User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.9830 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I respect him as a coach, but think he looks like a rat. He's deified by a lot of the media, so a lot of backlash is to that. He's passed his prime, and we talked about his recruiting strategies in the last couple of pages. Not liking Duke also means not "liking" him, since for most people he *IS* Duke.
He gets a free pass on just about everything - I'm not saying he hasn't earned the benefit of the doubt, but there's shady stuff that's brushed under the rug (see again my Duhon example), as it is for all greats (for instance, the random stuff you'll occasionally hear about Wooden and that one booster). However, like I said on the last page, I don't think that highly of any college coach in basketball or football. For every good deed sj points out for Boeheim, there's a counter example. No one's perfect, and the whole industry is shady. Anyhow, I'm rambling now and probably am not making much sense...
I may not fully understand the question, but I will try to answer. If you zoom closer in, each arrow represents a player EDIT: I now see what you are talking about, the arrow clusters where someone just lists the metro areas as his hometown. TO that questions, I don't have an answer.. I didn't bother to count each cluster. Chicago may indeed be a winner. In many aspects, the density of players parallels population densities (albeit maybe not in exact proportions). WHere this really breaks down is east v. west. THere are just far more people from teh east coast than the west coast. If you start looking by team, you can see a slight regional correlation to the drafting. I am sure that has something to do with energizing the fan base(s).
Take NYC for example. Are they breaking up by borough? I can only speak for Chicago, but they have each suburb separately. Regardless, even if NYC has the most, Chicago may have the highest percentage of the big cities.
FWIW, I don't expect either Kentucky or Indiana to ever suck for long periods of time. I do think Crean is a good coach. The problem is too many people have been poaching on Indy kids. He just needs to kick Motta in the balls and stare down K. THere is no reason those Indianapolis kids shouldn't be playing for IU. There is no reason they shouldn't be getting the Heywards and Plumlees either. (I think there is third Plumlee out there, Cherokee Plumlee or something like that). Crean was just getting most of his talent from the other metro areas. He will learn how to draw in his state.
I think he's a good coach too. I'm not sure he's a great coach or a great recruiter though. His biggest success was hitting the lottery with Wade. He does get credit for that, but there's not a whole lot of other success for him to point too. He's an Izzo guy though, so he has Big Ten roots and he appears to be on the right track in recruiting. He's got plenty of ties in Chicago, so that'll help him as he tried to win back Indy. He'll probably be able to limit Coach K easier than he will Matta, IMO (Matta did something really right when he was at Butler). That's not going to apply to everyone, some kids will want to go to Duke no matter what (for instance, Scheyer and the next Plumlee in all likelihood). The team that'll hurt the most if he starts cleaning up in Indiana is Purdue.
That means they just need to tie Boston, then, IIRC.
I'm not sure if we (we being me and whoever I made that bet with, was it PJM?) accounted for tie-breaks. I need to find the exact wording on that bet, I wouldn't be surprised if Boston's guys missed enough games to void it (the bet was top 3 in the East would be Cleve, Orl and Bos in some order).
I think the bet was 2 of Boston's top 4 missing 20 games, they've all played at least 62, so the bet is still there.
Yeah, no one cares about the Pacers, and they're tired of Bird.
And, we'll see how popular the Colts are when Manning leaves. I lived in that state for 26 years, the Colts didn't get relevant until Manning was there, and the Pacers were only relevant in the late 90's early 2000s.
The team that'll hurt the most if he starts cleaning up in Indiana is Purdue.
Right. But Painter's done an awesome job of getting a huge foothold in Indiana. And we have better facilities than IU
I had to highlight that bolded part, just in case I lose this bet...
I agree about Painter. It's one of the things Vince and I were talking about in that Matta discussion I mentioned earlier. It appears that Painter may be a better coach and recruiter than Weber already. I may be overreacting to a couple of disappointing years in a row, but I may not.
Well, you were agreeing with me about Atlanta having a bad year. I also called Eddie Jordan a great coach on that page.
That may be true, but that's a helluva prime you've passed if your team is in the Final Four and keeps winning its conference consistently.
I think a lot of big programs are going to have more cyclical stretches of success and mediocrity with the new NBA culture, which they didn't really have to deal with in the past. Players, by and large, are wanting to go to a place that can help them get into the NBA quicker and get drafted higher. As was mentioned a page or two ago, players aren't as willing to have to sit a year or two before they can start, which leads to situations like UNC this year because the teams aren't quite as stacked.
I think that this is an interesting point. There is going to be faster turnover because players come in and leave very quickly. When players were going straight from HS to the pros, they had no impact on colleges and the quality of all play suffered. Now, teams get a lot better in the short term, but suffer thereafter.
There is also the very real issue of "experience" in college. Once a few players have played together for awhile, they can become better players than they otherwise would be individually. Look at Kentucky this year. If that team had a fatal flaw, it was that they didn't adapt very well when they were struggling. They knew one way to play, and in the rare instances that it didn't work, they were up #### creek. A lot of the blame for that can be laid at Calipari's feet, especially since he has had that problem of adjustments in the past, but part of it, I believe, belongs with having inexperienced players. In recent years, we have seen veteran teams win the national title almost exclusively, and all four teams remaining have lots of veterans.
Maybe Krzyzewski has come full circle in this regard- he has always notoriously recruited players who were more likely to stay around, so if the talent equilibrium has shifted to undervaluing 3-4 year players, he may be back ahead of the game. I think there is more to it than that, and that he is actually pretty adept at finding ways to maximize the talent that he has, but looking at recent successes in college basketball makes me think that sacrificing a tiny amount of marginal talent for guys who legitimately want (or need) to play a few years of college ball is extremely valuable.
I'm also interested in what the Coach K haters think about his work with team USA. Any input?
I'm not a Coach K hater. The guy can coach. Taking the Team USA job was a high-risk, pretty low-reward job in my opinion. If they lost, everyone gets blamed. Look what happened to Larry Brown after the Olympics. When they won, he got almost no credit for it. I mean, who couldn't coach Lebron, Kobe, Melo, and Chris Paul to beat every team? Plus, he doesn't even get a gold medal. I guess it could help recruiting, but I'm not seeing it.
In recent years, we have seen veteran teams win the national title almost exclusively, and all four teams remaining have lots of veterans.
Carmelo seems to be the only one-and-done I can remember winning. I think there's something to be said for guys that stay. And, I think you see a lot of the marquee programs recruit guys who stay more than a year. Or convince the guys to stay more than a year. UConn, UNC, Duke. I guess UCLA and Ohio St. have had success, but even they seem to be staying away.
Plus, if the NCAA is serious about enforcing graduation rates (which is doubtful) then one-and-dones are toxic.
The NCAA is most interested in maximizing its revenue, the graduation rate "emphasis" is essentially a smoke screen intended to deflect attention from some of the less savory aspects of college athletics. The one year rule just invites abuse; if the player has the ability to play pro ball just let him sign a contract and move on.
I don't think the one and done creates as much variance as is commonly perceived. UNC's big problem is they lost an entire class of players. That is more of an overall recruiting issues. Duke may face the same this year, but that is not that much different than schools in past years.
For instance, let's look at the HS Class of 2006 that would be graduating this year. If you take one of the top 5 kids, then 1 and down is a good expectation. Four (Oden, Durant, Wright and Hawes) said bye bye after a year. The fifth (Lawson) gave you three years. Six to ten it gets better: 1 one and done (Young); the other four give you three years (Budinger, Ellington, Hnderson and Lopez). Looking at the entire top 20, you get two more one and dones (Cook, Arthur and Crittendon), one two year guy (Arthur); one three year guy (Lopez) and you get six players that stay all four years (Thomas, Robinson, Caracater, Macklin, James, Collins).
In the class of 2007 among the Top 20, you still have Singler (Top 5), Patterson (Top 10), Freeman (Top 20), Lawal (Top 20), Smith (Top 20) in school.
In the class of 2008 among the Top 20, you still have Samuels (Top 5), Monroe (Top 10), Aminu (Top 10), Davis (Top 10), Roe (Top 10), Hopson (Top 20), Buford (Top 20), Warren (Top 20), Singleton (Top 20), Elliot Williams (Top 20), Walker (Top 20), Green (Top 20), Zeller (Top 20); Lee (Top 20). Jennings never went to school at all.
As best I can tell from a quick scan, the only early entry outside the Top 20 was Mike Conley.
Consequently, if you recruit in the Top 5, you do have a high variance strategy. Mon Calipari lives in this space and performs well. Its pretty rare that you ever get more than 2 of these players anyway, so you really only have high risk of having that single one and down.
Although the Class of 07 is a little weirder, 6-10 looks like a comfortable space. On average you are going to have the player for at least two years, and possibly more. From 10-20, you are looking at the average being closer to 3 years. Outside the Top 20, you have your normal student athlete. If you scout well, there are plenty of good players to be had in this space. It includes almost everyone that Izzo recruits, thread-favorite Evan Turnover, every player on the Butler and W. Virginia roster, etc.
It seems like a ton of players migrate to the NBA, but in the grand scheme of things, its not that much to severly alter good planning.
Maybe Krzyzewski has come full circle in this regard- he has always notoriously recruited players who were more likely to stay around
As perviously discussed this is incorrect. This is a myth that is being built around the man, but is not supported either by his past or present actions, nor to my knowledge, by anything he has overtly stated.
Again, this is a myth. This is Duke's Top 7 players and their RSCI
Kyle Singler - 4
Mason Plumlee -18
Miles Plumlee - 81
Lance Thomas - 20
Jon Scheyer - 28
Brian Zoubek -25
They had Gerald Henderson - 10 leave them, and Elliot Williams-15 transfer.
I don't see the real reach here. K has lost 22% of his likely contributors due to early graduation or transfer. He only has one player that is outside the Top 50, and other than Kentucky, he blows everyone out of the water on the expectations of his recruits.
Hi Moses, I was struggling with a tactful way of bringing up Eddie Jordan after you educated me in the beginning of the season. :)
This year he has come across as a guy who thinks he taught Izzo, Wooden and Naismith basketball, using Hubie and Larry Brown as his TAs. He had a team of brick-laying athletes, who have yet to display 1/10 of Magic or Bird basketball IQs. So he goes ahead and force fits the Princeton offense, which from the first 10 games was apparent that this crew was the wrong one for that.
To his credit, he's been playing Jrue Holliday pretty heavily since mid-season, but with Lou Williams and Willie Green as your other possibilities at PG, this move isn't deserving of too much credit. (I'm not convinced that Holliday is a great PG per se, but he is becoming a very good basketball player.)
With this 76ers team, three Eds are not better than one. Snider got huge credit for owning the Broad Street Bullies but what has he done lately -- like the last 25 years. Stefanski seems to have no clue what to do -- he didn't make a trade at the deadline because it would only free up 7M next under the cap. Ed, you know what -- if you can dump AI Jr.'s contract for a basketball cart, do it. And Jordan's just been miserable. I'm very embarrassed to share the same moniker.
I don't disagree with you per se, but I think it is worth considering the difference between a recruit who is ranked highly due to his NBA prospects and one who is ranked highly due to his prospects of collegiate success. Henderson gave them three years, and it is really hard to project transfers, but that's beside the point (plus, a sample of 7 players is hardly definitive). What I really mean is that it would have been shocking if someone like Singler (even as the #4 recruit) left after his first year. Part of it is probably the race issue (how many white perimeter players leave after their freshman year?), but part of it is probably the style that the team plays and the type of player he recruits to fill those positions. I don't think it's a stretch to say that Duke values pure shooting more than the average school, and a sweet jumper is not what rockets a guy to the top of draft boards. The team's lack of explosive athleticism has been a common criticism- more so 3-5 years ago than now-, and those are the players who often leave as underclassmen to be drafted on the basis of potential.
I guess what I'm saying is that I agree that he recruits highly-touted players, but there are a variety of highly touted players. We don't know what makes a player more likely to leave early, but we can posit possible explanations that seem consistent with this team. More importantly, it's possible that Krzyzewski has his own method of determining who is likely to leave early or stick around, and if he is ahead of the curve, then good for him.
It's not just one and done. It certainly seems like a lot more are leaving after 2 and 3 years more often now than they were 15 and 20 years ago.
When things line up - a few seniors graduate, a freshmen and another player leave early, then you're rebuilding and a bunch of freshmen and green sophomores are going to be playing big minutes for you.
Again, this is a myth. This is Duke's Top 7 players and their RSCI
Kyle Singler - 4
Mason Plumlee -18
Miles Plumlee - 81
Lance Thomas - 20
Jon Scheyer - 28
Brian Zoubek -25
It's partially myth but partially fact. A lot of these guys are ranked high because they're ranking them for how valuable they are in college. Someone like Scheyer or Lance Thomas just isn't a player that's going to be one and done, or really ever be likely to leave early unless they improve tremendously at college - they just don't have that type of profile.
Per my earlier posts, K is or has gone after J. Williams, and Wall. He is or has actively pursued Knight, Barnes, Hairston, and Smith. Andre Dawkins didn't exactly have a stellar year, and no real RSCI b/c he graduated early (due to an earlier eligibility reclassification), but what supposed market inefficiency exists with any of these players. They are all, including the ones he has obtined, every bit the uber-athlete of any one and done player.
If you want to argue that Zoubek is too goofy to consider being one and done, I'll buy into it. If you want to argue that Mason Plumlee is to stiff, then I'd suggest reviewing last year's McDonald's game where he was dunking over people, missing put backs trying to dunk, and talking trash while he was doing it.
It's not just one and done. It certainly seems like a lot more are leaving after 2 and 3 years more often now than they were 15 and 20 years ago.
There were 39 total players last year that stayed as early entry candidates. 26 got drafted. I presume you would have lost a large number of the 13 that stayed in and didn't get drafted anyway. I presume some of the 26 would be lost too, particularly those that stayed around to the second round. Only four schools (UNC, Arizona, Syracuse and USC) lost more than one player to early entry. UNC and Arizona got three years from their players before losing them. I don't think anyone is not going to recruit a Budinger, Ellington or Lawson b/c they only get three years. I don't think the 3 years alters the recruiting planning that much either. Roy had Dexter Strickland (RSCI -24) coming in. He already had Larry Drew (RSCI -44) in place. Henson and McDonald were also in place to cover the others (and Henson is unlikely to be around 4 years). In the case of Syracuse and USC, I'm not sure that you keep Harris and Hackett anyway, ie I don't think their draft stock was what caused them to leave.
You are usually only talking about the variability on one to two roster spots (which as I've shown exists even if you have mastered Coach K's allegedly market inefficiency for selecting 4 year players). For all but a small number of the top programs, this level of variability always existed due to grades, acclimiation problems and JC transfers.
Its hard to find old early entry lists, but I can say that in 1995 (15 years ago), you had all the following two and throughs Joe Smith, Antonio McDyess, Jerry Stackhouse, and Rasheed Wallace (As you can see, UNC faces the same problem then with Stack and Sheed that it does today); and the following three and frees: Corliss, Shaq of the MAAC, David Vaughn, Mario Bennett, and Cory Alexander in just the first round.
Admittantly, 20 years ago you only have Chris jackson and Dennis Scott getting drafted, but the magic event was in 1995 with Kevin Garnett coming out as a HS player.
Regardless, there are only 60 NBA draft slots. Even if you lose 60 underclassmen per year, that is still going to get spread out over a lot of programs and not add significant variance that would not already exist for transfer, flunking out, other hardship, etc. Its not significantly more than top coaches already faced, and not more in planning than losing a large senior class that pans out with normal attrition (e.g. Montross, Reese, Phelps, Rozier and Sullivan)
Someone like Scheyer or Lance Thomas just isn't a player that's going to be one and done, or really ever be likely to leave early unless they improve tremendously at college - they just don't have that type of profile.
Why, because they went to Duke? That seems kind of circular.
Here is Lance Thomas's profile on scout's
Here is one and done, Spencer Hawes
Did Thomas look more goofy than Hawes or something? What is it about his profile that makes you think you have him for four years, but not someone like Hawes. Was there some flaw in Henderson that didn't get you the same four year commitment?
Additionally, Jon Scheyer was Illinois Mr. Basketball after his senior year in HS. He won that award over Sherron Collins and Patrick Beverly. We have seen gangly shooters go early, e.g. Adam Morrison. I guess I can buy that K didn't think he'd grow or increase his footspeed, but I think that is also a stretch.
In short, K goes after top recruits. He does not keep players significantly longer than any major coach except for maybe Calipari.
All schools that get top 20 players can expect some variance, but its not significant beyond an average of probably less than one roster spot per year.
Reference:
DePaul fired their coach before the season was over. AFAIK, Theus is the first guy they've interviewed. They have been used as leverage for at least 2 jobs (Auburn and Pitt) since they announced they'd pay a lot for a big splash. What a f'in joke. It would be perfect if they talked to Isiah. I don't think they'd be interested however. Tim Floyd supposedly said he was surprised DePaul never contacted him.
Can we call Greg Oden injury prone? (Actually, I don't remember if that bothered you or you just wanted Bynum called injury prone too.)
Yes. This year all of his injuries have been of the bumps and bruises variety. Before this year, they were all fluky/unrelated.
This is why it makes me crazy when people talk about how terrible college basketball is now and how great it was back in the day when no one left early and everyone got a pony. Not that many players leave. It hurts a few of the topflight schools and makes a mini-dynasty a bit harder, and that is it.
Sorry, I am done with my rant now.
2007 Josh McRoberts (2 seasons at Duke)
2004 Luol Deng (1 season at Duke)
2002 Jay Williams (3 seasons), Carlos Boozer (3 seasons), Mike Dunleavy (3 seasons)
1999 Elton Brand (2 seasons), William Avery (2 seasons), Corey Maggette (1 season)
Just for kicks, let's do UNC over the same time frame:
2009 Ty Lawson (3 seasons), Wayne Ellington (3 seasons)
2007 Brandan Wright (1 season)
2005 Sean May (3 seasons), Rashad McCants (3 seasons), Raymond Felton (3 seasons), Marvin Williams (1 season)
2001 Joseph Forte (2 seasons), Julius Peppers (should he even count?), Ronald Curry (did this team set the record for the most football players on a big time basketball team?)
Maybe I missed someone. By my count, over this time frame we have:
Duke: 2 one and done, 3 two and flew, 3 three and free
UNC: 2 one and done, 1 two and flew, 5 three and free, 2 football players who played basketball for two years
UNC couldn't have been counting on Peppers and Curry playing all four years; at some point, they had to figure they would focus on football.
So yea, I am wondering if Duke's record for keeping guys for four years is really all that different from any other big time program. What programs should we be comparing them with?
Two Time National Champion Florida Gators
2000 1 and done Donnell Harvey; 2 and through Mike Miller
2004 sit and quit Christian Drejer (should he even count)
2007 3 and free Al Horford, Joakim Noah, Ronnie Brewer, Taurean Green
2008 2 and through Mmaarreessee Speights
Meanwhile, the Gators produce 4 year veterans David Lee, Udonis Haslem and Matt Bonner.
Considering that Donovan actually got that 2007 group to stick around after they won a national champion, I would submit his record on "picking the right long term player" is even better.
EDIT: If you count short term players, K also had 2 years of Dahntay Jones during this comparison period. You also have transfers like Eric Boateng, Mike Chappell, Andre Sweet, Chris Burgess, Jamal Boykin, Taylor King, Elliot Williams, and Olek Czyz during the pick-em period (and Billy McCaffery and Joey Beard back during the salad years of NCAA basketball)
Also, watching this Orlando-Dallas game, if a baseball player suffered the collapse rashard Lewis has suffered after a ped suspension, I would be surprised if it remained this quiet.
And 2001 Kwame Brown, kinda.
If Kwame counts, then add Kobe Bryant and Shaun Livingston to Duke's total. To be honest, this looks like the expectation. Even if you do Mon Calipari
2002 1 and done Dajuan Wagner
2006 1 and done Shawne Williams
2008 1 and done Derrick Rose; 3 and free CDR
He still gives you 4 years of Antonio Burks, Rodney Carney, Joey Dorsey, and Robert Dozier
So even if this year he loses Wall, Bledsoe, Favors, Orton and Patterson, he is still around the same position as K on quantity (albeit a lot bigger in the high variance 1 and done)
Shawn Taggart last year: 2 years at Memphis (1 at Iowa St.)
Darius Washington 2006: 2 yrs.
Sean Banks (2004?): 1.5 yrs. (quit/kicked off team in middle of second year)
Still not all that different from Duke. This year, I think, changes things though. Calipari is possibly looking at 6 players, including 5 freshman (the four you mentioned plus Dodson, for some reason) leaving this year.
Second - I am both a Duke and Denver Nuggets fan. No, "fan" does not do it justice. I have issues. My wife has seen me reading this thread and is serious concerned that I am cheating...
SJ, thank you for Melo and sorry about your season. Wes Johnson is a player, but smart guard play overrides pretty much everything else in March. Rautins and Scoop both had the worst games of the season against Butler.
BL - wow. That's all I can say. I've lurked here for entirely too long and seen a lot of angst spat towards you. After this thread, I will read every single word that you post here. A lot of what you have posted here has been heard in my family room (especially regarding coaching in the tourney and the nuggets).
At the beginning of the season, I pegged this Duke team as a sweet 16 team - just like every team they've produced since 2001. As the season wore on, I realized that they are different in that they have enough size and youth to really be a shut down team defensively. As they have shown in the tourney - they are a boring, boring team. If their shooters are off, the defense and size can actually make up for it. I can't explain to you how difficult it was to know the team's success lived and died with JJ Redick. It is nice to see that they can compete with any team this year because of defense.
As far as the Nuggets go: I LOVE this team. Absolutely LOVE it. They have faded at the end of the season - but most of us expected it. I feel they have the most challenging schedule down the stretch in terms of back-to-backs. The issues they have experienced this regular season are not really related to the playoffs: 1) No back to backs; 2) No playing crazy ass teams like GSW
Well, I modify my previous statement by saying this: If Kenyon Martin can return and perform to usual standards AND if George Karl can defy the odds and come back to the bench then I think this team can beat anyone. Their record against good teams is well above average - which is the polar opposite of last season. This team can win a title. Everything has to break positively, but the Nuggets are on the short list of teams that can win it.
So, here I am on the brink of opening day and all I can think about is basketball. Again, thanks to all of you for this thread!
I'll admit I don't follow high school basketball recruiting that much. But Lance Thomas really doesn't have any kind of offensive game, and he's not a athletic freak (just a well put together college PF/C).
Scheyer also is not a great athlete, and 6'5 unathletic tweener guards are not the kind of guys that leave early (unless they're making a bad decision by leaving early).
They are all, including the ones he has obtined, every bit the uber-athlete of any one and done player.
I don't think history has shown this. They are plenty athletic for college ball - which is why they are highly rated recruits - but I just don't think he's gotten many NBA caliber athletes in the last several years.
He is still going after some of the top guys, but as mentioned it's a question if they want to play there and risk sitting. Very lately it seems like he's gotten a couple more of these athletic types (Henderson, Williams, Nolan Smith, Plumlee).
I'm curious to see how Calipari does. He's far and away the best recruiter at this stage in the game - but it seems like over the last few years he's really churning through one-and-dones and it's hard to build a dynasty like that. Which would have been much easier when you're recruiting so well before the rules changed. Not that I'm complaining.
I also feel like all of the leaving early really has hurt Texas - and I'm not sure Barnes has very well adjusted to the blue chip NBA type recruits yet. The final 4 team and a lot of his earlier success was TJ Ford and a bunch of yeomen.
At the beginning of the season, I pegged this Duke team as a sweet 16 team - just like every team they've produced since 2001. As the season wore on, I realized that they are different in that they have enough size and youth to really be a shut down team defensively. As they have shown in the tourney - they are a boring, boring team. If their shooters are off, the defense and size can actually make up for it. I can't explain to you how difficult it was to know the team's success lived and died with JJ Redick. It is nice to see that they can compete with any team this year because of defense.
Taking the anti-Duke stance here, I can't help but feel the tournament has come back to Duke more so than Duke coming up to the tourney. It's a weakish year for college ball, so the typical Duke team of the last 10 years seems better than usual. I keep hearing about more size and more depth, but I really don't see that different of a team overall. I just see that usual stuff being more effective this year. Perhaps that's just my innate anti-Duke bias showing. I think the best teams of the last couple years - UNC last year, Kansas 2 years ago, Memphis 2 years ago, etc - all would destroy this Duke team. But this year Duke is the clear favorite in the Final Four. It happens.
The 2 "best" teams coming into the tourney are gone, and both Duke and Michigan State have had relatively easy paths to the Final Four - best team Mich St played was either 4 seed Maryland or 6 seed Tennessee and no one really considered either Final Four contenders and the best team Duke played was Baylor who came out of nowhere and arguably overachieved their talent (and also had an easy run to that point). I felt the same way about 2006 when Florida won their first title (for example, GMU getting to the Final Four and knocking off the supposed best team in UConn). As a Duke fan, that shouldn't mean diddly to you, especially if they win it all. The banners aren't going anywhere.
Man, rereading that I should sound bitter and petty. Oh well.
Is anyone arguing this? I mean, upsets happen, right? If this year's Duke team could play any of those teams, they might win. But no one would pick them as favorites and even if they won a game, no one would say they were the best team.
Like you say, no one will take the banner down. Just as Mason has a banner flying for their final four.
Did anyone catch the UNC/Dayton game last night? I think Dayton would have done some damage in the NCAA.
Thanks for the kind words. I could go meta and give the reason that I think this thread is different; however, I'll just politely thank people like spivey and andrewberg that allow for disagreement without calling me an idiot; cfbf, ej and others (not meaning to omit anyone) that can correct factual omissions without calling me an idiot; my long time psuedo adversaries Moses T. and rr for allowing fun banter about certain players and teams without getting emotional; and all the other knowledgable basketball fans and old friends in this thread that have made the conversations and discussions enjoyable.
This year, I think, changes things though. Calipari is possibly looking at 6 players, including 5 freshman (the four you mentioned plus Dodson, for some reason) leaving this year.
Yes, that could be as much a game changer as Garnett was in 95. Before I would attempt to finally evaluate how much of a changer, I would want to wait until we see how many stay in the draft.
Here is how I'd look at it now:
Patterson - Probably not a surprise. If anything, its a surprise he stuck around this year because he was likely in the money last year at draft time. He has pretty much fulfilled his expected shelf life based on his RSCI.
Wall - The news clips are saying he wants to come back. IMHO, that would be a dumb move. He is projected to be the number one overall pick; his worse case is probably third pick. Even the pre-Garnett rule of thumb for coaches that cared about their players was Top 15. He should go.
Anyone that recruited him should expect him to go, his RSCI was 2. If you take a top five player, the expectation is small to get any additional year.
Cousins - See discussion above on Wall. His RSCI is 2; mostly projected in Top 5 in the draft; probably worse case of a lottery pick.
The real interesting thing with the double up here is that its rare (not sure if its unprecedented, part if you go all the way back to Wooden) for any coach to get two top 5 recruits. That is as much a part of the sea change as anything.
Orton - This starts to get into a small change. His RSCI was 19. He is still projecting into the first round and guaranteed money. A lower top 20 kid you would think that you only have about a 5% chance of losing. IMHO, he could probably improve his fortunes if he stuck around, but its a risk to run away from guaranteed money. I don't know how firm he is, but he may want to do the camps and then come back. IMHO, in large part this is how the 'heels kept their core. All of the relevant players had a real chance to improve their earnings (even present value earnings) by coming back. The idea of a championship sounds nice, but all four (Hansborough, Green, Lawson, and Ellington) likely made real money in the deal.
Bledsoe - The first real game changer. He has an RSCI of 49. Some have him projecting right outside the lottery.
Again, I'm open to be corrected, but the only non-top 20 player that pulled off a 1 and done with guaranteed money was Conley. Conley was awful close to being top 20 (RSCI of 23). Additionally, he had the bonus of playing alongside that class of Cook, Lighty, and for brief periods of time Oden. That creates the "Jimmy King effect", namely having people probably rate you a little higher than your ability because of the talent surrounding you in the same class. More specifically, he's certainly an NBA player, but at the time he graduated, he couldn't shoot. Rarely do you see anyone drafted that high who can's shoot.
So this may be the first game changer, a middling blue chip may recognize they can change their immediate fortunes by surrounding themselves with similar aged talent. Additionally, Bledsoe had the best of all worlds. He is able to have Wall do all the heavy lifting and he still gets the projection into the PG position.
Dodson- Has this been confirmed? IIRC, this was a tweet from Cousins. If he goes, I would attribute this to general roster attrition. I haven't seen where anyone is projecting him into any money. Notwithstanding this, I do think there is a class of player that is prudently staying eligible for the draft that is a little different in the past.
One of the things that hasn't been noticed is that the NBDL has been successful for the NBA franchises. This year set a record for call ups and many of the players are contributing on their teams. Even if the NBDL is not financially viable in its own rights, its still viable to continue to be subsidized by the franchises.
Many of the franchises are only using 13 or so of their roster spots for cost cutting reasons. Theere have been some that occasionally use less, but that is rare. You do need some depth just because of the rigors of the season. When you fill out those last spots, its a lot cheaper to use that NBDL talent than it is to pay a veteran off the veteran pay scale. In many cases, you can even get better performance with a Tolliver or Gee than you can from a player that is barely hanging on.
Consequently, I think for underclassmen that:
(1) Really aren't made for college; and
(2) have the skills to get an NBDL contract
It makes sense for them to stay in the early entry list even if they are out of guaranteed money. Item 1 gets a lot of people sooner or later. If its going to get you, you may as well control the exit and control the landing.
Dodson is probably good enough to control item (2) even if through an invite; however, if he has stuck around this long, he could also probably suck it up one more year for a degree (presuming he doesn't have issues with progress or standing). IMHO, he should probably stay.
Obviously, this effects Cal and I see where he is starting his pressure on Knight, Jones, Leslie and just about any body else that is not committed.
In the end, I wonder if this is the start of a Cal virus that will spread to other schools or just part of confirming a Cal identity; a super-Tark that acts as a launching point; stopping over ground for the players that would otherwise have been drafted by the NBA.
Andre Dawkins is just about all athlete, as was Gerald Henderson.
Here is the better test. I'm not much into predictions; I'd rather just talk about the sport. Nevertheless, I'll come strong that, barring injuries, Kyrie Irving and Mason Plumlee do not stay for all four years of their eligibility.
But Lance Thomas really doesn't have any kind of offensive game, and he's not a athletic freak (just a well put together college PF/C).
IMHO, neither are Spencer Hawes, Kosta Doofus, or BJ Mullens.
this is probably bestf if read from bottom to top.
-http://twitter.com/GaryParrishCBS
Last year's UNC team was pretty powerful -- I would put them as the strongest of all of these teams.
...................
The thing about this year's Duke team is that they do so many things well. They defend, they shoot the 3, they rebound, they hit their free throws, they take care of the ball, and they have three players who can really score. This means they can get through a game when one of their main guys has an off night.
So yea, I think that they are a favorite, but you can also make a pretty good case that WVA should also be a favorite. WVA has been at the top of the rankings this year, too. They are 31-6. Duke is 33-5. Both did this against pretty tough schedules. (WVA's schedule is probably tougher.) These teams look very different, but this is a pretty close match up. In a tight game, I would prefer Duke's guys taking the foul shots, but WVA actually has shot OK from the line as well. (I was surprised by this, but they are at 70%.) Both teams are great on the offensive glass, and OK on the defensive glass. Duke is better at outside shooting, whereas WVA gets to the rim more. This looks like a pretty even match up to me.
Let's say Duke gets past WVA. Then the Butler/Mich St. winner presents entirely different challenges. I have been very impressed by Butler (we probably all have). They seem to be pretty good at screwing up what their opponent wants to do on offense. Also, they guard the 3 pretty well, and hold the defensive boards really well -- so they are well suited to work against Duke's offensive strengths. And Mich. St. is just really tough. Duke vs. Mich. St. would probably be a very physical game; Zoubek probably won't be able to just push guys around inside like he has over the last few games.
I find this a really intriguing Final Four. All four teams provide really interesting contrasts (one of the things that I like most about college basketball). All are good teams. I can construct reasonable scenarios in my head where each team wins. There isn't a super-loaded team that has been killing everyone like there was last year.
I'm coming to terms with it, but I still can't escape the feeling that the tournament will just never be the same after this. I also have the feeling this will work against the mid-majors in the long run, which sucks as a mid-major supporter.
The chances of Patterson coming back for a 4th season at UK are extremely slim. He has been taking 18 hours per semester and is on schedule to graduate in May; apparently he promised his parents that he would obtain a college degree and is going to honor that commitment.
Wall and Cousins would be foolish to return (I'm writing this as a life-long Wildcat fan); they obviously have NBA-level skills and the only thing that coming back for another college season would do for them is risk an injury that could cost them millions of dollars.
Bledsoe has the talent to play pro basketball but is very inconsistent; IMO he would be better served by coming back for another year. Next season at UK he would be the point guard all of the time which would help his confidence and his consistency.
Orton needs more playing time and at this point he is not going to get it in the NBA (he might get some in the D league). With Cousins gone he would be in line for serious minutes next season, as long as he could remain out of foul trouble. Orton didn't play very much his senior year in high school and the lack of game competition was obvious early in the season; he got better as the season went along. I suppose he would almost have to take the money if it were offered to him but he would be better off in the long run staying in college for another year (or perhaps even two).
Dodson is pretty fungible, if he wants to leave that just frees up a scholarship to use for someone else.
Obviously all of this is my opinion but it is based on watching 25-30 UK games a year for 40+ years.
I do not have quick access to all early departures, but my sense is that the B10 conference does not have nearly the level of undergrads leaving early as other conferences. Hence, teams are together longer which I believe enhances their chances in the tourney.
I don't know if anyone has done a tenure based analysis of Final Four teams to determine whether a correlation exists between experience and tourney success.
I think Duke deserves more credit for this than they get. Whenever the subject comes up in baseball threads most people here say they would rather their team be a solid contender every year and put themselves in a position to win if things break right, than for their team to wildly vacillate between powerhouse and junk a la the Marlins. Being a very good but rarely great team like Duke has been for years is harder than it looks.
As for the 96 team tournament, the only silver lining I see is that it does away with the abomination of the play-in game. 64, 80 and 96 are all better than 65.
This may or may not be true generally, but Ohio State this year is notable exception. They achieved a two-seed without Oden, Conley, Cook, Mullens, and Koufos who would all still be on the team without early departures.
This is just a fact as I know this is being done within the portfolio of companies owned by my private equity organization.
I think this is going to trip up the NCAA up more than they realize. There are two yearly sports events that bust into the consciousness of the real world, and they are the Super Bowl and March Madness. Make it complicated for the non-fans, and you're messing with fire.
edit: That is, to say, the NCAA tourney is as big as it is because it reels in an immense casual audience. This kind of move does not cater to that audience.
At least we'll always have the college hockey tournament and the Frozen Four.
I stated that the Big 10 doesn't have the same level of departures. Not that they had NO departures. Sure they have some undergrads who leave. But most of the MSU teams, the Illinois team and the WI team of 2000 were all veteran laden squads.
Aren't you going to the same "abomination of the play-in game" X 16?
And teams 97-100 are going to whine about how they got screwed.
Bite me, Mr. Illini.
I think that MSU probably does a really good job at recruiting guys that fit what they want to do. Some of these guys end up being pretty highly ranked in high school, and MSU has had a few ranked classes in recent years. On Rivals.com, MSU's classes were ranked #22 in 2008, #14 in 2007, #18 in 2006, #11 in 2004, and #13 in 2003. The MSU guys who left early that I can come up with are Shannon Brown (3 years), Jason Richardson (2 years), and Zach Randolph (1 year). That seems like a pretty low number for a top program. Many of the top MSU guys on the team right now are probably marginal NBA prospects, but they have a decent number of guys that are very good college players and fit what they want to do as a team.
Izzo seems to like big guys who are tough and athletic, but not necessarily super polished offensively. Of course, they did have Zach Randolph and Paul Davis who were both highly skilled big men in college. Izzo also always has a bunch of guards who can really shoot. His system seems to place less emphasis on having guys who can break down a defender, and he focuses more on getting good looks for his shooters. (Just my observations. YMMV.)
Ohio State isn't the only exception (they also have Michael Redd over the Coach K comparision period). Other teams have had early departures too. Indiana has had a bunch: Eric Gordon, (I think DJ White had a redshirt season left), Jared Jeffires, Bracey Wright. As has Mich. State - Shannon Brown, J-Rich, Z-Bo. Minnesota (Pryzbyllia, Rick Rickert, Kris Humpheries,) Michigan (Manny Harris, Jamal Crawford) Wisconsin (Devin Harris) and Illinois (Deron Williams, Frank Williams) have likely had about the expected number for the players they are able to get as recruits.
Over any relevant time period, the ACC has had more teams and more representation in the final four. We have already seen the attrition levels of UNC and Duke. Their other representatives Maryland(Wilcox) and Ga. Tech (Bosh, Jack, Crittenton) lose players at an expected rate.
No, because at least those teams will actually be in the tournament and having the "tournament experience", and not playing on a Tuesday night in the middle of nowhere before anyone is watching or filling out brackets.
Did you know that game officially counts as an NCAA tournament win? I was dumbfounded when I learned this. Arkansas-Pine Bluff had as many "NCAA tournament wins" this year as Kansas.
I still can't understand why Rickert left early. He only played 2 years at Minnesota. He was one of those guys who thought he would go "late in the first round." He ended up a second rounder (with the Timberwolves), didn't make the team (but did get punched by KG), and has been a basketball nomad ever since. Perhaps he cracks the first round (with a guaranteed contract) if he stays in college for another year or two. The D-league and Europe will always be there.
This is their top 9 players last year that saw more than 10 minutes in the championship game:
Raymar Morgan, Jr.
Delvon Roe Fr.
Goran Suton Sr.
Kalin Lucas So.
Travis Walton Sr.
Durrell Summers So.
Korie Lucious Fr.
Chris Allen So.
Dancin Bear Fr.
2 Seniors
1 Junior
3 Sophomores
3 Freshman
2/3 are underclassmen. 1/3 is in their first year. (even if you advance this team in age, it still slants a little young. The reason why they were preseason #1 is because they were so young last year.)
Ohio State in its final four year had Oden, Cook, Conley, and Lighty all as Freshmen.
If the Big 10 has some secret herbs and spices, its not based on having a lot of upperclassmen on the squad.
No way. That team was virtually identical to the team that KU 2008 utterly curb-stomped in the Final Four the year before. Roy is a great coach and recruiter, but he can't handle teams that can punch you in the mouth unless he has a huge talent advantage enough to overcome it. Self showed that way back in 2001 when his Illini team beat KU by 16 despite KU having perhaps the three best players on the floor (Hinrich, Gooden, Collison). KU and Memphis 2008 were both every bit as talented as that UNC team, but could bang in ways that Roy's teams have never been able to. Cole Aldrich, a freshman who played all of 8 minutes a game at the time, abused Tyler Hansbrough in that game - even Mario freaking Chalmers, a 6'1 combo guard, got in a hard foul on Hansbrough and sent him to the floor. Roy teams are S-O-F-T.
During that 40-12 opening of the game, KU held UNC - the best offensive team in college basketball - without a field goal for nine minutes. Part of that is fluke, sure, but Self's teams are consistently among the best defensive teams in the country - his kenpom defensive rankings going back five years have been 2, 1, 1, 7, 8. That 2008 team had the best perimeter defense of any college team in recent memory - Russell Robinson, Brandon Rush and Mario Chalmers were all stud defenders. And when UNC turned it on for a while and made it close, KU was able to pull away again by being one of the few teams able to run with a Roy team (they were the #2 kenpom offense).
That core of that 2008 team also beat the 2007 Florida team the prior year, for what it's worth. Memphis and KU 2008 both comfortably beat UNC 2009 if they're both on their games.
If it makes you feel better, they more than vindicated their greatness the following year. They just didn't *seem* that good going into the tourney, or even the final four. Also, at the time I felt like Illinois had bad luck to be so good the year before with another great team. My thoughts were that Illinois would have crushed everyone in 06. I don't know if I still think that, but I did then.
Besides, you were right about Noah, and I'm sure I've told you that plenty. He's the 2nd best and my 2nd favorite players on the Bulls, and 3rd best/favorite ain't even close.
And I was just stating that my perception that the overall challenge of making it to the NCAA Final Four had decreased which I believed HELPED a conference like the Big 10 which gets some major recruits but more the second level who are more prone to stay in school.
Of course other conferences have had more tournament success over any recent time period and I do not recall writing otherwise.
Just a belief that other conferences have suffered more from professional grade talent attrition.
Cook and Williams weren't pro successes (although Cook still is floating from roster to roster), but both were damn good college players. Cook was better than Collison that year and Williams was better than Hinrich that year (then again, I'm a total Frankie homer and will go to my deathbed saying if he had just one tiny bit of motivation he could have been an NBA all-star, but alas, he just didn't give a ####).
Can we talk about how outside of that year Self's teams choke every year? Please? Even if it's not 100% accurate to say it that way?
You have it, as long as Bynum's included, I'm good with it. You play ~60 games a season consistently, to me, you're injury prone. I'm getting frustrated with Deng, and if he needs to be included in a sign-and-trade, I'm not sure I'd be too broken up about it.
I'm coming to terms with it, but I still can't escape the feeling that the tournament will just never be the same after this. I also have the feeling this will work against the mid-majors in the long run, which sucks as a mid-major supporter.
I also think it won't be the same. The first weekend of the tourney is one of my favorite 4 day stretches of the year. Take 2 days off, get some guys, watch the games. Now, I'm not going to be near as motivated. The exciting games are always the second round, but that's now going to be the third round. And, it's possible that team could be playing it's 3rd game in 6 days.
I think this kills the mid-majors. Any team seeded below 8, which is most mid-majors (especially in normal years), has to win 3 games in 6 days. I just don't see Northern Iowa winning 2 games, playing Kansas on the 6th day, and pulling off the upset. But, that's probably kind of what the NCAA wants. It's not going to lead to more mid-majors being chosen either. Lunardi said that his projections had the Big East sending 13 schools to a 96 team field, Big 12 and ACC 8, Big Ten and SEC 6. For comparison, the Valley would get 2. Wow.
I also think this kills the conference tourneys. They're pretty worthless anyway, but if I'm a potential 1-3 seed, just lose and get the rest. What's the point? Even for a team that's on the bubble (this year), you know they'd be in. Illinois wouldn't really have much to play for this year. Not too mention what happens to the tv deals and conference tourney sites in about 3-5 years when the public catches on that these are worthelss.
The NIT is over.
And teams 97-100 are going to whine about how they got screwed.
Yes, because those coaches don't want to get fired either.
I think this is going to trip up the NCAA up more than they realize. There are two yearly sports events that bust into the consciousness of the real world, and they are the Super Bowl and March Madness. Make it complicated for the non-fans, and you're messing with fire.
Agreed. The bracket is so easy now. For the non-hardcore fan, it gets much more complicated. Also, if I get in the habit of doing my Thursday-Saturday, Friday-Sunday, and then all of the sudden I get a Monday and Tuesday thrown in with follow-ups on Thursday, Friday again, what the hell? I like basketball, but I have a life. I can't watch games everyday.
Also, if you're going to do this, just pay the players. Or admit they're slaves. Because missing whole weeks of classes puts to end the "student"-athlete.
Maybe that is true for the years that Izzo didn't make the final four, but as shown previously, its not true this year or last year.
Is also doesn't appear true for 2005. This is the starting five against UNC in the final four that contains 1 Sr. 2 Jr. 1 Sop 1 Freshman
A. Anderson, Sr
P. Davis, Jr.
S. Brown, So.
D. Neitzel Fr.
M. Ager, Jr.
That still looks pretty young.
IIRC, 2001 was JRich and ZBo, that can't have been too veteran.
Self has had some faceplants but there are few if any coaches I would prefer today. And I just couldn't let somebody get away with asserting that UNC 2009 > KU 2008. That #### don't fly.
Truth hurts, man
Self has had some faceplants but there are few if any coaches I would prefer today. And I just couldn't let somebody get away with asserting that UNC 2009 > KU 2008. That #### don't fly.
Marcus Taylor also played two years at State, and was drafted, but never played in the NBA.
I think it's hard for Gator fans to be truly rational about the back-to-back championship teams. Aside from being wonderful clubs, they had the kind of connection with the campus community that makes a great team a special team in the fans' minds. The legend of the 04's is only going to grow; by the time I die I'm going to tell my grand-children about the 2005-2007 Gators, all eight feet tall and built of gold by Zeus himself.
Rationally, of course the '05-06 team was helped by the bracket breakdown, from getting UW-Milwaukee in the second round to drawing George Mason in the Final Four. Viscerally, when I hear people make the argument it's hard not to think that if the teams Florida beat were so easy to dispatch, maybe someone else should have done so. George Mason stunned UConn, and then UF took them apart with laughable ease. Duke, the third number one seed (UF took out Villanova in the Elite Eight), lost to a LSU team Florida beat twice, once by 16 and once by nine. LSU then proceeded to stink it up against UCLA, who the Gators (and Noah specifically) eviscerated in the title game.
And I would point out that the '05-06 team didn't come out of nowhere. They entered the tournament as a red hot number three seed. That team was actually the very last D-1 school to lose a game; they were ticketed for the number one spot in the polls before losing at Tennessee.
But yes, the 06-07 team essentially validated the previous year's national championship. If they had flamed out early in the tournament it would have fueled a lot of questions.
I've thought they should do this:
expand to 72 teams. Leave the 16 seeds alone, but double the number of 8/9 teams. So you have 4 teams seeded 8a, 4 seeded 8b, 4 seeded 9a and 4 seeded 9b. Pair them up 8a vs. 9b, 8b vs. 9a and the 8 winners become the 8/9 seeds in teh field of 64. Conference tourney champs can't be in this group. 8a and 8b are the last 8 in, 9a and 9b are the first 8 teams left out. You'd get mostly BCS conference schools in this group along with a handful of mid-majors. Play the game on seed 8's home court on Tuesday and Wednesday.
EDIT: so the 16 teams are basically playing for the 4 second round games with the 1 seeds. It gives the 1's an advantage in getting a second round game vs. a slightly more tired than everyone else team - sort of a bye without being a bye. And it lets you settle things like Va. Tech or Wake Forest with an on-court game. You'd have had a great TV and arena audience for a Dayton/Va. Tech game, for instance.
I disagree with this. I mean, yes, the 2009 and 2008 UNC teams had a lot of the same guys on the roster. But the 2009 version was much, much better. 2008 Ty Lawson was a solid player. 2009 Lawson was an offensive force. Hansbrough was pretty much the same player between these two teams. Ellington was good both years, but was probably a better player by 2009. Danny Green was better in 2009 than in 2008. None of the top guys regressed.
The 2009 UNC team completely dominated their tournament in a way I can't remember anyone doing. Other dominant teams: 1990 UNLV (although the 1990 UNLV team had to win a tight game against Ball State). 2006 and 2007 Florida was pretty dominant, too, so they should be in this discussion. 2001 Duke beat everyone pretty easily. 2000 MSU sailed pretty smoothly through the tournament. 2008 Kansas didn't crush everyone like any of these teams did (They needed some help to beat Memphis, and came very close to losing to Davidson as well).
That is not to say that if the 2008 Kansas team traveled through time to 2009, that they wouldn't do better than UNC. I wasn't commenting on that. I wouldn't comment on that, because it is the type of weird question that I am not very interested in. I was basing my comment on how teams did in the tournament in that particular season.
How much better were they really? I absolutely buy that they were a better team - it would be hard to retain a core of your most important players and not improve the next year - but saying they were "much, much" better seems like a stretch. I don't think would anybody would disagree that college basketball was stronger in 2008 than it was in 2009 (kenpom's numbers bear it out), at least at the top, and UNC made the Final Four that year and won more games than they did in 2009. It's a thin margin, and I'm not saying this demonstrates that the 2008 version was better (I don't believe that), but if they were "much better" than a team that went 36-3 and went to the Final Four, then wow.
I don't think there was any substantial leap by any of Hansbrough, Green or Ellington. I think the latter two were slightly better at most, and I would say Hansbrough was actually worse (but also very slightly). As a matter of fact, the sports-reference chain of sites just rolled out the college version, and has win shares for certain college seasons - the ones in recent memory anyway. (With basketball win shares, 1 win share = 1 win, not like that goofy 3x multiplier in baseball). It pretty much bears this out - Ellington and Green gain about half a win share, and Hansbrough actually loses a couple win shares (but played in 5 less games - if you extrapolate, he's about 1 win share worse, negating the gain by Ellington and Green). But Lawson takes a big leap from around 4 to 6.5. (Of course, I'm not saying that you have to buy into win shares for basketball, but the numbers generally pass the eye test for me.)
But, as I said, I firmly believe, and I'd guess most people would agree, that 2009 was a down year compared to 2008. I'm not saying it's as down as this year - but it does not shock me that Lawson could make that kind of gain when the college basketball landscape has been watered down.
You're right. But, why does this matter so much? We have a nearly 40 game sample size to work with for these teams - I see no reason to validate the tournament to an extent that it doesn't deserve, because it does not do a particularly good job of crowning the "best" team. (And I don't mean this as a criticism - it is what makes the tournament so much fun.) If you look at the advanced statistics, KU dominated in 2008 in a way that UNC didn't in 2009 over the course of the season. Lots of KU fans would tell you that the best team in KU history is the 1997 Raef LaFrentz/Paul Pierce team, and they didn't even make the Final Four. That's how #### happens sometimes. And in fact, speaking of UNLV, you'd find plenty of supporters for the '91 version of the Running Rebels as the best team in CBB history, yet they lost in the title game. UNC deserves credit for dominating the tournament, but let's not make it the end-all be-all.
In addition, yes, Kansas escaped by the skin of their teeth against both Memphis and Davison, but A) Memphis was absurdly good. I am not entirely sure that 2008 KU was the better team, in fact - Memphis had the two best NBA players on the floor in CDR and Rose (and CDR was also the best college player on the floor), and while they didn't have any bigs as good offensively as Arthur and Jackson, they had a stout, athletic interior that could rebound the hell out of the ball and defend very well. And B) the Davidson game is a blemish, but to be fair, that wasn't just any mid-major, that was the rare mid-major with a future NBA star playing for them.
Did UNC have a better tournament performance in 2009 than KU did in 2008? Absolutely. But A) a win is a win, B) 2008 was a stronger year than 2009, and C) they played 35 other games in addition to that, so let's not read too much into it.
To use an NBA analogy, since that's the original purpose of this thread - were the 2001 Lakers better than, say, the 1986 Celtics? That Lakers team steamrolled through the playoffs in a way that I don't think any pro team has ever matched.
Hrm, different strokes I suppose. That's exactly what I am interested in. :-) I find it fun to think about, even if impossible to answer. But it's still my firm belief that KU 2008, in this hypothetical time machine scenario, beats UNC 2009. Of course I'd probably believe that even if I didn't think the numbers backed it up to an extent, #### UNC.
The key to this thread's greatness is the guy who started it. With the NBA playoffs and NBA free agency still to come, I feel confident that we can get to 12,000 posts if we work together, spread the posts around, and avoid focusing on individual stats.
Catching up:
NCAA: I am firmly opposed to 96 teams. All it means is more 18-15 teams in and more 2nd and 3rd place teams from mid-majors. I think one can make a case 64 is too many, but no one can argue with the results; as andrewberg notes, March Madness is now a cultural institution in the USA, IMO second only to the Super Bowl in drawing in casual fans while holding the interest of hardcores. How are they going to set it up--surely not 1 vs 24 etc., right?
Duke's recruiting: BL makes some good points. But I also agree with what andrew said.
Kobe Bryant has signed a three-year extension to continue hurting his team and his teammates through 2014. They are now committed to Gasol and Bryant through ages 34 and 35, Artest through age 34, and Odom through age 33. Get the Purple and Old jokes cranked up now.
9595 posts on something that hasn't even happened yet!
I heard something from a friend about how they're making college players declare a lot earlier now. Is that true?
Bledsoe - The first real game changer. He has an RSCI of 49. Some have him projecting right outside the lottery.
I love Bledsoe's game. The league is very PG heavy right now, but I think he's a multiple all-star game guy.
IMHO, neither are Spencer Hawes, Kosta Doofus, or BJ Mullens.
BJ Mullens is a legit 7'0, and that will always make any stiff draftable. I don't know much about Hawes, tbh. Also, I agree that Mason Plumlee isn't going to stay all 4 years - I think it's one of the rare 6'9 or 6'10 athletes that are kind of aloof offensively but very long that Duke has brought in in a while.
Last year's UNC team was pretty powerful -- I would put them as the strongest of all of these teams.
Disconcur. The UNC team the year before was basically all the same players, and they got thoroughly beat by Kansas before the epic Kansas/Memphis title game.
George Mason stunned UConn, and then UF took them apart with laughable ease.
George Mason's shooting in the UConn game was about the most lights out shooting I've ever seen in a college basketball game. The amount of challenged jump shots they hit was absurd. They'd have beat anyone that night. This was also the best game of last decade.
I'm pretty sure the top 8 seeds in each region would get byes, and 9 plays 24, 10 plays 23 etc.
Yeah, I wasn't thinking. Working off multiples of 3 (24-12-6) is impossible. Still, the idea of a #9 vs a #24 has no appeal to me.
I probably over did the "much, much" part... And we both agree the 2009 version was better.
I have a hard time believing that Lawson's gains were due to watered down competition. It had a lot more to do with him improving his jump shot. If there is one thing that we can point at that improved the 2009 UNC team relative to the 2008 team, it is the improvements in shooting that Lawson made.
The 2009 UNC team really only has one blemish on their record, as far as I can see. They have one bad loss at home to BC, by 7. Their other three losses are by three points or less. 2008 KU has three road losses. One is by 9 to K-state, one by 3 to Texas, and one by 1 to OSU.
I am not interested in defending UNC or anything like that. My initial statement was a knee-jerk on based on how UNC ran through the tournament. I think these two teams probably would be pretty close in a "time machine" game. Can Chalmers slow down Lawson? I can't really answer that, which is why I don't try to do the time machine thing. Also, even though these are recent teams, my memory isn't good enough to try to deal with this sort of match up thing, because I have a hard time remembering things like just how good of a defender Chalmers was in college (I know he was good).
Significant?
I'd say the more worrisome problem is 1) they foul a lot and 2) they don't get fouled a lot. They play handsy D, and there's not much wrong with that except against aggressive O's it'll lead to a ton of free throws. And they're a bunch of shooters, which means they don't get to the line. That could be worrisome.
The play-in games will be Thursday/Friday, the real first round will be Saturday/Sunday, and then the second round would be Monday/Tuesday or Tuesday/Wednesday. So, the first day of the tourney, which is usually awesome, and especially the first weekend, will not be as good. The best games will be in the middle of the week. What a waste.
I still love how the NCAA won't fix the BCS, but ruins March Madness. Way to go.
This is my fault - I should have clarified, certainly not all of the gains Lawson made were simply the teams around UNC getting worse, he improved a substantial amount and deserves credit and recognition for how awesome he was last year. I just think that the some of the incremental gains UNC made, including those made by Lawson, could be explained by that fact, not all of them. Sorry for the confusion.
FWIW, K-State was ranked the #17 Kenpom team that year, and Texas was #9. The Texas loss certainly isn't a blemish. The K-State loss doesn't look great but it's probably about neutral. OSU is the only one I'd qualify as a "blemish" - for whatever reason, it being his alma mater, Bill Self has always struggled @ OSU.
I may be allowing some bias to creep in - not just pro-KU, anti-UNC bias, which I'd admit, but pro-Self, anti-Roy bias, in that I believe that Self can handle Roy because of how physical his teams can play, something that has never been one of Roy's strengths.
Also, as good as Chalmers was defensively (he was All Big 12, iirc), he probably would have guarded Ellington (he gives a couple inches there, so I don't know if that would be in his favor, but his hands were lightning quick, it's how he got so many steals). Russell Robinson, probably the best defensive player on that KU team, would have been tasked with slowing down Lawson, I'd guess. Robinson was never much offensively, but he ran the floor well and he was lockdown on defense. You're right, it's an impossible and goofy to answer question, though.
As I type this Morgan gets an offensive rebound...
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main