Michigan (-8.5) @ Illinois

[dukedevilz]

I think the #21 ranking was fair. Most people/places had them around 15-25. Ranking them 34th was dumb and as long as that guy continues to defend that ranking I will continue to call it dumb.

UM had 2 returning guys (both below average shooters) that averaged more than 15 minutes a game. Sorry, but that's not exactly a proven product. Preseason rankings are amazingly difficult because the turnover rate is so high; teams are constantly depending on freshmen, transfers, or role players taking on bigger roles. So yes, I don't think my ranking is unreasonable. I also had Texas Tech ranked 48th, which honestly is a more egregious mistake. I didn't hear you saying boo about that.

 

[LetsGoDuke301]

Hindsight is a son of a bitch.

 

[hailtoyourvictor]

UM had 2 returning guys (both below average shooters) that averaged more than 15 minutes a game. Sorry, but that's not exactly a proven product. Preseason rankings are amazingly difficult because the turnover rate is so high; teams are constantly depending on freshmen, transfers, or role players taking on bigger roles. So yes, I don't think my ranking is unreasonable. I also had Texas Tech ranked 48th, which honestly is a more egregious mistake. I didn't hear you saying boo about that.

You see? It's selective research like that that makes your doubling down look so stupid.

Michigan returned 5 people from an 8 man rotation that went 33-8 last season and made the National Championship Game. They brought in a 5* recruit (Brazdeikas) and another top 75 recruit (Johns). Michigan returned it's top 3 or 4 defenders from a team that had #3 defense in college basketball last year.


I didn't know anything about Texas Tech that you didn't know. I knew stuff about Michigan that you didn't know and I figured you would be receptive to that info. Instead, you doubled down on that 1% of time you put into Michigan.

 

[hailtoyourvictor]

Hindsight is a son of a bitch.

It's not hindsight when you are calling it out before any games are played.

 

[dukedevilz]

Hindsight is a son of a bitch.

A lot of wrong predictions, no doubt. Would love to see other people put together a top 50. It's inevitable that you'll swing and miss on multiple teams.

And I doubt many (any) people remember this, but the main reason I put together a preseason top 50 to begin with, was simply to get a better overview of the rosters. Turnover for power schools is out of control. Here's what I said in my initial statement:

I've decided to unveil my preseason top 50. My main objective for putting this together was to get an accurate breakdown of the complete rosters of elite teams. Roster turnover is outrageously high for teams competing in the power conferences. Graduating seniors, NBA Early entrants, transfers out, transfers in, redshirts, top prospects coming in. It's hard to follow.

 

[tw3301]

**** Michigan.

 

[hailtoyourvictor]

UM had 2 returning guys (both below average shooters) that averaged more than 15 minutes a game. Sorry, but that's not exactly a proven product.

By the second half of the season....

Matthews 29mpg (redshirt sophomore)
Simpson 29mpg (true sophomore)
Livers 17mpg (true freshman)
Poole 14mpg (true freshman)
Teske 11mpg (redshirt sophomore)


Returning those 5 and adding 5* Brazdeikas and top 75 Johns and still having them ranked 34th was dumb.

 

[hailtoyourvictor]

A lot of wrong predictions, no doubt. Would love to see other people put together a top 50. It's inevitable that you'll swing and miss on multiple teams.

And I doubt many (any) people remember this, but the main reason I put together a preseason top 50 to begin with, was simply to get a better overview of the rosters. Turnover for power schools is out of control. Here's what I said in my initial statement:

I've decided to unveil my preseason top 50. My main objective for putting this together was to get an accurate breakdown of the complete rosters of elite teams. Roster turnover is outrageously high for teams competing in the power conferences. Graduating seniors, NBA Early entrants, transfers out, transfers in, redshirts, top prospects coming in. It's hard to follow.

So how come you dismiss it when a fan who follows Michigan more than the 1% of the time you put into Michigan's roster tries to explain stuff to you? You JUST realized that Rivals 5* ranking was omitted from the RSCI list you used. I pointed that out months ago but you dismissed it.

 

[dukedevilz]

You see? It's selective research like that that makes your doubling down look so stupid.

Michigan returned 5 people from an 8 man rotation that went 33-8 last season and made the National Championship Game. They brought in a 5* recruit (Brazdeikas) and another top 75 recruit (Johns). Michigan returned it's top 3 or 4 defenders from a team that had #3 defense in college basketball last year.


I didn't know anything about Texas Tech that you didn't know. I knew stuff about Michigan that you didn't know and I figured you would be receptive to that info. Instead, you doubled down on that 1% of time you put into Michigan.

Selective Research? It's putting rosters together for 70+ teams and trying to see which rosters look the most complete. That's not easy stuff. And I did enough research to know that Iggy wasn't hitting his 3s in the EYBL games. Collectively, he appeared to be a 4-star recruit. Didn't see him on the top 25 anywhere. And Livers, Poole, Teske weren't exactly big-time recruits.

Bringing back 5 your top 8 guys is much more compelling if 3 of those guys weren't bench players. It's not unprecedented for teams to have subpar years, even after reaching the NCAA Final and returning a lot of players. Duke in 95 and UConn in 2012 are a few that come to mind.

 

[hailtoyourvictor]

**** Michigan.

You're in a Michigan @ Illinois thread. Take a lap.

 

[dukedevilz]

So how come you dismiss it when a fan who follows Michigan more than the 1% of the time you put into Michigan's roster tries to explain stuff to you? You JUST realized that Rivals 5* ranking was omitted from the RSCI list you used. I pointed that out months ago but you dismissed it.

I recognized that 5-star ranking by Rivals back in October, but I still didn't see Iggy in any ranking in the top 25. Still a good player, but not someone I foresaw as an All-American type.

Also, I heard fans from Louisville and Florida yapping about my rankings, too (maybe a few others?). When homers complain about the ranking, I mean, that's kind of expected. That's what homers do. I thought my ranking was reasonable for Michigan and for Texas Tech, considering what they lost. I was certainly wrong on both accounts. I'm ready to move on. You might want to do the same.

 

[hailtoyourvictor]

I recognized that 5-star ranking by Rivals back in October, but I still didn't see Iggy in any ranking in the top 25. Still a good player, but not someone I foresaw as an All-American type.

Also, I heard fans from Louisville and Florida yapping about my rankings, too (maybe a few others?). When homers complain about the ranking, I mean, that's kind of expected. That's what homers do. I thought my ranking was reasonable for Michigan and for Texas Tech, considering what they lost. I was certainly wrong on both accounts. I'm ready to move on. You might want to do the same.

Bossi said that if Rivals ranked foreign players, Brazdeikas would have been ranked in the top 30. I don't get how you recognize that ESPN and Rivals ratings weren't computed in the RSCI ranking and still considered the #74 RSCI ranking fair.

This will be the third straight year my own preseason ranking for Michigan has been too low. It's not like I go into every season thinking Michigan is going to be better than they actually are.

 

[hailtoyourvictor]

Selective Research? It's putting rosters together for 70+ teams and trying to see which rosters look the most complete. That's not easy stuff. And I did enough research to know that Iggy wasn't hitting his 3s in the EYBL games. Collectively, he appeared to be a 4-star recruit. Didn't see him on the top 25 anywhere. And Livers, Poole, Teske weren't exactly big-time recruits.

Bringing back 5 your top 8 guys is much more compelling if 3 of those guys weren't bench players. It's not unprecedented for teams to have subpar years, even after reaching the NCAA Final and returning a lot of players. Duke in 95 and UConn in 2012 are a few that come to mind.

Livers (who started 16 of 18 conference games, btw) and Poole were playing 17mpg and 14mpg as true freshmen on a team that won 33 games. They weren't just end of the bench guys. They were key parts of the rotation of a top 10 team.

 

[LetsGoDuke301]

It's not hindsight when you are calling it out before any games are played.

It's hindsight when you are using what has taken place to challenge what was predicted. It is fine to bring up the fact that someone's prediction was wrong. But when that person gave reasoning behind their prediction, openly admitted to being wrong and reevaluated their outlook based on actual results, it might be time to move on.

Don't get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoy your debates, you are one of the most passionate fans on this board. But dukedevils didn't knock your sister up, bro.

 

[hailtoyourvictor]

It's hindsight when you are using what has taken place to challenge what was predicted. It is fine to bring up the fact that someone's prediction was wrong. But when that person gave reasoning behind their prediction, openly admitted to being wrong and reevaluated their outlook based on actual results, it might be time to move on.

Don't get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoy your debates, you are one of the most passionate fans on this board. But dukedevils didn't knock your sister up, bro.

You must not be reading his posts. He continues to double and triple down that the #34 ranking was reasonable. If he were to say something like "True, I should have considered the fact that Brazdeikas being a foreign player made his RSCI ranking very flawed" or "True, I should have put more weight into how good Michigan's defense would be again by returning it's top 3 defenders"...... then it would be fine to move on.

Rather, he is double and tripling down on the premise that everything that has happened has been unpredictable and that there was no reason to rank Michigan higher preseason. So I'll continue to point out how dumb that is.

 

[sgrooms]

I'm starting to think he did knock your sister up.

 

[tw3301]

You're in a Michigan @ Illinois thread. Take a lap.

My mistake, **** Michigan and Illinois.

 

[WeAreDePaul]

I'm starting to think he did knock your sister up.

or at least he should

 

[dragonhawk1855]

Hindsight is a son of a bitch.

where was Iowa ranked?

just curious as they returned their top 9 players [5 starters] 4 4* players by ESPN. and added top 100 4* players in Wieskamp and Connor McCaffrey. making it 6 4* players with 4 4* top 100 players by ESPN.

 

[hailtoyourvictor]

where was Iowa ranked?

just curious as they returned their top 9 players [5 starters] 4 4* players by ESPN. and added top 100 4* players in Wieskamp and Connor McCaffrey. making it 6 4* players with 4 4* top 100 players by ESPN.

@LetsGoDuke301 @dukedevilz

You guys thought I was bad? Have fun with this one!

 

[dukedevilz]

I still think it's funny that you're okay with a preseason ranking in the low 20's... but not with 34. Essentially, you're arguing between a preseason 6 seed and a 9 seed.