# Top 25s 02-03



## JustinYoung (Jul 19, 2002)

Some people have asked me what my top 25 looks like. Well here it is...
1. Kansas
2. Arizona
3. Florida
4. Texas
5. Duke
6. Alabama
7. Oklahoma
8. Xavier
9. UConn
10. Oregon
11. Michigan State
12. Marquette
13. Mississippi State
14. Georgia
15. Pittsburgh
16. Missouri
17. Indiana
18. Notre Dame
19. Western Kentucky
20. Gonzaga
21. Virginia 
22. NC State 
23. Wyoming
24. UCLA
25. Maryland

Agree...disagree...whatever. Have fun.


----------



## Jaybird (Aug 5, 2002)

It looks alright I guess, as an ACC fan I have qualms with their positioning more than anything. I think Duke's too high I think 10-13 would be a better fit. They lost 3 huge keys and while their freshman are certainly talented they've yet to prove anything on the court warrenting a top 5 position. Duhon, Ewing and Jones aren't enough to elevate them into that type of position.

Maryland should be higher than 25, probably in the mid to late teens. They're defending national champs, and have lost a signifigant ammount of talent, on par with but maybe a little more than Duke. The bright side is that they return arguably the best floor generals in Blake. He's not the best PG in the nation but it could easily be claimed he's the best at running his team's offense on the floor. Nicholas, Holden and Randle all have signifigant experiance and a deep knowledge of the system, with a very solid recruiting class.


Virginia and NCState are both boarderline top 25 teams. Virginia's lack of consistancy and any postseason success bring up a lot of questions, and with the loss of Mason Jr. Watson's the only player that's proved that he has more than a great deal of potential. For a team that didn't make the Tourny last year and lost their best Guard, a 21 rank is overly generous IMO.

NCState's more reasonable at their position. The only reason I hesitate is because of the loss of Grundy and Miller. Those two were the collective heart of the Wolfpack, and how Hodge deals with that pressure is not something that anyone knows. If Hodge steps up as a leader the pack will be a fearsome team come March, but Hodge has shown he's equally able to get frustrated and lash out when provoked. I point to the Maryland game where elbowed Blake in the back of the head. It was most assuredly provoked but one is obvious and the other simply what players do get their opponents out of their game.

I think CBS' mid-season top 25 is more in line with how I think the preseason rankings should be.


----------



## ihatespn (Sep 8, 2002)

Ku #1? All you will have to do to stop Ku this year is put a blanket zone defense around Collison and Simien and force them to hit perimeter shots. Then on the end of the court, Ku is very weak if you get them into foul trouble. 
Just curious but why would you have Ku ahead of Zona? Zona has just as much experience returning, has equal point guard play if not better, much better perimeter shooting team, more athleticsm, more talent, a lot better depth and a ton of versatility. The only advantage I would give Ku is interior scoring, thats it. I would also give Zona the advantage defensively because of the added depth they will have. Ku will have to play weak defense to stay out of foul trouble.
As for UF being #3. Right on! Great pick there.
I am not quite sure why you have Duke ahead of Oklahoma. I would love to hear that one and i am about as big of a Duke fan as you can find. I think Duke will be good but for a preseason pick, top five is to high.
Mississippi State #13? They have inconsistent point guard play, turn the ball over way to much, horrible perimeter shooting team, wont be as good of a rebounding team without Patterson and Gholar, not very athletic and has very little depth. 
Mizzou #16? Just curious but can you name me one strength this team will have? They're not experienced, their coach has not proven to be anything great yet, they dont have a proven point guard, they're not a great perimeter shooting team, they're not a great rebounding team, interior play has been inconsistent for years now, they're not a great defensive team and they wont be one of the deepest teams in the country either. What exactly do you see from this team to warrant a top 16 pick?

It is not so much that I disagree with your picks but just that I want to hear your reasoning for them.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

i like that you have given texas and uconn the respect they deserve but i just don't see kansas as preseason number 1. they lost 2 key players. arizona just has more talent and a good mixture of old and young. i don't think kansas will even win the big 12(texas will). it is just preseason rankings but i think right now arizona would have to be on top. and duke is too high. they don't have any proven good size. last year teams were out rebouding duke and beating them. this year duke will still be out rebounded but won't have guys who can put up points like they did last year to make up for it.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

Solid as usual... You discount Indiana that much? I like it that way, we can sneak up on people and surprise them again. Being the underdog is always the best if you ask me, cause you can play with a free spirit.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

> Mizzou #16? Just curious but can you name me one strength this team will have? They're not experienced, their coach has not proven to be anything great yet, they dont have a proven point guard, they're not a great perimeter shooting team, they're not a great rebounding team, interior play has been inconsistent for years now, they're not a great defensive team and they wont be one of the deepest teams in the country either. What exactly do you see from this team to warrant a top 16 pick?


actually i think 16 is a good ranking for them right now. they should be good inside and johnson and paulding should be an inside outside duo almost as good as or as good as hinrich and collison and west and sato. that makes them deserving of 16.


----------



## ihatespn (Sep 8, 2002)

Mizzou is a top 16 team because of ther inside play?


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

> Mizzou is a top 16 team because of ther inside play?


partially yes. arthur johnson and travon bryant are very good on the inside. paulding will fill the role of the scorer form the outside. all three are juniors and can play. after last year where their big strenght was on the wings with gilbert, rush, paulding, and stokes this year they will be able to beat people in the middle with johson and bryant. it might take a little while to get going but they should be a top 25 team possibly top 15.


----------



## ihatespn (Sep 8, 2002)

Travon Bryant still has not proven to me that he can consistently be a solid player.
I do agree that both Paulding and Johnson potentially are all Big 12 caliber players but thats not really what I am asking. It is more so what concept of the game will Mizzou be able to use to their advantage over other teams. A lot of teams have a couple solid players but that doesnt mean anything and I dont think that makes a team top 25 material. 
They have to bring in a new point guard which is a very tough adjustment for anybody, yet a player coming out of junior college without a back up could be very difficult. Last year Mizzou won games from the perimeter, they lose a lot of perimeter offense. Who is going to be able to hit perimeter shots? I am not saying they wont be able to but from the way it looks in the preseason, they really dont have a lot proven from the perimeter, scoring or shooting wise.
IMO there are about four ways to score of offense from the halfcourt setting and considering the fact that Mizzou plays lazy defense and does not force a lot of turnovers we will focus on that part of the game. Keep in mind that there are other offensive factors that make a difference like offensive rebounding. But for the most part, you score on offense with interior post up play, players who can create shots for other's, players who can create their own shot and perimeter shooting.
With that in mind, lets take a closer look at this Missouri team.
Does Mizzou have players that can post up? Yes but is that a real strength of theirs? When it comes to the big 12, I would say there are about 5 other teams in the confrence that score on the interor just as well if not better in Kansas, Baylor, Colorado, Texas and Oklahoma. I do consider this Mizzou main source of offense, however, I am not going to claim this as a "strength" of theirs like it is for KU. That is a strength.
Do they have any proven players that can create shots for others? That is yet to be seen and a huge question mark. How many teams last year succeeded with solid leadership and production out of their point guard? They have to break in two new guards with no experience whatsoever and no upperclassmen to help them out. Teams like Texas, Ou, Ku, Baylor, Osu and TTech already have proven players that can create offense for others. So thats not a strength.
Do they have players that create shots for themselves? I would put Paulding in that category and maybe even McKinney but are they that much better at creating shots for themselves than other teams out there to take advantage of it? Teams like TTech, Ou, Texas, and Ku have a lot of players that can create their own offense.
Will Mizzou be beating teams with their perimeter shooting? I really doubt it.
What I am trying to find here are certain strenths this Mizzou team will have. They are pretty decent in just about every offensive category. They do have interior players, they do have a player in Paulding that can create his own shot but they dont have perimeter shooters and they dont have any proven players that setup the offense and create shots for others. They just dont appear to have any real strenths over other teams in the Big 12 that they can take full advantage of. So that is why I question this team.
Also to add more to this. Defensively, Mizzou needs to improve a great deal. They were 2nd to dead last in the Big 12 last year in defensive FG%. Teams score on them to easily. So I wouldnt consider the other end of the court a strength of this team either.
Do they have depth to at least work with? Not at all. Their top bench player is a player who averaged 2.5Ppg last year. Two extremely inexperiend and raw post players and thats about it.
Also add to the fact that they still have a young coach who is still learning the ropes and has not yet proven to be a consistent top 25 coach.
So I question the ranking of Mizzou being #16. They could finish that high but I just dont see it, right now, from where they stand, considering their strengths and weaknesses as a whole.

And lastly, I am not saying you are wrong for thinking Mizzou is a top 25 team, they could finish that high and would not surprise me a great deal but from looking at their team from the preseason picture, its hard to predict that, IMO.


----------



## JustinYoung (Jul 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jaybird</b>!
> It looks alright I guess, as an ACC fan I have qualms with their positioning more than anything. I think Duke's too high I think 10-13 would be a better fit. They lost 3 huge keys and while their freshman are certainly talented they've yet to prove anything on the court warrenting a top 5 position. Duhon, Ewing and Jones aren't enough to elevate them into that type of position.


I would probably agree with you if I didn't think Duke's freshmen were as talented as they really are. I've watched them very closely during the recruiting process and in their senior seasons. I really think that this class is perhaps one of the greatest classes of NCAA history. Top 5 at least. 

Also consider that the ACC is young in whole. 45% of the McDonald's All Americans are in the ACC. Duke's bunch played their new conference opponents extremely well. There are only two players that gave them fits: Ray Felton and Rashad McCants (particulary against JJ Reddick one on one). 

With all of that in mind, I don't see much changing in terms of winning. They may not win as decisivly as they did last year but they'll still win. 

By the way, Duke's preview will be up later. It will expound more on the team's strenghts/weaknesses. 



> Originally posted by <b>Jaybird</b>!Maryland should be higher than 25, probably in the mid to late teens. They're defending national champs, and have lost a signifigant ammount of talent, on par with but maybe a little more than Duke. The bright side is that they return arguably the best floor generals in Blake. He's not the best PG in the nation but it could easily be claimed he's the best at running his team's offense on the floor. Nicholas, Holden and Randle all have signifigant experiance and a deep knowledge of the system, with a very solid recruiting class.


I really don't see Maryland doing damage this year. Steve Blake will struggle without Dixon and Baxter at his side. Holden, Randle, Smith and Nicholas are all good players. Note good...not great. 

The Terps could lose 10 games this year. Look at their out of conference schedule. Texas, Florida, Indiana, Notre Dame and the ACC. 

The key to their season is Jamar Smith. If he's as good as people say, then okay, the Terps will be better than I think they will. But as for now. No way. Just my $0.02. 



> Originally posted by <b>Jaybird</b>!Virginia's lack of consistancy and any postseason success bring up a lot of questions, and with the loss of Mason Jr. Watson's the only player that's proved that he has more than a great deal of potential. For a team that didn't make the Tourny last year and lost their best Guard, a 21 rank is overly generous IMO.


Virginia is ready to rebound. They are loaded with depth and guys that are ready to breakout. 

Correction on your post. They do have more than Watson in terms of a proven player. Todd Billet, a transfer from Rutgers, averaged over 16 points in his last year there. He'll contribute right away. His outside shooting is perhaps the best in the conference.


----------



## JustinYoung (Jul 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ihatespn</b>!
> Just curious but why would you have Ku ahead of Zona? Zona has just as much experience returning, has equal point guard play if not better, much better perimeter shooting team, more athleticsm, more talent, a lot better depth and a ton of versatility. The only advantage I would give Ku is interior scoring, thats it. I would also give Zona the advantage defensively because of the added depth they will have. Ku will have to play weak defense to stay out of foul trouble.


You bring up valuable points and I see where you are coming from. But why be normal? Thus Kansas as my pick. Maybe in the next couple of weeks I'll compare Kansas with Arizona. I'm sure it would make for great discussion. Basically 'Zona and Kansas are interchangable. That's the bottom line. 



> Originally posted by <b>ihatespn</b>!
> I am not quite sure why you have Duke ahead of Oklahoma. I would love to hear that one and i am about as big of a Duke fan as you can find. I think Duke will be good but for a preseason pick, top five is to high.


If you are as big of a fan as you say you are, then you would know how well the freshmen will do. See above post. Besides putting OU in front of Duke makes me nauseous. 



> Originally posted by <b>ihatespn</b>!Mississippi State #13? They have inconsistent point guard play, turn the ball over way to much, horrible perimeter shooting team, wont be as good of a rebounding team without Patterson and Gholar, not very athletic and has very little depth.


One reason, two words: Mario Austin. He's a beast. He does everything so well. Him and Zimmerman can handle the SEC. 13 may be a little high. I guess we'll find out when the season starts. 

The Mizzou ? has been discussed already. So I'll stay in the background on it. All of the pro reasons for them succeeding, I'll second.


----------



## Jaybird (Aug 5, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JustinYoung</b>!
> 
> 
> I would probably agree with you if I didn't think Duke's freshmen were as talented as they really are. I've watched them very closely during the recruiting process and in their senior seasons. I really think that this class is perhaps one of the greatest classes of NCAA history. Top 5 at least.
> ...


I understand that their Freshmen are very talented, but talent can only carry you so far. Duke has lost all of their post presence in Boozer and no one else got signifigant time last year who's capable of stepping up. Who do they look too in order to balance their attack? 

I don't disagree that Blake will struggle early on without Baxer and Dixon, but the same problem should be expected of Duhon for the comming season. Without J-Will, Boozer and Dunleavy he's missing a lot of his support. Ewing and Jones are the only other two returning players who played over 500 minutes last season.

Maryland on the other hand, while possibly not having as talented players, something I'm not willing to concede  Return players with a similar ammount of time, but more depth in the frontcourt positions. Would you contend that Casey Sanders and Nick Horvath are better than Holden and Randle?

The two teams are comming off similar losses of talent, and while I concede that Duke's incomming feshman class is better, I wouldn't agree that they're enough to push Duke into the top 5, nor would I agree that they're reason enough for a 20 spot difference between the two schools.




> Virginia is ready to rebound. They are loaded with depth and guys that are ready to breakout.
> 
> Correction on your post. They do have more than Watson in terms of a proven player. Todd Billet, a transfer from Rutgers, averaged over 16 points in his last year there. He'll contribute right away. His outside shooting is perhaps the best in the conference.


This one makes me laugh as an ACC fan  Virginia's always ready to rebound, yet has never shown that they're capable of putting it together. Gillen's a pretty good coach, but I truly question his ability to motivate his players and keep them focused. Every year they seem to blow up at one point or another and never get it back together. There's no leader on their team, Travis Watson is a very good basketball player and force in the ACC but he isn't a leader on the court. And aside from maybe Majestic Mapp, there isn't anyone else who looks like they'll be able to take that position. 

Billet may be good, but I've taken claims of excellence with regard to transfers with a grain of salt. Two years ago Maryland was hyping the play of Byron Mouton who was supposed to step in immediately and be a huge offensive force. Last year the same claims were made about another Rutgers transfer in Jones. The fact of the matter is while both had positive impacts on their teams, they were no where near the hype that surrounded them.

There's a quote that I hear from time to time about UVA sports. "Arrogance without Winning" I don't think it's quite the time sound their breakout season. At least until they prove they have a leader that make sure they win the games they should.


----------



## ihatespn (Sep 8, 2002)

> You bring up valuable points and I see where you are coming from. But why be normal? Thus Kansas as my pick. Maybe in the next couple of weeks I'll compare Kansas with Arizona. I'm sure it would make for great discussion. Basically 'Zona and Kansas are interchangable. That's the bottom line.


Why be normal? Thus Kansas as my pick? If you dont want to be normal...pick Rutgers. Thats a horrible reason for picking a team over another team. 



> If you are as big of a fan as you say you are, then you would know how well the freshmen will do. See above post. Besides putting OU in front of Duke makes me nauseous


I dont know how well the freshman will do. Nor do you. They're freshman. Ou has more proven talent and three very good freshman coming in as well. It just makes more sense but whatever.



> One reason, two words: Mario Austin. He's a beast. He does everything so well. Him and Zimmerman can handle the SEC. 13 may be a little high. I guess we'll find out when the season starts.


Why not pick Gtown this high then? What can Austin do that Sweetney cant? Why not pick Cu? Harrison and Pelle are both beasts. Heck..if you want base a teams success around just interior scoring..put Oregon State in your top 25. Where is South Carolina? Kitchens, Powell, Howell and Petravicius equal out to Austin, Ignerski and the scrubs coming off the bench for them. This is my point..I agree that Austin is a beast but just having a solid interior scorer does not make you a top 15 team. They have inconsistent point guard play, they do turn the ball a ton, they cant hit a perimeter shot and they have very little depth.



> All of the pro reasons for them succeeding, I'll second.


Nobody has come up with any legit reasons for having them ranked at #16.


----------



## JustinYoung (Jul 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ihatespn</b>
> Why be normal? Thus Kansas as my pick? If you dont want to be normal...pick Rutgers. Thats a horrible reason for picking a team over another team.


Rutgers. Good one. Why is that a horrible reason? I think both teams are equally as good. Both have amazing coaches. Both have experience. Both will contend. Both are #1 teams in my opinion. I picked the opposite way so I don't look like 99% of the polls around. 




> Originally posted by <b>ihatespn</b> I dont know how well the freshman will do. Nor do you. They're freshman. Ou has more proven talent and three very good freshman coming in as well. It just makes more sense but whatever.


Again, it's my personal opinion based on time spent watching the programs, factoring in their strengths/weaknesses and gut feelings. 



> Originally posted by <b>ihatespn</b> Why not pick Gtown this high then? What can Austin do that Sweetney cant? Why not pick Cu? Harrison and Pelle are both beasts. Heck..if you want base a teams success around just interior scoring..put Oregon State in your top 25. Where is South Carolina? Kitchens, Powell, Howell and Petravicius equal out to Austin, Ignerski and the scrubs coming off the bench for them. This is my point..I agree that Austin is a beast but just having a solid interior scorer does not make you a top 15 team. They have inconsistent point guard play, they do turn the ball a ton, they cant hit a perimeter shot and they have very little depth.


All very valid points. Again, opinion. I don't like Rick Stansbury, the arrogant self serving jerk. But I'll give him credit, he can coach. Last year's team shouldn't have been that good but the team rallied behind him. Is this a reach? Probably. Sue me. But does it really matter? 

I'm interested in seeing everyone else's top 25s. I can tell this is going to be a very good year for NCAA talk here at the Boards. I'm looking forward to it.


----------



## OZZY (Jun 14, 2002)

*My top 25.....*

1. Arizona
2. Kansas
3. Florida
4. Alabama
5. Oklahoma
6. Duke
7. Michigan State
8. Texas
9. Georgia
10. Pittsburgh
11. Mississippi State
12. UConn
13. Oregon
14. Xavier
15. Missouri
16. Marquette
17. Louisville
18. Notre Dame
19. UCLA
20. Western Kentucky
21. Virginia 
22. Boston College
23. NC State
24. Cinncinati
25. Maryland


Surprise teams that could crack the top 25: Syracuse, Minnesota, Villinova, Georgetown, Texas Tech, Kentucky, North Carolina, USC, California.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

*Re: My top 25.....*



> Originally posted by <b>OZZY</b>!
> 1. Arizona
> 2. Kansas
> 3. Florida
> ...


Where is Indiana?


----------



## OZZY (Jun 14, 2002)

Not on it, what just because they made the freaking Final Four means they should be preseason top 25? Well if they do they will drop out very quickly. Come on who do they have, the only way they could be good is if there frosh do awesome, but I just think teams are going to come after them like they did Wisconsin after they won. Top 25 maybe but I will have to see what the frosh do before I say that. 

Because I don't think Coverdale or Newton are good players at all.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>OZZY</b>!
> Not on it, what just because they made the freaking Final Four means they should be preseason top 25? Well if they do they will drop out very quickly. Come on who do they have, the only way they could be good is if there frosh do awesome, but I just think teams are going to come after them like they did Wisconsin after they won. Top 25 maybe but I will have to see what the frosh do before I say that.
> 
> Because I don't think Coverdale or Newton are good players at all.


You're going to eat those words... Sean Kline is going to be a very good addition this year, and they pulled in 3 guards that should be absolutely super.

Maybe you should do a little more research on them?


----------



## JustinYoung (Jul 19, 2002)

Indiana will certainly struggle. That can be expected but AJ Moye is going emerge into a great, great player. Heck, after last year, I don't think I'll discount as much as I used to.


----------



## OZZY (Jun 14, 2002)

*Why I ranked them that way*

1. Arizona- they are complete, have experience, guards, leaders in Gardner, Anderson and Walton, and a very good big man in Frye, plus Adams is coming.
2. Kansas- have good players, great PG and if they did not have him they would not be this high, good experience
3. Florida- just on athletic upside alone, have a ton of talent probably the best in the country, just need to pan out and I think they will.
4. Alabama- have a great big man, great PG, solid defenders, good slasher athletes, experience, very solid.
5. Oklahoma- good veteran leaders, very athletic, very good guards, really quick and are mentally tough.
6. Duke- have great low post players but are young, still have Duhon but are missing a lot of talent, still will be good though.
7. Michigan State- why, well they have great players in Anderson and Hill, Tolbert's going to bust onto the scene this year, great big man in Davis coming in, good shooter in Adam and a tough guy in Al, they will be back.
8. Texas- great floor leader, great big man in Owens, solid one in Buckman, have very athletic wings and guards, but Ford is the reason.
9. Georgia- super star in Haynes, good players in Ezra and a good PG in Wright, very young last year but experienced this year.
10. Pittsburgh- very solid PG, good wing scorer in Page, good big men and they can play defense, good player in Zavackas. 
11. Mississippi State- awesome big man in Austin, good defenders, tough, experience, and have a good PG in Zimmerman, good shooting big man in Ignerski.
12. UConn- great post man in Okafor, very good guards in Gorden, Brown and Robertson. 
13. Oregon- very good wing in Jackson, great PG in Ridour, just lost a lot of players and I don't know if they have the backups to be as good.
14. Xavier- great players in Sato and West, just awesome, and very experienced as well, and have a lot of big Freshman coming in.
15. Missouri- very good big men in Bryant and Johnson, awesome SG in Paulding, just find a PG and they will sky rocket probably into the top 8!
16. Marquette- just on Wade alone, good shooter in Diener, Merritt should be a solid big man but Henry will be missed.
17. Louisville- could be way higher, have a big man in Stone, super star in Gaines, slasher in Whitehead, rebounder in Myles, solid PG in Hurt
18. Notre Dame- very good PG, have a solid vet in Carroll, stud in Francis as well! 
19. UCLA- very young and talented, with Bozeman, Patterson and Thompson, great vet in Kapono, very solid big man in Cummings. 
20. Western Kentucky- obvious Chris Marcus and weak schedule and they also got Boyden to. 
21. Virginia- if Mapp can play, have good young athletic talent, solid big men, just need to play and win. 
22. Boston College- awesome guards in Bell and Sidney, pretty good big man in Uka and Doornekamp will be big for that team.
23. NC State- have Hodge, very athletic team, play a tough style, good shooters, solid big men, Scooter could be huge for that team.
24. Cinncinati- still have Stokes and a great big man in Maxiel, tough players and great coach they deserve it.
25. Maryland- have some talent left with Blake and Holden, but the FROSH class is why they are on here even.


Surprise teams that could crack the top 25: 
*Syracuse- super star in Carmelo, solid player in Hakim, good player in Pace and very solid big man in Forth.
*Minnesota- super star in Rick Rickert, very good guards in Ben Johnson, good big men in Holman, Kane, and Hagen, good leader shooter in Bauer.....(more to come on them) 
*Villinova- unreal FROSH class, and great vet scorer in Buchanan 
*Georgetown- very good big men in Sweetney and Wilson, just need a PG 
*Texas Tech- very good players in Emmit and Powell, could surprise people.
*Kentucky- good vets in Bogans, Hawkins and Camara, pretty good FROSH class and still have a very good big man in Estill 
*North Carolina- great PG in Raymond, very athletic team, just need to get big men to play as well as shoot better. 
*USC- need the Craven boys to play big, very athletic team with a great coach! 
*California- very solid team, very good player scorer in Shipp, very good player in Tamir that can go inside and out.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by *OZZY* !
> 8. Texas- great floor leader, great big man in Owens, solid one in Buckman, have very athletic wings and guards, but Ford is the reason.


you must mean thomas instead of owens. owens was drafted in the 2nd round by memphis.


----------



## OZZY (Jun 14, 2002)

My bad, I thought Owens took a redshirt year and came back. But that is surprising he got drafted in the 2nd round after a injury most of the time they need to come back for another year. I think he made the wrong move in leaving, this college season would have been fun for him because they would actually win...and could have been a late 1st round pick.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

i think he tried to get a reshirt year but the ncaa wouldn't give him one because he had played too much last season or something like that. there was another player who had a similar injury(i think it was similar and i can't remember his name) and i remember reading about how he had his request for a redshirt season declined and that because of that it looked bad for owens. i think he could be a huge steal as a mid 2nd rounder because he was predicted first round before the injury and was playing great. i would have liked to see him in a texas uniform again but they still have good depth up front with thomas, bukcman, boddiker, klotz, and erskin(maybe it's erksin).


----------



## MIZZOUtiger23 (Oct 19, 2002)

Mizzou #16? Just curious but can you name me one strength this team will have? They're not experienced, their coach has not proven to be anything great yet, they dont have a proven point guard, they're not a great perimeter shooting team, they're not a great rebounding team, interior play has been inconsistent for years now, they're not a great defensive team and they wont be one of the deepest teams in the country either. What exactly do you see from this team to warrant a top 16 pick?


***MIZZOU is NOT experienced. I have been sitting courtside the tigers for the past 15 years. How about you come to a MU game and then tell me how inexperienced they are. They are so inconsistent that they got to the Elite 8. Explain that. And yes last year their perimeter shooting was off the hook. They could not be stopped. Clarence Gilbert (who is playin pro in Italy) and Kareem Rush (who is on the LA LAKERS) hmmmm explain that. Appearently they were 8 out of about 300 some NCAA teams that made it farther then the rest. Judge how they play this year. Last year you have nothing to complain about and you are not a true supporter of the Tigers so you wouldnt know how good they really were. 

***MIZZOU FOR LIFE***


----------



## ihatespn (Sep 8, 2002)

"I have been sitting courtside the tigers for the past 15 years. How about you come to a MU game and then tell me how inexperienced they are"

Huh? That made no sense at all bud. Mizz has three players on their roster that played over 15 minutes per game last year. They're inexperienced.

"They are so inconsistent that they got to the Elite 8. Explain that"

My point exactly, they struggled all season long, underachieved, barely got into the Ncaa tourney and then made it to the Elite 8. Thats the definition of inconsistent, right there. Its not a hard concept. And next time, dont quote me wrong, my reference to inconsistent play was about their interior scoring.

"And yes last year their perimeter shooting was off the hook. They could not be stopped. Clarence Gilbert (who is playin pro in Italy) and Kareem Rush (who is on the LA LAKERS) hmmmm explain that"

Its people like you that make me laugh. What in gods name are you talking about? What do Kareem Rush and Clarence Gilbert have to do with Mizzou's perimeter shooting next season? I cant explain something that never made sense to beging with. Try making sense next time..i hate to be mean but seriously, it would help.


----------



## OZZY (Jun 14, 2002)

> Mizzou #16? Just curious but can you name me one strength this team will have?


I call going deep into the tournament experience!

As for the team, if you don't think there talented well....

Come on they probably have the best SG in the land in Paulding and he will have a way bigger year than last season! Like I said there only problem is finding a PG, and I believe they have some good prospects for that spot. But the main this is they have VERY good low post players in Johnson and Bryant, both NBA prospect. That is the main reason, Johnson should have a even bigger year, and Bryant really improved last season and should keep doing, there new guys have to step up but I think they will

As for Quin being a bad coach? Well that is a idiot comment because, Quin Snyder is probably the best young coach in the game. And if you just a angry Mizzou fan, well they did good last year in my book, so what are you crying about????


----------



## ihatespn (Sep 8, 2002)

"I call going deep into the tournament experience!"

Lets get one thing straight, I am not saying that experience will be the fall of Mizzou, however, my point all along has been that it will not be a strength. They only return 3 players that were really part of that tourney run in Paulding, Johnson and Bryant and they will have to rely on newcomers in the backcourt which does not bode well for experience.
Hell lets try something here. Here is a list of all the teams in the Big 12 and the minutes per game that they return from players that played on a daily basis(10 or more minutes per game).
Baylor- 132 minutes
Colorado-136 minutes
Iowa State- 126 minutes
Kansas- 123 minutes
Kansas State-109 minutes
Mizz- 87 minutes
Neb- 128 minutes
OU- 135 minutes
Osu-132 Minutes
Texas- 180 minutes
Texas A&M- 155 minutes
Texas Tech- 165 minutes
The numbers done lie, Ozzy. By no means i'm saying that this makes Mizzou the worst team in the Big 12 but it does prove that experience wil not be a strength of this team. They, by far and away have the least experienced team in the league. Thanks for playing though.

"Come on they probably have the best SG in the land in Paulding and he will have a way bigger year than last season!"

Ricky Paulding is now the best SG in the country? ROFLMAO!!! What has he done to warrant that? He has been a role player throughout his career at Mizzou. 

"As for the team, if you don't think there talented well..."

When did I say Mizzou was not talented? Find me that. Dont misquote me next time, you can do better.

"Like I said there only problem is finding a PG, and I believe they have some good prospects for that spot"

Wrong again. Listen next time, you lack experience, you lack perimeter shooting, you lack rebounding, you lack consistent interior scoring, you lack defense and you lack depth, PG play is just another thing you have to work on.

"As for Quin being a bad coach? Well that is a idiot comment because, Quin Snyder is probably the best young coach in the game. And if you just a angry Mizzou fan, well they did good last year in my book, so what are you crying about????"

Once again quit misquoting me!! That is very childish. I never said Synder was a bad coach. I just said that he has not proven to be a winner, yet. BTW I am a Dukie, so naturally I cheer for Quin but the fact is that he has yet to finish higher than 6th in the Big 12 and he is still a very young and unproven head coach. You cant argue that.


----------

