Three of four college basketball annuals put Wildcats in Top

[HiCat]

Bruce Pascoe Arizona Daily Star Updated 13 hrs ago

The Arizona Wildcats have been rated in the top 10 of three national basketball annuals, while Blue Ribbon Yearbook today pegged them at No. 13.

Lindy's annual has UA at No. 10, while Sporting News and Athlon put the Wildcats at No. 10.

Blue Ribbon also put Oregon at No. 2, behind only Duke, while UCLA was 22 and UA nonconference opponents Michigan State (11) and Gonzaga (14) were also ranked.

Lindy's actually put Oregon at No. 1, while being the only publication to include Colorado (19) in its Top 25.

http://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildcat ... c09a9.html" target="_blank

[Chicat]

And none of these polls will come close to reflecting how teams will be ranked to finish out the season . . . but it's still fun to talk about.

[gumby]

Lindy's still has a great cheesecake.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Oregon at #1 is a bold move. I'm actually sort of happy that for once, we get to fly under the radar in the Pac.

[Beachcat97]

And none of these polls will come close to reflecting how teams will be ranked to finish out the season . . . but it's still fun to talk about.

Why not, Chi? Have you actually checked to see how accurate preseason polls were when compared to where teams have finished?

[Chicat]

And none of these polls will come close to reflecting how teams will be ranked to finish out the season . . . but it's still fun to talk about.

Why not, Chi? Have you actually checked to see how accurate preseason polls were when compared to where teams have finished?

I fully encourage you to undertake just such a study.

[HiCat]

Ducks must be good. Didn't see a no. 1 coming.

[EVCat]

I don't mind pre-season basketball polls, since you play your way into a tournament and win on the court. I have no real sympathy for the 51st best team in the country that gets bumped off the bubble "unfairly because #50 got that last spot and really should have been #52." The annual whine fest about the "screw job" of these mediocre major conference teams just doesn't move me. I might feel a little for a mid-major that probably should have snuck in like a St Mary's, but even then, you had an easier conference to navigate and if you hadn't lost at Wyoming or Montana St, you'd be in.

Football is ridiculous...the poll is still a major influence on the final 4, and having one before October 1 is a joke.

But the hoops polls are fun for me. And it is an easier game to scout because of all the head to head play in AAU.

[dirtbags]

altman, schmaltman.

it's gonna be UA and UCLA, no matter how coy bug plays it here. maybe cal.

[gumby]

And none of these polls will come close to reflecting how teams will be ranked to finish out the season . . . but it's still fun to talk about.

Why not, Chi? Have you actually checked to see how accurate preseason polls were when compared to where teams have finished?

I fully encourage you to undertake just such a study.

Come on. You know BC only assigns homework. Never does it himself.

[Chicat]

And none of these polls will come close to reflecting how teams will be ranked to finish out the season . . . but it's still fun to talk about.

Why not, Chi? Have you actually checked to see how accurate preseason polls were when compared to where teams have finished?

I fully encourage you to undertake just such a study.

Come on. You know BC only assigns homework. Never does it himself.

This is part of the BDW Continuing Education series and it's all about personal and intellectual growth as a fan.

Make sure you show your work Beachcat.

[Beachcat97]

And none of these polls will come close to reflecting how teams will be ranked to finish out the season . . . but it's still fun to talk about.

Why not, Chi? Have you actually checked to see how accurate preseason polls were when compared to where teams have finished?

I fully encourage you to undertake just such a study.

Well, I didn't make the claim; you did.

[Chicat]

And none of these polls will come close to reflecting how teams will be ranked to finish out the season . . . but it's still fun to talk about.

Why not, Chi? Have you actually checked to see how accurate preseason polls were when compared to where teams have finished?

I fully encourage you to undertake just such a study.

Well, I didn't make the claim; you did.

Refute it.

[atlantakat]

And none of these polls will come close to reflecting how teams will be ranked to finish out the season . . . but it's still fun to talk about.

Why not, Chi? Have you actually checked to see how accurate preseason polls were when compared to where teams have finished?

I fully encourage you to undertake just such a study.

Well, I didn't make the claim; you did.

Refute it.

FWIW, Kenpom thinks pre-season rankings are significant enough to be included as a factor in end of the season power rankings and for predicting tournament upsets.

[Beachcat97]

Refute it.

FWIW, Kenpom thinks pre-season rankings are significant enough to be included as a factor in end of the season power rankings and for predicting tournament upsets.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

Chi doesn't like this kind of reasoning. Easier to just put it out there and see what happens.

[atlantakat]

On second thought, its the NYT/538 that uses pre-season rankings as a component for tournament predictions.

[Longhorned]

Ken Pomeroy rightly values the AP pre-season poll specifically, even more than his own pre-season ratings. That's not the same thing as this other collection of projections.

[Chicat]

Refute it.

FWIW, Kenpom thinks pre-season rankings are significant enough to be included as a factor in end of the season power rankings and for predicting tournament upsets.

Chi doesn't like this kind of reasoning. Easier to just put it out there and see what happens.

You couldn't even come up with that yourself. Had to copy someone else's work. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[KaibabKat]

The AP Pre-season poll is a better predictor of NCAA tournament success then is the final AP poll.

[Puerco]

The AP Pre-season poll is a better predictor of NCAA tournament success then is the final AP poll.

Source?

I remember reading that somewhere but can't remember where.

[Beachcat97]

The AP Pre-season poll is a better predictor of NCAA tournament success then is the final AP poll.

Don't get Chi started. It'll get personal really quickly.

[Chicat]

The AP Pre-season poll is a better predictor of NCAA tournament success then is the final AP poll.

Source?

I remember reading that somewhere but can't remember where.

I'd definitely like to read that.

[wooha]

The AP Pre-season poll is a better predictor of NCAA tournament success then is the final AP poll.

Source?

I remember reading that somewhere but can't remember where.

Here's one: http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men ... dicts-ncaa" target="_blank

And: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... oint/?_r=0" target="_blank

These don't specifically address preseason vs. final but they kind of angle that way.

[Chicat]

The AP Pre-season poll is a better predictor of NCAA tournament success then is the final AP poll.

Source?

I remember reading that somewhere but can't remember where.

Here's one: http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men ... dicts-ncaa" target="_blank

And: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... oint/?_r=0" target="_blank

These don't specifically address preseason vs. final but they kind of angle that way.

Interesting stuff. Beachcat, are you taking notes on how to successfully argue a verifiable point? Because somehow after a decade on these forums you're still terrible at it.

What's interesting is that these articles could both prove and disprove my point. Looks like they're a good predictor of postseason success but not necessarily whether teams are better than each other as the regular season goes along.

[KaibabKat]

What is the accepted criteria for determining that one basketball team is better than another team at any point in time?

[EVCat]

Pre season accuracy is easier in basketball, even with the massive turnover, because these kids are so accurately evaluated based upon actual head-to-head play. The outliers will always be the mid-major group of 3 stars that comes together as seniors and kicks McD's ass. But a pre-season poll in hoops can really be rather accurate thanks to all the data, if the voters take the time. And I am going to bet that the voters take more time putting together their pre-season votes than in-season, when they just let box score watching guide.

Football, on the other hand, relies way too much on the pre-season poll to determine its championship contending 4, and is not nearly as easy to scout because team play is a larger component and there aren't "X v Y" videos and results related to individual players playing straight up.

[Beachcat97]

Beachcat, are you taking notes on how to successfully argue a verifiable point? Because somehow after a decade on these forums you're still terrible at it.

What's interesting is that these articles could both prove and disprove my point. Looks like they're a good predictor of postseason success but not necessarily whether teams are better than each other as the regular season goes along.

Lol! Dude, you're the one who came on here and claimed that the preseason polls are worthless. I only questioned how you knew that! Unbelievable.

[threenumberones]

altman, schmaltman.

it's gonna be UA and UCLA, no matter how coy bug plays it here. maybe cal.

It ain't Altwoman, it's Brooks. Best player in the conference imo.

[Spaceman Spiff]

What is the accepted criteria for determining that one basketball team is better than another team at any point in time?

A rough flow chart of questions:

Is one team Duke?
Are you Dick Vitale? (There is a possibility this ends the inquiry)

Are the teams on different sides of the Mississippi river?
Is one team Kansas?
If yes, is this during the Big 12 season or the NCAA tournament?
Do you own a proprietary statistical formula?
If yes, why are you asking me?
Is this a year where UConn will inexplicably win a national championshp?

[Beachcat97]

altman, schmaltman.

it's gonna be UA and UCLA, no matter how coy bug plays it here. maybe cal.

Is anyone convinced that Alford can figure out what to do with that roster? It's even stronger this year, but last year's team was fairly loaded, and look what happened.

[dirtbags]

true - i have no faith in big alf, but he's got too much talent on the roster. already dreading little alf making it rain from behind the arc, plus iham, holiday, ball, welsh, leaf... well, maybe not leaf; lo-mark will dominate him.

who's everyone's darkhorse pick? udub? sc?

[Beachcat97]

true - i have no faith in big alf, but he's got too much talent on the roster. already dreading little alf making it rain from behind the arc, plus iham, holiday, ball, welsh, leaf... well, maybe not leaf; lo-mark will dominate him.

who's everyone's darkhorse pick? udub? sc?

Darkhorse candidates: ASU, USC, UW.

[Spaceman Spiff]

true - i have no faith in big alf, but he's got too much talent on the roster. already dreading little alf making it rain from behind the arc, plus iham, holiday, ball, welsh, leaf... well, maybe not leaf; lo-mark will dominate him.

who's everyone's darkhorse pick? udub? sc?

I think UCLA qualifies as a darkhorse. No one has them ahead of Oregon and us, but they have a good amount of talent.

If not them, SC seems to be in a decent place. UW would be the pick if Murray or Chriss was still around to pair with Fultz.

[Chicat]

Pre season accuracy is easier in basketball, even with the massive turnover, because these kids are so accurately evaluated based upon actual head-to-head play. The outliers will always be the mid-major group of 3 stars that comes together as seniors and kicks McD's ass. But a pre-season poll in hoops can really be rather accurate thanks to all the data, if the voters take the time. And I am going to bet that the voters take more time putting together their pre-season votes than in-season, when they just let box score watching guide.

Football, on the other hand, relies way too much on the pre-season poll to determine its championship contending 4, and is not nearly as easy to scout because team play is a larger component and there aren't "X v Y" videos and results related to individual players playing straight up.

What you can never measure though until you see a team play is how cohesive each unit is and the coaching/in-game adjustments (or lack thereof) they are exposed to. Case in point would be LSU last year. With Simmons, Blakeney, and Victor they were predicted to be a top-20ish team. I think I even saw them borderline top-10 in a few publications. Boy did they shit the bed. Even though those guys largely lived up to what people predicted for them coming out of high school.

[Beachcat97]

Pre season accuracy is easier in basketball, even with the massive turnover, because these kids are so accurately evaluated based upon actual head-to-head play. The outliers will always be the mid-major group of 3 stars that comes together as seniors and kicks McD's ass. But a pre-season poll in hoops can really be rather accurate thanks to all the data, if the voters take the time. And I am going to bet that the voters take more time putting together their pre-season votes than in-season, when they just let box score watching guide.

Football, on the other hand, relies way too much on the pre-season poll to determine its championship contending 4, and is not nearly as easy to scout because team play is a larger component and there aren't "X v Y" videos and results related to individual players playing straight up.

What you can never measure though until you see a team play is how cohesive each unit is and the coaching/in-game adjustments (or lack thereof) they are exposed to. Case in point would be LSU last year. With Simmons, Blakeney, and Victor they were predicted to be a top-20ish team. I think I even saw them borderline top-10 in a few publications. Boy did they shit the bed. Even though those guys largely lived up to what people predicted for them coming out of high school.

You should've led with this post. It has actual substance.

[Chicat]

Pre season accuracy is easier in basketball, even with the massive turnover, because these kids are so accurately evaluated based upon actual head-to-head play. The outliers will always be the mid-major group of 3 stars that comes together as seniors and kicks McD's ass. But a pre-season poll in hoops can really be rather accurate thanks to all the data, if the voters take the time. And I am going to bet that the voters take more time putting together their pre-season votes than in-season, when they just let box score watching guide.

Football, on the other hand, relies way too much on the pre-season poll to determine its championship contending 4, and is not nearly as easy to scout because team play is a larger component and there aren't "X v Y" videos and results related to individual players playing straight up.

What you can never measure though until you see a team play is how cohesive each unit is and the coaching/in-game adjustments (or lack thereof) they are exposed to. Case in point would be LSU last year. With Simmons, Blakeney, and Victor they were predicted to be a top-20ish team. I think I even saw them borderline top-10 in a few publications. Boy did they shit the bed. Even though those guys largely lived up to what people predicted for them coming out of high school.

You should've led with this post. It has actual substance.

Holy shit...

The next time you offer something of substance will be your fucking first.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Pre season accuracy is easier in basketball, even with the massive turnover, because these kids are so accurately evaluated based upon actual head-to-head play. The outliers will always be the mid-major group of 3 stars that comes together as seniors and kicks McD's ass. But a pre-season poll in hoops can really be rather accurate thanks to all the data, if the voters take the time. And I am going to bet that the voters take more time putting together their pre-season votes than in-season, when they just let box score watching guide.

Football, on the other hand, relies way too much on the pre-season poll to determine its championship contending 4, and is not nearly as easy to scout because team play is a larger component and there aren't "X v Y" videos and results related to individual players playing straight up.

What you can never measure though until you see a team play is how cohesive each unit is and the coaching/in-game adjustments (or lack thereof) they are exposed to. Case in point would be LSU last year. With Simmons, Blakeney, and Victor they were predicted to be a top-20ish team. I think I even saw them borderline top-10 in a few publications. Boy did they shit the bed. Even though those guys largely lived up to what people predicted for them coming out of high school.

LSU will always be kind of an outlier because Johnny Jones is a poor man's Scott Drew when it comes to being a good recruiter and pretty abysmal in all other areas.

It depends on what level of talent. Really loaded teams will almost always produce an Elite Eight. If it's less than that, just a fairly talented team, that's where the randomness comes in.

[Chicat]

But there are other teams/coaches where it's true (UCLA immediately springs to mind), and on the flip side there are coaches that get great results from marginal talents. Or there's the case of Gonzaga which seems to do better the less top level talent they have. I have to wonder if poll voters are taking those kinds of historical trends into account or are simply looking at how many 4- and 5-stars are on the roster.

[Spaceman Spiff]

But there are other teams/coaches where it's true (UCLA immediately springs to mind), and on the flip side there are coaches that get great results from marginal talents. Or there's the case of Gonzaga which seems to do better the less top level talent they have. I have to wonder if poll voters are taking those kinds of historical trends into account or are simply looking at how many 4- and 5-stars are on the roster.

I was thinking more the really talented squads. Each year, maybe 4 or 5 teams are in that class for me. Good example is Duke this year. I will be shocked if they do not get to the Elite Eight.

The "great results from marginal talents" crowd, I would think that correlates more with end ranking than tourney performance. Zaga is a good example. They are consistent and well coached and ALWAYS beat the people they should beat. Zaga almost never has a bad loss, and they help their resume with that. Come tourney time, they frequently underachieve relative to ranking because they face equal or more talented teams.

[Chicat]

But there are other teams/coaches where it's true (UCLA immediately springs to mind), and on the flip side there are coaches that get great results from marginal talents. Or there's the case of Gonzaga which seems to do better the less top level talent they have. I have to wonder if poll voters are taking those kinds of historical trends into account or are simply looking at how many 4- and 5-stars are on the roster.

I was thinking more the really talented squads. Each year, maybe 4 or 5 teams are in that class for me. Good example is Duke this year. I will be shocked if they do not get to the Elite Eight.

The "great results from marginal talents" crowd, I would think that correlates more with end ranking than tourney performance. Zaga is a good example. They are consistent and well coached and ALWAYS beat the people they should beat. Zaga almost never has a bad loss, and they help their resume with that. Come tourney time, they frequently underachieve relative to ranking because they face equal or more talented teams.

I was thinking more about teams in the 11-25 range. A preseason top-10 team not making the tourney is fairly shocking. You'll get an Iowa State or Purdue who would seem to have enough talent to compete for a top three seed and will instead completely step on their dick either because of cohesiveness, injuries, or simple bad luck. But usually the top ten teams are traditionally or recently elite, have great home court advantages, impressive recruiting, and quality coaching/training. For a team like Duke to start top ten, play 20+ home games and a bunch of neutral site games in traditional recruiting and alumni hotbeds (NYC/DC) and somehow not end up with a top three seed would be a collapse of unprecedented proportions.

[PHXCATS]

altman, schmaltman.

it's gonna be UA and UCLA, no matter how coy bug plays it here. maybe cal.

Is anyone convinced that Alford can figure out what to do with that roster? It's even stronger this year, but last year's team was fairly loaded, and look what happened.

Beat and advanced further than U of A? Other teams in the conference can and are good.

Miller is better than Altman but both are very good coaches at very good programs.

[Puerco]

The AP Pre-season poll is a better predictor of NCAA tournament success then is the final AP poll.

Source?

I remember reading that somewhere but can't remember where.

Here's one: http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men ... dicts-ncaa" target="_blank

And: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... oint/?_r=0" target="_blank

These don't specifically address preseason vs. final but they kind of angle that way.

Thanks, wooha. Good stuff.

[EVCat]

Pre season accuracy is easier in basketball, even with the massive turnover, because these kids are so accurately evaluated based upon actual head-to-head play. The outliers will always be the mid-major group of 3 stars that comes together as seniors and kicks McD's ass. But a pre-season poll in hoops can really be rather accurate thanks to all the data, if the voters take the time. And I am going to bet that the voters take more time putting together their pre-season votes than in-season, when they just let box score watching guide.

Football, on the other hand, relies way too much on the pre-season poll to determine its championship contending 4, and is not nearly as easy to scout because team play is a larger component and there aren't "X v Y" videos and results related to individual players playing straight up.

What you can never measure though until you see a team play is how cohesive each unit is and the coaching/in-game adjustments (or lack thereof) they are exposed to. Case in point would be LSU last year. With Simmons, Blakeney, and Victor they were predicted to be a top-20ish team. I think I even saw them borderline top-10 in a few publications. Boy did they shit the bed. Even though those guys largely lived up to what people predicted for them coming out of high school.

It is easier...not science. Basketball is just an easier sport to predict, and figure you can have outliers and still have a substantially accurate prognostication.

But, yeah, coach as factor, and program consistency/ability to handle sudden influx of talent is another consideration. You can divide a team pretty quick if you have juniors and seniors who suddenly have to deal with a McDs roster of freshmen (LSU)

[Beachcat97]

altman, schmaltman.

it's gonna be UA and UCLA, no matter how coy bug plays it here. maybe cal.

Is anyone convinced that Alford can figure out what to do with that roster? It's even stronger this year, but last year's team was fairly loaded, and look what happened.

Beat and advanced further than U of A? Other teams in the conference can and are good.

Miller is better than Altman but both are very good coaches at very good programs.

Notice I mentioned Alford, not Altman. The latter is a good coach; the former I'm not sure about.

[rgdeuce]

Ive always like preseason polls. Those dont change for weeks and fans and recruits pay attention. It's nice to get the respect too.

Arizona in the top 10 is just and should be no surprise. Only two or three teams have more raw, on paper talent and depth. Team has 7 or 8 legitimate NBA prospects. How that all plays out, no one knows, but you can't ignore that and most experts likely realize this is a team that can cut down the nets this year, if things play out the right way.