Transfer out

[Wufan]

Your forgetting 3 impact JC transfers and a 3 star point guard for MSU, plus a healthy Austin ruder. Like I said, superior depth for MSU compared to ISUR. McIntosh and Lee are better than anyone the bears have, but I'd take Miller, kendrix, Church and Dixon over Hawkins and Wills.

Those are all recruits (except Ruder whom I mentioned). Doesn't ISUr get to have recruits too? My argument is that the known ISUr roster is better than the known MSU roster.

[jackwagon]

The fact ISUR only has two low profile kids coming out of High School signed and two FR from this season who made little impact and then suffered injuries led to the superior depth comment. Could ISUR land some recruits in the spring to change my mind? Sure. However, the pool of talent is getting thin for impact players next year.

I'll say it again. The top 4 for ISUR is solid, nothing behind it that looks like solid rotation players for next season. Down the line maybe, but i'd bank on those 3 high producing JC transfers outplaying any of the other contributors for the redbirds. Not to mention MSU had 2 all- FR players that should make a big leap in year two. I see more upside in 16-17 for the bears compared to the birds. The only way I see MSU out of the top three is if Lusk is as bad of a coach as most Bears fans think.

[BirdsEyeView]

Hard to predict next fall until recruiting season is done.

If gambling were legal, I'd put some money, based solely on the lengthy odds they would assuredly have, on MSU to win the conference. Their potential is the greatest of the non-top 3 being spoken of so far (WSU, UNI, ISUr).

I really like their roster....but not their coach.

[BEARZ77]

Those are all recruits (except Ruder whom I mentioned). Doesn't ISUr get to have recruits too? My argument is that the known ISUr roster is better than the known MSU roster.

A couple points; first it's always an uncertainty about what incoming classes will/won't provide so even though on paper MSU's class would seem to offer more help than perhaps ISUr might, lets put them aside. Secondly, I find it very difficult to defend or project to much success for Bears players because of the Lusk factor. Want to stop the Bears, just use a full-court Lusk. But again let's put that aside.

What I find curious is the assumption that ISUr returning players are clearly better than MSU's, because the stats just don't support that. To me it's pretty unclear and I could see a valid argument either way. Especially when you add the fact that most of the ISUr players had played together for now 2+ years while the MSU guys less than a full year.

I like Paris Lee, but statistically it was pretty much a standoff between he and Miller, and again it was Miller's 1st year in D-1. Now I like Paris better, because he's a better defender/playmaker, but Miller's a better scoring threat.

Same for McIntosh and Hawkins vs Kendrix. He outscored them both, they shot similar at 3pt, he was superior at the foul line and defensively, and they were about the same off the boards. Church isn't the offensive player either of those three are, but was a much bigger force defensively and around the boards.

Dixon averaged 8 ppg to 5.3 for Willis and was very good defensively. The only thing he was not good at was the trey line, but his overall game was pretty good for a true frosh compared against Willis. [ ie. more steals, similar assist/to, better ft%]

McCloud as a 3pt threat is not what Ruder was as a frosh when he was healthy [ 37 treys and a 33% vs 72 treys and 40%.

So anyway, everyone is entitled to their opinion, I'm just saying it's not a slam dunk on either of these squads having better returning talent, which it was being floated like it was.

[Redhawk]

What I find curious is the assumption that ISUr returning players are clearly better than MSU's, because the stats just don't support that.

The stat that matters most is winning and the Redbird's 4 returning starters were 12-6 in conference which tied them for 2nd while the Bear's 4 were 8-10 which put them in the play-in game.

[BEARZ77]

What I find curious is the assumption that ISUr returning players are clearly better than MSU's, because the stats just don't support that.

The stat that matters most is winning and the Redbird's 4 returning starters were 12-6 in conference which tied them for 2nd while the Bear's 4 were 8-10 which put them in the play-in game.

You can play that card; of course that discounts anyone who graduated and/or has left and the whole concept of a team sport including coaching, but it is a reasonable argument. Again I didn't say our guys were clearly better, I just argued the point that I didn't see it as cut and dried they were worse. I could argue that late in the year when both teams were better established, who won the head to head game, but then that would discount the earlier win by ISU and some of the same points about total team play. Both teams have returning talent, it's always a fun argument about who is better. I like your guys, I like our guys; your coach ain't so great, our coach has been terrible. Should be an interesting year.

[glm38]

Purely from a talent standpoint I would put the Bears right behind the Shockers. I know I'm a Homer but we return some good players and have some impressive pieces coming in.

My big worry is we have too many players and not enough playing time. At this point I have no faith in Lusk's ability to integrate that talent and pick effective combinations of players. I hope I'm wrong. I'm sick of losing and mediocrity.

[Redhawk]

What I find curious is the assumption that ISUr returning players are clearly better than MSU's, because the stats just don't support that.

The stat that matters most is winning and the Redbird's 4 returning starters were 12-6 in conference which tied them for 2nd while the Bear's 4 were 8-10 which put them in the play-in game.

You can play that card; of course that discounts anyone who graduated and/or has left and the whole concept of a team sport including coaching, but it is a reasonable argument. Again I didn't say our guys were clearly better, I just argued the point that I didn't see it as cut and dried they were worse. I could argue that late in the year when both teams were better established, who won the head to head game, but then that would discount the earlier win by ISU and some of the same points about total team play. Both teams have returning talent, it's always a fun argument about who is better. I like your guys, I like our guys; your coach ain't so great, our coach has been terrible. Should be an interesting year.

You do have a talented bunch coming back and some very promising newcomers. The arrow is obviously pointing up at MSU. It's hard though to compare anything at this stage until Muller rounds out the roster in the next few weeks.

[BEARZ77]

The whole issue of how much help does one get immediately from incoming players is always a moving target. We got a lot last year because they had to and thankfully some of them proved capable. Now some of those same players could be challenged by new ones, returning guys[Ruder], or others who improve. I think we actually have too many potential contributors because in the past that just confuses Lusk and he gets inpatient and indecisive with his lineups and rotations. He's done best when the options are few but decent. But it's better to have talent than not and it's better to have a lot than a little. Not sure exactly where we fall in that spectrum, but it's better than a little.

[Wufan]

What I find curious is the assumption that ISUr returning players are clearly better than MSU's, because the stats just don't support that.

The stat that matters most is winning and the Redbird's 4 returning starters were 12-6 in conference which tied them for 2nd while the Bear's 4 were 8-10 which put them in the play-in game.

I like this argument because both teams return their core team minus one key starter. To me, that says MSU needs to improve quite a bit to catch up. I like the Bears roster, and I like the potential for them to pass up ISUr, but unless Mueller plans on leaving 5 scholarships open, I'm not ready to put MSU above ISUr or SIU for that matter.