link

#6 UK
#9 UF
#19 Bama
#23 TAMU

Well they are a bunch of ******* morons.

Rest, Ags.

Some of yall are going to be let down when the AP comes out. We'll move up a bit but not by as much as yall are hoping for. I'd guess 18-21 range. We have plenty of very high quality teams to play to figure out where we should be.

CBS

They do think we stink. WVU completely out of the polls

CBB Rankings are pure speculation for the first month or two. There will still be many undefeated or one loss teams going into December. I wouldn't care too much if they didn't even rank us at all. Just win baby!

If ya don't like em just, eat em list eater style.

Anyone know what they had us and West Virginia at in their preseason poll?

Looks like they had WVU 23 and us at 27. With that in mind I suppose putting a&m at 23 isn't as much of a slight since they weren't as high on WVU as the AP

Aren't they all meaningless? That's the beauty of college basketball. Only thing that matters is the selection committee and then just win, and if we are on the bubble, then something goes terribly wrong this season.

Dilly dilly

Clavell said:

---

Glad rankings are meaningless

---

FIFY

I also think those are just Gary Parrish's rankings, it's not like a team of people did a poll or anything.

But it's not that surprising. I imagine we'll be 20-ish when the polls come out.

I listen to Gary Parish's podcast every week. I think he is a pretty funny guy and I enjoy listening to him and Norlander. But he also has a HEAVY bias toward the blue bloods. His view is basically that college basketball has so much turnover of players every year that what draws interest from average sports fans are the college basketball "brands" (his favorite word). He pretty openly roots for the blue bloods (and to a lesser extent the pure college basketball "brands" like Gonzaga and Wichita State) on the grounds that it is good for "the sport." He is also way more interested in talking about one and done prospects than he is about four year players that are great college basketball players at non blue blood programs.

Norlander is far more interested in the full width and depth of college basketball but Parish is the senior guy and calls the shots on stuff like this.

I really like Norlander, I've been following his stuff since he was blogging. But, for a national brand like CBS, Parish is right. There is basically no market for college basketball content that isn't about the blue blood teams or big time one-and-done style prospects.

It sucks, but that's the reality. Spending much time on content that isn't related to those things is probably a waste of resources the vast majority of the time.

I agree that it makes sense from a content output point of view. I disagree (with Parish) that it is good for "the sport." I think the beauty of college basketball is all of the great fan bases spread throughout the country; places like Dayton and Creighton and New Mexico and BYU and Iowa State and Arkansas and so on. I appreciate that Norlander gets genuinely excited discussing the MVC or whatever. A sport that was just all about 6 blue bloods and a bunch of Washington Generals would be a pretty boring sport.

#23 is okay for now. Don't worry about it. We will have our chances to move up significantly soon.

Ags came in at #16 in the AP.