Texas Tech and Arizona State, IMO, should both behind West Virginia and FSU for sure. I’d also argue Creighton falls slightly behind them, and Tennessee as well. Tennessee brings in a ton of talent, but it’s young and they were barely over .500 last season.
So for me, the 10-15 range might look something more like:
10. West Virginia
11. FSU
12. Creighton (assuming Mahoney returns)
13. Tennessee
14. Kentucky
15. Arizona State (assuming Remy Martin returns)
Texas Tech would probably be in the 18-23 range for me. Also, I overlooked this in the first post, but Stanford should be significantly higher than 32. I’d have them within a spot or two of Texas Tech.
Regarding Miami, a coach has to do what is best for the team. Period. If Chris Lykes can’t handle being benched, you try to talk with him and help him see that everyone has a role to play and no one is bigger than the team. If he becomes a cancer, you remove him from the team. It’s that simple.
I do agree that there isn’t much difference between 35 and 45 when talking about a team’s post season potential. Nonetheless, a ranking is a ranking for a reason. Why make one if we are gonna treat 33 as exactly the same as 46, you know? And for me, part of a preseason ranking should always include both the upside and downside potential. That way, when you do the comparison at the end of the season you did a few weeks ago, you minimize the chances you have a team that’s an extreme outlier.
For example—Kentucky could have it all come together with their talented freshmen and Sarr, and end up a top 5 team. But they could also have freshmen be freshmen and Sarr not be a great fit and they finish more in the 30-35 range. So ranking them around 15-18 feels right and factors in both their upside potential and downside risk.
Having Miami in the 30 range doesn’t seem to be accounting enough for their downside risk. Having Stanford also in the 30 range doesn’t seem to account enough for their upside potential.
Regarding your JI/Kai Jones question, I’m not sure I follow. I’m saying JI and Kai Jones are similar in length and athleticism and I watched the light begin to click for JI at FSU, so I can imagine what it would look like if the light began to click for Kai in the same way.
It'll be easier to look for disparities between teams once I fill-out the complete rosters with stats. As it was, I actually thought Daejon Davis had graduated. So yes, Stanford probably should be a little higher. Maybe in the 23-30 range for me.
Arizona State and Creighton are kind of similar, IMO. They both have a dynamic trio, with Arizona State led by Remy Martin, Josh Christopher, and Alonzo Verge - and Creighton's trio consisting of Zegarowksi, Ballock, and Mahoney. I had Martin and Zegarowksi in my top 10 players. Ballock and Christopher are good enough to be HM All-American/1st Team All-Conference type players. So, really really talented backcourts... but the interior scoring, depth, and defense will be the big question marks. So perhaps they're both a little more vulnerable than my evaluation; I just really like the aspect of having three very, very reliable players... ASU would benefit a lot if Luther Muhammad (Ohio State) and/or Holland Woods (Portland State) become eligible.
I like Texas Tech where I have them, personally. I'm kind of bullish on Terrence Shannon. I think he is poised for a huge breakout year, All-American potential. And then you have transfers Marcus Santos-Silva (13 ppg, 9 reb at VCU) and Joel Ntambwe (12 ppg, 5 reb at UNLV). I think they're both capable of 2nd or 3rd Team All-Conference. Throw in a proven Kyler Edwards (11 ppg, 4 reb, 3 assists) and two top 50 recruits, and you've got yourself 6 really good players. Mac McClung (Georgetown) and Jamarius Burton (Wichita State) are expected to sit the year, but who knows how explosive their team could be with either one of them included.
Tennessee is a very interesting case. They weren't elite in 2020 like they had been the previous two years. But, I fully expect them to return to that status. Fulkerson is incredibly efficient. Pons is crazy athletic, and looks like a future pro. JJJ and Vescovi showed some promise. And yes, UT is bringing in a stud freshmen class, two five-star recruits and another top 100 player. They're also bringing in two quality transfers in Victor Bailey (7 ppg, 39.9% 3-pt, 91% ft at Oregon) and EJ Anosike (16 ppg, 11 reb at Sacred Heart). They have talent and depth. I think they have huge upside.
...Lykes is definitely talented. He's fun to watch. His performance against Illinois, in Champagne, was one of the best individual games by an ACC player last season, IMO. But yes, definitely want to see better ball movement. So perhaps that cuts into their ceiling as a team. Certainly you want to evaluate the upside and downside of each team. And yes, the rankings should mean something. Miami has a ton of talent - 6 of their guys are top 100 recruits. Just a matter of seeing guys like Wong and Beverly take on bigger roles, McGusty being a little more effective, Brooks being a gritty rebounder/rim protector, and again, better ball movement. I think the ranking is justified. But, I'll reevaluate in October and perhaps change the ranking a little bit.
In regards to Isaac and Kai Jones, I simply misread what you wrote. I thought you were saying Kai Jones was competing in the same games as Isaac, and you got to see them up close in person. I was only wondering how developed KJ would have been, seeing how he's 3 years younger. Didn't realize you were just comparing their playing style - and all of the untapped potential that they both possessed.