Are y'all saying Duke will beat Kentucky @ the Dance. WELL?

[volstreet]

Originally posted by nptb:

Originally posted by crossoveryp:
Mpm. The SEC is extremely weak this season. Moreso than previous years.

The SEC is actually stronger than it has been in previous years, hence the projection of 6 teams getting in.

No, it is not!. I'm a fan of the SEC but it is not very strong this year at all. The fact that they are projected to get 6 teams in means nothing to me. The so called top teams besides UK have just beat up on other weak teams. I think the SEC schedule could hurt UK but who knows? UK has talent and it may not affect them at all but I don't think it helps. I also do not think UK is undefeated in the ACC. Especially if they had the ACC schedule Duke has had. I also think Duke is a team that could give UK some problems. Especially if Duke is hitting the 3. I think any team that beats UK will have to be on from the 3 point line.

 

[kingbluedevil]

Lets hope this game happens this year because it means we're in semis or finals.

 

[pisgah101]

LOL at the sec being as strong or stronger then recent years! This is the weakest I remember the conf. Tenn and Fl have both been awesome in recent years and both are terrible right now. Along with Mizzou being strong a few seasons and Vandy as well.

 

[nptb]

Originally posted by pisgah101:
LOL at the sec being as strong or stronger then recent years! This is the weakest I remember the conf. Tenn and Fl have both been awesome in recent years and both are terrible right now. Along with Mizzou being strong a few seasons and Vandy as well.

So because UT and UF are terrible, the SEC is weak? LSU, Arkansas and Ole Miss are going to be tough outs in the big tourney.

 

[dukiejay]

On paper, the SEC appears to be a little weaker this year. Is it? I don't really know because I haven't watched as closely. But what I mean by weaker is teams that are really good. The next best teams to UK in their conference probably finish, at best, in fifth or sixth place in the ACC.

UK's collection of talent is impressive. Very impressive. I don't think they're unbeatable, but looking at the field this year compared to years past I think they have a real shot to go unbeaten. A month ago I thought they would slip up....not so much today.

What I see is other teams improving but UK improving at just as high of clip. I watched most of their game yesterday against Arkansas, and while it was played in friendly confines for them, from what I saw Arkansas didn't even belong on the same court. Somebody will push them in the tournament (maybe even a couple times)....and it will be interesting to see if they're able to overcome it.

Like I've said the past few months, while I'd prefer UK to lose before we could play them, if you told me tomorrow we were playing them yet this season I'd take it because it likely means, at minimum, we're in the Final Four. We may not have enough to beat them, but I'd welcome the chance. And I'm sure any of the other top teams vying for #1 or #2 seeds would say the same thing.

 

[jchammock]

Originally posted by crossoveryp:
Mpm. The SEC is extremely weak this season. Moreso than previous years.

Sorry cross, your wrong and surprised you made that statement. You've always been a fair and reasonable poster that I remember. But right now, they have six SEC teams making the NCAA tournament. Have you seen the SEC the last several years?

i don't understand why a KSU fan wants to stir the pot between UK and Duke fans???

All I'll say is, I think Duke has a great team. Hopefully we'll meet.

 

[dukiejay]

Originally posted by jchammock:

Sorry cross, your wrong and surprised you made that statement. You've always been a fair and reasonable poster that I remember. But right now, they have six SEC teams making the NCAA tournament. Have you seen the SEC the last several years?

Like I said in my previous post....if you want to base it solely off the SEC having more tournament teams this year then you have an argument. But that doesn't tell the whole story because each and every season, from conference to conference, is different.

Is Arkansas the second best team in the SEC, in your opinion? Maybe it's A&M or LSU....but whatever. Do you think any of those three teams are better than Notre Dame, Louisville, or UNC? I know I don't. And I think it's obvious none of them are better than Duke or UVA.

So while the SEC might have a mix of teams (six, quite possibly) who will qualify for the NCAA Tournament, it doesn't necessarily mean they're better as a whole. Looking at teams like Texas and Oklahoma St. - two bubble teams out of the Big 12 - I'd place both of them above those three aforementioned SEC teams, as well.

I don't say this to slight to UK. They're damn good and clearly the best team in the country. But I do think their conference lacks depth in a big way. Because the SEC is considered a major conference it gives them clout. We know that in the ACC too because we've had a few down years in past seasons where one or two teams benefited from being in the conference and making the tournament. But the reality is that if a few of those ACC teams had been the B1G or old Big East those years they very well would have been punching bags.

Again....it's not a knock on UK (at least from me it isn't), but I just don't see how the SEC is very good this year.

 

[pisgah101]

When I say the SEC is bad I say t the way jay is talking as in NO the would be in the top 5 of the ACC while those teams of years past would deff be.

 

[HuffyJB]

If the SEC gets 6 teams in that would be totally unjust. It seems to be a lot of average to mediocre teams boosting their wins against other average to mediocre teams. That is not a 6 bid league. How do you compare it to the rigor of an ACC or a Big 12 schedule? If a 5th or 6th SEC team gets in ahead of someone like an NC St., they would be tough to explain.

 

[FearTheBeard]

The SEC teams projected to be in the tournament and their projected seeding:

1. KY
5. Arkansas
8. Georgia
8. Ole Miss
9. Texas A&M
10. LSU

The SEC is relatively the same as last year when the tournament begins. However, it is weaker than last year b/c it lacks that second team that can make considerable noise in the tournament. Last year, UF was the favorite and we all saw the writing on the wall when KY ended up in Wichita St.'s region.

This year, Arkansas may make the S16, but that's their ceiling. I don't think the SEC has a realistic shot at anyone not named Kentucky making it past the S16.

Overall, top to bottom, the SEC may be the same, but they are definitely much weaker at the top.

Anyone comparing the SEC's strength to the ACC needs to have their head examined. Literally. If you can't see the staunch difference between the ACC and the SEC, then I would like to sell you some beachfront property just outside Omaha, NE. Its got a great view and provides excellent surfing all year. Just post your email address and I'll send you some information on how to make a down payment.

Now, can we please end this monstrosity of a thread started by a K-State fan for the sole purpose of trolling because his team's fans are in the news for being classless pieces of shlt?




This post was edited on 3/1 6:54 PM by FearTheBeard

 

[youngman42]

UK has to be the heavy favorite of all the teams (but that doesn't mean they can't be beat). However, Duke's defense is so mediocre that I would not put them close to the top of teams that could beat them.

The idea that Duke has the best chance to beat UK is overly bias.

Here's the teams I think have the best chance against UK:

1. Arizona - they have good size on the front line (they have 4 starters, actually, that are 6'7 and up) and play great defense. That defense - which is right there with UK's - gives them a great chance. The question is whether their offense will let them get all the way to play against UK.

2. Gonzaga - they also have very good size (three guys at 6'9 +) and Wiltjer would be super hungry. He is a tough cover at 6'10 and can shoot the 3. Gonzaga also plays pretty good defense (they are in the top 15-20 in KenPom).

3. Wisconsin - also matches up with size. However, their D is not so great. But, their half-court offense and their ability to back it in on D would force UK to shoot 3s. If Wisconsin runs with UK they are dead. I think they lose anyway but have a chance to keep it close.

4. Duke - Okafor's size helps. However, UK can throw 4 players at Jah and they can often double with two 7 footers. The could also get Okafor in foul trouble and have the depth to wear him down by the end of the game - especially with K not playing much depth. Would be a really tough game for Duke to win. Plus, Duke's guard D is their weak point and UK has big guards and quick guards, all of whom can drive past Duke's D. So, while I think Duke could compete, I don't think they'd have a realistic shot at winning; though in CBB there is always a chance on the right night.

 

[dukiejay]

Depends on your definition of realistic. And I think a Duke fan who thinks Duke can beat them isn't being overly bias. Would we beat them as much as they would beat us? No, IMO. But despite our sometimes porous defense, our offense is one of the best in the country. In addition to that, this Duke team has tended to shine brightest when the deck is against them.

Make no mistake, our defense leaves a lot to be desired sometimes....but if we met this UK team it wouldn't be like Duke-UNLV in 1991.

 

[aah555]

I think Arizona's dangerous, but I don't think anyone can beat UK in a two-point shooting contest -- which is what it would be against Arizona.

IMO, the big problem with Wisconsin is that they're not laterally athletic enough to stay in front of quick guards. I think their big 10 schedule has concealed that some, but against both Duke / Maryland -- teams with good guards -- they've been completely picked apart. While they haven't had as many aweful defensive performances as we have, I think our defense is -- on balance -- as good or better. Wisconsin could beat UK b/c of their 3 pt. shooting and overall quality, but I don't view them as a greater threat.

Gonzaga. No.

IMO, Duke and UVA are the strongest challengers. I think UVA could really frustrate UK and turn the game into a complete rock fight. The problem, though, is I'm not sure UVA would be able to score at all against UK.

That then leaves Duke. I wouldn't like our odds against UK, but I think we're clearly the most dangerous on a one-game basis b/c we're the one team out of the schools I've mentioned that (i) good enough athletes to at least stay with UK (which Wisconsin and Gonzaga do not); and (ii) the shooting ability to score a lot of points even if we're not getting good shots close to the rim (which Arizona / UVA do not). As I said, I don't necessarily like our chances for a number of reasons -- low-post depth, perimeter height, defensive breakdowns, offensive sloppiness. But, IMO, nobody's beating UK unless they hit a high volume of 3s on a good percentage. Duke's not always consistent, but we're certainly capable of a 12 of 19 type night -- which is really what I think it will take to beat them.

This post was edited on 3/1 7:27 PM by aah555

 

[timo0402]

^Spot on.

 

[dadecodevil]

The most interesting facet of this ongoing argument to me is the notion that Jah would get
Into foul trouble just because UK can throw 3 guys at him. Last time I checked, UK has one
Guy that truly looks to score in a back to the basket fashion, maybe even Dakari when he is in there. Jah is not overly aggressive in shot
Blocking attempts, and add the fact that K can go to a zone and put Marshall and Jah on the back line, I don't see fouls as a major strength in Kentucky ' s favor. If Wisco didn't foul Jah out with a tougher match up than Kentucky can bring, I don't see it as a foregone advantage.

 

[volstreet]

Originally posted by dadecodevil:
The most interesting facet of this ongoing argument to me is the notion that Jah would get
Into foul trouble just because UK can throw 3 guys at him. Last time I checked, UK has one
Guy that truly looks to score in a back to the basket fashion, maybe even Dakari when he is in there. Jah is not overly aggressive in shot
Blocking attempts, and add the fact that K can go to a zone and put Marshall and Jah on the back line, I don't see fouls as a major strength in Kentucky ' s favor. If Wisco didn't foul Jah out with a tougher match up than Kentucky can bring, I don't see it as a foregone advantage.

I agree and Jah would have a tougher time staying out of foul trouble in a game like Wisconsin where the big would try to pull him out of the paint and make him move his feet.

 

[Icemanzdoinwork]

Dadecodevil it's not the big men that you have too worry about getting Jah into foul trouble. It is the twins driving into the lane and drawing the reach in foul or just taking right at his body.

Also, just want too say I love this board. Our board can be over ran by homers like many of the other fan sites, but this one is truly special.

 

[W2R]

Originally posted by kingbluedevil:

I think Kentucky will choke when it gets pressure time like they usually do.

???????? Since Cal has been at UK. I would consider his first team with wall and cousins the only one I thought they should have won. Looking back THATS easy to,say with all that talent. but it was a bunch of freshman and new faces


elite 8
final four
..............
championship
runner up
29-0 and counting


there are a lot of teams that have choked in the tourney in recent years but UK is not one of them

 

[Crank_it_loud]

First off, the logo for the OP is just awkward.

Second, according to Dan Dakich, the trophy should go to UK now as there is no team that can even be competitive with them (no sarcasm). It would be cool to see a team run-the-table, but honestly, how long will it before it's taken away? Cal has a pretty bad "moral" record in collegiate ball. How long before he bolts and something comes up?

Note I'm asking seriously, not flaming, hating, or whatever you want to call it. The team is loaded and crazy-big (but I think they'll lose in a tourney game).

 

[pisgah101]

Iceman I dont think Jah is gunna pick up fouls reaching on your guards... IMO he isnt even close to being engaged enough on D to even try to stop guards. Anyway back to the sched they keep claiming such a tough non-conf but really the best two teams they played and beat we played and beat too, AND weve played at least 3 teams tougher than those two! This is taking Kansas out of the argument who I believe isn't too tough either however they did demolish them! But we beat ND pretty dang good at Cameron so.

This post was edited on 3/2 8:25 AM by pisgah101

 

[Xzander]

Ok first the acc>sec but after uk, duke, Vir it really is kind of a moot point. ND UNC and UL are decent teams but they aren't great teams. As for the SEC vs last year the top is about the same (remmber UK was an 8th seed last year) but the 3-6/7 are alot better then last year.

As for UK vs DUke either could win in a one game tourney. The thing I think UK has really improved on and no one is talking about is their mid range game. The twins, booker, Lyels, Towns, and even WCS are hiting 15-18 footers. Makes them tough.

 

[nptb]

Arkansas is going to give teams all kinds of problems in the tourney. Kentucky made them look not so good but that was the best I saw the cats all season. LSU is also going to be a tough matchup because they have two bigs who protect the rim and score the ball as good as anyone. I haven't really watched Georgia so I want comment on them. I'll see what they do against the Cats on Tuesday at home. Texas A&M is just a sold team that will probably fall in that 7,8 or 9 slot. They aren't flashy but I don't see them making a run in the tourney. Ole Miss could make a run with the right draw. They are a gritty team who has a few players capable of getting hot.

 

[cwcat]

I hope we choke for the 9th time !

 

[Crank_it_loud]

And how many of those 9 titles came pre-integration of collegiate ball? I'm all for honoring success, but let's be real here.

 

[DFerryFan]

Originally posted by FearTheBeard:

Now, can we please end this monstrosity of a thread started by a K-State fan for the sole purpose of trolling because his team's fans are in the news for being classless pieces of shlt?

Well that clears some things up for me, I just saw "cat" in the guy's name and assumed it was a UK fan and thought they were confused about which conference they're in. But that's mainly because I have no idea what mascot K-State has because of their irrelevance.

 

[HeLooks2MuchLikeDave]

There are a number of ways to measure conference strength. But how many teams you get into a tournament is certainly not the best. One thing I like to look at is who you have beat. Even if UK had dropped a couple losable games (like TxAM, UF, etc.), they easily pass this test with their beatdown of KU, UL, UNC. But look who the rest of the 5 SEC "tournament teams" beat:

Arkansas: SMU, no other Top 25 wins
UGA: No Top 25 - best win Tex AM (RPI 38)
Tex AM: No Top 25 - best win LSU (RPI 45)
LSU: WVU, no other Top 25 wins
Ole Miss: Arkansas, no other Top 25 wins

That's 3 total wins against Top 25 teams for the entire season. And those 3 teams that the SEC beat (SMU, WVU, Ark) could all drop out of the Top 25 this week (they all lost their least game). 2 schools, Georgia and Texas A&M don't even have a win against the RPI Top 35.

I'd rather see a school like say, BYU, who we know can beat a really good team make it into the tournament over a team like Texas A&M who we have absolutely no evidence they can beat anyone of note.

The reason the SEC is going to get all these teams in is because they have a favorable RPI. They have a favorable RPI because they played, on average, a tougher OOC schedule. Which was smart. So what would normally be a meaningless win (RPI sub 150), is a mediocre win (RPI Top 100). And what would have been a bad loss is now an acceptable loss. For the bottom feeders, they are now losing to Arizona, Kansas, and UNC instead of losing to UAB, LaSalle, and Toledo. In turn, that helps the teams at the top of the conference. You look at Missouri which has the 4th hardest schedule in the country and you ignore they are 7-21.

 

[zoid1]

- Wisky is the same exact team we beat last year but the thing is we beat them w/o WCS, KAT, Lyles, Booker and Ulis...im sure those 5 make up and add much more then Randle and Young.

- Arkansas is a really good team and we had them beat 10 minutes in and like i said we were up by 31 early 2nd half.

- From the looks of the last few games were gonna have maybe not all of our 9 man rotation playing well but at least 6 or 7 will and thats as many as most teams is college have total in a rotation. it will look like the Arkansas game more times then not when all 9 are ingaged.

- I think the conference you play in has nothing to do with how far you advance in the NCAA T. UK and Florida just last year in title and F4 plus UT S16 a basket from playing us in E8. Lots of cases of teams making runs in the NCAA T that arent in a power 6 conference like UK. Butler back to back title games, George Mason F4, VCU F4, Wichita St F4, Memphis title game are just a few i can think off at the top of my head. UK plays in a much better conference then all those teams.

- Not saying the SEC is great but look at the last 2 teams to get this far undeafeted were UNLV and Wichita St and neither of those teams would have been undeafeted had they played the schedule we played this year IMO.

- Yes the ACC is a good conference but we did play 2 of your better teams and beat them easily by a combined 22 points. @UL with Jones and UNC. Not saying we go unbeaten but i think ONLY Duke and Virgina would have a realistic shot to beat us. Honestly we go no worse then 16-2, 17-1 in the ACC and if we played say just Duke and Virgina in Rupp we go 18-0.

- Like i said were gonna be ready for the NCAA T we just played #18 Arkansas, Georgia tuesday and in the SEC T well play at least 2 maybe 3 more NCAA T teams possibly Arkansas again, LSU, Ole Miss, TAM and Georgia. 5 out of our last 6 could be against NCAA T teams with Florida who has a good talent and great coaching sprinkled in their.

 

[aah555]

Originally posted by zoid1:
- Wisky is the same exact team we beat last year but the thing is we beat them w/o WCS, KAT, Lyles, Booker and Ulis...im sure those 5 make up and add much more then Randle and Young.

- Arkansas is a really good team and we had them beat 10 minutes in and like i said we were up by 31 early 2nd half.

- From the looks of the last few games were gonna have maybe not all of our 9 man rotation playing well but at least 6 or 7 will and thats as many as most teams is college have total in a rotation. it will look like the Arkansas game more times then not when all 9 are ingaged.

- I think the conference you play in has nothing to do with how far you advance in the NCAA T. UK and Florida just last year in title and F4 plus UT S16 a basket from playing us in E8. Lots of cases of teams making runs in the NCAA T that arent in a power 6 conference like UK. Butler back to back title games, George Mason F4, VCU F4, Wichita St F4, Memphis title game are just a few i can think off at the top of my head. UK plays in a much better conference then all those teams.

- Not saying the SEC is great but look at the last 2 teams to get this far undeafeted were UNLV and Wichita St and neither of those teams would have been undeafeted had they played the schedule we played this year IMO.

- Yes the ACC is a good conference but we did play 2 of your better teams and beat them easily by a combined 22 points. @UL with Jones and UNC. Not saying we go unbeaten but i think ONLY Duke and Virgina would have a realistic shot to beat us. Honestly we go no worse then 16-2, 17-1 in the ACC and if we played say just Duke and Virgina in Rupp we go 18-0.

- Like i said were gonna be ready for the NCAA T we just played #18 Arkansas, Georgia tuesday and in the SEC T well play at least 2 maybe 3 more NCAA T teams possibly Arkansas again, LSU, Ole Miss, TAM and Georgia. 5 out of our last 6 could be against NCAA T teams with Florida who has a good talent and great coaching sprinkled in their.

I agree with some of what you're saying about Wisconsin / quality of competition doesn't necessarily make a huge difference on how far a team will go (particularly when they're in a big power conference).

As for the point about the ACC, I agree and disagree. I agree that UK would probably go no worse than about 16-2 or so, but I also think the reporting about UK would be completely different if that were the case. Is UK an excellent team? Sure. Probably one of the best we've seen since the one-and-done era began. But, are they unbeatable? No. I think that's the only point people are making about conference affiliation. In the SEC, UK got away with some really poor performances (particularly early) that would have probably resulted in Ls had they been in a tougher league. If you look at Duke, by contrast, it's presently 3-0 against UVA, UNC, and Louisville -- and suffered it's 2 worst losses against teams they were probably looking past (NC State / Miami).

I think the night-in, night-out grind is really what makes it tough. If you look at our last 15 contests, for instance, 11 are against NCAA-tournament type teams (i.e., in predicted field / bubble), and 5 were against teams that were ranked in the top 15 at the time of the game. I think that takes a cumulative toll. UK just doesn't have that problem b/c they really only have to show-up 50% of the time, and the teams they do have to show-up for are not nearly as good.

Teams like LSU / Georgia / A&M this year are basically on par with NC State / Pitt / Miami. In the ACC, playing NC State / Pitt / Miami is almost a must-win that doesn't elicit a top-end effort -- whereas, in the SEC, LSU / Georgia / A&M is about as good as you get. Clemson, for instance, is a mid-tier ACC team with no high-quality wins in conference and will not make the tourney (and one of the 4 teams I excluded from the NCAA consideration) -- beat both Arkansas and Georgia. I think that's really what's made UK's life easy.

This post was edited on 3/2 2:09 PM by aah555

 

[pisgah101]

Good post ahh! The mention of NC St got me thinking they would prob be the 2nd best team in the SEC

 

[chov1125]

Did anyone see how UNC abused us on the offensive glass in the second half? I cringe when I think what Kentucky would do with Cauley-Stein and Towns crashing both sides....Maybe I am in the minority, but I think UK either gets beat or is pressed to the limit before reaching the final 4....The 3 pt fg is the great equalizer in basketball....If UK wins out they are going to be wound tight each game during the tournament....If someone gets hot, anyone can go down.

 

[chov1125]

I think Baylor would be a good matchup....

 

[skysdad]

I think UNC is going to take care of UK for us . I heard Theo is about ready to come back and dish out some PJ Hairston.

OFC

 

[dukiejay]

Originally posted by zoid1:

- Not saying the SEC is great but look at the last 2 teams to get this far undeafeted were UNLV and Wichita St and neither of those teams would have been undeafeted had they played the schedule we played this year IMO.

I disagree here. This UK team is better than Wichita St. but not UNLV. Do you know anything about that UNLV team from 1991? That was a seasoned squad. UK might be more talented overall, but that UNLV team was a better squad loaded with seniors and a great junior in Anderson Hunt. that team blew everyone out. And they were better than our '91 team....the stars just aligned for us that night.

If this UK club had their current roster two or three years from now then you'd maybe have a point....But I'd take the Runnin' Rebels over the 2014-15 Cats every day of the week.

 

[HuffyJB]

^ I was just thinking the same thing DJ. The 91,Rebels were the real thing. Larry Johnson, Stacy Augmon, Greg Anthony, Anderson Hunt, etc. This UK team is good, but they are NOT on par with that UNLV team.

Also, I don't think there would be any chance that this UK team, as good as they are, would be 18-0 in the ACC.

 

[Crank_it_loud]

Interesting that someone would point out how UNC crushed Duke in the 2nd half in rebounding, yet fail to remember that Jah was hurting with a bum ankle that 2nd half.

Look, lets be honest here. UK is very, very good. Would they be undefeated if they were in the ACC, Big12, etc? No, I doubt they would be. Have they played a crazy schedule? No, IMO they have not. They whooped KU (who some argue is overrated), beat Texas (who was VERY overrated and without a key player), beat UL (think we see how good they really are after all), beat UNC at home (good win for sure). Who else is there? Auburn at home? Auburn is a good team.

Regardless, UK has not stumbled, but lets not build them up as one of the best teams ever in collegiate bball. If they run the table easily, well then I could see them entering that discussion.

 

[SomeDudeCRO]

UK fan here; random unorganized thread thoughts to keep in line with my hillbilly brethren.

- 2 teams are capable of beating UK, Duke and WIsconsin.
- No way this UK team just loses in the tournament to a bunch of really good college players like Duke 91 (Grant Hill notwithstanding)
- UK would probably still be undefeated in the ACC or Big12, they play much better against better teams and if they lost they would've lost like UNC 09 did to BC and Va Tech and not a good team (IIRC)... they've had plenty of opportunities to buckle and lose like games in the SEC.
- This UK team is one of the alltime best imo, regardless... they just do it defensively.

 

[aah555]

Originally posted by SomeDudeCRO:
UK fan here; random unorganized thread thoughts to keep in line with my hillbilly brethren.

- 2 teams are capable of beating UK, Duke and WIsconsin.
- No way this UK team just loses in the tournament to a bunch of really good college players like Duke 91 (Grant Hill notwithstanding)
- UK would probably still be undefeated in the ACC or Big12, they play much better against better teams and if they lost they would've lost like UNC 09 did to BC and Va Tech and not a good team (IIRC)... they've had plenty of opportunities to buckle and lose like games in the SEC.
- This UK team is one of the alltime best imo, regardless... they just do it defensively.

In all likelihood, with the exception of Karl Towns, I doubt any player on UK's current roster has as good of an NBA career as Christian Laettner. Go look up the numbers.

That is the one problem with the UK mythology this season. Unlike some of the truly great teams of the past (who were also much older), while this team has a greater depth of good players than normal, it's surprising how few UK players are listed at the top of the draft -- at least as compared to the hype. That team of "good college players" you referenced had 4 lottery picks and a hall of fame caliber talent in Hill. Does UK have that? Not according to the current projections.

While, the depth is really impressive and may be enough to wear any team out, from a pure talent perspective, this group's starting 5 doesn't even match up to the one UK fielded in 9-10 -- which really was the most talented UK team Calipari has had (not the 11-12 Davis team that won the title). That group had the clear cut #1 pick (Wall), the #1 talent and #5 pick (had people not perceived Cousins as a headcase), the #14 pick (Patterson), the #18 pick (Bledsoe), and the #29 pick (Orton). If that group could lose to a WVU team that featured a total of one future NBA journeyman, then this group can lose as well. I don't think any of UK's current players are on the same level as Wall or Cousins.

 

[HeLooks2MuchLikeDave]

Originally posted by aah555:

Originally posted by SomeDudeCRO:
UK fan here; random unorganized thread thoughts to keep in line with my hillbilly brethren.

- 2 teams are capable of beating UK, Duke and WIsconsin.
- No way this UK team just loses in the tournament to a bunch of really good college players like Duke 91 (Grant Hill notwithstanding)
- UK would probably still be undefeated in the ACC or Big12, they play much better against better teams and if they lost they would've lost like UNC 09 did to BC and Va Tech and not a good team (IIRC)... they've had plenty of opportunities to buckle and lose like games in the SEC.
- This UK team is one of the alltime best imo, regardless... they just do it defensively.

In all likelihood, with the exception of Karl Towns, I doubt any player on UK's current roster has as good of an NBA career as Christian Laettner. Go look up the numbers.

That is the one problem with the UK mythology this season. Unlike some of the truly great teams of the past (who were also much older), while this team has a greater depth of good players than normal, it's surprising how few UK players are listed at the top of the draft -- at least as compared to the hype. That team of "good college players" you referenced had 4 lottery picks and a hall of fame caliber talent in Hill. Does UK have that? Not according to the current projections.

While, the depth is really impressive and may be enough to wear any team out, from a pure talent perspective, this group's starting 5 doesn't even match up to the one UK fielded in 9-10 -- which really was the most talented UK team Calipari has had (not the 11-12 Davis team that won the title). That group had the clear cut #1 pick (Wall), the #1 talent and #5 pick (had people not perceived Cousins as a headcase), the #14 pick (Patterson), the #18 pick (Bledsoe), and the #29 pick (Orton). If that group could lose to a WVU team that featured a total of one future NBA journeyman, then this group can lose as well. I don't think any of UK's current players are on the same level as Wall or Cousins.

Good post ahh and totally agree with you here.

Let me just say that there are probably 50 teams in the tournament that are "capable" of beating UK. Not just Duke or Wisconsin. And for the record, I am one of the people that think this UK team is potentially one of the best ever. But they could easily lose in the 2nd round to someone like Murray St. who nails it from 3.

 

[SomeDudeCRO]

While it is a good post, imho it is almost entirely wrong. Laettner was indeed a serviceable pro, but he was a phenomenal college player. Grant Hill was a little of the opposite, an extremely good college player (also phenomenal really, I'm not saying that Duke group wasn't amoung the best ever) who really blossomed as a pro and if he got luckier with health would've probably been an all time great. Towns will be a significantly better pro than Laettner, but no player on this UK team has the ceiling Hill had. This team still also has atleast 4 lottery picks, or potential I should say if Lyles/Booker stuck around they would almost certainly be lottery next year.

UK 2010, for all its talent had glaring weaknesses and deficiencies, namely and probably chief amoung them they played without a shooting guard. There were multiple games that season where they struggled to shoot the ball. In those games they either lost or won by just letting John Wall take over. That sort of reliance on star power can be what gets you beat in the NCAA tournament. Where UK 2010 lost to elite 8 caliber teams like Tennessee when they shot poorly and then again to WVU in the actual elite 8, UK 2015 has easily beaten the best teams on its schedule. No disrespect, but not seeing that 15 is much better than 10 just because there is no wall or cousins on 15 is not seeing the forest for the trees.

Sure, it is sports and a one and done tournament at that, but realistically the only teams capable of beating UK are Wisconsin and Duke..you'll see

 

[zoid1]

- first thing is we beat Murray State by as many points as Cal wants no question in mind we beat them 10 out of 10 times by 20 plus and a few by 35-40 plus and lost to Valpo by 35 has a snowballs chance in hell of beating this UK team all i can say is you havent watched us play this year or you dont know a lot about basketball.

- Im not saying were better the UNLV 91 i watched almost every game they played that year. Im saying i dont think UNLV 91 goes unbeaten that year if they played the 14-15 schedule UK played this year. KU, UT, UNC, UL, UCLA even Providence plus a full slate SEC schedule. They would of lost 1 or 2 games IMO. I even think we could beat them soley on size and depth plus our defence. Look at their sizes Anthony 6-0, Hunt 6-0, Johnson 6-6 maybe, Augman 6-7, the 2 centers were 6-9 i think. Yes they were juniors and seniors but played zero comp all year and the first UK like team they played that year they lost in Duke. Your well aware of our size Anthony would have to guard a 6-6 220 Andrew then lighting quick Ulis, Hunt 6-6 Aaron and 6-6 Booker, Augman 6-10 Lyles, Johnson 7-0 Willie or 6-11 KAT, do u see the size difference its really glaring from 1991 to 2015.

- I still say we easily beat everybody in the ACC besides @Duke and @Virginia and if the schedule has those 2 games at Rupp we go 18-0. I dont think UL, UNC, ND has a real shot at beating us the rest of the ACC has no shot. The best games we played this year were against the better teams ranked at the time. This team really answers the bell when they see a marqee name across the other teams jersey.

- whoever said the 50 teams in the NCAA T has a realistic shot at beating UK i want some of what your smoking. Thats basically saying UC Davis, Louisina Tech, Iona, Tulsa and Indiana could beat us...come on man.