Early Basketball Rankings

[arktiger1975 537]

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/college-basketball-rankings-texas-a-m-moves-up-in-top-25-and-1-after-landing-smus-zhuric-phelps/

Currently projected #9 going into next season based on off-season happenings so far.

[AUSCalum87 174]

53 minutes ago, arktiger1975 said:

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/college-basketball-rankings-texas-a-m-moves-up-in-top-25-and-1-after-landing-smus-zhuric-phelps/

Currently projected #9 going into next season based on off-season happenings so far.

I always find these polls entertaining since there is going to be so much movement in the next couple of months with rosters. I think if Auburn gets Duke Miles and another star power forward, we will easily be in the top 5 preseason.

[Dual-Threat Rigby 8,747]

Feels like a pretty realistic spot for us. Don’t think we can really get any higher unless Sears is are still somehow undecided and chooses to dip out. We could then move up one spot, but that’d be about the extent of it realistically. Duke being 6th with Flagg goes to demonstrate how stacked some of these teams are 

[AUSCalum87 174]

1 hour ago, Dual-Threat Rigby said:

Feels like a pretty realistic spot for us. Don’t think we can really get any higher unless Sears is are still somehow undecided and chooses to dip out. We could then move up one spot, but that’d be about the extent of it realistically. Duke being 6th with Flagg goes to demonstrate how stacked some of these teams are 

In all honesty, just from doing my own research and how some teams are predicted to finish with the portal, I think when all is said and done, Auburn will more than likely be a top 15 team, could see us dropping to top 20. There are still a lot of big names in the portal and many programs ranked below Auburn are in the running for those players. I think college basketball next year in general will be more unpredictable than it was this year, since anyone that watched basketball knew UCONN was going to win it before February. There have been so many coaching changes and complete roster overhauls on top of the new conference alignments, that it will be very exciting to watch.

[Dual-Threat Rigby 8,747]

1 hour ago, AUSCalum87 said:

In all honesty, just from doing my own research and how some teams are predicted to finish with the portal, I think when all is said and done, Auburn will more than likely be a top 15 team, could see us dropping to top 20. There are still a lot of big names in the portal and many programs ranked below Auburn are in the running for those players. I think college basketball next year in general will be more unpredictable than it was this year, since anyone that watched basketball knew UCONN was going to win it before February. There have been so many coaching changes and complete roster overhauls on top of the new conference alignments, that it will be very exciting to watch.

SEC could be anything between a 2 horse race to 5 legitimately elite squads. And I’m not even thinking about OU/UTa, who’ve been battle tested in the toughest conference for bball for decades. It’s gonna be a great season I agree 

[AUSCalum87 174]

5 minutes ago, Dual-Threat Rigby said:

SEC could be anything between a 2 horse race to 5 legitimately elite squads. And I’m not even thinking about OU/UTa, who’ve been battle tested in the toughest conference for bball for decades. It’s gonna be a great season I agree 

Agree completely. It’s why when I hear “experts” talk about the upcoming basketball season and making predictions, I just have to laugh because there’s no way in knowing what will happen to the portal. Auburn is a prime example of that. If Auburn had gotten Duke and a legit PF, Auburn would easily be in the top 10, more than likely top 5. However, after we have discussed about Auburn’s mediocre NIL for basketball, it means Auburn will have to fill out those last two spots to projects more than likely again, meaning we will now be ranked somewhere between 15-20 preseason. 
 

But in saying that, overall next year is going to be a grind in the SEC and in college basketball in general. I wish I could skip football season and go straight into basketball, 🤣 

[Auburn93 561]

On 5/3/2024 at 2:33 PM, AUSCalum87 said:

Agree completely. It’s why when I hear “experts” talk about the upcoming basketball season and making predictions, I just have to laugh because there’s no way in knowing what will happen to the portal. Auburn is a prime example of that. If Auburn had gotten Duke and a legit PF, Auburn would easily be in the top 10, more than likely top 5. However, after we have discussed about Auburn’s mediocre NIL for basketball, it means Auburn will have to fill out those last two spots to projects more than likely again, meaning we will now be ranked somewhere between 15-20 preseason. 
 

But in saying that, overall next year is going to be a grind in the SEC and in college basketball in general. I wish I could skip football season and go straight into basketball, 🤣 

Why would we give money to guys who can't play? 

[TigerOne 1,152]

On 5/3/2024 at 1:09 PM, AUSCalum87 said:

In all honesty, just from doing my own research and how some teams are predicted to finish with the portal, I think when all is said and done, Auburn will more than likely be a top 15 team, could see us dropping to top 20. There are still a lot of big names in the portal and many programs ranked below Auburn are in the running for those players. I think college basketball next year in general will be more unpredictable than it was this year, since anyone that watched basketball knew UCONN was going to win it before February. There have been so many coaching changes and complete roster overhauls on top of the new conference alignments, that it will be very exciting to watch.

So AU is slipping into mediocrity. Of course it’s a role we relish and usually prove the experts wrong until we mess it up

[AUSCalum87 174]

3 hours ago, Auburn93 said:

Why would we give money to guys who can't play? 

I don’t think I ever said that. I said that now Auburn has virtually no NIL money for basketball, Pearl will have to go the JUCO route or DII route again since most quality guys in the portal are not going to come without a price and promised significant playing time.

[AUSCalum87 174]

52 minutes ago, TigerOne said:

So AU is slipping into mediocrity. Of course it’s a role we relish and usually prove the experts wrong until we mess it up

No, I don’t agree with that. As long as Pearl is there, I believe Auburn will always be competing for championships. Auburn won’t be as talented as the top teams and our rivals, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have any chance. I mean, for the most part, we have been overachieving given the talent comparable to our rivals. 

[AURex 2,031]

Waiting to see who else CBP pulls in. The current lineup is maybe top 20 but definitely not top 12.

Please PROVE. ME. WRONG! I hunger for crow!

 

[Dual-Threat Rigby 8,747]

 

[AUSCalum87 174]

28 minutes ago, Dual-Threat Rigby said:

 

Definitely disagree with these rankings. I would put Kansas, Houston, UCONN and Duke above UAT. Also, as our roster currently stands, we are not a top 10 team. I think we are way too high compared to other teams based on talent. We should be around 15-20 right now. However, if we get Achor Achor and Ivy-Curry, definitely could see us in the top 5.

[Dual-Threat Rigby 8,747]

55 minutes ago, AUSCalum87 said:

Definitely disagree with these rankings. I would put Kansas, Houston, UCONN and Duke above UAT. Also, as our roster currently stands, we are not a top 10 team. I think we are way too high compared to other teams based on talent. We should be around 15-20 right now. However, if we get Achor Achor and Ivy-Curry, definitely could see us in the top 5.

Im guessing Sears returned? I’d have them #1 in that case, but it’s pretty much neck and neck with KU. I’m basically rewarding the F4 exp, Grant possibly taking another step, and the POTENTIAL of the class they brought in. If those guys play to their potential, they can have one of the best benches the SEC has seen recently. 
 

KU’s returning value almost doesn’t even matter to me with how underwhelming those dudes performed last year, but Harris, Adams and Dickinson were the strengths so I’ll give them that. I like their class more than Bama’s. It’s more proven production. Probably a lower potential ceiling. Those two would be my #1 contenders 

[AUSCalum87 174]

7 minutes ago, Dual-Threat Rigby said:

Im guessing Sears returned? I’d have them #1 in that case, but it’s pretty much neck and neck with KU. I’m basically rewarding the F4 exp, Grant possibly taking another step, and the POTENTIAL of the class they brought in. If those guys play to their potential, they can have one of the best benches the SEC has seen recently. 
 

KU’s returning value almost doesn’t even matter to me with how underwhelming those dudes performed last year, but Harris, Adams and Dickinson were the strengths so I’ll give them that. I like their class more than Bama’s. It’s more proven production. Probably a lower potential ceiling. Those two would be my #1 contenders 

See, this is where basketball becomes tricky and in the “eye of the beholder” to say. People are forgetting that UAT struggled mightily down the stretch and were consistently getting blown out by much better teams. Nelson had a few good games here and there but for the most part he was dominated by much better post players, including Broome. Yes, their incoming high school recruits have the POTENTIAL to be great, but none of them are NBA caliber players yet. Look at any of the mock drafts for 2025 and not one of their players are listed. Heck, Auburn has two with Broome and saw Pettiford in one that has him going the first round.

I will also say if you compare the two lineups, I don’t see much difference. We have the better front court. Pegues is as good as their guard from USF. Denver is better than Aden until proven otherwise. CBM is as good if not better than Wrightsell or however you spell his name. The only spot they have a clear andv over Auburn is PF with us having Chaney. However, if we get Achor Achor, then we will certainly have the better lineup. I’ll ask a different way. Say UAT flamed out like Auburn did in the first round, don’t think anyone would be hyping them up? Not at all. I don’t see where they made huge improvements in their roster. The guys that left were actually really productive offensively. They lost offense with the Rutgers guy coming again but gained defense. So, it’s a wash there. I don’t see how they are considered a national title contender. The Final Four run they made has really distorted the media’s and fans’ perception of their team. If they don’t make the FF, they would be where Auburn is ranked right now.

[Dual-Threat Rigby 8,747]

21 minutes ago, AUSCalum87 said:

See, this is where basketball becomes tricky and in the “eye of the beholder” to say. People are forgetting that UAT struggled mightily down the stretch and were consistently getting blown out by much better teams. Nelson had a few good games here and there but for the most part he was dominated by much better post players, including Broome. Yes, their incoming high school recruits have the POTENTIAL to be great, but none of them are NBA caliber players yet. Look at any of the mock drafts for 2025 and not one of their players are listed. Heck, Auburn has two with Broome and saw Pettiford in one that has him going the first round.

I will also say if you compare the two lineups, I don’t see much difference. We have the better front court. Pegues is as good as their guard from USF. Denver is better than Aden until proven otherwise. CBM is as good if not better than Wrightsell or however you spell his name. The only spot they have a clear andv over Auburn is PF with us having Chaney. However, if we get Achor Achor, then we will certainly have the better lineup. I’ll ask a different way. Say UAT flamed out like Auburn did in the first round, don’t think anyone would be hyping them up? Not at all. I don’t see where they made huge improvements in their roster. The guys that left were actually really productive offensively. They lost offense with the Rutgers guy coming again but gained defense. So, it’s a wash there. I don’t see how they are considered a national title contender. The Final Four run they made has really distorted the media’s and fans’ perception of their team. If they don’t make the FF, they would be where Auburn is ranked right now.

I think there’s some great points. Like I mentioned in a diff post, they had some rough stretches, but they played one of the hardest schedules in the whole nation and the SOR (which did a lot of heavy lifting for them early) is important in evaluating them. We were supposed to be a 3 seed, and they had the same record we did. Tenn was supposed to be a #1 if a ball bounced a bit differently and they were one win away from tying them in conference record. It was a year where most great but not elite teams got their butts kicked on the road against other teams; I can’t hold that against them specifically. I also don’t think that stretch should hold more weight than them playing great-elite teams to the wire in the OOC part of the year or them looking like a really good team in the tournament play. They got much better stretches of good than bad. Nelson looked stellar in tourney play where it mattered, and that’s the last thing he showed us. Typically, people get the benefit of the doubt and get expectations based around the last thing they showed us, so I’m giving him that. Btw Broome won the matchup, but at least in their home game, Nelson had our centers switched out on the perimeter and took advantage of that matchup to close out the game repeatedly. That’s even more relevant because apparently, Auburn intends on running those two centers together and one of them are going to have to defend him on the perimeter even more. 
 

I’d take their lineup just because it’s more proven. They have the best player between either lineup in Sears. That’s nothing to do with Bama-Auburn, but if you have a guy who’s arguably the best PG in CBB as he looked like in tourney play, that’s going to be more valuable than basically any caliber of center other than an Edey type guy. The game of basketball is just a perimeter oriented one at this point. So you have their proven PG against our guy that still has to show it on the “Power 6” level. The same applies to Denver and Youngblood in the reverse. CBM should be better than their 3 options atm. Grant is much, much better than our 4s. And Broome is better than Cliff. Their bench should blow ours completely out the water, which is the big difference imo. I don’t even think those two units should be in the same realm tbh. I’d be happy to be wrong but they look to be what, 6 deep with high level guys? Their 12th man is what, Aden? 

[AUSCalum87 174]

5 minutes ago, Dual-Threat Rigby said:

I think there’s some great points. Like I mentioned in a diff post, they had some rough stretches, but they played one of the hardest schedules in the whole nation and the SOR (which did a lot of heavy lifting for them early) is important in evaluating them. We were supposed to be a 3 seed, and they had the same record we did. Tenn was supposed to be a #1 if a ball bounced a bit differently and they were one win away from tying them in conference record. It was a year where most great but not elite teams got their butts kicked on the road against other teams; I can’t hold that against them specifically. I also don’t think that stretch should hold more weight than them playing great-elite teams to the wire in the OOC part of the year or them looking like a really good team in the tournament play. They got much better stretches of good than bad. Nelson looked stellar in tourney play where it mattered, and that’s the last thing he showed us. Typically, people get the benefit of the doubt and get expectations based around the last thing they showed us, so I’m giving him that. Btw Broome won the matchup, but at least in their home game, Nelson had our centers switched out on the perimeter and took advantage of that matchup to close out the game repeatedly. That’s even more relevant because apparently, Auburn intends on running those two centers together and one of them are going to have to defend him on the perimeter even more. 
 

I’d take their lineup just because it’s more proven. They have the best player between either lineup in Sears. That’s nothing to do with Bama-Auburn, but if you have a guy who’s arguably the best PG in CBB as he looked like in tourney play, that’s going to be more valuable than basically any caliber of center other than an Edey type guy. The game of basketball is just a perimeter oriented one at this point. So you have their proven PG against our guy that still has to show it on the “Power 6” level. The same applies to Denver and Youngblood in the reverse. CBM should be better than their 3 options atm. Grant is much, much better than our 4s. And Broome is better than Cliff. Their bench should blow ours completely out the water, which is the big difference imo. I don’t even think those two units should be in the same realm tbh. I’d be happy to be wrong but they look to be what, 6 deep with high level guys? Their 12th man is what, Aden? 

There are some points I agree with. Now, if you are counting on Sears coming back, then yes, they have the advantage at PG. But as of now, as the lineups are, I think we have the advantage there. Also, Auburn and UAT were basically the same teams. Teams that trounced average to below average teams and couldn’t beat the top teams in conference. Literally in the regular season Auburn’s and UAT’s best wins were against each other. And yes, they did play a strong nonconference schedule, but still lost all of those games. They got hot for 4 games, that’s it. They didn’t anything more special than Auburn during the regular season other than play a great nonconference schedule and losing to every single one of those big teams. 
 

As for the lineups, it seems like you are really focused on their potential. As I stated before, Pettiford has shown up in mock draft being taken in the first round. None of UAT’s players are on any of the drafts as of now. Jakhi and Pettiford are ranked around top 75 while theirs are around top 20. It’s not that big of a difference to me. Then Aden who couldn’t hit anything. I mean, you can’t get any worse than what he played last year, so yea, he’ll improve but I’m not even sure if he’ll get significant minutes. Again, I think Broome is way better than Nelson and it’s not close to me. Cardwell and their big guy is a wash. CBM is better. Denver Jones is more experienced and was coming on the last two months. I just don’t see it being that big of difference. Most of their players have similar stats as Auburn’s players. Now, if we don’t fill these last two spots with quality players then I will agree that they would be head and shoulders above us.

[Dual-Threat Rigby 8,747]

2 hours ago, AUSCalum87 said:

There are some points I agree with. Now, if you are counting on Sears coming back, then yes, they have the advantage at PG. But as of now, as the lineups are, I think we have the advantage there. Also, Auburn and UAT were basically the same teams. Teams that trounced average to below average teams and couldn’t beat the top teams in conference. Literally in the regular season Auburn’s and UAT’s best wins were against each other. And yes, they did play a strong nonconference schedule, but still lost all of those games. They got hot for 4 games, that’s it. They didn’t anything more special than Auburn during the regular season other than play a great nonconference schedule and losing to every single one of those big teams. 
 

As for the lineups, it seems like you are really focused on their potential. As I stated before, Pettiford has shown up in mock draft being taken in the first round. None of UAT’s players are on any of the drafts as of now. Jakhi and Pettiford are ranked around top 75 while theirs are around top 20. It’s not that big of a difference to me. Then Aden who couldn’t hit anything. I mean, you can’t get any worse than what he played last year, so yea, he’ll improve but I’m not even sure if he’ll get significant minutes. Again, I think Broome is way better than Nelson and it’s not close to me. Cardwell and their big guy is a wash. CBM is better. Denver Jones is more experienced and was coming on the last two months. I just don’t see it being that big of difference. Most of their players have similar stats as Auburn’s players. Now, if we don’t fill these last two spots with quality players then I will agree that they would be head and shoulders above us.

I guess I am just of the mindset that you are a better team in March if you play those games. Like we played two hard games from November to SEC play, and one was a neutral site. I have to think that contributed to our lack of real road success and esp our unfamiliarity in the NCAAT structure, which is most like an OOC neutral/road. They played I believe 5, and one of them was against the team they played in the NCAAT, coincidentally. They also looked really good in the Purdue, Clemson and Creighton games, off of the top of my head. Those close losses matter when comparing your resume to other similar teams and their close losses (for example, ours was against App St lol). While I don’t think there was much of a difference between the teams last year, I do think Alabama had more to build off, by nature of their process that made them battle-tested for March. We REALLY need to up our OOC. 
 

Okay so Pegues/(someone)

Denver/Pettiford

CBM/Howard

Chaney/someone 

Broome/Cardwell

and CMO somewhere in the ether 

they have 

I don’t see how it’s close - unless you think Pettiford and Howard are so talented that they essentially can make up for Bama doubling up on quality backups (that are also highly touted recruits or players that have already played ball), there’s not really a way I can think of for making it close. Cardwell is solid, CMo is okay, Pettiford and Howard haven’t played games. That’s a bench that could be a lot of things, just like Bama, but Bama has way more viable options.  

[Dual-Threat Rigby 8,747]

By the way, I don’t want anyone looking at these posts thinking I’m down on Auburn. They DEFINITELY need to get the bench figured out to come close to last year, but the starting 5 is there to be amongst the top 2-5 in conference 

[phillyeagle 130]

With Sears, they have a great team. Without Sears, they have a good team.

 

For that reason, I choose to believe Sears is going pro. 

[AUSCalum87 174]

4 hours ago, Dual-Threat Rigby said:

I guess I am just of the mindset that you are a better team in March if you play those games. Like we played two hard games from November to SEC play, and one was a neutral site. I have to think that contributed to our lack of real road success and esp our unfamiliarity in the NCAAT structure, which is most like an OOC neutral/road. They played I believe 5, and one of them was against the team they played in the NCAAT, coincidentally. They also looked really good in the Purdue, Clemson and Creighton games, off of the top of my head. Those close losses matter when comparing your resume to other similar teams and their close losses (for example, ours was against App St lol). While I don’t think there was much of a difference between the teams last year, I do think Alabama had more to build off, by nature of their process that made them battle-tested for March. We REALLY need to up our OOC. 
 

Okay so Pegues/(someone)

Denver/Pettiford

CBM/Howard

Chaney/someone 

Broome/Cardwell

and CMO somewhere in the ether 

they have 

I don’t see how it’s close - unless you think Pettiford and Howard are so talented that they essentially can make up for Bama doubling up on quality backups (that are also highly touted recruits or players that have already played ball), there’s not really a way I can think of for making it close. Cardwell is solid, CMo is okay, Pettiford and Howard haven’t played games. That’s a bench that could be a lot of things, just like Bama, but Bama has way more viable options.  

I guess this is where you and I will disagree. Don’t get me wrong, I agree about Auburn’s nonconference schedule. It was pretty weak and embarrassing to lose on the road at App St. But it wasn’t like Auburn didn’t try and schedule some tough teams. It wasn’t Auburn’s fault that Indiana and USC, both preseason ranked teams, were terrible. App State won their regular season conference that included 2 wins over James Madison. So sometimes you can’t help when other teams don’t live up to their hype.
 

UAT scheduled a great nonconference schedule, it was why they were seeded so high. Now, this is just a personal opinion, but I think the committee and fans put too much emphasis on strength of schedule. I mean, yes, they played like 4 top 25 teams, but they lost all of them. At some point that has to matter. They also struggled mightily on the road, just like Auburn. Again, their best win in the regular season was against Auburn and vice versa. Auburn was only lost two games by double digits. I believe UAT lost almost all of their games by double digits in the SEC. 

What I’m getting at is that Auburn was actually the better team overall in the regular season if you look at metrics. Both teams played the same teams and Auburn performed better against those teams, those are the facts. I also knew though that Auburn was going to struggle in the tournament because of our guard play, they have been a weakness the last 3 years. I thought Auburn actually got a favorable seed at 4, given that Auburn didn’t really beat anybody. 

That brings to UAT. Look at their last 6 games, where they went 2-4 with almost all losses blowouts. Their tough nonconference schedule did not help them during the regular season at all. Auburn and UAT had the same record even though Auburn played a weaker nonconference. UAT got blown out by UF in the SEC tournament and Auburn beat down UF to win the SEC tournament. Now comes the real problem when it comes to basketball, basing your whole season success off of the NCAA tournament. That’s where perception isn’t reality. UAT has 4 games where they got hot, oh and by the way, had the easiest path to the final four that I can ever remember, playing a 13 seed, a 12 seed and a 6 seed as well as the weakest 1 seed. I love how people completely ignore those facts because it doesn’t fit their narrative about UAT. I digress though. The NCAA tournament is a crapshoot and should be viewed as that. Yes, Auburn flamed out and UAT got hot for 4 games at the end with a very easy path, those are facts. At the end of the season, both teams pretty much had the same season, even though UAT had way more talent than Auburn. And didn’t Auburn beat them by almost 20? Again, perception is not reality. Which me brings me to this year. I still don’t see any difference from what they had last year. That center for Rutgers struggled against top teams in a weak Big 10. He’s a great defender but a liability on offense. Again, outside of Chaney, Auburn goes head to head with UAT production wise even though they have way more talent again than Auburn.

[AUSCalum87 174]

5 hours ago, Dual-Threat Rigby said:

I guess I am just of the mindset that you are a better team in March if you play those games. Like we played two hard games from November to SEC play, and one was a neutral site. I have to think that contributed to our lack of real road success and esp our unfamiliarity in the NCAAT structure, which is most like an OOC neutral/road. They played I believe 5, and one of them was against the team they played in the NCAAT, coincidentally. They also looked really good in the Purdue, Clemson and Creighton games, off of the top of my head. Those close losses matter when comparing your resume to other similar teams and their close losses (for example, ours was against App St lol). While I don’t think there was much of a difference between the teams last year, I do think Alabama had more to build off, by nature of their process that made them battle-tested for March. We REALLY need to up our OOC. 
 

Okay so Pegues/(someone)

Denver/Pettiford

CBM/Howard

Chaney/someone 

Broome/Cardwell

and CMO somewhere in the ether 

they have 

I don’t see how it’s close - unless you think Pettiford and Howard are so talented that they essentially can make up for Bama doubling up on quality backups (that are also highly touted recruits or players that have already played ball), there’s not really a way I can think of for making it close. Cardwell is solid, CMo is okay, Pettiford and Howard haven’t played games. That’s a bench that could be a lot of things, just like Bama, but Bama has way more viable options.  

I also want to add this . You keep bringing up UAT’s freshmen’s potential but disregard Pettiford’s and Jakhi’s potential. As I said before, both are rated in the top 50 and Pettiford is considered the best pro prospect out of both team’s frehsmen. But again, those freshmen for UAT haven’t played a minute yet in college but you apparently think they will dominate ours will just be ok when in reality our freshmen are really talented players themselves. I see that as a wash right now until we get proof that one is better than the other. Oh and talking about bench players, you really want to discuss how Aden played last year? So then we have to go to the starters who have actually played and produce. Yes, Mark Sears would make them better, but outside of that, from returning production, Auburn actually has better returning players. Broome was more productive than Nelson and the Rutgers guy, that’s a fact. Chaney Johnson is the weak link, I’ll give you that. We upgraded at guard with Pegues. Denver Jones was shooting lights out the last few games. Why can’t you give him the benefit of the doubt like you do with Nelson? And CBM is still better than any of their small forwards, production wise. Again, that’s all we can go on. I don’t like to guess potential when players haven’t played a minute. I agree that UAT has way more talented players than Auburn, I’m not going to argue with that. What I’m saying is Auburn has about the same if not more production than UAT coming back. We have the core group of guys who beat them by almost 20 and they have a couple of guys who received that whooping along with other guys who had similar production of the players who left. I guess that’s why I don’t see this as some huge difference between Auburn and UAT. It sounds you are solely looking at potential while I’m looking at production and facts of the players who have played so far, since that’s all you can go by for now.

[AURex 2,031]

Bama with or without Sears ...... They are pulling in 5 star players. Arkansas ... with Calipari they are pulling in 5 star players. Tennessee ain't going away. Florida ain't going away. Texas and Oklahoma coming in with solid teams.

I love CBP idea of pulling in guys from lower bracket teams with the idea of "they are hungry". But the thing is, a group of hungry players is not a;ways equal to a bunch of 5 star players. Just sayin'.

 

[AUSCalum87 174]

6 minutes ago, AURex said:

Bama with or without Sears ...... They are pulling in 5 star players. Arkansas ... with Calipari they are pulling in 5 star players. Tennessee ain't going away. Florida ain't going away. Texas and Oklahoma coming in with solid teams.

I love CBP idea of pulling in guys from lower bracket teams with the idea of "they are hungry". But the thing is, a group of hungry players is not a;ways equal to a bunch of 5 star players. Just sayin'.

 

I don’t think Pearl is going just after “hungry” players for the fun of it. He’s pretty much hand tied on who he can recruit to Auburn. Those other programs you just mentioned have invested in their NIL. Auburn is really mediocre with the basketball NIL. It’s basically why each year we will get one really good to great player from the portal and a top 50 recruit. Other than that, he’ll go after those “hungry” guys because he can’t compete with the other schools. Those are just facts. In saying that, even though Pearl hasn’t had the most talented teams in the past few years, he’s still winning SEC championships. The only thing that has hurt him has been guard play and it’s the reason why we can’t get past the first weekend in the NCAA tournament.

[Dual-Threat Rigby 8,747]

50 minutes ago, AUSCalum87 said:

I also want to add this . You keep bringing up UAT’s freshmen’s potential but disregard Pettiford’s and Jakhi’s potential. As I said before, both are rated in the top 50 and Pettiford is considered the best pro prospect out of both team’s frehsmen. But again, those freshmen for UAT haven’t played a minute yet in college but you apparently think they will dominate ours will just be ok when in reality our freshmen are really talented players themselves. I see that as a wash right now until we get proof that one is better than the other. Oh and talking about bench players, you really want to discuss how Aden played last year? So then we have to go to the starters who have actually played and produce. Yes, Mark Sears would make them better, but outside of that, from returning production, Auburn actually has better returning players. Broome was more productive than Nelson and the Rutgers guy, that’s a fact. Chaney Johnson is the weak link, I’ll give you that. We upgraded at guard with Pegues. Denver Jones was shooting lights out the last few games. Why can’t you give him the benefit of the doubt like you do with Nelson? And CBM is still better than any of their small forwards, production wise. Again, that’s all we can go on. I don’t like to guess potential when players haven’t played a minute. I agree that UAT has way more talented players than Auburn, I’m not going to argue with that. What I’m saying is Auburn has about the same if not more production than UAT coming back. We have the core group of guys who beat them by almost 20 and they have a couple of guys who received that whooping along with other guys who had similar production of the players who left. I guess that’s why I don’t see this as some huge difference between Auburn and UAT. It sounds you are solely looking at potential while I’m looking at production and facts of the players who have played so far, since that’s all you can go by for now.

Alright so I'll just break this down to different points you're presenting

1. Point: I'm giving an unfair POV about potential for Alabama's HS guys as compared to Auburn's 

- Response:  Here's a piece from the post you quoted: "unless you think Pettiford and Howard are so talented that they essentially can make up for Bama doubling up on quality backups". We have two HS guys. They have 4, not incl Aden. They have the highest rated HS recruit out of the 4 and all 4 are higher than Howard (per On3). So not only do they have the numbers game, you would think they'd produce more contributors right away with their guys being better (than at least Howard). The earlier post of mine is saying that unless you think Howard and Pettiford can be at least as impactful as two of their incoming guys combined, there's no real way that Auburn's HS guys can be better. Numbers wise, it's virtually impossible as we'd need both of our guys to hit and they'd need at least 2 of their guys to not. 

2. Proven production with the bench 

- Response: We don't have a bench yet. Like the buck could honestly stop there if we were being honest. But Addarin Scott, Chris Moore and Dylan Cardwell is a not very good bench. Your proven production is a Juco center, Chris Moore who couldn't get minutes over Lior Berman, and Dylan who's effectively been the same player 3 straight years. Let's say Wrightsell remains on the bench for whatever reason (him and Rylan switched spots with each other iirc, so he'd logically start but just doing a mental exercise here). That guy may be able to get pretty close to approximating our returning bench production. How many non-Auburn fans would take those three over Wrightsell and Aden? Or if it's Youngblood and Aden instead? This Mallette kid they got who we haven't mentioned is also a career 37.5% 3 point shooter and shot 42% from 3 last season. As of this moment, our bench doesn't win the potential or proven production argument 

3. Last season. So I think you and I just look at the way a schedule goes somewhat differently. For you, if they lose a game they lost a game. The context of the loss doesn't seem to aid a team's projection (from what I can tell, I could be wrong). For me, losing to Clemson in a competitive game, losing to Purdue in Canada in a competitive game, losing to Creighton on the road by 3, that is a positive to me. You haven't asked it, but I would say that the Baylor loss did more for Auburn than beating down the rest of their pretty middling (at best) OOC in my eyes. I can't give them a pass for intending on scheduling hard teams but the hard teams ended up being bad. Auburn was metrically about equal while playing 4-5 less hard games, which probably would've been losses for us with how we played on the road and in neutral-sites against elite teams. That stuff just matters to me when doing projections. I honestly don't care much about the way the SEC went, just because that's the most comfortable a team is going to be. You're going to have opponents that have tape on you and know your tendencies, but the same works in the reverse. There are conferences that looked god awful in the regular season that excelled in single-elim moments, and that just says more to me about the quality of their in-game coaching and how quickly they can adjust. I think we're also at a point where some teams and even conferences are gaming the NET by beating the hell out of bad teams, so when they go up and play each other, it looks like you're 8-12 deep with metrically incredible teams. Wins mean more and losses mean less in that structure. 

In closing, I'd like to also mention that while we are comparing Auburn to Alabama, my original intention was to look at why Alabama would be considered a #1 for a neutral voter/fan, not necessarily why they'd be better than Auburn. That's one reason why us winning the season series against them last year hasn't really factored into any talking point of mine. It didn't mean much when they finished as a better team than us overall (which is the opinion I've seen from neutral rankings/voters)