CHN's college hoops preview

BryceC · 07-06-2007, 07:49 AM

I haven't seen this posted yet.

http://www.collegehoopsnet.com/new/s...l_preview40953

They have ISU listed at 138th in the country for next season. While he seems to have done his research and has a good handle on the squad, I would be terribly disappointed if we didn't do any better than last season. I'm still expecting NIT at least.

brianhos · 07-06-2007, 07:51 AM

I think it will be rough at the start, they will probably lose some games you expect them to win, but will gel later in the year. Just like football, I just want to see consistent improvement.

Incyte · 07-06-2007, 08:38 AM

I'm kind of surpised he has us 11th in the conference being we finished better than that last year and return almost everyone.

johnsonjj · 07-06-2007, 08:57 AM

Being without a Big 12 tested PG is not usually awe inspiring.

Knownothing · 07-06-2007, 08:57 AM

From an outsiders point of view he is probably right. Now with that said I hope we do better than expected. He is looking at all the teams and giving an ubiased analysist of our team. I still think we are better than Nebraska, Colorado and possibly Missouri. I could be wrong. I predict anywhere from 6-9th in the big 12.

Incyte · 07-06-2007, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by Knownothing

I still think we are better than Nebraska, Colorado and possibly Missouri.

I guess I don't see why OU or OSU would be much more talented then us.

I'm not sold on Baylor until Scott Drew actually has that team win some games.

Tech, A&M are probably a notch better than us but not by much.

KSU, KU and UT are in their own class IMO.

I think we have a legit shot (as legit as anyone else at least) at 5th or 6th in the conference and an NCAA birth but I wouldn't be suprised to see us finish 7th to 10th.

TheHelgo · 07-06-2007, 09:42 AM

seems to me to be a pretty fair analysis of the team.

wheels686 · 07-06-2007, 09:46 AM

back before the season with fiizer and tinsley in 2000 werent we projected in the bottom half of the big 12. i dont put much into these preseason polls. i think we could be a 20 win team eassily.

ornryactor · 07-06-2007, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by Incyte

I think we have a legit shot at 5th or 6th in the conference and an NCAA birth

I've always wondered what the best way is to get kids interested in sports. I suppose that would be it!

herbiedoobie · 07-07-2007, 12:51 AM

Originally Posted by wheels686

back before the season with fiizer and tinsley in 2000 werent we projected in the bottom half of the big 12. i dont put much into these preseason polls. i think we could be a 20 win team eassily.

I'm pretty sure at least one pre-season poll had us as 12 in the Big 12 and 110th in the country.

Just goes to show how good these polls are.

johnsonjj · 07-07-2007, 03:50 AM

The best prediction of future performance is past performance. Thus, I am not surprised they have us so low. I think the biggest concern is PG. MT is not a PG althrough he played there. Thus, we really have no returning PG, and starting a freshmen isn't giving them confidence. This team is truly set up to beat the prognosticator's expectations. It will be fun to watch this team grow, especially if PG is not a liability and some of the newbies step up to give us a better outside game.

darts180 · 07-07-2007, 07:34 AM

You shouldn't be upset at this. Last year the league was very top heavy, this year I think that there will be more balance. KU, should be the class of the league, but UT, A & M, K State will all be contenders. Mizzu, kNU, OU, should all be better. Baylor is a sleeper. CU has a new coach, who by all accounts did a great job at Air Force. I mean, I expect us to be competitive, but it's going to be tough to have a better record.

I think that most people expect us to be improved (I mean it was brutal at times last year), but I think that people see more improvements in the rest of the league than they do Iowa State. But I don't think that the "experts" would be terribly surprised to see us exceed expectations.

copenhagen · 07-07-2007, 08:10 AM

Major crushing losses are Marsden, Mcintosh, and Dodie? Cmon people! What a joke! This guy just scanned some web site for 5 minutes then spewed out his worthless opion n now we have a bunch of head nodders agreeing what the almighty 'expert' says. He thinks Thompson is going to give us 2 pts and 1 rebound a game, takes a cheap shot at Haluska, then throws in Staiger n all other newcomers like there a bunch of rabble who lucked into scholarships. He is mostly accurate about Garrett though, he needs to be solid for us, but any jackass could point that out.

mjones34 · 07-07-2007, 08:48 AM

I think most of the write up was pretty good and the 138 was kind of a slap in the face. We should be closer to 70-80.

ce1 · 07-07-2007, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by copenhagen

Major crushing losses are Marsden, Mcintosh, and Dodie? Cmon people! What a joke! This guy just scanned some web site for 5 minutes then spewed out his worthless opion n now we have a bunch of head nodders agreeing what the almighty 'expert' says. He thinks Thompson is going to give us 2 pts and 1 rebound a game, takes a cheap shot at Haluska, then throws in Staiger n all other newcomers like there a bunch of rabble who lucked into scholarships. He is mostly accurate about Garrett though, he needs to be solid for us, but any jackass could point that out.

I personally thought it was a lot more balanced than that, and fair as well. There really isn't any track record to go on for Thompson, will he be just another Marsden, or will he be a solid scorer? He hasn't shown it yet. What Brackins can accomplish in year 1 in the Big 12 is definitely debatable, and who knows what we've got at the guard position until they step foot on the court? We all lilke our chances, but there is a lot of unknown on this team right now.

CHN picked ISU 11th in the Big 12 last year as well, and we finished 7th. They have a history of underestimating us.