. That's not that impressive.




http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/bubblewatch?id=38



> Stanford [11-4 (3-2), RPI: 47, SOS: 42] Surprising young Cardinal are hanging around. *Last three games (wins at Virginia and against Washington and Washington State) have been very impressive.* Do they have the Goods to stick around? Anthony and the Lopez twins will have a lot to say about that.


:biggrin:


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

I can picture what he'll say a few weeks from now...

Stanford (13-10, RPI 54): Surprising Cardinal are no longer surprsing after losing six of their last 8. Last three games (all losses) at California, at Washington St., and at Washington have really hurt their chances.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

You might be able to picture what he will say in a few weeks, but obviously not what he said today.


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

TucsonClip said:


> You might be able to picture what he will say in a few weeks, but obviously not what he said today.


No, I understand people like Stanford right now. It makes sense. They're 11-4 and have just beaten Washington and Washington St. However, I look a little deeper into the matter...they're not that good offensively, those wins were both at home by only four combined points, and they have a very tough schedule the rest of the way and could finish anywhere from 14-15 to 17-12. That's not a very good ceiling, imo.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

TucsonClip said:


> Games I think Stanford has a shot to win:
> 
> 1/18 - @ Oregon *L*
> 1/20 - @ OSU *W*
> ...





coolpohle said:


> You may try to convince yourself otherwise, but Stanford has no chance of winning at Oregon, no chance of beating UCLA, and they couldn't even beat Cal at home. Even if they do win 7 of those games, you're looking at an 18-11 team, and that's probably not going to be good enough, plain and simple.


Sorry man, I had to do it after the sweep in LA.

:biggrin:


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

Fair enough. I admitted my wrongs in the Week 11 vote. I definitely didn't see them beating UCLA, and I thought USC would beat them as well. I underestimated them, that's for sure.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

coolpohle said:


> Fair enough. I admitted my wrongs in the Week 11 vote. I definitely didn't see them beating UCLA, and I thought USC would beat them as well. I underestimated them, that's for sure.


Haha, I know man im just giving ya a hard time.


----------



## coolpohle (Dec 28, 2006)

TucsonClip said:


> Haha, I know man im just giving ya a hard time.


I deserved it on that one though


----------

