Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life Reaction

For better or worse, A Year in the Life is the television event of 2016 I was most looking forward to. That doesn't mean that I expected it to be the best thing I'd watch in 2016 or even the program I hyped up the most. It's simply the program that I wanted to see the most. Overall, I'm pleased with it.

I love Gilmore Girls, but I'm not blind about it. For seven seasons, it was a very inconsistent show. Over the years people forget that or choose to ignore the inconsistency. They do that because the good far outweighs the bad. I love the characters, the dialogue, the relationships, and the town shenanigans. I love those things so much that I overlook the frustrating times when the characters or plot does something stupid just to keep a story line or complication going (ahem, April).

So, yeah, before I get into some of the things that bothered me about A Year in the Life, I wanted to go through my notes about all the things I loved about it that made me happy I watched it.

WINTER
-Hello townspeople I haven't seen in a decade. You don't need to do much. Just remind me that you are still around.
-"Ooober". It's nice to know that Kirk is still up to his crazy schemes.
-The town got a pig for Kirk and Lulu to stop them from having kids. That sound's about right.
-Paul Anka is still around!
-Pete. It got old as a running gag in later installments, but when he was getting the Anne-treatment (Her?) during his visit, I thought it was quite funny.
-Michel came out. The series always talked around it. It was refreshing to see it out in the open now.
-The giant Richard portrait. It's a funny sight gag with a nice payoff at the end of Fall when Emily finally gets a proper sized portrait.
-The flashback to Richard's funeral. Be it Emily's smile when Lorelei says she's going to stay a little longer even though Rory has to go or the mortifying moment when Lorelei tells her Richard story, everything with that flashback was solid (I kind of wish it couldn've been the starting point for the mini-series).
-Paris. She is the best! The place her character is in is perfect and Liza Weil is never better than when she's rapid-firing Amy Sherman-Palladino* dialogue. Paris is arguably the best character ASP has created (certainly of the supporting roles) and seeing her at all makes the whole mini-series worth it.
(hereby known as "ASP")
-Taylor delivering a Luke-esque rant about why Luke doesn't give out his Wifi password. It was both entertaining and a nice bonding moment between the two adversaries.
-Emily wearing jeans. It was short-lived and shocking.
SPRING
-Lorelei and Emily in therapy together. Just because it's broad and predictable doesn't mean it isn't a lot of fun to watch. I love the mention of her "scorebook".
-We see Mr. Kim and in the most fitting way: only a glimpse and without dialogue. That's a great meta-joke about one of the series' great mysteries.
-The Gay Pride Parade. Another meta-joke after the original series took flack for the lack of gay characters and occasional unfortunate dialogue. It's good to see ASP have some good humor about that criticism.
-Really, it was just fun to be in the middle of another town meeting.
-Kirk's second short film premieres. I'd like to see a full cut of that.
-Rory and Paris's return to Chilton. By that, I mean Paris's return. Her speech to the class and bathroom triad were both fantastic. Her power-play in the headmaster's office and the support group needed after her presentation too. I don't think anyone would've minded having Paris in all four episodes.
-Mae Whitman! It was a nothing cameo, but I just like seeing Mae Whitman.
SUMMER
-April doesn't overstay her welcome, but we get a wealth of information about her that allows us to fill in the blanks however we want.
-The secret bar. I'm a sucker for the particularly loony Stars Hollow things and this fits the bill.
-Stars Hollow: The Musical. It went on way too long, but I like the general joke of it. It's an awful play and Lorelei is the only one who sees that. Also, it builds to Sutton Foster's final song later that was quite lovely. This is the kind of C-story that would be very welcome in the middle of a 22-episode season.
-Jess shows up for some sage advice. When this many actors want to come back to a show a decade later when they already have other jobs, that says something.
FALL
-Wild: Book or Movie?. A great running gag, especially when Jess asks it independently later on.
-Speaking of that. More Jess. I don't know what all the actors' schedules were, but I'm glad to see Milo showing up for a few scenes like that.
-Lorelei's call to Emily. That's a great moment. Excellent work by both actresses. It's hard to act and react that well over a phone call.
-"Bullshit": Despite the content freedom that Netflix allows, I'm glad that they saved all the real swearing for Emily at the D.A.R. interview. I have some slight questions about the decision to have Emily turn on her old life like that, but this is a fine and hilarious way to do it.
-Keifer Sutherland. I'm of two minds about this. It's irritating to introduce Keifer Sutherland as Luke's friend without actually getting him to cameo, but it is a fun way for ASP to play with our expectations. And, within the scene, it was good for several jokes.
-Sookie returns. I can't fault Melissa McCarthy for having a busy schedule. There was never going to be a comfortable way to write around her absence. The one scene we did get her with was excellent. Lorelei and Sookie's relationship has always been vital, especially at times when Luke and Rory can't be her sounding board. Michel stepped up nicely the rest of the time, but it was a different vibe.
-Luke and Lorelei's wedding. The single biggest black mark on the original series is the lack of a Luke and Lorelei wedding. That was inexcusable. It doesn't make sense for the characters at all that they wouldn't be married after a decade of being together without incident, but I'm glad we got to see the wedding. It was wonderfully shot and it's nice that Kirk got to do something very right with the decorations.
-Emily's new life. It was well setup in the four installments and it's nice to see her happy again.
-The last four words. Given how the other 5 hours and 59 minutes were as a response to the seven season that came before them, that is the right way to end it. ASP wanted to tell a full-circle story, it turns out, and that's how you do it. Now, if another mini-series gets announced, I won't be as happy with the ending. It's stupid as a cliffhanger, but as the end that ASP was always building to, "Mom" "Yeah?" "I'm pregnant" is fitting.

 Ok. That was 1000 words about what A Year in the Life got right. That's a lot of positives. So, now can I talk a little negative about it without being called a "sourpuss" or too critical? ...No? ...Well, I'm doing it anyway.

There's a lot about the episodes that I didn't like simply because the show was made for all the fans, not just me. I don't like Logan, nor do I care for the Life and Death Brigade. I just have to deal with that. Whatever.

My single biggest issue with A Year in the Life is that it was ASP writing her season 7, not a story set 10 years later. As a result, several stories got trapped in time for a decade. So, Lorelei's story is approached from the end: her and Luke getting married. What would cause a happy couple who originally planned to get married to put it off? Stasis. Something needs to kick them out of that stasis, so Lorelei gets wanderlust and goes "Wild" (that specific decision feels very out of character). This "adventure" makes her realize she wants to get married finally. Her whole story arc was reverse-engineered to end with a wedding. Same goes for Rory. ASP knew where she wanted Rory to end up: pregnant. To be full-circle, Logan makes sense as the father, but it's only notable that she's pregnant if he isn't in the picture. What if he's engaged to someone else that he's not going to leave? Ok, that means Rory is the girl on the side and so on and so fourth. I just don't like ASP's approach. I like character-driven stories rather than story-driven characters.

There's other aspects left over from the original series too. I think ASP's view of Rory is different than the audiences'. I just think Rory a screw-up, which is fine. ASP seems to think she's an exceptional talent who just hasn't found her place. In other words, A Year in the Life didn't "fix" anything from Gilmore Girls. It just maintained them.

Lastly, six hours was too much from a story perspective. In an ideal world without contracts and actor availability, I think A Year in the Life would've been significantly shorter. There was just too much filler. The musical, Life and Death Brigade, researching the story about lines, "Wild". Those all went on longer than needed. That's a Netflix problem though. It's been true about almost all of their series. I went into A Year in the Life ready for that.

In my ideal world, A Year in the Life would've had a lot more Sookie and even more Pairs. Jess would've been more of a casual presence (not just popping in for sage advice). Logan would've been a distant memory. Luke and Lorelei would've already been married since that would've made sense (flashback to it if needed). Rory would have a stable job already that we don't spend much time following, because that was always the least interesting part of her life. Richard's death could've provided plenty of drama between Emily, Rory, and Lorelei, but they would've been derived from a place the characters would be at in 2016, not 2006. That's just me though.

It was nice to be back for a few hours though, and that's all I really wanted.

Movie Reaction: Allied

Formula: Bridge of Spies * Mr. & Mrs. Smith

Every time I think that Hollywood has found every way to tell a WWII story, someone inevitably finds a new corner to explore it. I'm starting to wonder if the challenge is the appeal. In Hacksaw Ridge, did Mel Gibson want the challenge of a battlefield hero who doesn't kill anyone? For Fury, was David Ayer thinking, "can a tank be the center of a story?" I'm not even sure what to call Robert Zemeckis' WWII perspective in Allied. Desert and urban London wartime espionage, perhaps?

The story is broken into two parts. The first is Max Vatan (Brad Pitt) landing in Morocco. He's a - I want to say - Canadian spy pretending to be the husband of an agent who is already in place. That other agent is Marianne Beausejour (Marion Cotillard). Before long, their cover story turns into genuine feelings for one another. After they complete their mission, they move back to London and get married. A year later, Max is a rising government agent and Marianne is raising their daughter. Then, Max is informed that Marianne may be a spy for the Germans. While that's being investigated, he must pretend that nothing is wrong, and he conducts his own investigation to figure out if his whole life is a lie.

It's tense stuff toward the end and requires two leads as good as Pitt and Cotillard, although I should note that while they are co-leads in Morocco, Cotillard falls into a supporting role out of necessity back in London. Pitt and Cotillard are old pros at these kinds of roles, the action movie parts and the espionage.

Both parts of the film have good elements, but I much preferred Morocco. Visually, the direction is more engaged there. Hollywood hasn't explored that area as much, so there's a lot to take in, the deserts and the architecture. Also, Pitt and Cotillard are on equal footing there, which is more interesting. Their operation is quite exciting too. London is quieter. It's all about gathering intelligence and deciphering glances and pauses. What isn't said is as important as what is. There are a lot of grace notes in depicting how things in London were "business as usual" despite rationing and constant air strikes (Stay calm and carry on). I wasn't crazy about how the story climaxes. There's a few ways they could've gone and what they chose was the easiest and/or most obvious [to me].

Allied lacks a single sequence as impressive as in Zemickis's last two films (The plane crash in Flight or the tight-rope walk in The Walk). It is equally cinematic though overall and has a great deal of star presence. That's enough for me to enjoy it. It feels like this year's Bridge of Spies: a thoroughly accomplished boomer drama from one of Hollywood's most broadly-appealing titans. I find it equally as hard to believe that this will be anyone's favorite or least favorite movie this year. That's not a bad place to be in.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend 

Movie Reaction: Moana

Formula: (The Good Dinosaur - The Lion King) + Wind Waker*
*I can't think of any non-Waterworld movies that used boats this much.

So, I really liked Moana. I'd like to get more complex or high-minded about it, but the simple truth is that I saw Moana and really liked it. When paired with Zootopia, it makes for an awful good outing for Disney in 2016. Zootopia is clever. Moana is pretty. Both are a lot of fun.

The story is set in a fictional Polynesian island. Moana (Auli'i Cravalho) is the daughter of the island's chief and being groomed to be chief herself eventually. Her grandma tells her of an ancient curse that is slowly killing their island. The only way to stop this is to recruit the shape shifting demi-god Maui (Dwayne Johnson) to return the heart of the island god Te Fiti, which Maui stole long ago. In other words. Moana goes on a quest. There's obstacles. She's proves her mettle. It's pretty standard stuff, but like many Disney films before it, it zips along quickly and in entertaining fashion.

The film looks great. The water effects are impressive. The songs are catchy and evocative of the 90's Renaissance music. It's funny. It's harrowing. It's really everything I need and want from a Disney animated movie.

It's not much more than that though, which is the closest thing I have to a negative criticism. It does new things (Moana is the first Polynesian Disney princess and there is absolutely no mention made of a love interest), but the story is very traditional. It's essentially what The Good Dinosaur wanted to be: a basic point A to point B quest with a fully fleshed out world. Both Moana and Maui get good character arcs and the film left me feeling really good. What more could I ask for?

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Movie Reaction: Rules Don't Apply

Formula: Hail, Caesar! + The Aviator + Crazy, Stupid Love

Warren Beatty is a legend in Hollywood. I'll admit, I don't really know why. He has some successful films and some highly lauded ones, but I've never been all that impressed by the likes of Reds, Dick Tracy, Bugsy, or Bulworth. He hasn't worked much in recent years. Now he's back with Rules Don't Apply: a pet project of his, several years in the making.

Rules Don't Apply is a Howard Hughes story. At least, he's the dominating presence throughout. For much of the film, the leads are Frank Forbes (Alden Ehrenreich), a driver who works for Hughes, and Marla Mabrey (Lily Collins), one of several aspiring actresses under contract with Hughes. Frank works for a fleet of drivers who take the young women and occasionally Mr. Hughes wherever they want. They are under strict orders not to engage with the contract actresses romantically. Despite that, Frank and Marla connect. That is, until Howard Hughes (Beatty) and his many, many eccentricities get in the way.

Ehrenreich and Collins are very charming together. Their meet-cute and subsequent interactions drive most of the first half of the film (Also, special thanks to Annette Bening for a memorable few scenes as Marla's overbearing mother). By the second half, the film turns into a Howard Hughes narrative. He gets between the potential young couple as Frank becomes one of his advisers and Marla's film he promised her still hasn't materialized. There's some other developments and a time jump is involved too. Eventually, I wondered what the point of any of it was. The RomCom parts of the film that worked the best are mostly dropped in favor of Howard Hughes antics which, frankly, were better covered in The Aviator. Beatty's version of Howard Hughes is fairly one-note (Daddy issues).

The film feels hopelessly from a different era, which shouldn't be much of a surprise. Beatty hasn't appeared in a film since Town & Country in 2001 and hasn't written or directed a film since Bulworth in 1998. And he didn't even work that often before that. The film is dated but thinks it's being retro. I spent far too much of the movie trying to figure out who the film was supposed to be for.

The individual parts of Rules Don't Apply are fine. I'd love to see Ehrenreich and Collins paired together again. Beatty is having a lot of fun as Howard Hughes. He's collected an impressive roster of actors and actresses like Matthew Broderick, Martin Sheen, Candace Bergen, and Annette Benning for small roles. Individual moments work quite well. All the pieces don't combine to make a coherent whole though. There's no reason why Rules Don't Apply shouldn't be a better movie. It's just not.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend 

Movie Reaction: Loving

Formula: Romeo & Juliet * Selma

There's nothing special about the Lovings. They are just two people, who live in the country and love each other very much. That's it, or at least, that's how they are painted in the film Loving.

Set in Virginia in the 1950s, Loving is the story of Richard and Mildred Loving, an interracial couple who get married in Washington D.C. since it is illegal in their home state. They are people of simple desires. Richard races cars and works construction. Mildred wants to raise her children. You wouldn't expect them to be part of the landmark Supreme Court decision that ruled that all states must recognize interracial marriage. That's what happened though.

Director Jeff Nichols does a great job resisting the urge to make Loving a bigger movie than it is. It's understated in nearly every way. Mildred and especially Richard are people of very few words. Their marriage is treated like an unneeded complication by disapproving family members, not a moral outrage. They just want to live out in the country where they grew up and don't want to cause any trouble. They're forced into shaking things up though and accept only as much of the spotlight as they must. The courtroom speeches are kept to a minimum and the emotional beats are as small as they can be. For example, all Richard has to say to the U.S. Supreme Court is "I love my wife." I spent most of the movie wishing they would elaborate then glad that they didn't.

Ruth Negga and Joel Edgarton are impressive in the lead roles. Edgarton is uncomfortable all the time. As Richard, he's willing to work hard to provide for his wife and family, but he's constantly bewildered by the additional challenges he faces above the ordinary. Negga plays Mildred as both a woman who really does want as simple a life as Richard but also sees the significance of the legal case around their marriage. She's the one who pushes them into the fight.

I wasn't expecting to like Loving as much as I did. Jeff Nichols broke from the civil rights "formula" that many movies follow and made something restrained and ultimately more meaningful. All the characters are treated like real people, from the opportunistic lawyers who have the noblest of intentions to go along with the careerist ones, to the law enforcement who just don't like people trying to shake the establishment, to the family members who don't want to see their sister, son, or daughter live a harder life than he or she must. It's nice to see a film that remembers that there is a difference between something being "big" and something being "impactful".

Verdict (?): Strongly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Holy Hell

The Pitch: A documentary about living in a cult for over two decades.

I think I'm finally getting to the point where I can distill down what I like about a scripted/acted film and what I don't like. I zero in on the script/story the most. Acting and direction I have a sense of. Deeper level aspects like cinematography and production design I have a long way to go. But overall, I can pin down what about a movie works or doesn't work for me and if that matters.

For documentaries, I'm not there yet. It's a fundamentally different approach to filmmaking than writing a script and using actors. I say all this as my lead up to saying that I liked Holy Hell although I'm not sure why. It could just the topic. It's easy for me to appreciate a documentary even if it's poorly put together as long as the topic is interesting. You really can't beat the access that Will Allen had for this doc. He was the cult's videographer for 22 years. He's going to have some good footage (although apparently, he left most of it behind when he left the cult). It's interesting how this tracks the growth and development of the cult over time. Since this story is being told by a lot of people who were members for a very long time, there's a warmth to the memories. They all have good and bad thoughts about that time. The intimacy of the story is its greatest strength.

By covering such a long amount of time, the potency of individual stretches can be a little diluted. I kept wanting this to be a "Hollywood story" where there was some big end to it: a government raid, the leader - Michel - is sentenced to jail for racketeering, or something like that. There's not. The cult is still going and not much has changed other than an exodus or two. It's anti-climactic in a way that felt real. I've come to appreciate that more since I finished watching it.

The one big failure of the documentary is that it never really convinces me of the appeal. You'd think with this many former acolytes being interviewed, it would go into that a little deeper. What makes Michel so convincing? What is the mindspace of someone under his spell. Maybe everyone was too embarrassed to really dig into that. Perhaps once the spell is broken, it can't be synthesized later in a recollection. It's hard to say the reason for it, but that's where it fell short.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: The Finest Hours

The Pitch: The Perfect Storm with a happy ending.

It's not hard to see why Disney buried this. After delaying the release twice, they finally released it January 2016 in the shadow of The Force Awakens and it was quickly forgotten by everyone except for, apparently, Netflix and me.

I choose to believe that any movie with Chris Pine, Casey Affleck, Ben Foster, and Eric Bana is worth giving a chance. However, they are all only fine in this. Chris Pine looks like a hero in 1952. Affleck is finally old enough to use his weariness to full effect. I can buy him as the senior officer on a ship now. I don't think I could even circa Tower Heist (2011). Ben Foster is great at disappearing into roles. Bana, similar to Pine, looks completely at home in this time period. The X-factor is Holliday Granger. I never seek her out, but she has a habbit of showing up in different things, like Anna Karenina, the Bonnie & Clyde mini-series, and Cinderella. She's fine, but she could've done more. I remember a trailer I saw for this that made her seem like a much more vital character. I think I would've preferred that movie - Pine trying to get back to land and her fighting like hell from land to get him back. This was far more passive.

The movie reflects the time when it occurred. It's overtly crowd-pleasing in a way that never felt like there were any stakes. They get everyone on Pine's boat just in time. The town turns on the headlights just as Pine and company were fading. I was never worried. This is a great example of something with no there there.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: I Think I Love My Wife

The Pitch: Chris Rock is married but looking.

Thank god for Top Five. Before that, Chris Rock made a career out of never matching his comedic talent with a film role to showcase it. His filmography is filled with Adam Sandler movies that ask him to do the same thing every time, some animated roles, a few supporting roles that asked him to add a couple jokes and leave, and his pet projects. It wasn't until Top Five that he had a pet project that didn't feel like a waste. The next most recent of his projects (non-documentary) came seven years earlier - I Think I Love My Wife. It's a mess of a movie.

Rock directed the movie and co-wrote it with Louis C.K. Looking at all of C.K.'s success with Louie and Rock's improvement with Top Five, maybe they just had to get I Think I Love My Wife out of their system in order to move on. I struggle to find anything about the movie that worked for me. Rock's character isn't particularly likable and wasn't interesting enough to make up for the lack of likability. The female characters are thinly drawn. By the time it ends, I just don't know what it was all building to.

The best guess I have is that this was a studio hack job. Maybe Rock and C.K. had something more cutting but the studio kept steering them into making more of a RomCom. I don't know. I'm trying to defend this, when I really can't. I didn't enjoy it enough to dig any deeper into it.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

Movie Reaction: The Edge of Seventeen

Formula: Pretty in Pink + 30 years

High school movies are weird. They are some of the most inconsistent movies their are. Even looking to the John Hughes classics, they are rough-around-the edges and lack cinematic refinement. The casting often uses youth as an excuse for questionable acting. They are rarely as clever as they think. But, dammit, something about them just works, and that's very much the case with The Edge of Seventeen.

First and foremost, it's a Hailee Steinfeld star vehicle about Nadine, who is a high school reject, somewhat by choice. Her dad died unexpectedly a few years ago. Her mother (Kyra Sedgewick) is trying to keep it all together and looks outmatched. She has a perfect brother, Darian (Blake Jenner), who is handsome, smart, and likable. The boy she likes doesn't even know who she is. She only has one friend in the world, Krista (Haley Lu Richardson), that is, until Krista start dating her brother. That triggers a complete breakdown by Nadine in typical teen fashion.

There's nothing revolutionary about the movie. It only goes as far as Hailee Steinfeld will take it, and luckily, the former Oscar nominee nails it. I'll be honest, I've only seen her in True Grit (which got her the Oscar nomination) and P2: The Mighty Bellas last year. In P2, she didn't look ready to be a lead and, while enjoyable, spent the whole time trying to be cute. This role is the polar opposite. She's an abrasive person, and the film does a good job pointing out that she's her own worst enemy. 95% of her problems are self-generated. It's less of a story of what to do when your back is to the wall and more about how to get yourself out of the corner you put yourself into.

Woody Harrellson is the movie's "secret sauce". He's the exhausted teacher Nadine goes to for advice. He's seen it all before. He is happy to dismiss all of her dramatic claims when she's venting and also knows when to chime in with some sage wisdom. Harrellson really is a better actor than this role needs, and the film benefits greatly as a result. Most of the cast is expertly deployed. Blake Jenner is a non-character for 2/3s of the movie, then steps in with some big moments. Hayden Szeto keeps popping up as Steinfeld's obvious love interest once she gets past the guy she's crushing on. Kyra Sedgwick is the overbearing mother or the mother who disappears for a weekend depending on what the film needs. Even if full characters aren't developed beyond Steinfeld's, the film does a great job indicating that these are characters who exist even when they aren't in a scene.

My only real concern is that I'm not sure the script does enough to indicate why people put up with Nadine. Szeto's character, Erwin, keeps accepting her shunning his advances and basically toying with him and I don't really know why. Toward the end of the movie, Krista mentions that she misses Nadine, and I thought "really?". I don't want to overstate this though. I'm on Nadine's side and it isn't hard to believe people in her inner circle could like her. I just don't think the film shows enough support for it.

I love that this is allowed to be an R-rated movie. Often, the phoniest thing about high school movies is that high schoolers don't talk with a PG-13 vocabulary. Since the MPAA is determined to remain hopelessly out of touch with its standards, I respect any time a filmmaker or studio just ignores them and keeps the rating that works for the movie they are making. Steinfeld and Harrelson are great. The film successfully captures a lot of the feeling of being in high school and keeps the cheap tricks to a minimum. It's somewhere between the Mean Girls view of high school and the John Green view of high school, and that's a good place to be.

Verdict (?): Strongly Recommend 

Movie Reaction: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

Formula: Dr. Who + Harry Potter

Fantastic Beasts begins like any of the movies set in the Wizarding world. There's the WB logo. The same font for the title. The score is familiar but not quite what we've heard for 8 films. Something is conspicuously missing though: Harry Potter. That's of course because he hasn't been born yet. This isn't a Harry Potter movie. It's the same world, more or less, but not tied at all to the boy wizard who started the worldwide phenomenon.

Instead of a young boy, the film begins with a grown man: Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne), already a fully educated wizard on his own. It's the 1920s and he's arriving to New York City by boat. Not a magical boat. Just a boat. It's more reminiscent to Brooklyn than The Sorcerer's Stone as far as beginnings go. Newt is not a man of many words. He has a suitcase that's up to something, but that's about it. Pretty soon, the contents of his suitcase start causing trouble around the city. He picks up a muggle nomag friend, Kowalski (Dan Fogler). And, he has a low-level officer for the Ministry of Magic MCUSA, Tina (Katherine Waterston) after him. At the same time, there's a series of disturbances around the city that threaten to expose the wizards to common people, and there's hushed whispers of an evil wizard named Grindlewald.

Despite being directly related to Harry Potter, Fantastic Beasts actually has more in common with another British icon: The Doctor. Newt is a mysterious visitor in a strange land. A different time period from the present, no less. Like the Tardis, his suitcase is a lot larger on the inside than it looks. And a wand isn't so different from a sonic screwdriver. Like the Doctor, Newt works best when he picks up companions* and the story is no more about Newt than it needs to be.

*I'm going to go ahead and call Katherine Waterston a "Martha" and Dan Fogler a "Donna" or maybe a "Craig".

The Harry Potter series is very serialized. Fantastic Beasts, at least this first installment, is not. It's a stand-alone adventure: episodic film-making. I wasn't prepared for that. With all the talk of sequels to come, I assumed this would be 75% "laying pipe" and 25% procedural. It's more the opposite. The film sets a template for what these films will (or could) look like going forward. Knowing that now eases many of my initially sour reactions to seeing the film.

The cast is pretty delightful. Redmayne and Waterston are adorable. I'd watch a twee Romantic Comedy with the two of them as the leads in a heartbeat. Redmayne gives a very nervous performance. I spent the entire film hoping he would take a deep breath, even once. Newt is surprisingly lightly developed for a lead character. Fogler is the comedic effect and the emotional core of this story. For someone I barely remember seeing in anything before this, I was impressed with how well he fit into the world. Samantha Morton plays Waterston's sister and elevates the role beyond what's on the page. Others like Colin Farrell, Ezra Miller, and Jon Voight are plot devices more than characters.

J.K. Rowling's script is familiar to fans of her books. She has way more information about the American Wizarding community than she can fit in a single movie (and thankfully, she holds back rather than "exposition dumping" all over). She doesn't have the highest view of Americans, which is fine. There are a couple shots she takes which weren't needed for the story, but whatever. Bringing David Yates back to direct is a smart move to ensure consistency in the world moving from one series to the next.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them isn't going to be anyone's favorite movie. People forget how much the Harry Potter movies leveraged love of the books into love of the films. This lacks that fall back and does feel a little thin as a result. The cast works together quite well and the story does a good job suggesting the types of adventures possible outside of Hogwarts and Voldemort. I have some small gripes, but not enough to undo the whole thing. Similar to how I felt about the Hobbit movies, I'm just glad to be back in this universe again.


Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

After the Credits

(Some thoughts for if you've seen the movie)

-Colin Ferrell turns out to be Johnny Depp in disguise at the end. I can't be the only one who immediately thought of 2009's The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus in which, after Heath Ledger's death, Depp and Ferrell played alternate versions of the same character. All I know is that I'm looking out for any Jude Law casting news now.

-I wish I had a better idea of who Newt Scamander was by the end of the film since the support cast is apparently all gone. Losing Kowalski hurt the most, because he made for an excellent pairing with Newt. His story arced about as well as I could've hoped though. Tina could've been a lot more developed. I hope she returns in the future. I get the feeling that Newt is fully developed as a character, but it'll take a few movies to recognize that. Kind of like on a TV show, the first few episodes don't feel right, but after a couple seasons, when you rewatch those first episodes, you realize that the characters were all there. You just didn't know them yet.

Delayed Reaction: The Fantastic Mr. Fox

The Pitch: Wes Anderson in animated form.

There's certain filmmakers that I wish I understood the appeal of. I'm always on the verge of "getting" Tarantino. David O. Russell sort of makes sense to me. Wes Anderson completely eludes me though. Few directors are as precise or idiosyncratic as he is. He has a distinctive voice and sense of humor, both of which are on on full display in The Fantastic Mr. Fox. It's never hooked me though. I keep hearing praise that he keeps getting better with each of his movies. I guess that's true. It seems like he's even more in command of his craft with each film. Mr. Fox isn't as polished as Moonrise Kingdom or The Grand Budapest Hotel, but it's more honed than The Royal Tennebaums.

What I think it comes down to is what I've heard people say about certain bands (AC/DC comes to mind): It feels like he's always making variations of the same movie. He's always doing the same thing, only with a different screenplay. There's a great deal of subjectivity to this of course. What some people call "his aesthetic" I could call "the same bag of tricks". One of these days, I'll figure him out. Until then, I'll continue to watch his movies perplexed by the level of adulation.

Specific to this film, it's charming. You don't get George Clooney, Meryl Streep, and Bill Murray into a film in any form and not get me to appreciate it on some level. I don't have a lot to say about it though. It's thematically sound. Structured well too. I didn't connect with the characters. It never stopped being a Wes Anderson movie as I watched it. And maybe that's my problem. Most movies I can forget that I'm watching a movie at some point. I can always get lost in a Scorsese movie no matter how undeniably a "Scorsese movie" it is. When I watch The Fantastic Mr. Fox, it's like there's a title card every 10 frames that says "Wes Anderson".

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: The Lovely Bones

The Pitch: A girl tells the story of the investigation into her murder.

All I really know about this was that it was based on a book that was always in stock when I worked at Target back in the day, it was kind of a box office dud, and people insist that Stanley Tucci deserved an Oscar nomination for his role. On the latter-most point, I fully agree. That dude is creepy and Tucci is uncomfortably great. I can also see why it didn't do so well in theaters. The film can't quite settle on what it wants to be. It plays like a teen-drama. Peter Jackson shoots it like something much bigger (Kind of the natural conclusion from Heavenly Creatures and Lord of the Rings). A lot of the subject matter is quite grisly. It doesn't come together all that well and the "heaven" stuff is non-committal in a way that isn't very inventive.

Still, the moments that Peter Jackson gets right are interesting. Tucci and Saoirse Ronan's performances are pretty great. It's crazy how long she's been around, given her age and level of success. Rachel Weisz, Susan Sarandon, and even Mark Wahlberg do what they can with their roles. It's a lot of talent on screen. The story never comes together though.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Catfish

The Pitch: What if the person you are talking to on the internet isn't who you think they are?

Catfish is bigger than the 2010 documentary. I'm fairy certain that most people who use "catfish" to mean pretending to be someone else on the internet aren't even aware of the documentary. That's an interesting phenomenon that happens. Normally, it's a soundtrack that takes off or a funny clip that becomes a meme. With Catfish, it's a phrase.

One thing I want to make immediately clear is that all those people who sold this as some sort of a big twist must've been watching a different movie. Sure, the extent to which the woman was lying about who she was was greater than I expected, but the film is suspicious of this from the very beginning. Nev's fooled for a little while, but the audience isn't meant to be. I'm also not sure where all the talk of it being a hoax is coming from. Clearly, as storytellers, they were playing up certain elements, but this all seemed pretty straightforward.

Really, it would've been nice to go into this movie blind. Instead, I had way too much noise floating around in my head the whole time. It's an interesting film. It's well made and put together. If anything, it's a "horror or manners", if that's a thing. It's about knowing exactly what's happening but slowing it down and milking each moment as this woman tries to pretend that she hasn't been caught in a lie. In a way, it makes perfect sense that the directors went on to make Paranormal Activity sequels.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Indie Game: Life After

The Pitch: Remember Indie Game: The Movie? Let's follow up on them.

It's probably not fair to even call this a movie. I saw Indie Game: The Movie a couple of years ago on Netflix. It was rough around the edges but a pretty good documentary. I like anything that can teach me about a new thing/world/community in an interesting way, which it did very well. I saw Life After pop up on my Netflix and decided to give it a try. This isn't really a film though. It's more of a collection of bonus materials, including some interviews from two years after Indie Game: The Movie was released. Knowing that now, I'll forgive the complete lack of narrative structure. The epilogues are not that interesting. They can be summed up by saying "The internet is a much different place when people know who you are, but the money and creative freedom that success brings sure is great". There's a few segments following new people. Those were interesting. Probably not enough to sustain a whole other documentary, so I'm glad they didn't try to. It's best to watch this immediately after watching Indie Game: The Movie or in 10 minute chunks. As a two hour film, it is way too choppy and unfocused for very understandable reasons.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Austenland

The Pitch: Keri Russell goes to a Jane Austen themed resort.

Sometimes, you need to see a movie just so you can shake it. That's definitely the case with Austenland. I remember hearing about it a while ago and thinking "So that's what Keri Russell has been up to". This was before The Americans, mind you. It looked charming but I didn't hear anything about it after it first premiered. Yes, that's a warning sign, however my curiosity won out.

Something was off from the very beginning. I'm still having trouble placing it exactly. It's a quieter movie than I expected. I wish there was a little more of Keri Russell talking. She has a very difficult task as she's required to be both the obsessive Jane Austen fan AND the audience's suspicious eye into this world. A little more of her talking through her thoughts would've been great, even as a last resort. The film quickly tries to establish that she is a superfan of Jane Austen's to the point that it gets in the way of the rest of her life. Given that, she is disappointed by Austenland far too quickly. It seems like by day 2 she's ready to get out of there. Where's the blind love of it or the disappointment by the lack of commitment to it. She seems confused by Austenland even though with my limited Jane Austen knowledge, what she got was exactly what I would've expected. Her character is all over the place. Whatever is the most convenient for the story at a given moment.

I like Jennifer Coolidge. She's allowed a little more opportunity to do her thing than I cared for. It was too strong, too fast, but I'll take too much of her over not enough. I mean, you hire Jennifer Coolidge to get Jennifer Coolidge. Jane Seymour is fairly underused despite being pretty ideal for her role. The rest of the cast...is fine. I can't say much more than that.

I don't know much about the production of this film. Most of my issues are at a script level though, as far as I can tell. It didn't feel like it went through enough drafts. There's a lot of places where an additional pass or two could've come together better. Because, there's a good idea here. Keri Russell in a Jane Austen world, living out her own Jane Austen story has the kind of romance and nerd layering that would be easy for me to love. Austenland is a collection of small missteps that added up to make something I really didn't enjoy, despite my efforts.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

Movie Reaction: Arrival

Formula: Contact / War of the Worlds

One thing that's fun about seeing so many movies in theaters is the trailers. There's a lot of different strategies for them. Some tell you the whole story because you need that to ever even consider the movie. Other times, the trailer is trying to sell a vibe by showing scenes that give you the rhythm of the movie, not the story. I've seen plenty that take the kitchen sink approach and throw everything at the audience but completely out of context. The ones I find most interesting are the ones that are holding back as much as they can, and it turns out that the trailer is only one flavor of the side. Arrival is in that vein.

Based on the trailers, there's not a lot to the movie. Amy Adams is a linguist called in by the government to decode an alien language when several vessels show up around the globe. That really is the whole story. She's a professor at a university. When the alien vessels show up, a colonel for the U.S. Army (Forest Whitaker) drafts her and a theoretical physicist (Jeremy Renner) to lead teams tasked with trying to figure out why the aliens are in Montana and 11 other places across the Earth. Adams slowly develops a way to communicate with them as tensions mount among the other nations. Everyone in the movie, of course, has seen Independence Day and knows what can go wrong. It's wonderfully tense stuff and they do a fine job convincing me that basic linguistics can be interesting.

There's more to it though and that's something the advertising has been closely guarding. It's not a twist, per se. It's more of a change in perspective. It reminded me of About Time of all things. That movie is sold as a time-traveling RomCom, which it largely is, but it's about more than that. You don't realize that the movie has actually been about something else the whole time until it's over. Arrival is very similar in that way. I know that the mere mention of the word "twist" is going to cause some people to start searching for clues. That's the wrong way to watch the film. It's not trying "trick" anyone. It's about how the story is told.

So, now that I've thoroughly confused everyone with a cryptic description of a story that I quite liked, let's move onto Amy Adams. She's great, right? That's kind of inarguable at this point. No surprise, she gives her role heft that it otherwise wouldn't've had. Whether you think the ending is really smart or a total cop-out is really determined by if you think she pulls it off or not (Personally, I think she does pull it off). Jeremy Renner is fine. He's Adams' confidant throughout and that's a key role. Whitaker is mostly going through the motions. I'm always happy to see him, but there's nothing about the role that needed an Oscar winner. Michael Stuhlbarg, as a stand-in for every government bureaucracy, fills his role nicely. It's Adams' movie though.

I like Director Denis Villeneuve. The movies I've seen of his (Sicario and Prisoners) are very visually distinct, as is the case with Arrival. It has moments that convey a large scope without ever getting as bombastic as something like Interstellar. The natural comparison is Contact. That's a more grounded movie (except for the parts that no one believes Jodie Forster went through). Arrival is happy to put the strange things right there with the normal and see how they coexist. We never understand the aliens, but they are right there to be looked at for much of the film. It's an interesting contrast.

I'm not sure that I loved Arrival. The movies it reminds me of are ones like About Time and Stranger Than Fiction, which I didn't expect. Those are films I had to watch several times to fully appreciate, which could be the case for Arrival as well (and it's excellent company to be in). Only time will tell. From my one viewing [so far], the emotional arc is all there. Some of the story mechanics, especially at the end, are a little jarring, and perhaps more cerebral than I was prepared for. Then there's Amy Adams, adding another entry into her argument as the best still-working actress without an Oscar.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Movie Reaction: Moonlight

Formula: The Wire * Brokeback Mountain

There's a lot of overused sayings that have been going through my head since seeing Moonlight. Things like "Sometimes the best way to say something is to say nothing at all" and "universality through specificity". These sayings very much apply to the film even though I would like to find a better way to say it.

Moonlight is the story of Chiron, a gay black child, teen, and man growing up in Miami. It's told in three distinct parts (hence, "child, teen, and man"). The first part follows a chance meeting with a local drug dealer (Mahershala Ali) that leads to him and his girlfriend (Janelle Monae) looking over  Chiron. They become the lifeline he needs between being ridiculed at school for being gay and having a crackhead mother at home. The next part brings him to high school, where he is starting to become a man. At the same time he's struggling to survive the intolerance he faces at school and to understand what he should do with his feelings. The final act is about tearing down the walls Chiron has built up to protect himself. There's a key relationship in the middle of all this that is better left to be explored in the movie than by me now. It's the through line of the film and the emotional core.

This is a hard film to single out any one performance from. All three actors playing Chiron (Alex Hibbert, Ashton Sanders, Trevante Rhodes) are spectacular. If there was a way to share a Lead Actor Oscar, they'd be my front runner. There's no weak link between the three of them. Naomie Harris is the only actor in all three parts and her work is especially impressive when you know that she shot everything over a few days she had off in the middle of shooting a Bond movie. Mahershala Ali isn't in the movie for all that long, but he sets the tone early in invaluable ways. Janelle Monae uses her few moments well. It's a strong, strong cast.

Director Barry Jenkins beats you down with the silence in the film [in a good way]. Chiron is a character of few words, leaving the actors to say a lot with a look or a pause. Repeatedly there were scenes when I got annoyed in the theater because the sound of someone shuffling around in their seat was loud enough to distract from the silence in the scene. The film is as much about what isn't said as what is.

There are times when the movie does like the wallow a little. Frankly, the crackhead mom seemed like the story was stacking the deck against Chiron a little too much. Most of that is mitigated by his rather ideal situation with Ali and Monae though. If I had a complaint about the movie, that would be it, and it's a weak one.

They say that specificity in storytelling is the best way to get to universal truths. That's certainly true of Moonlight. I don't know what it's like to grow up as a poor gay black man in Miami. However, I do know what it's like to be scared of connecting with others or to struggle with accepting yourself. Moonlight is a lovely film. It's a simple story at its core with complex characters and performances. And, thanks to its structure, it has three different satisfying endings. Most films struggle with getting just one ending right.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend 

Delayed Reaction: Colonia

The Pitch: Emma Watson joins a cult compound to rescue her boyfriend.

This is really unfair of Emma Watson to do to me. She doesn't do nearly enough movies, so when I see one show up on Netflix with a big picture of her on it, I'm going to watch it. Colonia isn't a bad movie, really. It's mostly forgettable. You can almost see individual moments when the screenwriters are asking themselves "how much can I deviate from the truth with this?". No single thing about Colonia is all that bad though. It's just that nothing stands out. There are no big choices made by the director or actors. Something like Daniel Bruhl actually being brain damaged or the film getting more viceral about the inhumanities in the compound wouldn've made this stick out a lot more. That's just two examples. There's not a "right" answer. They play this very safe in the film and that felt wrong. The more movies I see, the more familiar certain story types become and that does no favors for Colonia. Emma Watson is plenty good in the lead role and Daniel Bruhl makes a go at his. Michael Nyqvist is well-suited to play this kind of cult leader despot. And, I did learn a little about Chile in the 1970s. I've often said that if a mediocre movies leads me to an interesting Wikipedia article, then it was worth it. I guess that make Colonia a success.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Dear White People

The Pitch: But really, how is blackface still a thing on college campuses?

What is the best way to think about this movie? Is it a black movie? Is it a movie about black people? Is it a movie and it has a predominantly black cast? I like to go into any movie as just a movie and let it stand on the merits of its quality, which this has plenty of. I'm not sure if that's right though for something that is this tied to identity.

Regardless, I enjoyed the hell out of this movie. It had a charm to it that reminded me a lot of Damsels in Distress. It's a movie about college students who have too much time to think about things. Some of these are important things. Some aren't. But, unlike something like Higher Learning, it doesn't rely on histrionics to make its points. Ok, maybe a little, but there were no neo-nazis shooting up a school. Just some white kids who thought blackface was fine (Note, still not a good thing. Not as bad as murder).

That's really my only issue with the movie: the party. While I [sadly] have no trouble believing that a party like that would be thrown at a college, I have trouble believing that the school's humor magazine would be throwing it and be popular enough to make it a success. It's not even that I think that "edgy" 20-year olds who are trying to be clever wouldn't come up with something like that. I've just never heard of a group of comedy writers who are as popular, powerful, and social as would be needed for this. That's one of those issues that got way outsized in my own head, I'll admit. It's not that big of a deal to the film.

The cast is wonderful. Tessa Thompson does a great job balancing how frustrating and endearing her character can be. Tyler James Williams does a lot without needing to say much. Teyonah Parris and Brandon P. Bell were the most interesting to me, watching both of their characters trying to "fit in" with what they believed was proper society. All the characters are more complex than a single sentence though, which is what makes them so enjoyable.

This film thoroughly exceeded my expectations, which I'll admit, were not that high. I won't make that mistake again with one of Justin Simien's films.

Verdict (?): Strongly Recommend

College Basketball Conference Picks 2016-17

I don't think I can stress enough the amount of time I put in tracking college basketball rosters. I follow recruits, transfers, minutes played, positions, All-Conference teams, etc. If I'm crazy enough to make picks for every conference, I'm sure as hell going to make a post about it.

This Year:
Top 25
Last Year: 
Top 25
Conference Picks
2014-15:
Top 25
Conference Picks

*By the way, any time I mention Conference rankings, I'm basing it off Kenpom, not final Conference W-L record. Whenever I mention recruiting rankings, I'm referring to Rivals.

The Power Five

ACC
1. Duke – Grayson Allen, Matt Jones, and Amile Jefferson are all 30+mpg, high usage returnees. They'll be bolstered by a recruiting class with 4 players rated 12th or higher by Rivals (5 in the top 40) with a ton of front court depth. Losing their top recruit Harry Giles for at least the beginning of the season and no proven depth at Point Guard are reasons to be cautious. The overwhelming experience plus incoming talent is enough that they are the only logical pick to win the conference though.
2. Virginia – London Perrantes is the type of experienced floor general that any team would love to have and Austin Nichols (F – Memphis) might be the best transfer in the country. The Cavaliers bring back another wave of backups ready to move into the starting lineup. This is by far Tony Bennett's best recruiting class yet (4 players rated between 43-60 by Rivals).
3. North Carolina – A classic “Next man up” lineup. Senior leaders Marcus Paige and Brice Johnson graduated. Players like Joel Berry, Nate Britt, and Justin Jackson are all candidates to make a star-turn. I'd feel a little better about them if Jr. Theo Pinson wasn't entering the season with an injury.
Sleeper: Louisville – It's worth noting that NC St. and Florida St. both have good depth and a potentially lottery-bound Freshman (Dennis Smith Jr. and Jonathan Isaac respectively). A sleeper to actually win the conference has to be Louisville. They just have so much depth at positions 2-5. PG should be set too with Quentin Snider.
Bottom of the Barrel: Boston College – They were the worst team in the ACC last season by a lot and they didn't bring in any great recruits. There's no reason to expect them to get better.

Big 12
1. Kansas - They're my #1 team in the country, so I'd hope I'd have them winning the conference. The back court of Devonte Graham and Frank Mason will lead the team. Freshman Josh Jackson is the top-rated recruit in the country, but I'm not convinced that he's the team's X-Factor. Let's not forget Bill Self's history with top 10 recruits. Yes, there was Andrew Wiggins, but there was also Chieck Diallo, Cliff Alexander, Kelly Oubre, Josh Selby, and Xavier Henry. History warns us to not assume that Freshmen on a Bill Self team will be ready right away. Thankfully, he has a lot of reliable depth in the form of Sviatoslav Mykhailiuk and Ole Miss Transfer Dwight Coleby. Sophomores Carlton Bragg and LeGerald Vick are probably ready to contribute now too.
2. West Virginia - The calling card of "Press Virginia" is the depth, so it's hard to worry about graduations hurting them. It sure would've been nice if Devin Williams hadn't opted to go pro. That just means even more opportunities for Esa Ahmad, Elijah Macon, and Nathan Adrian in the front court. They're also covered in the back court with Jevon Carter, Daxter Miles, and Tarik Phillip. I did notice an oddity in the roster though. The height of all the players on the roster jumps from 6'3 (or shorter) to 6'8 (or taller). That does make me question the wing depth. The real thing stopping them from preventing the Jayhawks from winning their 208th consecutive conference crown is the lack of a star player.
3. Iowa St. - One of the more curious rosters in the conference if not all of college basketball. They have an embarrassment of riches in the back court (Monte Morris, Naz Long, Matt Thomas, Deonte Burton) and very little proven talent in the front court. It'll be up to transfers, Freshmen, and guys who barely played last year to stop the bigger teams in the league from destroying them.
Sleeper: Texas - A lot of players are gone from last year's squad, but this looks like a HAVOC roster. And Shaka Smart has been recruiting at a high level. They will be young and potentially dangerous.
Bottom of the Barrel: TCU - Top 60 recruit Jaylen Fisher (PG) will not be enough to save the Horned Frogs. They actually return a lot of last year's team but so did everyone else above them in the conference. It's going to be another deep and competitive year for the Big 12.

Big 10
1. Indiana - If I could just be assured that PG is covered, I'd feel a lot better about the Hoosiers. They have probably the best 2-5 lineup and 6th man in the Big 10 (and that's not even counting injured stretch 4, Collin Hartman). I'm really hoping that transfer Josh Newkirk is a better PG now than he was at Pitt. Or maybe Robert Johnson and James Blackmon put together can equal one serviceable PG.
2. Michigan St. - I had to put IU first because Michigan St.'s recent slew of injuries has me worried. They start the season with their two most reliable big men (Ben Carter and Gavin Schilling) injured for some amount of time. Tom Izzo is bringing in perhaps his best recruiting class ever, but it's one that's guard-heavy. That's nice, but they don't need help there. They already have Eron Harris on the wing and “Tum Tum” Narin and Matt McQuaid in the back court. They aren't that impressive looking now, but do you really want to bet against Izzo having them ready by March?
3. Wisconsin – I'm not sold on Wisconsin at all. The whole team is back from last year. I'm just not sure how much better they can get. Bronson Koenig and Nigel Hayes already did so much for them last year. I'm not about to dub last year's B10 Freshman of the Year, Ethan Happ, the next star on the roster. So, where's the improvement for a team that only cracked the top 40 last year?
Sleeper: Ohio St. - They were not great last season and saw four rotation players transfer. What makes them dangerous is that they have 3 or 4 players who could all have breakout seasons. Besides, it's been suspiciously long since the Buckeyes had a really good team.
Bottom of the Barrel: Rutgers – I hope the Big 10 is happy to be in that New Jersey football TV market, because Rutgers sure isn't improving the basketball product. There's not enough in that lineup to get excited about.

Pac 12
1. Oregon - Even with an early-season injury to Dillon Brooks, it's had to pick against the Ducks. They still have All-Freshman Guard Tyler Dorsey and Jordan Bell & Chris Boucher in the middle. Villanova transfer Dylan Ennis is back from injury this season as well. They have a sneaky good recruiting class. None of the new players need to start but they could bolster an otherwise shallow bench.
2. Arizona - If I'm picking on talent alone, Arizona is the team to beat in the Pac 12. Sean Miller has another stocked recruiting class and already has So/Jr/Sr replacements at every position. Alonzo Trier (G) is going to terrorize the league as a Sophomore.
3. UCLA - It makes no sense that UCLA finished last season 79th overall on KenPom. There was too much talent on that roster to not find a way to do better. They're a little thinner in the front court this season. Thomas Welsh should stabilize them though. The back court is ridiculous. They return three 30+mpg Guards (Aaron Holiday, Bryce Alford, Isaac Hamilton) and add the 4th rated player in the country, Lonzo Ball (PG).
Sleeper: USC - The Trojans have been recruiting at a high level for years, getting both highly touted Freshmen and transfers with a lot of potential. They had players transfer out or foolishly go pro as well. All I can really say is that they won't quite look the same as last year, when they finished 55th overall and players like Jordan McLaughlin, Bennie Boatright, and Louisville-transfer Shaqquan Aaron could mesh in unexpected and impressive ways.
Bottom of the Barrel: Washington St. - Utah is losing so much from last year that I don't want to count them out entirely as the worst in the Pac 12, but Washington St. was already last year's worst team and they don't bring back much other than Ike Iroegbu and Josh Hawkinson (Hint: that's not a lot to be optimistic about).

SEC
1. Kentucky - With the Wildcats losing so much from last season, I'd like to invite anyone to challenge them. No teams are stepping up. Such is the state of the SEC. Kentucky's loaded recruiting class will take some time to coalesce. There's just enough returning talent in the form of Isaiah Briscoe, Derek Willis, and Isaac Humphries to keep them together early on. Expect the one-and-done players to increasingly be the focus by the time SEC play begins.
2. Florida - This is the kind of team Billy Donovan would make a top 5 team in the country (See: 2013). However, I'm not sold on Mike White the way I was on Billy Donovan. I'm not sure if the Gators have a star player on the roster. There's a lot of sturdy upperclassmen though. Senior PG Kasey Hill was a top 10 recruit 4 years ago. Junior Forward Devin Robinson was a top 20 player once upon a time. Charleston transfer Canyon Barry should help immediately at the wing. Florida doesn't have to play a Freshman all season and they'd be fine (which is good because the recruiting class is pretty weak for them). Don't expect a world-beater, but they will put up a fight every night.
3. Texas A&M - Last year's top 10 recruiting class is another year older, making the Aggie's perhaps the highest upside team in the SEC after Kentucky. Sophomores Tyler Davis (C), DJ Hogg (F), and Admon Gilder (G) will be a lot to handle. The problem is that they were a Senior-led team last season. Those Seniors are gone now and this year's recruiting class isn't as impressive.
Sleeper: Mississippi St. - The Bulldog's are looking to be this year's Texas A&M. They have a nine-man recruiting class with 6 Rivals top 150 players. They'll be joining returning Guards IJ Ready (SR) and Quinndary Weatherspoon (SO). Ben Howland has brought in a few mid-major transfers too. It's a very young team with a lot of new faces. Odds are, they are a year or two from making some noise.
Bottom of the Barrel: Missouri - They already weren't great last year. Then, by my count, six players transferred. They still have All-Freshman Forward Kevin Puyears, but not much else. This is a slow rebuild.

The "If It Wasn't for Football" Majors

American Athletic Conference
1. Connecticut - I really think Daniel Hamilton did too much for them last season. I predict VCU transfer Terry Larrier (F) will fill his shoes nicely. They have one of the most experienced frontcourts in the country in Amida Brimah (C) and Kentan Facey (F). Jalen Adams and Rodney Purvis have already logged a lot of minutes in the backcourt as well. Finally, coach Kevin Ollie brought in a strong recruiting class. As long as a couple players can figure out how to score, they'll be pretty good.
2. Cincinnati - They've had a top 20 defense that last three seasons. There's no reason to assume they won't have a fourth with reigning Defensive Player of the Year Gary Clark returning. Last year's leading scorer Troy Caupain is back too. The supporting cast around those two is a little green, but that's a good start for a conference that really isn't that great right now.
3. SMU - They were a top 20 team last year, even with a postseason suspension. Larry Brown left a program in turmoil. There's a lot of players still left. Enough that they can contend.
Sleeper: Memphis - There are no high-upside teams in the middle of the conference. That makes picking a sleeper tough. Markel Crawford, KJ Lawson, and Rookie of the Year Dedric Lawson are a talented trio of wings and new coach Tubby Smith is an upgrade over Josh Pastner. He can feasibly get them tournament-ready.
Bottom of the Barrel: Tulane - They lost a significant amount due to graduation and transfer. They have a weak recruiting class and no talent to begin with. It's going to be a bad season for the Green Wave.

Atlantic 10
1. Rhode Island - Everything is in place for a breakout season. E.C. Matthews (G) will return from injury and immediately be in the A-10 Player of the Year discussion. Hassan Martin (F) is the reigning Defensive Player of the Year. Indiana transfer Stanford Robinson (G) should come in and make an immediate impact. Jarvis Garrett (G), Jared Terrell (G), and Kuran Iverson (F) are all back. All the pieces are there. They just need to come together in the right way.
2. Dayton - Archie Miller has found a lot of success with his Guard-heavy teams. The Senior backcourt trio of Scoochie Smith, Charles Cooke, and Kyle Davis should be a terror in the league. Bradley transfer Josh Cunningham (F) gives them a little size.
3.VCU - I'll credit coach Will Wade for getting a top 50 recruit in De'Riante Jenkins this year, but mostly he's just playing out the clock with former coach Shaka Smart's players. Thankfully, those leftover players include JeQuan Lewis, Jordan Burgess, and Mo Alie-Cox. They're all Seniors though, making this Wade's last hurrah before relying on his own recruits.
Sleeper: La Salle -  The Explorers were lousy by every measure last year. They do bring back four Guards who averaged 30+ mpg though. What intrigues me is the trio of former Rivals top 150 transfers: BJ Johnson (Syracuse), Demetrius Henry (South Carolina), and RaShawn Powell (Memphis).
Bottom of the Barrel: St. Louis - Help is on the way. They have a strong recruiting class and several impact transfers...for 2017-18. For this season though, there's not much to be excited about.

Big East
1. Villanova - They are the reigning national champions. The least I can do is predict them to win the conference. It helps that they have a lot of good players. Josh Hart (First team All-Conference) and Jalen Brunson (All-Freshman team) should make up for the loss of Point Guard Ryan Arcidiacono. Kris Jenkins (F) who made the game winner in the championship game, is a Senior now. Phil Booth (G) and Mikal Bridges (F) will get plenty of minutes. Fordham transfer Eric Paschall is eligible now and was the A10 Freshman of the year when he left. The only real concern is in the middle. Center Daniel Ochefu graduated and Freshman Omari Spellman (18th rated recruit by Rivals) was deemed ineligible by the NCAA for the season. That means Darryl Reynolds is going to need to step up big, otherwise, opposing bigs will tear them up. They're experienced and talented enough for that not to matter most nights.
2. Xavier - The Musketeers have a similar problem to the Wildcats. With Edmond Sumner, JP Macura, and Trevon Bluiett, the back court is as good as it gets, even with Senior Guard Myles Davis indefinitely suspended. However, most of the frontcourt is gone. That means Norfolk St. transfer RaShid Gaston, lightly-used Sophomores Kaiser Gates and Sean O'Mara, and top 150 Freshman Tyrique Jones will need to step up. None of them feel like a safe bet. Like Villanova though, there's enough at positions 1-3 that they won't need to worry most nights.
3. Creighton - The Bluejays bring back experienced players at every position, including Point Guard Maurice Watson Jr. They even bring in a top 50 recruit, Center Justin Patton - a rarity for them. What has most people talking is Kansas St. transfer Marcus Foster (G), who has the potential to be a star (like his Freshman season) or implode (like his Sophomore season).
Sleeper: Marquette - They lost Henry Ellenson, by far their best player, to the draft, and they weren't that good to begin with last year. That's why no one is talking about them going into the season. They have eight players though who at one time were top 150 recruits. That's the most of any team in the conference. Ellenson was also the only player of significance who left. That's balance and talent - a dangerous combination.
Bottom of the Barrel: DePaul - It's between DePaul and St. Johns. Neither will be very good. I just figure that it's DePaul's turn at the bottom. They lost more and have a weaker recruiting class.

Mountain West
1. San Diego St. - I think this is finally the year that the offense catches up with the defense. Even losing MWC Defensive Player of the Year Skylar Shepard won't compromise the defense. They've been a top 10 defense the last three seasons and top 20 the year before that. Their top three point shooters (Jeremy Hemsley, Trey Kell, and Malik Pope) are all back, which is a good sign for the offense. Maybe their trio of transfers - Valentine Izundu (Wash. St.), Montaque Gill-Caesar (Missouri), Max Hoetzel (Indiana) - can help on offense too. Coach Steve Fisher recruits very well. Plenty of talent and experience is coming back. There's those transfers. I really can't state this enough. If they put together a good offense, the sky is the limit. For the Mountain West though, their defense is all they'll need.
2. New Mexico - Unless something changes, this is the last year I can pretend that the Mountain West is a second-tier conference. They haven't had multiple good teams at the same time in several years. New Mexico is not a great team. First Team All-Conference players Elijah Brown (G) and Tim Williams (F) are back, which is nice. Cullen Neal (G) transferred. That's not as nice.
3. Nevada - Someone's gotta be third. They bring back MWC Freshman of the Year Cameron Oliver (F). Sothern Illinois transfer Jordan Caroline is a nice piece too.
Sleeper: UNLV - I like what new coach Marvin Menzies did at New Mexico St. He has a talent for finding obscure recruits. That's why I'm not that worried about his weak looking recruiting class. His brings in several transfers too. Junior Dwayne Morgan used to be a top 20 recruit. I'm not betting on them, but there are enough parts to believe in a "sleeper" narrative.
Bottom of the Barrel: Air Force - They don't recruit so much as they see who shows up. Their official roster lists 24 players if that gives any indication.

The True Mid-Majors

Missouri Valley Conference
Favorite: Wichita St. - The Shockers will be one of the teams I'll be most interested in tracking this season. Fred Van Vleet and Rob Baker are gone after what feels like a decade on campus. Coach Gregg Marshall has been preparing for this day. Connor Frankamp and Landry Shamet are the next wave in the back court. Markis McDuffie, Rishard Kelly, and Shaquille Morris keep the front court strong. They also have good depth. Really, they just need a star to emerge. Even without one, they'll be just fine.
Runner-Up: Illinois St. - There's just no other good team that I can find. Paris Lee and MiKyule McIntosh are enough to push the Redbirds over the edge.
Sleeper: Northern Iowa - I figured they had enough last season to find success in the conference. Now, Jeremy Morgan is the only significant player back. Given the last two years though, I'm keeping one eye on the Panthers.
Bottom of the Barrel: Bradley - They were by far the worst team in the MVC and relied heavily on Freshman. This season, they'll be relying heavily on Freshmen and Sophomores.

West Coast Conference
Favorite: Gonzaga - Is this the year they finally make the Final Four? That's how good they look on paper. Center Przemek Karnowski is back from injury. Transfers Nigel Williams-Goss (Washington), Jordan Matthews (California), Jonathan Williams (Missouri), and Jeremy Jones (Rice) should all make immediate impacts. Guards Josh Perkins and Silan Melson return. Oh, and this is probably Mark Few's best recruiting class ever. There's no way to pretend that Kyle Wiltjer, Domantas Sabonis, Kyle Dranginis, and Eric McClellan won't be missed. This is a classic case of "reloaded", not "rebuild".
Runner-Up: St. Mary's - Everyone significant from last year's top 50 team is back. Emmett Naar, Joe Rahon, Evan Fitzner, and company are going to be a significant road block from Gonzaga. The only possible concern is that the Gaels are already as good as they're going to be. The "talent wall" is a real thing.
Sleeper: BYU - It's always so hard to figure BYU out. It's hard to find two players who meant more to their team than Kyle Collinsworth and Chase Fischer last season. That said, Nick Emery and Kyle Davis are back. Elon transfer Elijah Bryant will help right away. Three former top 150 recruits are back from their Mormon missions. There's a whole lot of question marks going into the season.
Bottom of the Barrel: San Francisco - Eight Freshmen and six Sophomores. Both All-Conference players graduated. They have a lot of work to do.

Ivy League
Favorite: Princeton - They were a top 70 team last season and bring back all but one player (who only played garbage minutes).
Runner-Up: Harvard - I won't argue with Princeton being the prohibitive favorite, but Harvard is likely to make the league more competitive than people expect. Siyani Chambers is back from injury and Coach Tommy Amaker recruits at a high level (3 top 150 recruits this season alone).
Sleeper: Dartmouth - They have Evan Boudreaux back after a Freshman of the Year campaign. Otherwise, it's a forgettable lineup.
Bottom of the Barrel: Brown - Tavon Blackmon and Steven Spieth are 30+ mpg players who are hard to be excited about.

Horizon League
Favorite: Valparaiso - Alec Peters. That' all you need to know. Even though Horizon Defensive Player of the Year Vashil Fernandez is gone with no obvious replacement, it doesn't matter. Alec Peters is all that matters.
Runner-Up: Oakland - Horizon Player of the Year Kahlil Felder is playing in the NBA now. Sweet shooting Max Hooper is gone too. A bunch of Guards are back. The only front court player of note returning is 2nd Team All-Conference Forward Jalen Hayes.
Sleeper: Illinois-Chicago - They were awful last season but Freshman of the Year Dikembe Dixson is back.
Bottom of the Barrel: Cleveland St. - The good news is that every player of note is returning. The bad news is that All-Freshman Guard Rob Edwards was the only player of note last season.

Colonial Athletic Association
Favorite: UNC-Wilmington - Last year's best team brings back its best players.
Runner-Up: Charleston - This is a team overflowing with All-Conference Players and experience. It'll be a two-horse race in the Colonial.
Sleeper: Towson - Cincinnati transfer Deshaun Mormen will be a nice addition to an already solid core.
Bottom of the Barrel: Drexel - I just don't think that Wake Forest transfer Miles Overton will be enough to offset the personnel loses.

Conference USA
Favorite: UAB - Maybe this year I am ready to anoint them. That underclassmen-led team that upset Baylor two years ago is now full of Juniors and Seniors like Nick Norton, Chris Cokley, William Lee, and Southern Illinois transfer Deion Lavender.
Runner-Up: Middle Tennessee - I really want to see how Arkansas transfer Jacorey Williams meshes with Giddy Potts and Reggie Upshaw Jr.
Sleeper: Western Kentucky - Rick Stansbury is doing great work on the recruiting trail. He already has two top 50 recruits lined up for Fall 2017. This season, he's bringing in several transfers from major conferences: Junior Lomomba (Providence), Que Johnson (Washington St.), and Willie Carmichael III (Tennessee).
Bottom of the Barrel: UTSA - They were so bad last year that it really doesn’t matter who they're bringing back.

They Have Some Good Teams

Mid-American Conference
Favorite: Ohio - I'm very high on Ohio, not just in the MAC but all-around. Jaaron Simmons (2nd Team All-Conference), Jordan Davis (All-Freshman Team), Kenny Kaminski (averaged over 30 mpg), and Antonio Campbell (MAC Player of the Year) are a fantastic inside-outside quartet.
Runner-Up: Akron - The Zips bring back a pretty stacked roster too. They were actually better than Ohio last season but lost more players of significance.
Sleeper: Eastern Michigan - Bringing back the conference Freshman of the Year is the first indicator of a good sleeper team. This won't be the last time I mention this. When that player is also a Center in a relatively weak conference, that becomes a great indicator.
Bottom of the Barrel: Bowling Green - I have always liked BGSU for their department of Popular Culture (I missed my calling). However, their basketball team sure is lousy.

Summit League
Favorite: IPFW - It's weird to pick the team that lost the conference Player of the Year to go from 2nd to 1st in the conference. They have another 1st Team All-Conference player in John Konchar and there's Purdue transfer Bryson Scott.
Runner-Up: South Dakota St. - The Jackrabbits (I love that mascot!) were damn good last season. A bunch of Guards graduated. Mostly, Freshman of the Year Mike Daum is going to need to lead the team.
Sleeper: IUPUI - I'm curious to see how good Syracuse transfer Ron Patterson will be in the new setting.
Bottom of the Barrel: Oral Roberts - They're a middling team who lost their 1st Team All-Conference Guard.

Big West Conference
Favorite: LBSU - Dan Monson always puts his teams through a brutal non-conference schedule. This is one of those years in which he might sneak a couple wins. Undersized All-Conference Guard Justin Bibbins is back. Roshon Prince is a former top 100 recruit. Loyola-Marymount transfer Evan Payne should contribute right away. Their lack of size will be their biggest hurdle.
Runner-Up: Cal. St. Northridge - Not a great team at all last year. Several strong transfers. Let's see how this plays out.
Sleeper: Hawaii - The Rainbow Warriors lost most of the roster amid possible NCAA infractions. Matt Thomas is the only major contributor returning. That means a bunch of Freshmen and transfers, thus, infinite possibility. It'll probably be a train wreck.
Bottom of the Barrel: Cal. St. Fullerton - It's nice to have Freshman of the Year Khalil Ahmad back. That's about all they have though.

Sunbelt Conference
Favorite: Texas-Arlington - Erick Neal will lead the team. Deep bench. Not much attrition.
Runner-Up: Georgia Southern - Freshman of the Year Tookie Brown and All-Conference Guard Mike Hughes will form a strong back court. They are light in the front court which was the same problem they had last season.
Sleeper: Georgia St. - Ron Hunter is the best in the Sun Belt at working the transfer market. Even though Kevin Ware (Louisville) has graduated, he gets another year out of Jeremy Hollowell (Indiana). This year, he introduces Justin Seymour (Murray St.), Devin Mitchell (Alabama), and Willie Clayton (Charlotte) to the team. It's no guarantee that they will all work together, and that's what makes them a sleeper.
Bottom of the Barrel: Appalachian St. - There's not a lot there, and the only All-Conference player from last year (Frank Eaves) is gone.

Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference
Favorite: Monmouth - Last year's mid-major darlings look to keep it up if not improve on what they did last year. The still have MAAC Player of the Year Justin Robinson (G) and Freshman of the Year Micah Seaborn (G). They actually only lose Deon Jones (G) from last year's line-up.
Runner-Up: Iona - Fun fact: Monmouth didn't actually finish last season as the best team in the MAAC (according to Kenpom). That distinction goes to Iona. All-Conference guard A.J. English is gone. They bring back 2nd-team All-Conference forward Jordan Washington. To make up for that, they'll have Connecticut transfer Sam Cassell Jr. and, returning from injury, Schadrac Casimir.
Sleeper: St. Peter's - Monmouth and Iona are the clear favorites. St. Peter's is a big step below them, but they return all their top players and bring in a few transfers.
Bottom of the Barrel: Quinnipiac - They are super important as pollsters for the election. That'll have to be enough because the basketball team is lackluster.

Ohio Valley Conference
Favorite: Belmont - 1st Team All-Conference Guard Craig Bradshaw is gone, but just about everyone else, including OVC Player of the Year Evan Bradds is back. The Bruins have been consistently good under coach Rick Byrd (who has been coaching there since 1986!).
Runner-Up: Tennessee St. - Defensive Player of the Year Tahjere McCall should pair nicely with Georgia Tech transfer Chris Bolden.
Sleeper: Murray St. - I just like Murray State. Jeffery Moss graduating isn't great. Bryce Jones, Damarcus Croaker, and Tulane transfer Jonathan Stark will need to step up. There's a lot of new players on the roster after that. The Racers are always dangerous.
Bottom of the Barrel: SE Missouri St. - By my count, 87 junior college transfers and three freshmen means it's hard to know what to expect from this roster.

Basketball's Not Their Thing

Southern Conference
Favorite: Chattanooga - By far, last season's best team. Defensive Player of the Year Justin Tuoyo and 1st Team All-Conference Forward Tre McLean are back. In other words, someone else in the conference will have to step up their game. Chattanooga will not be taking a step back.
Runner-Up: East Tennessee St. - Coach Steve Forbes has had a lot of recruiting success lately. This year, he has former Wichita St. Forward Tevin Glass and former Indiana Forward Hanner Mosquera-Perea joining T.J. Cromer, Isaac Banks, and Peter Jurkin. They have the highest upside of any team in the Southern Conference.
Sleeper: Samford - Most of last year's rotation is gone. What makes them exciting is a trio of transfers from bigger programs: Demetrius Dyson (UMass), Alex Thompson (Auburn), and Terry Brutus (Ole Miss).
Bottom of the Barrel: Citadel - It's a shame that a school with such a cool name will have such a bad team.

Western Athletic Conference
Favorite: New Mexico St. - The Aggies have been the most consistent team in the WAC for the last several years. Former head coach Marvin Menzies is at UNLV now. Piascal Siakam was a first-round NBA draft pick. Everyone else is back. Supposing that everything doesn't fall apart under New Head Coach Paul Weir (long time Associate Head Coach), players like Ian Baker, Tanverer Bhullar, and Sidy Ndir should easily lead the conference.
Runner-Up: Grand Canyon - With the back court of Joshua Braun and DeWayne Russell and a deep reserve of role players, there's plenty to like.
Sleeper: UMKC - They were quite bad last year although they return a strong back court.
Bottom of the Barrel: Chicago St. - The fact that a team in Chicago is in the Western Athletic Conference says all you need to know about how prestigious the program is.

Big South Conference
Favorite: Winthrop - Former top 75 recruit Zach Price finally exhausted his eligibility and 1st Team All-Conference Guard Jimmy Gavin graduated. Thankfully, those are the only two players gone and Keon Johnson and Xavier Cooks are still around.
Runner-Up: Coastal Carolina - Things were looking a lot better before PG Shivaughn Wiggins was charged with assault and apparently no longer with the program. They still have wing Elijah Wilson and some role players.
Sleeper: UNC-Asheville - A bevy of players transferred from last season's best team. They have no apparent star. Still, it's looking better for them with this Junior and Senior-led class than for many other teams.
Bottom of the Barrel: Presbyterian - It's never encouraging to see last year's worst team lose several key players to transfer.

Big Sky Conference
Favorite: North Dakota - There's no really interesting team, so one that brings back three 30 mpg players, including first team All-Conference guard Quinton Hooker, easily becomes the favorite.
Runner-Up: Idaho St. - Ethan Telfair and Geno Luzcando form a strong back court. If Kyle Ingram or someone else can be a serviceable big they should be pretty good.
Sleeper: Montana St. - Last year's Freshman of the Year Tyler Hall + a bunch of Freshman + a bunch of Transfers makes Montana St. an unknown going into the season.
Bottom of the Barrel:  Southern Utah - They were just awful last year and lost a bunch of players.

Atlantic Sun Conference
Favorite: Florida Gulf Coast University - They are still reaping the recruiting benefits of the Dunk City success. That's how former top 150 recruits Rayjon Tucker (F) and Demetris Morasnt (F) are on the roster. The players who will really give them their success next season will be 1st Team All-Conference Forward Marc-Eddy Norelia and All-Freshman Guard Zachary Johnson. Central Florida recruit Brandon Goodwin too. It's a very complete looking lineup.
Runner-Up: NJIT - Damon Lynn (G) leads a lot of returning players.
Sleeper: North Florida - American East Player of the Year Dallas Moore is back. That's a good wild card to have. Some major supporting cast is gone though.
Bottom of the Barrel: Lipscomb - A pair of All-Freshman players won't be enough to get out of the bottom of the Conference standings.

American East Conference
Favorite: Vermont - With the Albany and Stony Brook dynasties both expecting a down season, it looks like "third fiddle" Vermont is the team to beat. Dre Willis (G) from the All-Defensive team, Trae Bell-Haynes (G) and Kurt Steidl (F) from the All-Conference 3rd Team, and Everett Duncan (G) from the All-Newcomer Team give Vermont a lot of options. They do hurt a little in the front court since Ethan O'Day graduated, but in the weaker conferences, you can get by without much size.
Runner-Up: New Hampshire - Jaleen Smith and Tanner Lesissner are back and that is great news for New Hampshire. In fact, most of last year's lineup is back.
Sleeper: Stony Brook - They were the best team in the conference last year. They lost a trio of seniors though who were as important to their roster as any in the country. They bring back everyone else though. Perhaps there's some players who have just been waiting for their turn.
Bottom of the Barrel: Maine - They were the worst team in the conference last season and lost a bunch of players.

Patriot League
Favorite: Lehigh – Kahron Ross and Tim Kempton will be the best inside/outside duo in the Patriot League. Austin Price and Kyle Leufroy give great depth at the wings. Lehigh may even be in the discussion for At-large consideration in the tournament. That's how strongly I feel about them.
Runner-Up: Boston University - Their success will rely on a trio of Guards: Eric Fanning (1st Team-All Conference), Kyle Foreman (All-Freshman Team), Cheddi Mosely (averaged over 30 mpg last season). They also have good depth, if not talent, in the front court.
Sleeper: American University - When there's no other obvious candidate (and there's not), go with the team bringing back the Freshman of the Year. In this case, it means Delante Jones for American University.
Bottom of the Barrel: Army – This is a 28-player roster and the three All-Conference players are gone. It's looking ugly.

Southland Conference
Favorite: Sam Houston St. - They bring back a lot of players and have depth at every position. With SF Austin taking a hit, it really is the wild west out in the Southland Conference now and they are the safest pick.
Runner-Up: Texas A&M Corpus Cristi – I'm just going to keep finding a reason to mention Corpus Cristi because it has the coolest looking campus. They are bringing back Southland Defensive Player of the Year Rashawn Thomas (F). In a conference this weak, that's about all it takes.
Sleeper: Stephen F. Austin – The Lumberjacks have been a powerhouse in the Southland Conference for the last few seasons. They actually finished as a top 30 team last year. Former Coach Brad Underwood is coaching Oklahoma State now. Four All-Conference players graduated. There is really no reason to assume that they will be any good at all this season except, maybe Underwood's magic has rubbed off on the returning players. That means Ty Charles and TJ Holyfield will need to step up a lot.
Bottom of the Barrel: Nicholls St. - They're just plain bad. Not even interestingly bad. It's a shame that Roddy Peters won't be eligible until next season. He's a former top 50 recruit and would help them out a lot if he could play now.

Embarrassingly Bad

Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference
Favorite: Norfolk St. - There are no good teams in this conference. They were last year's best team and bring back a solid core.
Runner-Up: Howard - They were miserably bad last season, but they do bring back MEAC Player of the Year James Daniel (G). That should be enough to get them to the top of a weak conference.
Sleeper: UNC-Central - I really should've found a way to put them in my top two. Several starters are back. Plenty of transfers from JC and Division I will join their ranks. That are the hardest team to predict.
Bottom of the Barrel: North Carolina A&T - What even is an A&T school? I barely understand A&M. This is the only A&T school in Division I. Oh, and other that Sam Hunt, this will be a forgettable team.

Northeast Conference
Favorite: Wagner - They were by far the best team in the conference last year and bring back their two All-Conference players (Corey Henson, Michael Catey). Any other team would need to take a big leap to surpass them.
Runner-Up: Fairleigh Dickinson - They are Wagner's most likely competitor with their own pair of All Conferences players (Darian Anderson, Earl Potts Jr.) and All Freshman Forward Mike Holloway.
Sleeper: LIU-Brooklyn - They'd be looking a lot better if Martin Hermannsson didn't go pro overseas. 1st Team All-Conference Forward Jerome Frink is still there and that a good start. They had a lot of Freshmen last year and one of them could step up.
Bottom of the Barrel: Robert Morris - They were already 306th last season which isn't great. Six players transferred. That's not a good sign. They are one of only two teams in the conference who don't bring back any All-Conference or All-Freshman players.

Southwestern Athletic Conference
Favorite: Texas Southern - They were the top team in the conference last season by far. Most everyone is gone now, with one key exception: SWAC Player of the Year, Defensive Player of the Year, and Newcomer of the Year Derrick Griffin (C). Having a big man like that makes everything else much easier. He'll be leading a lot of transfers.
Runner-Up: Jackson St. - Frankly, I've lost track of why I'm picking them so highly. In a conference this weak, it really is a coin-toss.
Sleeper: Prairie View A&M - A lot of players are back. Several transfers are coming in. Mostly though, I just like the name of the school.
Bottom of the Barrel: Alabama A&M - Finally, the end. A&M lost their key tandem of Ladarius Tabb and Nicholas West to graduation.