We have to jump Duke Monday, right?

[HOFCeluck]

you see a final score where a one team wins by 6 and another team wins by 1, who do you think had the tougher game? It's clear you are wrong on this. Why not admit it and move on? Duke lost twice. A team they lost to just lost to Nova. Syracuse won the Maui tournament. Beat three decent teams. One, Baylor, was ranked in the top 20 when they played Syracuse. A far more impressive victory than Duke has. It's clear that we should be ranked ahead of them on Monday night. Will we? I have long given up trying to figure things like that out. But I amazed that you think, looking at both bodies of work, that Duke should be ranked ahead of us.

Don't know if they should be or not. But I understand the rationale, and I'm not going to throw a tantrum if/when Duke is ranked ahead of us on Monday. That's more than I can say for some though.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Btw... The polls already reflect Dukes loss to KU. So the question is how much of a drop is Duke gonna see after a six point loss to a top five team?

 

[Alsacs]

Why is this even being discussed? I don't care if Duke lost by 1 point to the #1 team pollsters typically move you down even if you lose to a higher ranked team. I wouldn't do it but we know Duke will probably fall to #9 or #10 after losing.
If Oklahoma State loses to Memphis tomorrow I would think Syracuse will be #5 if the Cowboys win then we will be #6.

 

[PoppyHart]

IMO, Duke is more likely to fall out of the rankings completely in the next 6-8 weeks than be a top-10 team.

As for the rankings, of course we will jump them. It is too early in the season to draw meaningful distinctions, so losses will automatically mean a fall in the rankings.

I just wish we could play some of the big boys in the non-conference season so we don't have to trick ourselves into thinking we beat a murderer's row in Maui. Our justification for being in the top-5 next week is not that we beat three stellar teams, but rather that we have not lost yet.

 

[PoppyHart]

If Nova were to win tonight, why do they not deserve to be in the top-5?

 

[Alsacs]

IMO, Duke is more likely to fall out of the rankings completely in the next 6-8 weeks than be a top-10 team.

As for the rankings, of course we will jump them. It is too early in the season to draw meaningful distinctions, so losses will automatically mean a fall in the rankings.

I just wish we could play some of the big boys in the non-conference season so we don't have to trick ourselves into thinking we beat a murderer's row in Maui. Our justification for being in the top-5 next week is not that we beat three stellar teams, but rather that we have not lost yet.

We beat two NCAA tournament teams on back to back days on a neutral court. While I don't think we are perfect or deserve to be top 5. Beating Cal and Baylor is better than last year's Gotham Classic or 2 years ago Virginia Tech and Stanford wins. I think this team showed its top 10 rankings. I would like to play really good teams and with 2 Big East games and an ACC-B1G challenge games on our foreseeable future schedules the non-conference is fine and doesn't need to be tougher.

 

[dasher]

Don't know if they should be or not. But I understand the rationale, and I'm not going to throw a tantrum if/when Duke is ranked ahead of us on Monday. That's more than I can say for some though.

Honestly, I won't give it a second thought if we are ranked behind Duke next week. I remember a few years back (might be more than a few, as I get older the years mesh together) where Duke kept losing and yet stayed in the top 25.

 

[PoppyHart]

We beat two NCAA tournament teams on back to back days on a neutral court. While I don't think we are perfect or deserve to be top 5. Beating Cal and Baylor is better than last year's Gotham Classic or 2 years ago Virginia Tech and Stanford wins. I think this team showed its top 10 rankings. I would like to play really good teams and with 2 Big East games and an ACC-B1G challenge games on our foreseeable future schedules the non-conference is fine and doesn't need to be tougher.

They are perfectly respectable wins. I suppose we'll see about Cal. I think the Pac-12 is a 5 bid league and they will be battling it out with ASU and Stanford. The game at Creighton will go a very long way toward their hopes.

I wish there should be a simple objective point system. For example, 1 point for a win, 1 point for a top-100 RPI win, 1 point bonus for road win, .5 point for neutral etc... Things won't make sense until February, but perhaps that's the way things should be.

 

[OttoMets]

We beat two NCAA tournament teams on back to back days on a neutral court. While I don't think we are perfect or deserve to be top 5. Beating Cal and Baylor is better than last year's Gotham Classic or 2 years ago Virginia Tech and Stanford wins. I think this team showed its top 10 rankings. I would like to play really good teams and with 2 Big East games and an ACC-B1G challenge games on our foreseeable future schedules the non-conference is fine and doesn't need to be tougher.

I'd agree -- though the next couple months might prove us wrong -- that this week trumped the wins over Tech and Stanford. Those teams stunk. The board didn't think so at the time, but they were on the bad side of mediocre. Really frustrating games, rare times that season where we played down to the level of out competition.

Think Baylor's very similar to Temple last season, though. Talented but inconsistent team, going to end up as a middle seed in the tournament. We'll see.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Show us one kid who said he went anywhere because a team was ranked in e top 5 in December. Gonzaga would have a lot more Mickey Ds.

It's not December, it's a season long thing. It's always better to be highly rated. You get more coverage on TV; you are part of the conversation at the highest level - "will they get a 1 seed?", "can they win the ACC?". It's all good.

 

[jncuse]

Cal and Alabama are almost dead even in Kenpom (58/60) and Minnesota finished 7th in Maui, just ahead of Chaminade. Not sure why you're trying to build up either of those teams as some sure thing vs Alabama.

Since you brought up KenPom:

Syracuse - #12
Duke - #28

It has flaws early on, but it does incorporate opponent strength.

 

[HoustonCuse]

Couple points:
Yes the rankings do matter in terms of media attention and prestige.
The rankings are polls, not standings, so yes the tongue-in-cheek comment "game results don't matter" is, by the strictest definition, true
The discussions of the Duke wins/losses mattering because of NCAA placement are moot from here on in because we will play them head-to-head from now on
I think our fans were seriously underrating our team pre-Maui and are now riding a high to infinity and beyond - we should probably just calm down a little bit

 

[IthacaMatt]

IMO, Duke is more likely to fall out of the rankings completely in the next 6-8 weeks than be a top-10 team.

As for the rankings, of course we will jump them. It is too early in the season to draw meaningful distinctions, so losses will automatically mean a fall in the rankings.

I just wish we could play some of the big boys in the non-conference season so we don't have to trick ourselves into thinking we beat a murderer's row in Maui. Our justification for being in the top-5 next week is not that we beat three stellar teams, but rather that we have not lost yet.

You build a team. Our schedule is just fine. We just played 3 likely tournament teams (at least 2, even if Minn ends up in the NIT). Next game Indiana, then Villanova and St. John's on the road, with a couple cupcakes in between for Finals week and New Year's. That's still a hell of a schedule, if you ask me. It's a lot better than sweating out games against Cleveland State, Oakland, Sienna, etc.