PDA

View Full Version : Dear Media, please anoint UNC as the "Dream Team"



yum dukie
10-03-2011, 05:49 PM
4 Wooden Award candidates - I mean it should be glaringly obvious.
We've got the next Miami Heat/Philly Eagles on our hands.

AluminumDuke
10-03-2011, 05:54 PM
I don't want them to be the next Miami Heat unless we're the Dallas Mavericks that get to beat them in the NCAA championship game.

Gewebe14
10-03-2011, 07:16 PM
How about this load of gobbeldygook

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/15680589/williams-bestever-unc-team-signs-point-toward-affirmative

Handsbro/May >>>>>>> slimson/dweller
Lawson/Felton >>>>>> Marshall
marv => barnes
Ellington/mccant >>>>>>> ?

This is a joke... unc barely beat anyone good lat year and struggled against a bunch of mediocre teams (Duke and UK I think were their only quality wins), but beat Marquette in the sweet 16 and now they are the annointed ones.

It's fine with me - creates more pressure on Ol Huck at the first sight of things turning south.

OldPhiKap
10-03-2011, 07:25 PM
UNC is loaded this year. Absolutely stacked. The only thing that would be able to stop them is if they had a self-absorbed, manic-depressive, bizzare-substituting, bus-throwing-underer as a coach.

So it's a jump ball as to whether they make the FF or flame out miserably.

wilko
10-03-2011, 07:36 PM
UNC is loaded this year. Absolutely stacked. The only thing that would be able to stop them is if they had a self-absorbed, manic-depressive, bizzare-substituting, bus-throwing-underer as a coach.

So it's a jump ball as to whether they make the FF or flame out miserably.
The only thing I want to see them do well is lose games - in the most painful ways possible to torment their fans.

MarkD83
10-03-2011, 08:56 PM
If UNC does not go undefeated it would be a disappointment.

In fact they should win each game by at least 20 or it would be a disappointment. :)

In further fact if Barnes, Henson and Zeller do not average a double double and Marshall does not get 15 assists a game it would be a disappointment. :)

(Nothing ruins enjoying a good sports season like unreasonable expectations.)

TonyWR
10-03-2011, 09:13 PM
4 Wooden Award candidates - I mean it should be glaringly obvious.
We've got the next Miami Heat/Philly Eagles on our hands.

The media doesn't have to declare them a dream team, the tarhole faithful have been spouting that idiocy for many months. It started the second Duke won the ACC championship!

uh_no
10-03-2011, 09:20 PM
Be careful guys. How UNC fans sound now is exactly how Duke fans sounded at the beginning of last year. We had our fun, and unfortunately didn't win. They'll have their fun, and hopefully not win.

Greg_Newton
10-03-2011, 09:47 PM
I'm all for building up preseason expectations for UNC as high as possible. Does absolutely nothing except make their accomplishments seem less impressive and their failures seem more shameful once the season starts!

Mike Corey
10-03-2011, 09:53 PM
We'll see if Humble Harry and Co. skype it in this year once the Dream Team's stars realize they can't all average 20 ppg.

watzone
10-04-2011, 10:44 AM
Objectively, UNC will get my vote at Operation Basketball and my first team will have three Tar Heels on it and one on the second team. They're going to get plenty of hype for sure and that may or may not have a long term effect. They have ridiculous talent up front, but Marshall drives the bus and is the key player for this team. As for the Heels fan base, anything other than a national title will be disappointing. I fully expect the voters in the Top 25 to be unanimous in picking the Heels #1. Ohio State, UConn and Kentucky could steal a vote or two though. I cannot remember a season where the top four teams looked more obvious in the pre season.

gumbomoop
10-04-2011, 11:40 AM
Objectively, UNC will get my vote at Operation Basketball and my first team will have three Tar Heels on it and one on the second team. They're going to get plenty of hype for sure and that may or may not have a long term effect. They have ridiculous talent up front, but Marshall drives the bus and is the key player for this team. As for the Heels fan base, anything other than a national title will be disappointing. I fully expect the voters in the Top 25 to be unanimous in picking the Heels #1. Ohio State, UConn and Kentucky could steal a vote or two though. I cannot remember a season where the top four teams looked more obvious in the pre season.

I'd be curious as to who's the 2d-teamer, as, IMO, KM is easily - easily - the "most valuable" Heel-guy, not to mention easily - easily - the ACC's top PG. The Heels have lots of talent-depth, except at PG, where the drop-off is precipitous. A, perhaps the, key to Heels' fortunes is KM's health. No KM, discombobulation-Heel-nation.

The top 3 do seem obvious, and Drummond's decision makes UConn the logical #4. Vandy, Duke, 'Cuse probably fighting for consensus #5.

I'd guess that, save for EK readers, few fans are even familiar enough with the specifics of the Heels in 2010-11 to realize that an argument - plausible, even persuasive, certainly not crazy - can be made that the Heels, for all that talent, didn't play so well last year. The only memory of last season's Heels seems to be the Marquette game. Sure, they played "well enough" [except not quite well enough] v. UK, but they messed up some in that game, too.

But it would perhaps take a Duke, or maybe UK, fanatic to claim the Heels are vastly overrated. High expectations seem justified for the top 3. UConn, possibly. And fans of another half-dozen teams can be very optimistic, too.

HaveFunExpectToWin
10-04-2011, 11:50 AM
4 Wooden Award candidates - I mean it should be glaringly obvious.
We've got the next Miami Heat/Philly Eagles on our hands.

Vandy has 3 players on the list (Fez, JT, and JJ). Are we at least Argentina or Spain?

nocilla
10-04-2011, 11:55 AM
I cannot remember a season where the top four teams looked more obvious in the pre season.

Not 4, but I think it was pretty obvious last year that Duke, Mich St, and Purdue were the top 3 and there was a big dropoff to the next group of KSU, OSU, and Pitt. Of course then there was the Hummel injury and the Kyrie injury and whatever happened to MSU. The same can happen this year. If Marshall gets hurt UNC is done. If Sullinger gets hurt OSU is done. MSU was perceived as great because they had a Final Four run and returned everyone. Sounds eerily similar to something we have heard this year...

sagegrouse
10-04-2011, 12:52 PM
Vandy has 3 players on the list (Fez, JT, and JJ). Are we at least Argentina or Spain?

No, we will have three players added to the list at midseason. The preseason Wooden list is a mindless exercise. When the Los Angeles Athletic Club (the sponsor) compiles its list, it looks at scoring and other stats from the previous season. It does not include recruits. Duke has no player returning that averaged double digits or racked up other eye-popping stats (although Mason's RB numbers were pretty good). That's the cost of graduating (!) two AA players. This list is in line with the view that the most overlooked player entering the season is the skilled sophomore or junior who is suddenly getting many more minutes or is needed to fill a huge scoring gap.

Anyway, I'll bet three of Seth, Austin, Mason and Ryan get added at midseason.

sagegrouse

CDu
10-04-2011, 01:36 PM
Not 4, but I think it was pretty obvious last year that Duke, Mich St, and Purdue were the top 3 and there was a big dropoff to the next group of KSU, OSU, and Pitt. Of course then there was the Hummel injury and the Kyrie injury and whatever happened to MSU. The same can happen this year. If Marshall gets hurt UNC is done. If Sullinger gets hurt OSU is done. MSU was perceived as great because they had a Final Four run and returned everyone. Sounds eerily similar to something we have heard this year...

The MSU thing was strange. Their 2010 run didn't involve facing a single top-tier seed (#4 seed was the highest they faced) and they got good fortune in not losing any of the close games they played those first two weekends (they won by 3, 2, 9, and 1). And they lost two key starters in Morgan (a big loss in my opinion, as he was a matchup problem for opponents) and Allen (a terrific shooter). Yet because they managed to "good fortune" into the Final Four and returned Lucas, Summers, and Green, they were hyped as a top-3 team.

Purdue was a legitimate pick. They were a top-10 team that returned everyone except Grant and Kramer and included 3 All-Big 10 players. But the Hummel injury destroyed them.

The comparison of MSU to UNC would be more apt if UNC didn't have a ton more talent than that MSU team. UNC is probably being overrated a bit, but they bring a lot more talent than the MSU team that was overrated.

Rich
10-04-2011, 02:00 PM
I fully expect the voters in the Top 25 to be unanimous in picking the Heels #1. Ohio State, UConn and Kentucky could steal a vote or two though. I cannot remember a season where the top four teams looked more obvious in the pre season.

I guess Ohio State just became my second favorite team. Between UConn, Kentucky and UNC, it's tough to decide the order of my disdain.

Wheat/"/"/"
10-04-2011, 02:04 PM
FWIW,

Last year was a tale of two seasons, pre-Drew, and post Drew.

A couple of overlooked points to consider.

I heard from people I consider reliable, that Henson is noticably more confident and stronger and is now at 6'11", 220lbs. He'll be a beast. Top 5 draft pick, IMO.

Other reports have Reggie Bullock back to being healthy and playing very well. Some forget he was a 5* recruit coming in last season and was just getting over the freshman learning curve before his injury. He's a player with NBA talent if he can stay healthy.

The biggest thing is this UNC team will be very good defensively, and hard to score on, you can count on it.

Kedsy
10-04-2011, 02:10 PM
The MSU thing was strange. Their 2010 run didn't involve facing a single top-tier seed (#4 seed was the highest they faced) and they got good fortune in not losing any of the close games they played those first two weekends (they won by 3, 2, 9, and 1). And they lost two key starters in Morgan (a big loss in my opinion, as he was a matchup problem for opponents) and Allen (a terrific shooter). Yet because they managed to "good fortune" into the Final Four and returned Lucas, Summers, and Green, they were hyped as a top-3 team.

Purdue was a legitimate pick. They were a top-10 team that returned everyone except Grant and Kramer and included 3 All-Big 10 players. But the Hummel injury destroyed them.

The comparison of MSU to UNC would be more apt if UNC didn't have a ton more talent than that MSU team. UNC is probably being overrated a bit, but they bring a lot more talent than the MSU team that was overrated.

Personally, I think the "MSU" of this year might be UConn. They were a middling Big East team (before their championship run) who have lost their best player (by far) from last year. Yes, they got a great recruit in Drummond, but will he be more valuable than Walker? In my mind UConn will be way overrated to begin the season.

AluminumDuke
10-04-2011, 02:16 PM
FWIW, Last year was a tale of two seasons, pre-Drew, and post Drew.

Just like last year was a tale of two seasons for Duke, pre-toe (Kyrie's) and post-toe. As dependent as Duke's hopes were on Kyrie's health, Carolina is far more dependent on Marshall's.

NSDukeFan
10-04-2011, 02:31 PM
I'd be curious as to who's the 2d-teamer, as, IMO, KM is easily - easily - the "most valuable" Heel-guy, not to mention easily - easily - the ACC's top PG. The Heels have lots of talent-depth, except at PG, where the drop-off is precipitous. A, perhaps the, key to Heels' fortunes is KM's health. No KM, discombobulation-Heel-nation.

The top 3 do seem obvious, and Drummond's decision makes UConn the logical #4. Vandy, Duke, 'Cuse probably fighting for consensus #5.

I'd guess that, save for EK readers, few fans are even familiar enough with the specifics of the Heels in 2010-11 to realize that an argument - plausible, even persuasive, certainly not crazy - can be made that the Heels, for all that talent, didn't play so well last year. The only memory of last season's Heels seems to be the Marquette game. Sure, they played "well enough" [except not quite well enough] v. UK, but they messed up some in that game, too.

But it would perhaps take a Duke, or maybe UK, fanatic to claim the Heels are vastly overrated. High expectations seem justified for the top 3. UConn, possibly. And fans of another half-dozen teams can be very optimistic, too.

I realize his strength is passing and I really like Marshall's game and vision, but should we wait until he at least has his sixth college double figure scoring game before we anoint him first team all-ACC and call him easily the best PG in the conference?

I agree with most of what you are saying and that Marshall was a game changer for UNC last year, but for a guy whose strength isn't defense, is he perhaps being a little overrated now. This might be compared to how he was underrated on this board at the start of last year when Kyrie was playing and he looked like the ugly sister in comparison?

Wheat/"/"/"
10-04-2011, 02:33 PM
Just like last year was a tale of two seasons for Duke, pre-toe (Kyrie's) and post-toe. As dependent as Duke's hopes were on Kyrie's health, Carolina is far more dependent on Marshall's.

I think this UNC team is deeper everywhere than last year's Duke team. Losing Kyrie was a major blow for Duke.

I don't dispute that UNC is a much better with Marshall than without. They might not be the favorite without Marshall, but due to the overall depth, this team starting Strickland at PG, is still capable of winning a title, IMO.

uh_no
10-04-2011, 02:34 PM
Personally, I think the "MSU" of this year might be UConn. They were a middling Big East team (before their championship run) who have lost their best player (by far) from last year. Yes, they got a great recruit in Drummond, but will he be more valuable than Walker? In my mind UConn will be way overrated to begin the season.

Consider, though, that it wasn't Kemba walker that made them great in the tournament last year, but their defense and rebounding. They have bolstered their frontcourt with arguably the best incoming big man in the nation. I expect a team which will once again dominate on defense and on the boards (as long as they were last year, they're even longer this year).

I do, though, as you point out, expect them to struggle offensively at times. That struggle has been a one of calhoun's problems in past years. In the end, much like duke, they have a lot of potential guys sitting on the team (lamb, along with drummond) and will be running with nappier, who though he made great strides last year, still has a lot of room to grow.

Will the addition of drummond be enough? we'll see. Personally, I don't think there's a team in the country that will be able to match up with uconn's size, but it is to be seen whether they can be beaten in other ways.

Duvall
10-04-2011, 02:37 PM
I think this UNC team is deeper everywhere than last year's Duke team. Losing Kyrie was a major blow for Duke.

Losing Kyrie Irving would be a major blow for most NBA teams. Depth has nothing to do with it.


I don't dispute that UNC is a much better with Marshall than without. They might not be the favorite without Marshall, but due to the overall depth, this team starting Strickland at PG, is still capable of winning a title, IMO.

Wow. That's a Bersticker-class Wheatism, I think.

Wheat/"/"/"
10-04-2011, 03:35 PM
Losing Kyrie Irving would be a major blow for most NBA teams. Depth has nothing to do with it.


I thought it did.

When Kyrie went down, things shifted. Nolan had to assume the PG duties and the scoring duties. And he did great.
But that ended up putting a ton of pressure on Singler, and he struggled, mainly because there was no Nolan playing off the ball with him and defenses were able to key on him. When defenses focused on Singler, the remaining scoring depth, especially inside, just was not there.

Lets look at my point hypothetically about UNC. If Marshall was to go out, UNC will still have a capable ballhandler, its best defender, explosive scorer, if not consistant, on the floor at the point.

At every other position on the floor, Barnes, Henson, Zeller, Hairston, McAdoo and Bullock can still be expected to score, and Watts can even be expected to contribute.

I think that's depth that Duke just didn't have last season.

So you're saying this UNC team can't win it all without Marshall?

Duvall
10-04-2011, 04:12 PM
I thought it did.

When Kyrie went down, things shifted. Nolan had to assume the PG duties and the scoring duties. And he did great.
But that ended up putting a ton of pressure on Singler, and he struggled, mainly because there was no Nolan playing off the ball with him and defenses were able to key on him. When defenses focused on Singler, the remaining scoring depth, especially inside, just was not there.

This is wrong. Singler had defenses keying on him from his freshman year. If there was a problem with depth, it was at the other end of the floor, where Duke lacked other options to guard wing players.


Lets look at my point hypothetically about UNC. If Marshall was to go out, UNC will still have a capable ballhandler, its best defender, explosive scorer, if not consistant, on the floor at the point.

Who's this capable ballhandler? Maybe I haven't paid enough attention to Stillman White.

Wheat/"/"/"
10-04-2011, 04:45 PM
This is wrong. Singler had defenses keying on him from his freshman year. If there was a problem with depth, it was at the other end of the floor, where Duke lacked other options to guard wing players.



Who's this capable ballhandler? Maybe I haven't paid enough attention to Stillman White.

Strickland is the capable ballhandler. Now if we lose him and Marshall, there's issues.

Duvall
10-04-2011, 04:50 PM
Strickland is the capable ballhandler.

Like I said, Berstickerian.

AluminumDuke
10-04-2011, 06:44 PM
I don't dispute that UNC is a much better with Marshall than without. They might not be the favorite without Marshall, but due to the overall depth, this team starting Strickland at PG, is still capable of winning a title, IMO.

IMO, Duke was capable of winning a title without Irving last year as well (they were a number one seed, after all), although also not the favorite. And I'd argue that Nolan was a much more capable starting PG than Strickland will ever be. If Marshall is lost for the season after eight games, will you predict that Strickland will be leading the ACC in scoring and assists into the last week of the regular season?

Wheat/"/"/"
10-04-2011, 07:59 PM
...... I'd argue that Nolan was a much more capable starting PG than Strickland will ever be. If Marshall is lost for the season after eight games, will you predict that Strickland will be leading the ACC in scoring and assists into the last week of the regular season?

Short answer, no.

Nolan was an outstanding PG, and given the choice I'd take Nolan over Strickland to start a team myself.

We've somehow taken off on a line of thought comparing Dex and Nolan, and that was not my original point.

That point was, and the only point I was trying to make, is that THIS years UNC team has more depth than LAST years Duke team and that THIS UNC team is more likely to survive a potential loss of Marshall than Duke's LAST team was after Kyrie went down.

Clear as the Cape Fear.
That's it. All I was trying to say. :)

gumbomoop
10-04-2011, 08:00 PM
I realize his strength is passing and I really like Marshall's game and vision, but should we wait until he at least has his sixth college double figure scoring game before we anoint him first team all-ACC and call him easily the best PG in the conference?

I'm not backing off my claim/prediction. Of course, I could be wrong. Truly hope I am.

I'm inclined to liken Marshall's impact on his team to that of Aaron Craft of tOSU, though for a quite different reason. Neither has to score much to be his team's key. For Marshall, it's his O-facilitation through brilliant passing: long, into post with a variety of nifty spins and perfect placements, and finding guys who are open with needle-threaders. For Craft, it's D-fierceness and D-footwork, pass-flicks, sneaky steals direct and from behind, hard-nosed leadership. I'd put both these guys in top 5 nationally in terms of key-ness to his team. Both are irreplaceable, if their teams are to get to FF.

Thus, ......


So you're saying this UNC team can't win it all without Marshall?

....... my response to Wheat's question is, they "can," but their odds go way, way down. They become a still-talented, but leaderless team. Strickland has his strengths, but ballhandling, vision, tempo, assists, consistency, leadership..... nope. [Blame Kyrie; Roy does.] Neither UNC nor tOSU is likely to make the FF, should injury befall Marshall or Craft.

As none of us hopes any player sustains a season-ending injury, I'll hope Marshall decides to transfer to UCLA. And just in case he decides to stick it out in CH, I really pray Aaron Craft stays healthy, just in case the Heels make it past the self-same Bruins next March in the Sweet 16. If the Heels can get past the Bruins, tOSU will be one of the few who can top the Heels. And I'm pretty sure Wheat will not say that tOSU "can't" beat the Heels.

Deathby3
10-04-2011, 09:13 PM
So you're saying this UNC team can't win it all without Marshall?


I'm a UNC fan and I'll say it. UNC can lose almost anyone other than KM and still be a top team. Without KM, UNC is a team that struggles to dribble, make passes, and put the ball in the basket on a regular bases. Look back at last season and you can clearly see that his emergence was directly related to UNC's messing together and winning the ACC Regular Season.

Wheat/"/"/"
10-04-2011, 09:47 PM
....Without KM, UNC is a team that struggles to dribble, make passes, and put the ball in the basket on a regular bases. Look back at last season and you can clearly see that his emergence was directly related to UNC's messing together and winning the ACC Regular Season.

He was the turning point player, no doubt, but keep in mind this team is is not last years team.
They are much more experienced, Bullock returns and we add two players that address the shooting needs which hurt last year.

I am expecting progression, and I think its possible a Jr. Strickland can play enough solid PG to take this group to a title, if he had to.

Everyone please feel free to disagree, and I hope we never have to find out who might be right.

I do agree KM is a key player on this team for them to be their best, and that the team plays better with him, than without.

Deathby3
10-04-2011, 10:05 PM
I think DS should be the third SG off of the bench or backup PG at best. UNC needs consistent scoring from the 2 spot to free up HB and the bigs inside. DS only has one speed and seems to have blinders on when he has the ball in his hand. If UNC is running, he can contribute nicely. In a half court game, his is as valuable as Larry Drew was last year. KM will have to step up his scoring as well. His father said that his son has focused on finishing at the rim with both hands. Finishing at the rim and a nasty Nolan floater would make him tough to stop.

sagegrouse
10-04-2011, 10:20 PM
I think DS should be the third SG off of the bench or backup PG at best. UNC needs consistent scoring from the 2 spot to free up HB and the bigs inside. DS only has one speed and seems to have blinders on when he has the ball in his hand. If UNC is running, he can contribute nicely. In a half court game, his is as valuable as Larry Drew was last year. KM will have to step up his scoring as well. His father said that his son has focused on finishing at the rim with both hands. Finishing at the rim and a nasty Nolan floater would make him tough to stop.

Look, UNC could be a juggernaut this year -- what with all the talent returning to the Heels and the losses elsewhere in college hoops. But there's a reason they play the games. The last seven games of last season, UNC was listless and lifeless in five of them -- pretty much horrible in all three games of the ACC tourney, unimpressive against LIU and UDub, great against Marquette and, I suppose, OK in the loss to Kentucky. Why did this happen? Why the evident lack of effort? Leadership? Coaching? Maturity? Who's to say that UNC won't be equally mediocre for a good part of 2011-2012?

Anyway, we should all be happy that there is a reason to play the games.

sagegrouse

Wheat/"/"/"
10-04-2011, 10:38 PM
Look, UNC could be a juggernaut this year -- what with all the talent returning to the Heels and the losses elsewhere in college hoops. But there's a reason they play the games. The last seven games of last season, UNC was listless and lifeless in five of them -- pretty much horrible in all three games of the ACC tourney, unimpressive against LIU and UDub, great against Marquette and, I suppose, OK in the loss to Kentucky. Why did this happen? Why the evident lack of effort? Leadership? Coaching? Maturity? Who's to say that UNC won't be equally mediocre for a good part of 2011-2012?

Anyway, we should all be happy that there is a reason to play the games.

sagegrouse
Maturity was lacking, maybe some player leadership early on, but I never saw a lack of effort, or coaching myself. Coaching that team to the elite 8 and almost making the final four was strong, I thought.

You are absolutely correct, the games must be played...everyone is 0-0 right now.

Kedsy
10-05-2011, 12:26 AM
Consider, though, that it wasn't Kemba walker that made them great in the tournament last year, but their defense and rebounding. They have bolstered their frontcourt with arguably the best incoming big man in the nation. I expect a team which will once again dominate on defense and on the boards (as long as they were last year, they're even longer this year).

I do, though, as you point out, expect them to struggle offensively at times. That struggle has been a one of calhoun's problems in past years. In the end, much like duke, they have a lot of potential guys sitting on the team (lamb, along with drummond) and will be running with nappier, who though he made great strides last year, still has a lot of room to grow.

Will the addition of drummond be enough? we'll see. Personally, I don't think there's a team in the country that will be able to match up with uconn's size, but it is to be seen whether they can be beaten in other ways.

Well, I don't think they win the title without Kemba. Frankly, I don't think they make the NCAAT without Kemba.

Ultimately, I agree with you that UConn will be a good team this year. But there's a difference between a good team and a dominant one. Is UConn one of the four teams who are head and shoulders above the rest of the nation? I'd say no, although if Drummond plays at an All-America level, then maybe. Either way, I think they're currently overrated based on last year's tourney performance.


So you're saying this UNC team can't win it all without Marshall?

I'm going to join the legion of posters who answer "damn straight" to this. Without Marshall, I think UNC would be lucky to make the Sweet 16. Strickland is a good defender, and can finish on the break, but speaking as someone who wants to see UNC lose, I'm always happy when he has the ball in his hands. In my opinion, Larry Drew is a significantly better PG than Strickland.

Wander
10-05-2011, 01:07 AM
UNC can win the title without Marshall, but the chances would drop really dramatically. Kentucky would become the favorite. Barnes, Henson, and Zeller may be better individually, but Marshall is the Heels' most valuable player. Remember, Coach K centered his whole game plan last year against Carolina on neutralizing Marshall.

Kedsy
10-05-2011, 01:15 AM
UNC can win the title without Marshall, but the chances would drop really dramatically. Kentucky would become the favorite.

Kentucky will have one (1) player in their rotation who has more than one (1) year of college experience. Obviously a lot of talent there, but I don't think anybody could know at this stage whether they'll be great, or just good. Too inexperienced to tell, with no doubt a lot of freshman mistakes in their future.

Frankly, I'm amused when people anoint UNC, Kentucky, Ohio State, and UConn as the overwhelming favorites for the Final Four. I'll be surprised if more than one or two from that group make it that far.

Wander
10-05-2011, 01:19 AM
Kentucky will have one (1) player in their rotation who has more than one (1) year of college experience. Obviously a lot of talent there, but I don't think anybody could know at this stage whether they'll be great, or just good. Too inexperienced to tell, with no doubt a lot of freshman mistakes in their future.


Well, in a universe where UNC doesn't have Kendall Marshall, who would you say is the favorite? I'm not exactly going against conventional wisdom by picking Kentucky.

Kedsy
10-05-2011, 01:19 AM
Remember, Coach K centered his whole game plan last year against Carolina on neutralizing Marshall.

This is a good point. You can be sure other teams will try the same strategy. It will be interesting to see how well it works (if at all). If teams find they can neutralize Marshall, then UNC's road to greatness becomes a lot rockier.

Kedsy
10-05-2011, 01:28 AM
Well, in a universe where UNC doesn't have Kendall Marshall, who would you say is the favorite? I'm not exactly going against conventional wisdom by picking Kentucky.

I'd say in that case there is no clear favorite. At least from what we know now. Once February and March roll around we'll have a much better idea whether youthful teams like Kentucky and UConn look likely to live up to the hype. How much Ohio State misses Diebler and Lighty. Whether some other team (like Syracuse in 2010) was grossly underrated and can challenge for a championship. Whether teams like Duke or Texas or Syracuse will gel sufficiently to challenge. We don't have enough information at this point in time to make an intelligent assessment. The experts who say otherwise are just trying to sell ad space.

Wander
10-05-2011, 01:53 PM
I'd say in that case there is no clear favorite. At least from what we know now. Once February and March roll around we'll have a much better idea whether youthful teams like Kentucky and UConn look likely to live up to the hype. How much Ohio State misses Diebler and Lighty. Whether some other team (like Syracuse in 2010) was grossly underrated and can challenge for a championship. Whether teams like Duke or Texas or Syracuse will gel sufficiently to challenge. We don't have enough information at this point in time to make an intelligent assessment. The experts who say otherwise are just trying to sell ad space.

You're using a different definition of the word "favorite" than most people use. There's always a favorite (or tie for favorite) by definition, and the oddsmakers agree with me that if not for Carolina, Kentucky would be the favorite. You're right that this can change throughout the season, and of course it's possible that Kentucky (or UNC or anyone else) doesn't measure up to their hype, but this is where things stand now.

I agree that two or less of UNC/UK/OSU/UConn making the Final Four is likely. That's a good long-term perspective to have.

Kedsy
10-05-2011, 02:37 PM
You're using a different definition of the word "favorite" than most people use. There's always a favorite (or tie for favorite) by definition, and the oddsmakers agree with me that if not for Carolina, Kentucky would be the favorite. You're right that this can change throughout the season, and of course it's possible that Kentucky (or UNC or anyone else) doesn't measure up to their hype, but this is where things stand now.

I agree that two or less of UNC/UK/OSU/UConn making the Final Four is likely. That's a good long-term perspective to have.

Yes, of course you are right about someone being the oddsmakers' favorite. I'm not really arguing with you so much as I am more or less reacting to the general chatter that the top four teams this year are so dominant and light years ahead of the rest of the field, when in reality they all have huge question marks written all over them. Other than possibly UNC (although they, too, have lots of questions and if Marshall gets hurt all bets are off for them as well), I don't see the top teams being any more dominant than the top teams were last year or the year before or the year before, etc. And historically the pre-season top four don't have such a great track record in becoming the post-season top four.

uh_no
10-05-2011, 02:48 PM
And historically the pre-season top four don't have such a great track record in becoming the post-season top four.

People say this all the time, but there are plenty of examples of preseason favorites succeeding throughout the year.

Just because a team was picked at the top preseason does not make them any more likely to fail....do you think if duke were ranked first preseason they'd be more likely to fail than if they were ranked fifth? NO. Preseason predictions will often be innacurate whether they are for high or low ranking teams. There is simply a low correlation. This does NOT imply that being ranked high will imply a team is more likely to fail. Of course it is more likely that they will not meet expectations, but in the same vain, a team ranked at the bottom will be more likely to exceed expectations. Its a function of statistics, not some magical voodoo that dooms high ranking teams.

/Rant

(not aimed at you, kedsy, just at the general crowd who thinks if you are higher ranked, you are more likely to fail)

Wander
10-05-2011, 02:51 PM
I don't see the top teams being any more dominant than the top teams were last year or the year before or the year before, etc.

Oh, I'd take it a step further even - aside from UNC, I think the preseason top four is weaker than average this year. That's just intuition, of course, but I don't see a huge gap between the non-UNC teams there and Baylor or Vanderbilt or Duke or Syracuse.

Wheat/"/"/"
10-05-2011, 03:19 PM
UNC can win the title without Marshall, but the chances would drop really dramatically. Kentucky would become the favorite. Barnes, Henson, and Zeller may be better individually, but Marshall is the Heels' most valuable player. Remember, Coach K centered his whole game plan last year against Carolina on neutralizing Marshall.

Last year UNC's weakness was team chemistry/inexperience early on and then it was outside shooting. It was one of the worst 3pt shooting teams in UNC's history. I agree with you and thought the lack of a shooting threat did allow teams to focus on Marshall, and disrupt the offense, but I don't think the opposition will have that luxuary this season with the addition of PJ Hairston, and a healthy Bullock and a better Barnes. Even McAdoo is supossed to have range outside the 3pt line. I would really love to have had Lmac on the floor, because he was settling down and can shoot it too. He is gonna be missed because now there will be more reliance on the freshman, which is always interesting.

With the defense this team plays, just a little better 3pt shooting % over last year will go a long, long ways. We only saw flashes of how good this team can be last season, and when we did, it was dominating.

Strickland at point is not a bad thing, he's just not Marshall. The kid can play and I'd say would probably start at PG for at least 1/2 the teams in the ACC.

UNC would not be the favorite for a title without Marshall, but I don't concede they wouldn't have a good chance without him.

uh_no
10-05-2011, 03:19 PM
Oh, I'd take it a step further even - aside from UNC, I think the preseason top four is weaker than average this year. That's just intuition, of course, but I don't see a huge gap between the non-UNC teams there and Baylor or Vanderbilt or Duke or Syracuse.

I think the argument against duke has to be this:

last year we got beaten by a team who just destroyed us physically: we couldn't defend them. What has changed for duke that would cause us to win or even come close in that game this year? It might be a further emergence of one of the plumlees or one of the freshman, or anyone, but its still a big question mark sitting there. UK and OSU showed they can play with anyone in the country all of last year, and seem just as strong this year. Uconn had 3 10 point losses last year, 2 of whom to teams they went on to later beat, and the other to St. Johns. If you want to argue that they are susceptible to offensive issues, then yes I agree with you.

I'll say this: the preseason poll is a crapshoot. its almost exclusively based on 2 things: preveious season's success, and number of players returning. OSU UK and UNC are up there because of that. Uconn winning the title puts them there despite losing arguably the most valuable player (for his team) in the country because they added the best incoming big man in the country (they were ranked outside the top 10 before drummond, I believe).

I don't know why I even qualify "preseason" the polls are always a crapshoot based on the previous weeks rankings and who lost that week. I don't know why we even care that much. Do I think the 4 are the best in the country? I do , but its not hard to make an argument that other teams are better than uconn. Do I think they are far and away the best? I think UNC and UK are. I thought OSU had a weak schedule last year, and I think there is a LOT depending on the improvement of lamb/nappier for uconn (give offseason reports sound promising). If I had to guess, I'd say that OSU and Uconn were a lot closer to duke and syracuse than they are to UNC and UK.

Kedsy
10-05-2011, 03:40 PM
People say this all the time, but there are plenty of examples of preseason favorites succeeding throughout the year.

Just because a team was picked at the top preseason does not make them any more likely to fail....do you think if duke were ranked first preseason they'd be more likely to fail than if they were ranked fifth? NO. Preseason predictions will often be innacurate whether they are for high or low ranking teams. There is simply a low correlation. This does NOT imply that being ranked high will imply a team is more likely to fail. Of course it is more likely that they will not meet expectations, but in the same vain, a team ranked at the bottom will be more likely to exceed expectations. Its a function of statistics, not some magical voodoo that dooms high ranking teams.

/Rant

(not aimed at you, kedsy, just at the general crowd who thinks if you are higher ranked, you are more likely to fail)

I understand you weren't singling me out, but I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't suggesting voodoo or that being at the top makes a team more likely to fail. I agree with you that all pre-season predictions tend to be inaccurate. I would, however, argue that it's not simply a matter of statistics. I think pre-season predictions are much less accurate than statistics would suggest based on the simple randomness of the college game or the NCAA tournament. Because the rankings are made without seeing the teams in action, and are based largely on last year's tournament performance, they are inherently poor predictors.

My point was that a lot of "experts," as well as a lot of posters here, have been saying that this year the top four is more dominant than usual and implying that if these four teams don't make the Final Four it will be somewhat of a fluke. But the fact is that pre-season ranking is a notoriously poor predictor for the Final Four. Only once in the last ten years have more than two of the AP pre-season top four made the Final Four. Six out of ten years that number has been one or zero. The average has been 1.4 of such teams making it. Which admittedly is probably a higher percentage than most or all other groupings of four teams, but still low enough that nobody should be talking about dominance at this stage of the year.

Kedsy
10-05-2011, 03:54 PM
We only saw flashes of how good this team can be last season, and when we did, it was dominating.

Really? Who did they dominate? In their last 15 games, UNC won by more than 15 points exactly once (Marquette by 18). They also lost three of those 15 games and won six of the games by 5 points or fewer. I'd hardly call that dominant.

And, yes, I understand they beat St. Francis (PA) by 48 points and had a string of three solid wins in late January/early February. But whether or not UNC plays to its potential this year, "dominating" is not a word you can fairly apply to last year's UNC team.

Kedsy
10-05-2011, 04:04 PM
I think the argument against duke has to be this:

last year we got beaten by a team who just destroyed us physically: we couldn't defend them. What has changed for duke that would cause us to win or even come close in that game this year? It might be a further emergence of one of the plumlees or one of the freshman, or anyone, but its still a big question mark sitting there.

And I think the argument against this argument is how does one game prove anything? If last year's Duke team had played Arizona ten times, we probably would have won eight. Would this year's team be any better or worse if we'd beaten Arizona in that one game?

All of the teams have question marks, and for most teams last year's performance has very little to do with how they'll look this year. Especially Kentucky, who lost three out of their six man rotation and is replacing them with freshmen, and UConn, who for offense was almost completely reliant on one player who is no longer on the team. Ohio State lost two senior starters as well. Whether or not these teams are better than Duke, I don't think their question marks are any smaller than ours.

gumbomoop
10-05-2011, 04:07 PM
[1]With the defense this team plays.... We only saw [2] flashes of how good this team can be last season, and when we did, it was dominating.

Strickland at point is [3] not a bad thing, he's [4] just not Marshall. The kid can play and I'd say would probably [5] start at PG for at least 1/2 the teams in the ACC.

UNC would not be the favorite for a title without Marshall, but I don't concede they wouldn't have a [6] good chance without him.

1. I'm inclined to agree with you about the D. Henson is a force. Zeller got much better at overplaying and intercepting some soft passes into the post. Barnes can be a ferocious defender. Strickland might be strong defender. Marshall is slow, but really smart on D. JMMcA will help right away.

2. True about dominating flashes, but the flashes were infrequent, to put it kindly. The 2010-11 Heels were hardly a dominating team, even after Drew withdrew. Most of the time, they played tentatively rather than smoothly. They do, yes, possess the potential to have more than a few dominating wins this season.

3/5. Strickland is by no means a "bad" player. He might start at PG for some ACC teams, but only if any team just didn't have even an "adequate" alternative. I repeat [from a previous post]: blame Kyrie; Roy does.

4. Allow me to repeat, from a previous post, how "just not Marshall" is Strickland: ballhandling, vision, tempo, assists, consistency, leadership -- Marshall, yep, Strickland, nope. If you think Strickland is remotely close to Marshall in any of these categories, I'll be a bit surprised, because you know the Heels, and you are not a nutter.

6. Chance, yes. Good chance, well, we could debate this. By my own - and the overwhelming consensus - logic, since Marshall is clearly the key to the Heels' FF hopes, I'd have to say, "Not a good chance." OTOH, I really am impressed with their talent and depth. I think McAdoo is the next great Heel, and will contribute substantially this year. IMO, McAdoo is much closer, replacement-contribution-wise, to Zeller/Henson than is Strickland to Marshall. I'm willing to believe than Bullock and Hairston can shoot some 3s. I believe Roy will push them to play D. So, it is a measure of how overwhelmingly important I think Marshall is, that I'd still, so far, question your insistence that the Heels would have a "good chance" to win it all without him.

Wander
10-05-2011, 04:23 PM
UNC would not be the favorite for a title without Marshall, but I don't concede they wouldn't have a good chance without him.

I agree. Some posters are going too far here. My position is this: with Marshall, UNC is the obvious favorite for the title, but you still take the field over them. Without Marshall, they can still win it, but their chances do drop a lot, and they aren't heads and shoulders above Kentucky, OSU, etc anymore.

Wander
10-05-2011, 04:29 PM
I think the argument against duke has to be this:


Well, I tend to think Duke is being overrated by most of the people on DBR, but that's a story for another day (and an opinion based on things other than the Arizona game). My only point was the gap between teams 2-4 and, say, Memphis, Duke, Baylor, Vandy, Syracuse, and Louisville isn't really that big. It certainly doesn't strike me as an especially dominant preseason top 4.

Indoor66
10-05-2011, 04:33 PM
I think that this year will reflect a lot of balance at the top tier of team with little to choose among about 8 - 10 teams, including Duke.

Wheat/"/"/"
10-05-2011, 05:20 PM
Really? Who did they dominate?

Well, for one, Duke.

You must be forgetting the first half performance of last years first game. It was ugly, Duke was totally reeling and trailing 43-27 after the UNC onslaught. UNC was dominating. It's that simple.

Of course, it was only a "flash" of how good they can be, just as I said, because a tough Sr. led Duke team, at home, came back and spanked that inexperienced UNC team. That's right, I said Duke spanked them.

In the second Duke game, UNC dominated again at the halftime break with a 51-37 lead.
Then they dominated defensively during the last 11 minutes of the game...Duke scored one field goal during that time... and the Heels cruised to a 81-67 win.

Flashes of dominance is all I ever saw last season from them, flashes of their potential. They never put it together for a full game. They won't do it every game this year, but they should do it alot more often.

Kedsy
10-05-2011, 05:46 PM
Flashes of dominance is all I ever saw last season from them, flashes of their potential. They never put it together for a full game. They won't do it every game this year, but they should do it alot more often.

OK, if you define flashes of domination as less than a full game, I will agree with you. On the other hand, I think VCU probably had at least as many "flashes of dominance" in the NCAAT as UNC showed, so that sort of flash doesn't tell me too much. Ultimately, I don't think last year's performance is that good of a predictor for this year's anyway. But I do believe UNC will go only as far as Marshall takes them, and if he's injured or ineffective, you're in a heap o' trouble, despite your frontcourt talent. Just my opinion, of course.

uh_no
10-05-2011, 06:08 PM
And I think the argument against this argument is how does one game prove anything? If last year's Duke team had played Arizona ten times, we probably would have won eight. Would this year's team be any better or worse if we'd beaten Arizona in that one game?


While I disagree that we would have beaten them 8/10 times, I agree with your point. THe tournament is basically a crapshoot, and I don't think a) that any of these teams are more dominant than teams have been in years past (the media are basically a big circle where everybody just agrees and plays up the same opinions until they are accepted as indisputable fact), or b) that its even really possible to determine with a great deal of accuracy whether a team will be dominant or not.

That's why the games matter and polls are just fluff to keep fans talking. Whether the media are right or wrong this year is quite irrelevent because they won't vote for the national champions.....that's why we play the games.

Greg_Newton
10-05-2011, 06:21 PM
Well, I tend to think Duke is being overrated by most of the people on DBR, but that's a story for another day (and an opinion based on things other than the Arizona game). My only point was the gap between teams 2-4 and, say, Memphis, Duke, Baylor, Vandy, Syracuse, and Louisville isn't really that big. It certainly doesn't strike me as an especially dominant preseason top 4.

FWIW, I don't think the board's opinion of the team is any higher than K himself's... whether he says it in PCs or not, he's very confident about this tteam. I'm all for lowering expectations though - and given our youth and inexperience, they probably should start low - because it makes the season that much more fun!

davekay1971
10-06-2011, 09:53 AM
OK, if you define flashes of domination as less than a full game, I will agree with you. On the other hand, I think VCU probably had at least as many "flashes of dominance" in the NCAAT as UNC showed, so that sort of flash doesn't tell me too much. Ultimately, I don't think last year's performance is that good of a predictor for this year's anyway. But I do believe UNC will go only as far as Marshall takes them, and if he's injured or ineffective, you're in a heap o' trouble, despite your frontcourt talent. Just my opinion, of course.

Agreed. Most teams can put together flashes of dominance for a portion of a game. Teams can even have it all come together for one spectacular game (ie: Arizona against us last year, or State against us a couple years ago). That doesn't make a team a dominant team, or even a potentially dominant team.

UNC, this year, is most certainly a potentially dominant team. They have one of the best post defenders in the nation in Henson...and a guy who can essentially eliminate the lane as a viable option can turn a mediocre defense into a very good one. Between Henson, Zeller, and McAdoo they should have fairly consistent interior production on offense. With McAdoo and THE BLACK FALCON, they have some mismatch nightmares, and their perimeter scoring should at least be good this year. If that all comes together, with Marshall running the show, you have a team that should be very good offensively and defensively, with good depth to boot.

UNC should rightfully be setting their goals at a natty. They certainly come into the season with all the pieces in place. But, before anyone goes crowning them (you wanna crown them? Crown their {family friendly filter on}), we should remember that this is a team that struggled at many points along the way last season, really peaked at the end of the season, barely won their first two ACCT games, got run out of the gym in the ACC championship game, had a cakewalk through the first 2 rounds of the NCAAT playing at home, had one really impressive performance vs. Marquette, and then they were done. They should be a much better team this year...but if they're going to win a natty, they're going to have to be.

uh_no
10-06-2011, 10:00 AM
we should remember that this is a team that struggled at many points along the way last season, really peaked at the end of the season, barely won their first two ACCT games, got run out of the gym in the ACC championship game, had a cakewalk through the first 2 rounds of the NCAAT playing at home, had one really impressive performance vs. Marquette, and then they were done. They should be a much better team this year...but if they're going to win a natty, they're going to have to be.

I believe their first round win was only by 2 over princeton? If harrison barnes is anything close to what he was the second half of the season, and I suspect he will be, they are a downright good team.

This thread is proof to me that basketball season needs to start already

Kedsy
10-06-2011, 10:50 AM
I believe their first round win was only by 2 over princeton? If harrison barnes is anything close to what he was the second half of the season, and I suspect he will be, they are a downright good team.

This thread is proof to me that basketball season needs to start already

UNC's first round game was a 15 point win over Long Island U. Their second round game was a 3 point win over a good Washington team. So it wasn't as bad as a 2 point win over Princeton (it was Kentucky whose first round game was a 2 point win over Princeton, by the way), but if your point was UNC's first two rounds weren't a "cakewalk," then I agree.

uh_no
10-06-2011, 11:56 AM
UNC's first round game was a 15 point win over Long Island U. Their second round game was a 3 point win over a good Washington team. So it wasn't as bad as a 2 point win over Princeton (it was Kentucky whose first round game was a 2 point win over Princeton, by the way), but if your point was UNC's first two rounds weren't a "cakewalk," then I agree.

No, I just had them backwards. My point was that they had some poor performances even late in the season, but I switched UNC and UK in my brain. Either way, a 3 point win over a decent team like washington last year, doesn't necessarily indicate greatness, especially after how we squashed them in the ACC tournament. If their big guys are soooo good, why couldn't they do what AZ did to us? (yes we played a lot better, but still not indicative of the greatness everyone assumes)

I thus move my point to UK: a 2 point win over princeton late last year does not indicate greatness either. Plus their last two outings from the tournament have been more from stupid play than anything else.

Kedsy
10-06-2011, 12:01 PM
No, I just had them backwards. My point was that they had some poor performances even late in the season, but I switched UNC and UK in my brain. Either way, a 3 point win over a decent team like washington last year, doesn't necessarily indicate greatness, especially after how we squashed them in the ACC tournament. If their big guys are soooo good, why couldn't they do what AZ did to us? (yes we played a lot better, but still not indicative of the greatness everyone assumes)

I thus move my point to UK: a 2 point win over princeton late last year does not indicate greatness either. Plus their last two outings from the tournament have been more from stupid play than anything else.

OK, I agree with both your points. Regarding Kentucky, when your rotation is filled with freshmen (as it will be again this year) it often results in stupid play in high pressure situations.

davekay1971
10-06-2011, 08:41 PM
My phrasing was sloppy. The point I was trying to make is that, in addition to their weak play in the ACCT, UNC's performances in the first two rounds of the NCAA tournament were anything but impressive. LIU was badly overmatched in any circumstance, particularly playing UNC in the state of North Carolina. Washington was a good team, but UNC, playing in front of a home crowd, should have been expected to win that game...and they were fortunate to escape with a win. UNC's only really impressive play in last year's postseason was the Marquette game.

I'm not arguing it's wrong to regard them as a favorite this season. They bring back a talented core that can be expected to have improved and matured in the offseason. But I don't think one can look at their performances at the end of last season and consider them a certain worldbeater. Contrast them to the 2008 and 2009 UNC teams. The 2008 team was very solid all season, and had a terrible game against Kansas to get knocked out of the tournament. But, up until that game, they looked all season to be a title contender. They brought back essentially everyone for 2009. That team had earned the respect of coming into the season as a prohibitive favorite, an assessment that, unfortunately, turned out to be correct. I don't think one can look at the 2010-2011 Tarheel team's performance and assume similar dominance for the 2011-2012 team.

shoutingncu
10-07-2011, 01:54 PM
Another talking head weighs in...

http://eye-on-college-basketball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/26283066/32523789

I agree with him.