Hogs Show Up in College Sports Madness's Annual Top 144 Preview

[Adam Stokes]

But he's a little less excited about the Juco's we have coming in that our fan base might be. Still a good write-up.

http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/mens-basketball/top-144-previews?page=1

SEC Teams that have shown up so far:

86 Auburn
95 South Carolina
108 Arkansas
122 LSU

[Swinesong1]

But he's a little less excited about the Juco's we have coming in that our fan base might be. Still a good write-up.

http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/mens-basketball/top-144-previews?page=1

SEC Teams that have shown up so far:

86 Auburn
95 South Carolina
108 Arkansas
122 LSU

Less excited?  What does "very, very good class" mean?  Especially when neither Jones nor Hazen are mentioned!

[FineAsSwine]

But he's a little less excited about the Juco's we have coming in that our fan base might be. Still a good write-up.

http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/mens-basketball/top-144-previews?page=1

SEC Teams that have shown up so far:

86 Auburn
95 South Carolina
108 Arkansas
122 LSU

Arkansas and LSU should be ranked higher. I think Little Rock will also prove to have been a top 100 team by the end of the season.

[Atlhogfan1]

But he's a little less excited about the Juco's we have coming in that our fan base might be. Still a good write-up.

http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/mens-basketball/top-144-previews?page=1

SEC Teams that have shown up so far:

86 Auburn
95 South Carolina
108 Arkansas
122 LSU

Not unreasonable for an outsider to take a wait see approach with the JC's and transfers.  Lots of newcomers.  Some of where I think it is a miss:
schedule:  our non conf schedule and with what SEC basketball is will provide far too many wins for this to be a CBI level team - don't think it is unreasonable from the non conf sched we have seen to see this team ranked or close to ranked heading into SEC play with only a loss or two
backcourt:  no offense to Durham as he did a good job but I expect Barford to be an upgrade from the start - too much was put into Durham's stats as Mike's guards especially the offense setters have usually had impressive assist and assist to turnover numbers
defense:  it will be better as the roster offers more versatility - Hannahs is a weak spot but his offense should more than offset the negative especially with what has been added
10th in the SEC is way too low.  Would be a disastrous season to finish where this is predicting.  Will have to see more of the rankings especially within the SEC to find out why he believes this Hog team will finish 10th.

For an outsider, it is a pretty good write-up.  For a team he has 108th, he wasn't going to go into more detail and discuss players like Jones or Hazen. 


"This year should be better though and has the potential to be a lot better if all of the transfers can come close to living up to their hype."

[Adam Stokes]

Less excited?  What does "very, very good class" mean?  Especially when neither Jones nor Hazen are mentioned!

I more meant that my excitement with the class has me looking at Top 50, whereas his excitement places us outside the Top 100.

[FineAsSwine]

I more meant that my excitement with the class has me looking at Top 50, whereas his excitement places us outside the Top 100.

But this guy talked about the talent we had returning at guard and he still penciled in Macon and Barford as starters, hard to see how that adds up to us being outside the top 100.

[Swinesong1]

But this guy talked about the talent we had returning at guard and he still penciled in Macon and Barford as starters, hard to see how that adds up to us being outside the top 100.

And this...

[nolanspolkadot]

As others said it is a good write up, I think we are top 50 while he doesn't. My guess is the under-performance of the SEC in basketball for several years now. I'm also optimistic about the whole conference getting better so that correlates to my higher appraisal. 

[niels_boar]

no offense to Durham as he did a good job but I expect Barford to be an upgrade from the start - too much was put into Durham's stats as Mike's guards especially the offense setters have usually had impressive assist and assist to turnover numbers.

That's not quite fair to Durham.  He had a historic year with regards to ballhandling relative to just about every player who has ever worn the jersey, regardless of system. No other Arkansas PG I have checked, Hawgball or otherwise, was ever under 5 minutes per assist, and Durham was under 4.5 minutes both for the season and in SEC-play only. He also did it with almost a 4:1 A/TO ratio in SEC play. The new rules may have helped a little. TO rates were down nationally, though assist rates were basically unchanged.  However, a lot of Arkansas PGs have been surrounded by more scoring than Durham was.  Durham's dishing was one reason why we had a good offensive team last year while playing a bevy of players that were reluctant to shoot.

That's the rub. We could have used more scoring and driving at any position, including PG.  His weaknesses were not well complemented by the rest of the roster. He wasn't a great finisher off the bounce and didn't get to the line much. That wouldn't have mattered much if Qualls had been on the wing where he should have been and/or if a Coty Clarke had been at the four. However, that doesn't mean that Durham's strengths weren't very impressive. He was also a good defender in a lineup that often had three holes on defense. The futility on D was not his fault.

Barford, nor anybody else we could put at PG, is probably going to handle as well. Lee Mayberry had less impressive assist stats than Durham. However, Barford will have more scorers around him, which will compensate. Where Barford should be a major upgrade is finishing around the basket and getting to the line, which should help a lot in making the O more resilient. I think we will be better on offense because of more balance and variety on the roster, though I wish Durham had a shot on this team. His strengths would be amplified, and his weaknesses minimized with this roster.

We finished #90 in Pomeroy last season despite early roster depletion on a short roster, snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory in several games, and stumbling on O down the stretch as the D was finally improving. I highly doubt a #100+ finish is in our future if this roster make it through the season intact.

[HoopS]

Spot on post.

Durham was referred to as "not a D1 player" and that was just not right. He played darn well.

[Atlhogfan1]

That's not quite fair to Durham.  He had a historic year with regards to ballhandling relative to just about every player who has ever worn the jersey, regardless of system. No other Arkansas PG I have checked, Hawgball or otherwise, was ever under 5 minutes per assist, and Durham was under 4.5 minutes both for the season and in SEC-play only. He also did it with almost a 4:1 A/TO ratio in SEC play. The new rules may have helped a little. TO rates were down nationally, though assist rates were basically unchanged.  However, a lot of Arkansas PGs have been surrounded by more scoring than Durham was.  Durham's dishing was one reason why we had a good offensive team last year while playing a bevy of players that were reluctant to shoot.

That's the rub. We could have used more scoring and driving at any position, including PG.  His weaknesses were not well complemented by the rest of the roster. He wasn't a great finisher off the bounce and didn't get to the line much. That wouldn't have mattered much if Qualls had been on the wing where he should have been and/or if a Coty Clarke had been at the four. However, that doesn't mean that Durham's strengths weren't very impressive. He was also a good defender in a lineup that often had three holes on defense. The futility on D was not his fault.

Barford, nor anybody else we could put at PG, is probably going to handle as well. Lee Mayberry had less impressive assist stats than Durham. However, Barford will have more scorers around him, which will compensate. Where Barford should be a major upgrade is finishing around the basket and getting to the line, which should help a lot in making the O more resilient. I think we will be better on offense because of more balance and variety on the roster, though I wish Durham had a shot on this team. His strengths would be amplified, and his weaknesses minimized with this roster.

We finished #90 in Pomeroy last season despite early roster depletion on a short roster, snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory in several games, and stumbling on O down the stretch as the D was finally improving. I highly doubt a #100+ finish is in our future if this roster make it through the season intact.

I think you took my comment harsher than it was meant to be even though I tried to add enough to soften it.  You can go back and look at Mike's UAB and Mizzou teams and find guards and teams with impressive assist to turnover ratios.  The only MA team at Ark to finish lower than 29th in assist to turnover was his first one.  The same pattern happened at UAB and Mizzou after his first team.  His E8 team finished second in the nation.  His second UAB team finished 11th.  Hogs were 17th last season.  We were 38th in assists per possession last season.  Pretty good.  28th in 14-15. 

Not saying that to diminish Durham.  He had a very successful season from that standpoint and made a wise choice in choosing to play in our system.  He excelled at part of it.  What also helped Durham last season was being on the best 3pt shooting team by % in our program's history.  As I said in the post to which you replied, I believe Durham did a good job.

"Where Barford should be a major upgrade is finishing around the basket and getting to the line..."  Barford will be a better all around player and should make a more significant impact than a distributor.  Assists will come in Mike's system.  They will just likely be more spreadout across players. 

I didn't place any fault on Durham for last season defense or otherwise.

"We finished #90 in Pomeroy last season despite early roster depletion on a short roster, snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory in several games, and stumbling on O down the stretch as the D was finally improving. I highly doubt a #100+ finish is in our future if this roster make it through the season intact." 

Again, I agree.  There will be far too many wins and we have improved RPI scheduling to finish near this prediction of +100.

[Breems]

Projected Postseason Tournament: CBI / CIT / V16

[FineAsSwine]

Projected Postseason Tournament: CBI / CIT / V16

I wouldn't mind a preseason version of one of these but postseason? Hellll to the nawwww.

[PonderinHog]

Projected Postseason Tournament: CBI / CIT / V16

Breems, we have to do better than this.  We have to.  Otherwise, I and several other will have to walk back some ultimatums made at the end of last season.  Not that what I say matters.

[Breems]

Breems, we have to do better than this.  We have to.  Otherwise, I and several other will have to walk back some ultimatums made at the end of last season.  Not that what I say matters.

Yeah, I thought that was pretty darn low. I think the NIT is our worst possible outcome. It's a brand new team, and we didn't make the postseason last year, so we're probably a crapshoot for most writers and analysts.

[PonderinHog]

I'm optimistic about the present, as well as the future.   :razorback: :razorback: :razorback: are back!

[niels_boar]

I think you took my comment harsher than it was meant to be even though I tried to add enough to soften it.  You can go back and look at Mike's UAB and Mizzou teams and find guards and teams with impressive assist to turnover ratios.  The only MA team at Ark to finish lower than 29th in assist to turnover was his first one.  The same pattern happened at UAB and Mizzou after his first team.  His E8 team finished second in the nation.  His second UAB team finished 11th.  Hogs were 17th last season.  We were 38th in assists per possession last season.  Pretty good.  28th in 14-15. 

Not saying that to diminish Durham.  He had a very successful season from that standpoint and made a wise choice in choosing to play in our system.  He excelled at part of it.  What also helped Durham last season was being on the best 3pt shooting team by % in our program's history.  As I said in the post to which you replied, I believe Durham did a good job.

"Where Barford should be a major upgrade is finishing around the basket and getting to the line..."  Barford will be a better all around player and should make a more significant impact than a distributor.  Assists will come in Mike's system.  They will just likely be more spreadout across players. 

I didn't place any fault on Durham for last season defense or otherwise.

"We finished #90 in Pomeroy last season despite early roster depletion on a short roster, snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory in several games, and stumbling on O down the stretch as the D was finally improving. I highly doubt a #100+ finish is in our future if this roster make it through the season intact." 

Again, I agree.  There will be far too many wins and we have improved RPI scheduling to finish near this prediction of +100.

A lot of that was not directed specifically at you. If I was going to post about Durham, I thought that I might as well give him all the props that he earned. I rode him too much as a junior.

I agree that this staff is year-in and year-out one of the best at instructing ballhandling. Barford and Macon will be well taught in that area, and players that turn the ball over a lot will sit. Still, my point was that Durham's numbers as a senior were still something of an outlier, even for the system.

[FineAsSwine]

A lot of that was not directed specifically at you. If I was going to post about Durham, I thought that I might as well give him all the props that he earned. I rode him too much as a junior.

I agree that this staff is year-in and year-out one of the best at instructing ballhandling. Barford and Macon will be well taught in that area, and players that turn the ball over a lot will sit. Still, my point was that Durham's numbers as a senior were still something of an outlier, even for the system.

Our low turnover rate is pretty amazing considering the speed at which we play.

[Mr. Porkleone]

Wow. Exciting 108.


I think we'll be WAY better than this prediction. Looks like better team than 108

[Biggus Piggus]

But he's a little less excited about the Juco's we have coming in that our fan base might be. Still a good write-up.

http://www.collegesportsmadness.com/mens-basketball/top-144-previews?page=1

SEC Teams that have shown up so far:

86 Auburn
95 South Carolina
108 Arkansas
122 LSU

Already has teams like William & Mary, Siena, Weber State, Ohio U, UC Irvine, Texas Arlington, Iowa rated higher than the Hogs. That's weak. Belmont, UT Chattanooga, Auburn, UAB, Vermont...

Hell, they have Minnesota rated 80th. Minnesota was 8-23 last season. They believe we're going to be worse than Minnesota? We're going to ruin the Gophers.

[gmarv]

Already has teams like William & Mary, Siena, Weber State, Ohio U, UC Irvine, Texas Arlington, Iowa rated higher than the Hogs. That's weak. Belmont, UT Chattanooga, Auburn, UAB, Vermont...

Hell, they have Minnesota rated 80th. Minnesota was 8-23 last season. They believe we're going to be worse than Minnesota? We're going to ruin the Gophers.

i don,t think a one of those teams you listed above could stay within 10 points of us on a neutral floor.i,m not sure where we should be rated but this list is crap.