MVCfans.com

BirdsEyeView wrote:I think you guys surprise the league this year and finish top 3.....IF Lusk doesn't get in his own way. Seems like a good recruiter, questionable coach.

Lusk or no Lusk, I can't see Missouri State cracking the top 3. Which of WSU, UNI or ISU should they pass?

I'm not saying it can't happen. They seem less talented than those 3.

Not sure how you can look at MSU roster and think it's less talented than ISUR. The depth of MSU is pretty impressive, while ISUR literally only has 4 guys who they will be able to count on for anything.

Thanks! Look forward to learning about the Bears over the next 6 months.

jackwagon wrote:Not sure how you can look at MSU roster and think it's less talented than ISUR. The depth of MSU is pretty impressive, while ISUR literally only has 4 guys who they will be able to count on for anything.

Will depend on who we get with our remaining scholarships

jackwagon wrote:Not sure how you can look at MSU roster and think it's less talented than ISUR. The depth of MSU is pretty impressive, while ISUR literally only has 4 guys who they will be able to count on for anything.

Really?

ISUr: Lee, Wills, Hawkins, McIntosh...four starters better than MSU

MSU: Miller, Dixon, Kendrix, Church...Kreklow and Ruder provide MVC level depth at the 2. MSU has four guys they can count plus some extra minutes at the 2.

I will take WSU right now followed by UNI/ISUr followed by SIU/MSU/ISUb

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.

jackwagon wrote: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.

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.

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.

Wufan wrote: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.