# ***bbbnet top 25 for november 24th!!!***



## xubrew (Dec 17, 2002)

here is the bbbnet site top 25 for the week of november 24th. thanks to all those that voted. the next poll will come out, of course, next week. 



1. connecticut (314)
2. kansas (279)
3. duke (266)
4. arizona (245)
5. michigan state (234)
6. florida (212)
7. missouri (202)
8. kentucky (194)
9. texas (178)
10. north carolina (168)
11. syracuse (163)
12. saint joseph's (159)
13. illinois (124)
14. wake forest (93)
15. gonzaga (74)
16. wisconsin (69)
17. stanford (61)
18. oklahoma (60)
19. cincinnati (57)
20. louisville (44)
21. pittsburgh (39)
22. marquette (35)
23. dayton (24)
24. mississippi state (22)
25. utah (15)


OTHERS RECEIVING VOTES:

lsu (10)
notre dame (7)
texas tech (7)
north carolina state (3)
michigan (2)



LINK TO LAST WEEK'S TOP 25: http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?threadid=58597&forumid=94


----------



## xubrew (Dec 17, 2002)

a few comments:

-although i never voted for xavier, they did drop from the poll. i think they were #23 in the first preseason poll. not only that, they did not receive a single vote. personally, i don't think beating three lower level teams at home constitutes a top 25 ranking because anyone on this list could have done the same thing. i'm just a little curious as to why some of the people that voted for xavier last week didn't this week.

-for those that didn't like bryan's mississippi state #1 vote, to see what it would have looked like without it, just subtract 20 points from their score. 

-more people voted this week, but fewer teams received votes.


----------



## BrYaNBaIlEy06 (Jul 15, 2003)

great job, looks good. 

w/o my Mississippi State vote they wouldn't have even been in the top 25.

and that would have looked horrible.

i'm glad you did this, nice to look at.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

You obviously skipped right over my ratings, because I had Xavier in mine.

1. Connecticut
2. Kansas
3. Florida
4. North Carolina
5. Duke
6. Arizona
7. Kentucky
8. Missouri
9. Syracuse
10. Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------------
11. Saint Joseph's
11. Texas
12. Illinois
13. Dayton
14. Stanford
15. Michigan State
16. Lousville
17. Wake Forest
18. Cincinnati
19. Pittsburgh
20. Marquette
-----------------------------------------------------------
21. Texas Tech
22. Gonzaga
23. Xavier
24. Michigan
25. Western Michigan


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

NM, he only counts the top 20, when tabulating his votes -that is why Xavier had 0.

Also, Duke is rightfully #2, as a certain person forgot to include them in their polls.

Anyway, in the end Miss St is right where they belong - #24 (right where I had them). I think they have a shot of moving up because the SEC is weak, and the third best SEC Team will always have a good ranking.


----------



## xubrew (Dec 17, 2002)

newmessiah,

i do it the same way the ap and coaches poll does it. only the top 20 teams receive any points.

#1 = 20 pts.
#2 = 19 pts.

...and so on.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>xubrew</b>!
> newmessiah,
> 
> i do it the same way the ap and coaches poll does it. only the top 20 teams receive any points.


I did not realize that is the way they did the other polls as well 

I thought you were just being lazy


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Pardon my stupidity.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Also, Duke is rightfully #2, as a certain person forgot to include them in their polls.


Duke barely beat Detroit at home.


----------



## WildcatDan (Nov 6, 2003)

Thanks Xubrew... I know lots of work had to go into that. 

I will likely contribute to the poll once the season gets a bit further and I have some idea of what the teams can do.


----------



## xubrew (Dec 17, 2002)

it actually isn't all that difficult. i just talley it as people post them. i'm curious to see how it compares to the coaches' poll, but espn is taking their sweet little time in getting it up.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Duke barely beat Detroit at home.


Yea, that was pathetic. Deng looked damn good though. A lot of teams are still trying to get underway, Mich. St. damn near lost to Bucknell, Kansas was down by 10 at one point to UTC, UConn could've been beaten a couple of times, it seems everyone's still trying to get into the flow of things. Duke really failed to impress me though.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Duke barely beat Detroit at home.



No doubt that was a bad victory. I still have them at #1 because UConn had a similar game against Yale. I usually take in about 3-4 games before altering my rankings, because x team did better against decent team y. (unless they lose)

However, my comment was intended to show that Duke would have been #2 in this poll, had one person decided not to completely omit Duke from their poll. As long as he had placed them eighth they would be #2.


----------



## BlueBaron (May 11, 2003)

Great looking poll brew. I think this was a great idea from the start.


----------



## Hollis (Jun 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>newmessiah10</b>!
> Pardon my stupidity.


OK, but this is your last chance....


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hollis</b>!
> 
> OK, but this is your last chance....


:laugh: :laugh: Touche.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

Looks good...

Just out of curiosity, how many people turned in lists this time? 

We should promote the hell out of this thing. The bigger the better.


----------



## ltrain99 (Apr 27, 2003)

I'm 2 lazy 2 put in this much effort every week, can some1 take my opening rankings and just move back every1 that lost?:uhoh:........Every week:dead:


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

Syracuse at #11 is a joke.

I wonder when the last time a national champion with this much returning talent (4 starters who were underclassmen last year and are bound to improve) was outside of the top 10 before the season started.

Answer. Probably never.

Good job Big 12 crew. Seems like you guys have a fairly short memory.

Syracuse - 2003 National and Big 12 Conference Champions


----------



## KJay (Sep 22, 2002)

ah yes because the Orange beat only 4 Big 12 teams they are the champs, god I hate that statement. Put them from last year into one of the divisons and they would win but not the big 12 champions. And you guys know that I am an SU fan and a KU grad (Well soon)


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>KansasJayhawk</b>!
> ah yes because the Orange beat only 4 Big 12 teams they are the champs, god I hate that statement. Put them from last year into one of the divisons and they would win but not the big 12 champions. And you guys know that I am an SU fan and a KU grad (Well soon)


Actually that's 5 teams  

It is a silly comment, I agree.

But as long as most of the Big 12 fans here continue to underrate SU they need to see that statement as a reminder of who went 5-0 against their teams, including 3 commanding victories against Missouri, Oklahoma, and Ok St.

There are some individuals here such as BlaBla who at least does a great job defending his points and I who know is generally not biased (but wrong in this case) who also are ranking SU rather low.

But as a group, the most disrespect by far comes from the Big 12. So I am sticking it back at them. If they want to have silly petty jealousies in their rankings fine. I will make silly comments in return.

It's all in good fun - the preason / early season rankings and "respect" mean crap all.


----------



## xubrew (Dec 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>blabla97</b>!
> Looks good...
> 
> Just out of curiosity, how many people turned in lists this time?
> ...


i counted sixteen people.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

All I know is that no team should ever underestimate the power of Gerry McNamara.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JuniorNoboa</b>!
> Syracuse at #11 is a joke.
> 
> I wonder when the last time a national champion with this much returning talent (4 starters who were underclassmen last year and are bound to improve) was outside of the top 10 before the season started.
> ...


I seriously, seriously doubt Cuse would've won the Big 12 if they were in the conference. Savor the flavor of the championship, but don't get too big a head

The reason they're so far down is because they lost possibly the best player in the country, and even with him they weren't an amazing team last year by any means. I doubt they contend this year, but you never know.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

> The reason they're so far down is because they lost possibly the best player in the country, and even with him they weren't an amazing team last year by any means. I doubt they contend this year, but you never know.


Essentially, this is my argument as well.

Jim Boeheim's teams rarely fall out of the top 4 in the Big East, and that certainly isn't going to happen this year. 

But I also question if they have the firepower to take out really tough teams in the tourney. Carmelo was the guy who took the team on his back last season. I have serious doubts about whether Hakim Warrick can be that guy this season, at least against tougher competition. 

Again, there's no doubting that Cuse's returnees will improve, but I don't know if they will improve to the point where the team can contend for a title.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

> The reason they're so far down is because they lost possibly the best player in the country, and even with him they weren't an amazing team last year by any means. I doubt they contend this year, but you never know.





> Essentially, this is my argument as well.


Hate to bring up Kansas again because I think they are a worthy top 5 team (at least top 8),

My counters would be:
- Kansas was not an amazing team last year. (a 2 seed)
- Would Kansas have made the title game without Hinrich and Collison? No, they would have missed the tournament.

So why do they hang around in the top 5. I assume your answer will be they have a go to player while SU does not - I think Warrick, GMAC, and Edelin are plenty of firepower, and while individually are not Simien's equal, they can match up with Kansas top 3. But it looks we will not agree on that point.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

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


You raise a good argument, and at a certain point, especially this early in the season, you just have to be subjective and decide for yourself who's better. Personally, I think Simien and Langford are both better than anybody Cuse has, and I think Miles is one of the better all-around point guards in the country. I also think, once they're a little more comfortable with the system and get a little experience, Padgett and Giddens will end up being primetime players for the team. Cuse no doubt is a solid team, and depending on how Warrick pans out could be a great team this year, but I'd take Kansas over them at the moment. But, as stated before, it's fairly meaningless at this point. Teams have a long way to go before they reach their peak for the season (hell, Kansas started 3-3 last year, and that was with Simien), and it's far too early to tell how good these guys really are.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

Syracuse down by 21 before the half  Guess you were right 

Plegham (or something like that) is 7-8 from the three line. Not even watching the game, but I can guarantee you the problem is Mcnamara who is a brutal defender. He is much too agressive which results in easy looks posession after possession from the three.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Brendan Plavich is his name. 

I think the main problem is Charlotte is a 3 point shooting team against a 2-3 zone. Charlotte takes almost 30 threes a game. This seems to be one of their hot games.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

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


Syracuse: 

Warrick may be an all-american, and he may have an improved offensive game, but his best qualities are always going to be complementary ones. 

GMac can hit the open shot, but he definitely can't create for himself. He has really slow feet, and that will be his undoing when trying to take his game up a notch. JJ Reddick minus a couple of inches, IMO. 

I don't see the hype with Edelin. He's got nice size, but he looked a step slow last season, especially in the tourney. I like his ability to get his shot off around the basket, but it seems like he has a tendency to force it, and given the types of moves he's attempting, this really bogs the offense down. He's not going to be taking good defensive teams to the hoop any time soon, that's for sure. 

Again, I'm not saying these guys aren't good, perhaps GREAT players. Definitely "plenty of firepower", as you put it. Just maybe not championship-caliber go-to guys, when they are in the lead role.

As for Kansas: 

Simien is as complete of an offensive post player as you will find in college these days. His post awareness and variety of moves make him a Corliss Williamson/John Wallace/Marcus Fizer/Gary Trent-type college player. A guy that definitely can lead a team to an NCAA championship, given the supporting cast. 

I will repeat that: Wayne Simien is as good as Corliss Williamson, Marcus Fizer, or John Wallace - RIGHT NOW. 

There's also Langford, who has numerous wrinkles to his offensive game. There's not one aspect that stands out, but he will find a way to beat you. 

Even Miles is showing more of a multi-dimensional game this season. As long as he can continue hitting a 3 occasionally, he's going to be just as good at drawing defenses as GMac, because he can get to the hole. 

IMO, Kansas has two legit go-to guys, Syracuse might have one, but even that one isn't as good as either of Kansas'. 

The supporting casts are very similar...

Still...

The Big East isn't that great this year. SU should fight for 2nd, which is quite impressive considering they lost the top player in the country. Pitt will be tough. Notre Dame is so overrated I really don't even want to talk about it.

It's nice to see that the voters on this poll aren't as blind as the national media with regards to the Irish.


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

Well from the first game it looks like SU certainly has the scoring options.

But were back to our weakness that has been there for about 4-5 years before Melo. And that is awful rebounding. Melo made our team rebounding decent, That is probably Melo's most underrated skill - he just had a nose for the ball which is imperative out of the 2-3 when you can not box out as well as other types of defence.

And those rebounding problems are exaggerated by the big stiff Craig Forth. Your right he is no Jeff Graves. I didn't really mean to imply that Forth was as good as Graves, just that I didn't expect either to have much value in the overall picture. Bur Graves would at least battle and rebound quite better then Forth which would be imperative for this team. 


And while the 2-3 gives up lots of threes over last year we were susceptible from the big outburst (Hill, Carroll) and tonight Plavich. The current version of the team just seems to give up more easy looks out of the 2-3 then prior versions. That means Syracuse can and WILL get beat by teams that should not beat them.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JuniorNoboa</b>!
> Well from the first game it looks like SU certainly has the scoring options.
> 
> But were back to our weakness that has been there for about 4-5 years before Melo. And that is awful rebounding. Melo made our team rebounding decent, That is probably Melo's most underrated skill - he just had a nose for the ball which is imperative out of the 2-3 when you can not box out as well as other types of defence.


I definitely think that Syracuse has a lot of scoring options. And they're going to be able to score enough against 90% of teams , and pretty much anybody in the Big East.

I'm more talking about situational scoring, where you need a go-to offensive player to step up and carry the team. No team wins a championship (only a few that I can think of that have made it to a final 4) without one.



> And those rebounding problems are exaggerated by the big stiff Craig Forth. Your right he is no Jeff Graves. I didn't really mean to imply that Forth was as good as Graves, just that I didn't expect either to have much value in the overall picture. Bur Graves would at least battle and rebound quite better then Forth which would be imperative for this team.


Graves was actually a huge factor in last season's tournament. He got tons of big rebounds and made quite a few key hustle plays. A big part of this was because of all the attention being paid to Collison, and I think Graves is going to get this advantage again, as Simien is probably better than Nick ever was. 

Having a guy of Graves' size and effectivess play next to your #1 post option is almost unheard of in college hoops these days. 



> And while the 2-3 gives up lots of threes over last year we were susceptible from the big outburst (Hill, Carroll) and tonight Plavich. The current version of the team just seems to give up more easy looks out of the 2-3 then prior versions. That means Syracuse can and WILL get beat by teams that should not beat them.



Yeah, well any time a guy is as hot as Plavich was tonight, a defense is going to look pretty bad. Charlotte should end up a pretty solid team this year.


----------

