menu
Logo
Ohio Basketball Topic
Topic: College Hoops Net Top 144
Page: 1 of 2
Eagle66
General User
E66
Member Since: 3/13/2005
Post Count: 1,329
person
mail
Eagle66
mail
Posted: 7/30/2010 10:19 AM
College Hoops Net has started it's 144 in 144.

141. Charleston Cougars
142. Wyoming Cowboys
143. Quinnipiac Bobcats
144. South Carolina Gamecocks

LINK
UpSan Bobcat
General User
Member Since: 8/30/2005
Location: Upper Sandusky, OH
Post Count: 3,817
mail
UpSan Bobcat
mail
Posted: 7/30/2010 10:28 AM
Hopefully it will be a couple of months before we see Ohio released.
Flomo-genized
General User
F
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 574
person
mail
Flomo-genized
mail
Posted: 8/2/2010 12:50 PM
2010 opponent Santa Clara comes in at #139 overall, and #3 in the WCC:

http://www.collegehoopsnet.com/139-santa-clara-broncos-2010-11-basketball-preview-168672
Flomo-genized
General User
F
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 574
person
mail
Flomo-genized
mail
Posted: 9/27/2010 7:20 AM
More 2010-11 opponents:

Marshall comes in at #129

Miami (OH) is #125

IUPUI is ranked #109

Kent State comes in at #105.

http://www.collegehoopsnet.com/preview/2010/
Flomo-genized
General User
F
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 574
person
mail
Flomo-genized
mail
Posted: 9/29/2010 9:39 PM
Oakland is #98.
crackerbaby00
General User
C00
Member Since: 3/9/2007
Post Count: 442
person
mail
crackerbaby00
mail
Posted: 10/7/2010 9:43 PM
Up to 83 and still no OHIO. How high does everyone think the Bobcats will be?

So far in the MAC we have Kent at 105 and CMU at 85
UpSan Bobcat
General User
Member Since: 8/30/2005
Location: Upper Sandusky, OH
Post Count: 3,817
mail
UpSan Bobcat
mail
Posted: 10/12/2010 11:07 PM
Now up to 72. I'm guess we'll show up soon. I'd have to think Akron will be in there somewhere too.
Taiwan BC
General User
TB
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Kaohsiung
Post Count: 525
person
mail
Taiwan BC
mail
Posted: 10/13/2010 8:14 AM
UpSan, I think Akron isn't listed in the top 144... It has Kent at 105 and the third best school in the conference. Central is ranked 2nd in the conference at 85 so, they must not think much of Akron as Ohio will surely be ranked first.
I would think Akron would still be quite good with their center coming on strong at the end of the season. Also, they still have McNees and one of the McKnight brothers too... Slip yes, fall out of the top 144? I don't think so...

Brian

P.S. Anyone else happy to see Bornacatfan on the football side? Maybe he can grace us with his presence over here? ;)
UpSan Bobcat
General User
Member Since: 8/30/2005
Location: Upper Sandusky, OH
Post Count: 3,817
mail
UpSan Bobcat
mail
Posted: 10/13/2010 9:29 AM
I didn't notice they were ranking them within the conference, and I just assumed Akron would make the top 144 for sure. I guess they don't think very highly of the Zips. I guess I didn't really anticipate a ranking in the 60s, but I defintiely didn't expect them to be out of the top 144.

At any rate, I still would think Ohio will be coming up in the 60s. Maybe the 50s based on the tournament win, but if they aren't giving the rest of the MAC a whole lot of credit, I would have to think we'll show up soon.
The Optimist
General User
Member Since: 3/16/2007
Location: CLE
Post Count: 5,611
mail
The Optimist
mail
Posted: 10/18/2010 10:10 AM
65: UConn
64: OK State

Still not ranked...  It wouldn't shock me if we are just inside 50.
Flomo-genized
General User
F
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 574
person
mail
Flomo-genized
mail
Posted: 10/20/2010 7:07 PM
Up to 56 and still no sign of OU, with Louisville, St. Mary's, Wofford, Georgia, and VCU also now off the board.  This may be blasphemy, but given the personnel loses we have suffered I think that they may be overrating us by a tad bit.
Andrew Ruck
General User
Member Since: 12/22/2004
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 5,647
mail
Andrew Ruck
mail
Posted: 10/21/2010 9:23 AM
I think I agree Flomo.  I love our roster...we could be great and I like our chances...But let's say we didnt climb back from 10 down with 10 to go at Ball State in the 1st round of the MAC tourney, and there is no MAC title or Georgetown win...Where would these rankings have us, about 150?  200?

We had an amazing run and that should be considered in the preseason rankings, I just think it may have created some pretty lofty expectations.
UpSan Bobcat
General User
Member Since: 8/30/2005
Location: Upper Sandusky, OH
Post Count: 3,817
mail
UpSan Bobcat
mail
Posted: 10/21/2010 10:40 AM
It really is beating Georgetown that was the big one. I'm not even sure we'd be in the top 100 without that win. But all of a sudden, beating a top 15 team with a roster that featured only one senior has made people think possibly too much of us. Of course, the leading scorer from that game also is gone, but then again, even though we've lost other players, none of them played in that game.

Of course, Washington, Cooper and Freeman all made huge impressions. Many publications are picking Cooper as the player of the year in the MAC. But certainly the hype is a bit overstated.
OUVan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Bethesda, MD
Post Count: 5,580
mail
OUVan
mail
Posted: 10/21/2010 2:32 PM
UpSan Bobcat wrote:expand_more
It really is beating Georgetown that was the big one. I'm not even sure we'd be in the top 100 without that win. But all of a sudden, beating a top 15 team with a roster that featured only one senior has made people think possibly too much of us. Of course, the leading scorer from that game also is gone, but then again, even though we've lost other players, none of them played in that game.

Of course, Washington, Cooper and Freeman all made huge impressions. Many publications are picking Cooper as the player of the year in the MAC. But certainly the hype is a bit overstated.


If you look at the season as a whole I think you might think that we got on a lucky run but if you look more closely there are some very tangible reasons we went on the run at the end of the year.  Most of it revolves around Washington coming back from suspension.  From the game he came back until the end of the season we were a different team.  Leading up to the Tennessee game we went 10-3 with our wins coming by an average margin of 11.5 points.  Our three losses came on the road against good teams in very close games (Akron in OT, Kent - game tied under 2 minutes, Buffalo - we led under a minute).  We weren't the same team that we were in January.

Now that being said most of the magazines aren't going to be looking in that kind of detail.  And as someone said if we don't beat Ball State we aren't anywhere near the top going into the year.
The Optimist
General User
Member Since: 3/16/2007
Location: CLE
Post Count: 5,611
mail
The Optimist
mail
Posted: 10/21/2010 3:53 PM
DeVaughn Washington is a lot better then he gets credit for on this site.
JSF
General User
Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,580
mail
JSF
mail
Posted: 10/21/2010 4:12 PM
You sure about that?  Because I've seen POY talk being thrown his way around here.  He's a lot better than that?
Flomo-genized
General User
F
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 574
person
mail
Flomo-genized
mail
Posted: 10/21/2010 6:53 PM
DeVaughn at his best is quite good.  The problem is consistency.  He did a better job of being consistent after his suspension last year, especially when it came to staying out of foul trouble and on the court.  But even then there was the 1 point in 18 minute performance at Kent, and the overlooked 17 minutes played in the MAC Tournament final vs. Akron due to foul trouble. 

If DeVaughn can consistently give us 28+ minutes per night, and be a reliable 14 point, 6+ boards per game guy, we'll be in good shape.  I think he can do it, but it isn't a lock.
Last Edited: 10/21/2010 6:54:18 PM by Flomo-genized
Buster
General User
Member Since: 12/21/2007
Post Count: 405
mail
Buster
mail
Posted: 10/22/2010 12:17 AM
Flomo-genized wrote:expand_more
DeVaughn at his best is quite good.  The problem is consistency.  He did a better job of being consistent after his suspension last year, especially when it came to staying out of foul trouble and on the court.  But even then there was the 1 point in 18 minute performance at Kent, and the overlooked 17 minutes played in the MAC Tournament final vs. Akron due to foul trouble. 

If DeVaughn can consistently give us 28+ minutes per night, and be a reliable 14 point, 6+ boards per game guy, we'll be in good shape.  I think he can do it, but it isn't a lock.


I was just thinking about this the other day, but I think the play of DW will determine how good this team is.  I'm very excited about the potential from Ricardo Johnson and Nick Kellogg, as they are a huge upgrade to this team.  We need that consistency from DeVaughn more than ever.  Not just explosive dunks, but crashing the boards and playing  solid D without getting into foul trouble so much.  Last year we saw him with confidence in his jump shot and that is a good sign.  I'm predicting a huge year for #1.
Voice of Reason
General User
Member Since: 7/29/2010
Post Count: 249
mail
Voice of Reason
mail
Posted: 10/22/2010 10:27 AM
I truly believe that if Devaughn can remain focused for the entire season, that is a big if, and plays like he did at the end of the season last year...He will be Conference Player of the Year!  I just feel like he really discovered his potential at the end of last season.  I look at the BGSU game at home as being his coming out party.  He could always dunk, but at the end of the season it was like he just learned the level at which he could dunk.  In the first half of the BGSU game I think he finished 3 alley-oop dunks.  I don't remember him finishing 3 total prior to that game.  Then he got to the MAC tourney and just started exploding to the rim.  The level of confidence he had made him a completely different player.

With DJ and Freeman providing strong threats from outside, Devaughn should have plenty of room to roam inside the arc.  I think most teams, until Kellog or Rico show something, will key their defense to DJ.  If Kellog and Rico show something early, this could be a very special season.  Teams won't be able to key on DJ as much and the perimeter will continue to free space for Devaughn.  Don't know of a player in the MAC that can match up to his size and athleticism one on one!  Now, FOCUS DEVAUGHN!
Jeff McKinney
Moderator
JM
Member Since: 11/12/2004
Post Count: 6,163
person
mail
Jeff McKinney
mail
Posted: 10/22/2010 1:13 PM
Are dunks really that important?
DelBobcat
General User
Member Since: 8/27/2010
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 1,135
mail
DelBobcat
mail
Posted: 10/22/2010 2:17 PM
Jeff McKinney wrote:expand_more
Are dunks really that important?


Not if you look at it from a "two points is two points" mentality. But if you look at dunks as a proxy for athleticism and intensity then maybe a little more. I still don't think it is anywhere near the top of the list of valuable skills, but having a player that can take it hard to the rim and pump up the crowd and team is beneficial in many ways.
Voice of Reason
General User
Member Since: 7/29/2010
Post Count: 249
mail
Voice of Reason
mail
Posted: 10/25/2010 6:08 PM
No, dunks aren't that important. Mentality and confidence combined with athleticism and skill are.  He had the athleticism and skill...at the end of the season he had the mentality an confidence to use the athleticism and skill to his capabilities!  The dunks are evidence of the result of all four.
RSBobcat
General User
Member Since: 8/23/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 4,505
mail
RSBobcat
mail
Posted: 10/25/2010 11:00 PM
and "Dunks" are better than "a dunk".........
JSF
General User
Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,580
mail
JSF
mail
Posted: 10/26/2010 1:16 AM
Jeff McKinney wrote:expand_more
Are dunks really that important?


Advance metrics suggest they're more valuable than the conventional wisdom claims.  For the most part, it's the highest-percentage shot one can take.  Alley-oops are another story.
Jeff McKinney
Moderator
JM
Member Since: 11/12/2004
Post Count: 6,163
person
mail
Jeff McKinney
mail
Posted: 10/26/2010 11:12 AM
It's really interesting to watch old video of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (Lew Alcindor) at UCLA in the late 60s/early 70s.  Dunking wasn't allowed during those years.  He could have set an unbreakable record for dunks.  I think Coach Wooden liked the no-dunk rule because it forced Kareem to focus on developing the great touch he had around the rim with hooks, banks, etc. 
Showing Messages: 1 - 25 of 30



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)