Pre-season polls

[X-man]

Let's have a thread that is devoted to the early polls for the 2016-2017 season. Here is the link to CBS Sports' Matt Norlander's ranking of all 351 D1 programs (http://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/duke-kentucky-kansas-top-cbs-sports-1-351-college-basketball-rankings/). Xavier checks in at #5, right behind Villanova. The BE is the only league with 2 teams in the top 5.

[X-man]

Dick Vitale at ESPN has the Muskies 9th, with Nova 3rd. Link: http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/17823507/duke-blue-devils-lead-vitale-preseason-top-40-teams.

[xubrew]

I think the coaches poll comes out tomorrow. I don't know when the AP poll will be out.

[Lloyd Braun]

I think the coaches poll comes out tomorrow. I don't know when the AP poll will be out.

Usually between oct 30 and nov 3

[xubrew]

Let's have a thread that is devoted to the early polls for the 2016-2017 season. Here is the link to CBS Sports' Matt Norlander's ranking of all 351 D1 programs (http://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/duke-kentucky-kansas-top-cbs-sports-1-351-college-basketball-rankings/). Xavier checks in at #5, right behind Villanova. The BE is the only league with 2 teams in the top 5.

I've all but given up on trying to guess how good I think teams are going to turn out to be. For instance, I said I thought Northeastern was good enough to get an at-large bid prior to the start of last year. That turned out to not be the case.

In the video, you can't call Saint Mary's and Texas, two teams who won a lot of games and have a lot coming back, "surprise teams" Texas earned a #5 seed last year, for crissake!

He has SMU at #56 as "lower than expected." That's actually higher than expected.

Oregon earned a #1 seed last year, made the Elite Eight last year, and I think has their top six players back. So, I don't want to say #7 is too low becuase that's still very high, but Oregon will likely get some #1 votes in the preseason polls, and rightfully so. They also got a very good freshman guard coming in.

I will never think Indiana and UCLA are as good as everyone else seems to think Indiana and UCLA are. I know they have all the earmarks of being good, but I still can't accept it until I actually see it. Indiana did finish first in the Big Ten and did make the Sweet Sixteen, so I guess I should be higher on them. I'm just not.

I can't wait to see what star players for Rhode Island either get injured or get kicked off the team this year ruining what should have been a fantastic season!!

Creighton. I'm predicting, right now, the McDermott special. They'll be great out of conference. Everyone will be talking about how great a job McDermott is doing and what a great coach he is. He'll do great for the first half of conference play. Hell, he may have Creighton ranked in the top ten. Then, the second half of conference play will start, and he'll be playing teams a second time. He'll lose six of their last nine, back into the tournament (if they're still even in the picture after that) and then lose in the round of 64. We've seen this before at Iowa State and at Northern Iowa. If the season ended in February McDermott would be a hall of fame coach. it doesn't though.

Florida State is picked to be pretty good again. I bet they're not pretty good again.

I like VCU a lot more than #45th

I like Valpo (again) a lot more than #51st. The question is the same as last year. Will their schedule provide them with hte credentials they need to make the NCAAs if they drop a game or two in HL play, and then lose in the HL tournament. I'm also curious to see what their first year head coach does. They kept it in the family and hired the associate head coach from a year ago.

Princeton is pretty good. They were pretty good last year. They should roll over the Ivy League, and maybe give some teams fits in the OOC schedule as well.

Given what they've got coming back, Monmouth is probably better than #60th, but having said that I don't think they're even the best team in their league this year. Siena is going to be really good. Perhaps good enough to land inside the bubble. The MAAC may send two this year. Siena is way too low at #97th

I actually like Alabama quite a bit this year. I think they are good enough to come close ot making the field. #80th is where I would expect most people to have them, but I think they're better than that.

Having Chattanooga as low as #93 means he's drunk. They were really good last year despite losing their best player early in the season. He's back this, and so is most of the rest of the team.

GW is interesting. They've got most of their players back, and their supposedly abusive coach is gone. They could be really good, or they could suck.

Tulsa checks in at #151. Frank Haith is there. I believe he has the ability to do much much much worse than that.

Fordham checks in at #156!! Jeff Neubauer should already be made coach of the year just for laying the groundwork for making people think it's possible for them to do that well!!

SLU checks in at #278. Regardless of where they finish this year, it will be better under Travis Ford than it would have been under Jim Crews

Chicago State is 351st. They're in danger of closing their entire institution. They're so bad that if a hundred div2 teams were to move up, Chicago State would probably come in at 451st.

[waggy]

Travis Ford is at SLU?!

[xubrew]

Travis Ford is at SLU?!

All season long!

http://www.slubillikens.com/SportSelect.dbml?SPID=93215&SPSID=632627

[D-West & PO-Z]

Yeah I wasnt thrilled with the Ford hire at SLU, think they could have gotten an up and comer as opposed to a retread. Disappointing.

[XUMIOH12]

Yeah I wasnt thrilled with the Ford hire at SLU, think they could have gotten an up and comer as opposed to a retread. Disappointing.

either way, it should be a step up from what they just had

[THRILLHOUSE]

#8 in the Pre-Season Coaches Poll:

http://collegebasketball.nbcsports.com/2016/10/20/duke-ranked-1st-in-preseason-coaches-poll/

[nasdadjr]

This thread might be as meaningless as the preseason polls are themselves. Talk to me about rankings in January when we actually know who is good
.

[muskiefan82]

Wow. X can only sneak up on 7 other teams. I remember in 1988 when X cracked the top 25 for the first time in ages and how awesome it was. Look at where they are starting now. Take a minute and think about it. Well done, X. Well done.

[Xavier]

This thread might be as meaningless as the preseason polls are themselves. Talk to me about rankings in January when we actually know who is good
.

Yes and No. At the end of the year does it mean much? No.

But if Xavier does well in the OOC schedule, does it help recruiting being in the top 10 for the first month of the year or so? No question. Not to mention starting out high gives Xavier a better shot at being ranked #1 in the country. Is it a longshot? maybe, but it is a hell of a lot easier starting out in the top 10 to get there than it is not being ranked. A few teams slip up and you never know.

[MuskieXU]

I think 8 is about where we should be right now, especially with the presumption that Myles is out for the time being.

[xubrew]

This thread might be as meaningless as the preseason polls are themselves. Talk to me about rankings in January when we actually know who is good
.

Did the title of the thread confuse you?? If you feel preseason polls are pointless, then what was your thought process when you opened this thread?

[MuskieXU]

8th is the highest XU has ever been in the USA Today Preseason poll. Started 10th in 02/03 and 11th in 97/98.

[XU 87]

This thread might be as meaningless as the preseason polls are themselves. Talk to me about rankings in January when we actually know who is good
.

Given the choice, would you rather X be ranked or not ranked in a pre-season poll?

Would you rather have X's game highlights be shown or not shown on ESPN?

Do you think it helps or hurts with recruiting when X is ranked?

Would you rather X have more or less positive national publicity?

[GoMuskies]

Started 10th in 02/03 and 11th in 97/98.

Not loving the precedent.

[TUclutch]

This thread might be as meaningless as the preseason polls are themselves. Talk to me about rankings in January when we actually know who is good
.

Pretty dumb post

[XU 87]

Not loving the precedent.

Those were both very good teams that had very good seasons, but not so good NCAA runs (one combined win).

[MuskieXU]

Not loving the precedent.

On the flip side of that, in 03 we ended the year with a disappointing loss and in 07 we ended the year with a disappointing loss. I dont have to remind you what happened in 04 and 08.

In 16 we ended the year with a disappointing loss. Hopefully this pattern will continue in 17.

[xukeith]

This thread might be as meaningless as the preseason polls are themselves. Talk to me about rankings in January when we actually know who is good
.

So true! I think 5 of last year's preseason top 25 teams did not make NCAA tourney.

[MauriceX]

I agree that you can't put 100% stock in preseason polls, because there are bound to be a few bad teams that sneak in every year. But realistically, being in the preseason top 25 is a great predictor for success. I've linked two articles below that are interesting to read on this subject. I've pulled out a couple highlights below. (Note: first two quotes are from first article, written a year ago. Last quote is from second article, written in 2011, so the statistics have probably changed slightly, but not by much)

"There have been 751 teams ranked in the AP preseason poll since 1984-85 and 85.6 percent of those teams reached the NCAA tournament."

"Since ‘84-85, only eight teams unranked in the preseason have earned a No. 1 seed, most recently Michigan State in 2011-12. In this information age, outliers are even more rare. It’s occurred just twice since 1998-99."

"Since the tournament field expanded to 64 teams in 1985, there have been only 41 cases in which a school that was unranked to start the season entered the tournament ranked in the A.P. top 10... Absolutely none of these teams have made the Final Four, however... Instead they have been the victims of some notorious upsets"

Article 1 (http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2015-10-22/college-basketball-how-ap-preseason-poll-predicts-ncaa)

Article 2 (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/in-n-c-a-a-tournament-overachievers-often-disappoint/) (written by Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight, who is awesome)

[xubrew]

Oregon wasn't ranked in either poll last year. I suppose you could argue they shouldn't have gotten a #1 seed and Michigan State should have, but nevertheless, they did.

[XUFan09]

Preseason rankings is actually one of the better predictors of tournament success. No, it's not a surefire thing one way or another, but no other characteristic is either. So, let's not act like preseason rankings need to be flawless when nothing is.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[GoMuskies]

So Baylor didn't get a single vote in the poll? Good year to start the series in Waco. Hopefully they'll be better when they come to Cintas.

[xubrew]

Do the polls mean anything?? In my opinion they don't mean much other than a spotlight for the weeks you're in the poll that is completely gone and forgotten once you're out of the poll. No one remembers how high UCLA was ranked at any point last season.

Are the polls dumb?? In my opinion no. They're fun to look at. What's wrong with that?? Even if it's not a precise indicator of how good teams actually are, they're still fun.

Honestly, I've decided that I think bracketologists are the best when it comes to accurately measuring how good a team is and how they line up against the rest of the country. Way more so than the polls. They're not precise either because they're just guessing, but they're more precise than the top 25 is at any point. But, I still like the top 25. Even in the preseason.

[XUFan09]

So Baylor didn't get a single vote in the poll? Good year to start the series in Waco. Hopefully they'll be better when they come to Cintas.
That's my thought too. They should be good enough that they would be a good road win, but they're unlikely to be good enough to have been a good home win.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[THRILLHOUSE]

So Baylor didn't get a single vote in the poll? Good year to start the series in Waco. Hopefully they'll be better when they come to Cintas.

They might not be Top 25 caliber but should still be a quality team this season. They were picked #5 in the Pre-Season Big 12 poll. So if they live up to that expectation they'll be a tournament team and a Top 50 RPI game for X.

[xubrew]

Baylor is one of those teams that always seems to do well when they're not expected to, and busts when they're expected to be good. I've quit trying to guess how good I think they'll be before the season starts.

[markchal]

Did the title of the thread confuse you?? If you feel preseason polls are pointless, then what was your thought process when you opened this thread?

This might be my favorite post in the history of this board.

[XU 87]

So true! I think 5 of last year's preseason top 25 teams did not make NCAA tourney.

Which means that 20 of the preseason top 25 did make the tourney.

That said, see my questions posed to Nasdadjr above. I pose the same questions to you.

[Caf]

So true! I think 5 of last year's preseason top 25 teams did not make NCAA tourney.

Very good point! I was just going to not watch the season and tune back in when we're a 2 seed. Now that I know it's not a guarantee, I'll have to follow the team. Ugh.

[Roadlife]

Do the polls mean anything??
.

They do in Warsaw!

[skyking]

I look at the preseason polls as the combined opinions of those who know a lot more about basketball than I do. It is great to see the confidence coaches, who make their living in this field, have in X this year.

[X-band '01]

Preseason, perhaps. Once the season gets rolling, there are many cases where a staffer will take care of the coach's ballot.

I'll be curious to see where Xavier fits in the AP Poll; they seemed to have slightly higher rankings with the media last season.

[nasdadjr]

Look at last year... Unranked Xavier started off with few votes for top 25 then by end of the month was top 10. They were competing for number 1 in the country for by December. Xavier is nationally known and kids want to come here. That is why we are able to recruit Georgia, Texas and even California now so your helping recruiting holds no water. With over 330 teams each with 9-13 or 14 players each it is pointless to do a preseason top 25. We will know who is good in January that is when polls should come out just like polls shouldn't come out in college football till week 6

[X-band '01]

Winning the Advocare Invitational was the reason Xavier vaulted into the rankings last year - in years past, Xavier would lay an egg or two during exempt events and struggle just to get into the field.

This year, Xavier should be favored to beat Missouri and either Clemson/Davidson to get to the championship game of the Tire Pros Invitational. Oklahoma and Northern Iowa could also be a challenge, but both teams lost a lot of talent to graduation.

[nasdadjr]

Also on the recruiting front... Xavier will not out recruit the high major programs like a Kentucky, Duke, Kansas and so on. However Xavier has 3 decades of success that people recognize and which has put them in the position to be able to recruit on the level of a Maryland, Texas, or even an Ohio State to an extent. That's pretty darn good if you ask me and isn't the result of a preseason poll... It's the result of sustained success even when we were not recruiting on that level.

[nasdadjr]

Winning the Advocare Invitational was the reason Xavier vaulted into the rankings last year - in years past, Xavier would lay an egg or two during exempt events and struggle just to get into the field.

This year, Xavier should be favored to beat Missouri and either Clemson/Davidson to get to the championship game of the Tire Pros Invitational. Oklahoma and Northern Iowa could also be a challenge, but both teams lost a lot of talent to graduation.

You exactly right which is why I say the preseason polls are meaningless. Doesn't that show you how bad the pollsters missed on X? My only point is let 2 months of games happen get an idea of who really is good and who is overhyped then do polls in January.

[XU 87]

You exactly right which is why I say the preseason polls are meaningless. Doesn't that show you how bad the pollsters missed on X? My only point is let 2 months of games happen get an idea of who really is good and who is overhyped then do polls in January.


I'm still waiting for a response to my questions posed to you earlier this week.

[nasdadjr]

Given the choice, would you rather X be ranked or not ranked in a pre-season poll?

Would you rather have X's game highlights be shown or not shown on ESPN?

Do you think it helps or hurts with recruiting when X is ranked?

Would you rather X have more or less positive national publicity?

1. Obviously yes I would rather them be ranked preseason. That does not change the point that a preseason ranking is 99% meaningless come March. The only meaning is a little exposure early on. Lose 2 quick games and that ranking goes away pretty quick.

2. I don't watch ESPN hardly at all I can't stand the network so no I don't care if they show highlights. All they are gonna show is a snippet and spend 15 minutes on Kentucky anyway so that 15 second highlight of one dunk means almost nothing to me.

3. It's helps zero with recruiting as I mentioned earlier. Recruits care about postseason success and ability to get a player to the league. Walk into a recruits house tell them we were preseason number 8 but didn't make the tournament, and have someone else say hey we started unranked but went to the elite 8. Unless the preseason top 8 team is a super high major like a UK or Duke or team that puts kids in the NBA every year then the kid will consider the second school more. If you don't believe me then look no further than Xavier. That is the exact formula X used to get where they are now with recruits. Few preseason high rankings the last 30 years but lots of postseason success makes kids want to come here. It's why we get kids from coast to coast now and why a Dayton has to stay relatively local.

4. I'm never a fan of early hype. Nowhere to go but down. Right now X can't get much more positive but can have a lot of negative thrown its way. That being said exposure is always good and an easy preseason ranking gets you that, however whatever as stated before kids/recruits care infinitely more about March exposure as opposed to November exposure.

[xubrew]

You exactly right which is why I say the preseason polls are meaningless. Doesn't that show you how bad the pollsters missed on X? My only point is let 2 months of games happen get an idea of who really is good and who is overhyped then do polls in January.

Yes, there is no point in doing them until January. You could make the case there's no point to doing them at any point. But, there's no point to NOT doing them either. They're not hurting anything (at least not in basketball), and they're fun for the fans. So, why not have them??

I do think having polls all throughout the season makes it more enjoyable for the fans, especially the casual fans. It at least gives them a starting point for how good the teams are collectively believed to be. That's easier to digest for the casual fan than just starting everyone off at zero and not having any rankings at all. That's TECHNICALLY what's happening, but the thing about the polls is that they really don't disrupt that. You yourself have pointed out how teams that weren't ranked in the preseason played their way in.

[xukeith]

Obviously XU has work to complete, but do you believe on Villanova message boards or UNC/Duke messageboards, fans are posting, "Would you rather be ranked preseason or not?"

Obviosly those programs are used to being ranked all the time and getting high end recruits and post season trophies.

[XU 87]

1
2. I don't watch ESPN hardly at all I can't stand the network so no I don't care if they show highlights. All they are gonna show is a snippet and spend 15 minutes on Kentucky anyway so that 15 second highlight of one dunk means almost nothing to me.

3. It's helps zero with recruiting as I mentioned earlier. March exposure as opposed to November exposure.

2) You may not watch ESPN, but recruits do. You're sticking your head in the sand.

3) I have a feeling that the coaches are happy they can tell the recruits at Musketeer Madness tonight, "We're ranked 8th in the country. We're one of the best teams in the country."

Try enjoying your team being ranked in the top ten.

[xu82]

2) You may not watch ESPN, but recruits do. You're sticking your head in the sand.

3) I have a feeling that the coaches are happy they can tell the recruits at Musketeer Madness tonight, "We're ranked 8th in the country. We're one of the best teams in the country."

Try enjoying your team being ranked in the top ten.

Wasted keystrokes, I'm afraid......

[nasdadjr]

Not at all he is entitled to his opinion just as I am mine. It's my prediction that X will be not be in the top 10 come December but that is fine. With Gates being out our interior and rebounding just isn't going to be there and playing in the early tournament with basically 8 guys might be a real tall task. We may even fall out of the top 25 before righting the ship in conference play. Just too many unknowns with the team on our own backyard let alone the other 350 teams which is why I say polls should wait till January

[nasdadjr]

Oh and one more thing... The big boys don't care about preseason polls they care about March and April. Only small time cared about preseason polls so up your game people and don't be small time.

[XUGRAD80]

I think that most people do realize that "polls" ARE basically meaningless, fun but meaningless. Even the regular season wins and conference championships are not as prestigious as they once where. The great increase in popularity of the post season tournament has overshadowed everything else for the fans and probably many recruits as well....especially those wanting to go to a top level program. While winning the league like the Horizon, MAC, or others at that level and below, is very important to players and fans at those schools it is not the be all end all for teams/fans at schools where success in the NCAA tourney is how a team's success/failure is ultimately judged. Rankings in polls means even less, IMO. ESPECIALLY pre-season polls.

Even back in "my day", while regular season success was very nice and enjoyable, qualifying for the NCAA tourney and results there would still be considered the highlights of the year and the ultimate goal for most people was to make it to the tourney and get some wins there.

[X-man]

nasdadjr is on my "ignore" list. Every time someone quotes one of his posts, it reminds me why I took that action.

[94GRAD]

1. Obviously yes I would rather them be ranked preseason. That does not change the point that a preseason ranking is 99% meaningless come March. The only meaning is a little exposure early on. Lose 2 quick games and that ranking goes away pretty quick.

2. I don't watch ESPN hardly at all I can't stand the network so no I don't care if they show highlights. All they are gonna show is a snippet and spend 15 minutes on Kentucky anyway so that 15 second highlight of one dunk means almost nothing to me.

3. It's helps zero with recruiting as I mentioned earlier. Recruits care about postseason success and ability to get a player to the league. Walk into a recruits house tell them we were preseason number 8 but didn't make the tournament, and have someone else say hey we started unranked but went to the elite 8. Unless the preseason top 8 team is a super high major like a UK or Duke or team that puts kids in the NBA every year then the kid will consider the second school more. If you don't believe me then look no further than Xavier. That is the exact formula X used to get where they are now with recruits. Few preseason high rankings the last 30 years but lots of postseason success makes kids want to come here. It's why we get kids from coast to coast now and why a Dayton has to stay relatively local.

4. I'm never a fan of early hype. Nowhere to go but down. Right now X can't get much more positive but can have a lot of negative thrown its way. That being said exposure is always good and an easy preseason ranking gets you that, however whatever as stated before kids/recruits care infinitely more about March exposure as opposed to November exposure.


Oh and one more thing... The big boys don't care about preseason polls they care about March and April. Only small time cared about preseason polls so up your game people and don't be small time.

ALL OF THIS IS RIDCULOUS!!! You have obviously NEVER talked to a Head Coach or any players.

[MauriceX]

You exactly right which is why I say the preseason polls are meaningless. Doesn't that show you how bad the pollsters missed on X? My only point is let 2 months of games happen get an idea of who really is good and who is overhyped then do polls in January.

Did you read my post at all? With statistical evidence about how they are accurate way more than they aren't? Yes, they miss from time to time. But that would be like saying you wouldn't trust a B student (right 85.6% of the time) to do anything worthwhile.

[paulxu]

Ken Pom: http://kenpom.com/

Massey: http://masseyratings.com/rate.php?s=cb&sub=NCAA I

[XUMIOH12]

oh and one more thing... The big boys don't care about preseason polls they care about march and april. Only small time cared about preseason polls so up your game people and don't be small time.

l o l

[xubrew]

Oh and one more thing... The big boys don't care about preseason polls they care about March and April. Only small time cared about preseason polls so up your game people and don't be small time.

I actually agree to a point, but only to a point.

The "big boys" may not care all that much about the polls, but they're really not bothered all that much by the polls either. Unlike you, who really seems to be, they look at it with a rather passive interest. It's fun to be in the rankings, and it's fun to see who else is in them compared to where you are, but other than that...oh well.

Why are you so bothered by something that doesn't have a whole lot of meaning?? I mean, if you really don't think they mean anything, then I wouldn't think you'd care enough about them to be annoyed by them. You wouldn't have even clicked on this thread.

[xudash]

Oh and one more thing... The big boys don't care about preseason polls they care about March and April. Only small time cared about preseason polls so up your game people and don't be small time.

Things I hope that are true for Xavier and for you:

1. You don't hold a degree from Xavier, for the benefit of Xavier.

2. You don't hold a degree from Xavier, for your benefit. Otherwise, that was a lot of money wasted on a liberal arts education.

3. You aren't in the field of marketing in any way shape or form.

4. More specifically, you have nothing to do with managing a BRAND of any kind.

- - - - -

Pre-season polls are a reflection.

Pre-season polls are a reaction to prior success and expectations for immediate future performance.

It isn't a matter of CARING.

It is a matter of POSITIONING. IT IS A MATTER OF IMAGE. IT IS A MATTER OF ATTRACTIVENESS.

The big boys care about all of that. They also obviously care about actual performance within a given season.

WHEN they care about ALL OF IT - when they care about rankings and recruiting rankings and press clippings and media coverage and the pre-season and the in-season and performance in March and April - they find themselves well positioned to CONTINUE ATTRACTING TOP TALENT, WHICH FURTHER EXTENDS THEIR BRAND, which further positions them to achieve success in March and April.

THEY CARE ABOUT ALL OF IT.

THEY EXPECT TO BE THERE IN THE PRE-SEASON, AND THEN TO STAY THERE.

My friend, you apparently can't begin to understand just how small time you're being in all this. As has been pointed out to you already, there probably isn't one fan of a Duke or Kentucky that thinks the same way as you on this matter.

Don't look at this from the fan's point of view. Look at it from the sports administration's - the business side's - point of view.

[paulxu]

they find themselves well positioned to CONTINUE ATTRACTING TOP TALENT, WHICH FURTHER EXTENDS THEIR BRAND,

This.

[XUFan09]

The big boys care about preseason rankings; they're just usually ranked and frequently ranked in the top ten in the preseason, so it's just not a surprise.

Nasdadjr sounds like someone who is trying really hard to be big-time, when it's something that comes naturally to a person/program that is actually big-time. It reminds me of an adolescent who's trying really hard to be an adult, thus revealing why he's not quite there yet.

Minor note: The comparison between a preseason top 10 team who didn't make the tourney and a preseason unranked team who made the Elite Eight is a shining example of a false dichotomy. How about we compare Elite Eight teams who were ranked in the preseason (and during the season) to Elite Eight teams who were not? I guarantee that the former looks better in the eyes of recruits, all else being equal. Dash is right; it ALL matters. Preseason rankings are just part of the puzzle, not the whole thing. That doesn't mean they don't matter. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[GoMuskies]

Is this the thread about sneaking up on people?

I asked MOR about Gonzaga's lofty preseason ranking, and he said it is completely and obviously deserved and legitimate.

[xu82]

The BRAND is huge. There will be good seasons, great seasons...and disappointing seasons. Keep the BRAND in high regard, keep good coaches and top recruits. Pre-season polls matter. To argue otherwise is silly. It's not the ultimate respect, but it's part of the process to get you to the top.

[IM4X]

Pre-season polls are a reaction to prior success and expectations for immediate future performance.

It is a matter of POSITIONING. IT IS A MATTER OF IMAGE. IT IS A MATTER OF ATTRACTIVENESS.

WHEN they care about ALL OF IT - when they care about rankings and recruiting rankings and press clippings and media coverage and the pre-season and the in-season and performance in March and April - they find themselves well positioned to CONTINUE ATTRACTING TOP TALENT, WHICH FURTHER EXTENDS THEIR BRAND, which further positions them to achieve success in March and April.

THEY EXPECT TO BE THERE IN THE PRE-SEASON, AND THEN TO STAY THERE.

Don't look at this from the fan's point of view. Look at it from the sports administration's - the business side's - point of view.

This is exactly correct.

The really reason you hear top tier coaches say preseason polls don't matter is because they don't want it going to their players' heads.

Sometimes players from a team with a high pre season ranking get caught up in the hype and lose focus on the fact that they still need to go out and earn that ranking they got. Coaches worry that the players may lose a bit of their edge and hunger to prove how good they are.

No doubt, some of the teams in these preseason top 25 polls will disappoint. Still, it even helps those teams.

[IM4X]

The BRAND is huge. There will be good seasons, great seasons...and disappointing seasons. Keep the BRAND in high regard, keep good coaches and top recruits. Pre-season polls matter. To argue otherwise is silly. It's not the ultimate respect, but it's part of the process to get you to the top.

Well said.

[XUMIOH12]

Things I hope that are true for Xavier and for you:

1. You don't hold a degree from Xavier, for the benefit of Xavier.

2. You don't hold a degree from Xavier, for your benefit. Otherwise, that was a lot of money wasted on a liberal arts education.

3. You aren't in the field of marketing in any way shape or form.

4. More specifically, you have nothing to do with managing a BRAND of any kind.

DAMN. Sit his ass down!

[nasdadjr]

Things I hope that are true for Xavier and for you:

1. You don't hold a degree from Xavier, for the benefit of Xavier.

2. You don't hold a degree from Xavier, for your benefit. Otherwise, that was a lot of money wasted on a liberal arts education.

3. You aren't in the field of marketing in any way shape or form.

4. More specifically, you have nothing to do with managing a BRAND of any kind.

- - - - -

Pre-season polls are a reflection.

Pre-season polls are a reaction to prior success and expectations for immediate future performance.

It isn't a matter of CARING.

It is a matter of POSITIONING. IT IS A MATTER OF IMAGE. IT IS A MATTER OF ATTRACTIVENESS.

The big boys care about all of that. They also obviously care about actual performance within a given season.

WHEN they care about ALL OF IT - when they care about rankings and recruiting rankings and press clippings and media coverage and the pre-season and the in-season and performance in March and April - they find themselves well positioned to CONTINUE ATTRACTING TOP TALENT, WHICH FURTHER EXTENDS THEIR BRAND, which further positions them to achieve success in March and April.

THEY CARE ABOUT ALL OF IT.

THEY EXPECT TO BE THERE IN THE PRE-SEASON, AND THEN TO STAY THERE.

My friend, you apparently can't begin to understand just how small time you're being in all this. As has been pointed out to you already, there probably isn't one fan of a Duke or Kentucky that thinks the same way as you on this matter.

Don't look at this from the fan's point of view. Look at it from the sports administration's - the business side's - point of view.

Your absolutely right. Xavier wasn't big enough of a school to offer the research opportunities I wanted in Biochemistry. But by all means please put yourself on that pedestal with your marketing knowledge.

[xu82]

Your absolutely right. Xavier wasn't big enough of a school to offer the research opportunities I wanted in Biochemistry. But by all means please put yourself on that pedestal with your marketing knowledge.

I don't see a pedestal, I just see someone stating what is obvious to most people.

[XUFan09]

Your absolutely right. Xavier wasn't big enough of a school to offer the research opportunities I wanted in Biochemistry. But by all means please put yourself on that pedestal with your marketing knowledge.
This doesn't translate in any way beyond your own wishful thinking of a comeback.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[nasdadjr]

I don't see a pedestal, I just see someone stating what is obvious to most people.

I don't care a degree from Xavier is average and on the same level as any other local 4 year college. To bring that up as a passive aggressive insult shows how elitist some of you people really are but not all.

I will make my point now to prove how insignificant preseason rankings are to recruits. Bear with me I'm typing on a phone not a computer.

1. Last year the preseason top 25 had teams such as Gonzaga, Wichita State, Wisconsin, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Uconn, LSU, Butler and Michigan. I list those teams because those are the teams that did not finish in the top 25 in the final AP poll right before the tournament. That is 9 of 25 teams the AP got wrong or 36% of the field. To the guy who said they typically get it right... Missing at a 36% clip does not support that statement.

2. With that 9 new teams obviously ended in the top 25. WV, Oregon, Miami, Tex am, Louisville, Seton Hall, SMU, Iowa, Xavier.

3. Now let's look at the impact of last years preseason rankings on this years class. Of those 9 teams that started and dropped from the top 25 only three of those schools (Gonzaga, Michigan, Uconn) are ranked in the top 35 of rivals recruiting rankings. On the flip side of the teams that ENDED in the top 25 five of those schools are in the top 35 classes this year( Oregon, Miami, Texas am, Louisville, SMU). I could say 6 schools if I count number 26 Texas in last years poll as another team that was not in last years preseason top 25 but has a top class but I'm not going to. Point has been made.

4. As another note look at some of the higher ranking classes this year. UCLA, Syracuse, Miss St, FSU, Penn St, St. John's and so on. Why would kids choose those schools over Wichita state or Vanderbilt since they were preseason top 25 last year? The answer is because of exposure and chance to get to the league. Those higher profile schools with national tv deals will get kids exposure and help get them to the league so they will choose that over going to Wichita state's top 25 preseason ranking last year.

5. How else would you explain it? How do schools in last years preseason top 25 not pull in better recruits if that matters? The answer is they don't care and it doesn't matter. They care about exposure and postseason success. This can be extrapolated to other seasons not just this one I'm just not going to take the time to go that far.

So you go ahead and think it matters. The evidence states otherwise but like I said you are entitled to your opinion. Nothing is concrete and there are always exceptions but at least off of last years numbers my statements are justified

[xu82]

I don't care a degree from Xavier is average and on the same level as any other local 4 year college. To bring that up as a passive aggressive insult shows how elitist some of you people really are but not all.

I will make my point now to prove how insignificant preseason rankings are to recruits. Bear with me I'm typing on a phone not a computer.

1. Last year the preseason top 25 had teams such as Gonzaga, Wichita State, Wisconsin, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Uconn, LSU, Butler and Michigan. I list those teams because those are the teams that did not finish in the top 25 in the final AP poll right before the tournament. That is 9 of 25 teams the AP got wrong or 36% of the field. To the guy who said they typically get it right... Missing at a 36% clip does not support that statement.

2. With that 9 new teams obviously ended in the top 25. WV, Oregon, Miami, Tex am, Louisville, Seton Hall, SMU, Iowa, Xavier.

3. Now let's look at the impact of last years preseason rankings on this years class. Of those 9 teams that started and dropped from the top 25 only three of those schools (Gonzaga, Michigan, Uconn) are ranked in the top 35 of rivals recruiting rankings. On the flip side of the teams that ENDED in the top 25 five of those schools are in the top 35 classes this year( Oregon, Miami, Texas am, Louisville, SMU). I could say 6 schools if I count number 26 Texas in last years poll as another team that was not in last years preseason top 25 but I'm not going to. Point has been made. On top of that its Uconn in top 10 which is good but the other 2 are much lower. The average ranking is much better for the teams that were successful last year with a majority of them being in the teens.

4. As another note look at some of the higher ranking classes this year. UCLA, Syracuse, Miss St, FSU, Penn St, St. John's and so on. Why would kids choose those schools over Wichita state or Vanderbilt since they were preseason top 25 last year? The answer is because of exposure and chance to get to the league. Those higher profile schools with national tv deals will get kids exposure and help get them to the league so they will choose that over going to Wichita state's top 25 preseason ranking last year.

5. How else would you explain it? How do schools in last years preseason top 25 not pull in better recruits if that matters? The answer is they don't care and it doesn't matter. They care about exposure and postseason success. This can be extrapolated to other seasons not just this one I'm just not going to take the time to go that far.

So you go ahead and think it matters. The evidence states otherwise but like I said you are entitled to your opinion. Nothing is concrete and there are always exceptions but at least off of last years numbers my statements are justified

I don't care where you went to school, I just skimmed the above (at best), and pre-season rankings help in a number of ways. If your point was pre-season rankings do not guarantee success, I think that's obvious. Look deeper.

[nasdadjr]

I don't care where you went to school, I just skimmed the above (at best), and pre-season rankings help in a number of ways.

I just literally gave you the numbers from last year so prove what you say don't just give general, unfounded statements.

[XU 87]

I don't care a degree from Xavier is average and on the same level as any other local 4 year college. To bring that up as a passive aggressive insult shows how elitist some of you people really are but not all.

I will make my point now to prove how insignificant preseason rankings are to recruits. Bear with me I'm typing on a phone not a computer.



1) They apparently didn't teach grammar at the school you attended. (See your run on sentence and other grammatical errors).

2) We get it. You don't care about pre-season polls. You think they're useless. The rest of us, along with coaches, fans, and most of the basketball world, like them and think they have some use. (And note the use of periods in between each sentence.)

3) How much longer are you going to continue with your "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" argument?

[nasdadjr]

If they matter why does Miss St have a top 5 class? Why does UCLA have a top 5 class? How did Oregon, Miami, Texas, SMU, FSU, Syracuse all get classes in the teens while Vanderbilt, Wichita State, Notre Dame and so on are not even close? Answer is because kids care more about postseason success or getting to the league. That Trumps a preseason ranking 100% of the time

[XU 87]

Your absolutely right.

"You're" not "your". "You're" means "you are". "Your" is a possessive pronoun.

[xu82]

Nobody said post-season doesn't also count. There are a number of factors. Location, coaching stability, conference affiliation, trend of program, actual academics, players at your position. MANY factors. Pre-season polls are included.

[XU 87]

That Trumps a preseason ranking 100% of the time

"Trumps" should not be capitalized. You are confusing that word with Donald Trump.

Had you gone to Xavier, you would have learned all this in your Freshman English class and wouldn't be having these current writing difficulties.

[nasdadjr]

1) They apparently didn't teach grammar at the school you attended. (See your run on sentence and other grammatical errors).

2) We get it. You don't care about pre-season polls. You think they're useless. The rest of us, along with coaches, fans, and most of the basketball world, like them and think they have some use. (And note the use of periods in between each sentence.)

3) How much longer are you going to continue with your "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" argument?

It's not an I'm right your wrong thing. It's an I justified my stance so you justify your stance thing. You people want to rip my point by denigrating my acumen and educational background but provide nothing but unjustified and unfounded statements. All I simply did was offer a different perspective that wasn't popular so was accordingly ripped. Of course I'll respond after that. If that level of critical thought and justification is what you teach at Xavier then maybe I made the right choice to not attend and only cheer for the team.

[nasdadjr]

"You're" not "your". "You're" means "you are". "Your" is a possessive pronoun.

I'm on a phone that autocorrects everything plus I only see 4 words at a time. This isn't important enough for me to go back and see what I fat fingered on my phone keyboard and I'm not taking the time to click through all the grammar symbols on the phone. If that's all you got that is pretty weak.

[XU 87]

You people want to rip my point by denigrating my acumen and educational background

You should expect such responses when you 1) tell Xavier people on a Xavier message board that "Xavier education is average" and 2) continue to tell everyone on said message board that "I'm right and you're (you are) all wrong.

[xubrew]

If they matter why does Miss St have a top 5 class? Why does UCLA have a top 5 class? How did Oregon, Miami, Texas, SMU, FSU, Syracuse all get classes in the teens while Vanderbilt, Wichita State, Notre Dame and so on are not even close? Answer is because kids care more about postseason success or getting to the league. That Trumps a preseason ranking 100% of the time

I just want to say that I don't think recruiting class rankings really mean anything either. Sure, they're fun to look at, but you could do the same study that you're doing with the preseason rankings and see highly ranked classes that never did anything, and lower ranked classes that did quite a bit. I agree that high fives for a preseason ranking are kind of ridiculous, but so are high fives over a highly rated recruiting class. That's probably more true for football than basketball, but it's definitely true for basketball to a pretty large degree.

[XUFan09]

.

[XUFan09]

I just can't take seriously anyone who says Xavier is average academically (especially when they complement it with other fallacious things). One of the following options is true:

1) Their ego is bruised from the response they've received, so they're lashing out by saying something stupid.
2) They are trying to formulate a defense based on fallacious thinking that they KNOW is fallacious, in hopes that no one notices.
3) They actually are making the translation that Xavier is average since it's not elite, because their brain cannot comprehend a continuum between these two stances that includes more moderate possibilities like "Xavier is not amazing but it is one of the better small universities in the Midwest and on average one of the best choices in the immediate region."

There's plenty of other data out there as to why I shouldn't take someone like him/her seriously. That's just a highlight. So much of the time when he posts, though, Nasdadjr offers a great example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[nasdadjr]

I just want to say that I don't think recruiting class rankings really mean anything either. Sure, they're fun to look at, but you could do the same study that you're doing with the preseason rankings and see highly ranked classes that never did anything, and lower ranked classes that did quite a bit. I agree that high fives for a preseason ranking are kind of ridiculous, but so are high fives over a highly rated recruiting class. That's probably more true for football than basketball, but it's definitely true for basketball to a pretty large degree.

That is a fair point and definitely valid to say. I'd even go as far as to say that what I'm saying about preseason polls can apply to recruiting rankings as well. However, if we take who would be considered the best kids coming out of H.S. each year they will generally choose either... 1. Postseason success or 2. A coach that will get you to the league. Why else would supposedly good players choose SMU? It because of Larry Brown who knows how to get guys to the NBA.

You are also right when you talk about over and under performing classes. That happens every year. We know talent helps but is not the only factor in winning. I'm just about celebrating success not perceived success. I'm just taking the stance of Xavier improves Xavier's brand by continuing postseason success and not by celebrating meaningless preseason accolades.

Go to a recruits house and telling them we were unranked in the beginning of the season and worked up to a 2 or 3 seed is going to open up more eyes and ears than going into a recruits house and saying we were preseason top 10 and went to the NIT. Just my opinion though.

[XUMIOH12]

I'm on a phone that autocorrects everything plus I only see 4 words at a time. This isn't important enough for me to go back and see what I fat fingered on my phone keyboard and I'm not taking the time to click through all the grammar symbols on the phone. If that's all you got that is pretty weak.

Please just shut up and stop.

[nasdadjr]

Please just shut up and stop.

Wow what tolerance. This along with some recent racist promotions on campus is really showing me the tolerant Jesuit way.

[X-band '01]

Promotions? I thought we were talking about a couple of knucklehead students who a)posted something blatantly racist and b)hung a figurine that also happens to be racist (after doing research on what it was). Calling it a "promotion" implies that some club on campus would be sponsoring that. That's not the case at all from what I understand.

[X-man]

nasdadjr is revealed to be the troll I have always suspected him to be by his inane, and anti-XU, posts in this thread. Put him on "Ignore", everyone, and maybe he'll go back into his hole.

[Xville]

I'm just going to throw my hat into the ring and say that preseason polls are just one of those things where it is better to be in them, than out of them. Do they really mean all that much? In the grand scheme of things, I don't necessarily think so....I don't think recruits are looking at preseason rankings and saying to themselves, "well Xavier is ranked top 10 in the preseason, i'm going to go there because of that." Also, it definitely does not mean that the team is going to have a great year just because they are ranked there.

However, the rankings are another way to brand the university's basketball program as a major player, and that's always a good thing.

[XUMIOH12]

Wow what tolerance. This along with some recent racist promotions on campus is really showing me the tolerant Jesuit way.

Actually i've tolerated plenty of your idiotic posts, including this one. Telling some moron on a message board to shut up is a far cry from the "racist promotions" on campus you are referencing.

[XU 87]

Wow what tolerance. This along with some recent racist promotions on campus is really showing me the tolerant Jesuit way.

And you wonder why we question your (possessive pronoun) "acumen and education".

[xubrew]

As a fan of the sport, I like anything that draws interest to the sport. The polls definitely do that. So does bracketology. I don't think either one of them particularly mean anything, but it's still fun to look at, and it helps most people enjoy the sport more because of the context they provide, so I'm a fan of both things. I wish there was preseason bracketology. I wish Joe Lunardi did it every week from November on. If people look at it and talk about it then I'm all for it whether it means anything or not.

So, while I agree that in large part the preseason polls mean nothing, I don't understand how they're hurting anything to the point to where someone would resent them. Nasdadjr seems to. I mean, if they don't matter, then who cares??

But, having said that, I don't get why people care so much about how he doesn't care. He doesn't like the polls. Okay, whatever. I don't think that necessarily makes him stupid. At most I'm just puzzled as to why he dislikes them to the point of being annoyed by them. But, I'm sure I puzzle a lot of people on here with my views as well. My views don't mean anything either. They're just my opinions.

[Xville]

BTW, sometimes people on this board really shock me. When someone on this board brings something up that is not blue-colored glasses sunshine and rainbows, their opinion is berated by many on this board. Then, those same people are shocked that the person that was berated, starts getting defensive.

Nasdadjr is not a troll just because he has a different opinion than yours X-man....and being that he spends a ton of time on this messageboard, I doubt he is anti-xu....that's a pretty silly and ridiculous statement. There are a lot of people on this board that have serious issues when reading posts that have opinions different than their own.

[bobbiemcgee]

I like being in the Top 25 bcuz every newspaper in every city reports on the top 25 for every game they play. Maybe a small recap but nice publicity nonetheless. Also saves me from getting out the magnifying glass to check the score like the UD fans have to.

[X-man]

At the risk of pissing off Xavier "fan" nasdadjr, I am posting this link ( http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/bigeast/2016/10/26/final-four-xavier-musketeers-chris-mack/92778904/ ) to a story from USAToday about Xavier as a dark horse FF candidate. I realize that all preseason hype is totally boring and unimportant, but I thought my fellow Muskie fans might like reading this piece.

[X-man]

Xavier also has two top-100 players this season (Ed at #20 and Trevon at #40) in the Norlander-Parrish piece on CBS. Link: http://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/ranking-the-top-100-and-one-college-basketball-players-for-2016-17/.

[paulxu]

On a side note, Shannon's tweet about being laid off was on October 25th.

The article linked above on our team's chances is written for USA Today (I assume nationally) on the 26th...by Shannon.

[Smails]

Xavier also has two top-100 players this season (Ed at #20 and Trevon at #40) in the Norlander-Parrish piece on CBS. Link: http://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/ranking-the-top-100-and-one-college-basketball-players-for-2016-17/.

Interesting read...I find it hard to believe that there are 39 players in the country better than Trevon....and 32 players better than Kris Jenkins. Good stuff though

[X-man]

On a side note, Shannon's tweet about being laid off was on October 25th.

The article linked above on our team's chances is written for USA Today (I assume nationally) on the 26th...by Shannon.

Good for her. And good, I suppose, for XU.

[sirthought]

On a side note, Shannon's tweet about being laid off was on October 25th.

The article linked above on our team's chances is written for USA Today (I assume nationally) on the 26th...by Shannon.

If you look at the bottom of the article you may notice this:


Russell writes for The Cincinnati Enquirer, part of the USA TODAY Network.

So USA Today may employ her this season. I have no idea. But this piece was likely worked up before the axe fell.

[STL_XUfan]

If you look at the bottom of the article you may notice this:



So USA Today may employ her this season. I have no idea. But this piece was likely worked up before the axe fell.

USA Today is a Gannett property I believe.

[X-band '01]

It is.

[MauriceX]

I will make my point now to prove how insignificant preseason rankings are to recruits. Bear with me I'm typing on a phone not a computer.

1. Last year the preseason top 25 had teams such as Gonzaga, Wichita State, Wisconsin, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Uconn, LSU, Butler and Michigan. I list those teams because those are the teams that did not finish in the top 25 in the final AP poll right before the tournament. That is 9 of 25 teams the AP got wrong or 36% of the field. To the guy who said they typically get it right... Missing at a 36% clip does not support that statement.

2. With that 9 new teams obviously ended in the top 25. WV, Oregon, Miami, Tex am, Louisville, Seton Hall, SMU, Iowa, Xavier.



As the guy who said that, my response is that you are looking at one year. A sample size of one is not statistically relevant. So they had a bad year. It happens. I could point to the three years where all of the preseason top 25 teams ended up making the NCAA tournament and say that they get it right 100% of the time, but that would be just looking at the good years. In reality, it is somewhere in between. The point is, teams in the preseason top 25 make the tournament most of the time. And that is a strong most.

[nasdadjr]

As the guy who said that, my response is that you are looking at one year. A sample size of one is not statistically relevant. So they had a bad year. It happens. I could point to the three years where all of the preseason top 25 teams ended up making the NCAA tournament and say that they get it right 100% of the time, but that would be just looking at the good years. In reality, it is somewhere in between. The point is, teams in the preseason top 25 make the tournament most of the time. And that is a strong most.

Oh I'm fully aware I even said that I believe, but if I didn't my bad. Of course a statistical norm can not be obtained with one season, and that really wasn't my main point... Just a side note.

[THRILLHOUSE]

#7 in the AP - http://collegebasketball.ap.org/poll/2017/1

[xufan02]

I'm really interested to see how quickly this team gels defensively. I think we have a fairly easy stretch of games to start the year. The tournament in Orlando has a underwhelming field. Missouri first then either Davidson or Clemson, with either a depleted Oklahoma or Northern Iowa squad in the finals.

[nuts4xu]

1. Last year the preseason top 25 had teams such as Gonzaga, Wichita State, Wisconsin, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Uconn, LSU, Butler and Michigan. I list those teams because those are the teams that did not finish in the top 25 in the final AP poll right before the tournament. That is 9 of 25 teams the AP got wrong or 36% of the field. To the guy who said they typically get it right... Missing at a 36% clip does not support that statement.



Why do you assume the preseason polls are supposed to predict post season success? The AP and coaches vote throughout the season on who they feel is the best at that time, not who they predict will finish as the best teams at the end of the season. When the votes are cast before, or at the beginning of the season, little information is known about exactly how well these teams will be. If someone thinks team XYZ is the best in the country right now, time and real game results will let everyone know if this is accurate.

Are pre-season polls insignificant? Depends on your perspective. Having a team ranked in the preseason polls does not automatically translate to how well a team will play... there are too many variables that will affect a team during the season. These polls are a snapshot for a moment in time. Right now, the AP voters believe Xavier is the 7th best team in the country. Doesn't mean this is a fact, it means in the opinion of a group of people somewhere in the United States has determined there are only 6 teams better than Xavier.

All the other bullshit in your manifesto on this subject is a bunch of jibberish. It is fine if you don't like the preseason polls, you don't have to. From my perspective, it is great to see Xavier's name listed among the best in the country in any situation. I even like it when we are ranked high in the RPI at the beginning of the season. It helps boost our "cred" and the only downside is our inability to "sneak up on people".

[GoMuskies]

#7 in the AP - http://collegebasketball.ap.org/poll/2017/1

Nice to see UC and UD oh so close...but not quite.

[MuskieXU]

I'm really interested to see how quickly this team gels defensively. I think we have a fairly easy stretch of games to start the year. The tournament in Orlando has a underwhelming field. Missouri first then either Davidson or Clemson, with either a depleted Oklahoma or Northern Iowa squad in the finals.

FWIW I expect our first 2 games, Buffalo and Lehigh, to be tougher than expected. Lehigh has a fantastic Center and Buffalo brought back the majority of players from a team that gave Miami a game in last years tourney. We should win both, but I dont expect them to be blowouts.

[muskiefan82]

Nice to see UC and UD oh so close...but not quite.

And Butler and Ohio State as well.

[xufan02]

FWIW I expect our first 2 games, Buffalo and Lehigh, to be tougher than expected. Lehigh has a fantastic Center and Buffalo brought back the majority of players from a team that gave Miami a game in last years tourney. We should win both, but I dont expect them to be blowouts.

If agree but they are at Cintas. I guess looking at the schedule I think at Baylor, Colorado, and UC is a little more challenging. Not to mention the Big East portion.

[SC in DC]

Do not, I repeat, DO NOT sleep on Davidson.

[X-band '01]

I don't know about Davidson - they overachieved 2 years ago in their A-10 debut but took a step backward last year with a healthy Jack Gibbs.

[AviatorX]

Do not, I repeat, DO NOT sleep on Davidson.

If Davidson plans on guarding at all like they did last year, Ed/JP/Trevon might hang 150 on them if that matchup happens.

[paulxu]

Give me a hint here. What is our potential fatal flaw? Myles out? Farr/Reynolds gone?

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/insider/story/_/id/17934282/fatal-flaw-team-ap-top-25

[jaxalum]

Why do you assume the preseason polls are supposed to predict post season success? The AP and coaches vote throughout the season on who they feel is the best at that time, not who they predict will finish as the best teams at the end of the season. When the votes are cast before, or at the beginning of the season, little information is known about exactly how well these teams will be. If someone thinks team XYZ is the best in the country right now, time and real game results will let everyone know if this is accurate.

Are pre-season polls insignificant? Depends on your perspective. Having a team ranked in the preseason polls does not automatically translate to how well a team will play... there are too many variables that will affect a team during the season. These polls are a snapshot for a moment in time. Right now, the AP voters believe Xavier is the 7th best team in the country. Doesn't mean this is a fact, it means in the opinion of a group of people somewhere in the United States has determined there are only 6 teams better than Xavier.

All the other bullshit in your manifesto on this subject is a bunch of jibberish. It is fine if you don't like the preseason polls, you don't have to. From my perspective, it is great to see Xavier's name listed among the best in the country in any situation. I even like it when we are ranked high in the RPI at the beginning of the season. It helps boost our "cred" and the only downside is our inability to "sneak up on people".

Nuts makes strong, and all the "right" points, as far as I know, neither of the main polls are utilizeded in any way, shape, or form in picking tourney teams. The polls are important in helping a school from a recognition and branding sense. Most importantly, they are looked over by recruits EVERY WEEK. Can you imagine the type of credibility and exposure X received from being a top ten team for the majority of the year, hitting top 5 and, and all the press that came with that. Our undefeated climb up the polls was one of THE stories of the first half of the season, and holy shit was that a fucking ride that I will never forget.

Currently, we have a five man recruiting class ranked top 5 in the nation for '17(one recruit top 40/one top 30). Of course the hard work of our staff, the conference we are in, and our winning ways helped attract such a talented group, but you can bet that them seeing a top 5-10 team in the polls all year with two potential NBA players leaving after this year has "elite" written all over it. The sneaking up on teams BS is for mid majors...and that we are not.

[XUMIOH12]

If agree but they are at Cintas. I guess looking at the schedule I think at Baylor, Colorado, and UC is a little more challenging. Not to mention the Big East portion.

no shit lol

[xdude]

Give me a hint here. What is our potential fatal flaw? Myles out? Farr/Reynolds gone?

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/insider/story/_/id/17934282/fatal-flaw-team-ap-top-25

We wouldn't be in the Top 10 with a fatal flaw. I'd imagine our biggest weakness is youth. May lose a few early that are unexpected, especially without Myles, if that's the case. Should be a fab year.

[jaxalum]

Give me a hint here. What is our potential fatal flaw? Myles out? Farr/Reynolds gone?

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/insider/story/_/id/17934282/fatal-flaw-team-ap-top-25

My humble opinion: It's a 60/20/20 scenario. The 60, playing without Davis and how many games that will cost us? No one seems to know for sure when he is "allowed" back. Immediately after first semeser is done or when second semester has started. That's a big deal. 20 being Gates and what games he ends up missing. The other 20 filling in for Jalen and James. James was not only one of the best rebounders in the country, but the improvement he made with his offensive game his last year, as in suddenly possessing one, which was a plethora of face up, back to the basket moves, and soft jump hooks with either hand, and where he took over and won a couple of games for us on the offensive end, is going to be difficult to replace.

I have to say, what a ridiculously high level, serendipitous pick up Bernard has been. Everyone (including the experts/and maybe me) were giving this a wtf opinion/a "decent practice player" at best. Turns out, the guy is playing like an absolute monster, my favorite description being, "Remy Abell, on really hardcore roids...... like really hardcore, super illegal steroids, who is more talented to". I've heard nothing but bad ass things about this kid.

Quick note: I REALLY, REALLY hate the fact that Tyrique will not have the opportunity to redshirt this year. Once Gates returns, I see Tyriques minutes flatlining...there just are not minutes there. It makes me sick imagining what Pegues could do having a full year to refine one of the better athletes we've ever had come through X...Gates injury, Ekiyor. Even though we play 4 out 1 in, the 5 position is in some shit in a couple of years unless we land a top 30 C that can play day one. Kentrevious Jones '17, while not fitting our system, has great hands and feet, and for his age, height, and, weight, some very refinied moves in the paint. But he's a RS "must" as he's over 300lbs. Look at the depth chart. I hear they are teaching Tyrique the 5. He's 6'7/230, not 6'9/243 as listed on X's site. And the staff has been so ridiculously close to landing our "system" type Center....Taurean Thompson, Dylan Painter, Joey Brunke, Sterling Manley etc. My bad on ending on a negative rant. On a positive note we have a staff that are a bunch of recruiting animals.

[xu82]

My humble opinion: It's a 60/20/20 scenario. The 60, playing without Davis and how many games that will cost us? No one seems to know for sure when he is "allowed" back. Immediately after first semeser is done or when second semester has started. That's a big deal. 20 being Gates and what games he ends up missing. The other 20 filling in for Jalen and James. James was not only one of the best rebounders in the country, but the improvement he made with his offensive game his last year, as in suddenly possessing one, which was a plethora of face up, back to the basket moves, and soft jump hooks with either hand, and where he took over and won a couple of games for us on the offensive end, is going to be difficult to replace.

I have to say, what a ridiculously high level, serendipitous pick up Bernard has been. Everyone (including the experts/and maybe me) were giving this a wtf opinion/a "decent practice player" at best. Turns out, the guy is playing like an absolute monster, my favorite description being, "Remy Abell, on really hardcore roids...... like really hardcore, super illegal steroids, who is more talented to". I've heard nothing but bad ass things about this kid.

Quick note: I REALLY, REALLY hate the fact that Tyrique will not have the opportunity to redshirt this year. Once Gates returns, I see Tyriques minutes flatlining...there just are not minutes there. It makes me sick imagining what Pegues could do having a full year to refine one of the better athletes we've ever had come through X...Gates injury, Ekiyor. Even though we play 4 out 1 in, the 5 position is in some shit in a couple of years unless we land a top 30 C that can play day one. Kentrevious Jones '17, while not fitting our system, has great hands and feet, and for his age, height, and, weight, some very refinied moves in the paint. But he's a RS "must" as he's over 300lbs. Look at the depth chart. I hear they are teaching Tyrique the 5. He's 6'7/230, not 6'9/243 as listed on X's site. And the staff has been so ridiculously close to landing our "system" type Center....Taurean Thompson, Dylan Painter, Joey Brunke, Sterling Manley etc. My bad on ending on a negative rant. On a positive note we have a staff that are a bunch of recruiting animals.

They will get the guys they need. It just gets better and better.

[jaxalum]

They will get the guys they need. It just gets better and better.

Yes they will good sir. And yes it will. I have no right to be bitching about anything.

That Center I was talking about in our 17 class that is not our "system" type, but incredibly intrigueing. Huge dude with huge hair.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3WXXGxgfQA

[xu82]

Yes they will good sir. And yes it will. I have no right to be bitching about anything.

That Center I was talking about in our 17 class that is not our "system" type, but incredibly intrigueing. Huge dude with huge hair.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3WXXGxgfQA

I didn't mean to imply you were bitching about anything. In fact, I think you made a lot of good points. K. Jones has, I believe, shed quite a few pounds already and appears committed to get into shape. He has intriguing skills and footwork for his age and size, but hard to tell too much against HS kids. He could really help in certain matchups before too terribly long. He's a large human being!

[MuskieXU]

Give me a hint here. What is our potential fatal flaw? Myles out? Farr/Reynolds gone?

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/insider/story/_/id/17934282/fatal-flaw-team-ap-top-25

Our fatal flaw is not having "an obvious point guard."

No, I'm not kidding.

[Xville]

Give me a hint here. What is our potential fatal flaw? Myles out? Farr/Reynolds gone?

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/insider/story/_/id/17934282/fatal-flaw-team-ap-top-25

My guess is the frontcourt...can Gaston, O'mara, Gates fill in for Reynolds/Farr. The main thing I'm concerned with is rebounding out of those spots....O'Mara needs to take the next step, and I hope that Gaston is high major caliber.

I think we are pretty darn good with the rest

[paulxu]

I guess that explains why Sumner is on the Cousy Watch list. Idiots.

[X-man]

X is #8 in ESPN's pre-season power ratings. Here's the link: http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/17935301/duke-leads-way-power-rankings.

[DoubleD86]

I guess that explains why Sumner is on the Cousy Watch list. Idiots.

In Dana O'Neil's defense, she doesn't disregard Sumner. She just lumps him in with Bluiett and Goodin as great scorers, but that Xavier has "no obvious ball handler."

I generally like Dana, but I can't disagree with her more on this. Sumner is clearly the ball handler/obvious PG. Myles was an off-the-ball shooter who served as an emergency PG. She is just wrong on this.

As many said, I think the biggest question mark for this team is the front court. I am confident they will be good enough, but that is clearly the biggest question mark.

[MuskieXU]

In Dana O'Neil's defense, she doesn't disregard Sumner. She just lumps him in with Bluiett and Goodin as great scorers, but that Xavier has "no obvious ball handler."

I generally like Dana, but I can't disagree with her more on this. Sumner is clearly the ball handler/obvious PG. Myles was an off-the-ball shooter who served as an emergency PG. She is just wrong on this.

As many said, I think the biggest question mark for this team is the front court. I am confident they will be good enough, but that is clearly the biggest question mark.

Agreed. Not a surprise coming from ESPN but it is a little surprising coming from her. I do agree that one of the biggest question marks is if Sumner can develop into a leader, a great decision maker, a distributor, and a PG who controls the game, but that's a totally separate issue from what she brings up.

[AviatorX]

In Dana O'Neil's defense, she doesn't disregard Sumner. She just lumps him in with Bluiett and Goodin as great scorers, but that Xavier has "no obvious ball handler."

I generally like Dana, but I can't disagree with her more on this. Sumner is clearly the ball handler/obvious PG. Myles was an off-the-ball shooter who served as an emergency PG. She is just wrong on this.

As many said, I think the biggest question mark for this team is the front court. I am confident they will be good enough, but that is clearly the biggest question mark.

Definitely see your point, especially with Sumner coming in even more improved after this off-season. But last year, if X needed a bucket on a possession I wouldn't have been surprised to see Myles handling and driving the ball with Sumner playing off guard.