PDA

View Full Version : 2014-15 Ridiculously Early Preseason Polls



meowmix911
04-08-2014, 12:56 AM
Yay... The stupid season is over :)

Time to start thinking about next year! Gary Parrish has us ranked #1.... Go Duke!

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24518398/cbssportscom-2014-15-ridiculously-early-preseason-top-25-and-one

uh_no
04-08-2014, 01:02 AM
Yay... The stupid season is over :)

Time to start thinking about next year! Gary Parrish has us ranked #1.... Go Duke!

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24518398/cbssportscom-2014-15-ridiculously-early-preseason-top-25-and-one

duke with a top recruiting class, and MAYBE an all american back??? yes please!
defending national champs with 3 starters back, and a top guard off transfer??? yes please!

Olympic Fan
04-08-2014, 01:12 AM
Not sure of Parrish's criteria. He doesn't make it clear whether he's factoring in the "Players not expected to be back" or not.

Yes, if you include Parker and Hood at Duke, then the Devils are a very easy No. 1 pick.

If you count them as gone, then I can't see it -- second five at best for a freshman-dominated team.

On the other hand, if you count the "Players not expected back" at Kentucky as back, along with the newcomers, I don't see how they can't be No. 1.

And uh_no, if you are actually counting on Rodney Purvis to help next year ... well, all I can say is good luck.

Duvall
04-08-2014, 01:15 AM
Not sure of Parrish's criteria. He doesn't make it clear whether he's factoring in the "Players not expected to be back" or not.

Yes, if you include Parker and Hood at Duke, then the Devils are a very easy No. 1 pick.

If you count them as gone, then I can't see it -- second five at best for a freshman-dominated team.

On the other hand, if you count the "Players not expected back" at Kentucky as back, along with the newcomers, I don't see how they can't be No. 1.

And uh_no, if you are actually counting on Rodney Purvis to help next year ... well, all I can say is good luck.

You seem to be assuming that Gary Parrish is using logic. That's not really his style.

uh_no
04-08-2014, 01:25 AM
And uh_no, if you are actually counting on Rodney Purvis to help next year ... well, all I can say is good luck.

I appreciate it, Olympic Fan!

You could tell me we were going to go 0-30 next year, and right now I couldn't care.

Savor the moment, and right now, the moment feels pretty exceptional. I hate to make my fellow duke brethren feel upset after the result, but I'm in ecstasy....uconn won their fourth title? It's simply ridiculous.....I remember being 9 years old when uconn won their first in 1999...not understanding what it meant...and to think we won our fourth but 15 years later.....


I love you guys here, and this community, and don't wish to make anyone feel bad, but I celebrated with a bottle of champagne tonight, and I hope you can understand that. It's ridiculous that THIS uconn team won....absurd. After going back to back in 10-11 (from my perspective), I only hope we can do the same from 14-15.

with uconn returning 3 starters from a championship team, and duke pulling in an ABSURD class and returning some key pieces (jabari??? pleaseeeee!!!!) I can only hope for two great teams to cheer for next march.

most of all, I love college basketball...and tonight was a great night for me. Thank you DBR for being an outlet for this passion, both for duke and for uconn. this is a great community.

mr. synellinden
04-08-2014, 01:57 AM
ESPN's Way too early … has us #2 (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10742731/arizona-wildcats-duke-blue-devils-headline-early-top-25-2014-15-men-college-basketball-season) behind Arizona.

ricks68
04-08-2014, 02:25 AM
I appreciate it, Olympic Fan!

You could tell me we were going to go 0-30 next year, and right now I couldn't care.

Savor the moment, and right now, the moment feels pretty exceptional. I hate to make my fellow duke brethren feel upset after the result, but I'm in ecstasy....uconn won their fourth title? It's simply ridiculous.....I remember being 9 years old when uconn won their first in 1999...not understanding what it meant...and to think we won our fourth but 15 years later.....


I love you guys here, and this community, and don't wish to make anyone feel bad, but I celebrated with a bottle of champagne tonight, and I hope you can understand that. It's ridiculous that THIS uconn team won....absurd. After going back to back in 10-11 (from my perspective), I only hope we can do the same from 14-15.

with uconn returning 3 starters from a championship team, and duke pulling in an ABSURD class and returning some key pieces (jabari??? pleaseeeee!!!!) I can only hope for two great teams to cheer for next march.

most of all, I love college basketball...and tonight was a great night for me. Thank you DBR for being an outlet for this passion, both for duke and for uconn. this is a great community.

I was at the game in Houston in 2011, and I can honestly say that both championship teams were absolutely horrible to watch---an embarrassment for college basketball IMHO. Bad fundamentals, sloppy play, horrible flow, etc. Also, Calhoun was still the coach, and I dislike him soooooo much.

It was great to see a complete turnaround, however, in this year's FF. Great play by all teams except Florida, in my opinion. Very exciting and a pleasure to watch. (Except when Wisconsin lost it at the very end of the game.)

My dislike for UConn has been actually centered on Calhoun, but then, he hasn't been charged with any crimes (I don't think) like a heck of a lot of his players. He just supported the criminal behavior and illiteracy of his players. I don't really know how I feel about their new coach yet, other than the fact that he seems like a very nice person so far, even though he is a typical product of Calhoun and UConn's system-------seemingly illiterate. No disrespect, but have you heard him speak? Sheesh! (But then, his guys won all the marbles. Congrats to him.)

ricks

superdave
04-08-2014, 07:56 AM
Parrish has Duke, Unc, Louisville, UVA and Pitt ranked. No Cuse. It would be nice to see the middle of the conference become more consistent.

gocanes0506
04-08-2014, 08:39 AM
If the players leave that Parrish expects to leave I see top 5 (in no particular order) Duke, Arizona, Carolina, Kansas and Wisconsin. Texas would by my #6.

Teams that fall off next season: Louisville, UCONN, Kentucky, Wichita State, Florida and UVA.

Surprise team: SMU.

Wander
04-08-2014, 09:45 AM
Teams that fall off next season: Louisville, UCONN, Kentucky, Wichita State, Florida and UVA.


Wichita State and UVA have to have two of the top 5 or so backcourts in the country next year. I don't think they'll drop off nearly as much as the other teams you listed.

Kfanarmy
04-08-2014, 09:49 AM
To be honest, I'd prefer if there were no rankings at all until mid January each year. The pre and early season polls do more damage than good IMHO because they unduly influence rankings all the way through to the mid-way point of the in-conference campaigns.

COYS
04-08-2014, 10:03 AM
To be honest, I'd prefer if there were no rankings at all until mid January each year. The pre and early season polls do more damage than good IMHO because they unduly influence rankings all the way through to the mid-way point of the in-conference campaigns.

I can't find the article after an admittedly cursory search, but didn't Ken Pomeroy or one of the guys from Basketball Prospectus write an article a few years back that stated that preseason polls are actually more accurate at determining postseason success than the final AP poll? The rationale of the article was that preseason polls are usually based on evaluating the talent level of a team while in-season polls are based on W-L records from teams with extremely uneven strengths of schedule. Of course, I think the article found that a good percentage of the top 10 teams finish in the top 10.

Of course, this also raises the question of what are the weekly polls for? Are they a snapshot of the current landscape or are they supposed to have some predictive value? If they are just a snapshot, then you are probably right to wait to have any rankings at all until mid-season.

CDu
04-08-2014, 10:07 AM
To be honest, I'd prefer if there were no rankings at all until mid January each year. The pre and early season polls do more damage than good IMHO because they unduly influence rankings all the way through to the mid-way point of the in-conference campaigns.

I agree. I'll say this though: I think Wisconsin is set up VERY nicely. They don't lose anyone major off of a team that was a top-10 team all season (and made the Final Four). They're going to be really good.

Beyond that, who knows? So many players' situations are up in the air right now. And we just never know for sure how the freshmen/new faces will work out on each team.

I mean, UConn could be an elite team next year (if Purvis comes in and plays like a superstar and if Daniels returns). Or, they could be a bubble team (if Daniels leaves and if Purvis plays like he did at State). Duke could be an absolute juggernaut (if Parker stays and the freshmen are as advertised) or we could struggle with chemistry/leadership problems as everyone takes on a new role. Arizona and Michigan could be juggernauts or could be decimated by early departures. And so on, and so on.

Bluedog
04-08-2014, 10:12 AM
I can't find the article after an admittedly cursory search, but didn't Ken Pomeroy or one of the guys from Basketball Prospectus write an article a few years back that stated that preseason polls are actually more accurate at determining postseason success than the final AP poll? The rationale of the article was that preseason polls are usually based on evaluating the talent level of a team while in-season polls are based on W-L records from teams with extremely uneven strengths of schedule. Of course, I think the article found that a good percentage of the top 10 teams finish in the top 10.

Of course, this also raises the question of what are the weekly polls for? Are they a snapshot of the current landscape or are they supposed to have some predictive value? If they are just a snapshot, then you are probably right to wait to have any rankings at all until mid-season.

Here are a couple of the articles from Ken Pomeroy speaking to the above:
http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/the_pre-season_ap_poll_is_great
http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/score_another_one_for_pre-season_ratings

Nate Silver's 538 blog also used the pre-season AP poll (and not the most recent one) as one of its inputs for his statistical model of NCAA tournament odds.

It’s not a typo, by the way, to say that we look at preseason rankings. The reason is that a 30- to 35-game regular season isn’t all that large a sample (consider how much the consensus on the strongest teams shifted between midseason and the conference tournaments). Preseason rankings provide some estimate of each team’s underlying player and coaching talent.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/nate-silvers-ncaa-basketball-predictions/

johnb
04-08-2014, 10:12 AM
I appreciate it, Olympic Fan!

You could tell me we were going to go 0-30 next year, and right now I couldn't care.

Savor the moment, and right now, the moment feels pretty exceptional. I hate to make my fellow duke brethren feel upset after the result, but I'm in ecstasy....uconn won their fourth title? It's simply ridiculous.....I remember being 9 years old when uconn won their first in 1999...not understanding what it meant...and to think we won our fourth but 15 years later.....


I love you guys here, and this community, and don't wish to make anyone feel bad, but I celebrated with a bottle of champagne tonight, and I hope you can understand that. It's ridiculous that THIS uconn team won....absurd. After going back to back in 10-11 (from my perspective), I only hope we can do the same from 14-15.

with uconn returning 3 starters from a championship team, and duke pulling in an ABSURD class and returning some key pieces (jabari??? pleaseeeee!!!!) I can only hope for two great teams to cheer for next march.

most of all, I love college basketball...and tonight was a great night for me. Thank you DBR for being an outlet for this passion, both for duke and for uconn. this is a great community.


I don't hold anything against this particular Connecticut team, but I do actively dislike an administration and fan base that encouraged many years of bad behavior and academic underperformance. By multiple accounts, Geno and Calhoun are not very good people, and--while I admire their ability to win games--both the uconn teams have done no favors to the overall school over the past 20 years.

COYS
04-08-2014, 10:14 AM
Here are a couple of the articles from Ken Pomeroy speaking to the above:
http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/the_pre-season_ap_poll_is_great
http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/score_another_one_for_pre-season_ratings

Thanks for doing the hard work for me, Bluedog!

MCFinARL
04-08-2014, 10:33 AM
My dislike for UConn has been actually centered on Calhoun, but then, he hasn't been charged with any crimes (I don't think) like a heck of a lot of his players. He just supported the criminal behavior and illiteracy of his players. I don't really know how I feel about their new coach yet, other than the fact that he seems like a very nice person so far, even though he is a typical product of Calhoun and UConn's system-------seemingly illiterate. No disrespect, but have you heard him speak? Sheesh! (But then, his guys won all the marbles. Congrats to him.)

ricks

I realize this is a little off thread topic, but I wanted to respond to your mention of Kevin Ollie. I think you may need to be open to the possibility that he is more than a nice person, despite his speech patterns--in this morning's NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/08/sports/ncaabasketball/a-magical-season-for-uconn-regardless-of-the-ending.html), he is quoted commenting on last season's 20 wins as follows:


“Forget the 20 wins,” Ollie said of last season’s success. “I don’t really care about that. I care about the way they performed in the classroom, which was remarkable.”

He later added: “Basketball is second to me. I want them to be better people once they leave Storrs campus. If I did that, forget about the wins and losses, national championship, all that stuff. I think I’ve done my job.”

The remarkable academic performance included 5 players on the Dean's List, which is really pretty impressive. I think Ollie has taken his mandate to clean up the team's academic performance very seriously.

MCFinARL
04-08-2014, 10:40 AM
One interesting item in Parrish's rankings--No 26 Harvard features Brandyn Curry as definitely gone AND expected to return. Maybe he has a split personality? (FYI Curry is a senior, so definitely gone is correct.)

kAzE
04-08-2014, 10:57 AM
Interesting, Parrish listed Myles Turner as expected to go to Texas. I was thinking it would be either Kansas or SMU for him.

CDu
04-08-2014, 11:16 AM
Interesting, Parrish listed Myles Turner as expected to go to Texas. I was thinking it would be either Kansas or SMU for him.

I would take all of his article with a grain of salt, including that bit of information.

awich1
04-08-2014, 12:28 PM
I agree. I'll say this though: I think Wisconsin is set up VERY nicely. They don't lose anyone major off of a team that was a top-10 team all season (and made the Final Four). They're going to be really good.

Beyond that, who knows? So many players' situations are up in the air right now. And we just never know for sure how the freshmen/new faces will work out on each team.

I mean, UConn could be an elite team next year (if Purvis comes in and plays like a superstar and if Daniels returns). Or, they could be a bubble team (if Daniels leaves and if Purvis plays like he did at State). Duke could be an absolute juggernaut (if Parker stays and the freshmen are as advertised) or we could struggle with chemistry/leadership problems as everyone takes on a new role. Arizona and Michigan could be juggernauts or could be decimated by early departures. And so on, and so on.

One quibble with your comment- Wisconsin does have one major loss looking at next year, Ben Brust, who was extremely important-led the team in minutes played, 3 pointers and was second in scoring and was also a great rebounder for his height. That said they should be very good and a real poster child for a team with lots of experience. Having kids who went to Duke and Wisconsin, I'm rooting for a Duke-Wisconsin final.

TexHawk
04-08-2014, 01:39 PM
I agree. I'll say this though: I think Wisconsin is set up VERY nicely. They don't lose anyone major off of a team that was a top-10 team all season (and made the Final Four). They're going to be really good.

??? Not sure if you mean they were just "top 10 caliber", because technically this isn't true at all. The Badgers lost 5 of 6 in January (4 to unranked teams), and fell out of the AP poll altogether. They got back in the polls by winning 9 of their last 11 before the tournament, but they didn't really get near the Top 10 at all. (They couldn't crack the Top 15 in the coaches poll.)

CDu
04-08-2014, 02:56 PM
??? Not sure if you mean they were just "top 10 caliber", because technically this isn't true at all. The Badgers lost 5 of 6 in January (4 to unranked teams), and fell out of the AP poll altogether. They got back in the polls by winning 9 of their last 11 before the tournament, but they didn't really get near the Top 10 at all. (They couldn't crack the Top 15 in the coaches poll.)

I meant top-10 caliber. And those losses included a loss to OSU and Michigan (both of whom were quite good this year). And both of those games were close. Minnesota and Indiana won at home over Wisconsin. Only the Northwestern loss was a bad lossCombine that with wins over Michigan, MSU, Florida, Iowa, Baylor, and Arizona over the course of the season, and I'd absolutely say they were top-10 caliber throughout the season.

CDu
04-08-2014, 03:26 PM
One quibble with your comment- Wisconsin does have one major loss looking at next year, Ben Brust, who was extremely important-led the team in minutes played, 3 pointers and was second in scoring and was also a great rebounder for his height. That said they should be very good and a real poster child for a team with lots of experience. Having kids who went to Duke and Wisconsin, I'm rooting for a Duke-Wisconsin final.

Yeah, that was a misspeak by me. Brust was a significant part of the team this year (and last year). But they return 4 starters, including their PG, their best wing, and their matchup-nightmare of a big man. And while they do lose Brust, they have some capable options to fill Brust's role in Gasser, Koenig, Jordan Hill, and Riley Dearring. It's a loss, definitely, but I think it is more of a depth issue than anything else. Considering the anticipated improvements of Kaminsky, Dekker, Jackson, Gasser, and Koenig, along with Hayes and redshirts Showalter and Dearring, I think they're going to be really good next year.

tommy
04-08-2014, 04:52 PM
Yeah, that was a misspeak by me. Brust was a significant part of the team this year (and last year). But they return 4 starters, including their PG, their best wing, and their matchup-nightmare of a big man. And while they do lose Brust, they have some capable options to fill Brust's role in Gasser, Koenig, Jordan Hill, and Riley Dearring. It's a loss, definitely, but I think it is more of a depth issue than anything else. Considering the anticipated improvements of Kaminsky, Dekker, Jackson, Gasser, and Koenig, along with Hayes and redshirts Showalter and Dearring, I think they're going to be really good next year.

I agree, they're going to be very good. But if I was Frank Kaminsky or Bo Ryan, I would be prepared for Kaminsky to get muscled a lot next year. Kentucky's Dakari Johnson completely bottled him up with his size and aggressiveness, so much so that even when Johnson wasn't on him, and lesser and/or smaller defenders such as Randle, Lee, or Poythress was on him, Kaminsky didn't appear to be working all that hard to get the ball. He seemed to kind of give up, and lose his will, and he was essentially no factor in that game -- which they lost, of course, by one point.

CDu
04-08-2014, 05:47 PM
I agree, they're going to be very good. But if I was Frank Kaminsky or Bo Ryan, I would be prepared for Kaminsky to get muscled a lot next year. Kentucky's Dakari Johnson completely bottled him up with his size and aggressiveness, so much so that even when Johnson wasn't on him, and lesser and/or smaller defenders such as Randle, Lee, or Poythress was on him, Kaminsky didn't appear to be working all that hard to get the ball. He seemed to kind of give up, and lose his will, and he was essentially no factor in that game -- which they lost, of course, by one point.

Yeah, that strategy only seems to work if you have the depth of size, strength, and athleticism inside to do it. Kentucky had that with Johnson, Lee, Randle, and Poythress (even without Cauley-Stein). Most teams don't have that much to throw at him. It isn't like Arizona and Oregon didn't try to mug Kaminsky. But that didn't stop him from having pretty good games against those teams.

So much of Kaminsky's value is his face-up game. Most teams either have a center who can guard Kaminsky on the blocks or that can guard Kaminsky on the perimeter, but not both. For example, Arizona had Gordon who could handle Kaminsky outside but not inside and Tarczewski who could match up inside but not outside. So if Zona with with Gordon, Wisconsin posted Kaminsky up. If the Cats went with Big T, Kaminsky floated to the perimeter. Kentucky was just a rare team that had multiple guys who were strong enough and lanky enough to defend Kaminsky inside but also quick enough to defend him outside.

Now, he certainly isn't unstoppable, and when his perimeter shot isn't falling he becomes much easier to guard. But I don't think too many teams are going to have the personnel to defend him the way Kentucky did.

tommy
04-08-2014, 06:00 PM
Yeah, that strategy only seems to work if you have the depth of size, strength, and athleticism inside to do it. Kentucky had that with Johnson, Lee, Randle, and Poythress (even without Cauley-Stein). Most teams don't have that much to throw at him. It isn't like Arizona and Oregon didn't try to mug Kaminsky. But that didn't stop him from having pretty good games against those teams.

So much of Kaminsky's value is his face-up game. Most teams either have a center who can guard Kaminsky on the blocks or that can guard Kaminsky on the perimeter, but not both. For example, Arizona had Gordon who could handle Kaminsky outside but not inside and Tarczewski who could match up inside but not outside. So if Zona with with Gordon, Wisconsin posted Kaminsky up. If the Cats went with Big T, Kaminsky floated to the perimeter. Kentucky was just a rare team that had multiple guys who were strong enough and lanky enough to defend Kaminsky inside but also quick enough to defend him outside.

Now, he certainly isn't unstoppable, and when his perimeter shot isn't falling he becomes much easier to guard. But I don't think too many teams are going to have the personnel to defend him the way Kentucky did.

Yeah, but what I meant was that even when Kaminsky had opportunities against defenders other than Johnson -- defenders who he should've been able to exploit, he didn't do so. He has about 4" on Julius Randle and about the same on Poythress, if I'm not mistaken. I know those guys are strong, but Kaminsky could've been a lot more aggressive in posting those guys down low and then making an inside move against them and shooting either through them or over them. On the other side, when Marcus Lee was guarding him, he should've moved outside, gotten the ball, and turned and faced. If Lee backs off, pop the jumper, and if Lee guards him closely, blow right by him. I'm sure he could've done that, but he didn't really try.

The ideal guy to guard him, other than (apparently) a tall bruiser like Dakari Johnson, is a guy like Brandon Ashley. Long enough to cause him trouble inside, but athletic enough to challenge him effectively outside as well. And you're right, there aren't many guys like that out there.

Troublemaker
04-10-2014, 09:58 PM
Jay Bilas chimes in with his early preseason rankings: http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10760554/jay-bilas-ranks-next-season-top-title-contenders-college-basketball

Insider article, so you might only be able to see the top team, which is Duke.

flyingdutchdevil
04-10-2014, 10:20 PM
Jay Bilas chimes in with his early preseason rankings: http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10760554/jay-bilas-ranks-next-season-top-title-contenders-college-basketball

Insider article, so you might only be able to see the top team, which is Duke.

I'm not liking this "way too early" ranking for Duke, especially considering that a) we have no idea how good our freshman are going to be, b) we're definitely losing some important pieces (Hood, Thornton, 99% Parker), and c) we were inept at defense. The first two points aren't as major concerns, especially because even if Okafor is 75% as good as advertised and Tyus and Winslow 50% as good as advertised, but the last point is. Our defense was atrocious. Offense wins games, defense wins championships. UConn absolutely proved that this year. If we aren't a top 30 defensive team, I'm not sure we are going to be a top 5 favorite come March.

richardjackson199
04-10-2014, 10:24 PM
I'm not liking this "way too early" ranking for Duke, especially considering that a) we have no idea how good our freshman are going to be, b) we're definitely losing some important pieces (Hood, Thornton, 99% Parker), and c) we were inept at defense. The first two points aren't as major concerns, especially because even if Okafor is 75% as good as advertised and Tyus and Winslow 50% as good as advertised, but the last point is. Our defense was atrocious. Offense wins games, defense wins championships. UConn absolutely proved that this year. If we aren't a top 30 defensive team, I'm not sure we are going to be a top 5 favorite come March.

I agree with this post that our defense and many things need to improve before we know how good we could be next year.

Where are you getting that it's 99% likely Parker will leave? I thought Adam Rowe tweeted that earlier about Hood, not Parker. It sounds like Jabari hasn't decided yet, and I support whatever he decides. But it seems to me that there is plenty of reason to think the chances that he returns are significantly higher than 1% at this point. Just checking to see if I missed something?

flyingdutchdevil
04-10-2014, 10:32 PM
I agree with this post that our defense and many things need to improve before we know how good we could be next year.

Where are you getting that it's 99% likely Parker will leave? I thought Adam Rowe tweeted that earlier about Hood, not Parker. It sounds like Jabari hasn't decided yet, and I support whatever he decides. But it seems to me that there is plenty of reason to think the chances that he returns are significantly higher than 1% at this point. Just checking to see if I missed something?

99% chance Jabari is leaving because I've believed this all along. What's the point of holding on hope? If he you don't have hope and Jabari leaves, it's expected and you aren't that upset. If he comes back? Wawawewa!!! Christmas came early.

I have no inside information, just my gut feeling, my thought process that any top 10 pick should bolt to the NBA, and my lack of hope.

Troublemaker
04-10-2014, 10:51 PM
I'm not liking this "way too early" ranking for Duke, especially considering that a) we have no idea how good our freshman are going to be, b) we're definitely losing some important pieces (Hood, Thornton, 99% Parker), and c) we were inept at defense. The first two points aren't as major concerns, especially because even if Okafor is 75% as good as advertised and Tyus and Winslow 50% as good as advertised, but the last point is. Our defense was atrocious. Offense wins games, defense wins championships. UConn absolutely proved that this year. If we aren't a top 30 defensive team, I'm not sure we are going to be a top 5 favorite come March.

Well, I think Jay would agree with the bolded statement, but he believes Duke will have a top-30 defense so that's why he puts us #1. Hard to take too much issue with these April rankings. Jay's super-early rankings are as valid as anyone else's. It's not difficult for me to believe that an injection of size, possibly 3 new starters + Amile playing his natural position, returning players making improvements, plus Coach K having the offseason to tweak things if needed will result in a very good defense.

This team is going to receive a lot of hype because of the incoming freshmen. I mean, it would be nice to be underrated by the media, I suppose, but it's just not going to happen with this team and very rarely will that happen with this program. I think folks should get mentally prepared for very high preseason rankings, magazine covers, and all that jazz if you're not already prepared. We very well could be preseason #1 in the AP and Coaches Polls even without Jabari or Rodney. I personally don't mind myself. Just comes with the territory of being Duke and recruiting a #1 class.

MCFinARL
04-11-2014, 08:42 AM
Well, I think Jay would agree with the bolded statement, but he believes Duke will have a top-30 defense so that's why he puts us #1. Hard to take too much issue with these April rankings. Jay's super-early rankings are as valid as anyone else's. It's not difficult for me to believe that an injection of size, possibly 3 new starters + Amile playing his natural position, returning players making improvements, plus Coach K having the offseason to tweak things if needed will result in a very good defense.

This team is going to receive a lot of hype because of the incoming freshmen. I mean, it would be nice to be underrated by the media, I suppose, but it's just not going to happen with this team and very rarely will that happen with this program. I think folks should get mentally prepared for very high preseason rankings, magazine covers, and all that jazz if you're not already prepared. We very well could be preseason #1 in the AP and Coaches Polls even without Jabari or Rodney. I personally don't mind myself. Just comes with the territory of being Duke and recruiting a #1 class.

Yes, it does--but I'm on the side of those who wish it wouldn't. Just makes it that much harder to figure out how to integrate all of the pieces into a team, get through the growing pains, etc. Oh well.

kAzE
04-11-2014, 09:30 AM
Well, I think Jay would agree with the bolded statement, but he believes Duke will have a top-30 defense so that's why he puts us #1. Hard to take too much issue with these April rankings. Jay's super-early rankings are as valid as anyone else's. It's not difficult for me to believe that an injection of size, possibly 3 new starters + Amile playing his natural position, returning players making improvements, plus Coach K having the offseason to tweak things if needed will result in a very good defense.

This team is going to receive a lot of hype because of the incoming freshmen. I mean, it would be nice to be underrated by the media, I suppose, but it's just not going to happen with this team and very rarely will that happen with this program. I think folks should get mentally prepared for very high preseason rankings, magazine covers, and all that jazz if you're not already prepared. We very well could be preseason #1 in the AP and Coaches Polls even without Jabari or Rodney. I personally don't mind myself. Just comes with the territory of being Duke and recruiting a #1 class.

We're probably going to ranked very highly, but I totally expect to to lose a few early games. We're not going to be the best team in the nation in November, that just doesn't happen when you have 3 freshmen playing big minutes, no matter how talented they may be. Calipari's teams are a more extreme example, but they almost always drop a bunch of games before they start getting it together in conference play. (And in this most recent team's case, they waited until the postseason to turn it on) We won't be as young, but if we lose Jabari, and we're relying on a couple of freshmen for the bulk of our offense, I could totally see us going into conference play with 2 or 3 losses.

So, people are going to rank us top 3, but we won't deserve it, at least not at the beginning of the year. But by the end of the year, I'd be surprised if next year's team doesn't become a very good team, and a major title contender. These preseason rankings are always based on how they predict the team be at the end of the year, but that usually puts some pretty unrealistic expectations on young teams, at least to start the season.

Troublemaker
04-11-2014, 09:43 AM
Yes, it does--but I'm on the side of those who wish it wouldn't. Just makes it that much harder to figure out how to integrate all of the pieces into a team, get through the growing pains, etc. Oh well.

Yeah, it's up to our coaches and players to not allow outside expectations to become a distraction towards team-building. I'm comfortable they can handle it. Our coaches have a lot of experience with it.


We're probably going to ranked very highly, but I totally expect to to lose a few early games.....I could totally see us going into conference play with 2 or 3 losses.

We'll see. Coach K's teams usually start the season like gangbusters and rack up quality wins in November/December. Last season was an exception, and that was one of many strange things that happened to Duke during the season. Hopefully Duke returns to our early-season dominant ways and Final Four-making ways next season.

Kedsy
04-11-2014, 10:02 AM
Offense wins games, defense wins championships. UConn absolutely proved that this year.

UConn didn't "absolutely prove" anything this year. They won the championship. The fact is, in two of the past six seasons, the national champion did not have a top 30 defense going into the NCAA tournament (2009 UNC, #35; 2011 UConn, #31). One flukey championship with the #11 defense doesn't "prove" anything.


If we aren't a top 30 defensive team, I'm not sure we are going to be a top 5 favorite come March.

We may not be a favorite, but not having a top 30 defense absolutely doesn't preclude a Final Four run. There's a big difference between not having a top 30 defense and not having a top 100 defense (as Duke didn't this season). In the past six seasons, more than 25% of Final Four teams were ranked outside the top 30 defensively going into the tournament, and more than 50% of Final Four teams were ranked outside the top 20 defensively.

Here's the list of Final Four teams outside the defensive top 20 (all Pomeroy pre-tournament ranks):

2014 Wisconsin, #59
2014 Kentucky, #35
2013 Michigan, #58
2013 Wichita State, #30
2013 Syracuse, #23
2011 VCU, #143
2011 Butler, #77
2011 UConn, #31
2011 Kentucky, #22
2010 Michigan State, #27
2010 West Virginia, #24
2009 UNC, #35
2009 Villanova, #25

So five of the last 12 national finalists had defensive ranks outside the top 30. Two won the championship and three fell short in the final game. It appears to be a lot more complicated than "[o]ffense wins games, defense wins championships."

CDu
04-11-2014, 10:44 AM
So five of the last 12 national finalists had defensive ranks outside the top 30. Two won the championship and three fell short in the final game. It appears to be a lot more complicated than "[o]ffense wins games, defense wins championships."

Couldn't agree more. With a six-game, single-elimination tournament format, there is no magic formula for winning a championship. We've seen elite defensive teams win it. We've seen elite offensive teams win it.

I mean, take this year's final game: the #49 defense (#10 offense) made the title game and had a very legitimate chance to win down the stretch. They lost to the #10 defense (but #39 offense). But was that game really evidence that "defense wins championships?" If so, how did Kentucky beat Louisville (#4 defense), Wichita State (#12), and Kansas State (#18). Those teams were all apparently better defensive teams than Kentucky (heck, Louisville was better than UConn on both ends of the floor and Wichita State was about as good defensively but better offensively), but Kentucky won anyway. Does this "defense wins championships" only occur during the the championship game?

Basically, the tournament is somewhat of a fluky entity. UConn and Kentucky lost a combined 18 games coming into the tournament. UConn lost to two teams that didn't make the tournament and were beaten by 33 by Louisville. They were far from the best team in the tournament. Yet they caught a couple of breaks in their draw and played their best at the right time (last 3 games). Sometimes, that's just how it goes.

COYS
04-11-2014, 12:25 PM
Couldn't agree more. With a six-game, single-elimination tournament format, there is no magic formula for winning a championship. We've seen elite defensive teams win it. We've seen elite offensive teams win it.

I mean, take this year's final game: the #49 defense (#10 offense) made the title game and had a very legitimate chance to win down the stretch. They lost to the #10 defense (but #39 offense). But was that game really evidence that "defense wins championships?" If so, how did Kentucky beat Louisville (#4 defense), Wichita State (#12), and Kansas State (#18). Those teams were all apparently better defensive teams than Kentucky (heck, Louisville was better than UConn on both ends of the floor and Wichita State was about as good defensively but better offensively), but Kentucky won anyway. Does this "defense wins championships" only occur during the the championship game?

Basically, the tournament is somewhat of a fluky entity. UConn and Kentucky lost a combined 18 games coming into the tournament. UConn lost to two teams that didn't make the tournament and were beaten by 33 by Louisville. They were far from the best team in the tournament. Yet they caught a couple of breaks in their draw and played their best at the right time (last 3 games). Sometimes, that's just how it goes.

To take the whole "no single formula for making the Final Four" thing a step farther, consider Duke's own championship teams. For a long while, we thought that for a Duke team to contend for a title and make the Final Four we needed at least one of a dynamic/play-making point guard and a low-post scoring threat. Missing out on Kenny Boynton and John Wall at the point guard spot plus Patrick Patterson and Greg Monroe at the forward spot was supposed to have been a death sentence to the team's title hopes for a few years. Turns out a smart game-manager like Jon Scheyer (who's play-making ability is underrated in my eyes) and an offensive rebounding beast with little to no post scoring presence like Zoubek were sufficient.

I'm not going to lie, I would love it if our team could be number 1 in offense and number 1 in defense next season. I would imagine that would raise our chances of winning the whole thing. However, the chances of even the most dominant team winning the tourney are still almost certain to be below 20% (Louisville and Florida, which were Nate Silver's two highest percentage teams this year, had only 16% and 15% chances of winning).

I'm not saying the winning team is entirely dependent on luck. However, having an awesome point guard, a beast in the post, a dynamic wing, a great offense, a dominant defense or even a combination of all of the aforementioned attributes does not guarantee a win. Neither does lacking any of those things preclude a championship. The differences between the top teams are generally so relatively small that a few possessions here or there can determine a season. That's what puts that puts the "Mad" in March Madness.

flyingdutchdevil
04-11-2014, 12:33 PM
Couldn't agree more. With a six-game, single-elimination tournament format, there is no magic formula for winning a championship. We've seen elite defensive teams win it. We've seen elite offensive teams win it.

I mean, take this year's final game: the #49 defense (#10 offense) made the title game and had a very legitimate chance to win down the stretch. They lost to the #10 defense (but #39 offense). But was that game really evidence that "defense wins championships?" If so, how did Kentucky beat Louisville (#4 defense), Wichita State (#12), and Kansas State (#18). Those teams were all apparently better defensive teams than Kentucky (heck, Louisville was better than UConn on both ends of the floor and Wichita State was about as good defensively but better offensively), but Kentucky won anyway. Does this "defense wins championships" only occur during the the championship game?

Basically, the tournament is somewhat of a fluky entity. UConn and Kentucky lost a combined 18 games coming into the tournament. UConn lost to two teams that didn't make the tournament and were beaten by 33 by Louisville. They were far from the best team in the tournament. Yet they caught a couple of breaks in their draw and played their best at the right time (last 3 games). Sometimes, that's just how it goes.

We can all agree that "offense wins games, defense wins championships" isn't a science. There are many times when it doesn't work, but more often then not championship teams are defensively minded. Football, basketball, soccer, hockey... defense often goes further. The World Cup is probably the best example. It's a blend between a round-robin and one-and-down (it's also the greatest tournament in the world, but I'm getting off track). Teams like Italy, Germany, and France are defensively focused, the Latin American teams are incredibly balanced with insanely talented midfields, and Spain is an offensive juggernaut. Italy and Germany (and to a certain extent France) have been historical powerhouses that have won it all. And it begins with their defense. Spain is the enigma; they are somehow winning with incredible offense and mediocre defense. And this is why: their offense is so consistent. In any sport, it is difficult to have a consistently good offense, game in and game out. It is MUCH easier to have a consistently good defense game in and game out.

And this brings me to my point - the saying does from the fact that teams cannot always rely on offense but they can on defense. Of course, having a balance is always better, but if you had to choose either an elite defense or an elite offense, wouldn't you take the elite defense any day of the week and twice on Sunday?

So, color me very skeptical of next year's team. It ain't easy going from +100 in defensive efficiency to top 30 (or even top 50) defensive efficiency. And yes, someone (Kedsy?) will probably say that the difference between a 116 defensive efficiency ranking and a 30 defensive efficiency ranking is only 6.0 points per 100 possessions, but a) that is a lot of points over a 40 game season and b) the eyeball test also does wonders. Between our Swiss cheese perimeter defense, our unproven freshman, our most committed defender having graduated, our lack of focus, and, in the case that Jabari comes back, our superstar's inability to play solid D, I'm very skeptical of our defense next year.

Des Esseintes
04-11-2014, 01:05 PM
We can all agree that "offense wins games, defense wins championships" isn't a science. There are many times when it doesn't work, but more often then not championship teams are defensively minded. Football, basketball, soccer, hockey... defense often goes further. The World Cup is probably the best example. It's a blend between a round-robin and one-and-down (it's also the greatest tournament in the world, but I'm getting off track). Teams like Italy, Germany, and France are defensively focused, the Latin American teams are incredibly balanced with insanely talented midfields, and Spain is an offensive juggernaut. Italy and Germany (and to a certain extent France) have been historical powerhouses that have won it all. And it begins with their defense. Spain is the enigma; they are somehow winning with incredible offense and mediocre defense. And this is why: their offense is so consistent. In any sport, it is difficult to have a consistently good offense, game in and game out. It is MUCH easier to have a consistently good defense game in and game out.

And this brings me to my point - the saying does from the fact that teams cannot always rely on offense but they can on defense. Of course, having a balance is always better, but if you had to choose either an elite defense or an elite offense, wouldn't you take the elite defense any day of the week and twice on Sunday?

So, color me very skeptical of next year's team. It ain't easy going from +100 in defensive efficiency to top 30 (or even top 50) defensive efficiency. And yes, someone (Kedsy?) will probably say that the difference between a 116 defensive efficiency ranking and a 30 defensive efficiency ranking is only 6.0 points per 100 possessions, but a) that is a lot of points over a 40 game season and b) the eyeball test also does wonders. Between our Swiss cheese perimeter defense, our unproven freshman, our most committed defender having graduated, our lack of focus, and, in the case that Jabari comes back, our superstar's inability to play solid D, I'm very skeptical of our defense next year.

Defense "often" goes further, yes. Just as offense "often" goes further. In every sport you name, there is an old (http://freakonomics.com/2012/01/20/does-defense-really-win-championships/) wives' tale (http://www.windycitygridiron.com/2014/2/3/5374284/seattle-seahawks-chicago-bears-defense-wins-championships-myth) that defense wins championships. It's just that there is almost no statistical evidence to back up those claims. If I had to guess, it's because people graft some ridiculous notion of morality onto the game. Defensive teams are described as tough and manly. Offensive teams are described as finesse-oriented. And the narratives are so easy to assemble. You mention Germany and Italy, who have historically excelled as defensive squads. But you left out the most successful World Cup nation of all time, Brazil, who is deeply identified not only with offense but with stylish, attractive offense. To win an NCAA championship, it helps to be elite. If you can be elite on one side of the ball, that's better than nothing. If you can be elite on both sides of the ball, that's even better. Nothing guarantees anything in a single-elimination tournament, as Kedsy and CDu have said. Clinging to this defense over offense thing is just engaging in the same kind of evidence-free mythologizing you'll hear from John Kruk for approximately 1200 hours every summer.

Troublemaker
04-11-2014, 01:23 PM
So, color me very skeptical of next year's team. It ain't easy going from +100 in defensive efficiency to top 30 (or even top 50) defensive efficiency.

We can place a friendly wager (dinner) on this if you want. I'd definitely take Duke to finish with a top-30 defense next season. Obviously the wager wouldn't be decided for almost another year, but I'm a patient man.

COYS
04-11-2014, 01:29 PM
We can all agree that "offense wins games, defense wins championships" isn't a science. There are many times when it doesn't work, but more often then not championship teams are defensively minded. Football, basketball, soccer, hockey... defense often goes further. The World Cup is probably the best example. It's a blend between a round-robin and one-and-down (it's also the greatest tournament in the world, but I'm getting off track). Teams like Italy, Germany, and France are defensively focused, the Latin American teams are incredibly balanced with insanely talented midfields, and Spain is an offensive juggernaut. Italy and Germany (and to a certain extent France) have been historical powerhouses that have won it all. And it begins with their defense. Spain is the enigma; they are somehow winning with incredible offense and mediocre defense. And this is why: their offense is so consistent. In any sport, it is difficult to have a consistently good offense, game in and game out. It is MUCH easier to have a consistently good defense game in and game out.

And this brings me to my point - the saying does from the fact that teams cannot always rely on offense but they can on defense. Of course, having a balance is always better, but if you had to choose either an elite defense or an elite offense, wouldn't you take the elite defense any day of the week and twice on Sunday?

So, color me very skeptical of next year's team. It ain't easy going from +100 in defensive efficiency to top 30 (or even top 50) defensive efficiency. And yes, someone (Kedsy?) will probably say that the difference between a 116 defensive efficiency ranking and a 30 defensive efficiency ranking is only 6.0 points per 100 possessions, but a) that is a lot of points over a 40 game season and b) the eyeball test also does wonders. Between our Swiss cheese perimeter defense, our unproven freshman, our most committed defender having graduated, our lack of focus, and, in the case that Jabari comes back, our superstar's inability to play solid D, I'm very skeptical of our defense next year.

To me, the soccer references are slightly over-generalized. Spain's recent run of international championships has been fueled by their extreme possession based style. I wouldn't characterize it as offense-focused so much as possession-focused. It just so happens that their embarrassment of riches in the midfield (Iniesta, Xavi, Xavi Alonso, Fabregas, Busquets . . . good lord the list goes on and on!) allows them to pass with such precision that they can basically prevent the opposition from even touching the ball for long periods. Rather than some teams, which wish to increase their shots on goal numbers, Spain has generally used their passing to create the perfect chance, passing up decent chances with the thought that with their passing they can create an even better chance. In fact, Spain, which you point to as the primary offensive-focused team, won the 2010 World Cup while only scoring 8 TOTAL goals, which set a record for the fewest goals scored by a winning side. Italy has traditionally been a defense-first team. However, the most recent incarnations, such as the Euro 2012 version, really hinged on Pirlo's sensational passing ability out of the midfield, especially since their defense was aging and less dominant than usual. As for Brazil, there is a reason the Brazil teams with Pele are largely responsible for soccer being called "the beautiful game." While certainly Brazil has played good defense to win the World Cup, the focus of those teams were almost always dynamic attackers, such as Pele, or Ronaldinho and Ronaldo in '02, and Romario in '94. In fact, a hallmark of the Brazilian teams for a long while was marauding fullbacks who would sprint out of defense to overlap with the midfield players and create chances on offense, then use their speed to break up plays on defense. In many ways, the fullbacks were offense-first players who had the athleticism to recover and play defense. Attacking midfielder Zinedine Zidane was the lynchpin for France's championship in '98. Germany's teams have been extremely creative in the attack, although they are certainly known for being well organized on defense, too, although Germany has been coming up third best in many of the recent tournaments. Maradona led Argentina's best teams.

In fact, I'd actually venture to say that a big part of the defensive success for many of the worlds top soccer powers comes from their ability to apply pressure on offense. More so than in any of the other big American sport except perhaps hockey, offense and defense are very closely tied. A team with the best defense in the world will be hard-pressed to win a match if they don't have any midfielders or forwards who can hold possession and relieve some of the pressure that the other team is applying. Similarly, a team that has a toothless attack will allow the other team to advance all of their midfielders and fullbacks into attacking positions since they have no need to fear their opponent.

I'm not saying you're entirely wrong. Certainly World Cup winners have had very good defenses. It's just that I don't think it's fair to characterize all of those teams as defensively focused. I'd say that, at the very least, the vast majority of the winning teams have been balanced and had plenty of focus on the offensive side of things.

To bring this back to the discussion at hand, I don't blame you for being skeptical about Duke's preseason ranking, especially given the likelihood that our best players from this season will be gone and we will count on freshman to replace them. However, I don't think it's fair to say that a team in any sport absolutely MUST have a defense-first focus to win a championship. As has been pointed out, that has not been the case for recent NCAA champions, nor has it really been the case for World Cup winners.

Kedsy
04-11-2014, 10:43 PM
It ain't easy going from +100 in defensive efficiency to top 30 (or even top 50) defensive efficiency.

This is not meant to be an exhaustive search, but about ten minutes of research shows the following teams going from 100+ defenses in 2013 to top 30 defenses in 2014 (final Pomeroy numbers). I may not have caught them all, and I'm certain there would be scads more if I bothered looking for teams that went from 100+ defenses to top 50:

From 2013 to 2014
------------------
Northwestern: 134 to 14
SMU: 151 to 17
UC Irvine: 108 to 23
Nebraska: 102 to 25
Tulsa: 130 to 30
Eastern Michigan: 98 to 24 (not quite but close enough for me)

FWIW, that's 20% of the top 30 defenses.

So, it may not be easy, but it's not all that uncommon, either.

COYS
04-12-2014, 10:36 AM
This is not meant to be an exhaustive search, but about ten minutes of research shows the following teams going from 100+ defenses in 2013 to top 30 defenses in 2014 (final Pomeroy numbers). I may not have caught them all, and I'm certain there would be scads more if I bothered looking for teams that went from 100+ defenses to top 50:

From 2013 to 2014
------------------
Northwestern: 134 to 14
SMU: 151 to 17
UC Irvine: 108 to 23
Nebraska: 102 to 25
Tulsa: 130 to 30
Eastern Michigan: 98 to 24 (not quite but close enough for me)

FWIW, that's 20% of the top 30 defenses.

So, it may not be easy, but it's not all that uncommon, either.

You could also look at it this way. Duke went from a top 37 defense to outside the top 100 in one year. Surely it is possible to have the reverse happen, as well.

DaveR
04-12-2014, 11:41 AM
I was at the game in Houston in 2011, and I can honestly say that both championship teams were absolutely horrible to watch---an embarrassment for college basketball IMHO ...
I was there too ... wondering what you thoughts were on the other 66 teams

DaveR
04-12-2014, 11:45 AM
...

with uconn returning 3 starters from a championship team, and duke pulling in an ABSURD class and returning some key pieces (jabari??? pleaseeeee!!!!) I can only hope for two great teams to cheer for next march.

...
same here

conmanlhughes
04-12-2014, 12:39 PM
This is not meant to be an exhaustive search, but about ten minutes of research shows the following teams going from 100+ defenses in 2013 to top 30 defenses in 2014 (final Pomeroy numbers). I may not have caught them all, and I'm certain there would be scads more if I bothered looking for teams that went from 100+ defenses to top 50:

From 2013 to 2014
------------------
Northwestern: 134 to 14
SMU: 151 to 17
UC Irvine: 108 to 23
Nebraska: 102 to 25
Tulsa: 130 to 30
Eastern Michigan: 98 to 24 (not quite but close enough for me)

FWIW, that's 20% of the top 30 defenses.

So, it may not be easy, but it's not all that uncommon, either.

I definetely understand the UC Irvine jump. When you land a big guy that stand 7'6, i think opponents will be a little bit more wary of driving to the hoop. Maybe Duke should go after Tacko Fall for that sorta defense presence...

Troublemaker
04-15-2014, 08:31 PM
I don't think these have been posted yet.

Odds to win NCAA title next season (http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-basketball/odds/futures/) from the Las Vegas Hilton

Pretty much what you would expect. Arizona, Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, Wisconsin, North Carolina at the top. (Florida is there, too, which may be surprising.)

MCFinARL
04-16-2014, 12:12 PM
I don't think these have been posted yet.

Odds to win NCAA title next season (http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-basketball/odds/futures/) from the Las Vegas Hilton

Pretty much what you would expect. Arizona, Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, Wisconsin, North Carolina at the top. (Florida is there, too, which may be surprising.)

That is a bit surprising, given that they are losing Young and Wilbekin. But maybe this early in the game, the odds place a lot of weight on coaches and programs, since rosters are still coming together.

FerryFor50
04-16-2014, 12:17 PM
I definetely understand the UC Irvine jump. When you land a big guy that stand 7'6, i think opponents will be a little bit more wary of driving to the hoop. Maybe Duke should go after Tacko Fall for that sorta defense presence...

Or maybe a Jahlil Okafor type of defensive presence... oh, wait. ;)

Kedsy
04-16-2014, 12:31 PM
Or maybe a Jahlil Okafor type of defensive presence... oh, wait. ;)

How big of a defensive presence can we expect from Jahlil? I've heard mixed reports.

Troublemaker
04-16-2014, 01:01 PM
How big of a defensive presence can we expect from Jahlil? I've heard mixed reports.

He might not be Anthony Davis, but I would like to think he'd be above average at 6'10", 272 lbs, with a 7'5" wingspan.

In 1-on-1 post entry situations, he should be better than Amile and Jabari were last season just because of those dimensions. Actually, few opponents will even have a big guy that they'd try to postup against Jahlil, I'd think.

In help situations where he's near the basket, again I'd like to think with those dimensions he could alter shots better than our bigs this season and help reduce our 2-pt defensive %.

For big men his size, I think usually the only concern would be how he fares in pick-n-roll situations away from the basket.

Kedsy
04-16-2014, 01:20 PM
For big men his size, I think usually the only concern would be how he fares in pick-n-roll situations away from the basket.

The key there would be help rotation from our PF (presumably Amile in most cases) and/or whomever's playing SF. And then Jahlil hustling back for the defensive board or to re-set the D.

That's why our D in 2010 worked so well, Lance and Kyle rotated well whenever Z had to leave the low post. That's also why teams like Wisconsin, NC State, and Georgetown flummoxed us -- they played four-out, one-in, keeping Lance and Kyle too far away to help/rotate effectively.

I'd hope and expect Amile to understand and execute proper help/rotation by his junior year, and hopefully Justise with his reputation for defense will do the same. That alone could get our defense from the 100+ it was this year into the top 30.

gumbomoop
04-28-2014, 04:19 PM
ESPN's updated preseason prediction: http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/98690/revised-top-25-post-deadline-edition

The ESPN men's college bball homepage which links to Eamonn Brennan's prediction is entitled "Now That We're All Here," a reference to who's gone, who stays. But actually as of today we're still one major decision short of "All." Myles Turner's decision would lift some team a spot or two, or more, depending. Ironically, only Duke's spot in Brennan's list would not improve should Turner announce for Duke on Wednesday.

Adding Myles would improve our spot in my own list, as I'd prefer, for once, to err just a tad toward lowering expectations. My list, subject to revision come Thursday, is:

1. UK
2. Arizona
3. Wisconsin
4. UVa
5. Duke
6. UNC
7. Villanova
8. Kansas
9. SMU
10. UL
11. Florida
12. Wichita St.
13. Gonzaga
14. Iowa St.
15. VCU
16. Texas
17. UConn
18. Oklahoma
19-25. no clue

I assume most on EK would have UK, Arizona, Duke, and Wisconsin in top 5, UNC in top 8-10. Think I've got UVa way too high? I really like Bennett, and think his team executes his systems very effectively. Any question that UVa, Duke, and UNC are clear ACC top-tier? SMU way high? Other foolish guesses (mine)?

As to Brennan's list, I confess that Wichita St. at 5 seems very high, given that they lost most of their rebounding. As with many teams, their experienced 3-guard small-ball should do very well, but losing Early will hurt a lot. I admired their play this season, thought them a legitimate 1-seed, and assume they'll win lots again next season. But 5 seems too high. Brennan has UConn at 11, which also seems high, but maybe they'll peak during the tourney yet again. Is Michigan still top-25? Will they grab any rebounds??

ACCBBallFan
04-28-2014, 07:09 PM
ESPN's updated preseason prediction: http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/98690/revised-top-25-post-deadline-edition



#2 Duke, #6 UNC, #7 UVA and # 8 Louisville gives new ACC four in top 8 which if it holds up would strengthen every ACC team's overall SOS.

burnspbesq
04-28-2014, 07:36 PM
I definetely understand the UC Irvine jump. When you land a big guy that stand 7'6, i think opponents will be a little bit more wary of driving to the hoop. Maybe Duke should go after Tacko Fall for that sorta defense presence...

Mamadou's presence also allowed the Anteaters to be more aggressive on the perimeter. Their attitude was pretty much "yeah, I might get beat back door, but I'll take that chance."

richardjackson199
04-28-2014, 09:01 PM
ESPN's updated preseason prediction: http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/98690/revised-top-25-post-deadline-edition

The ESPN men's college bball homepage which links to Eamonn Brennan's prediction is entitled "Now That We're All Here," a reference to who's gone, who stays. But actually as of today we're still one major decision short of "All." Myles Turner's decision would lift some team a spot or two, or more, depending. Ironically, only Duke's spot in Brennan's list would not improve should Turner announce for Duke on Wednesday.

Adding Myles would improve our spot in my own list, as I'd prefer, for once, to err just a tad toward lowering expectations. My list, subject to revision come Thursday, is:

1. UK
2. Arizona
3. Wisconsin
4. UVa
5. Duke
6. UNC
7. Villanova
8. Kansas
9. SMU
10. UL
11. Florida
12. Wichita St.
13. Gonzaga
14. Iowa St.
15. VCU
16. Texas
17. UConn
18. Oklahoma
19-25. no clue

I assume most on EK would have UK, Arizona, Duke, and Wisconsin in top 5, UNC in top 8-10. Think I've got UVa way too high? I really like Bennett, and think his team executes his systems very effectively. Any question that UVa, Duke, and UNC are clear ACC top-tier? SMU way high? Other foolish guesses (mine)?

As to Brennan's list, I confess that Wichita St. at 5 seems very high, given that they lost most of their rebounding. As with many teams, their experienced 3-guard small-ball should do very well, but losing Early will hurt a lot. I admired their play this season, thought them a legitimate 1-seed, and assume they'll win lots again next season. But 5 seems too high. Brennan has UConn at 11, which also seems high, but maybe they'll peak during the tourney yet again. Is Michigan still top-25? Will they grab any rebounds??

I'd love it if I'm wrong, but I really don't think UVA is top 4. Losing Joe Harris and Mitchell is a big deal. I love Tony Bennett, and I'm starting a fellowship at UVA in July, so like I said I hope I'm wrong and they're that good. They'll be good - top 25, but I don't think top 4. I think Louisville and UNC will be better than UVA in the ACC (along with Duke hopefully). The ACC is going to be gunning for UVA next year, and they won't cruise through like they did this year.

You have a good list, and I don't have many arguments. I like lowering Duke's expectations, and hoping they exceed them. We'll be young, meaning we'll get better as March approaches barring injury. If Turner goes to Duke, we'll be better than #5. If Turner goes to Kansas, they'll be better than #8. I expect Turner to announce Wed. for Kansas over Texas as his 2nd choice, Duke as his 3rd choice. We'll see. I trust Olympic Fan. Again, ecstatic if I'm wrong and he announces for Duke. Feed me some crow, medium rare please.

I don't know enough about Nova to comment on them. I think UNC is top 5 - they also add some strong recruits like Jackson (no relation). And every year some teams come out of nowhere. So it will be fun.

ACCBBallFan
04-29-2014, 10:32 AM
My list, subject to revision come Thursday, is:

1. UK
2. Arizona
3. Wisconsin
4. UVa
5. Duke
6. UNC
7. Villanova
8. Kansas
9. SMU
10. UL
11. Florida
12. Wichita St.
13. Gonzaga
14. Iowa St.
15. VCU
16. Texas
17. UConn
18. Oklahoma
19-25. no clue


I note you have 3 ACC teams in your top 6, much like ESPN's 4 in top 8. Not big on Louisville though?

gumbomoop
04-29-2014, 11:16 AM
I note you have 3 ACC teams in your top 6, much like ESPN's 4 in top 8. Not big on Louisville though?

I do have them at 10, so I acknowledge they're not chopped liver. But your friendly amendment is nevertheless on point, as I left UL out in my comment re ACC top tier. And the reason is .... I temporarily forgot they're joining. So I need to ask the general question of whether anyone would disagree that there is a preseason ACC top tier of those 4 teams.

It does appear that the ACC will look pretty impressive in the Oct preseason polls. UVa might be pre-ranked below the other 3 ACC powers, but maybe not, as Bennett's reputation surely grows. Not to mention he has 5 good to excellent players returning plus a role player or two. Tobey has to play a lot, and well, for them to have an excellent season.

As to my prognostication, after what seems obvious pre-1, UK, I start making semi-logical guesses. I'm very high on Tyus and Jahlil, close to convinced that Winslow will be excellent, too. But as my standard criteria are talent, experience, depth, I'd nudge Arizona and Wisconsin ahead of Duke. Putting UVa ahead of Duke and UNC is mostly just to acknowledge how consistently Bennett's guys execute his systems. More experienced prognosticators will put them a little -- but I think not a whole lot -- lower. Their talent won't jump out as much, but it's there.

If Myles Turner doesn't choose Duke, sure hope he joins up with Barnes rather than Self. Or maybe Travis Ford. Even Larry Brown. Turner to SMU would be a story.

Olympic Fan
04-29-2014, 12:50 PM
(1) I think it would be a mistake to underrate Virginia next season. I know that FSU in 2012 and Miami in 2013 won the ACC then dropped back into the pack the next season, but I don't see that happening to Virginia. Both FSU and Miami were senior-dominated teams. That's not the case with the Cavs.

They return six players who saw double-figure minutes last season and a seventh (Evan Nolte) who barely missed. Obviously, losing Harris and Mitchell hurts, but they have Justin Anderson, the ACC's sixth man of the year, to replace Harris and Anthony Gill, who was so good in postseason, to take Mitchell's place in the lineup. They return their best player from last season -- Malcolm Brogdon. I suspect London Perrantes, who averaged almost 5 assists to one turnover in ACC play last season as a freshman, ought to be one of the best PGs in the country. They also have a solid recruiting class -- not filled with McDonald's All-Americans, but at least four quality players (including the son of the great Bryant Stith).

Their defense will be good again. And for the second year in a row they have one of the easier ACC schedules ... they are definitely in the mix to win the ACC again.

(2) Louisville has a major rebuilding job to do. It could have been worse -- Montrezl Harrell was expected to turn pro, but he elected to return for his junior year. The combo of Harrell up front, Chris Jones at guard and veteran Wayne Blackshear (the last starter left off the 2013 national champs) is a nice foundation. But they lost a lot, including their best player (Ross Smith) and the veteran Luke Hancock. They have a promising rising soph in Terry Rozier and a six-man recruiting class that (like Virginia) doesn't have a five-star recruit, but has a bunch of four stars. At least a couple are likely to be good players next season.

So while I think Louisville starts behind Virginia, Duke and UNC, I think they are going to be top echelon ... probably fourth in my preseason ACC poll.

(3) Syracuse is the one that has the really tough rebounding job to do. Nobody got hurt more by early entry -- and that includes Duke and Kentucky, which also lost two studs. But the departure of Ennis and Grant, along with the graduation of Fair leaves some huge holes. Actually Boeheim has plenty of solid frontliners -- Christman, DaJuan Coleman (who missed last year with an injury) and stud recruit Chris McCullough should be a formidable front line. Or Boehein can go with Gbinije if the wants to go smaller. Tyler Roberson has potential.

But the backcourt is a mess -- can Joseph, a modestly rated point guard -- come in and do what Ennis did as a frosh? It's possible but unlikely. And what about Cooney at shooting guard -- his extended late-season slump was the key to the team's late slide. No recruits so far to fill that gap ... I wouldn't be surprised to see Boeheim bring in a fifth-year guy to provide some long-range firepower.

Not going to underrate the Orange -- it's one of those programs (like Duke and UNC) that never goes away, but I can't see them as better than fifth in the ACC to begin.

MCFinARL
04-29-2014, 01:21 PM
(1) I think it would be a mistake to underrate Virginia next season. I know that FSU in 2012 and Miami in 2013 won the ACC then dropped back into the pack the next season, but I don't see that happening to Virginia. Both FSU and Miami were senior-dominated teams. That's not the case with the Cavs.

They return six players who saw double-figure minutes last season and a seventh (Evan Nolte) who barely missed. Obviously, losing Harris and Mitchell hurts, but they have Justin Anderson, the ACC's sixth man of the year, to replace Harris and Anthony Gill, who was so good in postseason, to take Mitchell's place in the lineup. They return their best player from last season -- Malcolm Brogdon. I suspect London Perrantes, who averaged almost 5 assists to one turnover in ACC play last season as a freshman, ought to be one of the best PGs in the country. They also have a solid recruiting class -- not filled with McDonald's All-Americans, but at least four quality players (including the son of the great Bryant Stith).

Their defense will be good again. And for the second year in a row they have one of the easier ACC schedules ... they are definitely in the mix to win the ACC again.

(2) Louisville has a major rebuilding job to do. It could have been worse -- Montrezl Harrell was expected to turn pro, but he elected to return for his junior year. The combo of Harrell up front, Chris Jones at guard and veteran Wayne Blackshear (the last starter left off the 2013 national champs) is a nice foundation. But they lost a lot, including their best player (Ross Smith) and the veteran Luke Hancock. They have a promising rising soph in Terry Rozier and a six-man recruiting class that (like Virginia) doesn't have a five-star recruit, but has a bunch of four stars. At least a couple are likely to be good players next season.

So while I think Louisville starts behind Virginia, Duke and UNC, I think they are going to be top echelon ... probably fourth in my preseason ACC poll.

(3) Syracuse is the one that has the really tough rebounding job to do. Nobody got hurt more by early entry -- and that includes Duke and Kentucky, which also lost two studs. But the departure of Ennis and Grant, along with the graduation of Fair leaves some huge holes. Actually Boeheim has plenty of solid frontliners -- Christman, DaJuan Coleman (who missed last year with an injury) and stud recruit Chris McCullough should be a formidable front line. Or Boehein can go with Gbinije if the wants to go smaller. Tyler Roberson has potential.

But the backcourt is a mess -- can Joseph, a modestly rated point guard -- come in and do what Ennis did as a frosh? It's possible but unlikely. And what about Cooney at shooting guard -- his extended late-season slump was the key to the team's late slide. No recruits so far to fill that gap ... I wouldn't be surprised to see Boeheim bring in a fifth-year guy to provide some long-range firepower.

Not going to underrate the Orange -- it's one of those programs (like Duke and UNC) that never goes away, but I can't see them as better than fifth in the ACC to begin.

Bryant Stith has a son starting college? Wasn't he playing at UVA yesterday? I am feeling old.

Duke95
04-29-2014, 01:29 PM
Bryant Stith has a son starting college? Wasn't he playing at UVA yesterday? I am feeling old.

Yeah, when I realized that Parker was born the year I graduated from Duke, I felt it too.

ACCBBallFan
04-30-2014, 02:18 PM
I note you have 3 ACC teams in your top 6, much like ESPN's 4 in top 8. Not big on Louisville though?

Sorry, I missed that due to the abbreviation UL which admittedly is pretty commonly used.

So 4 in the top 10 again a testament to expected high SOS for the ACC teams who play several of them twice, and even some bunp for once

gumbomoop
04-30-2014, 04:30 PM
I guess Turner to Texas pushes Longhorns to borderline pre-top 10. Does it push them to borderline pre-top 5?

Kedsy
04-30-2014, 04:45 PM
I guess Turner to Texas pushes Longhorns to borderline pre-top 10. Does it push them to borderline pre-top 5?

If it does, they'll probably be overrated. Texas' frontcourt was pretty solid already. Adding Turner will help, but the incremental improvement shouldn't push a bottom-of-the-top-20 team to top 5, especially since Turner is reputed to be somewhat raw on offense. He's not Kevin Durant and he's not Anthony Davis.

tommy
04-30-2014, 09:19 PM
I guess Turner to Texas pushes Longhorns to borderline pre-top 10. Does it push them to borderline pre-top 5?

Nah. Kentucky, Duke, Arizona, Kansas, and Wisconsin are for sure going to be above them. Several others should be as well, including UNC. And any team coached by Rick Barnes has to be assumed to be likely to underachieve.

Duke3517
04-30-2014, 09:27 PM
Duke has better leadership this coming season with their juniors and seniors. But Duke to me is pre-ranked 15 until Coach K can prove to all of us that his system that he runs is well suited for one and done's.

SoCalDukeFan
04-30-2014, 11:05 PM
Duke has better leadership this coming season with their juniors and seniors. But Duke to me is pre-ranked 15 until Coach K can prove to all of us that his system that he runs is well suited for one and done's.

As we all know the last two Duke teams built around one and dones failed to win an NCAA tournament game.

I think K knows that as well. Hope and expect that he and the staff will come up some adjustments that takes maximum advantage of the talent on the team.

Kinda wish he was not involved in USA BBall in Spain this summer.

SoCal

Kedsy
04-30-2014, 11:14 PM
Duke has better leadership this coming season with their juniors and seniors. But Duke to me is pre-ranked 15 until Coach K can prove to all of us that his system that he runs is well suited for one and done's.

I'm sure Coach K will be heartbroken to hear Duke is only ranked 15th in your personal pre-season top 25, but do you really believe he has to "prove" anything "to all of us"?

Also, last season we had 3 seniors and 1 junior. Next season we'll have 3 juniors and 1 senior. We might have "better leadership" next season, but I'm not sure how you can tell at this point.

tommy
05-01-2014, 12:29 AM
I'm sure Coach K will be heartbroken to hear Duke is only ranked 15th in your personal pre-season top 25, but do you really believe he has to "prove" anything "to all of us"?

Also, last season we had 3 seniors and 1 junior. Next season we'll have 3 juniors and 1 senior. We might have "better leadership" next season, but I'm not sure how you can tell at this point.

Yes, especially since one of the three seniors last year was a guy whose leadership, and his resulting "favorite son" status with K, were purportedly important reasons why he saw the minutes he did, and since the one rising senior we have this year has been thought to be lacking in the leadership department.

FireOgilvie
05-01-2014, 01:34 AM
I'm sure Coach K will be heartbroken to hear Duke is only ranked 15th in your personal pre-season top 25, but do you really believe he has to "prove" anything "to all of us"?

Also, last season we had 3 seniors and 1 junior. Next season we'll have 3 juniors and 1 senior. We might have "better leadership" next season, but I'm not sure how you can tell at this point.

I don't totally agree with the guy you quoted. But, just looking at the facts, we haven't won an ACC title (including regular season) with a one-and-done - Kyrie was injured the season when we last won an ACC title. We have been on the wrong side of major first round upsets and a Sweet 16 upset in the Tournament with our last three one-and-done players. Our best overall year was 2013, when we had a bunch of seniors and lost to the eventual Tournament champion. We haven't won an ACC title of any kind in the last 3 years, the worst streak in over 30 years for Coach K. Obviously, he set the bar incredibly high for himself, but the last 4 seasons have been arguably the worst consecutive seasons for Coach K as far as ACC tournament/regular season titles and NCAA Tournament results since the early 1980s. But, how much of that is on Coach K and the one-and-done players, that's hard to quantify. I'm hopeful we can break the ACC streak next year with Okafor, but we'll still be starting 3 freshmen in an expanded and very tough ACC.

In my opinion, it's hard to play Coach K's favorite style of defense and take everyone's best shot with a bunch of inexperienced/freshmen players. He also seemed to admit that in the post-season press conference. I was personally hoping we would get Turner this year because I thought he gave us a great shot to win the title and if we're already going to start 2-3 freshmen, let's just go all-in like Kentucky and try to "out-talent" everyone. But, in general, starting and then maybe over-relying on 1 (or 2 this year) "new" guys in critical positions along with playing an 8 man rotation has led to a lack of experience and depth, and maybe some confusion about leadership. We return 3 of our top 7 scorers from last season and we're going to rely heavily on 2-3 freshmen who haven't experienced what it's like to play on the road in a hostile environment or in the NCAA Tournament. We could see the same pattern in 2015-16 if Tyus or Winslow leave along with Okafor (and Quinn). It would get really bad if Rasheed left as well. "Two-and-through" can't get here soon enough for me.

ice-9
05-01-2014, 02:04 AM
I don't totally agree with the guy you quoted. But, just looking at the facts, we haven't won an ACC title (including regular season) with a one-and-done - Kyrie was injured the season when we last won an ACC title. We have been on the wrong side of major first round upsets and a Sweet 16 upset in the Tournament with our last three one-and-done players. Our best overall year was 2013, when we had a bunch of seniors and lost to the eventual Tournament champion. We haven't won an ACC title of any kind in the last 3 years, the worst streak in over 30 years for Coach K. Obviously, he set the bar incredibly high for himself, but the last 4 seasons have been arguably the worst consecutive seasons for Coach K as far as ACC tournament/regular season titles and NCAA Tournament results since the early 1980s. But, how much of that is on Coach K and the one-and-done players, that's hard to quantify. I'm hopeful we can break the ACC streak next year with Okafor, but we'll still be starting 3 freshmen in an expanded and very tough ACC.

In my opinion, it's hard to play Coach K's favorite style of defense and take everyone's best shot with a bunch of inexperienced/freshmen players. He also seemed to admit that in the post-season press conference. I was personally hoping we would get Turner this year because I thought he gave us a great shot to win the title and if we're already going to start 2-3 freshmen, let's just go all-in like Kentucky and try to "out-talent" everyone. But, in general, starting and then maybe over-relying on 1 (or 2 this year) "new" guys in critical positions along with playing an 8 man rotation has led to a lack of experience and depth, and maybe some confusion about leadership. We return 3 of our top 7 scorers from last season and we're going to rely heavily on 2-3 freshmen who haven't experienced what it's like to play on the road in a hostile environment or in the NCAA Tournament. We could see the same pattern in 2015-16 if Tyus or Winslow leave along with Okafor (and Quinn). It would get really bad if Rasheed left as well. "Two-and-through" can't get here soon enough for me.


I also don't agree with the other poster's tone, about Coach K having to prove himself to us. The man is a Hall of Fame legend and doesn't need to prove anything. I do think the relative value of OADs is a valid debate.

I've noticed what FireOgilvie noticed, that our tournament results haven't been great with Austin and Jabari; but they have been very good with Luol and Corey. Austin and Jabari were asked to carry their teams; but for Luol and Corey, they had other veteran, high usage players. They fit into the team, the team didn't fit to them.

Has any Duke team built around a freshman succeeded in the tournament? I'm sure more knowledgeable Duke followers can answer that question definitely, but I suspect the answer is no. I wonder whether the key to extremely talented freshmen and OADs is to fit them in as cogs, versus asking them to be the hub.

FireOgilvie
05-01-2014, 02:58 AM
I also don't agree with the other poster's tone, about Coach K having to prove himself to us. The man is a Hall of Fame legend and doesn't need to prove anything. I do think the relative value of OADs is a valid debate.

I've noticed what FireOgilvie noticed, that our tournament results haven't been great with Austin and Jabari; but they have been very good with Luol and Corey. Austin and Jabari were asked to carry their teams; but for Luol and Corey, they had other veteran, high usage players. They fit into the team, the team didn't fit to them.

Has any Duke team built around a freshman succeeded in the tournament? I'm sure more knowledgeable Duke followers can answer that question definitely, but I suspect the answer is no. I wonder whether the key to extremely talented freshmen and OADs is to fit them in as cogs, versus asking them to be the hub.

Yes, I totally agree.

I think the OAD rule has been horrible for college basketball. Hindsight is 20/20, so it's easy for me or whoever to look back and say things about Duke's past seasons now. I certainly wouldn't have turned down Kyrie or Jabari. I've mentioned this before, but it seems like we're going after more 4-year type players for the Class of 2015 and beyond; guys that won't be NBA lottery picks right away just based on potential. Recruiting today is so difficult - the perfect recruit is one that is great in college from the beginning but for some reason doesn't leave early for the NBA, maybe due to some "flaw" to NBA scouts like lack of NBA height, quickness, athleticism, or "no NBA position."

FireOgilvie
05-01-2014, 04:11 AM
I don't totally agree with the guy you quoted. But, just looking at the facts, we haven't won an ACC title (including regular season) with a one-and-done - Kyrie was injured the season when we last won an ACC title. We have been on the wrong side of major first round upsets and a Sweet 16 upset in the Tournament with our last three one-and-done players. Our best overall year was 2013, when we had a bunch of seniors and lost to the eventual Tournament champion. We haven't won an ACC title of any kind in the last 3 years, the worst streak in over 30 years for Coach K. Obviously, he set the bar incredibly high for himself, but the last 4 seasons have been arguably the worst consecutive seasons for Coach K as far as ACC tournament/regular season titles and NCAA Tournament results since the early 1980s. But, how much of that is on Coach K and the one-and-done players, that's hard to quantify. I'm hopeful we can break the ACC streak next year with Okafor, but we'll still be starting 3 freshmen in an expanded and very tough ACC.

In my opinion, it's hard to play Coach K's favorite style of defense and take everyone's best shot with a bunch of inexperienced/freshmen players. He also seemed to admit that in the post-season press conference. I was personally hoping we would get Turner this year because I thought he gave us a great shot to win the title and if we're already going to start 2-3 freshmen, let's just go all-in like Kentucky and try to "out-talent" everyone. But, in general, starting and then maybe over-relying on 1 (or 2 this year) "new" guys in critical positions along with playing an 8 man rotation has led to a lack of experience and depth, and maybe some confusion about leadership. We return 3 of our top 7 scorers from last season and we're going to rely heavily on 2-3 freshmen who haven't experienced what it's like to play on the road in a hostile environment or in the NCAA Tournament. We could see the same pattern in 2015-16 if Tyus or Winslow leave along with Okafor (and Quinn). It would get really bad if Rasheed left as well. "Two-and-through" can't get here soon enough for me.

To clarify my own post, I was talking about Duke since the "one-and-done" rule was implemented. As we know, Duke has successfully used star freshmen in the past. I mentioned this, and Ice-9 makes a good point, about relying too much on freshmen/OADs from the beginning.

But, back to the pre-season polls, I think KU is being underrated, even with Wiggins and Embiid gone. Their best returning players were freshmen and sophomores last year, and I think Alexander may make as much of an impact as Embiid did. He's probably more ready for the college game than Embiid was at the beginning of the year. I could also see Oubre playing well from the beginning. What I like about KU next year is that they won't be relying on a freshman guy like Wiggins to be their top scorer - they're going to be more balanced. Despite his positive qualities, I think guys expected him to carry the offense every game but he often disappeared for long stretches. The rest of the team shot 50.6% on the season, while he shot 44.8%, he had more turnovers than assists, and I think he probably took too many 3 pointers considering how good they were on the interior. I am also assuming Tharpe stays on the team (TexHawk mentioned he may not be). I'd put KU in the top 5.

sagegrouse
05-01-2014, 06:49 AM
I don't totally agree with the guy you quoted. But, just looking at the facts, we haven't won an ACC title (including regular season) with a one-and-done - Kyrie was injured the season when we last won an ACC title. We have been on the wrong side of major first round upsets and a Sweet 16 upset in the Tournament with our last three one-and-done players. .

Corey Maggette and los Tres Amigos say, "Buenos dias."

Kedsy
05-01-2014, 10:59 AM
I don't totally agree with the guy you quoted. But, just looking at the facts, we haven't won an ACC title (including regular season) with a one-and-done - Kyrie was injured the season when we last won an ACC title. We have been on the wrong side of major first round upsets and a Sweet 16 upset in the Tournament with our last three one-and-done players.


Has any Duke team built around a freshman succeeded in the tournament?

There just aren't enough data points. The 2000 team was built around freshmen, and won both the ACC regular season and ACC tournament championships, but did have Chris Carrawell, Shane Battier, and Nate James. The 1990 team was really built around a freshman PG and a sophomore big man, and made the national championship game, but the team's leading scorer was senior Phil Henderson. The 1998 team relied heavily on freshmen and made the Elite Eight, but it did have upperclass stars Roshown McLeod and Trajan Langdon. The 1999 and 2004 Final Four teams had one-and-dones, but were before the "one-and-done" era. The 2011 team won the ACC championship, but Kyrie didn't play in the tournament.

If you don't count all those teams, you're left with the fact that neither Austin Rivers nor Jabari Parker won an ACC championship or an NCAA tournament game. That's two data points. Yes, they're facts, but there's no way you can make any reliable conclusions based on two data points.

I'd also note that if Kyrie had played the entire year, you'd have to think we'd have performed better in the 2011 NCAA tournament, and if Ryan Kelly had played in the 2012 post-season, you'd have to think we'd have won some games that year too. This is why relying on such a small number of data points is unreliable -- there are too many other factors that might have totally changed the "facts" and indeed the tenor of the entire conversation.

ice-9
05-01-2014, 01:01 PM
There just aren't enough data points. The 2000 team was built around freshmen, and won both the ACC regular season and ACC tournament championships, but did have Chris Carrawell, Shane Battier, and Nate James. The 1990 team was really built around a freshman PG and a sophomore big man, and made the national championship game, but the team's leading scorer was senior Phil Henderson. The 1998 team relied heavily on freshmen and made the Elite Eight, but it did have upperclass stars Roshown McLeod and Trajan Langdon. The 1999 and 2004 Final Four teams had one-and-dones, but were before the "one-and-done" era. The 2011 team won the ACC championship, but Kyrie didn't play in the tournament.

If you don't count all those teams, you're left with the fact that neither Austin Rivers nor Jabari Parker won an ACC championship or an NCAA tournament game. That's two data points. Yes, they're facts, but there's no way you can make any reliable conclusions based on two data points.

I'd also note that if Kyrie had played the entire year, you'd have to think we'd have performed better in the 2011 NCAA tournament, and if Ryan Kelly had played in the 2012 post-season, you'd have to think we'd have won some games that year too. This is why relying on such a small number of data points is unreliable -- there are too many other factors that might have totally changed the "facts" and indeed the tenor of the entire conversation.

IIRC, the 2000 team weren't built around freshmen. It was built around Chris Carawell and Shane Battier, who were upperclassmen and who everyone else played off of. They were the Parker and Hood of that team. In any case that team lost in the Sweet 16.

Similarly, the 1998 team were more about Langdon and McLeod. The freshmen played big roles, sure, but they played roles nevertheless. Cogs instead of hubs.

The 1999 and 2004 teams weren't built around Corey or Luol. Corey didn't even start. Luol was a very important player to his team, but he was just one of the Big 3. Redick and Shelden were arguably more critical.

The 1990 team was before my time, so I can't comment on it.

Part of the difficulty is that Duke never had to construct a team's entire strategy around freshmen; we've always had one or two upperclassmen to lead the team. Where freshmen have played lots of minutes, it was in the context of supporting roles.

So maybe we've only had two instances where we've relied heavily on freshmen to lead, and that's Rivers and Parker. Only two data points, sure, but also 2 out of the 3 times Coach K lost in the round of 64 across 20 NCAA tournaments. It's not definitive, but it does say something.

Olympic Fan
05-01-2014, 01:02 PM
Jeff Goodman just tweeted that starting point guard Naadir Tharpe is transferring from Kansas:

http://inagist.com/all/461910237205643264/

Curious to what our Kansas fans think of this -- my impression is that Tharpe provokes kind of the same reaction from Kansas fans that Quin Cook evokes from Duke fans -- sort of mixed. Still, tough to lose a senior point guard.

My second reaction: This must mean that Kansas is going to get Devonte Graham (sorry, NC State fans)

johnb
05-01-2014, 01:18 PM
To win big with freshman stars, you still need upperclass stars. We didn't so much as build our team around Rodney and Jabari (though I know K said that) but simply recognize that they were our two best players and try to run the offense through them. I'm sure the coaches would have been fine if Quinn or Rasheed or Amile had stepped forward and played at an all-ACC (or all-American) level. The fact that they didn't wasn't Jabari's fault. I like our returning guys and am rooting for all of them to have breakout seasons. And I do realize that Jabari as a junior would be awesome, but Jabari as a freshman was pretty darn good. And I expect much the same next year for at least 3, and perhaps all, of our freshmen.

TexHawk
05-01-2014, 01:25 PM
To clarify my own post, I was talking about Duke since the "one-and-done" rule was implemented. As we know, Duke has successfully used star freshmen in the past. I mentioned this, and Ice-9 makes a good point, about relying too much on freshmen/OADs from the beginning.

But, back to the pre-season polls, I think KU is being underrated, even with Wiggins and Embiid gone. Their best returning players were freshmen and sophomores last year, and I think Alexander may make as much of an impact as Embiid did. He's probably more ready for the college game than Embiid was at the beginning of the year. I could also see Oubre playing well from the beginning. What I like about KU next year is that they won't be relying on a freshman guy like Wiggins to be their top scorer - they're going to be more balanced. Despite his positive qualities, I think guys expected him to carry the offense every game but he often disappeared for long stretches. The rest of the team shot 50.6% on the season, while he shot 44.8%, he had more turnovers than assists, and I think he probably took too many 3 pointers considering how good they were on the interior. I am also assuming Tharpe stays on the team (TexHawk mentioned he may not be). I'd put KU in the top 5.

1-- The "Andrew Wiggins often disappeared for long stretches" thing has taken a life of it's own. After January 1, he scored less than 15 points in 5 games (out of 22). One of those was senior night where he played 20 minutes, and none of the last 10. 3 of the remaining 4 were against OSU, Texas, and Stanford... Yea, national TV games that had millions of eyes on him. Sure, you'd hope he wouldn't disappear against the tougher opponents, I don't blame some of the reaction, but the prevailing narrative that he regularly took entire halves off is not accurate. Do I think he's a perfect player? Of course not, he very clearly wasn't as aggressive as he could have been all of the time, but he's far from lazy or distracted.

2-- KU around 8-10 is fine with me. I'm not as optimistic as I have been the last couple of years. I think Big Cliff will have an uneven start, with foul trouble being his biggest problem. Oubre has been billed as a sufficient Wiggins replacement, and a slightly better shooter (but worse defender). Defense will be a problem all over the place (again). My gut tells me Tharpe is gone, but I will likely be wrong. I personally don't see how Self can bring him back, he would be the only senior, and he isn't a leader. I would kill for another Mario Chalmers.

It could all come together nicely in January, but I'm not going to chalk up '11 in a row' just yet. Texas is going to be very very good.


EDIT: And, boom. I should learn to trust my gut more. :)

FireOgilvie
05-01-2014, 02:38 PM
Corey Maggette and los Tres Amigos say, "Buenos dias."

Yeah, I clarified that I was talking about the "one-and-done" rule era in another post.

Back to KU, funny that Thaarpe transfers only hours after making that comment. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing...

Kedsy
05-01-2014, 03:13 PM
So maybe we've only had two instances where we've relied heavily on freshmen to lead, and that's Rivers and Parker. Only two data points, sure, but also 2 out of the 3 times Coach K lost in the round of 64 across 20 NCAA tournaments. It's not definitive, but it does say something.

I disagree with several of your assessments, but that's not the point, I expected you to say those things. The point is I don't think the fact that the 2012 and 2014 teams both lost in the first round says much, if anything, about anything. It wasn't Austin's fault that Ryan Kelly missed the 2012 post-season, and while we clearly still should have beaten Lehigh anyway, there's little chance we would have lost that game if a healthy Ryan had played in it. And if we had won that game, then this narrative doesn't exist. Which, again, is why you shouldn't make broad conclusions based on a sample size of 2.

More importantly, the fact that these two teams with one-and-done freshman stars both happened to lose in the first round could have many causes having nothing to do with the freshmen. For example, these two teams were each one of the few Duke teams that didn't have a clear starter at PG (along with 2009 and 1995 and that's about it during Coach K's time here). To me, that seems a more likely culprit than relying heavily on freshmen. Frankly, to me, blind chance seems a more likely culprit.


Curious to what our Kansas fans think of this -- my impression is that Tharpe provokes kind of the same reaction from Kansas fans that Quin Cook evokes from Duke fans -- sort of mixed. Still, tough to lose a senior point guard.

After the selfie thing, TexHawk said that Tharpe was probably gone. Turns out he was right. Sounds like Kansas fans are more interested in seeing Mason and Frankamp play, anyway.

gumbomoop
05-01-2014, 04:25 PM
Luke Winn, post-Turner ridiculously early but interesting power rankings:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-basketball/news/20140501/power-rankings-kentucky-duke-wisconsin-arizona-kansas/index.html

Winn compares Jahlil to Sullinger and Love as frosh, says 17/10 "within reach."

Des Esseintes
05-01-2014, 05:35 PM
To win big with freshman stars, you still need upperclass stars. We didn't so much as build our team around Rodney and Jabari (though I know K said that) but simply recognize that they were our two best players and try to run the offense through them. I'm sure the coaches would have been fine if Quinn or Rasheed or Amile had stepped forward and played at an all-ACC (or all-American) level. The fact that they didn't wasn't Jabari's fault. I like our returning guys and am rooting for all of them to have breakout seasons. And I do realize that Jabari as a junior would be awesome, but Jabari as a freshman was pretty darn good. And I expect much the same next year for at least 3, and perhaps all, of our freshmen.

No, you don't. You just don't. Kentucky won a title with no upperclassman stars. They nearly won a title this year with no upperclassman stars. THERE ARE NO RULES FOR WINNING BIG IN A SINGLE-ELIMINATION TOURNAMENT. It drives me crazy how everyone wants to graft after-the-fact laws onto this extremely randomized event, and they are all garbage. More talent means you have a better chance of going deep. More veteran talent is even better and gives you an even better chance of going deep. A strong defense gives you a better chance of going deep. Great coaching gives you a better chance of going deep. A favorable draw gives you a better chance of going deep. Playing close to home gives you a better chance of going deep. Great guard play gives you a better chance of going deep. A "rim protector" gives you a better chance of going deep. Meaningful depth gives you a better chance of going deep. All of these things, they help. But they just help. None are necessary. Teams have succeeded in the NCAA tournament lacking these values, often several at a time. Every piece of analysis we have that attempts even the slightest degree of rigor says that teams constructed any which dumb way can and do succeed in the tournament.

Just think, you can be the worse team in EVERY game and still win big. A team with a 40% of winning each game it plays still retains a 2.5% of winning four games and making the Final Four. Again, that's a team that wasn't supposed to win a single game. The NCAA tournament has no rules other than being good is preferable to being bad, and being lucky is the most preferable thing of all.

ice-9
05-02-2014, 12:38 AM
I disagree with several of your assessments, but that's not the point, I expected you to say those things. The point is I don't think the fact that the 2012 and 2014 teams both lost in the first round says much, if anything, about anything. It wasn't Austin's fault that Ryan Kelly missed the 2012 post-season, and while we clearly still should have beaten Lehigh anyway, there's little chance we would have lost that game if a healthy Ryan had played in it. And if we had won that game, then this narrative doesn't exist. Which, again, is why you shouldn't make broad conclusions based on a sample size of 2.

More importantly, the fact that these two teams with one-and-done freshman stars both happened to lose in the first round could have many causes having nothing to do with the freshmen. For example, these two teams were each one of the few Duke teams that didn't have a clear starter at PG (along with 2009 and 1995 and that's about it during Coach K's time here). To me, that seems a more likely culprit than relying heavily on freshmen. Frankly, to me, blind chance seems a more likely culprit.

I don't know why you're portraying my statements as definitive positions, where I've been careful to communicate them as open questions and theories to test on this forum.

Who really knows what's causation and what's correlation.

It's also interesting to note that your strongly worded response is based on suppositions -- in other words, just another opinion.

ice-9
05-02-2014, 12:43 AM
To win big with freshman stars, you still need upperclass stars. We didn't so much as build our team around Rodney and Jabari (though I know K said that) but simply recognize that they were our two best players and try to run the offense through them. I'm sure the coaches would have been fine if Quinn or Rasheed or Amile had stepped forward and played at an all-ACC (or all-American) level. The fact that they didn't wasn't Jabari's fault. I like our returning guys and am rooting for all of them to have breakout seasons. And I do realize that Jabari as a junior would be awesome, but Jabari as a freshman was pretty darn good. And I expect much the same next year for at least 3, and perhaps all, of our freshmen.

It absolutely matters that Coach K designed last season's team around Parker and Hood. Rasheed is a perfect example; his role changed from his freshman to sophomore year. In his freshman year his job was to score in iso situations with the ball in his hands; especially whenever the offense stalled and during low shot clock situations. In his sophomore year, it was Parker's and Hood's roles to do that so Rasheed was asked instead to do other things. This was the big reason he struggled early on.


No, you don't. You just don't. Kentucky won a title with no upperclassman stars. They nearly won a title this year with no upperclassman stars. THERE ARE NO RULES FOR WINNING BIG IN A SINGLE-ELIMINATION TOURNAMENT. It drives me crazy how everyone wants to graft after-the-fact laws onto this extremely randomized event, and they are all garbage. More talent means you have a better chance of going deep. More veteran talent is even better and gives you an even better chance of going deep. A strong defense gives you a better chance of going deep. Great coaching gives you a better chance of going deep. A favorable draw gives you a better chance of going deep. Playing close to home gives you a better chance of going deep. Great guard play gives you a better chance of going deep. A "rim protector" gives you a better chance of going deep. Meaningful depth gives you a better chance of going deep. All of these things, they help. But they just help. None are necessary. Teams have succeeded in the NCAA tournament lacking these values, often several at a time. Every piece of analysis we have that attempts even the slightest degree of rigor says that teams constructed any which dumb way can and do succeed in the tournament.

Just think, you can be the worse team in EVERY game and still win big. A team with a 40% of winning each game it plays still retains a 2.5% of winning four games and making the Final Four. Again, that's a team that wasn't supposed to win a single game. The NCAA tournament has no rules other than being good is preferable to being bad, and being lucky is the most preferable thing of all.

I think the discussion is about what which variables raises the probability of winning most. We're all sophisticated enough (I hope) to recognize that there is no such thing as sure-fire equations and guaranteed outcomes.

So, is it better to have experienced but less talented teams, or talented but young teams? More or fewer OADs? And how does this all change when considered under the Duke context?

Des Esseintes
05-02-2014, 12:55 AM
I think the discussion is about what which variables raises the probability of winning most. We're all sophisticated enough (I hope) to recognize that there is no such thing as sure-fire equations and guaranteed outcomes.

So, is it better to have experienced but less talented teams, or talented but young teams? More or fewer OADs? And how does this all change when considered under the Duke context?
I have seen a lot of absolute positions taken in this thread and others. Defense wins championships. You cannot go deep without great guard play. A team needs a veteran star to win it all.

As for the question, I think it's broken. You can build a dominant regular season team with either type, and I believe an equivalent level of dominance yields an equivalent chance of tournament success.

ice-9
05-02-2014, 01:05 AM
I have seen a lot of absolute positions taken in this thread and others. Defense wins championships. You cannot go deep without great guard play. A team needs a veteran star to win it all.

As for the question, I think it's broken. You can build a dominant regular season team with either type, and I believe an equivalent level of dominance yields an equivalent chance of tournament success.

I hear ya; I chalk up those kinds of statements to convenient short-hand. As in, it's just easier to say "great guard play wins championships" vs. "great guard play raises the probability of winning a championship to a great degree."

I don't consider the question broken at all. FireOgilvie's observation is an interesting one to explore, and next year we'll have another team built around the talent of a freshman. If we lose again next year in the round of 64, it may still not mean anything definitive, but it'll indicate more about something.

Regardless, I will be rooting for us just as fervently as always.

dukelifer
05-02-2014, 06:05 AM
I hear ya; I chalk up those kinds of statements to convenient short-hand. As in, it's just easier to say "great guard play wins championships" vs. "great guard play raises the probability of winning a championship to a great degree."

I don't consider the question broken at all. FireOgilvie's observation is an interesting one to explore, and next year we'll have another team built around the talent of a freshman. If we lose again next year in the round of 64, it may still not mean anything definitive, but it'll indicate more about something.

Regardless, I will be rooting for us just as fervently as always.

Players who play well under pressure win championships- Freshman- Senior - it does not matter. NCAA games come down to who executes in key moments. Games are usually not blowouts. Not every player- even good ones- do well under pressure. Shots get flat- free throws are missed. Great player like the big moment.

Bay Area Duke Fan
05-02-2014, 10:39 AM
Players who play well under pressure win championships- Freshman- Senior - it does not matter. NCAA games come down to who executes in key moments. Games are usually not blowouts. Not every player- even good ones- do well under pressure. Shots get flat- free throws are missed. Great player like the big moment.

Bill Russell, Magic Johnson, Christian Laettner, etc.

bob blue devil
05-02-2014, 11:09 AM
So, is it better to have experienced but less talented teams, or talented but young teams? More or fewer OADs? And how does this all change when considered under the Duke context?

i think a study is in order to assess the tradeoff - team achievement (using an intelligent quant ranking system as a proxy) predicted by talent (some quantification based on recruiting rankings) and experience (measured by age, class, games played, etc.). The answer will be talent is more predictive by a meaningful margin - duke, kansas, kentucky, etc. win with a mix of class representations, but obviously better talent, whereas a senior laden team in the mid-dakota conference is lucky to be fodder in a 1:16 match-up. i'm not saying a tradeoff doesn't exist, just that it takes a lot of experience to overcome having even somewhat inferior talent.

and before anybody starts cherry picking individual games to "prove" how important experience is, i say - "are you interested in playing games of chance with me for money?"

sagegrouse
05-02-2014, 11:33 AM
i think a study is in order to assess the tradeoff - team achievement (using an intelligent quant ranking system as a proxy) predicted by talent (some quantification based on recruiting rankings) and experience (measured by age, class, games played, etc.). The answer will be talent is more predictive by a meaningful margin - duke, kansas, kentucky, etc. win with a mix of class representations, but obviously better talent, whereas a senior laden team in the mid-dakota conference is lucky to be fodder in a 1:16 match-up. i'm not saying a tradeoff doesn't exist, just that it takes a lot of experience to overcome having even somewhat inferior talent.

and before anybody starts cherry picking individual games to "prove" how important experience is, i say - "are you interested in playing games of chance with me for money?"

As Yogi Berra might have said: "Basketball is ninety percent talent. The other half is experience."

Olympic Fan
05-02-2014, 09:00 PM
I can't link it because it's an insider article, but Jeff Goodman revised his 2014-15 preseason poll ... he says that because of the Devonte Graham pickup, he's moving Kansas up to No. 4 and Duke down to No. 5.

No problem with being No. 5, but did replacing a senior point guard with a two-star recruit (which is what Graham was coming out of Raleigh Broughton HS) make Kansas THAT much better?

Okay, I realize that his stock soared after a year at Brewster Academy. But he still didn't make ESPN's top 100 -- either in 2013 or 2014.

MCFinARL
05-04-2014, 09:47 AM
I can't link it because it's an insider article, but Jeff Goodman revised his 2014-15 preseason poll ... he says that because of the Devonte Graham pickup, he's moving Kansas up to No. 4 and Duke down to No. 5.

No problem with being No. 5, but did replacing a senior point guard with a two-star recruit (which is what Graham was coming out of Raleigh Broughton HS) make Kansas THAT much better?

Okay, I realize that his stock soared after a year at Brewster Academy. But he still didn't make ESPN's top 100 -- either in 2013 or 2014.

Good question. But I wouldn't mind if Duke's preseason ranking went down even more. Since we will once again be building around a freshman, and potentially relying heavily on additional freshmen, I think it will be better for them to come in with just a little less pressure from sky-high expectations.

TexHawk
05-04-2014, 11:07 AM
I can't link it because it's an insider article, but Jeff Goodman revised his 2014-15 preseason poll ... he says that because of the Devonte Graham pickup, he's moving Kansas up to No. 4 and Duke down to No. 5.

No problem with being No. 5, but did replacing a senior point guard with a two-star recruit (which is what Graham was coming out of Raleigh Broughton HS) make Kansas THAT much better?

Okay, I realize that his stock soared after a year at Brewster Academy. But he still didn't make ESPN's top 100 -- either in 2013 or 2014.

1-- It's Goodman.
2-- Even if Graham is a fantastic PG, he will still just be a freshman. He won't be materially better than Frank Mason was last year, who had some great moments, along with a bunch of wtf-oh-yea-he's-a-freshman moments.
3-- Rivals pushed Graham to #36 in their final rankings. Not that that really means much, especially for point guards.

gumbomoop
05-04-2014, 11:54 AM
1-- It's Goodman.
2-- Even if Graham is a fantastic PG, he will still just be a freshman. He won't be materially better than Frank Mason was last year, who had some great moments, along with a bunch of wtf-oh-yea-he's-a-freshman moments.
3-- Rivals pushed Graham to #36 in their final rankings. Not that that really means much, especially for point guards.

I know nothing about Graham, have only paid any attention because of recruitment story. But Scout's final rankings, released a few days ago, moved him to #41 and to #9 PG.

Turner's choice of Texas rather than KU means KU doesn't move as high as pre-2/3, but addition of Graham will probably solidify them as ~ 5.

Guessing at next October's preseason consensus:

UK a clear consensus #1
Highly probable consensus #2-5, in some order, of Wisconsin, 'Zona, Kansas, Duke
Likely 'Zona no lower than 3, KU no higher than 4
Maybe most disagreement about Duke among prognosticators -- as high as 2, as "low" as 5
Anyone name another team likely to be an October consensus preseason top 5?

I'm still pushing UVa ahead of Duke, UNC, and UL, but I suspect they'll be nationally pre-ranked closer to 10 than 5. But I do think they will be consensus top 10.

Olympic Fan
05-04-2014, 01:04 PM
I know nothing about Graham, have only paid any attention because of recruitment story. But Scout's final rankings, released a few days ago, moved him to #41 and to #9 PG.

Turner's choice of Texas rather than KU means KU doesn't move as high as pre-2/3, but addition of Graham will probably solidify them as ~ 5.

Guessing at next October's preseason consensus:

UK a clear consensus #1
Highly probable consensus #2-5, in some order, of Wisconsin, 'Zona, Kansas, Duke
Likely 'Zona no lower than 3, KU no higher than 4
Maybe most disagreement about Duke among prognosticators -- as high as 2, as "low" as 5
Anyone name another team likely to be an October consensus preseason top 5?

I'm still pushing UVa ahead of Duke, UNC, and UL, but I suspect they'll be nationally pre-ranked closer to 10 than 5. But I do think they will be consensus top 10.


I agree with most of this, including your high regard for Virginia.

And I repeat, I don't have a problem ranking Duke No. 5 -- even behind Kansas at No. 4. At this point, it's silly to get hung up on ratings -- especially when we're talking about 2-3 places.

My only objection was Goodman's reasoning for changing his ranking. He had Duke 4 and Kansas 5 ... then Tharpe leaves and Graham commits ... and because of that exchange he jumps Kansas over Duke.

THAT is what I have a problem with.

gumbomoop
05-19-2014, 12:50 PM
Seems the news of USC's talented Byron Wesley transferring to Gonzaga for his senior/graduate season should push Zags toward pre-top 10-12.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10950249/byron-wesley-former-usc-trojans-guard-transfer-gonzaga-bulldogs

Mark Few has maybe 8-9 guys who can play. Lots of talent/experience/depth in a 5-man perimeter [Pangos, Bell, Dranginis, now-transfer Wesley, frosh PG Perkins]. Solid interior starters [Karnowski, Wiltjer]. If either UL transfer Nunez or incoming Sabonis can play 20 mpg, that's strong interior. If both can play, it's a solid 9-man rotation, with size and 3-bombers.

Probably won't quite make October pre-top 10, but getting close.

I recall that Ryan Kelly made Wiltjer look bad several times in the game in Atlanta at the beginning of the 2012-13 season. [Poythress, btw, was UK star in that game, only his second at UK, and appeared a star-certain.] But Wiltjer has stretch-4 talent, will be a 4th-year junior, and should be an important player next season. Zags have talent/experience/depth. By mid-late season, once the vets, transfers, and frosh get to know the system, they could be very good.

TexHawk
05-21-2014, 03:59 PM
Sviatoslav Mykhailiuk to KU (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10964700/kansas-jayhawks-land-sviatoslav-mykhailiuk).

Not sure if there are any recruit-niks around who know about this guy, but I am flummoxed. And excited. Excitedly flummoxed.

--He's only 16, but should play this fall.
--A scout was quoted that he would be a Top 10 recruit in 2015 or 2016.
--He supposedly turned down several European pro offers.
--He looks like a tall 8th grader (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr8CUOIrFBA). My sister could probably beat him up.
--Apparently the dude and his family are over-the-top in love with Sasha Kaun. They were shown highlights of the 2008 final, and they only got visibly interested when Kaun made two baskets.
--I have gone from "certain he will be a lottery pick in 2015" to "OMG, a dust mite could knock him down so he won't play in '14-15 at all" and back to "he's a Nik Stauskas clone". Somebody talk me down.