2016-17 Season, Vegas Odds

[DukieTiger]

Regarding Duke's dependence on freshmen- I feel like it will be less dependence than it seems. Duke is returning 4 starter-level players and all 4 are essentially double-figure scorers. That's still a very good team if the freshmen aren't super-elite.

I feel like this group has less pressure to perform than the Okafor group did. I'd describe it more as opportunity. For example, Jackson and Tatum have the opportunity to be backcourt stars, but if they don't, Duke will probably still start 2 all conference guards in Allen and Kennard.

IMO, the foundation is stronger with upperclassmen than it has been in years, and that significantly raises the floor of this team. That's why I think this is the year Duke ends its ACC Regular Season drought. I don't think you can find a better returning core in the ACC- so other teams will in fact be more dependent on freshmen, even if Duke's are the most prominent.

[BD80]

Regarding Duke's dependence on freshmen- I feel like it will be less dependence than it seems. ...

Ah, if only the Final Four were back at Lucas Oil Stadium this season, it could be Indiapendence!

[Kedsy]

They will run and they will pound the glass and they will win the vast majority of their games that way.

Maybe. Will they really pound the glass? Unless I'm missing someone, their whole roster will only have two players taller than 6'8". Meeks and Hicks, for their size are average or below average overall rebounders (although both are pretty good offensive rebounders, if that's what you mean by pound the glass). Jackson and Pinson are wings who rebound like guards, Pinson is a similar rebounder to Luke Kennard, but Jackson and Berry are only so-so rebounders for guards, despite Jackson's height. Unless Bradley is a beast on the boards, UNC should have its worst rebounding team in years.

[Wander]

I disagree, either only slightly or by a fair amount depending on what a "pretty good, upper-middle-of-the-pack ACC team" means to you. I think they are going to be safely a top-25 team nationally. If all goes well, maybe they threaten the top-10 nationally.

Yeah, we should probably define what "good" vs "very good" means before we just end up talking past each other. I'd put UNC at around #15 or so right now. I would consider that "very good" but others may feel differently. Brice Johnson was great, but power forward is probably the position UNC was best equipped to lose a star player from. Marcus Paige had a good tournament but for the most part Joel Berry was better last year. Losing Joel James is meaningless and maybe even a very slight benefit given Roy's insistence on playing a deep bench. The freshmen class just needs to be decent enough to provide 2 competent bench players in addition to Nate Britt. So I think UNC will not be in serious national title contention, but will handle their losses from last year decently.

[Troublemaker]

Kedsy, would it be fair to say that last offseason, you underestimated the eventual ACC champion, national-title game participant Heels?

That, of course, doesn't mean you won't get it right about them this upcoming season.

[Kedsy]

Kedsy, would it be fair to say that last offseason, you underestimated the eventual ACC champion, national-title game participant Heels?

That, of course, doesn't mean you won't get it right about them this upcoming season.

I definitely underestimated how much that team would achieve, no question about it. I'm not sure if I underestimated UNC or if I overestimated the rest of college basketball. Frankly, I didn't expect Villanova to make the Final Four, either.

But the comment that drew me in to this debate is that UNC will have a very good team without relying on its freshmen. Despite being wrong about last year's UNC ceiling, I'm fairly confident that if this year's UNC team doesn't get surprisingly good contributions from its freshmen, then it's a 4th/5th place ACC team. Maybe better if they rely on a couple freshmen to play big roles and those frosh deliver.

[gumbomoop]

Maybe. Will they really pound the glass? Unless I'm missing someone, their whole roster will only have two players taller than 6'8"... Unless Bradley is a beast on the boards, UNC should have its worst rebounding team in years.

You missed Bradley, usually listed at 6'10". I don't expect him to be a beast his frosh year, but he's ranked #17 in ESPN's final 2016 list, and I think he moved up during his senior year. Looked pretty good to me in AS games.

ETA: My apologies. I misread Kedsy's comment, so he did not miss Bradley.

[CDu]

Maybe. Will they really pound the glass? Unless I'm missing someone, their whole roster will only have two players taller than 6'8". Meeks and Hicks, for their size are average or below average overall rebounders (although both are pretty good offensive rebounders, if that's what you mean by pound the glass). Jackson and Pinson are wings who rebound like guards, Pinson is a similar rebounder to Luke Kennard, but Jackson and Berry are only so-so rebounders for guards, despite Jackson's height. Unless Bradley is a beast on the boards, UNC should have its worst rebounding team in years.

I was referring to "pounding the glass" offensively, as you brought up the question of who would shoot. UNC was not a dominant defensive rebounding team last year either, and I expect that to continue. But they are regularly a strong offensive rebounding team, and I think that will also continue. I think the trio of Meeks, Hicks, and Bradley will be very effective on the offensive glass. I'd put them at most likely no worse than 4th or 5th in the conference, with the chance to be 2nd or 3rd. In this era of heavy turnover, it's dangerous to underestimate a team with tons of experience, and it's dangerous to estimate a team with tons of experience and raw talent.

Maybe this will be the year that the wheels fall off, but I don't think it will be. I think they'll be comfortably a top-25 team and will have an outside shot at top-10. I'd love to be wrong though.

[johnb]

I disagree, either only slightly or by a fair amount depending on what a "pretty good, upper-middle-of-the-pack ACC team" means to you. ...

I'd say upper middle of the pack is about 4th/5th (but below the top 3), and that would probably be national top 25. I have no idea how good Carolina will be, but I can always hope for the best/worst.

[CDu]

I'd say upper middle of the pack is about 4th/5th (but below the top 3), and that would probably be national top 25. I have no idea how good Carolina will be, but I can always hope for the best/worst.

Yeah, like I said, it all depends on what one means by "upper middle of the pack." In a 15 team conference, I'd put that at 6th or 7th (the top two spots of the middle third), with 4th or 5th being the bottom of the top tier. But again, mileage may vary from person to person.

[Kedsy]

Yeah, like I said, it all depends on what one means by "upper middle of the pack." In a 15 team conference, I'd put that at 6th or 7th (the top two spots of the middle third), with 4th or 5th being the bottom of the top tier. But again, mileage may vary from person to person.

As I said in a different post, when I said "upper middle of the pack," I meant 4th or 5th. I suppose it's possible they sneak into 3rd, but it's also possible they'll drop to 6th.

[sagegrouse]

Maybe. Will they really pound the glass? Unless I'm missing someone, their whole roster will only have two players taller than 6'8". Meeks and Hicks, for their size are average or below average overall rebounders (although both are pretty good offensive rebounders, if that's what you mean by pound the glass). Jackson and Pinson are wings who rebound like guards, Pinson is a similar rebounder to Luke Kennard, but Jackson and Berry are only so-so rebounders for guards, despite Jackson's height. Unless Bradley is a beast on the boards, UNC should have its worst rebounding team in years.

Well, it's OK with me if UNC's rebounding tails off this year. Didn't the Heels outrebound us 2:1 in both games last year?

[Kedsy]

Well, it's OK with me if UNC's rebounding tails off this year. Didn't the Heels outrebound us 2:1 in both games last year?

Just the second game. The first game was 1.35:1. Still, your point is valid.

[yancem]

Well, it's OK with me if UNC's rebounding tails off this year. Didn't the Heels outrebound us 2:1 in both games last year?

I don't see that happening this year. Not with them loosing Johnson and us adding Giles and Bolden.

[moonpie23]

Unc is gonna have a difficult time with the snack machine deficit...

[CDu]

I don't see that happening this year. Not with them loosing Johnson and us adding Giles and Bolden.

And Jefferson. Though losing Plumlee, but that is a net positive in rebounding.

[subzero02]

And Jefferson. Though losing Plumlee, but that is a net positive in rebounding.

With our shot blocking and defensive rebounding potential, we could really put up some great defensive efficiency numbers. I know what to expect from Jefferson on the defensive boards but what do people expect from Bolden and Giles? I know we'd have to have a better idea of minutes and rotation to make accurate statistical predictions but I'd be interested in seeing posters' viewpoints.

[-jk]

With our shot blocking and defensive rebounding potential, we could really put up some great defensive efficiency numbers.

Alas, defense is more a team thing. Coordinated.

I hope our guys learn to play together this year...

-jk

[Troublemaker]

With our shot blocking and defensive rebounding potential, we could really put up some great defensive efficiency numbers. I know what to expect from Jefferson on the defensive boards but what do people expect from Bolden and Giles? I know we'd have to have a better idea of minutes and rotation to make accurate statistical predictions but I'd be interested in seeing posters' viewpoints.

Bolden -- advanced defensively for a freshman. Coach K praises his high school coach for being a great defensive teacher. Comes from same high school as Matt.

Giles -- when healthy, an incredible athlete. very switchable on defense and a great rebounder.

[Neals384]

According to the Way Too Early thread, Duke was listed as 5-1 in early May, with Ky at 8-1. So, did the Bolden announcement move the needle that much? And how come Ky is now 7-1 when they didn't get Bolden?