cc66
Postdoc
Posts: 2204
Reg: 10-09-09
|
10-25-16 07:26 PM - Post#211948
His predictions are now out. We're picked for 4th, but come in at a lower than expected 195 (6-8 Ivies, 14-13 overall). He projects an ORAT of just 99.5 and a DRAT of 101.4. I think he's underestimating us.
Surprisingly, he picks Yale above Harvard. The initial rankings run as follows:
Princeton 35
Yale 116
Harvard 128
Columbia 195
Dartmouth 216
Cornell 225
Penn 231 (the Penn board is not going to be happy)
Brown 256
I'd like to see us end the season up at least 50 to between 125 and 150.
Edited by cc66 on 10-25-16 07:27 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Chet Forte
Postdoc
Posts: 2972
Reg: 03-02-08
|
 10-25-16 08:59 PM - Post#211951
In response to cc66
Agree that we are too low. But I have a tough time seeing Princeton this high. While I understand that they get everybody back plus Brase, I do not think that they are highly athletic. Nor do I think that they have any truly great four/five star guys who can take over a game.
|
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts: 3777
Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
|
10-25-16 09:00 PM - Post#211952
In response to cc66
On behalf of the Penn board, I'll just say that rankings today have no effect on my mood whatsoever. Let's play the games, then I'll know how I feel.
|
Mike Porter
Postdoc
Posts: 3618
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Reg: 11-21-04
|
10-25-16 10:51 PM - Post#211956
In response to Silver Maple
Yeah as a Penn fan, no hard feelings, especially knowing more context. My understanding is that kenpom's system doesn't really have a way to account in the Ivy's for impact of what we expect will be a high quality but unknown transfer (Penn had a kid transferring from a CC who will likely start and expect will have very positive ORAT) or even a very well regarded frosh (we have high expectations for one of those also). Harvard's ranking is a great example of this... Kenpom isn't accounting for the very highly ranked frosh because there isn't a good historical comparison.
I expect both Penn and Harvard will out perform these rankings. By how much? I have no idea and that will be the fun part.
On Princeton, as much as I hate to say it as a Penn fan... I think they have a chance to have a special year.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6412
Reg: 11-22-04
|
10-26-16 07:37 AM - Post#211958
In response to Mike Porter
Not particularly surprised by the kenpom ranking for Penn. Cornell didn't lose anybody, and was close to Penn last year. So it stands to reason that they would leapfrog us for now. I do think that the numbers just show what we already know -- that there is likely to be a race for 4th, and anybody in the league could get there.
On the freshmen, you mention Harvard and Penn, but don't forget Yale. They are likely to have at least one impactful freshman (perhaps the most impactful). So it's more complicated than just kenpom's difficulty estimating new players favoring Yale over Harvard -- in some ways I think Bruner and maybe Oni will come into the best situation for a freshman to really shine.
|
JadwinGeorge
Senior
Posts: 357
Age: 75
Reg: 12-04-15
|
10-26-16 07:59 AM - Post#211959
In response to SomeGuy
Princeton's situation is unique, if not unprecedented, in that its rotation, even if extended to 9 players, is composed entirely of contributors, not just experienced people. While it will be difficult for a first year player to be "impactful" at Jadwin, Henderson has always made opportunities for them. If a freshman emerges in this group he will be very good.
|
Columbia Alum
Junior
Posts: 247
Age: 38
Reg: 11-15-11
|
Kenpom 2017
10-26-16 08:34 AM - Post#211961
In response to JadwinGeorge
Yale should break the top 100 and harvard the top 75, the rest have more unknowns. Princeton 50-25 sounds about right, if their players improve and beat BYU, VCU & Cal they could spend some time in the AP/Coaches top 25 which would be great for the league.
Edited by Columbia Alum on 10-26-16 08:34 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Chet Forte
Postdoc
Posts: 2972
Reg: 03-02-08
|
10-26-16 09:41 AM - Post#211968
In response to Columbia Alum
i think we may be the biggest unknown in the league. There has been an absence of information about how we look, and all we hear is that Tape looks really good and that Smith is expected to play well right off the bat. To me, our upside depends upon whether Petrasek finally plays at an all Ivy level. When he is good, he is very good. I also like Meisner's potential and hear that Hunter is ready to go. Coby and Hickman will be productive. What can we expect from CJ? What is going on with Castlin? And how are the guys taking to Engles?
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
10-26-16 09:57 AM - Post#211971
In response to Chet Forte
I don't like unknowns. I think they tend to go south more often than they go well.
BUT... Engles has done more with WAY less in the past. If the Castlin rumors are true, that's not helpful, but I really like what Engles has done at NJIT and wouldn't want to bet against him churning out a national average rank with this set of players.
|
cc66
Postdoc
Posts: 2204
Reg: 10-09-09
|
10-26-16 10:24 AM - Post#211975
In response to mrjames
Even without Castlin, we could have a starting line-up of Meisner, Petrasek, and Coby/Tape upfront, with Davis/Smith and Hunter/Hickman in the backcourt. That's a pretty good team, especially if Davis has worked through his 1st year slump. And we're deep enough too, so that if one of the above stumbles, there are other players, including some with a good deal of experience, who can step up.
It will be interesting to compare pre and post-season KenPom rankings. Harvard will rise as its 1st years begin to fit in; Penn might rise as they adopt to Donahue's system and perhaps get contributions from the JC transfers; but riding on Tape & Smith's contributions + Engles' capacity to get the most from his teams, our ascent could well be the steepest.
|
Chet Forte
Postdoc
Posts: 2972
Reg: 03-02-08
|
10-26-16 10:34 AM - Post#211977
In response to cc66
some of the other Ivies have had open intra squad games; do we intend to do so? there are a lot of unknowns beyond the players referenced bycc who I would like to see in action. I recall that the prior staff really wanted Killingsworth badly, for example. and I don't know what to expect from Mccomber, Voss, Sica, Barba and perhaps others.
|
cc66
Postdoc
Posts: 2204
Reg: 10-09-09
|
10-26-16 11:05 AM - Post#211980
In response to Chet Forte
Yes, I wish we had a scrimmage or some other window to see how the team was developing.
I didn't reference everyone, but just on the list you cited, we know that McComber can shoot 3s, Voss has improved a lot, and Killingsworth is a taller glue-guy, Isaac Cohen, kind of player. If anyone else has also stepped up, then they'll be even more pleasant surprises.
|
Columbia 37P6
Postdoc
Posts: 2178
Reg: 02-14-06
|
10-26-16 11:40 AM - Post#211984
In response to cc66
Everything is speculation at this point, but I do expect big things early on from Meisner, Petrasek, Hunter, Coby, Smith, Hickman and Davis. If Tape, Pantiayou and Killingsworth can contribute coming out of the gate, we will be very strong. McComber will be a key role player once again.
|
