RebKell's Junkie Boards

[ClayK]

I love reasoned discussion ...

As for Purdue, the Boilers were 17-13 last season and lost their leading, and only, rebounder. I find it hard to expect that they will be any better this year than last, despite the noted offensive talents of Katie Gearlds and Erin Lawless.

Rutgers is an interesting team, and a lot of people like them better than I do, but I just don't see them being all that good.

Utah was right on the bubble ... but Elaine Elliott has finally given up, and doesn't play anyone. When she did, the committee punished her for losing; when she didn't, the committee punished her for not playing tougher opposition.

LSU is also an interesting team. Fowles and Augustus are great, and may be able to carry a lot of the load by themselves. How much will they miss Temeka?

I didn't take complete notes on the rest of my crimes against humanity, but I'm always willing to discuss them ...

_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā

[dtsnms]

[PUmatty]

[dtsnms]

Matty, did you take your prozac this morning? You know how important your meds are....

[PUmatty]

[dtsnms]

[PUmatty]

[PUmatty]

Is there a concerted effort to address criticism today? A big post about the rating group Mr. Kallum is a member of was posted by another member on the Purdue board trying to quell criticism. I am wondering how many others there were today.

[VandyWhit]

[ClayK]

One at a time ...

>How about despite a Top 10 recruiting class PLUS the top JUCO point guard and redshirt freshman who was a Top 50 recruit last year?

I don't think much of rating recruiting classes (where was Baylor's four years ago?). I don't count freshmen much in the preseason rankings unless they're elite.


>How about despite a healthy Katie Gearlds who was reduced to a spot-up jump shooter last year until off-season leg surgery?

Every team deals with injuries. Point out a top team that didn't have an injured player who battled pain through last year ... OK, maybe there were one or two.


>How about despite a year of experience for the considerable talents of Lindsay Wisdon-Hylton?

I tend to wait until players produce before I give them a big rating, except in exceptional circumstances. Wisdon-Hylton is a good young player who will benefit from a year's experience -- almost every team has one of those.

>How about despite not having to rely solely on inexperienced sophomores and freshmen, not only for production but for leadership?

Again, that can be said of a lot of teams. And it may improve them slightly, granted.


>How about depsite not having to replace four starters and instituting a brand new offense?

Should make them somewhat better ...

>How about despite getting to play in Europe this year and getting a chance to meld and bond earlier, which is especially important for a young team.

That's very important, and something I did not know.

>How about despite addressing the biggest problem last year -- point guard -- by pulling in a highly recruited JUCO point guard to take over from Sharika Webb.

I believe in jucos after they perform, not before.

>How about despite finally having an actual center on the roster?

But not one with experience.

>How about despite adding Jodi Howell, who can help the other biggest weakness last year -- outside shooting?

Again, I don't count too much on freshmen, because too many highly rated ones crash and burn. Remember Nina Smith?

>How about despite peaking last year at the end of the season and playing much better than earlier in the season?

There's not much carryover in that.

>How about not having the youngest team in Purdue history?

Again, some improvement.


>None of these things will make them at all any better than last seaosn. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! I am now even more inclined to agree with BoilerJay.


They were 17-13 last year. If all the freshmen come through, and the transfer, then they might improve dramatically. If they don't rebound, though, and there's no real indication that they will (though they might, I concede), are they going to improve enough to be in the top 25?

You can certainly believe that they will, which is fine, but I do think a case can be made that they will wind up out of the top 25.


>Even if you think that won't make them better, how can anyone POSSIBLY justify ranking New Mexico higher, given that they lost their best player from last season in Mandy Moore and finished the season by losing to Purdue by double digits.

New Mexico was a hunch pick. I went back and forth on the Lobos and finally stuck them in because Flanagan's a real good coach and they always seem to do well. They could wind up worse than Purdue this year, but it's certainly not out of the realm of possibility that they could be better.

_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā

[ClayK]

Vandy was another team I went round and round with.

First, I think Ashley Earley was a really, really good college player, and I think she will be missed a lot.

Second, they lost Abi Ramsey, a very good three-point shooter.

But the 'Dores could easily be a lot better, especially if Liz Sherwood develops, but it's hard to say how good she's going to be. I'm not sure about Caroline Williams (12 free throw attempts in 643 minutes makes me a little nervous), and though I like Dee Davis, I wonder if this is as good as she's going to get.

I would be much less surprised if Vandy got into the top 25 than Purdue, but if both made it, it wouldn't be a stunner.

_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā

[accommodatingly]

(1) Clay's last name is KALLAM, not Kallum.

(2) Purdue played Minnesota three times last year. The first time it was a blowout. The second time it was a real, though unequal, contest. The third time it came down to the wire: Kristy Curry had taken that team very, very far. (By comparison, Iowa, with a similar record and similar nonconference schedule, didn't really improve over the Big Ten season-- at least not in the games I watched.)

That improvement, and the fact that Emily Heikes, didn't do much on offense, is why I think they're going places this year. (I'm remembering that she's the only significant loss to graduation-- am I wrong?)

Too bad about Elaine Elliott. Ick.

[KatValeska]

Never thought I'd say this, but where is boilernindy when he/she is finally needed? (I'm a masochist and a sadist in a voyeuristic kinda way.)

Anyway, since we're playing stump the celebrity, my question is about Oklahoma.

Clay, I enjoyed your assessment of the Paris twins on a different thread. So that got me to wondering why the Sooners were absent from your rankings. It seems a lot of folks are thinking those two are going to make an immediate impact and lift OU back into the top 25 this year. Why don't you agree?

BTW, I've seen the twins play and thus know how good they are, but while I think they will make an immediate impact, I also don't see OU as top 25 this year. I have my own theory as to why, but am interested in hearing yours.

Thanks

[ClayK]

I think the Paris twins will need a year to adjust, and when I looked at the Oklahoma roster, I didn't see a lot returning. I did put them in my teams to watch category.

Add Amanda Thompson to the Paris twins, and you're only a point guard away ...

_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā

[PUmatty]

[Retav8or]

It is refreshing to see that Clay K., (I'll assume he's genuine), is willing to respond and justify his rankings; while leaving himself open to criticism.

As a fan of the Big 11, I also believe that Purdue was wrongly omitted from his list. Last year they were young, playing a brutal schedule and still managed to hold their own.

On another note

In my own mind, I had put Minnesota's ranking between 12 and 15 and last year predicted that the Gophers would be improved without McCarville. I don't think she was capable of carrying the team by herself and that her teammates attempted to rely on her too much.

However, when she was not on the floor, the team spread the wealth and were actually more efficient.

Jamie Broback is the closest they have to a star, but the biggest asset the Gophers have going for them is they are very, very deep with quality players.

I see them contending with Ohio State and yes, Purdue for the Big 11 title with Michigan State falling a little behind, due to the loss of last years senior leadership.

Av8r

Go Go Gophers

[VandyWhit]

[ClayK]

I don't expect people to agree with me (what fun would it be otherwise?) but I do have to take exception to the claim that I don't put any thought into it. They may be stupid thoughts, or wrong thoughts, but this is what I do, and I spent a great deal of time, this year and in year's past, on the rankings, and in fact, on everything I write.

I may be a bozo, but it's not because I'm not working at getting things right.

And I am always willing to discuss what I've written and where I've gone wrong. Purdue's overseas trip, for example, could help them immensely this year, and that's good info.

The object, I think, is for all of us to learn more about the game, and have better informed opinions -- but of course, since they're opinions, there will be differences.

_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā

[vanyogan]

[ClayK]

First, on Dee Davis ...

It seems to me that the biggest improvement in a college player usually comes between her freshman and sophomore years. With an offseason to adjust to the new realities, players know what they have to work on, and what they need to do -- and obviously Davis did so.

It is certainly possible that she can continue to improve, and some players do. It is also possible that she's reached her ceiling, and is pretty much who she is.

I'm not sure which category Davis falls in ...

As for the ranking process ...

With the colleges, it's a long one, though easier nowadays.

First, I go through pretty much every school that has a chance to be in the top 75, and get their roster, last year's stats and next year's schedule. Often, that's on the web site, but I have to do a lot of e-mailing, and sometimes phone calling. (It's amazing how some programs have SIDs who consider it an intrusion on their time to get me information about women's basketball in late May and early June. In rare cases, I've had to call the coaches directly and point out that the SID was unwilling to give me a roster. Of course, some coaches don't want to tell me anything either, to the point of not wanting to release a roster.)

Once I have all that info assembled into folders (which include the rosters and stats from several previous years for most teams), I go through each one and I check the stats against the roster to see who's coming back and who isn't. I then look at the team stats for clues (shooting percentage, rebounds, turnovers) to performance, and see what's missing (did the top assist people leave, or the rebounders). From that I get a feel as to how the team will compare to the previous year's edition, and whether its record will improve or not. Finally, I look at the schedule to see if they're playing good teams in preseason -- and I give bonus points for a strong schedule, and move teams down for weak ones.

When I've completed that, I scrawl a couple notes on the front of the folder (returning starters, last year's record, a comment) and do a guesstimate of where they should be ranked (1-5, 5-15, 10-20, 25-35, 35-45 or whatever seems right).

Then the process gets really elegant. I collect all the folders and put them on my lap while I sit in a chair in the middle of a room (actually this year it was in the gym before one of my team's summer league games). I then toss the folders into appropriate piles around me, with the 1-10s on one side and the 35-45s on the other.

I then scoop up all the folders in order, and sit down to try and figure out who should be ranked where. Usually, I'm way off in one group -- I'll have too many 10-20s, say, and not enough 1-10s -- and I have to start moving teams up and down. Once I get down to a particular group, I try to put them in order with further examination of the information.

Then I start writing the individual blurbs, with a numerical order. Then I go through and edit, and usually move the teams around again. Finally, I give it another read and move the teams around again. (If I didn't have a deadline, I would keep doing so indefinitely, and every version would be slightly different than the one before. Sometimes I look back and wonder 'What was I thinking? Was I thinking?')

Then, in mid-July, it gets shipped off to Street & Smith's, and I focus on the WNBA again -- until it's time to do the high school rankings (which will be out soon).

As the little girl said about the book on penguins, this told you more than you wanted to know ... but I have a depressing habit of answering questions.

_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā

[PUmatty]

[ClayK]

The political statements come in at the end of the process, when I'm debating which teams should go where. All things being equal, I like to get a midmajor in the top 20, and a couple in the top 25, so I look for one to highlight.

Usually a midmajor makes a statement in the tournament, and might make the Sweet 16, so it's not unreasonable to rank one that high. It's just very hard to guess which one will come out of nowhere ... but I try.

_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā