Hoops Question

orangeandbrown · Post by **orangeandbrown** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:04 am

Is there a basketball equivalent of Phil Steele? A book with accurate information you can rely on?

Falcon137 · Post by **Falcon137** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 11:35 am

To be honest, I don't think there is. Especially if you are looking for a low mid-major type team. All of them cover the Big East, ACC, etc. well. Personally I think Athlon does a nice job, but with over 300 D1 teams it's hard to find a complete magazine. You can also buy it online with a regional cover, in Ohio your choices are; the Cincinnati, Dayton, Xavier cover or Ohio St.

Online, I check out collegehoops.net. They have a nice pre-season top 144 preview every year.

h2oville rocket · Post by **h2oville rocket** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 1:13 pm

Athlon is usually pretty on target- I think this year they have Steve Mix and Ricky Strong leading a strong Toledo backcourt that will challenge Marshall for the league title, while Antonio Daniels is expected to help BG in the front court with his strong postup game.

orangeandbrown · Post by **orangeandbrown** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 1:18 pm

h2oville rocket wrote:Athlon is usually pretty on target- I think this year they have Steve Mix and Ricky Strong leading a strong Toledo backcourt that will challenge Marshall for the league title, while Antonio Daniels is expected to help BG in the front court with his strong postup game.

LOL. My point exactly.

fredthefalcon · Post by **fredthefalcon** » Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:44 am

Blue Ribbon Yearbook has 383 pages on every Division I BB team including a page on BG and every other MAC team. They analyze every player to some degree and give a grade for Backcourt, Bench/Depth, Frontcourt, and Intangibles. FYI grades for BG are C, B-, C+, and B+ respectively. I'm sure they rely on regional correspondents to write the stuff but it is pretty indepth. Cost is high at $22 and I think it is only available by mail order or internet. www.blueribbonyearbook.com

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:54 am

Our frontcourt should be higher than a C+....Knight and Miller are good, solid D1 forwards, Polk and Larson are good rebounders and excellent shot blockers and Marschall is an experienced player who's demonstrated an ability to play on a wing or in the low post (assuming his knee injury hasn't taken any of his lateral quickness). I think our frontcourt is every bit as solid as our backcourt...maybe even a shade better.

BleedOrange · Post by **BleedOrange** » Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:03 am

Flipper wrote:Our frontcourt should be higher than a C+....Knight and Miller are good, solid D1 forwards, Polk and Larson are good rebounders and excellent shot blockers and Marschall is an experienced player who's demonstrated an ability to play on a wing or in the low post (assuming his knee injury hasn't taken any of his lateral quickness). I think our frontcourt is every bit as solid as our backcourt...maybe even a shade better.

IMHO, we have three guys who have all-mac potential - Miller, Knight, and Marcshall. Beyond that, Polk has a huge upside (as well as a backside) that we haven't seen yet. Same for Madlock. Larson is experienced, functional depth. B+ at least, maybe A-. This could be the best front line that we've had in quite a while.

h2oville rocket · Post by **h2oville rocket** » Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:29 am

BleedOrange wrote:Polk has a huge backside that we haven't seen yet.

Thank God.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:46 am

Flipper wrote:Our frontcourt should be higher than a C+....Knight and Miller are good, solid D1 forwards, Polk and Larson are good rebounders and excellent shot blockers and Marschall is an experienced player who's demonstrated an ability to play on a wing or in the low post (assuming his knee injury hasn't taken any of his lateral quickness). I think our frontcourt is every bit as solid as our backcourt...maybe even a shade better.

I agree that our front court is better than a C+ if you're grading by MAC standards. If you're grading it by national standards, then perhaps not. I do think our front court is much better than our backcourt though, so that's where I'd question their grading scale.

Oh, and at the risk of sounding as though I'm singling out one player, Larson is absolutely NOT a good rebounder. In fact, he's one of the worst rebounders I can remember in the MAC for a man his size. For whatever reason he really has trouble catching the basketball.

fredthefalcon · Post by **fredthefalcon** » Fri Oct 17, 2008 1:09 pm

hammb wrote:
Flipper wrote:Our frontcourt should be higher than a C+....Knight and Miller are good, solid D1 forwards, Polk and Larson are good rebounders and excellent shot blockers and Marschall is an experienced player who's demonstrated an ability to play on a wing or in the low post (assuming his knee injury hasn't taken any of his lateral quickness). I think our frontcourt is every bit as solid as our backcourt...maybe even a shade better.
I agree that our front court is better than a C+ if you're grading by MAC standards. If you're grading it by national standards, then perhaps not. I do think our front court is much better than our backcourt though, so that's where I'd question their grading scale.

Oh, and at the risk of sounding as though I'm singling out one player, Larson is absolutely NOT a good rebounder. In fact, he's one of the worst rebounders I can remember in the MAC for a man his size. For whatever reason he really has trouble catching the basketball.

Hey I must have had my bifocals on upside down. Those grades are actually for Akron. BG's are B, C+, B-, and B+. Still backcourt is rated better than the front which I also disagree with. The ratings are suppose to be national but I see a divergence by conference. For example, the also rans in the Big Ten like OSU, Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, and Penn State basically have worse ratings than BG. If you just averaged the ratings, BG would be at least tied for 4th in the Big Ten. The top predicted MAC teams of EMU and Miami have ratings that are similar to Wisconsin rated #24.

I would say that ratings aside, BlueRibbon has a heck of a lot of information. I use it to read about BG's opponent before each game. Like I said every player is profiled to some degree.

bgsufalcon24 · Post by **bgsufalcon24** » Fri Oct 17, 2008 1:25 pm

fredthefalcon wrote:
hammb wrote:
Flipper wrote:Our frontcourt should be higher than a C+....Knight and Miller are good, solid D1 forwards, Polk and Larson are good rebounders and excellent shot blockers and Marschall is an experienced player who's demonstrated an ability to play on a wing or in the low post (assuming his knee injury hasn't taken any of his lateral quickness). I think our frontcourt is every bit as solid as our backcourt...maybe even a shade better.
I agree that our front court is better than a C+ if you're grading by MAC standards. If you're grading it by national standards, then perhaps not. I do think our front court is much better than our backcourt though, so that's where I'd question their grading scale.

Oh, and at the risk of sounding as though I'm singling out one player, Larson is absolutely NOT a good rebounder. In fact, he's one of the worst rebounders I can remember in the MAC for a man his size. For whatever reason he really has trouble catching the basketball.
Hey I must have had my bifocals on upside down. Those grades are actually for Akron. BG's are B, C+, B-, and B+. Still backcourt is rated better than the front which I also disagree with. The ratings are suppose to be national but I see a divergence by conference. For example, the also rans in the Big Ten like OSU, Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, and Penn State basically have worse ratings than BG. If you just averaged the ratings, BG would be at least tied for 4th in the Big Ten. The top predicted MAC teams of EMU and Miami have ratings that are similar to Wisconsin rated #24.

I would say that ratings aside, BlueRibbon has a heck of a lot of information. I use it to read about BG's opponent before each game. Like I said every player is profiled to some degree.

Maybe the MAC is just that damn good at basketball.