Projections for top 7 conferences

[Plebe]

Conference play gets underway in earnest tomorrow (Thu 28 Dec), so I thought it might be fun to revisit some projected conference standings, in view of how teams have played thus far.

To add some spice and break up the "list monotony," I divided each conference into tiers.

The designations (+) and (–) denote teams that are doing significantly better or worse, respectively, than projected in the preseason.

ACC:

Tier I: 1. Notre Dame 2. Louisville 3. Duke 4. Florida St
Tier II: 5. Syracuse(+) 6. NC State 7. Georgia Tech 8. Virginia Tech
Tier III: 9. Virginia(–) 10. Miami 11. North Carolina* 12. Wake Forest
Tier IV: 13. Clemson 14. Pitt 15. Boston College
* If North Carolina can get Stephanie Watts and Destiny Walker healthy, they could climb higher.​

Big 12:

Tier I: 1. Baylor 2. Texas 3. West Virginia*
Tier II: 4. Oklahoma St(+) 5. Oklahoma
Tier III: 6. Kansas State 7. TCU
Tier IV: 8. Iowa State(–) 9. Kansas 10. Texas Tech
* WVU's prospects will largely depend on getting 2 key players back from injury (Tynice Martin, Kristina King).​

Big Ten:

Tier I: 1. Maryland* 2. Ohio St
Tier II: 3. Iowa(+)** 4. Rutgers(+) 5. Michigan
Tier III: 6. Michigan St 7. Indiana(–) 8. Purdue 9. Minnesota 10. Penn St
Tier IV: 11. Wisconsin 12. Nebraska 13. Northwestern 14. Illinois
* I'm giving Maryland the edge over Ohio State because of the Christinaki effect (transfer from Florida, just became eligible on Dec. 20).
**It's not yet clear how much Iowa will be set back by the recent loss of their PG (Tania Davis) to an ACL injury.​

Pac-12:

Tier I: 1. UCLA 2. Oregon 3. Oregon St
Tier II: 4. Stanford(–)* 5. Cal 6. Arizona St 7. USC
Tier III: 8. Utah 9. Washington St(–) 10. Colorado 11. Washington
Tier IV: 12. Arizona
* I still think Stanford has upside if they can have McPhee and Carrington both healthy for the Pac-12 season.​

SEC:

Tier I: 1. Mississippi St 2. South Carolina* 3. Tennessee(+)
Tier II: 4. Missouri 5. Texas A&M 6. Georgia
Tier III: 7. LSU 8. Kentucky(–) 9. Auburn 10. Alabama
Tier IV: 11. Ole Miss 12. Florida 13. Arkansas 14. Vanderbilt
* Some key questions for South Carolina: Will Te'a Cooper be eligible? How soon will Spann return from injury?​

Big East:

Tier I: 1. Villanova(+) 2. DePaul 3. Marquette(–)
Tier II: 4. Creighton 5. St. John’s 6. Seton Hall 7. Butler
Tier III: 8. Georgetown 9. Providence 10. Xavier​

AAC:

Tier I: 1. UConn 2. South Florida
Tier II: 3. Temple 4. Houston(+) 5. UCF 6. Tulane
Tier III: 7. SMU* 8. Cincinnati 9. Tulsa
Tier IV: 10. Wichita St 11. Memphis 12. East Carolina
* SMU's best player, Alicia Froling, has yet to play this year and I don't know her status. She was the only AAC player to average a double-double last year.​

 

[TerpWomenFan]

You put a lot of effort into this. I thought this was very well done. I would put Ohio State ahead of Maryland because Mitchell will offset anything Christinaki does. Also Maryland have no size so Muvunga and Hart will tear them up inside. The wild card for Maryland is Blair Watson. She has the potential to hit 7 three pointers in a game. She also has a tendency to disappear sometimes.

 

[Plebe]

You put a lot of effort into this. I thought this was very well done. I would put Ohio State ahead of Maryland because Mitchell will offset anything Christinaki does. Also Maryland have no size so Muvunga and Hart will tear them up inside. The wild card for Maryland is Blair Watson. She has the potential to hit 7 three pointers in a game. She also has a tendency to disappear sometimes.

You make some great points, but I'm not necessarily predicting that Maryland will beat Ohio State in their head-to-head. In fact, Ohio State is 3-0 against Maryland in the past two years, but has yet to finish ahead of the Terps in the conference standings.

It's also worth noting that Maryland and Ohio State are currently neck-and-neck in both the Massey and Sagarin ratings. And of course, that's based on results of games played almost entirely without Christinaki.

 

[Phil]

Very impressive work; thanks for all of the effort you put into this.

The first thing that jumps out at me is Duke ranked ahead of Florida State. Given your comment about Maryland versus Ohio State seems that you have not just ranked them by tier but ordered them within tier, so let me know if I'm misinterpreting but I think you are saying that you see Duke is ahead of Florida State.

Obviously, the computer rankings are likely to miss some things that you've picked up on (newly eligible transfers, and recent injuries not yet reflected in results). Is there anything like that in Duke and Florida State?

I tend to look at Massey a lot; he has Florida State in ninth and Duke in 16th. Sometimes you have to look closely at the power ratings because occasionally, several places in the rankings can be minuscule differences in the rating. For example Tennessee, Texas and Florida State Are 7, 8 and nine in the ranking but separated by only 0.02 in the rating. However, the Florida State rating is a meaningful distance from the Duke rating.

Duke lost to South Carolina which is hardly a black mark on a record although they did lose by 20 so it wasn't a close call. They also lost to Villanova which is looking more and more like a quality team but Florida State's only loss is to Texas. While the jury is still out a bit on Texas after their abysmal performance against Tennessee, they are ranked ahead of Florida State so Florida State has only a single loss to a team ranked ahead of them while Duke has two losses one to a team better than them and one to a team not as highly ranked. What is your thinking for putting Duke ahead of Florida State?

 

[bags27]

wow, Plebe, I don't know what you do for a living, but I know what you should do for a living. Absolutely terrific and so helpful. thanks! to my mind, the relative rankings of tier 1 in the SEC seem most consequential to the national picture and the most interesting overall.

 

[Shmermerer]

That's a great list! I project Iowa to drop quite a bit though with their starting pg done for the season with an acl tear. Im pretty sure they don't have any guards on the bench.

 

[triaddukefan]

If Duke doesn't get Greenwell back soon...... we are gonna drop like a rock.

 

[Coler]

I'm just hoping we get better after Christmas, like all the other good Rutgers teams have in the past. If so, watch out B1G.

 

[huskeynut]

Plebe - just WOW!!!

A couple of my question marks;
Texas - they have not looked that good. Could WV get past them?
Tennessee - still not sold on them. They do not know how to run an effective offense. Talented frosh class but talent only goes so far.
ND - is this the year someone else wins the ACC?
UCF - I think they could be #3 in the AAC.

 

[Plebe]

Very impressive work; thanks for all of the effort you put into this.

The first thing that jumps out at me is Duke ranked ahead of Florida State. Given your comment about Maryland versus Ohio State seems that you have not just ranked them by tier but ordered them within tier, so let me know if I'm misinterpreting but I think you are saying that you see Duke is ahead of Florida State.

Obviously, the computer rankings are likely to miss some things that you've picked up on (newly eligible transfers, and recent injuries not yet reflected in results). Is there anything like that in Duke and Florida State?

I tend to look at Massey a lot; he has Florida State in ninth and Duke in 16th. Sometimes you have to look closely at the power ratings because occasionally, several places in the rankings can be minuscule differences in the rating. For example Tennessee, Texas and Florida State Are 7, 8 and nine in the ranking but separated by only 0.02 in the rating. However, the Florida State rating is a meaningful distance from the Duke rating.

Duke lost to South Carolina which is hardly a black mark on a record although they did lose by 20 so it wasn't a close call. They also lost to Villanova which is looking more and more like a quality team but Florida State's only loss is to Texas. While the jury is still out a bit on Texas after their abysmal performance against Tennessee, they are ranked ahead of Florida State so Florida State has only a single loss to a team ranked ahead of them while Duke has two losses one to a team better than them and one to a team not as highly ranked. What is your thinking for putting Duke ahead of Florida State?

You raise some really good points about Duke vs. Florida State. I generally put a lot of credence in the Massey ratings (more so than any other), and perhaps I should've paid them more heed in this instance. I did, in general, consult Massey in quite a few of my decisions, though not strictly.

In this case, my placement of Duke ahead of Florida State was more instinctual than anything, and it was probably based on "artistic impression" of how Florida State was quite fortunate to get past Iowa and then had a difficult time with Creighton. I do think that Duke's win over Oregon State was a slightly higher-quality win than FSU's best win (over Iowa). But it's actually Duke that has the greater injury concern, having lost Mikayla Boykin for the season and now with Rebecca Greenwell's status uncertain. On revision I think I would move FSU to 3rd ahead of Duke.

 

[Plebe]

Plebe - just WOW!!!

A couple of my question marks;
Texas - they have not looked that good. Could WV get past them?
Tennessee - still not sold on them. They do not know how to run an effective offense. Talented frosh class but talent only goes so far.
ND - is this the year someone else wins the ACC?
UCF - I think they could be #3 in the AAC.

All really great questions. Here are my thoughts on them:

• I was tempted to move WV ahead of TX, but WV's injury issues (along with lack of depth) are a concern. Tynice Martin has yet to play while recovering from foot surgery. I believe she was projected to return by January, but foot injuries can be tricky, and then of course she'll need some time to play her way back into game shape. WV operated with little room for error in the early part of the season, so the news that Kristina King is now out with an injury of her own (six weeks from mid-December) is a major concern. WV's next two games, on the road at TCU and at Texas, will be important. As for Texas, they looked atrocious against Tennessee but then played better against Florida State. And they do get Joyner Holmes back now.
  
  
• I share your thoughts about Tennessee, but frankly I don't think very highly of the rest of the SEC outside of Mississippi State and South Carolina. Missouri has lost to Western Kentucky and struggled mightily to put away Wright State at home. Texas A&M doesn't look as strong to me defensively as I normally think a Gary Blair team should be. I don't expect Georgia, LSU, or any of the other also-rans to hang with Tennessee over the course of two months.
  
  
• I think that Louisville has the best chance this year to dethrone Notre Dame that anyone's had since realignment. They will also have the advantage of playing ND at home. Both Louisville and ND have looked vulnerable against lesser foes: Louisville just barely escaped South Dakota State with a win, and Notre Dame nearly lost to Marquette at home. It's a very close call between the two, but I still think ND has the edge.
  
  
• The second tier of the AAC is currently very jumbled, and that range from #3 to #6 is all a big toss-up. Massey has Houston #86, Temple #88, UCF #90, and Tulane #93. I must say I expected more from UCF than what they showed in the OOC, including losses to Mercer, Samford, and Pacific.

 

[Plebe]

wow, Plebe, I don't know what you do for a living, but I know what you should do for a living. Absolutely terrific and so helpful. thanks! to my mind, the relative rankings of tier 1 in the SEC seem most consequential to the national picture and the most interesting overall.

Ha thanks for the kind words. I'm expecting the plush job offers to start rolling in any minute now

The shakeout of the SEC top 3 will be very intriguing to watch. Mississippi State will have the benefit of playing the easier conference schedule, since South Carolina and Tennessee play each other twice. But of course, that means that SC and TN will have more opportunities for high-quality wins, which the selection committee cares far more about than conference standings.

 

[HopJim]

Conference play gets underway in earnest tomorrow (Thu 28 Dec), so I thought it might be fun to revisit some projected conference standings, in view of how teams have played thus far.

To add some spice and break up the "list monotony," I divided each conference into tiers.

The designations (+) and (–) denote teams that are doing significantly better or worse, respectively, than projected in the preseason.

ACC:

Tier I: 1. Notre Dame 2. Louisville 3. Duke 4. Florida St
Tier II: 5. Syracuse(+) 6. NC State 7. Georgia Tech 8. Virginia Tech
Tier III: 9. Virginia(–) 10. Miami 11. North Carolina* 12. Wake Forest
Tier IV: 13. Clemson 14. Pitt 15. Boston College
* If North Carolina can get Stephanie Watts and Destiny Walker healthy, they could climb higher.​

Big 12:

Tier I: 1. Baylor 2. Texas 3. West Virginia*
Tier II: 4. Oklahoma St(+) 5. Oklahoma
Tier III: 6. Kansas State 7. TCU
Tier IV: 8. Iowa State(–) 9. Kansas 10. Texas Tech
* WVU's prospects will largely depend on getting 2 key players back from injury (Tynice Martin, Kristina King).​

Big Ten:

Tier I: 1. Maryland* 2. Ohio St
Tier II: 3. Iowa(+)** 4. Rutgers(+) 5. Michigan
Tier III: 6. Michigan St 7. Indiana(–) 8. Purdue 9. Minnesota 10. Penn St
Tier IV: 11. Wisconsin 12. Nebraska 13. Northwestern 14. Illinois
* I'm giving Maryland the edge over Ohio State because of the Christinaki effect (transfer from Florida, just became eligible on Dec. 20).
**It's not yet clear how much Iowa will be set back by the recent loss of their PG (Tania Davis) to an ACL injury.​

Pac-12:

Tier I: 1. UCLA 2. Oregon 3. Oregon St
Tier II: 4. Stanford(–)* 5. Cal 6. Arizona St 7. USC
Tier III: 8. Utah 9. Washington St(–) 10. Colorado 11. Washington
Tier IV: 12. Arizona
* I still think Stanford has upside if they can have McPhee and Carrington both healthy for the Pac-12 season.​

SEC:

Tier I: 1. Mississippi St 2. South Carolina* 3. Tennessee(+)
Tier II: 4. Missouri 5. Texas A&M 6. Georgia
Tier III: 7. LSU 8. Kentucky(–) 9. Auburn 10. Alabama
Tier IV: 11. Ole Miss 12. Florida 13. Arkansas 14. Vanderbilt
* Some key questions for South Carolina: Will Te'a Cooper be eligible? How soon will Spann return from injury?​

Big East:

Tier I: 1. Villanova(+) 2. DePaul 3. Marquette(–)
Tier II: 4. Creighton 5. St. John’s 6. Seton Hall 7. Butler
Tier III: 8. Georgetown 9. Providence 10. Xavier​

AAC:

Tier I: 1. UConn 2. South Florida
Tier II: 3. Temple 4. Houston(+) 5. UCF 6. Tulane
Tier III: 7. SMU* 8. Cincinnati 9. Tulsa
Tier IV: 10. Wichita St 11. Memphis 12. East Carolina
* SMU's best player, Alicia Froling, has yet to play this year and I don't know her status. She was the only AAC player to average a double-double last year.​

Great job, but not sure I fully understand the significance of these rankings. Most of the conferences have 2-3 good to strong teams, tops. Remainder of teams average to poor. Not being negative but only 10-12 teams worth watching.

 

[ochoopsfan]

Some tidbits on each Pac12 team from one of the Oregon writers

Pac-12 Conference women’s basketball team-by-team outlook

I am pretty sure Froling/SMU is lost for the year to a knee injury. Loved her hustle, one of the top Aussie players last year in D1 WBB,

Not sure how USF gets Tier 1 status same as UConn.

 

[stwainfan]

There's a big game in the Big 12 coming up West Virginia at Texas.

 

[Plebe]

Some tidbits on each Pac12 team from one of the Oregon writers

Pac-12 Conference women’s basketball team-by-team outlook

I am pretty sure Froling/SMU is lost for the year to a knee injury. Loved her hustle, one of the top Aussie players last year in D1 WBB,

Not sure how USF gets Tier 1 status same as UConn.

Ah, I'm sorry to hear that about Froling. Hopefully she can come back strong for them next year.

I started to put USF on Tier II but they'd have to be all by themselves there, and that just looked weird. But I could have had it as follows:
Tier I: UConn
Tier II: USF
Tier III: Temple, Houston, UCF, Tulane
Tier IV: Everyone else

 

[Plebe]

There's a big game in the Big 12 coming up West Virginia at Texas.

And before that game, Texas at Oklahoma tomorrow, where the Longhorns haven't won since 2010.

 

[Plebe]

Great job, but not sure I fully understand the significance of these rankings. Most of the conferences have 2-3 good to strong teams, tops. Remainder of teams average to poor. Not being negative but only 10-12 teams worth watching.

Feel free to limit your attention to the parts that interest you. Each person's mileage may vary.

 

[huskeynut]

Ah, I'm sorry to hear that about Froling. Hopefully she can come back strong for them next year.

I started to put USF on Tier II but they'd have to be all by themselves there, and that just looked weird. But I could have had it as follows:
Tier I: UConn
Tier II: USF
Tier III: Temple, Houston, UCF, Tulane
Tier IV: Everyone else

Plebe - I think best sums up the AAC. Since we now live in Florida, we went to Tampa to see USF play LSU. Had to buy a ticket package to get seats in the lower bowl - but worth it. Now granted it was one of the first games of the season, USF is still a 2 person team, Laksa and Jesperson. Ferrera gives them another potential scorer but she is not consistant. And as of yet, Jose has not developed any sort of inside game at all. Still, they are fun to watch.

 

[stwainfan]

And before that game, Texas at Oklahoma tomorrow, where the Longhorns haven't won since 2010.

I think Texas should win that game. They also have Holmes back.

 

[Plebe]

That's a great list! I project Iowa to drop quite a bit though with their starting pg done for the season with an acl tear. Im pretty sure they don't have any guards on the bench.

More injury woes for Iowa:
Iowa's Makenzie Meyer sidelined 'indefinitely' with broken hand

 

[LoTrader]

Conference play gets underway in earnest tomorrow (Thu 28 Dec), so I thought it might be fun to revisit some projected conference standings, in view of how teams have played thus far.

To add some spice and break up the "list monotony," I divided each conference into tiers.

The designations (+) and (–) denote teams that are doing significantly better or worse, respectively, than projected in the preseason.

ACC:

Tier I: 1. Notre Dame 2. Louisville 3. Duke 4. Florida St
Tier II: 5. Syracuse(+) 6. NC State 7. Georgia Tech 8. Virginia Tech
Tier III: 9. Virginia(–) 10. Miami 11. North Carolina* 12. Wake Forest
Tier IV: 13. Clemson 14. Pitt 15. Boston College
* If North Carolina can get Stephanie Watts and Destiny Walker healthy, they could climb higher.​

Big 12:

Tier I: 1. Baylor 2. Texas 3. West Virginia*
Tier II: 4. Oklahoma St(+) 5. Oklahoma
Tier III: 6. Kansas State 7. TCU
Tier IV: 8. Iowa State(–) 9. Kansas 10. Texas Tech
* WVU's prospects will largely depend on getting 2 key players back from injury (Tynice Martin, Kristina King).​

Big Ten:

Tier I: 1. Maryland* 2. Ohio St
Tier II: 3. Iowa(+)** 4. Rutgers(+) 5. Michigan
Tier III: 6. Michigan St 7. Indiana(–) 8. Purdue 9. Minnesota 10. Penn St
Tier IV: 11. Wisconsin 12. Nebraska 13. Northwestern 14. Illinois
* I'm giving Maryland the edge over Ohio State because of the Christinaki effect (transfer from Florida, just became eligible on Dec. 20).
**It's not yet clear how much Iowa will be set back by the recent loss of their PG (Tania Davis) to an ACL injury.​

Pac-12:

Tier I: 1. UCLA 2. Oregon 3. Oregon St
Tier II: 4. Stanford(–)* 5. Cal 6. Arizona St 7. USC
Tier III: 8. Utah 9. Washington St(–) 10. Colorado 11. Washington
Tier IV: 12. Arizona
* I still think Stanford has upside if they can have McPhee and Carrington both healthy for the Pac-12 season.​

SEC:

Tier I: 1. Mississippi St 2. South Carolina* 3. Tennessee(+)
Tier II: 4. Missouri 5. Texas A&M 6. Georgia
Tier III: 7. LSU 8. Kentucky(–) 9. Auburn 10. Alabama
Tier IV: 11. Ole Miss 12. Florida 13. Arkansas 14. Vanderbilt
* Some key questions for South Carolina: Will Te'a Cooper be eligible? How soon will Spann return from injury?​

Big East:

Tier I: 1. Villanova(+) 2. DePaul 3. Marquette(–)
Tier II: 4. Creighton 5. St. John’s 6. Seton Hall 7. Butler
Tier III: 8. Georgetown 9. Providence 10. Xavier​

AAC:

Tier I: 1. UConn 2. South Florida
Tier II: 3. Temple 4. Houston(+) 5. UCF 6. Tulane
Tier III: 7. SMU* 8. Cincinnati 9. Tulsa
Tier IV: 10. Wichita St 11. Memphis 12. East Carolina
* SMU's best player, Alicia Froling, has yet to play this year and I don't know her status. She was the only AAC player to average a double-double last year.​

In PAC12, I would move UCLA to tier 2, and replace UCLA with Stanford in Tier 1. In Tier 2, I would have UCLA, Cal, and ASU.

 

[hoophuskee]

In PAC12, I would move UCLA to tier 2, and replace UCLA with Stanford in Tier 1. In Tier 2, I would have UCLA, Cal, and ASU.

Why Stanford as tier 1? Why UCLA as tier 2? Also. can you advise what fan you are -- such as are you a UCLA fan or a Stanford fan etc? And -- is this the same Stanford - tier 1 team -- that lost to W. Illinois? Not arguing. I think someone said they got a player back? As far as UCLA- they did beat Baylor while Stanford got wiped out by Baylor. Stanford beat UCLA at home. So the 1 game Stanford wins at home turns UCLA into tier 2? Can a tier 2 team beat a team like Baylor "soundly?" I guess anyone can. But they haven't let such a weak team like W Illinois get them. You don't penalize Stanford at all for this or you feel that game is history and they got a player back etc?

 

[LoTrader]

Why Stanford as tier 1? Why UCLA as tier 2? Also. can you advise what fan you are -- such as are you a UCLA fan or a Stanford fan etc? And -- is this the same Stanford - tier 1 team -- that lost to W. Illinois? Not arguing. I think someone said they got a player back? As far as UCLA- they did beat Baylor while Stanford got wiped out by Baylor. Stanford beat UCLA at home. So the 1 game Stanford wins at home turns UCLA into tier 2? Can a tier 2 team beat a team like Baylor "soundly?" I guess anyone can. But they haven't let such a weak team like W Illinois get them. You don't penalize Stanford at all for this or you feel that game is history and they got a player back etc?

Sure. I watched UCLA vs Stanford, and my comment was more UCLA is not a top tier PAC12 team. UCLA has had no serious injuries and UCLA has one excellent player, Jordin Canada, and no 3-point shooters. UCLA (under their current coach) doesn't run any offensive plays, more of a high pick and roll with Canada. That's it. Stanford actually has good spacing, and players that understand how to run an offense. Stanford has been without a couple of players most of the season, and finally has everyone back (healthy). They handled UCLA last night by making other UCLA team members, other than Canada, have to beat them. Tara is a much better coach than Close. I'm an OSU Alum, and Beaver fan, and Stanford will come alive in PAC12 play. They will finish in the top 3. Oregon appears to be a top 3 PAC12 team. I would suggest that OSU, Cal, and ASU will be the other top 3 team.

Right now, other than Oregon, I'm not sure how good the PAC12 is at this point. OSU has played very well all year, minus the Duke game. But they have yet to play a team with multiple athletic 4's/5's. UCLA plays Cal tomorrow, so we'll get a look-see at Cal. ASU is always a tough out in the PAC12. Really, I only feel Oregon could (as of today) go a good long way in the NCAA tournament.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

I'll back up Lotrader and others this far - Stanford is and will be a contender in the PAC.

I've said - many times - that the PAC's style of play and refereeing that goes with it is a bit quirky, and I'm not touting Stanford as a final four candidate by any means. But as a team who can play well within the conference - they are really good at it and yes, from the games I've attended personally - against Rutgers and Arizona over the years - they play a very structured and PAC style of play.

Because I don't get the PAC12 network - although I could watch games on something called Fubo, I think - I'm really not up on how the other teams look. But, like many others, I am very impressed with both Graves and Rueck, and their teams, and somewhat less impressed with almost everyone else. I do think Cal, UCLA and ASU will have good conference seasons, over all, but the others are, I suspect, better.