I love how they selectively take into account recruiting classes making up for senior losses, such as UNC. A team who went 16-16 and loses Deonte Thompson, Marcus Ginyard, and possibly Ed Davis (NBA) is expected to be a top 15 team while a team that went 28-9 and loses 3 players as well is unranked, all because they're bringing in the #3 class in the country?
Or what about an OSU team, whom we beat, losing 33% of its scoring with the departure of Evan Turner alone? But wait they have the #2 recruiting class in the country.
The one who really gets me is Nova. The writer mentions some obsecure PG who's never had the chance to play, because he was behind Reynolds (only the 2nd leading scorer in Nova history) and Stokes, and a center who hasn't played meaningful minutes because of Hepatitis B. However, they're ready to breakout! Great reason for a top 6 ranking. Or Purdue who loses 2 starters and is expected to be better than this past year? Wow! I can understand still being ranked, but better despite losses is an odd concept.
Depsite losing 3 starters, I thought a deep tourney run would gain us some recognition and respect. But yet again the media shows their ignorance and bias nature. No worries...they keep doubting we keep winning. FWIW, I get much greater joy out of making analyst look like idiots every week then getting the recognition we deserved in the first place.