Schedule Release/Official 2015-2016 Season Prediction Thread

[Munson]

Because it is a down year in college basketball. It's impossible to argue otherwise. If you want to say Maryland is as strong as the favorites of past seasons' date=' that's fine. But overall, this is not a strong year. You have more teams ranked high who weren't that great last year (MD, UNC, UVA absent Anderson, etc.), and even the traditional powers who seem to reload (Kentucky, Duke), had very good recruiting classes, but didn't seem to be load up with a bunch of one-and-done, potential 1st overall type players. I don't see the Okafor-Jones type class from them.[/quote']

Virginia lost one game without Anderson. UNC went to the sweet 16, losing to Wisconsin by seven. I already mentioned MD. How were these teams not that great last year? At least three out of five major conferences (B1G, PAC and SEC) should be better then last year. There's not going to be much drop off, if any, with the ACC and Big 12. I just don't see how anyone can say this will be a down year, especially when there has yet to be a game played.

[Reboulet'sStache]

Virginia lost one game without Anderson. UNC went to the sweet 16, losing to Wisconsin by seven. I already mentioned MD. How were these teams not that great last year? At least three out of five major conferences (B1G, PAC and SEC) should be better then last year. There's not going to be much drop off, if any, with the ACC and Big 12. I just don't see how anyone can say this will be a down year, especially when there has yet to be a game played.

UVA was not good without Anderson. They played an easy schedule without him, then he returned, he wasn't very good, and they were downright bad. UNC was not good last year either. Lost like 3 of their last 6 or 7 games, struggled against a bad Harvard team.

If you're saying you don't see how anybody can forecast when no games have been played, that's fine, but it doesn't make sense when talking about what is a forecast (The preseason Top 25).

And where did Maryland end up in KenPom's 2015 rankings? Couldn't have been the Top 25. The metrics hated them last year, thought they just got lucky most of the year. And that, along with those other teams, are now the front runners? Do you really think this year's MD team would be ranked ahead of UK, WI, or Duke from last year? Look at Athlon's preseason rankings that just came out. They have UK and Duke 1-2. Those teams obviously had good classes, but it says something when you can lose that much, bring in the classes they did (which were good, but not game changer classes), and still be seen as the two best teams coming into the next season.

[Munson]

I'm not sure how you can say UVA weren't good. Their only loss without Anderson was at Louisville by two points. They lost to UNC in the ACC tournament and to final four bound Michigan State by six. UNC has pretty much their entire roster coming back from a sweet sixteen team.

It's easier to forecast the top teams in the country than forecasting college basketball as a whole.

I would very much put MD right up there with Duke and Wisconsin last year. Kentucky probably not.

It sounds like your argument is more about the top three teams are not as good this year and not college basketball is down.

[Reboulet'sStache]

It sounds like your argument is more about the top three teams are not as good this year and not college basketball is down.

Because they weren't good. UVA from the point they lost Anderson, and then got him back, weren't good. I get you're saying they didn't lose to the Wake Forest of the world during that stretch, but they doesn't mean they weren't good. And UNC wasn't good either. Go look at the last 10 games they played, and tell me what their record was, and how many impressive wins they had. In the tournament they survived Harvard and beat an SEC team. Not impressive. I was never impressed with them at any point last year. They were a 12 loss team that played like a 12 loss team all year. So the fact that they brought back that same team just doesn't scream "front runner" in most years.

And I'd say that is what "down year in X sport" always means. I dont' think when people say it's a "down year in 'X' sport," they mean every team is worse. They mean if you took the top teams from this year, and put them against the top teams from previous years, previous years would be better, and because the top teams are not as good, they are more likely to lose to lower ranked teams. MD, UNC, Duke, Kentucky, UVA, etc., just don't seem like the top teams of years past. As I said, I can't imagine there has ever been a team finish so low in KenPom's rankings, and start the year number 1 the previous year. So in a year with so much parity, 5 losses seems pretty good. I'd take that in a second. This just seems like one of those UCONN NC type years.

[TakebackOPACY]

Because they weren't good. UVA from the point they lost Anderson' date=' and then got him back, weren't good. I get you're saying they didn't lose to the Wake Forest of the world during that stretch, but they doesn't mean they weren't good. And UNC wasn't good either. Go look at the last 10 games they played, and tell me what their record was, and how many impressive wins they had. In the tournament they survived Harvard and beat an SEC team. Not impressive. I was never impressed with them at any point last year. They were a 12 loss team that played like a 12 loss team all year. So the fact that they brought back that same team just doesn't scream "front runner" in most years.

And I'd say that is what "down year in X sport" always means. I dont' think when people say it's a "down year in 'X' sport," they mean every team is worse. They mean if you took the top teams from this year, and put them against the top teams from previous years, previous years would be better, and because the top teams are not as good, they are more likely to lose to lower ranked teams. MD, UNC, Duke, Kentucky, UVA, etc., just don't seem like the top teams of years past. [b']As I said, I can't imagine there has ever been a team finish so low in KenPom's rankings, and start the year number 1 the previous year.[/b] So in a year with so much parity, 5 losses seems pretty good. I'd take that in a second. This just seems like one of those UCONN NC type years.

Hmm, MD finished #32 in the Kenpom rankings last year and MAYBE they'll be pre-season AP #1 this year(, though I still wouldn't bet on it). Kentucky finished #67 in Kenpom in 2013 and was the 2013-14 pre-season AP #1.

UNC was 7-3 over their last 10 games with close losses to the national champs (Duke), the national runners-up (Wisconsin), and Elite 8 finisher (Notre Dame, who lost to Kentucky by 2 in the tourney). They beat then #14 Louisville and then #3 Virginia. Why not look it up yourself?

[Reboulet'sStache]

Hmm, MD finished #32 in the Kenpom rankings last year and MAYBE they'll be pre-season AP #1 this year(, though I still wouldn't bet on it). Kentucky finished #67 in Kenpom in 2013 and was the 2013-14 pre-season AP #1.

UNC was 7-3 over their last 10 games with close losses to the national champs (Duke), the national runners-up (Wisconsin), and Elite 8 finisher (Notre Dame, who lost to Kentucky by 2 in the tourney). They beat then #14 Louisville and then #3 Virginia. Why not look it up yourself?

I should have said "brought back." Teams like Kentucky makes sense because they sign basically a whole new team each year.

And 7-3 is my point exactly. 7-3 is an okay stretch. That's it. They lost against the best teams they played, unless you really think UVA was worthy of being the number 3 team at the end of the year. They were horrible, and I think any UVA fan would admit that. They had an easy stretch without Anderson, struggled horribly when they got him back. Lost against the teams with a pulse they played, barely got by in the First Round of the tourney, and then was bounced.

UNC was a team that played to their competition last year, which is the hallmark of an average team. The really good teams they competed with, but lost to. The good to average teams they struggled with, sometimes winning, sometimes losing. But never once did they impose their will on anybody. They will be highly ranked not because of what they did last year, because it wasn't impressive. But because they bring everybody back from an unimpressive team.

[Munson]

You keep talking about teams struggling in the first round of the tournament. That is pretty common these days. Notre Dame and Louisville struggled in the first round last year. Were they horrible also?

[TakebackOPACY]

I should have said "brought back." Teams like Kentucky makes sense because they sign basically a whole new team each year.

And 7-3 is my point exactly. 7-3 is an okay stretch. That's it. They lost against the best teams they played' date=' unless you really think UVA was worthy of being the number 3 team at the end of the year. They were horrible, and I think any UVA fan would admit that. They had an easy stretch without Anderson, struggled horribly when they got him back. Lost against the teams with a pulse they played, barely got by in the First Round of the tourney, and then was bounced.

UNC was a team that played to their competition last year, which is the hallmark of an average team. The really good teams they competed with, but lost to. The good to average teams they struggled with, sometimes winning, sometimes losing. But never once did they impose their will on anybody. They will be highly ranked not because of what they did last year, because it wasn't impressive. But because they bring everybody back from an unimpressive team.[/quote']

You said it was highly doubtful a team has ever finished so low in kenpom and then was ranked preseason #1. Just a couple years ago, a team finished far worse and then was ranked preseason #1. So then you explain it?! Of course there's an explanation, that's why it happened... just like there would be an explanation for MD this year (Carter, Sulaimon, Stone are new; Melo now has a backup in Brantley; NBA prospect Trimble and fringe NBA prospect Layman both return; Nickens, Wiley, Cekovsky are no longer freshmen; Dodd returns as well and add an unknown factor with a supposedly good pedigree in Bender.). If MD's 12-man roster had jerseys that said, "Kentucky", you'd probably be comfortable picking MD as pre-season Top 1, 2, or 3 and not blaming it on a "down year".

Parity is the norm; last year's Kentucky roster was the fluke, not this year's more obvious parity.

[Reboulet'sStache]

Completely forgot about this thread until a poster reminded me of it yesterday.

UVA lost. But I'm sure number 6 teams lose the second game of the year to second tier A10 teams every year.

[Slappy]

Completely forgot about this thread until a poster reminded me of it yesterday.

UVA lost. But I'm sure number 6 teams lose the second game of the year to second tier A10 teams every year.

The year we lost in the national semifinal game, we started 1-3 including a loss to second tier A10 team Dayton.

[ArtVanDelay]

Completely forgot about this thread until a poster reminded me of it yesterday.

UVA lost. But I'm sure number 6 teams lose the second game of the year to second tier A10 teams every year.

It was at George Washington and GW has a decent squad. And yeah, I'm pretty sure it does happen every year.

What exactly does that have to do with Maryland?

[Reboulet'sStache]

It was at George Washington and GW has a decent squad. And yeah, I'm pretty sure it does happen every year.

What exactly does that have to do with Maryland?

It doesn't happen every single year. The number 3 team doesn't need a late second half comeback to overcome "Rider." The number 1 team in the country doesn't lose 3 games into the year against Northern Iowa.

And it doesn't have anything to do with Maryland except to the extent that a lot of people got butthurt when I said that this looks like a down year in college basketball, I could see the best team in the country having a few more losses than you would see in normal years, and people took that as me disrespecting Maryland.

It's just funny that UVA and UNC have looked exactly like I said they would this year.

[TakebackOPACY]

It doesn't happen every single year. The number 3 team doesn't need a late second half comeback to overcome "Rider." The number 1 team in the country doesn't lose 3 games into the year against Northern Iowa.

And it doesn't have anything to do with Maryland except to the extent that a lot of people got butthurt when I said that this looks like a down year in college basketball' date=' I could see the best team in the country having a few more losses than you would see in normal years, and people took that as me disrespecting Maryland.

It's just funny that UVA and UNC have looked exactly like I said they would this year.[/quote']

Different people whom you say were "butthurt" are/were debating you on different points. I, for one, am confused by and probably disagree you on two points.

1. Although there are perennial powerhouse schools, last year is the only year since the days when most kids stayed 4 years that I remember an easy-to-predict-they'll-be dominant team like 2014-15 Kentucky. And last year was the outlying year based on how many elite freshmen there were. I could be reminded differently; but without going to google for this post, that's how I remember it.
2. I'm still confused every time I read your wording that it is a "down year for college basketball". These teams pulling off the upsets are college basketball teams too.

[TakebackOPACY]

Concerning MD, I didn't chime into this thread with my own prediction because I wasn't enjoying this thread... but I would've picked them to lose to Georgetown and UNC, and have a couple closer than expected calls before losing @ Wisconsin and falling near the bottom of the Top 20... then improving and playing their way back up to maybe an NCAA #2-seed with 5 or 6 losses. I figured everyone would be saying "what's wrong" and then they'd be fine.

Of course after Georgetown lost their first game, it would've been more surprising to lose to them. And Wisconsin doesn't look too good, but some other Big Ten teams do. We'll see.

On a separate note, Northern Iowa finished the regular season last year ranked #10 in the AP poll. It used to be that teams like that had a hard time getting good teams on their schedule. They play veteran-laden Iowa State next month. Maybe we'll find out a lot about both teams then. (And Paige is out for UNC; but I hate the 'heels, so I certainly don't want to continue debating their worthiness of a high ranking.)

[Reboulet'sStache]

Different people whom you say were "butthurt" are/were debating you on different points. I, for one, am confused by and probably disagree you on two points.

1. Although there are perennial powerhouse schools, last year is the only year since the days when most kids stayed 4 years that I remember an easy-to-predict-they'll-be dominant team like 2014-15 Kentucky. And last year was the outlying year based on how many elite freshmen there were. I could be reminded differently; but without going to google for this post, that's how I remember it.
2. I'm still confused every time I read your wording that it is a "down year for college basketball". These teams pulling off the upsets are college basketball teams too.

I disagree with your first point. I think Number 1 Seeds in the tourney usually have 5 or less losses. I think there is the type of year where you could a bunch of number 1 seeds have more. Obviously the days of 1991 UNLV are over. But it's all relative. There are "down years" even in the era of parity/One and Done. Teams like Kentucky and Duke signed the best recruiting classes, but their classes weren't seen as having a Towns or Okafor in them, as the classes they have coming in next year do where everybody has the two top ranked teams for next year right now. So this year was unique in that the teams that usually reload, reloaded, but didn't reload with those kind of "just add water ready" type recruits that we have seen recently. And I think you see that on the court. That Duke-Kentucky game was ugly. Duke didn't look like it belonged anywhere near the Top 10, and Kentucky didn't look good either. Yet that was the number 2 and number 6 team in the country. The number 1 team has already lost. If you want to argue Northern Iowa is a good program, I agree. But this is a rebuilding year for them. This is the type of program that makes a run as a senior team, and then you don't hear from for a little bit because they can't sign bluechip players, and then they make a run again as a senior team. And yet they are beating the number 1 team in the country, who was a 10 loss team last year, during the rebuild era. That's not the norm, even during this era of college basketball we live in.