I watched the game at work tonight. I didn't get a chance to see it start to finish. More like here and there with the weak call more and more present. My concern is the articles and tag lines about how Coach K had beaten Coach Cal at his "own game". The market for players shifts constantly in favor of key essential qualities for a program. Education is not one of them. Class, pedigree, up sell (season/draft) and impact have all taken claim to ratings. Ratings matter. Especially, when it applies to speculation concerning future income at the elite level. Kentucky has a pathway to the NBA. Duke has a pathway to the NBA. Which one do you choose when the time comes? If you are in that position then the skies have opened and it is bliss at the very bottom of the list. My point is, Kentucky is great. Duke is better. The score tonight is horrid and the team will grow. D Thornton will show up. The MP3 and Amile inside tandem is solid. Offense. Offense. Offense. Kennard. Ingram. Allen. Jones. 55+ a game/min. But, while this team is better than the Rivers squad, J. Parker 1st round exit is on my mind. Just a feeling. Show me something. When it counts.
Hype machine
- Thread starter Guffeys
- Start date
It was the third game of the season against the 2nd-ranked team in the country. People with common sense knew there was going to be a steep learning curve for this team. I'm amazed how attitudes can change about a team in two hours time.
You honestly think there is 10 teams or more better than UK??? Please name them.
In a normal year they wouldn't be but honestly basketball is wayyyyyyy own this year so that makes them top 10 by default
UK isn't a top 10 team by default. They're a top 10 team any season. Based on last night they had moments of sloppiness, but their talent level is very high....and like us, they have players entirely new to their current roles, as well as freshman who are going to take some time to find themselves. I'll say this....if UK isn't a top 10 team based on last night, then we're not finishing in the top half of the ACC.
If you're comparing Duke and Kentucky on November 17 to the top 10 teams from last March, then I'd agree. Neither, at their current level of play, would be top 10 teams. But this isn't March. I might also suggest watching some college basketball from other teams right now. I've watched quite a bit during this college hoops marathon and it's like watching Keystone Cops out there. Both UK and Duke are top 10 teams, without question. By season's end, I'm confident there will be no doubt.
I would agree. People toss out top 10 and top 20 comments all the time. But they really don't know. Few people have watched that much basketball this early in the season to be able to throw out those kind of comments.
I think it's more of being un impressed with UK then anything... But out of every team I've watched I haven't been impressed.. So far Carolina looks the best by a lot but they haven't played anyone so we will see. this is a wide open year where a lot of teams have a chance to win it all. Maybe a good year for a mid major
UK is a top 10 team based on defense and transition ability. I'm not sure Kentucky has a championship lvl team but if their players learn to avoid taking stupid shots they will be hard to beat.
Duke isn't a title team this year IMO and not likely for the final 4. The freshmen look like freshmen instead of the crop we had last year.
It will be a fun year...kids will learn and grow and Duke will win a lot of games.
Duke isn't a title team this year IMO and not likely for the final 4. The freshmen look like freshmen instead of the crop we had last year.
It will be a fun year...kids will learn and grow and Duke will win a lot of games.
Top 10 relative to what. Would UK's team from last night have a good chance of beating any of the top 5 teams from last season (Duke, UK, Wisconsin, UVA, and Arizona)? No. But could they beat that Kansas team that basically lost to Denzel valentine's one man show, a Maryland team that was on the ropes at home against a Georgetown squad that opened the year by losing to Radcliffe, or a UVA team that lost to George Washington? Sure. Unlike last year where there was very noticeable separation between the best teams and the rest of college b-ball, I just don't see it this year. With the possible exception of UNC, I think this is going to be a year where even the top end teams are not that far from the pack.
As for Duke, the odds are we're not going to make the final four or win a national title in any given year. With that said, I wouldn't really be laying bets on anyone else either other than UNC. I'm pretty sure you could go through each team and identify a few really significant flaws that, in most years, would torpedo that team's chances for the NCAAs. I think, in the end, this will be a tournament that comes down to who competes the best + who's playing the best at the end of the year -- rather than who's the "best" team. The one thing I'd take from last night that is a bit concerning is that some guys didn't seem to embrace the pressure of the moment and the challenge of the competition. That was something that last year's group always did even when it wasn't playing well. But, as we go through the year, we'll find out whether this was just early-season growing pains or signs of a more significant problem.
Last edited:
I like my team. Great guard play can take you a long way in college basketball, and occasionally, all the way. And we've got the best backcourt in America.
Talking about what we'll do in the tournament after the third game is beyond laughable. It's hilarious to me when the ENTIRE off-season we talk about the fact that this team will have many ups and downs and due to the many newcomers and folks asked to play new roles (Grayson, Marshall) we'll have a steeper learning curve than many other years. Did we get beat last night? Absolutely, and by the better team. We got beat, period. Debating whether or not you think UK is a top 10 team or not compared to other years is just pure and simply sour grapes. They beat us, man up and accept it.
Now onto Duke- i'm not really concerned at all. Great learning moments will be had from last night's game. Grayson's first time being in the spotlight as the man- not as a guy no one expects anything from. How will he respond to his performance? How will BI respond (although i think the foul trouble early in 2nd half really hindered that)? How will Luke respond to the first time not watching shots go down- he's too good of a player and a shooter to stay down for long.
DT i thought was the bright spot- he still had freshman moments but overall I thought hew as pretty good- on both ends. he'll only get better.
moral of the story- if you said during the offseason that we'd have ups and downs and you have to take this team as it is and let them have their bumps than let them do it- otherwise you're all talk.
Now onto Duke- i'm not really concerned at all. Great learning moments will be had from last night's game. Grayson's first time being in the spotlight as the man- not as a guy no one expects anything from. How will he respond to his performance? How will BI respond (although i think the foul trouble early in 2nd half really hindered that)? How will Luke respond to the first time not watching shots go down- he's too good of a player and a shooter to stay down for long.
DT i thought was the bright spot- he still had freshman moments but overall I thought hew as pretty good- on both ends. he'll only get better.
moral of the story- if you said during the offseason that we'd have ups and downs and you have to take this team as it is and let them have their bumps than let them do it- otherwise you're all talk.
Both of these teams are top 10 teams this year. Early days.
Also, don't read that ESPN garbage. They make up their own reality. Duke and UK run completely different programs because of their coaches, but there's no big secret scheme to each one. Every team tries to balance talent with the expectation of early departure. It's not that Duke and UK are the only teams recruiting in a "one-and-done" model. Every team is doing this, but there are only 10 or so one-and-dones per year. There are on average only 4 or 5 programs competing for these commits. So what the heck is ESPN talking about? Listening to Ulis give the post game interview last night, he might as well be a "Duke kid." Everyone is after kids with talent, character and grades. Duke, the school, just has more to offer academically, so we do slightly better at landing "Duke kids."
Also, don't read that ESPN garbage. They make up their own reality. Duke and UK run completely different programs because of their coaches, but there's no big secret scheme to each one. Every team tries to balance talent with the expectation of early departure. It's not that Duke and UK are the only teams recruiting in a "one-and-done" model. Every team is doing this, but there are only 10 or so one-and-dones per year. There are on average only 4 or 5 programs competing for these commits. So what the heck is ESPN talking about? Listening to Ulis give the post game interview last night, he might as well be a "Duke kid." Everyone is after kids with talent, character and grades. Duke, the school, just has more to offer academically, so we do slightly better at landing "Duke kids."
Last edited:
Your giving other teams WAY to much credit . We will both be in the top ten all year . Barring injuries of course .
