I said my rankings, not the current rankings. The season started Baylor, UCONN, Duke, Stanford. After Baylor's loss to Stanford, I would have had Duke 2nd behind UCONN (Duke, Stanford, Baylor).
Very true. I understand why the pollsters have them ranked the way they do, even if I disagree. Scheduling an OOC game against any of the top 10-ish teams would have gone a long way if they'd won.
Yeah, but they didn't. And when you're ranking you should base it on what a team has done and not necessarily what your gut feeling is about who wold win a game on a neutral court. I think Sagarin does a pretty good job of sorting out the team performances. If Duke had blown the covers off a top team at home I might say that they deserve to be in the top 3, but a 14 point home win over Cal and today's 73-32 beatdown of Monmouth don't speak #2 to me, no matter how I imagined them in preseason. Baylor and Stanford at least have put themselves on the line even if they have sometimes run into injuries or juggernauts.
It has nothing to do with my "gut" feelings. It has everything to do with where they were ranked to start the year and who lost games. Look at men's football. Notre Dame really only beat one top 10 team (Stanford) and yet they are playing for the NC. They started the season unranked, but skyrocketed up the rankings because everyone else in front of them LOST games. do you think they are the best team in the nation? hardly, but they didn't lose to anyone and deserve to be playing for the NC.
OMG do you even read what I wrote. My logic has been explained ad nauseum in this thread. I was just pointing out a similar situation in football. And by the way, if this were men's hoops, it would be the same - UCONN #1, Duke #2. What is the big deal that i think UCONN should be #1 and Duke should be #2? This could be argued forever. It's simply my opinion. My opinion is not wrong. Nor is it based on faulty facts.
According to your type of logic in mens basketball Wyoming is 1 of 4 undefeated teams, so should be highly ranked. You actually need to beat someone in order to be highly ranked, and unless you were in last years final four, you shouldn't move above 4 until you beat someone in Mens or Womens basketball.
Well yeah, but we all know that rankings are a crazy mish-mosh of stuff that does include those preseason rankings and hold-your-ground progress, all that SOS and big win comparison, and some reputation factors, and that a gaudy undefeated record looks good even if you really haven't beaten anyone in a tough environment like say Maples. We know what the official rankers sometimes do, like that ACC homer back in 2008 who voted UNC #1. But when it comes down to ranking a team at this point, it really should be that based on what they have shown so far -- who deserves to be 1-2-3-4. Stanford has played my #1 and #2, and UConn and Baylor are obviously in that club for various reasons. Duke isn't, though they will go all out in CT in 3 weeks. I'm just not willing to bet at this point that they will keep the game within 26 points, but if they do they probably will deserve a more plum ranking. And you're right that depth is a very big consideration, because NCs have been won because of the lack of it.
Come on. Did Wyoming start the season ranked #3? Please. "your type of logic" makes no sense.
They do have to develop the bench players. Possibly Geno's most significant weakness (ducking) is failing to give bench players minutes beyond what they've strictly earned in order to develop them for later in the season.
I agree with what you said but I feel the the AP has been under rating ND all year. Like them or not they are a team that knows how to win and have a coach that will teach them to beat up on there opponents.
I don't get the point you are trying to make?
I say yes to all and agree with your rankings. Getting destroyed at home by UCONN should definitely drop Stanford to at most 4th but I think N.D. should also move ahead of Stanford. I don't agree with giving Baylor a first place vote but they will probably get one. Defending champions with all their returning starters and all that stuff.
No offense intended just my opinion
I have included a link to UCONN's statistics up to and including the Stanford game and it shows 10 of UCONN's 11 players are averaging over 12 minutes per game. Buck is only averaging 6 minutes per game. Check it out, it may show you that Geno does get his bench some time. It doesn't include games where the player can't play due to injury. http://www.uconnhuskies.com/sports/w-baskbl/stats/2012-2013/teamcume.html
