College Sports Madness Top 144

RhowdyRam02 · Unread post by **RhowdyRam02** » 8 years ago

Yes, I know it's flawed. Yes, I know they're going to get a lot wrong. No, we don't really have much better to discuss in late June when it comes to college basketball. They've unveiled their first 3 teams, with Arizona St. coming in at 144.

Here's the link to Arizona St. http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/11639

And here's the link to the list so you can see other teams as they get named http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/men ... 4-previews

RhowdyRam02 · Unread post by **RhowdyRam02** » 8 years ago

Canisius logs in at 114 http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/11711

And La Salle at 109 http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/11730

RF1 · Unread post by **RF1** » 8 years ago

It is worth noting that LaSalle was picked for #8 in the A-10 in this listing. This means that there are six conference teams not in the top 144 which is not good for the league. The A-10 had five teams outside the top 144 RPI last year, a season where many felt the league was weaker than usual. College Sports Madness is implying by its list that the league will be even weaker this upcoming year. If that were to be the case, it does not bode well for teams pursuing at large NCAA bids. A weaker league translates to worse RPI ratings and less weight given to conference performance.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 8 years ago

None of these very early predictions means much.
Most are written by people who have never seen 70% of
the teams they're writing about.

RhowdyRam02 · Unread post by **RhowdyRam02** » 8 years ago

I think it's too early for that conclusion yet. While they have an extra team outside of the 144, the teams in the top 144 could be ranked higher then last year. For us an A10 that's slightly top heavier then last year would probably be better for tournament aspirations, especially considering we drop a game against St. Louis and add a game against Dayton.

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 8 years ago

Also, let's say Fordham (who we play twice) is still outside the top 144 but moves up from 240 to 150. Just doing the high level analysis of "teams inside vs team outside" the top 144 wouldn't factor this in. It is true that it wouldn't change our record vs top 50 or top 100, but it could be worth a few spots in the overall rpi rankings which doesn't hurt. And Fordham's quality likely is never going to impact our W-L vs top 100 or top 50.

ramster · Unread post by **ramster** » 8 years ago

RF1 wrote:It is worth noting that LaSalle was picked for #8 in the A-10 in this listing. This means that there are six conference teams not in the top 144 which is not good for the league. The A-10 had five teams outside the top 144 RPI last year, a season where many felt the league was weaker than usual. College Sports Madness is implying by its list that the league will be even weaker this upcoming year. If that were to be the case, it does not bode well for teams pursuing at large NCAA bids. A weaker league translates to worse RPI ratings and less weight given to conference performance.

Agree....
Last year 11 of the 14 A10 Teams were listed in the CSM Top 144:
18 Virginia Commonwealth
27 Dayton
35 Richmond
42 UMASS
57 Rhode Island
63 George Washington
76 Davidson
81 Duquesne
103 LaSalle
127 St Joseph's
144 Fordham

This year there will be only 8 of 14 A10 Teams ranked in Top 144 with LaSalle being the 8th A10 Team ranked 109

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 8 years ago

How many finished in the top 144? What matters when comparing to last year (if that is even something that you feel is worth doing, which I'm not convinced of) is how where teams actually finished, not where they were predicted to finish.

ramster · Unread post by **ramster** » 8 years ago

TruePoint wrote:How many finished in the top 144? What matters when comparing to last year (if that is even something that you feel is worth doing, which I'm not convinced of) is how where teams actually finished, not where they were predicted to finish.

Yes,
I believe that is true with 99% of all Preseason Polls

Plus 99% of all Putts that are short don't go in.

RF1 · Unread post by **RF1** » 8 years ago

TruePoint wrote:How many finished in the top 144? What matters when comparing to last year (if that is even something that you feel is worth doing, which I'm not convinced of) is how where teams actually finished, not where they were predicted to finish.

As my earlier post indicated, nine A-10 schools were in the top 144 RPI as of selection Sunday last year.

RF1 · Unread post by **RF1** » 8 years ago

This list should be much more to the liking of Rhody fans. Would be very good if it turned out true. Ten teams named so far and URI plays five of them. Three A-10 teams named to date with Dayton and URI later likely to appear.

Terkers Top 50

#41 - VCU
#42 - Vanderbilt Commodores
#43 - West Virginia Mountaineers
#44 - Valparaiso Crusaders
#45 - Pittsburgh Panthers
#46 - George Washington Colonials
#47 - Old Dominion Monarchs
#48 - BYU Cougars
#49 - Georgia Bulldogs
#50 - Richmond Spiders

Unread post by **ATPTourFan** » 8 years ago

Nice find, RF!

RF1 · Unread post by **RF1** » 8 years ago

sf2010 · Unread post by **sf2010** » 8 years ago

One of the better write-ups I've seen. Would argue with Watson starting over Iverson, but beyond that it was a pretty solid breakdown.

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 8 years ago

RF1 wrote:
TruePoint wrote:How many finished in the top 144? What matters when comparing to last year (if that is even something that you feel is worth doing, which I'm not convinced of) is how where teams actually finished, not where they were predicted to finish.

As my earlier post indicated, nine A-10 schools were in the top 144 RPI as of selection Sunday last year.

Right. My question was rhetorical. My point was that preseason predictions from last year aren't really relevant, at least to me, because we already have actual information about how teams finished.

PeterRamTime · Unread post by **PeterRamTime** » 8 years ago

39. That's good. That puts us in the tourney!
They didn't have Iffy on the roster.

ramster · Unread post by **ramster** » 8 years ago

PeterRamTime wrote:39. That's good. That puts us in the tourney!
They didn't have Iffy on the roster.

PRT,
I noticed that too. Looking back its kind of confusing. But the writer listed the Projected Starting Line Up and then the Key Newcomers. So if the writer had Iverson in the starting lineup like most everyone seems to have these days, then Watson would not be listed either along with Iffy. So the writer did not list a true roster.

Projected Starting Lineup
PG Jarvis Garrett - 6'0", 175 Sophomore: 6.4 ppg, 2.3 rpg, 2.8 apg
SG Jared Terrell - 6'3", 220 Sophomore: 9.2 ppg, 2.4 rpg, 1.5 apg
SF EC Matthews - 6'5", 195 Junior: 16.9 ppg, 4.6 rpg, 2.0 apg
PF Hassan Martin - 6'7", 230 Junior: 11.4 ppg, 7.7 rpg, 3.1 bpg
C Earl Watson - 6'7", 252 Senior: 2.5 ppg, 2.6 rpg, 0.9 bpg

Key Newcomers
G Four McGlynn - 6'2", 180 Senior: 12.0 ppg, 2.2 rpg, 37% 3FG
G Christon Thompson - 6'4", 190 Freshman: unranked 3-star prospect
F Nikola Akele - 6'7", 185 Freshman: unranked 3-star prospect
F Kuran Iverson - 6'9", 205 Junior: 3.1 ppg, 1.7 rpg, 0.8 apg career @ Memphis
F Leroy Butts - 6'7", 195 Freshman: Consensus Top 250 prospect
F Andre Berry - 6'8", 250 Junior: 10.9 ppg, 5.2 rpg, 63% FG @ JuCo

PeterRamTime · Unread post by **PeterRamTime** » 8 years ago

Ahhhh okay. Didn't put the full roster on there.

RF1 · Unread post by **RF1** » 8 years ago

Terker's Top 50 - FIVE A-10 TEAMS
#28 Dayton Flyers

Teams listed thus far:

#28 - Dayton Flyers
#29 - Texas A&M Aggies
#30 - San Diego St Aztecs
#31 - Oregon Ducks
#32 - Texas Longhorns
#33 - Xavier Musketeers
#34 - Boise St Broncos
#35 - UCLA Bruins
#36 - Notre Dame Fighting Irish
#37 - LSU Tigers
#38 - Florida St Seminoles
#39 - Rhode Island Rams
#40 - Syracuse Orange
#41 - Virginia Commonwealth Rams
#42 - Vanderbilt Commodores
#43 - West Virginia Mountaineers
#44 - Valparaiso Crusaders
#45 - Pittsburgh Panthers
#46 - George Washington Colonials
#47 - Old Dominion Monarchs
#48 - BYU Cougars
#49 - Georgia Bulldogs
#50 - Richmond Spiders

Gonebarongone · Unread post by **Gonebarongone** » 8 years ago

sf2010 wrote:One of the better write-ups I've seen. Would argue with Watson starting over Iverson, but beyond that it was a pretty solid breakdown.

I think if you want to beat up on the bottom 250 teams in D-1 (not unimportant, by the way), you start Iverson over Watson. If you want URI to finally break through, you put Watson at C, Hassan at PF, and let the chips fall where they may on 1,2 and 3. May the best man get minutes. Now, there are matchups and foul problems that make you slide HM to the 5 but I don't think you really reach that next level with a bunch of guards (albeit different heights) rolling around. I do understand that if you go back there are teams that have done it (most have gotten lucky in NCAA draws) but they are the exception.

ace · Unread post by **ace** » 8 years ago

Watson has to get that foul situation under control, for one thing, or it's not really going to matter if he starts or not.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 8 years ago

I don't see Watson starting, ever.
Dan is not going to use him as anything more than Hassan's backup or in certain situations,
that need some bulk.
He told me Iverson is,"An amazing player", and you play you
most talented people.
Not to mention Dan's love for qiuckness on both sides of the ball.
Plus, Watson's foul trouble almost mirrored Oneykaba's from two years ago,
when he got some playing time..

bigappleram · Unread post by **bigappleram** » 8 years ago

I have to agree with the above...GBGs thought process is good in theory, but only if starting Watson vs Iverson were a more fair fight. Will be tough to sit a kid who was a former Top 30 recruit unless Watson shows a huge improvement in court awareness, foot speed and becomes a defensive force consistently. I dont think we will need much scoring from him (Watson), but he hasn't been able to stay on the court long enough to be effective on the defensive end either. If Iverson is anything clsoe to as advertised a 6'10 SF that can put the ball on the deck is going to cause a lot of matchup problems.

Gonebarongone · Unread post by **Gonebarongone** » 8 years ago

I honestly can't recall ever seeing Iverson so I am not going to comment on how great he is. But, I have seen a LOT of transfers over many years and they more often than not fail to meet expectations. Fans can talk themselves into a lot. And, three years out of HS, your ranking means very little to me. 3ppg and the %s are what they are. I would love to be surprised but give me the bigger lineup. That all being said, DH has an affinity for guards, so I think we'll probably see the four guard lineup a bunch.

ace · Unread post by **ace** » 8 years ago

Hurley has an affinity for winning. If they think 4 guards gets them there this season, then that's the way they'll go. Watson has been unable to stay on the court for extended periods of time- that's not anybody talking themselves into anything. Who knows with Iverson? He could be the fourth or fifth best player on this team, and that could still be a good thing.

Gonebarongone · Unread post by **Gonebarongone** » 8 years ago

ace wrote:Hurley has an affinity for winning. If they think 4 guards gets them there this season, then that's the way they'll go. Watson has been unable to stay on the court for extended periods of time- that's not anybody talking themselves into anything. Who knows with Iverson? He could be the fourth or fifth best player on this team, and that could still be a good thing.

I mean, c'mon. Doesn't every coach? And, short of Hank Iba, none are perfect. He is predisposed to recruiting and playing smaller lineups. There is nothing wrong with having a plan for a program and then executing it. He's done a good job so far. Maybe Watson just doesn't have it in him. Talent, fouls, both, whatever. I still think the ceiling is limited when HM is stuck under the rim. Just my two cents. You need to be able to get that last rebound at the end of a game against a good team. Not have to double the block every time against a good team. I honestly think URI will maul decent teams this year with the four guard lineup. Lots of talent. Unsure about going up against complete teams.

RhowdyRam02 · Unread post by **RhowdyRam02** » 8 years ago

I have no idea what to expect this season when it comes to how they use Watson. It seemed like he had turned a corner and the staff wanted to play him more down the stretch and then he hurt his shoulder in practice. Will we see about the same from Watson this season or will he get more minutes if he stays healthy?

ace · Unread post by **ace** » 8 years ago

Gonebarongone wrote:
ace wrote:Hurley has an affinity for winning. If they think 4 guards gets them there this season, then that's the way they'll go. Watson has been unable to stay on the court for extended periods of time- that's not anybody talking themselves into anything. Who knows with Iverson? He could be the fourth or fifth best player on this team, and that could still be a good thing.
I mean, c'mon. Doesn't every coach?

Of course they do. I mean, I think they do. As a Sixers fan, I can't be completely sure of this. I just don't think your assessment of Hurley's ideal team is accurate. If you want to talk about just his body of work at URI, then sure, it is what it is. The 11 or so guys they go into each game with is on him and the rest of the staff, but that doesn't mean it's what it will always be. In the meantime, go with your best guys.

UCH21377 · Unread post by **UCH21377** » 8 years ago

Gonebarongone wrote:I honestly can't recall ever seeing Iverson so I am not going to comment on how great he is. But, I have seen a LOT of transfers over many years and they more often than not fail to meet expectations. Fans can talk themselves into a lot. And, three years out of HS, your ranking means very little to me. 3ppg and the %s are what they are. I would love to be surprised but give me the bigger lineup. That all being said, DH has an affinity for guards, so I think we'll probably see the four guard lineup a bunch.

GBG isn't Iverson actually the tallest player on the roster? How does sitting him make them smaller? Yes his game may not be an inside one but taller is taller.

Billyboy78 · Unread post by **Billyboy78** » 8 years ago

I think the depth is an unknown at this point. We only have 11 players to begin with. I don't expect anything from Iffy and Berry sounds like a project. I would expect some contributions from Earl and Four. That makes 7. How good the depth will be really depends on the two freshmen. I think Thompson will contribute at some point, although it might take some time. I have no idea about Akele. As far as I know, he still has yet to play with anyone on the team. How long before he makes a contribution? The one thing I hate to see is Hassan lose his aggressiveness on defense because fear of foul trouble because of depth concerns. Nine deep would be nice though. We'll see.

Seawrightspostgame · Unread post by **Seawrightspostgame** » 8 years ago

Earl in his first year fighting a shoulder injury and struggling to crack a lineup that leaned heavily on its 2 forwards scored -->79 points last year.

Iverson in two years scored a total of -->84. Yea he was in the doghouse blah blah.

It's unfair to believe that Iverson is going to rise above anything holding him back more than Earl. I understand Iverson is new, ballyhooed, and clearly has the higher ceiling. Still It's not a zero sum game. Earl is an exciting player and I think a small handful of guys on here agree with me.

Shaolin Swat · Unread post by **Shaolin Swat** » 8 years ago

Seawrightspostgame wrote:Earl in his first year fighting a shoulder injury and struggling to crack a lineup that leaned heavily on its 2 forwards scored -->79 points last year.

Iverson in two years scored a total of -->84. Yea he was in the doghouse blah blah.

It's unfair to believe that Iverson is going to rise above anything holding him back more than Earl. I understand Iverson is new, ballyhooed, and clearly has the higher ceiling. Still It's not a zero sum game. Earl is an exciting player and I think a small handful of guys on here agree with me.

Comparing the years skews the argument a bit, as Kuran has scored more career points in fewer career minutes than Earl. I think it's fair to say that Kuran has the higher ceiling of the two, but there still is a lot of uncertainty when discussing both players.

ace · Unread post by **ace** » 8 years ago

Seawrightspostgame wrote:Earl in his first year fighting a shoulder injury and struggling to crack a lineup that leaned heavily on its 2 forwards scored -->79 points last year.

Iverson in two years scored a total of -->84. Yea he was in the doghouse blah blah.

It's unfair to believe that Iverson is going to rise above anything holding him back more than Earl. I understand Iverson is new, ballyhooed, and clearly has the higher ceiling. Still It's not a zero sum game. Earl is an exciting player and I think a small handful of guys on here agree with me.

Comparing Iverson and Watson like that doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but Iverson has played in 26 college games, Watson has played in 31 plus JUCO.

Seawrightspostgame · Unread post by **Seawrightspostgame** » 8 years ago

I just don't think anything is dispositive at this point. Plucking stats and different things to support a point is a dubious process with guys that don't have a big track record.

I don't think it's fair to handicap Earl off of last year between his injury, his first year, and the incumbent front court. I'm excited for Iverson to make good just like everyone else. I just don't think his success comes with the caveat that Earl can't also succeed.

Dre3000 · Unread post by **Dre3000** » 8 years ago

If Earl starts at the 5 we are in serious trouble. Earl is shorter than Iffy and a lot less talented than Iverson, period. To compare career stats is crazy especially when Kuran really only played half a season last yr, Not to mention Earl is 24. As crazy as it might sound, Iverson might have the best NBA potential of our whole roster. There aren't many people in the world with his height and his skill set. To not start him, means we do not have our best 5 players on the court at the beginning of the game. Which to me, would be a mistake.

Gonebarongone · Unread post by **Gonebarongone** » 8 years ago

Dre3000 wrote:If Earl starts at the 5 we are in serious trouble. Earl is shorter than Iffy and a lot less talented than Iverson, period. To compare career stats is crazy especially when Kuran really only played half a season last yr, Not to mention Earl is 24. As crazy as it might sound, Iverson might have the best NBA potential of our whole roster. There aren't many people in the world with his height and his skill set. To not start him, means we do not have our best 5 players on the court at the beginning of the game. Which to me, would be a mistake.

While I don't disagree, how could you possibly know this? His HS ranking should be in the US Archives by now. Unless you watched the sparse Memphis minutes (and would they show anything great?), he is a massive wild card. I have nothing against the kid other than my natural disposition to not trust transfer hype.

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 8 years ago

I can count my criticisms and disagreements with this staff on one hand, but IMO based on the little I've seen of him Earl Watson is the most under-appreciated and underutilized player URI has had in a long time. I don't know and don't care if he should start, but he should definitely play. Also, a discussion about whether Earl or Iverson should start is not really about their relative talents and skill levels, but about the positions they play and whether the things they can bring to the floor are things other players can do or if they are missing elements. I'm sure Iverson would crush Earl in a skills competition, but can he bang? I think Earl can.

Billyboy78 · Unread post by **Billyboy78** » 8 years ago

I think we need a good 15-20 minutes a game from Earl this year. Somebody has to spell both Hassan and Iverson. Who else is going to do it?

RF1 · Unread post by **RF1** » 8 years ago

College Sports Madness predicts our upcoming opponent Houston as the #87 best college hoops team for this season:

http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/11830

2015-16 Opponents in Top 144 thus far
#87 Houston
#109 LaSalle

likely still to be named - Richmond, GW, VCU, Dayton, Davidson, one other A-10 school-possibly SBU, PC, ODU, Valpo, TCU, and UMD/Ill St

Keaney.Blue · Unread post by **Keaney.Blue** » 8 years ago

I want our five most talented players starting, and that includes Hassan and Kuran. Earl will certainly be an asset coming off the bench, but he's not an A-10 starter. Just my humble opinion, I hope he proves me wrong.

Dre3000 · Unread post by **Dre3000** » 8 years ago

Gonebarongone wrote:
Dre3000 wrote:If Earl starts at the 5 we are in serious trouble. Earl is shorter than Iffy and a lot less talented than Iverson, period. To compare career stats is crazy especially when Kuran really only played half a season last yr, Not to mention Earl is 24. As crazy as it might sound, Iverson might have the best NBA potential of our whole roster. There aren't many people in the world with his height and his skill set. To not start him, means we do not have our best 5 players on the court at the beginning of the game. Which to me, would be a mistake.
While I don't disagree, how could you possibly know this? His HS ranking should be in the US Archives by now. Unless you watched the sparse Memphis minutes (and would they show anything great?), he is a massive wild card. I have nothing against the kid other than my natural disposition to not trust transfer hype.

I'm not stating this off of his HS rankings at all. I am going off of hearsay from people within the program (mostly players) that I trust. While Iverson is not a banger, he does possess post skills. But it's his ability to draw his defender away from the basket, and then attack or shoot over him will provide more of a scoring threat than what we have with Earl or Iffy. His wingspan and body control make him just as good if not better defensively. The only thing he really gives up is girth.

Again just my opinion, but I think our BEST line-up consists of Jarvis, EC, Jared, Kuran, and Hass. I am willing to bet that this will be the line-up that starts and finishes games for us this year.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 8 years ago

Agree with dre3000, 100%.
Iverson has a 7' plus wingspan.
I've also heard good things about how hard he's working,
and his positive attitude, and fitting in with his teammates.
Imagine if we ever played zone, with Iverson out at the top of the key
with his length?
Of course, that won't happen, but interesting to think about.

RhowdyRam02 · Unread post by **RhowdyRam02** » 8 years ago

Dre3000 wrote:Again just my opinion, but I think our BEST line-up consists of Jarvis, EC, Jared, Kuran, and Hass. I am willing to bet that this will be the line-up that starts and finishes games for us this year.

I'm not sure who I or Dan would want to take out at the end of games, but with his shooting I'd think you'd want Four on the floor at the end of games we're winning to close them out with his free throw shooting or use his three point shooting to give us a chance in games we're trailing.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 8 years ago

Nobody here knows about Four's defense, speed or ball handling
ability.
Could be a deciding factor.

Dre3000 · Unread post by **Dre3000** » 8 years ago

RhowdyRam02 wrote:
Dre3000 wrote:Again just my opinion, but I think our BEST line-up consists of Jarvis, EC, Jared, Kuran, and Hass. I am willing to bet that this will be the line-up that starts and finishes games for us this year.
I'm not sure who I or Dan would want to take out at the end of games, but with his shooting I'd think you'd want Four on the floor at the end of games we're winning to close them out with his free throw shooting or use his three point shooting to give us a chance in games we're trailing.

Very true, possible Offense/Defense sub situation with one of the bigs but as you said not sure who. That'd be a situation where we are winning and they HAVE to foul. Based on some of the endings to last year my knee jerk is to take Hassan out on O and bring him back after Four or EC has knocked down both freebies. But you'd hate to get stuck in a situation where there's a miss and you now have to play without one of the best rim protectors in the country.

Billyboy78 · Unread post by **Billyboy78** » 8 years ago

Dre3000 wrote:
RhowdyRam02 wrote:
Dre3000 wrote:Again just my opinion, but I think our BEST line-up consists of Jarvis, EC, Jared, Kuran, and Hass. I am willing to bet that this will be the line-up that starts and finishes games for us this year.
I'm not sure who I or Dan would want to take out at the end of games, but with his shooting I'd think you'd want Four on the floor at the end of games we're winning to close them out with his free throw shooting or use his three point shooting to give us a chance in games we're trailing.
Very true, possible Offense/Defense sub situation with one of the bigs but as you said not sure who. That'd be a situation where we are winning and they HAVE to foul. Based on some of the endings to last year my knee jerk is to take Hassan out on O and bring him back after Four or EC has knocked down both freebies. But you'd hate to get stuck in a situation where there's a miss and you now have to play without one of the best rim protectors in the country.

Iverson shot 52% from the line in 27 games at Memphis.

ace · Unread post by **ace** » 8 years ago

Another thing I aways forget about Watson- he'll play his senior year at 25.

ramster · Unread post by **ramster** » 8 years ago

3 months away
TCU overview and preseason ranking

http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/11831

Unread post by **ATPTourFan** » 8 years ago

http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/11836

ramster · Unread post by **ramster** » 8 years ago

http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/11841
So St Bonaventure gets the 7th A10 spot landing at #83
Just guessing at the teams to fill the 6 remaining spots.

URI
Dayton
Davidson
VCU
George Washington
Richmond

7. St Bonaventure 83
8. LaSalle 109

St Joe
UMASS
St Louis
Duquesne
Fordham
George Mason

Login • Register