ESPN's Top 25 For Next Year

[southie]

South Carolina got a visit this past weekend from UVa transfer, Sarah Imovbioh. I thought I had read that SC didn't have any 'ships to award, but perhaps that was inaccurate.

 

[BlueDevils]

After some thinking, my preseason top 10 would be

1. Uconn
2. Baylor
3. South Carolina
4. Notre Dame
5. Lady Vols
6. Maryland
7. Duke
8. Florida State
9. Ohio State
10. Louisville

 

[Orangutan]

South Carolina got a visit this past weekend from UVa transfer, Sarah Imovbioh. I thought I had read that SC didn't have any 'ships to award, but perhaps that was inaccurate.

I believe they currently have 13 players for next year. Their roster for 13-14 shows the max of 15 but they lose 3 seniors and only gain one incoming freshman.

 

[Orangutan]

I put Baylor at #2. Agbuke was rarely a factor and is being replaced by two top post recruits. The lack of a good post presence was Baylor's weakness last season.

But it's the addition of Alexis Jones that will make the biggest difference. She can be a go-to player.

I'm scared of what Alexis Jones can do if she's healthy and playing for a very good offensive coach like Mulkey.

 

[triaddukefan]

After some thinking, my preseason top 10 would be

1. Uconn
2. Baylor
3. South Carolina
4. Notre Dame
5. Lady Vols
6. Maryland
7. Duke
8. Florida State
9. Ohio State
10. Louisville

I pick Louisville as #5 in the ACC.......

I'm scared of what Alexis Jones can do if she's healthy and playing for a very good offensive coach like Mulkey.

As a fan who roots against Baylor.... Im scared too

 

[DobbsRover2]

The original rankings were done when I said, confirmed by ESPN. The list was updated after DeShields transferred.

As for your "ignoring" the other teams, Creme had Dayton at 19. You do not think 11 out of 16 is impressive, but considering he had Dayton at #19 clearly shows that the Flyers were a candidate to make the Sweet 16.

You are also holding Creme to a tournament standard based on preseason rankings. The rankings cannot factor in home court, injuries, etc. that go on throughout the season.

For those who criticize the preseason rankings one year later and engage in Tuesday Morning Quarterbacking, I ask where your preseason lists are or present an analyst who did significantly better.

Nope, your link went to a preview for July 29, 2014. As said, up in the Northeast that actually does mean July not April. Lists that get updated to information in July are therefore considered to be published in July in the media world, not the April date you wish to push. As one who has worked for many decades in the publishing world I'll be happy to explain it to you. The original date that an article is published is called the "Original Pub Date." The date that an article got updated with an author's revisions, corrections, or new alterations now that he has learned that someone named DeShields had transferred is called the "Article Updated" date is considered the new publication date of an article. I stated back in my first post that the date of publication was July 29, 2014, which was correct. If you wish to try to explain away all changes done to a revised article as meaningless, that is your option, but in the real world of media you are in the dark.

Again, in the world of women's basketball where everything goes fairly close to the mark, 11 of 16 or a 68% accuracy mark doesn't seem to me to make the grade for being an expert pundit. Is a 68 at Duke a passing grade? I hope not, though maybe at UNC it is. Charlie got 100% for the brackets and I gave him big kudos for a tremendous prediction job there when general feeling was that he was brainless, partly for not giving Princeton the seed that many fans thought the Tigers deserved, even though Charlie knew that the seed he gave Princeton was probably going to be better than the 8th seed that the committee decided to go with.

Can anyone do as well as Creme? Here's suggestion. Just trot out the same 16 teams listed in the final post season poll of the USA Today list. You would have got 11 of the S16 teams in 2014 from the final 2013 poll and 10 of the S16 teams in 2015 from the 2014 poll. Okay, that's only an average of 10.5 of 16, which I guess Charlie did manage to beat by a smidge. Really impressed.

As said, we all have our standards, and if a 68 is a wowser in these days of grade inflation, you definitely win, Cam.

 

[stwainfan]

My top ten
UConn
Tennessee
South Carolina
Notre Dame
Baylor
Maryland
Louisville
Duke
Texas
Stanford

 

[Sluconn Husky]

Stanford lost Orrange and Bonnie Samuelson, and I don't think they have much in reserves. Not sure I'd put them top-20.

 

[Tonyc]

Its a little early for me to pick the top teams but I will say this. Top 5 teams will need good guard play a good outside inside game and good coaching. SC lacks good scoring guards and good outside shooting. Has better guard play, a go to player and an "iffy" post player who could turn out to be good but not next season. If DD is taking all the shots Tenn will not make the FF. If Russell is not 100% and or "iffy" Tenn will not make the FF. Its UConn and everybody else.

I would think a lot of teams are licking their chops knowing Stewie and Mojeff are graduating. Not so fast. UConn has chemistry and play team ball. Not many teams do that. I would not be surprised to see another team other then SC and Tenn be in the FF. I would also not be surprised if both SC and Tenn were in the FF . But no team will beat UConn.

 

[VFLfan]

holly has said in two different interviews that Mercedes is absolutely 100%. Hopefully she will get a chance to show us what she's got with two healthy feet next year.

FWIW (I don't claim to be an expert)
My top 5
1. UCONN
2. ND
3. Baylor
4. TN
4. S Carolina

 

[MilfordHusky]

Some of thoughts:

6. MD - they were a very young team this year and I think surprised a lot of people. They should be better next year just with maturity and experience and they lost no one.

The Terps lost Lauren Mincy, who was a highly regarded recruit out of high school and a 13.6 ppg scorer this season.

 

[Bayareahusky]

Don't think I have put my 2 cents in ever on top teams for coming season..... for 15-16 it would have to be this

1. UConn
2. Notre Dame
3. South Carolina
4. Baylor
5. Texas
6. Tennessee
7. Maryland
8. Florida State
9. North Carolina
10. Louisville
11. Duke

Even without Loyd, Muffet has proven her skill to compete at highest level. USC, I am hesitant labeling them #3, as I do not think they are solid, but a worthy choice to go far.... Baylor, Kim ain't great, but she is good, and the front court will be good and I love Nina Davis. Texas is the looming beast I expect to show its teeth..... Tennessee - I am always a Holly suspect, so that falls to Diamond's contribution, it is all on you DD! .... Maryland, why not another year? Never a great MD believer but hey they are worth something here. FSU why nobody is recognizing them? UNC still got the stuff... didn't they almost take out USC in Elite 8? Louisville..... I normally discount recruits, but did you see Asia Durr in last year's world's? and Duke cause they always get the big name recruits..... Coach P should already have been purged.

 

[UcMiami]

Everything I read states a maximum 15 scholarship student-athletes for Division I WCBB, but I can't find anything that pertains to non-scholarship walk-on players. USC had 14 scholarship players for 2014-15 and one walk-on in So. India Farmer. Coach Staley was prepared to use her final, 15th scholarship for Shakayla Thomas for the 2014 class, but she chose FSU over USC.

So with the departures of Welch, Ibiam, and Gaines and the addition of Coffey that would be a roster of 12 scholarship players and 1 walk-on. I don't know if Farmer would have to leave the team should Staley want to give out all the available scholarships (15 players max, regardless of scholarship or not), or if she could have 16 players on roster with 15 scholly players + 1 walk-on. But she'll still have 3 available scholarships past Coffey, just the same. We may see one additional player join Coffey for the '15 class (perhaps a JUCO big), but I'd be surprised to see more than that...

Walk-ons do not count as scholarship athletes unless the team chooses to give them a scholarship for a year or more. The rule allows an unlimited number of non-scholarship athletes on any team but most coaches find 15 players to be really too many - practice time is limited by rules and with too many players either some are left standing around, or the time gets too diluted (as well as the coaches attention.
In the past few years two teams I am aware of needed to creatively manage scholarships I believe - UNC with the Diamond class of five, and I believe Baylor - scholarship athletes on the team already needed to go - either not using their fifth year, or finding a new team with the chance of playing time.

Geno I believe has said that 12 is ideal - allows 5 on 5 practice with insurance against injury/illness during the year. And is not so unwieldy that the coaches can't be focused on everyone.

 

[DobbsRover2]

The Terps lost Lauren Mincy, who was a highly regarded recruit out of high school and a 13.6 ppg scorer this season.

Mincy did get a lot of attention at the end of season as the the senior leader though she did have a very disappointing game against UConn in her FF finale, possibly because the Huskies might have focused on her a bit. HoopGurlz has their incoming recruits at forward as #15 Brianna Fraser and #27 Kiah Gillespie and other services seem to rank them higher, so they seem to be adding some quality and a little more height to this year's three-guard starting rotation that loses Mincy.

 

[meyers7]

Mincy did get a lot of attention at the end of season as the the senior leader though she did have a very disappointing game against UConn in her FF finale, possibly because the Huskies might have focused on her a bit. HoopGurlz has their incoming recruits at forward as #15 Brianna Fraser and #27 Kiah Gillespie and other services seem to rank them higher, so they seem to be adding some quality and a little more height to this year's three-guard starting rotation that loses Mincy.

Gillespie looked good in the AA games. Not that it means anything, but she had no problem imposing herself on the game. Maryland should probably win the B1G next year and get a good seed. Not sure they'll make the FF again, but they have a shot.

 

[Orangutan]

Everything I read states a maximum 15 scholarship student-athletes for Division I WCBB, but I can't find anything that pertains to non-scholarship walk-on players. USC had 14 scholarship players for 2014-15 and one walk-on in So. India Farmer. Coach Staley was prepared to use her final, 15th scholarship for Shakayla Thomas for the 2014 class, but she chose FSU over USC.

I didn't know Farmer was a walk-on. Good clarification.

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

The original date that an article is published is called the "Original Pub Date." The date that an article got updated with an author's revisions, corrections, or new alterations now that he has learned that someone named DeShields had transferred is called the "Article Updated" date is considered the new publication date of an article. I stated back in my first post that the date of publication was July 29, 2014, which was correct. If you wish to try to explain away all changes done to a revised article as meaningless, that is your option, but in the real world of media you are in the dark.

Nope, you are incorrect. Wholly incorrect. Do you want me to send you the screen shots to prove it?

Your feelings/opinions are not facts.

Again, in the world of women's basketball where everything goes fairly close to the mark, 11 of 16 or a 68% accuracy mark doesn't seem to me to make the grade for being an expert pundit. Is a 68 at Duke a passing grade? I hope not, though maybe at UNC it is. Charlie got 100% for the brackets and I gave him big kudos for a tremendous prediction job there when general feeling was that he was brainless, partly for not giving Princeton the seed that many fans thought the Tigers deserved, even though Charlie knew that the seed he gave Princeton was probably going to be better than the 8th seed that the committee decided to go with.

Can anyone do as well as Creme? Here's suggestion. Just trot out the same 16 teams listed in the final post season poll of the USA Today list. You would have got 11 of the S16 teams in 2014 from the final 2013 poll and 10 of the S16 teams in 2015 from the 2014 poll. Okay, that's only an average of 10.5 of 16, which I guess Charlie did manage to beat by a smidge. Really impressed..

Let me see if I have this correct...

You are comparing an academic grade/percentage where you study and prepare for a test to making predictions BEFORE the season even begins, not being able to factor in injuries, off shooting nights, matchups, brackets and placement, etc.? For your "comparison" to work, it would be like studying for the test, then taking the test only to learn that brand new material is on it that you had no way of being able to predict would be on it or study such material in preparation for the test.

It is even funnier that you repeatedly use the rankings as a barometer, without regard to brackets or placement. So Creme had Dayton at #19; does that mean he was so horribly wrong or inaccurate? At #19, the team is a candidate to make the Sweet 16 with the right placement/bracket.

Oh, rankings are not RPI, in case you forgot. That is another factor to consider.

Call me when you make your predictions. And when you do worse than Charlie, you might change your tune...or at least have a better understanding of the concept of "preseason rankings" and what they mean.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Nope, you are incorrect. Wholly incorrect. Do you want me to send you the screen shots to prove it?

Your feelings/opinions are not facts.



Let me see if I have this correct...

You are comparing an academic grade/percentage where you study and prepare for a test to making predictions BEFORE the season even begins, not being able to factor in injuries, off shooting nights, matchups, brackets and placement, etc.? For your "comparison" to work, it would be like studying for the test, then taking the test only to learn that brand new material is on it that you had no way of being able to predict would be on it or study such material in preparation for the test.

It is even funnier that you repeatedly use the rankings as a barometer, without regard to brackets or placement. So Creme had Dayton at #19; does that mean he was so horribly wrong or inaccurate? At #19, the team is a candidate to make the Sweet 16 with the right placement/bracket.

Oh, rankings are not RPI, in case you forgot. That is another factor to consider.

Call me when you make your predictions. And when you do worse than Charlie, you might change your tune...or at least have a better understanding of the concept of "preseason rankings" and what they mean.

You've already given us a link to July 29, 2014, which is exactly what I stated in my original post. If you are having trouble reading that, I might suggest taking some time off from waiting the tables, which I know can be stressful. Again, maybe July means April down in NC. Weather wise maybe it does.

Again, you fawn over a 68% percent prediction rate and I don't. D+ is good for you, while I think maybe a C would be passing. Two different views.

Read my last post. I stated that selecting the the Top 16 picks for the last postseason USA Today poll (which a brain-challenged amoeba could also do) would give me about the same rates as Charlie got last year for the S16. So I'll take the brain-challenged amoeba route so I can qualify as an expert in your book for next year.

All happy now?

 

[BlueDevils]

You've already given us a link to July 29, 2014, which is exactly what I stated in my original post. If you are having trouble reading that, I might suggest taking some time off from waiting the tables, which I know can be stressful. Again, maybe July means April down in NC. Weather wise maybe it does.

Again, you fawn over a 68% percent prediction rate and I don't. D+ is good for you, while I think maybe a C would be passing. Two different views.

Read my last post. I stated that selecting the the Top 16 picks for the last postseason USA Today poll (which a brain-challenged amoeba could also do) would give me about the same rates as Charlie got last year for the S16. So I'll take the brain-challenged amoeba route so I can qualify as an expert in your book for next year.

All happy now?

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

You've already given us a link to July 29, 2014, which is exactly what I stated in my original post. If you are having trouble reading that, I might suggest taking some time off from waiting the tables, which I know can be stressful. Again, maybe July means April down in NC. Weather wise maybe it does.

Again, you fawn over a 68% percent prediction rate and I don't. D+ is good for you, while I think maybe a C would be passing. Two different views.

Read my last post. I stated that selecting the the Top 16 picks for the last postseason USA Today poll (which a brain-challenged amoeba could also do) would give me about the same rates as Charlie got last year for the S16. So I'll take the brain-challenged amoeba route so I can qualify as an expert in your book for next year.

And I gave the link showing April.

I have read your posts. You obviously do not understand mine. This is not the same thing as academia.

And believe me, based on your "analysis" and "arguments" in your posts, you are in no danger of qualifying as an expert.

 

[DobbsRover2]

And I gave the link showing April.

I have read your posts. You obviously do not understand mine. This is not the same thing as academia.

And believe me, based on your "analysis" and "arguments" in your posts, you are in no danger of qualifying as an expert.

Thanks Cam, and same to you over your posts through the years, though at least you do add in the "Crazy" ID to give us all a head's upon where you come from. And now that you have bestowed your learned Dookie declaration that grades have no place in sports ratings, I do hope that the hundreds of sports experts who do make use of them like say Mechelle Voepel a few days take your official pronouncement as the truth.

The Great Cam has spoken, and we all bow to your blatantly superior opinion are about who the experts are. And clearly you are the expert on experts.

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

Thanks Cam, and same to you over your posts through the years, though at least you do add in the "Crazy" ID to give us all a head's upon where you come from. And now that you have bestowed your learned Dookie declaration that grades have no place in sports ratings, I do hope that the hundreds of sports experts who do make use of them like say Mechelle Voepel a few days take your official pronouncement as the truth.

The Great Cam has spoken, and we all bow to your blatantly superior opinion are about who the experts are. And clearly you are the expert on experts.

Too bad you failed to actually read and comprehend my posts before making your unfounded commentary and posting such low-brow comments. And too bad you misunderstood the concept of percentages and academic examinations as compared to preseason predictions and sports. I never made any statements about grades not being appropriate at all; I clearly distinguished the above-referenced comments.

I guess it is standard practice when one is losing an argument to resort to these types of posts. If the facts and evidence do not support your position, I guess flailing your arms, engaging in hyperbole, and pounding your feet on the table works as an effective substitute for you, n'est-ce pas?

 

[DobbsRover2]

Too bad you failed to actually read and comprehend my posts before making your unfounded commentary and posting such low-brow comments. And too bad you misunderstood the concept of percentages and academic examinations as compared to preseason predictions and sports. I never made any statements about grades not being appropriate at all; I clearly distinguished the above-referenced comments.

I guess it is standard practice when one is losing an argument to resort to these types of posts. If the facts and evidence do not support your position, I guess flailing your arms, engaging in hyperbole, and pounding your feet on the table works as an effective substitute for you, n'est-ce pas?

Same old Cam. Always declaring himself the Thomas More-ish "winner" of his personal arguments and always quick to jump on calling anyone "low-brow" who has the temerity to disagree with his pronouncements as the revered expert of the pathetic Devils Den. Yeah, right, I wait on less high brow tables than you Cam, because you are the Cam.

As the self-proclaimed expert of experts of the WCBB prediction performance (and unlike you who will fawn over any result, as I mentioned I keep my respect for Charlie to the times he does do a good job like the smash-up bracket predictions), please tell us what you predicted last April or July or October (you seem to have a problem keeping dates straight) for this year's Duke team? Did you come out with a firm statement, "This year's team has issues and get a couple of buses driven over it and will lose to god-awful Boston College and will lose 11 games for a percentage of around 68%, which I think is great because that's what expert predictors accomplish"? Were you that prescient on the Devil's Den back before the season started? Are you the bright bulb you project yourself as?

Until the mods lock up this thread and I get another message from them to be nice to our stressed-out Dookie visitors who think they are L'il Hot Stuff in their own minds, I'm quite willing to keep keep kicking devil butt while browsing through all that interesting stuff on the Den and RebKell from way back. It is off season after all. And please keep the French coming, as it does show your high breeding and pretensions.

 

[jsloanjr]

Talent with Poor coaching spells disaster every time.........Look at every team outside of USC, ND and UCONN...........

 

[BlueDevils]

Same old Cam. Always declaring himself the Thomas More-ish "winner" of his personal arguments and always quick to jump on calling anyone "low-brow" who has the temerity to disagree with his pronouncements as the revered expert of the pathetic Devils Den. Yeah, right, I wait on less high brow tables than you Cam, because you are the Cam.

As the self-proclaimed expert of experts of the WCBB prediction performance (and unlike you who will fawn over any result, as I mentioned I keep my respect for Charlie to the times he does do a good job like the smash-up bracket predictions), please tell us what you predicted last April or July or October (you seem to have a problem keeping dates straight) for this year's Duke team? Did you come out with a firm statement, "This year's team has issues and get a couple of buses driven over it and will lose to god-awful Boston College and will lose 11 games for a percentage of around 68%, which I think is great because that's what expert predictors accomplish"? Were you that prescient on the Devil's Den back before the season started? Are you the bright bulb you project yourself as?

Until the mods lock up this thread and I get another message from them to be nice to our stressed-out Dookie visitors who think they are L'il Hot Stuff in their own minds, I'm quite willing to keep keep kicking devil butt while browsing through all that interesting stuff on the Den and RebKell from way back. It is off season after all. And please keep the French coming, as it does show your high breeding and pretensions.