Jump to content

Top 144 Men's Basketball Teams for 2012-2013


Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

Middle Tennessee State checks in at No. 82. They should be paying a visit to the JAR this year ... and deserve payback for the beatdown they gave the Zips last year in Murfreesboro.

I wonder how high the Zips will be ranked in this poll? The Zips have gotten a lot of preseason national love from what I've seen so far, but considering MTSU is at 82 and they return four starters from last year's team (though they did lose their top player), I have to think the Zips will be coming in the next week or so. Hopefully, I'm wrong about that and the Zips check around 50-60 (which I personally think they should be).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Akron comes in at No. 70. That's a decent spot, though I believe they could be a top 50 team this year. Ranked right below Akron are Temple, Nevada, Virginia Tech, Central Florida (consolation prize after Saturday's beatdown), Vanderbilt and Lehigh, Iowa and Connecticut.

On the downside, they have Akron projected as an NIT team, so another national publication that doesn't believe the MAC will be a two-bid league.

Overall, the write-up on the team was pretty solid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Akron comes in at No. 70. That's a decent spot, though I believe they could be a top 50 team this year. Ranked right below Akron are Temple, Nevada, Virginia Tech, Central Florida (consolation prize after Saturday's beatdown), Vanderbilt and Lehigh, Iowa and Connecticut.

On the downside, they have Akron projected as an NIT team, so another national publication that doesn't believe the MAC will be a two-bid league.

Overall, the write-up on the team was pretty solid.

#70 is decent for a mid-major...would need to be considerably higher for a big-dance at-large. It seems rather amazing tho' to be ahead of historically good teams like Temple, Iowa & UConn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Akron comes in at No. 70. That's a decent spot, though I believe they could be a top 50 team this year. Ranked right below Akron are Temple, Nevada, Virginia Tech, Central Florida (consolation prize after Saturday's beatdown), Vanderbilt and Lehigh, Iowa and Connecticut.

On the downside, they have Akron projected as an NIT team, so another national publication that doesn't believe the MAC will be a two-bid league.

Overall, the write-up on the team was pretty solid.

Disagree on the quality of the write-up.

Nik Cvetinovic might have hit a few 3's over the course of his career, and tried to re-mold himself into a stretch 4 his senior year, but to call him a player who could "step outside and knock down the long ball" is a stretch.

Jake Kretzer as the most likely candidate to replace McClanahan's minutes over McAdams and Justice is another stretch. Everything I've heard is that McAdams is that he is much more than a "versatile defensive presence." They also completely forget about Deji Ibitayo in that portion of the conversation.

Finally, and most importantly, this laughable notion that we will start Walsh, Gilliam and Q at the 2-4 spots. None of those guys are even remotely capable of playing significant minutes at the 4. The writer apparently hasn't heard of Demetrius Treadwell or Nick Harney. Heck, I would suspect KD would start Egner at the 4 before he would consider starting Walsh, Gilliam or Q there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Akron comes in at No. 70. That's a decent spot, though I believe they could be a top 50 team this year. Ranked right below Akron are Temple, Nevada, Virginia Tech, Central Florida (consolation prize after Saturday's beatdown), Vanderbilt and Lehigh, Iowa and Connecticut.

On the downside, they have Akron projected as an NIT team, so another national publication that doesn't believe the MAC will be a two-bid league.

Overall, the write-up on the team was pretty solid.

First of all, I'm quite pleased with #70 right now. If we want to get to Top 50, we're gonna have to knock off some good teams. Same as every year.

And of course a #70 projection is not going to prompt them to predict that you will make the NCAA field. There's too many auto-qualifiers for a #70 team to get in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ZTZ - I agree with your statement; thought they'd be a little higher. Losing Nick C is a hit but I am confident that Tree and Nick H will make up for his loss. The Zips appear to be bigger, deeper and more experienced than last year. I'm hoping we can sneak up on some people early. It will be an interesting year!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, I'm quite pleased with #70 right now. If we want to get to Top 50, we're gonna have to knock off some good teams. Same as every year.

And of course a #70 projection is not going to prompt them to predict that you will make the NCAA field. There's too many auto-qualifiers for a #70 team to get in.

I think you've identified precisely why they have them at 70. They will no doubt project Ohio to repeat in what will be assumed to be a one-bid conference.

I think they're wrong, though. I think both Akron and Ohio do better than the national pundits predict with their OOC schedules and that the MAC will have its best shot at two bids in quite a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oklahoma State shows up at #64; http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/4794

Will make the first game of the PR Tournament a possible track meet. Big Zeke could be the difference as their bigs don't seem as talented as their guards; as the article indicates they may play small and quick.

Marshall shown as #62; wish we had they at the JAR this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Oklahoma State shows up at #64; http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/4794

Will make the first game of the PR Tournament a possible track meet. Big Zeke could be the difference as their bigs don't seem as talented as their guards; as the article indicates they may play small and quick.

Marshall shown as #62; wish we had they at the JAR this year.

Yes, if we had they at the JAR this year than we could really show them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...