USA Coaches Poll 2017-18

[mbr33ct]

I would like to know why the 7 coaches think South Carolina is better than UConn this season. Also, Tennessee has to prove to me that they can actually win games they are favored to win.

SEC coaches?

 

[eebmg]

SEC coaches?

Probably the same logic that some BY's used to rank UConn #1 at the start of last year. The NC always starts as #1 irregardless of the projected talent level.

 

[mbr33ct]

Perfect. For the record, I do not click the play button on her videos. I will not waste 8 minutes of my life on that.

Funny, I do the same exact thing with Holly Warlick's videos.

 

[cbraarj]

The University of South Carolina (USC) was in existence long before either California was a state or Southern Cal was founded.

For long time College Footballs fans USC always meant University of Southern California.

 

[meyers7]

Yikes?

 

[meyers7]

love Rebecca

She read my mind.

 

[meyers7]

Nared said it best "People can say what they want about our team but at the end of the day, what matters is how you play when you step on the court."

Exactly. 20-12, 22-14.

 

[CocoHusky]

Really surprised that Texas A&M did not crack the top 25. For starters Texas A&M returns a pair of starters K. Hillsman and Danni Williams that are both more productive than the TN returning duo of Russell and Nared. Additionally TA&M also returns another double digit scorer in Ariel Howard. Not to mention Miss Chennedy Carter is on the way to get buckets for A&M.

 

[meyers7]

The University of South Carolina (USC) was in existence long before either California was a state or Southern Cal was founded.

Then call it SCC. It wasn't a University until 1865.

 

[mdakota]

Nared said it best "People can say what they want about our team but at the end of the day, what matters is how you play when you step on the court."

Umm... that's why people were talking lol

 

[mdakota]

I almost spit my food out when I saw Washington at 25. They lost everyone. That has to be a mistake.

I almost spit out my food when you almost spit out yours.... don't start a trend...

 

[stwainfan]

Really surprised that Texas A&M did not crack the top 25. For starters Texas A&M returns a pair of starters K. Hillsman and Danni Williams that are both more productive than the TN returning duo of Russell and Nared. Additionally TA&M also returns another double digit scorer in Ariel Howard. Not to mention Miss Chennedy Carter is on the way to get buckets for A&M.

I think A&M will be real good.

 

[Ozimoto]

Preseason polls are like trying to schedule work activities at my office. After the first week of play, you can throw them out the window.

 

[Carnac]

The University of South Carolina (USC) was in existence long before either California was a state or Southern Cal was founded.

cockhrnleghrn is right!

I did a little checking.......Univ of South Carolina was founded in 1801
Univ of California-Berkley (Cal) was founded in 1868
Univ of Southern California was founded in 1880

 

[Carnac]

For long time College Footballs fans USC always meant University of Southern California.

I would submit that when the term "USC" is spoken from the midwest region (Okla, Texas, Kansas, Missouri, Indiana, etc.) and all points west, most folks think "Southern Cal", not South Carolina. Going back to the 1950 & 60's, Southern Cal was much more visible and newsworthy than South Carolina.

Thank the news media for that. They commonly referred to the Trojans as "USC". Go to the Notre Dame campus in South Bend Indiana and say "USC". Which of the two do you think comes to mind for them? Of course in the PAC 12, USC is Southern Cal, an original member of the PAC 8. The PAC 8 began as the Pacific Coast Conference (PCC).

Trivia question: Who was in the original PAC 8 conference?
Cal-Berkeley, Stanford, Oregon, Oregon State, USC, UCLA, Washington,Washington State.

1915: PCC was founded with four original members - the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Washington, the University of Oregon, and Oregon State College (now Oregon State University).
1917: Washington State College (now Washington State University) joined.
1918: Stanford University joined.
1922: University of Southern California (USC)
1922: University of Idaho joined.
1924: University of Montana joined.
1928: UCLA joined.
1950: Montana resigned.
1958: Dissolution of PCC.

1959: Reformed as the Athletic Associates of Western Universities (AAWU).
Original AAWU membership included UC Berkeley, Stanford, USC, UCLA and Washington.
1962: Washington State joined.
1964: Oregon and Oregon State joined.
1968: The name Pacific-8 Conference was adopted.
1978: University of Arizona and Arizona State University joined. Named the Pacific-10 Conference.
2011: Utah and Colorado are invited formally and officially change the Pac-10 into the Pac-12.

 

[Vowelguy]

cockhrnleghrn is right!

I did a little checking..Univ of South Carolina was founded in 1801
Univ of California @ Berkley (Cal) was founded in 1868
Univ of Southern California was founded in 1880

First does not mean most well known.

Funny that everyone seems to know that "Geno" refers to Mr Auriemma, and not the first person named Geno 500 years ago.

 

[UConnCat]

Although I will root for all of the Pac12 teams to do well(except Nov 12 v UConn and Nov 21st in Westood), my prediction is that Stanford will never be higher than their pre season ranking of #9. They lost 3 players Karlie, Bird and Bri Roberson who were as solid as they came for The Cardinal. I do not like the rest of the line up. The pg Sneizek, does not like to shoot. Now she doesnt have Karlie outside and Bird inside. Defenses will drop off her and clog the paint, making it tougher for McPhee to drive for baskets or Smith to get the ball. Stanford lost 1250+ points and over 500 rebounds. If the core players for them are Sniezek, McPhee and Smith they will not be that good. Nearly everyone else returning has nominal experience, as a regular or semi regular. Stanford has a chance to lose 5 games before New Years day, tOSU, UConn Baylor, Tenn and UCLA(only Tenn is a home game).

Tara seems pretty upbeat about her team, particularly the 3-point shooting. She's trying to get her team to play like the Warriors.

CardinalSportsReport.com - VanDerveer, freshmen share thoughts on offseason progress

 

[Vowelguy]

Tara seems pretty upbeat about her team, particularly the 3-point shooting. She's trying to get her team to play like the Warriors.

It's a lot easier to play like the Warriors when you have Steph Curry.

 

[BroadwayVa]

Really surprised that Texas A&M did not crack the top 25. For starters Texas A&M returns a pair of starters K. Hillsman and Danni Williams that are both more productive than the TN returning duo of Russell and Nared. Additionally TA&M also returns another double digit scorer in Ariel Howard. Not to mention Miss Chennedy Carter is on the way to get buckets for A&M.

Silly you--you are fighting bias with logic!

 

[BroadwayVa]

It's a lot easier to play the Warriors when you have Steph Curry.

OK, OK!

 

[CBus13]

Really surprised that Texas A&M did not crack the top 25. For starters Texas A&M returns a pair of starters K. Hillsman and Danni Williams that are both more productive than the TN returning duo of Russell and Nared. Additionally TA&M also returns another double digit scorer in Ariel Howard. Not to mention Miss Chennedy Carter is on the way to get buckets for A&M.

Anriel Howard is also a beast on the glass. She once grabbed 27 boards in a NCAA tourney game. I think she averages 8.5 per for her career??

 

[CBus13]

Just another note on Ohio State. They have no post depth whatsoever.

And getting slimmer. Alexa Hart is in a boot on a scooter and Makayla Waterman sat out practice yesterday and today. First Exhibition game is Sunday...

 

[Plebe]

UCLA might've slightly underachieved last year, but they still had a strong season. They were right behind Oregon St., Stanford and Washington. There was a large gap between the top 4 and the rest of the conference. The Bruins acquitted themselves well in the Tourney.

Good points, and if you look at how the top 4 teams in the Pac-12 fared against each other in the regular season, UCLA acquitted themselves very well, coming in second only to Oregon St:

OSU (4-1): 1-1 vs. UCLA, 2-0 vs. Stanford, 1-0 vs. UW
UCLA (3-2): 1-1 vs. OSU, 1-0 vs. Stanford, 1-1 vs. UW
UW (1-3): 1-1 vs. UCLA, 0-1 vs. Stanford, 0-1 vs. OSU
Stanford (1-3): 0-1 vs. UCLA, 0-2 vs. OSU, 1-0 vs. UW

What dropped the Bruins to 4th was that they took more losses (3) vs. the rest of the conference than the other three top-4 teams did. Drummer's injury last year meant that UCLA only had one (Canada) of the three McDAAs from the 2014 recruiting class (Caldwell had transferred out the year before), and it also meant they had no depth at all beyond Kornet.

They lose some experience and long-range shooting with the departure of Korver and Kornet, but I'm looking forward to seeing them with Drummer back and with the new faces.

 

[Gus Mahler]

Before last season a number of folks here on the Boneyard argued that when you win a national championship you’re number 1 until someone beats you. Perhaps that’s what the 7 coaches were thinking.

It’s worth noting that no one on the Boneyard is making that argument this year.

As for TN, I completely agree with your comment.

Completely understand but they may subscribe to the theory that the team that wins the prior year is #1 until they are beat. This was a “healthy” discussion last year when UCONN wasn’t number 1 in preseason polls. I personally don’t believe that but many do and clearly the coaches do as well.

I remember the discussion. I don't remember if I participated. But the idea that the champion one season should be preseason No. 1 the following season is one of the more absurd things I've ever heard in sports (or any place else for that matter). It is devoid of logic.

These polls are prospective, not retrospective. It's never been clear to me whether a preseason poll should represent where the pollster thinks a team is now, or where he/she thinks the team will end up. Either way, the past is largely irrelevant. I concede that traditional powers might get the benefit of the doubt in a close call, but I'm unable to fathom how last year's finish should be reflected in this year's polls.

 

[Carnac]

I remember the discussion. I don't remember if I participated. But the idea that the champion one season should be preseason No. 1 the following season is one of the more absurd things I've ever heard in sports (or any place else for that matter). It is devoid of logic.

These polls are prospective, not retrospective. It's never been clear to me whether a preseason poll should represent where the pollster thinks a team is now, or where he/she thinks the team will end up. Either way, the past is largely irrelevant. I concede that traditional powers might get the benefit of the doubt in a close call, but I'm unable to fathom how last year's finish should be reflected in this year's polls.

Based on the "logic" of your comment, I'm sure Mr. Spock would agree with you.