Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MichHusker

Way too early 2018-19 BTN Standings

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, swoof said:

Rothstein has us at #23 in his first too-early Top 25. He doesn't include X. Johnson in his key newcomers though. Only Davis.

 

https://frshoopz.com/cbb/rothstein-way-too-early-cbb-top-25-for-2018-19/

Davis wont play much, if any at all if Palmer and Copeland both come back.   Johnson will play alot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These advance articles are typically worthless.  They just go on the prior year.  They also have no clue what newly-eligible transfers and newcomers bring to the table (thus not discerning the difference between Davis and Johnson and likely getting it dead wrong).  

 

Thus, we were going to finish 13th last year, and last in 2013-14.    Now 3rd next year, which is too high.   I would have loved to see a preview article last year say "Despite finishing at 6-12 in the league last year, Nebraska has an influx of talent this year and has a good chance to finish in the upper half of the league".   But to my knowledge there were no such articles.  Just predictions to finish 13th.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, HB said:

These advance articles are typically worthless.  They just go on the prior year.  They also have no clue what newly-eligible transfers and newcomers bring to the table (thus not discerning the difference between Davis and Johnson and likely getting it dead wrong).  

 

Thus, we were going to finish 13th last year, and last in 2013-14.    Now 3rd next year, which is too high.   I would have loved to see a preview article last year say "Despite finishing at 6-12 in the league last year, Nebraska has an influx of talent this year and has a good chance to finish in the upper half of the league".   But to my knowledge there were no such articles.  Just predictions to finish 13th.  

 

Never too early to figure out where the Miles statue will be located

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bigred4 said:

No reason not to be in top 4 again assuming JPJ and Copeland come back.  

 

Kind of a big assumption.  Which means these early predictions are an utter waste of time.   if I want to get excited, I guess I'll go for a sure thing and hook up the porn channel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, nustudent said:

Davis wont play much, if any at all if Palmer and Copeland both come back.   Johnson will play alot

yeah, that is what i was thinking which kind of implies what other people in this thread are saying about these early predictions not being worth much but it is something to get excited about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we all agree that these early rankings don't mean much but they do mean something because they factor into who we play for the ACC-B1G challenge and potentially the Gavitt Games

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, swoof said:

yeah, that is what i was thinking which kind of implies what other people in this thread are saying about these early predictions not being worth much but it is something to get excited about.

Don't think they are anything to get excited about, but worth discussing.   Obviously, a lot can happen between now and even the middle of May which can impact next year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think these preconceived notions about teams and conferences matter a little more than we think when talking about preseason brackets or top 25 polls. The thought early this year was that the B1G was weak and the SEC was strong and we all saw how that played out throughout the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MichHusker said:

I think these preconceived notions about teams and conferences matter a little more than we think when talking about preseason brackets or top 25 polls. The thought early this year was that the B1G was weak and the SEC was strong and we all saw how that played out throughout the season.

 

What matters is beating non-conference major conference teams, like Creighton, St. John's, Boston College, Kansas, Clemson, Virginia Tech, UCLA, Villanova, Cincinnati, Tennessee, Miami, etc. We are 2-12 in the last three years in such games. If we want to be considered one of the 25 best teams early on and not have to play catch up every year, then we need to be MUCH better in November and December. 2-12 against power 5 schools isn't going to cut it. It will be highly disappointing if we go 0-2 at the Hall of Fame Classic and lose to Creighton and our ACC match-up on the road next year. We need to win 3 of those 4 minimum to have positive momentum early in the season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup...we shall see how the roster looks, say...around September 1st or so.  I have my rose colored glasses on which is telling me we will have a high level addition, and that we will have no further attrition...but yuppers, we shall see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Huskerpapa said:

Yup...we shall see how the roster looks, say...around September 1st or so.  I have my rose colored glasses on which is telling me we will have a high level addition, and that we will have no further attrition...but yuppers, we shall see.

 

Per the AWIII law, I'm certainly going to wait until after June 26.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are my way too early standings:

 

1. Illinois (0-0)

1. Indiana (0-0)

1. Iowa (0-0)

1. Maryland (0-0)

1. Michigan (0-0)

1. Michigan State (0-0)

1. Minnesota (0-0)

1. Nebraska (0-0)

1. Northwestern (0-0)

1. Ohio State (0-0)

1. Penn State (0-0)

1. Purdue (0-0)

1. Rutgers (0-0)

1. Wisconsin (0-0)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Noah121 said:

Here are my way too early standings:

 

1. Illinois (0-0)

1. Indiana (0-0)

1. Iowa (0-0)

1. Maryland (0-0)

1. Michigan (0-0)

1. Michigan State (0-0)

1. Minnesota (0-0)

1. Nebraska (0-0)

1. Northwestern (0-0)

1. Ohio State (0-0)

1. Penn State (0-0)

1. Purdue (0-0)

1. Rutgers (0-0)

1. Wisconsin (0-0)

 

You obviously have Iowegia ranked way too high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Noah121 said:

Here are my way too early standings:

 

1. Illinois (0-0)

1. Indiana (0-0)

1. Iowa (0-0)

1. Maryland (0-0)

1. Michigan (0-0)

1. Michigan State (0-0)

1. Minnesota (0-0)

1. Nebraska (0-0)

1. Northwestern (0-0)

1. Ohio State (0-0)

1. Penn State (0-0)

1. Purdue (0-0)

1. Rutgers (0-0)

1. Wisconsin (0-0)

 

I'd make one slight change:

 

1. Illinois (0-0)

1. Indiana (0-0)

1. Iowa (0-0)

1. Maryland (0-0)

1. Michigan (0-0)

1. Michigan State (0-0)

1. Minnesota (0-0)

1. Nebraska (0-0)

1. Northwestern (0-0)

1. Ohio State (0-0)

1. Penn State (0-0)

1. Purdue (0-0)

1. Wisconsin (0-0)

14. Rutgers (0-0)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Noah121 said:

Here are my way too early standings:

 

1. Illinois (0-0)

1. Indiana (0-0)

1. Iowa (0-0)

1. Maryland (0-0)

1. Michigan (0-0)

1. Michigan State (0-0)

1. Minnesota (0-0)

1. Nebraska (0-0)

1. Northwestern (0-0)

1. Ohio State (0-0)

1. Penn State (0-0)

1. Purdue (0-0)

1. Rutgers (0-0)

1. Wisconsin (0-0)

 

Yeah but how does the tie breaker work out for that one on Big 10 seeding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×