Tennessee #22 in latest AP Poll

#1
A

Amb3096

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
11,449
Likes
22,605
#1
Seven SEC teams in the current poll:
3. SC
6. MSU
17. UK
19. UF
22. UT
23. AU
25. TAMU

Undefeated VT unranked with 33 votes (compared to 99 for Tennessee).

I don't get who would vote for Tennessee given the fact that they can't beat teams that are better than DII quality. I suspect they will disappear from the polls for good this season after the back-to-back losses to Baylor and Texas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#2
#2
Lady Vols will be irrelevant until they hire a new coach. Bottom line. Unless expectations have gone from winning championships to making the field of 64.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#4
#4
Amb3096 said:
Seven SEC teams in the current poll:
3. SC
6. MSU
17. UK
19. UF
22. UT
23. AU
25. TAMU

Undefeated VT unranked with 33 votes (compared to 99 for Tennessee).

I don't get who would vote for Tennessee given the fact that they can't beat teams that are better than DII quality. I suspect they will disappear from the polls for good this season after the back-to-back losses to Baylor and Texas.
Click to expand...

Not a top 30 team no way
 
#5
#5
Deserving of the ranking or not, the Vols will likely need to at least keep it close at home against Baylor to stay in the rankings. USF at #26 is very likely to win three games this week and go to 7-0 following a big jump for this week's rankings. OTOH, #23 Auburn could lose at 6-0 KSU, which would likely keep them in back of the Vols. Oregon State and Texas A&M should win.
 
#10
#10
gule said:
yes, every one.
Click to expand...

You know if you take away the once-revered rankings discussions along with ratings and other WCBB stuff, you're mainly just left carping about Holly, putzes or no putzes. But here's a few stats about the Vols that may or may not be surprising but allow some possible bright spots to be seen by those who don't need to be totally grumpy. Categories that the LVs rank in the top 50 for:

3pt FG% -- 36th at 37.9%
Defensive rebounds per game -- 21st at 31.0
Rebounds per game -- 39th at 44.8
Fouls per game -- 35th at 15.0

Sounds like some areas that have been longtime cornerstones for the LVs. They do need to work on their kleptomaniacal skills more and get a better security system against the other team's thieves and also to visit the FT line a lot more, but nothing too daunting to fix for staff who look at films and learn from them.

And Middleton is 4th in 3-pt FG%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#11
#11
DR2 said:
...But here's a few stats about the Vols...
Click to expand...

The Vols? And I thought I was in the TN women's basketball forum. Let me guess, in addition to being a uconn fan you're a football fan and are unable to tell when you've blundered into the women's forum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#12
#12
DR2 said:
You know if you take away the once-revered rankings discussions along with ratings and other WCBB stuff, you're mainly just left carping about Holly, putzes or no putzes. But here's a few stats about the Vols that may or may not be surprising but allow some possible bright spots to be seen by those who don't need to be totally grumpy. Categories that the LVs rank in the top 50 for:

3pt FG% -- 36th at 37.9%
Defensive rebounds per game -- 21st at 31.0
Rebounds per game -- 39th at 44.8
Fouls per game -- 35th at 15.0

Sounds like some areas that have been longtime cornerstones for the LVs. They do need to work on their kleptomaniacal skills more and get a better security system against the other team's thieves and also to visit the FT line a lot more, but nothing too daunting to fix for staff who look at films and learn from them.

And Middleton is 4th in 3-pt FG%.
Click to expand...

Middleton looked good against teams with zero height who had to double/triple team Russell. Once they played teams with players above 6'2, her open looks disappeared.

Pre-Baylor matchup was supposed to be the cupcake portion of the schedule. Those numbers aren't very impressive taking into account the competition. Those numbers will plummet once they play Baylor and Texas.
 
#13
#13
DR2 said:
Deserving of the ranking or not, the Vols will likely need to at least keep it close at home against Baylor to stay in the rankings. USF at #26 is very likely to win three games this week and go to 7-0 following a big jump for this week's rankings. OTOH, #23 Auburn could lose at 6-0 KSU, which would likely keep them in back of the Vols. Oregon State and Texas A&M should win.
Click to expand...

A&M lost to SoCal today 66-62.
 
#14
#14
Amb3096 said:
Middleton looked good against teams with zero height who had to double/triple team Russell. Once they played teams with players above 6'2, her open looks disappeared.

Pre-Baylor matchup was supposed to be the cupcake portion of the schedule. Those numbers aren't very impressive taking into account the competition. Those numbers will plummet once they play Baylor and Texas.
Click to expand...

I think they can beat Texas. Not sure if they will but I haven't been impressed with Texas' offense.
 
#15
#15
NoBackBoard said:
I think they can beat Texas. Not sure if they will but I haven't been impressed with Texas' offense.
Click to expand...

I haven't either, but they have guards that can go one-on-one and size to counter Russell. If Texas can limit Russell, and they should be able to make her less efficient with Lang and Holmes guarding her, then it becomes a shootout between the guards which Texas will win going away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#16
#16
DR2 said:
You know if you take away the once-revered rankings discussions along with ratings and other WCBB stuff, you're mainly just left carping about Holly, putzes or no putzes. But here's a few stats about the Vols that may or may not be surprising but allow some possible bright spots to be seen by those who don't need to be totally grumpy. Categories that the LVs rank in the top 50 for:

3pt FG% -- 36th at 37.9%
Defensive rebounds per game -- 21st at 31.0
Rebounds per game -- 39th at 44.8
Fouls per game -- 35th at 15.0

Sounds like some areas that have been longtime cornerstones for the LVs. They do need to work on their kleptomaniacal skills more and get a better security system against the other team's thieves and also to visit the FT line a lot more, but nothing too daunting to fix for staff who look at films and learn from them.

And Middleton is 4th in 3-pt FG%.
Click to expand...

I'm very surprised that we're 39th at rebounding, not that that is a good ranking for us by tradition. I usually listen to the games rather than watch, and over the years, you can "hear" how we rebound. I'm not hearing rebounds, especially not the offensive rebounds and put-backs we've been famous for over the years. Maybe I'm being fooled by the lack of enthusiasm I hear in Mickey Dearstone's delivery now, but it doesn't seem like this team is making the effort of old. Give us more, Lady Vols!
 
#17
#17
VollyParton said:
I'm very surprised that we're 39th at rebounding, not that that is a good ranking for us by tradition. I usually listen to the games rather than watch, and over the years, you can "hear" how we rebound. I'm not hearing rebounds, especially not the offensive rebounds and put-backs we've been famous for over the years. Maybe I'm being fooled by the lack of enthusiasm I hear in Mickey Dearstone's delivery now, but it doesn't seem like this team is making the effort of old. Give us more, Lady Vols!
Click to expand...

The LVs are averaging just shy of 14 ORebs, while last year they averaged 15.0, but Graves was tops on that team and she's gone, and the team is shooting better at 42.7% to last year's 40.8%, and that likely means less OReb opportunities. It takes time to make adjustments to fill in the holes for players like Graves. The LVs are averaging 3.7 more rebounds overall than last year, so the DRebs are coming.

But of course all the stats have to be adjusted for the strength of this year's SOS in the first 5 games versus last year's total of 36 games. Still, the current numbers don't necessarily bear out what certain posters are grumping about. The shooting percentages are both up considerably at 42.7% overall and a nice 37.9% on 3s versus 40.8% and 25.4% last year. Even the blocks are up to 4.4 from 4.2 last year, but that has been Russell and DD's domain both years and Graves did not block much.

Where everyone has the right to grump about is the TOs, as they are up to 17.0 from 16.3 last year, and though the A\TO ratio is a little better this year, the TO margin is a bad -2.6. If the LVs do not do a better job of handling the ball in the games ahead, that will come back to really bite.
 
#18
#18
BUBear said:
A&M lost to SoCal today 66-62.
Click to expand...

Ouch, Massey had A&M at 72% chance for winning at home, so that should help the LVs odds for staying in the rankings.


And as to:

The Vols? And I thought I was in the TN women's basketball forum. Let me guess, in addition to being a uconn fan you're a football fan and are unable to tell when you've blundered into the women's forum. -lvjeff

Hey sorry, I cover track & field, and over in our area the athletes are just athletes, and both the men and women are Vols, not GVs and LVs. But if you feel the term Vols is so demeaning to the UT women's ball players, I will certainly try to refrain from using it about the ladies. Definitely wouldn't want them mistaken for football players somehow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#19
#19
DR2 said:
...

And as to:

The Vols? And I thought I was in the TN women's basketball forum. Let me guess, in addition to being a uconn fan you're a football fan and are unable to tell when you've blundered into the women's forum. -lvjeff

Hey sorry, I cover track & field, and over in our area the athletes are just athletes, and both the men and women are Vols, not GVs and LVs. But if you feel the term Vols is so demeaning to the UT women's ball players, I will certainly try to refrain from using it about the ladies. Definitely wouldn't want them mistaken for football players somehow.
Click to expand...

Where did I say I thought Vols was demeaning? You said that not I. But if you're incapable of understanding that calling someone by the wrong name is an error, then maybe you should be called by the wrong name a few times so you'll begin to understand what it means to be polite.

Also, you totally missed the sarcasm inherent in the football reference. Understandable since I didn't use a blue font and you perhaps don't post or visit often enough to know that football fans periodically make an impolite comment in the Lady Vol forum.
 
#20
#20
LVJeff said:
Where did I say I thought Vols was demeaning? You said that not I. But if you're incapable of understanding that calling someone by the wrong name is an error, then maybe you should be called by the wrong name a few times so you'll begin to understand what it means to be polite.

Also, you totally missed the sarcasm inherent in the football reference. Understandable since I didn't use a blue font and you perhaps don't post or visit often enough to know that football fans periodically make an impolite comment in the Lady Vol forum.
Click to expand...

If you are a WCBB fan and you are thin-skinned about football fans' comments, you will soon be a jellyfish. I rarely see them on any of the team I sites I read through, but of course the neanderthal legions stumble out of their caves at the beginning of March each year to hang out on the WCBB tourney sites to let us know how much they hate the game and how their dead grannes could do better. Don't recall seeing that stuff on the VN, but I guess every site has a few multi-concussed ones from over on the grid section.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#23
#23
I am almost there with you Jeff.....will be 78 in Feb .That could be at least part of reason I am so crusty in some posts ....just not inclined to let some thing pass at my age.
 
#24
#24
LVJeff said:
Yeah, I'm an 80 year old jellyfish ROTFLMAO.



Then you seldom frequent the Lady Vol board.
Click to expand...

Actually I have for a long time, but I only check the threads where half the words probably won't be POS or d-bag. If the Vol FB fans hang out on the LV site to make a-wipe remarks, can only guess that it's out of jealousy and lack of anything you could call a life for the bat fastards. Don't really see that much on team WCBB sites.

On their ugly prevalence on general discussion sites such as the ESPN article comments sections at tourney time, it's simply that there's a lot of trog trolls wanting to prove their manhood by dishing idiotic hate at the WCBB game. Love it when they hurl the "No one watches these games" rant just as the media ratings show a record uptick in viewership, but you can only just flame them back since arguing with rancid spam is pointless. Think a lot of them are mad that the ESPN channels show so many WCBB games since the big men's games get highlighted elsewhere.

And hey, jellyfish have been around for half a billion years, and some are reputed to be immortal, so 80 years old may be just the beginning of the fun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top