The Associated Press and Coaches Polls for college basketball were released at the start of this week and Kentucky placed No. 16 in both.
Cats Illustrated writers take a closer look at the polls and share thoughts on Kentucky and the rest of the country.
Who do you think was overrated in the polls that just dropped?
Jeff Drummond: It feels like there are quite a few, but I tend to lean toward picks that look like "overcorrection" from last season, so I'm going to go with UConn at 7 and Florida Atlantic at 10. Last year really doesn't mean much for either of those teams, and they'll have to bring it to a higher level this season with a target on their backs. Not sure about Tennessee at 9, either, despite a lot of respect for Rick Barnes.
David Sisk: I haven't done a full dive into every team yet, but if I had to think about teams that may be rated too high I will start with Michigan State and Florida Atlantic. The Spartans come in at No. 4, but they have lost 13 games three seasons in a row, The Big Ten is a gauntlet, and I don't have a ton of confidence in that program right now. Florida Atlantic will run roughshod through their conference, and should have a great record. But odds are they won't get that hot again in March. They are probably top-25, but not No. 10.
Justin Rowland: Tennessee at No. 9 is not a total shock, but given their coach has almost no track record of making noise in March it's only fair to point out it's a curious pick, just because the final rankings are often so dependent on where teams finish there. FAU at 10 seems a little off.
Who do you think was underrated?
Drummond: I lean toward coaching more than personnel on this one, so I think Baylor will find a way to play better than its 20 slot. Lance Ware's new club, Villanova, has a bunch of talent and experience. All kinds of juniors and seniors. If they continue to adjust to life in the post-Wright era, I think they'll be better than 22.
Sisk: I was actually a little surprised that Kentucky was 16th. I have tapped the brakes on preseason expectations the last few years, because they have not lived up to them. I understand that there are concerns with post depth and injuries, but this looks more like the talent level of some of Calipari's earlier teams at Kentucky. Keep in mind he does his best when he has first rounders, and he has more potential candidates this time around than he has had in a good while.
Rowland: Clemson is not in the rankings but I think the Tigers have a chance to actually make some noise in the ACC this year. That's an odd choice, I realize, but PJ Hall returned (15.3 PPG, 5.7 RPG) and they have a nice blend of experience and transfer help. I think they could be a top-25 team this year.
What do you make of Kentucky's ranking?
Drummond: Kentucky at 16 seems fair. The Cats have begun too many seasons in recent years overvalued due to strong recruiting classes that did not always pan out. It's natural that the media is playing it safe with this squad, although I think the potential is there for a Top 10 finish.
Sisk: I would put Kentucky around tenth or so. I would rather have that roster than Florida Atlantic's. Creighton and Marquette are talented, but they haven't made great March runs, and I don't think they have more perimeter players than the Cats. If Bradshaw and Ugonna can round out into shape, I definitely think Kentucky could make the case for a top-spot.
Rowland: It's totally fair and maybe even about where I would put them. You have to factor in questions about the frontcourt in the short term plus the fact that it's a very young team, and one tournament win in recent history is just a reality. But this is an excellent backcourt and they have the potential to be a Final Four team if things to right. For a long time Kentucky was probably overrated in the preseason just because a lot of folks erred with the talent, and Kentucky had the talent. Now it seems like "believe it when I see it" has crept in.
