# here it is...THE BBB TOP 25!!!!!



## xubrew (Dec 17, 2002)

here is the official basketballboards.net college basketball preseason top 25. thanks to all those that voted. this is truly the only top 25 that really matters. 


1. connecticut (259)
2. michigan state (236)
3. duke (230)
4. arizona (214)
5. kansas (196)
6. missouri (191)
7. kentucky (190)
7. syracuse (190)
9. florida (172)
10. north carolina (138)
11. texas (122)
12. gonzaga (114)
13. wake forest (94)
14. illinois (78)
15. oklahoma (76)
16. saint joseph's (62)
17. cincinnati (53)
18. pittsburgh (50)
19. wisconsin (39)
20. notre dame (29)
21. marquette (26)
22. stanford (24)
22. louisville (24)
24. xavier (19)
25. lsu (16)



OTHERS RECEIVING VOTES:

florida state (12)
georgia (9)
auburn (7)
utah (7)
california (7)
usc (7)
mississippi state (6)
south carolina (4)
dayton (4)
richmond (3)
colorado (2)
oklahoma state (2)
north carolina state (2)
providence (1)
butler (1)
purdue (1)


----------



## Brian34Cook (Mar 26, 2003)

Illinois at 14 or close to it.. Sounds just like any other poll :laugh:


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Dollars to pesos Missouri drops like a stone after they play their weak non-con schedule. Just like last year, the year before that, and the year before that.....


----------



## Brian. (Jul 11, 2002)

Where is Michigan?


----------



## xubrew (Dec 17, 2002)

no one had michigan in their top 20.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

The Wolverines are going to have to prove it this year. But with the chance to go to the tournament, they should perform well.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

our poll ---------- coaches poll

1. connecticut (259) 1. Connecticut
2. michigan state (236) 2. Duke
3. duke (230) 3. Michigan State
4. arizona (214) 4. Arizona
5. kansas (196) 5. Kansas
6. missouri (191) 6. Missouri
7. kentucky (190) 7. Syracuse
7. syracuse (190) 8. Florida
9. florida (172) 9. Kentucky 
10. north carolina (138) 10. North Carolina
11. texas (122) 11. Texas
12. gonzaga (114) 12. Gonzaga
13. wake forest (94) 13. Illinois 
14. illinois (78) 14. Wisconsin
15. oklahoma (76) 15. Oklahoma 
16. saint joseph's (62) 16. Louisville
17. cincinnati (53) 17. Stanford
18. pittsburgh (50) 18. Saint Joseph's 
19. wisconsin (39) 19. (tie) Cincinnati
20. notre dame (29) 19. (tie) Notre Dame
21. marquette (26) 21. Wake Forest
22. stanford (24) 22. Pittsburgh
22. louisville (24) 23. Marquette
24. xavier (19) 24. Oklahoma State
25. lsu (16) 25. Maryland

looks like we did a pretty good job and had ours very similar to the coaches poll.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Nice job everyone :greatjob:

Watch out for Butler. They will crack the top 25.


----------



## xubrew (Dec 17, 2002)

we will continue this throughout the season. the next coaches' poll will be released sunday, november 16th and once a week on sunday after that. 

the ap poll will be released every monday throughout the season. 

i'd say we have our poll come out every sunday or every other sunday (preferably every sunday). this is something that we can tinker with througout the season, but what do you guys think about opening the voting on friday and keeping it open until sunday throughout the season??

just a thought. my ideas are just that, ideas. if someone has a better one on how we should do this, feel free to share. 

brew


----------



## BlueBaron (May 11, 2003)

Friday sounds good to me. Good idea xubrew.


----------



## kansasalumn (Jun 9, 2002)

Solid pre-season poll and first for BBB.net!


----------



## ill subliminal (Apr 3, 2003)

How's Michigan State good? I'm not hating, just completely ignorant. I don't remember ever even thinking they might be good in a couple years. Like who do they have that's tight.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

MSU has All-Big Ten locks Paul Davis and Chris Hill, a slew of studs on the wing, and a disgustingly talented freshman by the name of Shannon Brown. They're thin up front but overall a very, very talented team with one hell of a coach.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

Who the hell picked UGA? I didnt even participate in this thingy, UGA will suck big. Only 10 players on roster, and really no pure scorers on the entire team.

FSU, however, yeah. They are close to the Top 25


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

FSU is getting some seriously wicked recruits. There's some talk floating around about how they got them.....


----------



## stan.6 (Oct 30, 2003)

*V. Vega*

Did you say Missouri has a weak non-conf. schedule?!?

Michigan State deserves a 2 or 3 pre-season ranking. They are
going to be very solid this season.

The BB poll is as good as I've seen.


----------



## stan.6 (Oct 30, 2003)

*vega, ....*

I've been checking out this site for a while, you are the only blind poster Ive seen. your hatred effects your judgment.

you still havn't told us why MU's schedule is soft.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Thanks for the compliment.

Historically speaking, I'm right on the money. Mizzou, under Snyder, has had two less-than-hazardous non-con schedules ('99-'00, '00-'01), one weak non-con schedule ('01-'02) and two schedules that are or were formidable (last year and this upcoming season). Before that, the Norm teams helped themselves to regular servings of Arkansas-Pine Bluff, Jackson St. and Centenary with the usual suspects of Iowa and Illinois thrown in.

I don't have the SOS rankings to corroborate my claims emprically (I used to check RPI/SOS on collegerpi.com every week, but they've switched to a pay service), so I'm gauging this all on memory. If you can find a legitimate RPI/SOS site, please link it and we'll check the numbers. Last year and this coming season aside, I'd bet dollars to pesos that MU's non-con SOS has been relatively weak compared to most upper echelon teams in major conferences (especially MU's '01-'02 schedule, which was laughable and ranked in the mid- to late-100s until conference started). I remember some very interesting spins on the situation when discussing the topic with Tiger fans.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Also, this year's MU non-con schedule isn't exactly pulverizingly dominant. It's solid, but not terrifying. Let's take a look. In order:

Oakland
Coppin St.
Indiana (1 vote in the ESPN/AP poll)
Gonzaga (#12)
UNC-Greensboro
Illinois (#13)
Memphis (10 votes)
Belmont
Iowa
Syracuse (#7)
UNLV (1 vote)

Three good teams (Gonzaga, Illinois, Syracuse), two decent teams (probably NCAA locks) in Memphis and Indiana, NIT-bound Iowa, UNLV and Oakland (probable MCC champs -- if so, then NCAA), and three creampuffs (Coppin St., UNC-Greensboro, Belmont).

Let's contrast this to KU's non-con schedule (admittedly a down year), in order:

Michigan State (#3)
TCU
Stanford (#17)
Fort Hays State
Oregon (33 votes)
UC-Santa Barbara
Nevada
Binghampton
Villanova
Richmond (6 votes)

Two good teams (MSU, Stanford), two decent teams (Nevada will probably win the WAC and be an NCAA lock, Oregon), NIT-bound Richmond, Villanova and UC-Santa Barbara (probable Big West champs -- if so, then they're NCAA) and three creampuffs (TCU, Fort Hays State, Binghampton).

Kind of funny how KU fans are calling this a relatively weak non-con schedule this year even though it's not too dissimilar overall from MU's.

Of course, this is all very much moot at this point. Rankings are pretty much meaningless until the seasons start, and even then they're often misleading. W's and L's deceive -- RPI and SOS don't.


----------



## stan.6 (Oct 30, 2003)

Michigan St. has the only pre-season schedule I've seen that compares to Missouri's.
Kansas usualy plays a tough p.season, I agree.

The Kansas and Mizzou Pre-Season schedules are not similar.
Even the beakers admit that.

One "weak schedule under Snyder"


----------



## Brian34Cook (Mar 26, 2003)

Illinois Pre-Season Schedule:

11/9 ILLINOIS ALL-STARS (Exh.)
11/17 SPOTLIGHT JAMMERS (Exh.)

:laugh:


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

stan.6,



> The Kansas and Mizzou Pre-Season schedules are not similar.


Please elaborate. I provided my reasons, complete with schedules and stats. You provided one sentence in your defense.

I am nowhere near convinced.


----------



## stan.6 (Oct 30, 2003)

Your schedules and stats are enough. I shouldnt have to elaborate.


----------



## KJay (Sep 22, 2002)

SU a tad bit high right now


----------



## UKfan4Life (Mar 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>brian34cook</b>!
> Illinois Pre-Season Schedule:
> 
> 11/9 ILLINOIS ALL-STARS (Exh.)
> ...


Those are just exhibition games. They don't count for anything if they win or, somehow, lose. If they win it won't show up on their record and if they lose it won't show up on their record. Every basketball team in the NCAA (or at least D1, I'm not an expert with any other division) has exhibition games against teams like the ones you listed.


----------



## Brian34Cook (Mar 26, 2003)

Umm I know that


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*stan.6*



> I shouldnt have to elaborate.


You might wanna take a look at this: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/bkt0304.htm

Sagarin ratings
Kansas: #2
Missouri: #26

You were saying?


----------



## Pistolballer (May 9, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>KansasJayhawk</b>!
> SU a tad bit high right now


i love your current avatar, but i think Syracuse is roughley where they should be... maybe one or two lower, but thats it...


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

*Re: stan.6*



> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> You might wanna take a look at this: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/bkt0304.htm
> ...



Quite frankly, what is your point here?  

The discussion is about the quality of Missouri's schedule which is evidently better then Kansas, and you reference the Sagarin starting ratings for the year?????

Did you even notice that the starting rating for Sagarin are entirely based on last year's performance. 

You were saying? Actually I have no clue what you were saying


----------



## Pistolballer (May 9, 2003)

*Re: Re: stan.6*



> Originally posted by <b>JuniorNoboa</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


most people when creating a prediction list take difficulty of schedule into consideration.. perhaps that list reflects Missouri's cowardess


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: stan.6*



> Originally posted by <b>Pistolballer</b>!
> 
> 
> most people when creating a prediction list take difficulty of schedule into consideration.. perhaps that list reflects Missouri's cowardess



Agreed but the Sagarin starting list is NOT MEANT TO BE A PREDICTION, and does not reflect Missouri's cowardess at all. 

It is a simply, where teams were ranked in the Sagarin ratings after last year's games. It is very simple to tell.


----------



## LionOfJudah (May 27, 2003)

*Re: stan.6*



> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> You might wanna take a look at this: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/bkt0304.htm
> ...


Texas # 9


----------

