Duke #9 on Luke Winn's pre-season Power Rankings. And, a Sean Obi mention!

[FerryFor50]

http://www.si.com/college-basketball...entucky-kansas

[roywhite]

http://www.si.com/college-basketball...entucky-kansas

Hmmm...UNC #1 and Duke #9?

I'll make the way-too-early prediction that UNC will not end up as #1 and Duke will do better than #9.

[FerryFor50]

Hmmm...UNC #1 and Duke #9?

I'll make the way-too-early prediction that UNC will not end up as #1 and Duke will do better than #9.

Yea, hard to see UNC as #1 based solely on Marcus Paige.

Tokoto will be a bigger loss for them than they realize.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I'm buying into the UNC hype. They are the deepest team in the country, have great talent at the 1 and 4, very good talent at the 3 and 5, and have improved shooting by removing Tokoto and Jackson taking an increased role. There are question marks, most notably defense, but they are easily a top 3 team pre-season. The question is whether Ole Roy can put it all together (isn't that the question every year?).

Duke at 9 - I agree - is a little low. Ingram isn't the next Okafor (or Winslow, for that matter) and I assume he'll struggle in the beginning of ACC play with his shear lack of bulk, but he's one of the most versatile players in college basketball. I like Winn's analysis on "Alpha-Dog Allen" and would love to see this happen. Winn, like many of us at DBR, have a lot of faith in Sean Obi as a rebounder. And MP3 will be a quality back-up.

For me, Duke's success is dependent on three variables:

1) How good/ready is Derryk Thonrton? Slim chance he's Tyus-ready, but can he be Duhon-ready? Or will he be "freshman Nolan Smith"-ready? There isn't anyone else on the team who can consistently play point guard outside of Thornton (consistently being the operative word).
2) How reliable will Matt Jones and Amile Jefferson be on the offensive end? They are easily our two best defensive players, so they will get a lot of playing time, but can they knock down shots? Matt Jones found his 3pt shot, but he was inconsistent and a disaster at driving to the hoop. Amile Jefferson can score with the best of them 4-feet in, but 6-feet out he has zero offensive game. If they can average a combined 18+ points, we may be the most balanced team in the country.
3) Can Ingram play the 4? Coach K loves the stretch 4. That's no secret. And the only time in the last 15 years where Coach K didn't play a stretch 4 was Lance Thomas (partially out of necessity and partially because that team had the most defined roles I've ever seen on a basketball team). There isn't any big man on our roster who can currently knock down a 15-footer with the exception of Ingram. But Ingram has weight-issues for the 4, and he will always be out-muscled at that position. If his length can make up for his lack of weight, then Ingram at the 4 looks like a winner.

[Olympic Fan]

Not a bad list from Winn, except for his love of UNC ... as I've said many times in this forum, they are going to be the most overrated team in college basketball next season. Not a bad team, mind you, but a borderline top 10 team.

Better than Duke? That depends on too many question marks for the Devils -- either freshmen that must step in and perform at a high level or support players that must change their roles (Allen!)

Obviously, I think Virginia is a bit too low (they should be ahead of UNC) and I think Kentucky is also a bit too high -- luke UNC, I think that with this lineup (three big men and four guards), they have some issues. Plus they have the same question marks with young players that Duke has.

One other omission. I know the loss to Trevor Lacey hurt NC State, but no way they should be left out of the top 25. With Lacey, I think they were another borderline top 10 team. Without him (and Washington), I see them in the 16-21 range

[moonpie23]

cool...we're underdogs again....aweseome...


i love it...

[Nugget]

Yea, hard to see UNC as #1 based solely on Marcus Paige.

Tokoto will be a bigger loss for them than they realize.

I think Luke Winn's piece makes an important point about UNC's chances for next year, beyond simply Paige getting healthy:

"The other big-upside area for Carolina is that it retained three sophomores who were top-25 recruits: wing Justin Jackson (No. 9 in the Recruiting Services Consensus Index), wing Theo Pinson (No. 15) and point guard Joel Berry (No. 25). The statistical projection system that Sports Illustrated debuted last season—based on historic data for thousands of players—is bullish on the year 2 and 3 production of former elite recruits, and Jackson (if his shooting improves) and Pinson (if he can earn playing time in Tokoto's old spot) have real growth potential."

We tend to lose sight of this in these days of 1 and done, but the old adage of "the best thing about freshmen is they become sophmores" still has some truth to it, at least for those who may not come in as true stars. Jackson, Pinson and Berry are all high-level talents, but who have significant room to improve.

[Jarhead]

It's strange how people try to make predictions so early in the pre-season. Forget UNC for a minute. Kentucky lost a bunch of talented folks from its #1 all year except April team, and Duke also lost a bunch of talented folks from its #1 team when it counts. Now it seems that Duke has signed the #1 incoming class of freshman, but Kentucky has not. So SI still says that Kentucky is the #2 team behind UNC which could very well be banned from post season play even though SI says they are #1. I guess SI has no respect for its own integrity. They do say that Duke is #9, though. That's about what I'd expect out of SI. One more question -- How will the Terps manage when they play outside of the B1G?

[Kedsy]

I think Luke Winn's piece makes an important point about UNC's chances for next year, beyond simply Paige getting healthy:

"The other big-upside area for Carolina is that it retained three sophomores who were top-25 recruits: wing Justin Jackson (No. 9 in the Recruiting Services Consensus Index), wing Theo Pinson (No. 15) and point guard Joel Berry (No. 25). The statistical projection system that Sports Illustrated debuted last season—based on historic data for thousands of players—is bullish on the year 2 and 3 production of former elite recruits, and Jackson (if his shooting improves) and Pinson (if he can earn playing time in Tokoto's old spot) have real growth potential."

We tend to lose sight of this in these days of 1 and done, but the old adage of "the best thing about freshmen is they become sophmores" still has some truth to it, at least for those who may not come in as true stars. Jackson, Pinson and Berry are all high-level talents, but who have significant room to improve.

Well, UNC also has Hicks, who was a #14 recruit and is going into his third year. Except Hicks wasn't so hot his second year, which is why I assume Luke Winn left him out of his analysis. On the one hand if all four of these guys play to their recruiting ranking, then alongside high-achievers Pagie, Johnson, and Meeks the UNC team looks pretty good (though I still might not rank them #1). On the other hand, if all four play like Isaiah Hicks, then the team doesn't look any better (and maybe worse, sans Tokoto) than last season's edition.

I think Winn's analysis is pretty good overall. Amazing how many teams have gigunda question marks, even the contenders. In addition to UNC's and Duke's question marks (which have been fairly well established at DBR), and Kentucky's question marks (ridiculous to rank that roster #2 before seeing if Labissiere is an All American or not), you have Kansas (replacing Oubre and Alexander with Diallo on a team that was good but nowhere near great), Maryland (replacing Dez Wells and Smotrycz with Sulaimon, Stone, and Carter on a team that was ranked #32 in Pomeroy's final rankings), Iowa State (poor defense and not sure if Hoiberg is staying around), Virginia (lost arguably best overall player plus the ACC defensive player of the year), and Gonzaga (lost entire backcourt).

Should be an interesting season.

[Kedsy]

Kentucky lost a bunch of talented folks from its #1 all year except April team, and Duke also lost a bunch of talented folks from its #1 team when it counts. Now it seems that Duke has signed the #1 incoming class of freshman, but Kentucky has not.

Well, UK returns Ulis, Poythress, and Lee compared to Grayson, Matt, Amile, and Marshall. Objectively, their returning trio is probably better than our returning foursome. UK's newcomers Labissiere and Briscoe probably compare favorably to our top two newcomers (Brandon and Derryck). So it comes down to how much better our remaining newcomers (Sean, Luke, Chase) make the Duke team than whatever UK's going to run out there as 6th and 7th men. If Coach utilizes the depth, that's one thing, but if he only plays seven guys, then we match up against Kentucky like this:

Labissiere v. Ingram (probable advantage UK)
Briscoe v. Thornton (probably close to even)
Ulis v. Allen (hard to say, but arguable advantage UK)
Poythress v. Jefferson (probable advantage UK)
Lee v. Plumlee or Obi or Jeter (probable advantage UK, but not as big an advantage as most people think)
Matthews v. Kennard (probable advantage Duke, but possibly not as big an advantage as most Duke fans think)
Hawkins v. M Jones (advantage Duke)

Looking at that, UK probably has a slightly stronger top seven than Duke has, though Duke will have a considerable depth advantage if Coach K uses it.

Having said all that, I agree with you that Kentucky is ranked way too high on the list at #2 and Duke is ranked too low at #9. But if he ranked UK #5 and Duke #7 it might be hard to argue all that much.

[MChambers]

Well, UK returns Ulis, Poythress, and Lee compared to Grayson, Matt, Amile, and Marshall. Objectively, their returning trio is probably better than our returning foursome. UK's newcomers Labissiere and Briscoe probably compare favorably to our top two newcomers (Brandon and Derryck). So it comes down to how much better our remaining newcomers (Sean, Luke, Chase) make the Duke team than whatever UK's going to run out there as 6th and 7th men. If Coach utilizes the depth, that's one thing, but if he only plays seven guys, then we match up against Kentucky like this:

Labissiere v. Ingram (probable advantage UK)
Briscoe v. Thornton (probably close to even)
Ulis v. Allen (hard to say, but arguable advantage UK)
Poythress v. Jefferson (probable advantage UK)
Lee v. Plumlee or Obi or Jeter (probable advantage UK, but not as big an advantage as most people think)
Matthews v. Kennard (probable advantage Duke, but possibly not as big an advantage as most Duke fans think)
Hawkins v. M Jones (advantage Duke)

Looking at that, UK probably has a slightly stronger top seven than Duke has, though Duke will have a considerable depth advantage if Coach K uses it.

Having said all that, I agree with you that Kentucky is ranked way too high on the list at #2 and Duke is ranked too low at #9. But if he ranked UK #5 and Duke #7 it might be hard to argue all that much.

You left out a comparison:
Calipari vs. K

[Jarhead]

You left out a comparison:
Calipari vs. K

Exactly!

[Troublemaker]

Well, UK returns Ulis, Poythress, and Lee compared to Grayson, Matt, Amile, and Marshall. Objectively, their returning trio is probably better than our returning foursome. UK's newcomers Labissiere and Briscoe probably compare favorably to our top two newcomers (Brandon and Derryck). So it comes down to how much better our remaining newcomers (Sean, Luke, Chase) make the Duke team than whatever UK's going to run out there as 6th and 7th men. If Coach utilizes the depth, that's one thing, but if he only plays seven guys, then we match up against Kentucky like this:

Labissiere v. Ingram (probable advantage UK)
Briscoe v. Thornton (probably close to even)
Ulis v. Allen (hard to say, but arguable advantage UK)
Poythress v. Jefferson (probable advantage UK)
Lee v. Plumlee or Obi or Jeter (probable advantage UK, but not as big an advantage as most people think)
Matthews v. Kennard (probable advantage Duke, but possibly not as big an advantage as most Duke fans think)
Hawkins v. M Jones (advantage Duke)

Looking at that, UK probably has a slightly stronger top seven than Duke has, though Duke will have a considerable depth advantage if Coach K uses it.

Having said all that, I agree with you that Kentucky is ranked way too high on the list at #2 and Duke is ranked too low at #9. But if he ranked UK #5 and Duke #7 it might be hard to argue all that much.

Oooh, I love these player comparison posts

I see it like this:

	Duke	Kentucky	Advantage
C	Jeter / Plumlee / Obi	Skal / Lee	UK
PF	Amile / Ingram	Poythress / Willis	Duke
SF	Ingram / MJones	Mulder / Matthews	Duke
SG	Allen / MJones / Kennard	Briscoe / Hawkins	Duke
PG	Thornton / Kennard	Ulis / Briscoe	UK

So 3 to 2, Duke. But UK arguably has the advantage at the more impactful positions, PG and C.

I would say Duke has a slight edge but it's reasonable to think that Kentucky has it.

[Kedsy]

You left out a comparison:
Calipari vs. K

And of course I agree on that, on almost any measure or level.

Except... short-term NCAA tournament performance. In the six years Calipari has been at UK, he's been to four Final Fours (one championship), one Elite Eight, and one NIT berth. In the same six years, Coach K has been to two Final Fours (two championships), one Elite Eight, one Sweet 16, and two first round exits. Despite the championships, I'd have to say Cal's NCAAT achievements are more impressive during the period.

Just because Calipari is reputed to be a rulebreaker and may not be the best person in the world doesn't mean he can't coach. He's done amazing things with incredibly young rosters year after year.

[Kedsy]

Oooh, I love these player comparison posts

I see it like this:

	Duke	Kentucky	Advantage
C	Jeter / Plumlee / Obi	Skal / Lee	UK
PF	Amile / Ingram	Poythress / Willis	Duke
SF	Ingram / MJones	Mulder / Matthews	Duke
SG	Allen / MJones / Kennard	Briscoe / Hawkins	Duke
PG	Thornton / Kennard	Ulis / Briscoe	UK

So 3 to 2, Duke. But UK arguably has the advantage at the more impactful positions, PG and C.

I would say Duke has a slight edge but it's reasonable to think that Kentucky has it.

I suppose there are lots of ways to break it up. If you split it simply at perimeter/interior it gets murkier:


Labissiere/Lee/Poythress vs. Ingram/Jefferson/Plumlee/Obi/Jeter: probable advantage UK

Ulis/Briscoe/Matthews/Hawkins vs. Thornton/Allen/Jones/Kennard: probably about even, maybe small advantage to Duke


This would imply UK's roster has the advantage.

Ultimately when comparing UK to Duke it comes down to which of Labissiere and Ingram are more impressive (allowing for the fact they play different positions), and whether Thornton can be as good or better than Ulis. Right now, both of those matchups appear to be in Kentucky's favor. But if Duke wins or breaks even in those two, then our superior depth should be able to make up for the huge athleticism advantage Lee/Poythress has over the rest of Duke's frontcourt.

If everything breaks for Duke, then we might have the advantage. Though assuming we're anywhere close to even, I don't really care, since even if we lose head-to-head in the regular season, the NCAA tournament has so many independent variables that the slight difference in team strength won't matter at all.

[BD80]

Well, UK returns Ulis, Poythress, and Lee compared to Grayson, Matt, Amile, and Marshall. Objectively, their returning trio is probably better than our returning foursome. UK's newcomers Labissiere and Briscoe probably compare favorably to our top two newcomers (Brandon and Derryck). So it comes down to how much better our remaining newcomers (Sean, Luke, Chase) make the Duke team than whatever UK's going to run out there as 6th and 7th men. If Coach utilizes the depth, that's one thing, but if he only plays seven guys, then we match up against Kentucky like this:

Labissiere v. Ingram (probable advantage UK)
Briscoe v. Thornton (probably close to even)
Ulis v. Allen (hard to say, but arguable advantage UK)
Poythress v. Jefferson (probable advantage UK)
Lee v. Plumlee or Obi or Jeter (probable advantage UK, but not as big an advantage as most people think)
Matthews v. Kennard (probable advantage Duke, but possibly not as big an advantage as most Duke fans think)
Hawkins v. M Jones (advantage Duke)

Looking at that, UK probably has a slightly stronger top seven than Duke has, though Duke will have a considerable depth advantage if Coach K uses it.

Having said all that, I agree with you that Kentucky is ranked way too high on the list at #2 and Duke is ranked too low at #9. But if he ranked UK #5 and Duke #7 it might be hard to argue all that much.

Comparing individuals undervalues a Duke team and overvalues a Kentucky team.

For example, how well will Brisco share the ball?

[Kedsy]

I suppose there are lots of ways to break it up. If you split it simply at perimeter/interior it gets murkier:


Labissiere/Lee/Poythress vs. Ingram/Jefferson/Plumlee/Obi/Jeter: probable advantage UK

Ulis/Briscoe/Matthews/Mulder vs. Thornton/Allen/Jones/Kennard: probably about even, maybe small advantage to Duke


This would imply UK's roster has the advantage.

I forgot about Mulder. He should be plugged into the perimeter instead of Hawkins. Which probably makes Kentucky stronger than Duke on the perimeter too, though maybe it's even. Overall, I stand by my analysis that UK has a stronger roster than Duke. It remains to be seen whether that translates into a stronger team, however.

[Kedsy]

For example, how well will Brisco share the ball?

Yeah, I thought about that. My guess is, since Lee, Poythress, and Ulis don't really expect to take a lot of shots (and don't need to take a lot of shots to be valuable), then the fact that Briscoe has the reputation of being a ball hog won't matter so much. Should be enough shots left for Labissiere, and that's really all that matters, unless Briscoe is ridiculously inefficient or the rest of the team pouts because they never see the ball. Both of which are possible but not necessarily probable.

[cato]

And of course I agree on that, on almost any measure or level.

Except... short-term NCAA tournament performance. In the six years Calipari has been at UK, he's been to four Final Fours (one championship), one Elite Eight, and one NIT berth. In the same six years, Coach K has been to two Final Fours (two championships), one Elite Eight, one Sweet 16, and two first round exits. Despite the championships, I'd have to say Cal's NCAAT achievements are more impressive during the period.

Just because Calipari is reputed to be a rulebreaker and may not be the best person in the world doesn't mean he can't coach. He's done amazing things with incredibly young rosters year after year.

You know, I never thought about it before, but should we be comparing Calipari at UK to K starting circa 86? History suggests that, even for coaches as exceptional as K and Calipari, there will be a drop off in NCAA success.

[CDu]

You know, I never thought about it before, but should we be comparing Calipari at UK to K starting circa 86? History suggests that, even for coaches as exceptional as K and Calipari, there will be a drop off in NCAA success.

I am not sure that history tells us much with regard to this. We are in a very dramatically different era of college bball than we were 30 years ago. That is not to say the Calipari will keep churning out great tourney runs. Just that his situation is quite different than Coach K's was in 1986-1994.