Way too early 2017 projections

[Olympic Fan]

We got our first 2017 preseason top 10 today from a fairly respected source -- Ken Pomeroy:

https://twitter.com/kenpomeroy/status/711441169826197505

His way too early top 10:

1. Louisville
2. Kentucky
3. Duke
4. Villanova
5. Kansas
6. UNC
7. Oregon
8. Wisconsin
9. Indiana
10. Virginia

Of course, Pomeroy is respected because of his computer analysis and it's way too early to run the numbers, so this is off the top of his head. In fact, we know it is because his original list had Duke at No. 5 until someone tweeted him and reminded him that Jefferson would be back at Duke next year. This is his "revised" top 10.

Obviously, it's too early until we know who goes pro and who stays ... which fifth-year guys are added and so on. I was interested in his pick of two teams that could very well be ineligible next year (Louisville -- still waiting to see if the NCAA accepts their one-year ban -- and UNC). Interesting that he ranks Louisville so high -- I love their young talent, but No. 1?

Still, take a look and post other early projections here when they are released (ESPN usually does one right after the championship game).

[uh_no]

Of course, Pomeroy is respected because of his computer analysis and it's way too early to run the numbers, so this is off the top of his head. In fact, we know it is because his original list had Duke at No. 5 until someone tweeted him and reminded him that Jefferson would be back at Duke next year. This is his "revised" top 10.


Uhhh what? This is almost certainly computer rankings. His preseason rankings take into account "program history", returning talent, and recruiting strength. It's likely his system had amile not returning...so he had to go change his lineup data and rerun the numbers....I'm not sure how that proves that it's off the top of his head.

Given that KP never does anything "off the top of his head" and has an algorithm that can be run whenever you have a good idea of what next years rosters will be.

He even says this on his blog: http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/need_scheduling_help

It's the same algorithm he always uses....

[kAzE]

Yeah, Louisville at #1 seems way off. Their best 2 players, Lee and Lewis are both gone after this year, their best recruit in a 2-man class thus far is VJ King, a borderline top 30 prospect, and their top returning scorers are Onuaku and Snider. That's the #1 team? No way.

[DavidBenAkiva]

Yeah, Louisville at #1 seems way off. Their best 2 players, Lee and Lewis are both gone after this year, their best recruit in a 2-man class thus far is VJ King, a borderline top 30 prospect, and their top returning scorers are Onuaku and Snider. That's the #1 team? No way.

Seeing Louisville up that high had me scratching my head a little, too. But there is some serious talent on that roster if Onuaku stays. The starting backcourt of Snider and Mitchell would be among the best in the country and they have a variety of bigs with Spaulding and Mohammed.

[uh_no]

Yeah, Louisville at #1 seems way off. Their best 2 players, Lee and Lewis are both gone after this year, their best recruit in a 2-man class thus far is VJ King, a borderline top 30 prospect, and their top returning scorers are Onuaku and Snider. That's the #1 team? No way.
per his twitter comment, he's assuming all projected first rounders leave and second rounders stay.

I would imagine they're ranked so high above us because:
1) both teams are losing their top 2 players
2) both teams have had great success (in KPs rankings) over the past several years..so get a high "historical" component
3) KP far under weights recruits relative to most ranking systems. While this is certainly anti-"new-shiny", and probably works for a handful of teams, i have a suspicion it's less applicable at the top end, where it's clearly proven freshman can drive a team...to say....a natty. This negates much of our stellar class relative to UL's mediocre one
4) UL is better than duke in this year's rankings....by a decent margin...9 vs 19. Much of his preseason rankings will be driven by performance this year. This is what REALLY hurts us and negates any advantage we might have gotten from recruiting.

So yes, we think it's off....but such is the nature of computer stats...sometimes they produce interesting results that fail the eye test!

[kAzE]

I actually LOVE Wisconsin next year. They lose basically nobody from this year's team, and Ethan Happ has emerged as a legitimate star. Hayes, Brown, Koenig, and Showalter will give the Badgers 4 senior starters who are all battle tested. I think they have to be considered a top 10 team in 2017. Good for Greg Gard. I never thought they would turn it around this quickly after losing Kaminsky and Dekker last year.

[Olympic Fan]

I actually LOVE Wisconsin next year. They lose basically nobody from this year's team, and Ethan Happ has emerged as a legitimate star. Hayes, Brown, Koenig, and Showalter will give the Badgers 4 senior starters who are all battle tested. I think they have to be considered a top 10 team in 2017. Good for Greg Gard. I never thought they would turn it around this quickly after losing Kaminsky and Dekker last year.

That's great ... but that's also the danger of projecting these things that early. Reports that Nigel Hayes, for one, will at least test the NBA waters..

If Happ and those four seniors DO all returns -- yes, Wisconsin becomes a preseason top 10 team.

But make sure they're all back first.

[kAzE]

That's great ... but that's also the danger of projecting these things that early. Reports that Nigel Hayes, for one, will at least test the NBA waters..

If Happ and those four seniors DO all returns -- yes, Wisconsin becomes a preseason top 10 team.

But make sure they're all back first.

Very true, but I'm not sure anyone thinks Nigel Hayes is going to be a major factor in this year's draft. He's a 6'7" power forward who shot 29% from 3 and 37% overall this season. He is 7 for 42 from the field in his last 3 games. His draft stock has only gone down since the tournament has begun. If the Badgers have any chance at beating Notre Dame, Hayes is going to have to play MUCH better than he has thus far. He's been a much better player in the past, when he was the 3rd scoring option, but it hasn't been a great year for him.

If Happ develops an outside stroke, he could potentially become an NBA prospect.

[NSDukeFan]

per his twitter comment, he's assuming all projected first rounders leave and second rounders stay.

I would imagine they're ranked so high above us because:
1) both teams are losing their top 2 players
2) both teams have had great success (in KPs rankings) over the past several years..so get a high "historical" component
3) KP far under weights recruits relative to most ranking systems. While this is certainly anti-"new-shiny", and probably works for a handful of teams, i have a suspicion it's less applicable at the top end, where it's clearly proven freshman can drive a team...to say...a natty. This negates much of our stellar class relative to UL's mediocre one
4) UL is better than duke in this year's rankings...by a decent margin...9 vs 19. Much of his preseason rankings will be driven by performance this year. This is what REALLY hurts us and negates any advantage we might have gotten from recruiting.

So yes, we think it's off...but such is the nature of computer stats...sometimes they produce interesting results that fail the eye test!
But Louisville didn't even make the tournament. 😉

[Devilwin]

I don't see Louisville ahead of us. Not a chance. Besides, we got K....:cool:

[Indoor66]

Frankly, this is not even entertaining speculation. It is pure B. S. Idle speculation based on faulty assumptions.

[CDu]

per his twitter comment, he's assuming all projected first rounders leave and second rounders stay.

I would imagine they're ranked so high above us because:
1) both teams are losing their top 2 players
2) both teams have had great success (in KPs rankings) over the past several years..so get a high "historical" component
3) KP far under weights recruits relative to most ranking systems. While this is certainly anti-"new-shiny", and probably works for a handful of teams, i have a suspicion it's less applicable at the top end, where it's clearly proven freshman can drive a team...to say...a natty. This negates much of our stellar class relative to UL's mediocre one
4) UL is better than duke in this year's rankings...by a decent margin...9 vs 19. Much of his preseason rankings will be driven by performance this year. This is what REALLY hurts us and negates any advantage we might have gotten from recruiting.

So yes, we think it's off...but such is the nature of computer stats...sometimes they produce interesting results that fail the eye test!

It also probably undervalues what Jefferson will provide because of Jefferson's injury this year and more limited role in prior years.

[Bluegrassdevil1]

Yeah, Louisville at #1 seems way off. Their best 2 players, Lee and Lewis are both gone after this year, their best recruit in a 2-man class thus far is VJ King, a borderline top 30 prospect, and their top returning scorers are Onuaku and Snider. That's the #1 team? No way.

Frankie Hughes, a lower-ranked recruit for them, has recently "separated" himself from the program.

U of L does have Tony Hick, a Penn transfer (I believe it is Penn, might be Princeton).

Onuaku is widely believed to "heavily explore" the NBA waters, and that departure would profoundly change U of L next season.

In my opinion, with Onuaku, or not, Duke, UK, Michigan St., Oregon, and Wisconsin will be a step ahead of U of L, with other teams likely better as well.

[uh_no]

It also probably undervalues what Jefferson will provide because of Jefferson's injury this year and more limited role in prior years.

fully agree. He's not a big fan of preseason ratings simply since it's so difficult to come up with a very objective measure that fits all cases...like this one for instance. He's always had trouble dealing with injuries appropriately.

[rasputin]

I don't see Louisville ahead of us. Not a chance. Besides, we got K...:cool:

And, presumably, the Louisville recruiting playbook is toning down the hooker thing for a while.

[Kedsy]

Personally, I find the craziest thing in those rankings to be UNC, sans Paige and Johnson, at #6.

[CDu]

Personally, I find the craziest thing in those rankings to be UNC, sans Paige and Johnson, at #6.

Yeah, that is largely driven by the "past is prelude" nature of his preseason rankings. They will still have some talent, and very experienced talent at that. Berry, Pinson, Jackson, Hicks, and Meeks is a potentially very good starting five, with all five having a shot at All-ACC. But they have no talent on the bench, and no frontcourt depth. I can certainly see them as a ranked team, but not top-10. And that is assuming no early entries from them.

[devildeac]

Personally, I find the craziest thing in those rankings to be UNC, sans Paige and Johnson, at #6.

No worries. Wheat'll 'splain it soon enough :rolleyes: .

[bob blue devil]

Personally, I find the craziest thing in those rankings to be UNC, sans Paige and Johnson, at #6.

doubling down already? ;)

[dukelifer]

Yeah, that is largely driven by the "past is prelude" nature of his preseason rankings. They will still have some talent, and very experienced talent at that. Berry, Pinson, Jackson, Hicks, and Meeks is a potentially very good starting five, with all five having a shot at All-ACC. But they have no talent on the bench, and no frontcourt depth. I can certainly see them as a ranked team, but not top-10. And that is assuming no early entries from them.

The talking heads seem to be falling in love with Hicks of late. If they win it all or even get to the Finals- Hicks will be a big reason and may go after this year.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

The talking heads seem to be falling in love with Hicks of late. If they win it all or even get to the Finals- Hicks will be a big reason and may go after this year.

Hicks is leaps and bounds a different player than last year. Last year "Hicks" was almost as close to a dirty word as "Tokoto" for Heels fans. This year, his court sense is wildly improved.

Meeks on the other hand, is more of a mystery. He seems to have been surpassed by Hicks, but somehow stays ahead of him on the depth chart. Good ol' Roy.

[CDu]

The talking heads seem to be falling in love with Hicks of late. If they win it all or even get to the Finals- Hicks will be a big reason and may go after this year.

Hicks and Jackson are the threats if UNC makes a deep run. If both stay, UNC should be pretty good. If either goes, UNC will need to go heavy on the grad transfer market.

[Kjeffrey]

We got our first 2017 preseason top 10 today from a fairly respected source -- Ken Pomeroy:

https://twitter.com/kenpomeroy/status/711441169826197505

His way too early top 10:

1. Louisville
2. Kentucky
3. Duke
4. Villanova
5. Kansas
6. UNC
7. Oregon
8. Wisconsin
9. Indiana
10. Virginia

Of course, Pomeroy is respected because of his computer analysis and it's way too early to run the numbers, so this is off the top of his head. In fact, we know it is because his original list had Duke at No. 5 until someone tweeted him and reminded him that Jefferson would be back at Duke next year. This is his "revised" top 10.

Obviously, it's too early until we know who goes pro and who stays ... which fifth-year guys are added and so on. I was interested in his pick of two teams that could very well be ineligible next year (Louisville -- still waiting to see if the NCAA accepts their one-year ban -- and UNC). Interesting that he ranks Louisville so high -- I love their young talent, but No. 1?

Still, take a look and post other early projections here when they are released (ESPN usually does one right after the championship game).

I am a little surprised to see UVA so high. They are losing Brogdon, Gill and Tobey. I wasn't aware Tony Bennett had any major recruits coming in. Besides, it is very difficult to replace that kind of leadership.

[fidel]

I am a little surprised to see UVA so high. They are losing Brogdon, Gill and Tobey. I wasn't aware Tony Bennett had any major recruits coming in. Besides, it is very difficult to replace that kind of leadership.

He has the transfer Austin Nichols coming in from Memphis.

[Kedsy]

I am a little surprised to see UVA so high. They are losing Brogdon, Gill and Tobey. I wasn't aware Tony Bennett had any major recruits coming in. Besides, it is very difficult to replace that kind of leadership.

They have transfer Austin Nichols (a top 20 recruit in high school who Duke was after), plus four 4-star recruits. For Virginia, that's a pretty solid class.

[Olympic Fan]

I am a little surprised to see UVA so high. They are losing Brogdon, Gill and Tobey. I wasn't aware Tony Bennett had any major recruits coming in. Besides, it is very difficult to replace that kind of leadership.

Barring unexpected losses, Bennett starts next year with senior point guard London Perrantes and four juniors with a lot of playing experience -- Devin Hall and Isaiah Wilkins were 2016 starters, while Marial Shayok was fourth on the team in minutes played ... Darius Thompson will be a fourth-year junior.

That's a pretty experienced core.

As others have noted, they add 6-10 Austin Nichols, a former Duke recruiting target, who was the leading scorer and rebounder for Memphis as a sophomore in 2015. They also add Mamadi Diakite, a slender 6-9 forward, last year's top recruit, who redshirted, plus the nation's No. 7 recruiting class (according to ESPN). From what I hear, they expect 6-3 wing Kyle Guy to be a big impact player from day one.

I don't think Virginia will be as good as they are this season, but I don't think the dropoff will be that big. Brogdon is a special player and will be hard to replace, but Bennett has a nice experienced core and some nice additions. I can see a borderline top 10-15 team next year.

[DukeTrinity11]

If Jayson Tatum and Harry Giles are as good as advertised, Duke should be Preseason #1 regardless of whether we get Bolden or Allen goes.

For you recruiting and high school talent evaluation experts on this board, are Tatum and Giles highly touted recruits in the same vein as John Wall, DeMarcus Cousins, Kyrie Irving, Anthony Davis, Jabari Parker, Andrew Wiggins, Jahlil Okafor, Ben Simmons, Jamal Murray and Brandon Ingram?

Or should our expectations be tempered as Duke fans and that they will really be more along the lines of Harrison Barnes, Josh Selby, Tobias Harris, Bradley Beal, Shabazz Muhammad, Cliff Alexander, Noah Vonleh, Kelly Oubre, Skal Labissiere and Jaylen Brown in terms of college readiness as freshman to compete?

I don't know but even if Tatum and Giles belong more with the second group of guys, we should be national contenders with our returning players: Thornton, Kennard and Jefferson (*knock on wood*).

[Faustus]

We don't even know if Rick Pitino will still be at Louisville next year. Odd choice, that...

[left_hook_lacey]

Frankly, this is not even entertaining speculation. It is pure B. S. Idle speculation based on faulty assumptions.

Soooooo, it's just as good as any other "way too early" projections? :)

[TexHawk]

If Jayson Tatum and Harry Giles are as good as advertised, Duke should be Preseason #1 regardless of whether we get Bolden or Allen goes.

For you recruiting and high school talent evaluation experts on this board, are Tatum and Giles highly touted recruits in the same vein as John Wall, DeMarcus Cousins, Kyrie Irving, Anthony Davis, Jabari Parker, Andrew Wiggins, Jahlil Okafor, Ben Simmons, Jamal Murray and Brandon Ingram?

Or should our expectations be tempered as Duke fans and that they will really be more along the lines of Harrison Barnes, Josh Selby, Tobias Harris, Bradley Beal, Shabazz Muhammad, Cliff Alexander, Noah Vonleh, Kelly Oubre, Skal Labissiere and Jaylen Brown in terms of college readiness as freshman to compete?

I don't know but even if Tatum and Giles belong more with the second group of guys, we should be national contenders with our returning players: Thornton, Kennard and Jefferson (*knock on wood*).
Expectations for freshman are crazy these days.

Bradley Beal scored in double figures in 13 of his first 15 college games, was the 2nd leading scorer, averaging 15 points/7 reb (for a shooting guard) on a team that was two buckets short of the Final Four.

Josh Selby was also over 13 ppg in his first 13 college games (post suspension) before severely spraining his ankle. He was never the same, and couldn't get back in the rotation or get any shots when he did with Morris x2, Taylor, Robinson, Withey around.

And I know he fell short of (partly his own) lofty expectations, but Harrison Barnes did average 16/7 as a freshman, double figures in his last 15 (which included four 20 point games, and one with 40).

I would gladly take those guys as freshman.

[Troublemaker]

...are Tatum and Giles highly touted recruits in the same vein as John Wall, DeMarcus Cousins, Kyrie Irving, Anthony Davis, Jabari Parker, Andrew Wiggins, Jahlil Okafor, Ben Simmons, Jamal Murray and Brandon Ingram?

Or should our expectations be tempered as Duke fans ...

The hype for this class is very high and they are expected to have an impact like those you listed. However, it's probably always a good idea to temper expectations for incoming freshmen.

Particularly in the case of Giles, imo. His past three years of high school ball:

Sophomore Yr - Out for the season
Junior Yr - Played.
Senior Yr - Out for the season

It would be completely understandable if Giles is rusty or tentative next season.

[CameronDuke]

Virginia at 10 is interesting. Losing Brogdon is going to be huge as he provides the top scoring threat for them and the top defender. Losing Gill and Tobey in the frontcourt will be tough to replace too. Nichols may step in and fill a role and they have capable players returning (Perrantes, Hall, Shayok, Wilkins and Thompson), but can they score enough next year? They are losing three of their top 4 scorers (Brogdon 18.6 PPG, Gill 13.6 PPG, and Tobey 6.9 PPG - that's 39.1 PPG they are losing for a team that doesn't score much!). Their best retuning scorer would be Perrantes at 10.9 PPG. The next leading scorer would be Wilkins at 4.6 PPG and the rest of the cast returning averages between 4.2 and 4.4 PPG. Tony Bennett will have the defense ready but can they gel without Brogdon's leadership? If Perrantes can be a more consistent scorer and Nichols can provide some buckets on the blocks and good defense, I can see them at 10. I think maybe 15-20 is a better ranking for them until their returning players and recruiting class can gel and prove me wrong. Brogdon just does so much for that team that I think it will be pretty tough for them to be a top ten program without him. Of course, if they make a final four or further this year, a 15-20 ranking for them is nothing to cry about and is actually very, very respectable and an indication of how strong the program is now.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Barring unexpected losses, Bennett starts next year with senior point guard London Perrantes and four juniors with a lot of playing experience -- Devin Hall and Isaiah Wilkins were 2016 starters, while Marial Shayok was fourth on the team in minutes played ... Darius Thompson will be a fourth-year junior.

Perrantes has to be the new Aaron Craft/Kaleb Tarczewski right? ie the player who you ask yourself, "didn't this guy's eligibility run out 2 years ago?"

[pfrduke]

Perrantes has to be the new Aaron Craft/Kaleb Tarczewski right? ie the player who you ask yourself, "didn't this guy's eligibility run out 2 years ago?"

On this point, I could not believe Roosevelt Jones was still playing for Butler this season. I would have sworn he was on the Butler team we played in the finals (which is obviously wrong, but still - he's been there forever).

[Merlindevildog91]

On this point, I could not believe Roosevelt Jones was still playing for Butler this season. I would have sworn he was on the Butler team we played in the finals (which is obviously wrong, but still - he's been there forever).

I said exactly the same thing about Roosevelt Jones during the last Butler game. The announcer said he missed two seasons with wrist surgery, but the Butler website said it was only one.

[COYS]

If Jayson Tatum and Harry Giles are as good as advertised, Duke should be Preseason #1 regardless of whether we get Bolden or Allen goes.

For you recruiting and high school talent evaluation experts on this board, are Tatum and Giles highly touted recruits in the same vein as John Wall, DeMarcus Cousins, Kyrie Irving, Anthony Davis, Jabari Parker, Andrew Wiggins, Jahlil Okafor, Ben Simmons, Jamal Murray and Brandon Ingram?

Or should our expectations be tempered as Duke fans and that they will really be more along the lines of Harrison Barnes, Josh Selby, Tobias Harris, Bradley Beal, Shabazz Muhammad, Cliff Alexander, Noah Vonleh, Kelly Oubre, Skal Labissiere and Jaylen Brown in terms of college readiness as freshman to compete?

I don't know but even if Tatum and Giles belong more with the second group of guys, we should be national contenders with our returning players: Thornton, Kennard and Jefferson (*knock on wood*).

I think that Tatum is definitely expected to be in contention for the number 1 pick in what is supposed to be a loaded draft. So, whether fair or unfair, he definitely projects to be in your first group of players. I also feel like K's track record has been REALLY good at getting super talented freshman to play well their first year in college. In many ways, Brandon has struggled the most and yet no one would bother thinking about his first eight games of the season anymore when deciding whether or not he's had a good year. Giles, pre injury, was projected as the number one pick ahead of Tatum. How he recovers is obviously key. If he gets back to pre-injury form quickly, then he likely falls into that first group.

I think an equally interesting question is where does Frank Jackson end up, especially if Grayson goes pro? Jackson's ranking is similar to Justise's ranking. If Grayson leaves for the pros, Jackson's game fills a void in next year's roster as he fits the super-athletic guard/wing bill. There is no doubt that Derryck, Luke, and Matt will play a lot, but there is definitely room for Frank in that mix of perimeter players, particularly if Tatum ends up being effective playing the 4. Jah and Tyus were incredible as freshmen, but of course they were expected to be. Justise exceeded expectations and that was a big reason the team won the title. If Grayson leaves, I hope that Frank has a year like Justise (or like freshman year Rasheed, also really good).

[Nugget]

We got our first 2017 preseason top 10 today from a fairly respected source -- Ken Pomeroy:

https://twitter.com/kenpomeroy/status/711441169826197505

His way too early top 10:

1. Louisville
2. Kentucky
3. Duke
4. Villanova
5. Kansas
6. UNC
7. Oregon
8. Wisconsin
9. Indiana
10. Virginia.

Based on who is likely to come back/be added, this seems a little high for Villanova (Kansas is almost definitely going to be better than Nova with Mason, Graham and Selden all unlikely to leave early and Diallo not really having had a chance to show his lottery skills this year) and Wisconsin.

I would expect other top 10-15 candidates to include Michigan St. (especially if Davis comes back) and Arizona -- let's assume Josh Jackson goes to MSU and Terrence Ferguson to Zona, in which case both teams will be loaded with at least 4 quality freshmen very, very close to Kentucky/Duke levels, plus solid cores of at least 4-5 proven returnees each;

plus Xavier, Michigan and U.Conn. UCLA and Notre Dame should also both be solid next year.

[W&LHoo]

Virginia at 10 is interesting. Losing Brogdon is going to be huge as he provides the top scoring threat for them and the top defender. Losing Gill and Tobey in the frontcourt will be tough to replace too. Nichols may step in and fill a role and they have capable players returning (Perrantes, Hall, Shayok, Wilkins and Thompson), but can they score enough next year? They are losing three of their top 4 scorers (Brogdon 18.6 PPG, Gill 13.6 PPG, and Tobey 6.9 PPG - that's 39.1 PPG they are losing for a team that doesn't score much!). Their best retuning scorer would be Perrantes at 10.9 PPG. The next leading scorer would be Wilkins at 4.6 PPG and the rest of the cast returning averages between 4.2 and 4.4 PPG. Tony Bennett will have the defense ready but can they gel without Brogdon's leadership? If Perrantes can be a more consistent scorer and Nichols can provide some buckets on the blocks and good defense, I can see them at 10. I think maybe 15-20 is a better ranking for them until their returning players and recruiting class can gel and prove me wrong. Brogdon just does so much for that team that I think it will be pretty tough for them to be a top ten program without him. Of course, if they make a final four or further this year, a 15-20 ranking for them is nothing to cry about and is actually very, very respectable and an indication of how strong the program is now.

I think you'll see other players (Perrantes, Shayok, and Wilkins) ramp up their scoring. A version of "how are they going to be good without _______ ?" Has been floated every year for the past several. Mike Scott, Joe Harris, and Justin Anderson all left for the NBA, and each year the team has managed to be as strong or stronger.

Obviously this is a special year, and Brogdon is a great player whose jersey UVA will - almost certainly - retire. However, the real star for Bennett's teams is the system, not any one player. UVA will remain a top team unless talent dramatically falls off or Tony ceases to be the coach.

[CDu]

I think you'll see other players (Perrantes, Shayok, and Wilkins) ramp up their scoring. A version of "how are they going to be good without _______ ?" Has been floated every year for the past several. Mike Scott, Joe Harris, and Justin Anderson all left for the NBA, and each year the team has managed to be as strong or stronger.

Obviously this is a special year, and Brogdon is a great player whose jersey UVA will - almost certainly - retire. However, the real star for Bennett's teams is the system, not any one player. UVA will remain a top team unless talent dramatically falls off or Tony ceases to be the coach.

Yeah, I have in past years questioned whether UVa will keep it up. There is a question each year as to how they will replace so-and-so. But they have answered the questions each year, both inside and out. My guess is that Nichols contributes immediately in place of Gill. I expect Perrantes to step up another notch or two. I think Hall and/or Shayok will make a jump on the wing, and Diakite is an X-factor. Not yo mention the incoming freshmen, some of whom who I am sure will contribute right away. Nichols and Diakite are interesting in that they are the highest profile recruits Bennett has had at UVa (Diakite straight from high school, Nichols via transfer). Bennett has made it work with lesser recruits historically, but now he gets to try it with better talent (on paper).

[tbyers11]

I think you'll see other players (Perrantes, Shayok, and Wilkins) ramp up their scoring. A version of "how are they going to be good without _______ ?" Has been floated every year for the past several. Mike Scott, Joe Harris, and Justin Anderson all left for the NBA, and each year the team has managed to be as strong or stronger.

Obviously this is a special year, and Brogdon is a great player whose jersey UVA will - almost certainly - retire. However, the real star for Bennett's teams is the system, not any one player. UVA will remain a top team unless talent dramatically falls off or Tony ceases to be the coach.

Bennett has shown that the system can replace its parts the last 3 years to keep a very good team in place. The addition of Nichols should help replace Gill very well. Perrantes will likely be the focal perimeter player. Wilkins, Shayok and Hall will step up from 4th and 5th options to 2nd and 3rd options.

However, I think the loss of Brogdon will probably knock UVA from the top 5 team (1 or 2 NCAA seed) they have been the last 3 years to about a top 15 team. Although the system is impressive it is still difficult to turn a 1st or 2nd option into a first team All-American. The constant over the last 3 years of great teams has been Brogdon. His ability to get his own shot and to guard the other team's best player at 4 positions is pretty amazing. I will miss watching him play in college.

[ChillinDuke]

On this point, I could not believe Roosevelt Jones was still playing for Butler this season. I would have sworn he was on the Butler team we played in the finals (which is obviously wrong, but still - he's been there forever).

So true.

Same with Kellen Dunham. Feel like he's been around forever.

- Chillin

[Troublemaker]

More are rolling out now.

ESPN (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/15123601/duke-blue-devils-kentucky-wildcats-college-basketball-top-25-2016-2017) - Duke #1, Nova #2, UK #3, KU #4

-----------

Jon Rothstein ‏@JonRothstein (https://twitter.com/JonRothstein) 12m12 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/JonRothstein/status/717200509308968960)
Early 16-17 Top 25: 1. Duke 2. Villanova 3. Kansas 4. Xavier 5. Kentucky 6. Virginia 7. Wisconsin 8. Oregon 9. UCLA 10. Arizona

[tbyers11]

More are rolling out now.

ESPN (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/15123601/duke-blue-devils-kentucky-wildcats-college-basketball-top-25-2016-2017) - Duke #1, Nova #2, UK #3, KU #4

-----------

Jon Rothstein ‏@JonRothstein (https://twitter.com/JonRothstein) 12m12 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/JonRothstein/status/717200509308968960)
Early 16-17 Top 25: 1. Duke 2. Villanova 3. Kansas 4. Xavier 5. Kentucky 6. Virginia 7. Wisconsin 8. Oregon 9. UCLA 10. Arizona


I like Jeff Goodman's tweet earlier today (https://twitter.com/GoodmanESPN/status/717124518884446208)

My Preseason Top 25 for 2016-17: 1. Duke 2. Kentucky 3-25. Not sure it’s gonna matter.

[gumbomoop]

If Villanova loses no one but their 2 seniors, Arcidiacono and Ochefu, they have 4 really smart, tough players returning, plus this season's 7th and 8th men, both of whom were solidly in the rotation. They also have a very promising big man coming in as a frosh.

So they might not look as talented as UK or Duke, especially if Grayson returns, but they would be my way early pre-season #1. They will have experienced, talented, tough players returning, and not just a small core. Those guys can shoot and play D.

[PalmettoExpat]

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/15123601/duke-blue-devils-kentucky-wildcats-college-basketball-top-25-2016-2017

Eamonn Brennan

[Troublemaker]

If Villanova loses no one but their 2 seniors, Arcidiacono and Ochefu, they have 4 really smart, tough players returning, plus this season's 7th and 8th men, both of whom were solidly in the rotation. They also have a very promising big man coming in as a frosh.

So they might not look as talented as UK or Duke, especially if Grayson returns, but they would be my way early pre-season #1. They will have experienced, talented, tough players returning, and not just a small core. Those guys can shoot and play D.

I think the good feelings from tonight have you (and some CBB journalists) overrating Nova for next year. The two seniors you mention are their star PG and their very good Center, the two most important positions in basketball. A program like Nova can't lose that and not take a step back; even a Kentucky or Duke would have a tough time reloading after that. Nova will be good next season, possibly even top 15, but #1 is too high for them, imo.

[gumbomoop]

I think the good feelings from tonight have you (and some CBB journalists) overrating Nova for next year. The two seniors you mention are their star PG and their very good Center, the two most important positions in basketball. A program like Nova can't lose that and not take a step back; even a Kentucky or Duke would have a tough time reloading after that. Nova will be good next season, possibly even top 15, but #1 is too high for them, imo.

Quit making trouble.

Once I started paying attention to this Villanova team, I thought (and posted) that they were smart and tough, relentless on D and well-organized on O. I thought tonight's game was a toss-up, because Villanova was very efficient at both ends of the court.

As for CBB prognostications, I do not expect Villanova to be a consensus way-early #1. But I would be surprised to see them outside the top 7-8, so I don't agree with your "possibly even top 15" prediction. As I posted in-game tonight, I really appreciate Arcidiacono's game, and Ochefu's, too. But Brunson is going to be a very good PG, and Josh Hart will legitimately make some pre-season All-Am teams.

I am not saying Villanova will repeat, but I think they will deservedly be highly ranked in the way-early world. Did they just get very hot in this tourney? Or are their returning players really tough and talented?

ETA -- Allow me to add that although you may be right about the "good feelings" glow effect, I hope my view is much more heavily influenced by the team I saw beginning with the second half of the Miami game, and continuing through the Kansas, Oklahoma, and UNC games. I am impressed by lots of things about that team.

[eddiehaskell]

Seems almost pointless to argue exactly where Villanova will end up. There's always favorites, but if Syracuse can make the final four I'd say Nova certainly has a shot.

In the preseason:

Cuse not ranked (not even in "others receiving votes")
ND #19
Oregon not ranked
Nova #11
Oklahoma #8
Virginia #6

....yet all these teams outside the top 5 go on to make the elite 8.

This tells me that preseason rankings aren't all THAT important.

[gumbomoop]

Seems almost pointless to argue exactly where Villanova will end up.... preseason rankings aren't all THAT important.

This thread isn't about where teams will end up. It invites semi-informed, way early speculation about where teams will start out. Neither the speculation nor the thread is important.

[eddiehaskell]

This thread isn't about where teams will end up. It invites semi-informed, way early speculation about where teams will start out. Neither the speculation nor the thread is important.I meant to say where they'll end up in preseason rankings. Nova started at #11 and fell as low as #17 by week 7.

[luburch]

This quote from the ESPN article is gold:

"In other words, if you enjoy a hearty dose of Duke schadenfreude in your hoops diet -- if you enjoyed the Allen tripping thing and "Incorrect Response"-Gate 2016 -- you should stockpile some winter reserves. Because Duke's next team isn't going to be funny. Winter is coming."

[JasonEvans]

you should stockpile some winter reserves. Because Duke's next team isn't going to be funny. Winter is coming."[/I]

Someone who is much better at this than I am, please fix the lousy effort I made:
6232

[MChambers]

I said exactly the same thing about Roosevelt Jones during the last Butler game. The announcer said he missed two seasons with wrist surgery, but the Butler website said it was only one.

I said the same thing. Seems like he's been at Butler for a decade.

[Troublemaker]

This thread isn't about where teams will end up. It invites semi-informed, way early speculation about where teams will start out. Neither the speculation nor the thread is important.

Oh, if that's how you're using this thread, then I have no major qualms with your rank of Nova. Defending champs tend to be overrated in the preseason polls.

[gumbomoop]

Oh, if that's how you're using this thread, then I have no major qualms with your rank of Nova. Defending champs tend to be overrated in the preseason polls.

It's an interesting question -- what are preseason rankings purporting to do? I have always assumed that the way-earlys especially mean to predict where teams might start the season in the AP and coaches' polls.

I think it's generally understood that as the season progresses, some of the teams highly ranked at the beginning will fall, a few precipitously; others will rise, and a few will really surprise.

But I do assume that ESPN and other prognosticators are saying something like, "These are the teams that, as the season approaches, look like the best teams." But maybe you're right -- if I infer correctly how you see this thread -- that even these way-earlys are predictions of how teams will perform by the end of the season. Or maybe it's some mishmash of the two.

Anyhow, I'm high on Villanova's prospects for a very good season in 2016-17, for the reasons I've noted in above posts: smart, rugged returnees, several good shooters, a strong rising soph PG, solid-potential frosh big man, and Josh Hart. Talent, experience, and (I think) depth -- my default criteria.

[Troublemaker]

More:

CBS (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/25542228/duke-is-ranked-no-1-in-the-ridiculously-early-preseason-top-25-and-one) - 1. Duke, 2. UK, 3. Nova, 4. KU, 5. Xavier

NBC (http://collegebasketball.nbcsports.com/2016/04/04/the-nbc-sports-2016-17-way-too-early-preseason-top-25/) - 1. Duke, 2. UK, 3. Nova, 4. Oregon, 5. MSU

USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2016/04/05/college-basketball-early-preseason-top-25-duke-kentucky/82517880/) - 1. Duke, 2. UK, 3. Nova, 4. Oregon, 5. UNC (LOL)

Yahoo (http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the-dagger/a-way-too-early-look-at-the-2016-17-season-s-top-20-teams-104328495.html) - 1. Duke, 2. UK, 3. Nova, 4. KU, 5. MSU

SB Nation (http://www.sbnation.com/college-basketball/2016/4/5/11362474/2016-2017-college-basketball-early-ranking-top-25-villanova-kentucky-duke) - 1. Duke, 2. UK, 3. Nova, 4. UNC (LOL), 5. Louisville

The Big Lead (http://thebiglead.com/2016/04/05/top-25-college-basketball-2016-2017/) - 1. Duke, 2. Nova, 3. UK, 4. Oregon, 5. UNC (LOL)

Campus Insiders (http://campusinsiders.com/news/preseason-college-basketball-rankings-early-top-25-04-04-2016) - 1. Duke, 2. Nova, 3. UK, 4. KU, 5. UNC (LOL)

[Troublemaker]

It's an interesting question -- what are preseason rankings purporting to do? I have always assumed that the way-earlys especially mean to predict where teams might start the season in the AP and coaches' polls.

I think it's generally understood that as the season progresses, some of the teams highly ranked at the beginning will fall, a few precipitously; others will rise, and a few will really surprise.

But I do assume that ESPN and other prognosticators are saying something like, "These are the teams that, as the season approaches, look like the best teams." But maybe you're right -- if I infer correctly how you see this thread -- that even these way-earlys are predictions of how teams will perform by the end of the season. Or maybe it's some mishmash of the two.

The bolded phrase is definitely how I'm using it. Otherwise, a team like Kentucky next season might start 5 freshmen out of the gate, and I wouldn't have them in my way-too-early top-5.



Anyhow, I'm high on Villanova's prospects for a very good season in 2016-17, for the reasons I've noted in above posts: smart, rugged returnees, several good shooters, a strong rising soph PG, solid-potential frosh big man, and Josh Hart. Talent, experience, and (I think) depth -- my default criteria.

Just to be clear, I have great respect for Nova, too. They're probably one of my favorite out of conference teams to watch and sometimes root for, as I definitely don't mind an aggressive, tough team that uses quickness and spreads you out; I had complete faith that they could compete with and beat UNC. I just think they're not going to be able to adequately replace "Archie" and Ochefu next season, and they should be ranked more in the range of 10-20. Could be wrong.

[CDu]

I, too, believe that most pre-season predictions are predictions intended to estimate where teams will end up, not where they will start.

As for 'Nova, it's really hard to say. Does Josh Hart decide to go pro after the great season he had? Can they replace Ochefu's interior presence? Can they replace Arcidiacono's leadership and versatility?

If Hart stays, the Wildcats become a more classic 'Nova team: interchangeable parts on the wings, undersized up front. Maybe redshirt freshman Delany (6'9", 230) and true freshman Spellman (6'9", 275) will do enough to fill the void, but that's asking a lot. I think they'll still be good because (a) they have talent and (b) they have a great coach and (c) they have an easy conference. But this good? It's hard to say.

If Hart goes, I don't think they will be among the top 10 teams in the country, and they might not be top 20.

[scottdude8]

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/15123601/duke-blue-devils-kentucky-wildcats-college-basketball-top-25-2016-2017

Eamonn Brennan

I agree with most here that the way-too-early predictions are just clickbait and fun conversation topics. However, the ESPN one has an interesting nugget... Eamonn Brennan, who I actually like amongst the ESPN basketball writers, makes an implicit assumption that Grayson is coming back (he doesn't even MENTION the possibility of him turning pro). Now, I'm sure Brennan isn't a major Duke insider, but the fact that he doesn't even mention the possibility of Grayson flirting with the draft must mean he has some positive inclination of Grayson's return, right?

To be fair, I might be reading too much into this, just like I did a few weeks ago when I brought up the fact that the DBR articles talking about next year almost always included Grayson without a mention of his draft stock... but that seems to have changed in the last few weeks.

[CDu]

I agree with most here that the way-too-early predictions are just clickbait and fun conversation topics. However, the ESPN one has an interesting nugget... Eamonn Brennan, who I actually like amongst the ESPN basketball writers, makes an implicit assumption that Grayson is coming back (he doesn't even MENTION the possibility of him turning pro). Now, I'm sure Brennan isn't a major Duke insider, but the fact that he doesn't even mention the possibility of Grayson flirting with the draft must mean he has some positive inclination of Grayson's return, right?

To be fair, I might be reading too much into this, just like I did a few weeks ago when I brought up the fact that the DBR articles talking about next year almost always included Grayson without a mention of his draft stock... but that seems to have changed in the last few weeks.

I think that's true of a lot of those guys. For example, Josh Hart is listed as returning for 'Nova. Given his season, his size and athleticism, and 'Nova's championship, I don't think it is a given that Hart returns. I think he's just not making assumptions that any borderline guys go pro.

[gumbomoop]

If Hart stays... If Hart goes...

If Hart stays, which was my premise in post #44, I think Nova will be consensus preseason top 5, and will finish the regular season top 10. That is, they should and will, way early, be thought likely to be very good next season; and they will perform to those expectation as the season progresses. That's just my semi-informed guess.

[timmy c]

Someone who is much better at this than I am, please fix the lousy effort I made:
6232

Let me help you out...
6239

I switched the #5 to a #4. I thought a JJ jersey expressed it better.
Enjoy!

[kAzE]

Let me help you out...
6239

I switched the #5 to a #4. I thought a JJ jersey expressed it better.
Enjoy!

6241

Photoshop his hands into the Shocker, and then it will be perfect. The "White Duke Players" are coming. No one will be spared. The end is near. Muhahahahaha!

[sagegrouse]

This thread isn't about where teams will end up. It invites semi-informed, way early speculation about where teams will start out. Neither the speculation nor the thread is important.

Let me quote a long-ago University of Michigan administrator on the subject of college student newspapers: "They should be free as a bird and not be taken seriously by any adult." I believe this applies to "way-too-early" CBB projections.

[gurufrisbee]

What I love is that Kentucky is ranked #2 solely on the basis of their strong freshman class because they aren't expecting Ulis or Murray to stay.

Duke has essentially the exact same rankings for their freshman class.

Of course a line up of Allen, Kennard, Amile, Jones, and Jeter with Thornton off the bench would cruise to the sweet sixteen (or further).

:D

[Kedsy]

Of course a line up of Allen, Kennard, Amile, Jones, and Jeter with Thornton off the bench would cruise to the sweet sixteen (or further).

I have trouble interpreting smiley faces. Do you really think this is true?

[G man]

6241

Photoshop his hands into the Shocker, and then it will be perfect. The "White Duke Players" are coming. No one will be spared. The end is near. Muhahahahaha!

This is my favorite post in the last 5 years!!!!!

[CDu]

I have trouble interpreting smiley faces. Do you really think this is true?

I don't think "cruise" would be the right word. But I think that those 6 next year (plus backup minutes as needed from another big) would stand a good chance to get to the Sweet 16. A summer of improvement for Kennard, Jeter, and Thornton. Senior leadership from Jones and an All-ACC level Jefferson. Superstardom from Allen. Let Obi and Vrankovic give 10 or so minutes behind Jefferson and Jeter, and I could certainly see a team with 5 McD's All-Americans (3 of them upperclassmen) and a sixth who would have been a McD's All-American had he stayed one more year in high school getting to the Sweet-16.

If we only got this year's versions of Kennard, Jeter, and Thornton? I would say that the Sweet 16 would be unlikely. But with a year's growth of those guys, I think a Sweet-16 run is a totally reasonable outcome.

Of course, we'll add three superstar freshmen to the mix. Perhaps we'll lose some of the potential returnees. So it's kind of moot. But I do think that the six potential returnees mentioned would make for a strong contender for a Sweet 16 birth if that was the core of the team next year.

[Wahoo2000]

I don't think "cruise" would be the right word. But I think that those 6 next year (plus backup minutes as needed from another big) would stand a good chance to get to the Sweet 16. A summer of improvement for Kennard, Jeter, and Thornton. Senior leadership from Jones and an All-ACC level Jefferson. Superstardom from Allen. Let Obi and Vrankovic give 10 or so minutes behind Jefferson and Jeter, and I could certainly see a team with 5 McD's All-Americans (3 of them upperclassmen) and a sixth who would have been a McD's All-American had he stayed one more year in high school getting to the Sweet-16.

If we only got this year's versions of Kennard, Jeter, and Thornton? I would say that the Sweet 16 would be unlikely. But with a year's growth of those guys, I think a Sweet-16 run is a totally reasonable outcome.

Of course, we'll add three superstar freshmen to the mix. Perhaps we'll lose some of the potential returnees. So it's kind of moot. But I do think that the six potential returnees mentioned would make for a strong contender for a Sweet 16 birth if that was the core of the team next year.

This probably deserves, and will likely get at some point, it's own thread: The questions for me is that IF Allen does return.... who's the odd-man (or 2) out in Duke's top 9? (since K seems to favor a core 7 man rotation, with an 8th getting < 10mpg)

Got to assume that Jefferson, Giles, Tatum, Allen are 100% locks. I'm close to that level on Kennard too, and one of Jackson/Thornton. Leaves Jones, Jeter, and the other PG as candidates. Given how much K likes to play one big and 4 out, I'd go with Jeter as most likely to be relegated to garbage time. As far as the 8th man? I'm going to go with Jones - despite the great defense and being a senior, I think he gets stuck due to Thornton probably being ahead of Jackson early in the year, but believe Jackson will overtake him at some point after PT is a largely settled issue. I'd guess by next march, Duke is starting Jackson, Allen, Tatum, Jefferson, & Giles. Thornton supplies extra speed/defense/ballhandling off the bench, Kennard instant offense. Jones plugs and plays combo forward as needed to give Tatum a blow.

[CDu]

This probably deserves, and will likely get at some point, it's own thread: The questions for me is that IF Allen does return... who's the odd-man (or 2) out in Duke's top 9? (since K seems to favor a core 7 man rotation, with an 8th getting < 10mpg)

Got to assume that Jefferson, Giles, Tatum, Allen are 100% locks. I'm close to that level on Kennard too, and one of Jackson/Thornton. Leaves Jones, Jeter, and the other PG as candidates. Given how much K likes to play one big and 4 out, I'd go with Jeter as most likely to be relegated to garbage time. As far as the 8th man? I'm going to go with Jones - despite the great defense and being a senior, I think he gets stuck due to Thornton probably being ahead of Jackson early in the year, but believe Jackson will overtake him at some point after PT is a largely settled issue. I'd guess by next march, Duke is starting Jackson, Allen, Tatum, Jefferson, & Giles. Thornton supplies extra speed/defense/ballhandling off the bench, Kennard instant offense. Jones plugs and plays combo forward as needed to give Tatum a blow.

It's certainly a good question. Probably best to wait for this discussion until the recruitment/early entry/transfer dust has settled. But suffice to say that there will very possibly be a talented player on the outside looking regarding the rotation. We just don't know yet what the roster will look like, so it is completely unclear who would be that player.

It is also quite possible that, when the dust settles in the next month or so, we are looking at only a group of 8 heavily-recruited players competing for that 7.5 man rotation.

[Kedsy]

But I do think that the six potential returnees mentioned would make for a strong contender for a Sweet 16 birth if that was the core of the team next year.

Certainly worse teams have made the Sweet 16, but that's where this year's team (pretty fairly) ended up. And plugging a healthy Amile for departed Marshall AND Brandon (and assuming for the moment no newcomers) hardly seems like that team would be nearly as good as this year's team, unless the improvement of the returnees was exceptional. But, as you suggest, it's a purely hypothetical point.

[BD80]

It's certainly a good question. Probably best to wait for this discussion until the recruitment/early entry/transfer dust has settled. But suffice to say that there will very possibly be a talented player on the outside looking regarding the rotation. We just don't know yet what the roster will look like, so it is completely unclear who would be that player.

It is also quite possible that, when the dust settles in the next month or so, we are looking at only a group of 8 heavily-recruited players competing for that 7.5 man rotation.

If there is a recruited player concerned about PT next year in light of a loaded front court and potentially generously stocked backcourt, he could redshirt a year, be a part of a national championship contending program, work to graduate in 3 years and have plenty of options in 2017 and beyond.

[kAzE]

If there is a recruited player concerned about PT next year in light of a loaded front court and potentially generously stocked backcourt, he could redshirt a year, be a part of a national championship contending program, work to graduate in 3 years and have plenty of options in 2017 and beyond.

This is an interesting option for Jack White and possibly even Javin Delaurier if Marques Bolden does indeed bring his talents to Duke University.

[gumbomoop]

Let me quote a long-ago University of Michigan administrator on the subject of college student newspapers: "They should be free as a bird and not be taken seriously by any adult." I believe this applies to "way-too-early" CBB projections.

Yes. Having already said that the speculation is unimportant -- though, presumably, to readers of this thread not totally uninteresting -- I don't mind adding that some speculations are reasonable and have a modest chance of coming true, whereas others have virtually no chance of coming true. If one were to predict that Boston College would be a preseason, consensus, national top-10 pick for 2016-17, one would be thought extremely uninformed and on this subject "not to be taken seriously by any adult."

[CDu]

Certainly worse teams have made the Sweet 16, but that's where this year's team (pretty fairly) ended up. And plugging a healthy Amile for departed Marshall AND Brandon (and assuming for the moment no newcomers) hardly seems like that team would be nearly as good as this year's team, unless the improvement of the returnees was exceptional. But, as you suggest, it's a purely hypothetical point.

I will present this year's UNC team as exhibit A. The "same" team coming back, actually only losing a key starter and adding only a fringe "big" to the team. Jumped from being a second/third-tier program last year to one of the 3 or 4 best teams in college this year. It's dangerous to underestimate the growth of a college team gained simply by being a year older and more experienced.

Yes, we would lose one elite talent and one solid role player and get back only a really good but not quite elite talent. But, we'd also get the sophomore jump for Jeter, Kennard (who was already pretty good), and Thornton. And we'd get the senior bump from Matt Jones. And Allen would be one year more experienced as a superstar. Basically, all six returning players would have the opportunity to improve. And maybe a guy like Obi is healthier and able to contribute 5-10 backup minutes without being useless.

We'd also have the advantage of a year's worth of experience together, which is something that this team didn't have. And we'd get back a much better defensive player in Jefferson, which was our real problem this year.

Obviously it is all hypothetical, and obviously everything is highly variable (this team could have lost in the first round or made the Final Four for example; next year's team could do the same; just a lot of randomness). But I think a team with:
- a 5-year senior top-25 recruit who was averaging a double-double as a true senior
- a true senior, top-40 recruit, defensive specialist and 3pt shooter who was a double-digit scorer as a junior
- a junior, top-30 recruit who is a returning First-team All-ACC and 3rd Team All-American
- a sophomore top-30 recruit who was a double-figures scorer and was third in the ACC 6th man voting as a frosh
- a sophomore PG who missed the summer before his freshman year and as such was playing catchup but was a top-20 recruit
- a sophomore PF/C who was a top-15 recruit
- a redshirt junior C who led the nation in defensive rebounding % as a freshman

would do just fine. Frankly, I might argue that many - if not most - sweet-16 teams are not as good as that team on paper.

[FerryFor50]

I will present this year's UNC team as exhibit A. The "same" team coming back, actually only losing a key starter and adding only a fringe "big" to the team. Jumped from being a second/third-tier program last year to one of the 3 or 4 best teams in college this year. It's dangerous to underestimate the growth of a college team gained simply by being a year older and more experienced.


Yea, but this year's UNC team had the benefit of their bracket opening up wide for them when Kentucky, Xavier, etc all lost. And then having to face 10 seed Syracuse to get to the finals.

Had they had to face chalk the whole time? Maybe they don't get to the finals.

[CDu]

Yea, but this year's UNC team had the benefit of their bracket opening up wide for them when Kentucky, Xavier, etc all lost. And then having to face 10 seed Syracuse to get to the finals.

Had they had to face chalk the whole time? Maybe they don't get to the finals.

Wasn't even talking about the tourney. They were a legit #1 seed. That they had an easy path to the title game is sort of irrelevant to me. Yeah, it made their path easy, but that doesn't invalidate them as a top-5 team.

[FerryFor50]

Wasn't even talking about the tourney. They were a legit #1 seed. That they had an easy path to the title game is sort of irrelevant to me. Yeah, it made their path easy, but that doesn't invalidate them as a top-5 team.

Agreed. But they weren't, in my eyes, the definitive top team in the country. The #1s and #2s (and even some of the #3s) all had legit claims to being the best team in the country at different points of the season. UNC wasn't even the top #1 seed. Kansas was.

Even then, UNC was no lock to be the "best team" early in the season. They looked shaky until the last month or two. A few things changed.

1) Brice Johnson became consistently dominant (Until Nova)
2) Paige and Berry started hitting 3s
3) UNC started to take defense seriously

Maybe that's coaching, maybe it's players figuring it out. But I don't think it's any predictor on how next year's UNC team does, especially since #1 and half of #2 in my list will be missing.

[DukeTrinity11]

Agreed. But they weren't, in my eyes, the definitive top team in the country. The #1s and #2s (and even some of the #3s) all had legit claims to being the best team in the country at different points of the season. UNC wasn't even the top #1 seed. Kansas was.

Even then, UNC was no lock to be the "best team" early in the season. They looked shaky until the last month or two. A few things changed.

1) Brice Johnson became consistently dominant (Until Nova)
2) Paige and Berry started hitting 3s
3) UNC started to take defense seriously

Maybe that's coaching, maybe it's players figuring it out. But I don't think it's any predictor on how next year's UNC team does, especially since #1 and half of #2 in my list will be missing.

As much as I dislike UNC, I don't see how they aren't a top 10 team next year with the outside potential to cut down the nets. Berry will be an All-American caliber player, Jackson/Pinson are a formidable wing duo and the combo of Hicks and Meeks form a solid front court with Britt as a more than capable 6th man off the bench.

Unless someone unexpected such as Meeks or Jackson leaves for the draft this year, I still expect UNC to be top 3 in the ACC.

[CDu]

Agreed. But they weren't, in my eyes, the definitive top team in the country. The #1s and #2s (and even some of the #3s) all had legit claims to being the best team in the country at different points of the season. UNC wasn't even the top #1 seed. Kansas was.

Even then, UNC was no lock to be the "best team" early in the season. They looked shaky until the last month or two. A few things changed.

1) Brice Johnson became consistently dominant (Until Nova)
2) Paige and Berry started hitting 3s
3) UNC started to take defense seriously

Maybe that's coaching, maybe it's players figuring it out. But I don't think it's any predictor on how next year's UNC team does, especially since #1 and half of #2 in my list will be missing.

I definitely didn't say they were the best team this year. Just that they were one of the handful of best teams.

I also didn't say that next year's UNC team will be the best or even among the best. In fact, I wasn't talking about next year's UNC team at all in the post you quoted. I was just using a recent example of a team getting better simply by being together another year as it relates to the hypothetical Duke team next year with no exits and no freshmen. I think our hypothetical returning 6-7 profiles as a solid Sweet-16 candidate.

As for next year's UNC team, I do think they will be good. Perhaps a top-15 or top-20 team if there are no early exits. But that is for a separate thread.

[johnb]

This probably deserves, and will likely get at some point, it's own thread: The questions for me is that IF Allen does return... who's the odd-man (or 2) out in Duke's top 9? (since K seems to favor a core 7 man rotation, with an 8th getting < 10mpg)

Got to assume that Jefferson, Giles, Tatum, Allen are 100% locks. I'm close to that level on Kennard too, and one of Jackson/Thornton. Leaves Jones, Jeter, and the other PG as candidates. Given how much K likes to play one big and 4 out, I'd go with Jeter as most likely to be relegated to garbage time. As far as the 8th man? I'm going to go with Jones - despite the great defense and being a senior, I think he gets stuck due to Thornton probably being ahead of Jackson early in the year, but believe Jackson will overtake him at some point after PT is a largely settled issue. I'd guess by next march, Duke is starting Jackson, Allen, Tatum, Jefferson, & Giles. Thornton supplies extra speed/defense/ballhandling off the bench, Kennard instant offense. Jones plugs and plays combo forward as needed to give Tatum a blow.

I'd agree that 4 people are penciled in as starters, but would guess that the 5-10th man will depend a LOT on progress over the next 6 months, physical health, and the opponent. Jones is very likely to be 7/8th man, but he will presumably be less hobbled next year and is our best wing defender; hard to imagine he won't get 20 minutes. Against big teams, Jeter might be crucial; against most college teams, we may be plenty big enough.

Other web sites are encouraging the idea that several of our nonstarters are close to transferring. At least from a bball perspective, I certainly hope not. For each of them, they'll get plenty of great experience in the next year, may get serious PT despite the high talent level of so many players; and would be setting themselves up for 2017-18, when we'll likely have seen a bunch of players just leave early for the NBA.

[Wander]

I also didn't say that next year's UNC team will be the best or even among the best. In fact, I wasn't talking about next year's UNC team at all in the post you quoted. I was just using a recent example of a team getting better simply by being together another year as it relates to the hypothetical Duke team next year with no exits and no freshmen. I think our hypothetical returning 6-7 profiles as a solid Sweet-16 candidate.

As for next year's UNC team, I do think they will be good. Perhaps a top-15 or top-20 team if there are no early exits. But that is for a separate thread.

I largely agree with you, although I would point out that losing JP Tokoto is basically addition by subtraction (on offense for sure, anyway), and losing Brandon Ingram definitely is not on either side of the ball.

I think UNC is top 10 if they lose no one unexpectedly. Marcus Paige is a likeable guy but Joel Berry was better by the end of the season. Brice Johnson was UNC's best player, but plays at a position where UNC is reasonably prepared to lose someone good because of Hicks. Losing Joel James is a non-factor at best. So UNC is returning 6 of their top 8 players from a Final Four team. They should be really good (but not as good as us!)

[Troublemaker]

Vegas weighs in (http://espn.go.com/chalk/story/_/id/15142494/duke-blue-devils-kentucky-wildcats-seen-early-national-championship-favorites-las-vegas)

There's a little table at the of the article that summarizes everything if you don't want to read through.

Duke has the best odds, followed by Kentucky, then Nova

[PalmettoExpat]

I agree with most here that the way-too-early predictions are just clickbait and fun conversation topics. However, the ESPN one has an interesting nugget... Eamonn Brennan, who I actually like amongst the ESPN basketball writers, makes an implicit assumption that Grayson is coming back (he doesn't even MENTION the possibility of him turning pro). Now, I'm sure Brennan isn't a major Duke insider, but the fact that he doesn't even mention the possibility of Grayson flirting with the draft must mean he has some positive inclination of Grayson's return, right?

To be fair, I might be reading too much into this, just like I did a few weeks ago when I brought up the fact that the DBR articles talking about next year almost always included Grayson without a mention of his draft stock... but that seems to have changed in the last few weeks.

I feel like there's been a lot of assumptions from various sports news sources that Grayson is more than likely returning to college. Adam Rowe, fwiw, tweeted today the Grayson is "truly torn" on the decision.

All year long I was SURE Grayson was gone. Now...if I put money on it, I'd say he comes back - 4 year player. I think he wants the jersey in the rafters, and wants a higher draft status than he's projected now. That higher draft number would likely come his senior year (since next year will be so stacked).

[gurufrisbee]

I have trouble interpreting smiley faces. Do you really think this is true?

100%. Grayson is one of the two or three best returning players in the nation. Kennard is going to be a serious all ACC level player next year. Amile was already playing at all conference level before his injury. That trio alone would qualify as one of the three or four best trios of returning players in the nation. It's definitely speculation to envision Thornton and Jeter's improvement but I've heard Coach K say the biggest jump of improvement for most guys is from freshman to sophomore year, so I believe they will get better. And I'm not a big Matt fan, but in the right 3-and-D role (like he had as a sophomore), he's a huge value. Yes, that's easily a sweet sixteen squad.

[Kedsy]

Jones is very likely to be 7/8th man

Matt has started 53 games at Duke, exactly half his games played, including all 35 games in 2015-16. And he'll be a senior captain. So I'm not sure he's "likely" to be the 7th or 8th man. I guess anything's possible, but I'd say he's much more "likely" to be the 5th, maybe the 6th man.


Yes, that's easily a sweet sixteen squad.

It may be semantics, but I disagree with your use of the word "easily" here.

This year's Duke team was ranked between 18th and 20th in the final polls, and 22nd in pre-tournament Pomeroy -- and I still feel that the team you describe (even with a year of improvement for our returning players) would not be as good as this year's team. And if we're talking about a team ranked 20 to 25, which would seem to be about right, while such a team could reach the Sweet 16, it wouldn't be favored to do so, implying that making the Sweet 16 would be a minor upset, not "easy" at all.

[FerryFor50]

Matt has started 53 games at Duke, exactly half his games played, including all 35 games in 2015-16. And he'll be a senior captain. So I'm not sure he's "likely" to be the 7th or 8th man. I guess anything's possible, but I'd say he's much more "likely" to be the 5th, maybe the 6th man.


Coach K has a type. Matt Jones is that type. That's why Jones starts despite his perceived offensive limitations, and why he'll likely start again next season.

[lotusland]

Coach K has a type. Matt Jones is that type. That's why Jones starts despite his perceived offensive limitations, and why he'll likely start again next season.

Absolutely right. Matt Jones will not be 7th or 8th in the rotation next year. Matt Jones is going to play the same as Tyler Thornton was going to play. Coach K may ask Jones to make a sacrifice and come off the bench like he asked Quinn to play off the ball his senior year but it's at least as likely that he will start as come off the bench. If Grayson doesn't return then Jones will probably start.

[gurufrisbee]

It may be semantics, but I disagree with your use of the word "easily" here.

This year's Duke team was ranked between 18th and 20th in the final polls, and 22nd in pre-tournament Pomeroy -- and I still feel that the team you describe (even with a year of improvement for our returning players) would not be as good as this year's team. And if we're talking about a team ranked 20 to 25, which would seem to be about right, while such a team could reach the Sweet 16, it wouldn't be favored to do so, implying that making the Sweet 16 would be a minor upset, not "easy" at all.

That's cool. I'm not suggesting everyone has to agree with my opinion. But here is what I tend to do every year right now - while it's still fresh in my mind, I look at the teams from this year that will be returning 3 or 4 really GOOD starters. Of course this is subjective, but I usually find about five and then I pencil them in to the sweet sixteen for the next year because that kind of returning, veteran talent rarely fails. Obviously injuries can happen, guys can suddenly get worse, etc. but generally those teams are going to have really strong seasons, get really good seeds, and be deep enough they can withstand one or two guys even in foul trouble or getting hurt. No, nothing is EASY - especially not winning two games in the tournament. Did anyone this year have two easy games? I know the pundits wanted to pretend NC did, but both games were tight at half. Maybe Syracuse. Nova. Last year at this time the teams I identified were Kansas (Selden, Ellis, Mason), Oklahoma (HIeld, Woodard, Cousins, Spangler), Iowa St (Niang, Morris, Abel, Long), UVA (Brogdon, Perrantes, Gill), and NC (Paige, Meeks, Johnson, Jackson). Obviously it's not flawless - injuries happen (Long) and some guys get worse (Meeks) but you also are likely to not see someone else coming along to step up (D.Graham, Berry) and you always have a good chance one of these guys will REALLY improve their game (Baby Brice, Hield). It went 5 for 5 this past year. Looking at the landscape of college hoops right now at teams returning 3 or 4 really good starters - Allen, Kennard, and Amile EASILY qualifies.

[gurufrisbee]

Coach K has a type. Matt Jones is that type. That's why Jones starts despite his perceived offensive limitations, and why he'll likely start again next season.

I don't think so. Not that I disagree with Coach's clear liking of him. I think he basically started this year because Thornton never proved he was reliable enough at point and Matt was the next best option. But he really does appear right now to be the 7th or 8th best player on the roster. I see two possibilties - one, coach trusts Allen as the primary ball handler and the team starts Allen, Kennard, Tatum, Giles, and Amile. Two, coach gets enough out either improved sophomore Thornton or Jackson to have a real point guard and starts one of them with Allen, Tatum, Giles, and Amile.

[CDu]

That's cool. I'm not suggesting everyone has to agree with my opinion. But here is what I tend to do every year right now - while it's still fresh in my mind, I look at the teams from this year that will be returning 3 or 4 really GOOD starters. Of course this is subjective, but I usually find about five and then I pencil them in to the sweet sixteen for the next year because that kind of returning, veteran talent rarely fails. Obviously injuries can happen, guys can suddenly get worse, etc. but generally those teams are going to have really strong seasons, get really good seeds, and be deep enough they can withstand one or two guys even in foul trouble or getting hurt. No, nothing is EASY - especially not winning two games in the tournament. Did anyone this year have two easy games? I know the pundits wanted to pretend NC did, but both games were tight at half. Maybe Syracuse. Nova. Last year at this time the teams I identified were Kansas (Selden, Ellis, Mason), Oklahoma (HIeld, Woodard, Cousins, Spangler), Iowa St (Niang, Morris, Abel, Long), UVA (Brogdon, Perrantes, Gill), and NC (Paige, Meeks, Johnson, Jackson). Obviously it's not flawless - injuries happen (Long) and some guys get worse (Meeks) but you also are likely to not see someone else coming along to step up (D.Graham, Berry) and you always have a good chance one of these guys will REALLY improve their game (Baby Brice, Hield). It went 5 for 5 this past year. Looking at the landscape of college hoops right now at teams returning 3 or 4 really good starters - Allen, Kennard, and Amile EASILY qualifies.

I go even simpler than that. In the hypothetical "nobodybelse leaves, nobody comes" scenario, we would be returning: a junior 3rd Team All-American and strong candidate for ACC and National POY (that alone would put a team in contention for the Sweet-16); a fifth-year senior who was averaging a double-double before injury and is the best team defender; a senior who averaged double-digits and is a defensive stalwart; a trio of sophomores, including a double-digit scorer as a frosh, a top-20 recruit PG who spent his frosh year playing catchup, and a top-15 big who like many frosh bigs struggled with the speed and physicality of the college game; a redshirt junior big who was one of the best rebounders in the nation as a frosh.

That returning combo would blow away all but a handful of rosters in the nation. And I don't think comparing this year's results to next year's hypothetical is necessarily useful. This year's group - though likely more talented - was very young. Four of the 7 rotation players were freshmen, and one was an inexperienced soph. Next year's team would be fairly old, with two seniors, a 4th year junior, a true junior, two very experienced sophs, and one inexperienced soph. They would also be very battle tested unlike this year's group. And they will have a year-plus head start in developing an identity. This year's team spent a lot of the season trying to find its identity. The entire team was being asked to play a hugely different role. Then Jefferson went down right as things were starting to click. That changed the identity again. Then right when the team hit its stride again, Jones got hurt twice (injuries he probably never fully came back from).

The identity and experience things are a huge part of why I think this season is not predictive of a hypothetical next season. It would be a totally different team. Older, wiser, stronger, more familiar with each other, probably much better defensively, and likely much better prepared to coalesce into an identity - and most likely a quite different identity than this year's multiple identities.

Thankfully, that won't matter because we are adding even more talent to the mix.

[whereinthehellami]

I think UNC is top 10 if they lose no one unexpectedly. Marcus Paige is a likeable guy but Joel Berry was better by the end of the season. Brice Johnson was UNC's best player, but plays at a position where UNC is reasonably prepared to lose someone good because of Hicks. Losing Joel James is a non-factor at best. So UNC is returning 6 of their top 8 players from a Final Four team. They should be really good (but not as good as us!)

I think Berry is going to be the leading scorer for UNC next year, I know, what a reach. But what will his role be? Distributor/scorer or more of a 2 guard (necessity?). He is on the smallish side and while fast enough, he is not Ulis quick or anything. So, if teams focus on him because Britt/Pinson (limited offense) is playing next to him, what will happen to his efficiency?

Berry is really UNCs only proven outside shooter. Will Britt/Jackson/Pinson/Williams/Maye step up? That is a big question mark.

I think Hicks and Jackson both show a lot of promise. But they both need more consistency for UNC to be top 10ish team for next year. Foul trouble could be a problem for Hicks, the depth behind him is a good step down.

Meeks is a weak spot for them. This kid struggles with ACC level talent. He is easily bothered by more athletic bigs and might want to have his motor looked at.

Either Britt or Pinson take the other starter spot and I'm not sold on either of them. They both have advantages/disadvantages. I don't think either one of them would start for VT and no I'm not kidding.

UNC has to have Berry, Jackson, and Hicks carry them. Can those 3 all step up their games and be consistent? Can those 3 stay healthy and out of foul trouble? I think the rest of the supporting cast for UNC is indistinguishable from any other ACC team not among the bottom feeders of the ACC.

How will UNC play with the dropoff in talent from the top players down to the Mayes and Williams? Does Coach Williams still push the tempo? He really needs Berry, Jackson, and Hicks to be in the game as much as possible. Does a slower pace suit their abilities? Can Coach Williams not wave his arms on the sideline and can he call timeouts? Should be fun to watch the drama unfold:)


I don't think so. Not that I disagree with Coach's clear liking of him. I think he basically started this year because Thornton never proved he was reliable enough at point and Matt was the next best option. But he really does appear right now to be the 7th or 8th best player on the roster. I see two possibilties - one, coach trusts Allen as the primary ball handler and the team starts Allen, Kennard, Tatum, Giles, and Amile. Two, coach gets enough out either improved sophomore Thornton or Jackson to have a real point guard and starts one of them with Allen, Tatum, Giles, and Amile.

If Jones is 100% healthy and not gimpy or old man looking (while playing) I think he is a lock to start and play significant minutes. A senior/leader 3 and D guy in Coach K's system. Pen in Jones as a starter. So if Allen is back, that pushes Kennard to the bench, which is crazy because Kennard next year is going to be a load. Kennard as the best 6th man in the county? Kid can play either guard position and has a great attitude.

[BigZ]

I could see Matt starting but only playing about 15 mins. I don't see him getting that many minutes. Allen, Kennard, Jackson and Thornton will most likely be better than Matt.

[CDu]

I think Berry is going to be the leading scorer for UNC next year, I know, what a reach. But what will his role be? Distributor/scorer or more of a 2 guard (necessity?). He is on the smallish side and while fast enough, he is not Ulis quick or anything. So, if teams focus on him because Britt/Pinson (limited offense) is playing next to him, what will happen to his efficiency?

Either Britt or Pinson take the other starter spot and I'm not sold on either of them. They both have advantages/disadvantages. I don't think either one of them would start for VT and no I'm not kidding.

I wouldn't rule out Seventh Woods getting the starting spot, or at least playing major minutes next year. Woods is conceptually more of a fit with Roy's system: lightning fast, great athlete. He's not a pure PG (more Cat Barber than Ty Lawson) but he should fit in right away as an impact player in an uptempo system.

Also, I think you may be underestimating Pinson a bit. I agree with you on Britt, who is a backup on any ACC team. But I think Pinson could start at a lot of schools in the conference. His athleticism and defensive chops are pretty good, and he can pass. He just can't shoot, which is the main reason he isn't a star. He's kind of like a repeat of the skillset of JP Tokoto.

All that is to say that between Woods and Pinson and Jackson I don't think Berry will be on an island on the perimeter.


Berry is really UNCs only proven outside shooter. Will Britt/Jackson/Pinson/Williams/Maye step up? That is a big question mark.

Yes, but UNC's offense has rarely been predicated on shooting the 3. That being said, I'd look for Jackson to make a jump next year. And it's possible that Robinson comes in with a shooter's touch. I don't think there will be any other strong 3pt shooters besides Berry, but there may be enough adequate perimeter shooters that UNC can still run its interior-based offense in the half-court. And of course, they'll still do a lot of their heavy lifting in transition.


I think Hicks and Jackson both show a lot of promise. But they both need more consistency for UNC to be top 10ish team for next year. Foul trouble could be a problem for Hicks, the depth behind him is a good step down.

Hicks' per-40 numbers this year were really good. If he can cut back on the fouls, he should be a star next year for them. I think next year (if all three stay) will be a big breakout year for Berry, Hicks, and Jackson. I'd not be surprised to see those three combine to average 45 ppg or more next year. Add in the ~10 for Meeks, 5-10 each for Pinson and Woods, and ~10 for the rest of the team, and we're looking at a typical UNC offensive output.


How will UNC play with the dropoff in talent from the top players down to the Mayes and Williams? Does Coach Williams still push the tempo? He really needs Berry, Jackson, and Hicks to be in the game as much as possible. Does a slower pace suit their abilities? Can Coach Williams not wave his arms on the sideline and can he call timeouts? Should be fun to watch the drama unfold:)

UNC has (assuming no departures and no recruits changing their minds) 3 ACC-level players coming in for next year: Bradley (6'10" C, #28 in RSCI); Woods (6'1" G, #40 in RSCI); and Robinson (6'5" SG, #58 in RSCI). So it isn't likely to be a situation where there is a starting 5 and then a huge dropoff to guys who shouldn't be playing in the ACC. UNC can go 9 deep before hitting the Mayes and Williamses of the roster.

[flyingdutchdevil]

1 piece of information down, 13 to go!

I'm kidding, more like 2 key pieces of information to go.

[cwarner62]

Now that Grayson's coming back, perhaps we need a #3 jersey :D


Let me help you out...
6239

I switched the #5 to a #4. I thought a JJ jersey expressed it better.
Enjoy!

[whereinthehellami]

I wouldn't rule out Seventh Woods getting the starting spot, or at least playing major minutes next year. Woods is conceptually more of a fit with Roy's system: lightning fast, great athlete. He's not a pure PG (more Cat Barber than Ty Lawson) but he should fit in right away as an impact player in an uptempo system.

Do you have any personal info on woods? If not, I'm kind of surprised you would expect an RSCI 40-ish recruit to be a difference maker/starter for UNC. I can see some inconsisent PT but nothing to be worried about (Duke fan wise).


Also, I think you may be underestimating Pinson a bit. I agree with you on Britt, who is a backup on any ACC team. But I think Pinson could start at a lot of schools in the conference. His athleticism and defensive chops are pretty good, and he can pass. He just can't shoot, which is the main reason he isn't a star. He's kind of like a repeat of the skillset of JP Tokoto.

All that is to say that between Woods and Pinson and Jackson I don't think Berry will be on an island on the perimeter.

Pinson seems like a filler type to me. He is not in the league of Berry, Jackson, or Hicks. UNC could use another one of those caliber of players. Question? Would Pinson get any PT on next year's Duke team? IMO, maybe spot duty as a defensive player but i don't think he would get regular minutes off the Duke bench.

My point was more that because Pinson/Britt are somewhat limited offensively that teams can focus on stopping Berry. i think stopping Berry is the key to stopping UNC next year as he really stepped up this year.


Hicks' per-40 numbers this year were really good. If he can cut back on the fouls, he should be a star next year for them. I think next year (if all three stay) will be a big breakout year for Berry, Hicks, and Jackson. I'd not be surprised to see those three combine to average 45 ppg or more next year. Add in the ~10 for Meeks, 5-10 each for Pinson and Woods, and ~10 for the rest of the team, and we're looking at a typical UNC offensive output.

IMO Hicks benefited from not being part of a defensive game plan, as he was the 5th option, at best, behind Johnson, Paige, Jackson, and Berry. Can he create a scoring opportunity? Big question? The game still looked a little fast for him to me. He struggled with decision making when he got outside the garbage buckets. IC, yes i'm citing them, even questioned his defense a lot of the times. He has a tendency to play lazy defense, drift and lose his man. Effort? If teams attack him and get him in foul trouble quickly, UNC is down to just Berry and Jackson as impact players.


UNC has (assuming no departures and no recruits changing their minds) 3 ACC-level players coming in for next year: Bradley (6'10" C, #28 in RSCI); Woods (6'1" G, #40 in RSCI); and Robinson (6'5" SG, #58 in RSCI). So it isn't likely to be a situation where there is a starting 5 and then a huge dropoff to guys who shouldn't be playing in the ACC. UNC can go 9 deep before hitting the Mayes and Williamses of the roster.

Again i'm not expecting an RSCI-ranked 28 guy (Bradley) to be an impact player for the holes. Role player (for next year), maybe, nothing that would have me concerned as a Duke fan.

This is probably more for another discussion but other schools have closed the gap on UNC, watch out for VT next year. Bold prediction time, VT will end up ahead of UNC in the standings by the end of the year.

[CDu]

Do you have any personal info on woods? If not, I'm kind of surprised you would expect an RSCI 40-ish recruit to be a difference maker/starter for UNC. I can see some inconsisent PT but nothing to be worried about (Duke fan wise).

Just the scouting reports I've read on him make him sound very much like a UNC-style guard. Extremely fast and explosively athletic, great in transition. I wouldn't get hung up on the #40 recruiting ranking. First, it's a deeper class than usual. Second, UNC has generally done better with lower-rated players than Duke has in the Roy Williams era. I'm not saying that I expect him to be a star or starter next year. I just think he will be an impact player for them in as a quite capable contributor.


Pinson seems like a filler type to me. He is not in the league of Berry, Jackson, or Hicks. UNC could use another one of those caliber of players. Question? Would Pinson get any PT on next year's Duke team? IMO, maybe spot duty as a defensive player but i don't think he would get regular minutes off the Duke bench.

My point was more that because Pinson/Britt are somewhat limited offensively that teams can focus on stopping Berry. i think stopping Berry is the key to stopping UNC next year as he really stepped up this year.

Again, I think you're selling Pinson's potential short. He's a terrific defender and passer, and he is a great athlete. I think he stands a good chance of making a big jump this year as his role expands and playing time increases. I don't think he'll be All-ACC or anything, but think he could put up numbers like Tokoto's junior year numbers. He's a more highly-rated recruit than Tokoto was, and he has every bit the same kind of game.

Pointing out whether Pinson would get PT on Duke is sort of irrelevant. I'm not comparing UNC to Duke. We'll be better than UNC next year. I'm comparing UNC to the rest of the world. And in that comparison, I think Pinson would be just fine.


IMO Hicks benefited from not being part of a defensive game plan, as he was the 5th option, at best, behind Johnson, Paige, Jackson, and Berry. Can he create a scoring opportunity? Big question? The game still looked a little fast for him to me. He struggled with decision making when he got outside the garbage buckets. IC, yes i'm citing them, even questioned his defense a lot of the times. He has a tendency to play lazy defense, drift and lose his man. Effort? If teams attack him and get him in foul trouble quickly, UNC is down to just Berry and Jackson as impact players.

Is it possible that Hicks will struggle with foul trouble next year? Sure. But remember that Brice Johnson wasn't a shot creator, even through most of last year. He dominated this year primarily based on on mop-up buckets and offensive rebounds. I think Hicks will do just fine in a bigger role next year.


Again i'm not expecting an RSCI-ranked 28 guy (Bradley) to be an impact player for the holes. Role player (for next year), maybe, nothing that would have me concerned as a Duke fan.

Again, I don't think a #28 rating in a loaded class is something to scoff at. Especially since (again) UNC tends to get more from their 25-60 rated recruits right away than we do. And especially since we're talking about the #3 big man. I don't expect Bradley to match what Hicks and Meeks as seniors will provide. But I think he'll be able to provide more than Johnson or Meeks or Hicks provided as freshmen. And as a backup big, that's more than enough.


This is probably more for another discussion but other schools have closed the gap on UNC, watch out for VT next year. Bold prediction time, VT will end up ahead of UNC in the standings by the end of the year.

I'll be quite surprised if that happens, and not because I think VT is going to be bad. Buzz Williams has the needle pointing up for sure. But because I think UNC will still be a top-3 or top-4 team in the ACC next year. I think VT will be in the 6-8 range in the conference.

Again, though, that's assuming no unexpected exits from the roster. Which may or may not be a good assumption pending the NCAA rulings.

[COYS]

Just the scouting reports I've read on him make him sound very much like a UNC-style guard. Extremely fast and explosively athletic, great in transition. I wouldn't get hung up on the #40 recruiting ranking. First, it's a deeper class than usual. Second, UNC has generally done better with lower-rated players than Duke has in the Roy Williams era. I'm not saying that I expect him to be a star or starter next year. I just think he will be an impact player for them in as a quite capable contributor.



Again, I think you're selling Pinson's potential short. He's a terrific defender and passer, and he is a great athlete. I think he stands a good chance of making a big jump this year as his role expands and playing time increases. I don't think he'll be All-ACC or anything, but think he could put up numbers like Tokoto's junior year numbers. He's a more highly-rated recruit than Tokoto was, and he has every bit the same kind of game.

Pointing out whether Pinson would get PT on Duke is sort of irrelevant. I'm not comparing UNC to Duke. We'll be better than UNC next year. I'm comparing UNC to the rest of the world. And in that comparison, I think Pinson would be just fine.



Is it possible that Hicks will struggle with foul trouble next year? Sure. But remember that Brice Johnson wasn't a shot creator, even through most of last year. He dominated this year primarily based on on mop-up buckets and offensive rebounds. I think Hicks will do just fine in a bigger role next year.



Again, I don't think a #28 rating in a loaded class is something to scoff at. Especially since (again) UNC tends to get more from their 25-60 rated recruits right away than we do. And especially since we're talking about the #3 big man. I don't expect Bradley to match what Hicks and Meeks as seniors will provide. But I think he'll be able to provide more than Johnson or Meeks or Hicks provided as freshmen. And as a backup big, that's more than enough.



I'll be quite surprised if that happens, and not because I think VT is going to be bad. Buzz Williams has the needle pointing up for sure. But because I think UNC will still be a top-3 or top-4 team in the ACC next year. I think VT will be in the 6-8 range in the conference.

Again, though, that's assuming no unexpected exits from the roster. Which may or may not be a good assumption pending the NCAA rulings.

I hate to agree with anything anyone says about UNC being good next season, but I second this. There's really no reason to think UNC won't be strong next season barring a mass exodus of players to the NBA (Hicks and Jackson are both bad bets to jump) and/or to transfer due to NCAA sanctions (we can only hope). They don't look very likely to have as much high-end talent as Duke next season, but they have a number of talented, experienced players who look capable of making a jump (Berry, Hicks, Jackson, and Pinson) plus a solid if unspectacular recruiting class. UNC under-performed in '14 and '15 but put together a good year this past year. I wouldn't be surprised to see them end up somewhere between '14/'15 and this past season . . . of course, with a multiyear postseason ban we don't really have to worry about them making a deep ACCT or NCAAT run.

[BD80]

Seventh Woods - sounds to me like a hybrid golf club

[FerryFor50]

Pointing out whether Pinson would get PT on Duke is sort of irrelevant. I'm not comparing UNC to Duke. We'll be better than UNC next year. I'm comparing UNC to the rest of the world. And in that comparison, I think Pinson would be just fine.



Though irrelevant, I'd argue that Pinson most definitely would have gotten heavy minutes on a defensively challenged Duke team with a coach that values defense.

Duke was heavily recruiting Pinson, if I recall.

[cato]

Seventh Woods - sounds to me like a hybrid golf club

My thought exactly. Every time Roy looks at this incoming roster next year, he's going to be wondering if he should have a different club in his bag, and isn't golf easier on the nerves than coaching college ball anyway?

[Doria]

I have to agree with CDu regarding Pinson. He wasn't an offensive option for the Heels, but they didn't really need him to be. He's a very good player within their system who, at times in the season, looked like the only one who was interested in playing defense (excepting Paige, but his slump mid-season affected both aspects of his game, IMO). Pinson is additionally their best interior passer, with limited minutes; which is to say, I'm not sure how his numbers would look seeing more time on the court.

I expect Jackson to be more consistent next year, especially in terms of his jump shot, though I'm not as impressed by Hicks as others. He isn't a bad player or anything, but I'm not sure how much improvement I expect him to make.

And while I like VT fine, I expect them to finish behind FSU.

[Olympic Fan]

FWIW,
There is a story up on ESPN projecting the top 25 players for 2016-17 (insider, so I can't link).

No. 1 is Harry Giles of Duke
No. 2 is Grayson Allen of Duke
No. 4 is Jason Tatum of Duke

Isiah Whitehead of Seton Hall comes in at No. 3 to break up the Duke trifecta

[jv001]

My thought exactly. Every time Roy looks at this incoming roster next year, he's going to be wondering if he should have a different club in his bag, and isn't golf easier on the nerves than coaching college ball anyway?

That's according to how much it can cost you if you miss a putt that can cost you lot's of money. :cool: GoDuke!

[JNort]

Though irrelevant, I'd argue that Pinson most definitely would have gotten heavy minutes on a defensively challenged Duke team with a coach that values defense.

Duke was heavily recruiting Pinson, if I recall.

Idk about that. We all thought the same with Gbinije when he was at Duke. Coach gets "his guys" and likes to stick with em for the most part regardless of who is better. Sort of like Tyler Thornton or presently Matt Jones.

[FerryFor50]

Idk about that. We all thought the same with Gbinije when he was at Duke. Coach gets "his guys" and likes to stick with em for the most part regardless of who is better. Sort of like Tyler Thornton or presently Matt Jones.

Gbinijie's issue was that he didn't seem to be super dedicated to defense, if I recall. And he wanted to be "the man" on offense, but wasn't going to get that chance with the roster as it was.

[JNort]

Gbinijie's issue was that he didn't seem to be super dedicated to defense, if I recall. And he wanted to be "the man" on offense, but wasn't going to get that chance with the roster as it was.
Not from what I can recall at least early on anyways. He came is with this reputation for his defense and hard work. Maybe it turned out that way but I never heard about it

[jimsumner]

Theo Pinson? Duke was recruiting him hard for awhile. Then Duke saw Justise Winslow. After that, Pinson became a recruiting afterthought. He technically had an offer. But Duke stopped recruiting him after signing Winslow.

A similar thing happened with Tokoto. After awhile, Duke just wasn't that into him.

Gbinijie? Duke really needed a quality 3 in 2012. That team was a weird combination of players who all seemed to be either power forwards or shooting guards.

Duke wanted Gbinijie to concentrate on defense. He wanted to take long shots. Duke had Rivers, Kelly, Curry and Dawkins who could do the latter. They needed him to do the former.

MG has stated since then that he over-valued his talent. He thought he was a OAD in 2012. He just wasn't that good. Duke saw him eventually turning into Chris Carrawell. Not Trajan Langdon.

I really wish Gbinijie and K had gotten on the same page and MG had stuck around. He would have been an asset on that 2013 team.

Or do I? Duke filled the void created by his departure by signing Rodney Hood as a transfer. Then they filled Hood's gap with Winslow.

Not sure either of those things happen with Gbinijie around.

Obviously, it turned out well for MG. He matured a lot--that year off probably helped--turned into an All-ACC player and made it to the Final Four. I suspect he'll get a legit shot at the next level.

An intriguing what-might-have-been, for sure.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Theo Pinson? Duke was recruiting him hard for awhile. Then Duke saw Justise Winslow. After that, Pinson became a recruiting afterthought. He technically had an offer. But Duke stopped recruiting him after signing Winslow.

A similar thing happened with Tokoto. After awhile, Duke just wasn't that into him.

Gbinijie? Duke really needed a quality 3 in 2012. That team was a weird combination of players who all seemed to be either power forwards or shooting guards.

Duke wanted Gbinijie to concentrate on defense. He wanted to take long shots. Duke had Rivers, Kelly, Curry and Dawkins who could do the latter. They needed him to do the former.

MG has stated since then that he over-valued his talent. He thought he was a OAD in 2012. He just wasn't that good. Duke saw him eventually turning into Chris Carrawell. Not Trajan Langdon.

I really wish Gbinijie and K had gotten on the same page and MG had stuck around. He would have been an asset on that 2013 team.

Or do I? Duke filled the void created by his departure by signing Rodney Hood as a transfer. Then they filled Hood's gap with Winslow.

Not sure either of those things happen with Gbinijie around.

Obviously, it turned out well for MG. He matured a lot--that year off probably helped--turned into an All-ACC player and made it to the Final Four. I suspect he'll get a legit shot at the next level.

An intriguing what-might-have-been, for sure.

Yes, seems like one of those "for the best of both parties" separations. We ended up with a ring in 2014, he got to latch on with another top-tier program and get an extra year of offensive development with a very good coach, on a team where he could take the shots he wanted. I'll bet both K and G don't sit awake at night with regrets.

[wilson]

Tyler Ulis announced today that he is hiring an agent (http://kentucky.247sports.com/Article/Tyler-Ulis-ends-Kentucky-career-enters-NBA-Draft-44667705) and thus is closing the door on a possible return to Lexington. Yet another boon to our prospects for next season.

[NSDukeFan]

On this point, I could not believe Roosevelt Jones was still playing for Butler this season. I would have sworn he was on the Butler team we played in the finals (which is obviously wrong, but still - he's been there forever).


I said exactly the same thing about Roosevelt Jones during the last Butler game. The announcer said he missed two seasons with wrist surgery, but the Butler website said it was only one.


I said the same thing. Seems like he's been at Butler for a decade.

Didn't Perry Ellis come in at the same time Mitch Richmond came to Kansas State? Feels to me that he has been there forever, probably because he contributed right off the bat.

[MChambers]

Didn't Perry Ellis come in at the same time Mitch Richmond came to Kansas State? Feels to me that he has been there forever, probably because he contributed right off the bat.
That and his early hair loss.

[castandw8]

or related to Kevin Bacon's golf clubs

[TexHawk]

Didn't Perry Ellis come in at the same time Mitch Richmond came to Kansas State? Feels to me that he has been there forever, probably because he contributed right off the bat.

Except he didn't. Ellis was like the 7th or 8th guy up until March, and then had a really nice Big12 tournament. He played more than 20 minutes in only 3 games all year. He scored in double figures 6 times, and only hit 20 once (in that Big12 tournament). That happens when you play behind two seniors (Withey and Young).

Ellis is younger than Amile Jefferson, btw.

[whereinthehellami]

I'm not trying to say that UNC won't be good next year, I'm just not seeing them ending up anywhere near the top 10. They will be there at the start because they are being overvalued by the pundits.

They have 3 impact payers, Berry, Hicks, and Jackson. Berry is really good and has a chance at first team All-ACC. He will get his, but he is undersized and not overly quick. But he is a gamer.

Will Jackson make the jump to the next level? I wouldn't bet against it happening, but his shooting actually regressed this year across the board;
2014-2015
2 pt = 48%, ft = 71%, 3 pt = 30%

2015-2016
2 pt = 47%, ft = 67%, 3 pt = 29%

Sometimes guys don't make the jump that everyone thinks they should make, it happens.

Here are Berry's numbers;
2014-2015
2 pt = 40%, ft = 76%, 3 pt = 35%

2015-2016
2 pt = 45%, ft = 87%, 3 pt = 38%

Berry shows that upward progression that you tend to see with guys making the jump to the next level.

Hicks numbers;
2014-2015
2 pt = 54%, ft = 62%, 3 pt = 0%

2015-2016
2 pt = 61%, ft = 76%, 3 pt = 0%

2 out of the 3 ain't bad, maybe, but this ain't Meatloaf. UNC needs all 3 to be consistent and step up their games.

[wilson]

Didn't Perry Ellis come in at the same time Mitch Richmond came to Kansas State? Feels to me that he has been there forever, probably because he contributed right off the bat.


That and his early hair loss.Plus he's been cranking out fine menswear (http://www.perryellis.com/) for like 40 years.

[PalmettoExpat]

John Gasaway went on a minor Twitter flurry today about our 2016-2017 team, and how it is a potential "Category 5 Team" - the perfect storm of skilled returning talent, and an insanely good recruiting class.

Some highlights of the flurry are:

"This Duke roster will elicit hyperbole. Rightfully so! Combination of returning experience and freshmen matched only by UK 2010, UNC 2008..."

"Want hyperbole? On paper Duke 2017 has more returning experience *and* a better freshman class than UK 2015. So, yeah, that’ll do. "

"While Duke 2017 will surely score like crazy, it’s unclear whether it’ll have both-sides-of-the-ball excellence a la UK 2015…."

"Of course Coach K got amazing defense (very) late in 2015 with Okafor-Jefferson nexus. Could presage 2017. Hype accordingly. End of drizzle."

He also linked to his blog post from this past October, describing his Category 5 Theory, and how our 2015 team fit that bill.

https://johngasaway.com/2015/10/19/the-category-5-roster/

Interesting read.

[Troublemaker]

John Gasaway went on a minor Twitter flurry today about our 2016-2017 team, and how it is a potential "Category 5 Team" - the perfect storm of skilled returning talent, and an insanely good recruiting class.

Some highlights of the flurry are:

"This Duke roster will elicit hyperbole. Rightfully so! Combination of returning experience and freshmen matched only by UK 2010, UNC 2008..."

"Want hyperbole? On paper Duke 2017 has more returning experience *and* a better freshman class than UK 2015. So, yeah, that’ll do. "

"While Duke 2017 will surely score like crazy, it’s unclear whether it’ll have both-sides-of-the-ball excellence a la UK 2015…."

"Of course Coach K got amazing defense (very) late in 2015 with Okafor-Jefferson nexus. Could presage 2017. Hype accordingly. End of drizzle."

He also linked to his blog post from this past October, describing his Category 5 Theory, and how our 2015 team fit that bill.

https://johngasaway.com/2015/10/19/the-category-5-roster/

Interesting read.

Gasaway follows up with ESPN Insider article (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/insider/story/_/id/15182087/duke-blue-devils-blend-returning-incoming-talent-hits-new-heights) that is headlined on ESPN's college basketball front page (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/) "Why Duke Has College Basketball's Strongest Roster In Years."

Going to read it now. Will provide summary (unless it's not that interesting).

[Troublemaker]

Gasaway follows up with ESPN Insider article (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/insider/story/_/id/15182087/duke-blue-devils-blend-returning-incoming-talent-hits-new-heights) that is headlined on ESPN's college basketball front page (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/) "Why Duke Has College Basketball's Strongest Roster In Years."

Going to read it now. Will provide summary (unless it's not that interesting).

Yeah, so it was just the long-form version of his tweets in post #118.

* The combination of great returning talent + great freshman class is rare
* Giles' FIBA stats were terrific
* According to his system, UNC '07 and UK '10 rate higher, and neither made the Final Four.

[Olympic Fan]

Yeah, so it was just the long-form version of his tweets in post #118.

* The combination of great returning talent + great freshman class is rare
* Giles' FIBA stats were terrific
* According to his system, UNC '07 and UK '10 rate higher, and neither made the Final Four.

Not a bad story, but Gasaway has UNC's '07 team losing to Georgetown in the Elite Eight -- that happened in 2008. The 2007 team that he's talking bout (with Lawson, Ellington, Wright. Thompson and Stephenson joining holdovers Hansbrough, Terry, Ginyard and Frasor) lost to George Mason in the second round of the 2007 tournament.

[jimsumner]

Not a bad story, but Gasaway has UNC's '07 team losing to Georgetown in the Elite Eight -- that happened in 2008. The 2007 team that he's talking bout (with Lawson, Ellington, Wright. Thompson and Stephenson joining holdovers Hansbrough, Terry, Ginyard and Frasor) lost to George Mason in the second round of the 2007 tournament.

George Mason made the Final Four in 2006.

North Carolina lost to Georgetown in 2007.

North Carolina lost to Kansas in the 2008 Final Four.

[Olympic Fan]

George Mason made the Final Four in 2006.

North Carolina lost to Georgetown in 2007.

North Carolina lost to Kansas in the 2008 Final Four.

My bad ... I continually screw up my memory of the years in the middle of the last decade.

My apologizes to Mr. Gasaway. he was right and I was wrong. Thanks for the correction, Jim.

[devildeac]

My bad ... I continually screw up my memory of the years in the middle of the last decade.

My apologizes to Mr. Gasaway. he was right and I was wrong. Thanks for the correction, Jim.

Easy to mix up tarh**lian accomplishments, legitimate or not :rolleyes: .

[brevity]

My bad ... I continually screw up my memory of the years in the middle of the last decade.

My apologizes to Mr. Gasaway. he was right and I was wrong. Thanks for the correction, Jim.


Easy to mix up tarh**lian accomplishments, legitimate or not :rolleyes: .

So, to clarify...

2006: cheated
2007: cheated
2008: cheated

[devildeac]

So, to clarify...

2006: cheated
2007: cheated
2008: cheated

You're cherry-picking. Let me help you a bit:

1988 (?)-2011: cheated

;)

[BD80]

You're cherry-picking. Let me help you a bit:

1988 (?)-2011: cheated

;)

Like they ever stopped ...

[devildeac]

Like they ever stopped ...

Excellent point. I must have misplaced my -, () and ?. :o

[Olympic Fan]

Just saw this posted -- the Vegas odds on the favorites to win the 2017 national title:

http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-basketball/odds/futures/

A top 10 of:

1. Duke (5-1)
2. Kentucky (8-1)
3. Kansas (11-1)
4. Michigan State (12-1)
Villanova (12-1)
6. Louisville (14-1)
7. Oregon (18-1)
8. Arizona (20-1)
9. North Carolina (24-1)
10. Virginia (25-1)
Indiana (25-1)
Xavier (25-1)

[weezie]

I love this kind of great gleeful silly laugh. No matter, it's still fun.

[Olympic Fan]

I was looking at how Vegas ranks the ACC going into next year --

1. Duke
2. Louisville
3. UNC
4. Virginia
5. Miami
6. Syracuse
7. FSU
8. Notre Dame
9-14 -- a bunch of teams at 300-1: Clemson, Georgia Tech, NC State, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
15. Boston College -- at 2,000-to-1, the Eagles are in the group of the last teams rated

I kind of like this list at the moment with one big exception -- I think Virginia Tech should be much higher. I think Pitt should be higher than Notre Dame and if Blossomgame returns at Clemson, I'd have them higher too.

If Jackson and/or Richardson stay in the draft, I think UNC and Syracuse could drop a spot or two.

[jv001]

I was looking at how Vegas ranks the ACC going into next year --

1. Duke
2. Louisville
3. UNC
4. Virginia
5. Miami
6. Syracuse
7. FSU
8. Notre Dame9-14 -- a bunch of teams at 300-1: Clemson, Georgia Tech, NC State, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
15. Boston College -- at 2,000-to-1, the Eagles are in the group of the last teams rated

I kind of like this list at the moment with one big exception -- I think Virginia Tech should be much higher. I think Pitt should be higher than Notre Dame and if Blossomgame returns at Clemson, I'd have them higher too.

If Jackson and/or Richardson stay in the draft, I think UNC and Syracuse could drop a spot or two.

I'm hoping the world returns to normal and we beat Notre Dame. It will be a tough one on the road but we have the players and Coach to get it done this coming season. GoDuke!

[MCFinARL]

I was looking at how Vegas ranks the ACC going into next year --

1. Duke
2. Louisville
3. UNC
4. Virginia
5. Miami
6. Syracuse
7. FSU
8. Notre Dame
9-14 -- a bunch of teams at 300-1: Clemson, Georgia Tech, NC State, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
15. Boston College -- at 2,000-to-1, the Eagles are in the group of the last teams rated

I kind of like this list at the moment with one big exception -- I think Virginia Tech should be much higher. I think Pitt should be higher than Notre Dame and if Blossomgame returns at Clemson, I'd have them higher too.

If Jackson and/or Richardson stay in the draft, I think UNC and Syracuse could drop a spot or two.

Agree with you about Virginia Tech. Williams seems to have something going there, and they look like a team on the rise. Could be ready to move into that 6-8 range at least.

[superdave]

9. North Carolina (24-1)


Did Roy retire?

[Troublemaker]

Did Roy retire?

Not sure what you mean here. Does 24-to-1 seem too high or too low to you for UNC?

[superdave]

Not sure what you mean here. Does 24-to-1 seem too high or too low to you for UNC?

I was kidding about Unc's odds looking high. I would just bet against Roy regularly.

[Neals384]

Vegas odds were previously discussed in this thread:
forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?37688-Way-too-early-2017-projections (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?37688-Way-too-early-2017-projections)

Duke was the 9-2 fav, but that was before DT announced his xfer.

[Troublemaker]

Updated for NBA draft entry:

Ken Pomeroy ‏@kenpomeroy (https://twitter.com/kenpomeroy) May 25 (https://twitter.com/kenpomeroy/status/735656734253928448)Salt Lake City, UT (https://twitter.com/search?q=place%3Abd7c511e9f8bc5da)
Updated preseason top 10: 10) UVa, 9) Louisville, 8) Oregon, 7) Wisconsin, 6) Arizona, 5) Kansas, 4) UNC, 3) Kentucky, 2) Villanova, 1) Duke


Ken Pomeroy ‏@kenpomeroy (https://twitter.com/kenpomeroy) May 25 (https://twitter.com/kenpomeroy/status/735657377509216256)Salt Lake City, UT (https://twitter.com/search?q=place%3Abd7c511e9f8bc5da)
Top 10 conferences: 10) MAC, 9) WCC <gap> 8) AAC, 7) A-10 <gap> 6) SEC <gap> 5) Pac12, 4) B1G, 3) Big East, 2) Big 12, 1) ACC

[Troublemaker]

More updates:

NBC (http://collegebasketball.nbcsports.com/2016/05/26/the-nbc-sports-2016-17-way-too-early-preseason-top-25/) - #1 Duke, 2. UK, 3. Kansas, 4. Nova, 5. Oregon, 7. UVA, 8. UNC, 10. Lville

CBS (http://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/no-1-duke-no-2-kentucky-hold-steady-in-post-draft-decisions-top-25-and-one/) - #1 Duke, 2. UK, 3. Nova, 4. Kansas, 5. Xavier, 7. UNC, 10. UVA

247 (http://247sports.com/Article/updated-way-too-early-top-25-for-2017-45499898) - #1 Duke, 2. Kansas, 3. UK, 4. Nova, 5. Oregon, 6. UNC, 7. UVA

Big Lead (http://thebiglead.com/2016/05/26/college-basketball-top-25-2016-2017/) - #1 Duke, 2. Nova, 3. Oregon, 4. UK, 5. Wiscy, 7. UNC, 8. UVA

[gurufrisbee]

I was looking at how Vegas ranks the ACC going into next year --

1. Duke
2. Louisville
3. UNC
4. Virginia
5. Miami
6. Syracuse
7. FSU
8. Notre Dame
9-14 -- a bunch of teams at 300-1: Clemson, Georgia Tech, NC State, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
15. Boston College -- at 2,000-to-1, the Eagles are in the group of the last teams rated


This is nuts. No way is Hookerville the 2nd best ACC team. Lost their three best players by far and brought in one recruit.

UVA should be 2nd.

Va Tech should definitely be several spots higher.

[gurufrisbee]

Updated for NBA draft entry:

Ken Pomeroy ‏@kenpomeroy (https://twitter.com/kenpomeroy) May 25 (https://twitter.com/kenpomeroy/status/735656734253928448)Salt Lake City, UT (https://twitter.com/search?q=place%3Abd7c511e9f8bc5da)
Updated preseason top 10: 10) UVa, 9) Louisville, 8) Oregon, 7) Wisconsin, 6) Arizona, 5) Kansas, 4) UNC, 3) Kentucky, 2) Villanova, 1) Duke


Ken Pomeroy ‏@kenpomeroy (https://twitter.com/kenpomeroy) May 25 (https://twitter.com/kenpomeroy/status/735657377509216256)Salt Lake City, UT (https://twitter.com/search?q=place%3Abd7c511e9f8bc5da)
Top 10 conferences: 10) MAC, 9) WCC <gap> 8) AAC, 7) A-10 <gap> 6) SEC <gap> 5) Pac12, 4) B1G, 3) Big East, 2) Big 12, 1) ACC


I don't get the Kentucky love. Their recruiting class isn't any better than it was last year when they lost in the 2nd round. Or the year before, when they had a stacked team there already, but they played in a terrible conference and were totally unprepared when they hit March Madness and faced real competition. This year they have nothing there and will once again play in a terrible conference. It's like the worst parts of the last two seasons combined into one.

UVA, Kansas, Oregon, Arizona, Wisconsin,Nova, Duke - those all make sense. NC might be top ten, but definitely not top five.

But LVille and Kentucky have no business being anywhere near that high.

[Troublemaker]

Odds from 5Dimes sportsbook:

http://i.imgur.com/lk7gTPF.png

[Olympic Fan]

This is nuts. No way is Hookerville the 2nd best ACC team. Lost their three best players by far and brought in one recruit.

UVA should be 2nd.

Va Tech should definitely be several spots higher.

I strongly disagree about Louisville -- and I think the Vegas odds reflect the strength of this team very well (although they were posted before Onuaku's final decision).

Getting Onuaku back would have helped, but they get Mangok Mathiang back after missing most of last year from injury -- and he and Onuaku were essentially the same player in 2015 (Mathiang actually rebounded and blocked shots slightly better). Plus, they get 7-0 Anas Mahmoud -- who was starting to play well when he was lost at midseason -- back to share time in the most.

They also expect to have a healthy Deng Adel, who is extremely talented, but hobbled by injuries last year. They add redshirt freshman Ryan McMahon, a great shooter who was injured last season. They add Tony Hicks, a 6-2 grad transfer who averaged 15 ppg at Penn (he's a very similar player to Troy Lewis) and five-star wing forward VJ King.

Plus, I think they have a bunch of very talented young players who will only get better -- in addition to healthy years from Adel and Mahmoud, think about Donovan Mitchell, Ray Spalding and Jaylen Johnson. Plus, they have a veteran playmaker in Quentin Snider -- not a great player, but solid and experienced.

I understand some skepticism based on the possibility that the NCAA may not accept Louisville's self-imposed penalty and may add another year of a postseason ban. I think that's possible (plus I think it VERY likely that Rick Pitino gets the same 9-game ban that both Larry Brown and Jim Boeheim got for shenanigans that they were not tied directly to).

But the team itself looks VERY good to me. If you want shorthand, put it this way: Mathiang=Onuaku; Hicks=Lewis; a healthy Deng=Lee ... if you don't think that balances, throw in the health of Mahmoud and McMahon, add 5-star King and add the improvement of Mitchell, Spalding and company.

I have Louisville No. 2 in the ACC ... ahead of No. 3 UNC and No. 4 Virginia.

PS I agree that VPI is too low. So is NC State, but this was before Yurtseven committed -- he makes a bif difference (if he is eligible). Syracuse is too high, but that was before anybody knew that Richardson would stay in the draft.

[PalmettoExpat]

FWIW,
There is a story up on ESPN projecting the top 25 players for 2016-17 (insider, so I can't link).

No. 1 is Harry Giles of Duke
No. 2 is Grayson Allen of Duke
No. 4 is Jason Tatum of Duke

Isiah Whitehead of Seton Hall comes in at No. 3 to break up the Duke trifecta

Now that Whitehead is staying in the draft...I would guess Tatum gets bumped up to the #3 spot. Top 3 players isn't too shabby.

[Bluegrassdevil1]

I strongly disagree about Louisville -- and I think the Vegas odds reflect the strength of this team very well (although they were posted before Onuaku's final decision).

Getting Onuaku back would have helped, but they get Mangok Mathiang back after missing most of last year from injury -- and he and Onuaku were essentially the same player in 2015 (Mathiang actually rebounded and blocked shots slightly better). Plus, they get 7-0 Anas Mahmoud -- who was starting to play well when he was lost at midseason -- back to share time in the most.

They also expect to have a healthy Deng Adel, who is extremely talented, but hobbled by injuries last year. They add redshirt freshman Ryan McMahon, a great shooter who was injured last season. They add Tony Hicks, a 6-2 grad transfer who averaged 15 ppg at Penn (he's a very similar player to Troy Lewis) and five-star wing forward VJ King.

Plus, I think they have a bunch of very talented young players who will only get better -- in addition to healthy years from Adel and Mahmoud, think about Donovan Mitchell, Ray Spalding and Jaylen Johnson. Plus, they have a veteran playmaker in Quentin Snider -- not a great player, but solid and experienced.

I understand some skepticism based on the possibility that the NCAA may not accept Louisville's self-imposed penalty and may add another year of a postseason ban. I think that's possible (plus I think it VERY likely that Rick Pitino gets the same 9-game ban that both Larry Brown and Jim Boeheim got for shenanigans that they were not tied directly to).

But the team itself looks VERY good to me. If you want shorthand, put it this way: Mathiang=Onuaku; Hicks=Lewis; a healthy Deng=Lee ... if you don't think that balances, throw in the health of Mahmoud and McMahon, add 5-star King and add the improvement of Mitchell, Spalding and company.

I have Louisville No. 2 in the ACC ... ahead of No. 3 UNC and No. 4 Virginia.

PS I agree that VPI is too low. So is NC State, but this was before Yurtseven committed -- he makes a bif difference (if he is eligible). Syracuse is too high, but that was before anybody knew that Richardson would stay in the draft.

It is not an overstatement to say that you, Olympic Fan, are a true strength of this forum, so I provide the following statement purely from shock (as it rarely possible to rationally disagree with you), and two, because even when you are wrong, it is likely from a rationale, authentic, and marginally "off" perspective, not a totality of "being incorrect," but...

You are quite wrong about U of L.

Last season's Cardinal group began the pre-season with an awful schedule, losing to UK and Michigan St, which were the only remotely solid teams that they played before the ACC.

In the ACC, U of L played a many close games, with most of those games turning to victory, because the opponent coughed the game away, not because the Cards overwhelmed the opponent. Most importantly, U of L was a less than stellar road team, and has been for a great many years under Pitino.

The only "big" wins U of L had last season were home wins over UNC and Duke.

UNC was dragging and worn down from a game the preceding Saturday, and the Duke game... well... U of L got the victory. U of L is, and should be, proud of those victories, but I honestly believe both victories say more about the situations facing their opponents, than the strengths of last season's Cardinal group.

U of L was a good team last season, and would have been capable of a round of 32/Sweet-16 run, but they were not great. Not being great is why U of L will be good next season, but not close to the top of the ACC.

U of L lost two senior guards, and their best player in Onuaku. Those three losses are MASSIVE.

U of L's starting point guard next season will be running the program totally on his own for the first time, and while he is a fine player, he is not anywhere close to a top-level ACC guard (Pitino's system is very contingent on great guard play).

U of L brings in a strong freshman and a solid transfer, but Pitino is notorious for not playing freshmen (I do not know one U of L fan that expects the freshman to have a smooth transition in Pitino's system). The grad transfer is a fine player, but he does not appear to be anywhere close to either of the guards that the team loses from this past season.

U of L will struggle from the perimeter next year, as they appear to have few strong shooters, and while their interior play will be their strength, none of their kids are a "holy cow, that kid is going to dominate" kind of player.

Most importantly, Pitino is likely to sit out a few early games next season (much like Boeheim in '15-'16), and the Cards could face Michigan State (likely in the Bahamas), IU, Purdue, and UK, without their coach (I think they lose three, with the home advantage saving them against Purdue).

Syracuse pulled it together quite well in March, but as we all remember, Syracuse struggled without Boeheim, and while U of L's coaching staff does have Ralph Willard, he is not at the levels of Calipari and Izzo, with age probably putting him behind Painter and Crean.

I think U of L is behind the following teams, with FSU, Virginia Tech, and Clemson possibly pulling in front of them:

Duke.
UNC.
N.C. State.
UVa.

The ACC will be quite strong next season, so fifth place is not anything to be ashamed of, but if the Cards lose fewer than ten games, I would be truly and wholly stunned.

I think 18-13 (8-10 ACC) is possible, with 22-9 (11-7 ACC) being their ceiling.

I have significant confidence that the following games are defeats for U of L:

Michigan St. is better.
UK owns Pitino's soul.
Duke might be an okay team next season.
@UNC is going to be strong.
@FSU is going to actually get it together (it has to happen at some point... probably...).
N.C. State is going to be pretty good.
UVa
@UVa is second place for "soul ownership."

If the Cardinals finish second in the ACC next season, then Pitino should be the national coach of the year, and I will feel bad for UVa, UNC, and State, because that would mean all three teams confronted significant injury/chemistry issues.

[Olympic Fan]

It is not an overstatement to say that you, Olympic Fan, are a true strength of this forum, so I provide the following statement purely from shock (as it rarely possible to rationally disagree with you), and two, because even when you are wrong, it is likely from a rationale, authentic, and marginally "off" perspective, not a totality of "being incorrect," but...

You are quite wrong about U of L.

Last season's Cardinal group began the pre-season with an awful schedule, losing to UK and Michigan St, which were the only remotely solid teams that they played before the ACC.

In the ACC, U of L played a many close games, with most of those games turning to victory, because the opponent coughed the game away, not because the Cards overwhelmed the opponent. Most importantly, U of L was a less than stellar road team, and has been for a great many years under Pitino.

The only "big" wins U of L had last season were home wins over UNC and Duke.

UNC was dragging and worn down from a game the preceding Saturday, and the Duke game... well... U of L got the victory. U of L is, and should be, proud of those victories, but I honestly believe both victories say more about the situations facing their opponents, than the strengths of last season's Cardinal group.

U of L was a good team last season, and would have been capable of a round of 32/Sweet-16 run, but they were not great. Not being great is why U of L will be good next season, but not close to the top of the ACC.

U of L lost two senior guards, and their best player in Onuaku. Those three losses are MASSIVE.

U of L's starting point guard next season will be running the program totally on his own for the first time, and while he is a fine player, he is not anywhere close to a top-level ACC guard (Pitino's system is very contingent on great guard play).

U of L brings in a strong freshman and a solid transfer, but Pitino is notorious for not playing freshmen (I do not know one U of L fan that expects the freshman to have a smooth transition in Pitino's system). The grad transfer is a fine player, but he does not appear to be anywhere close to either of the guards that the team loses from this past season.

U of L will struggle from the perimeter next year, as they appear to have few strong shooters, and while their interior play will be their strength, none of their kids are a "holy cow, that kid is going to dominate" kind of player.

Most importantly, Pitino is likely to sit out a few early games next season (much like Boeheim in '15-'16), and the Cards could face Michigan State (likely in the Bahamas), IU, Purdue, and UK, without their coach (I think they lose three, with the home advantage saving them against Purdue).

Syracuse pulled it together quite well in March, but as we all remember, Syracuse struggled without Boeheim, and while U of L's coaching staff does have Ralph Willard, he is not at the levels of Calipari and Izzo, with age probably putting him behind Painter and Crean.

I think U of L is behind the following teams, with FSU, Virginia Tech, and Clemson possibly pulling in front of them:

Duke.
UNC.
N.C. State.
UVa.

The ACC will be quite strong next season, so fifth place is not anything to be ashamed of, but if the Cards lose fewer than ten games, I would be truly and wholly stunned.

I think 18-13 (8-10 ACC) is possible, with 22-9 (11-7 ACC) being their ceiling.

I have significant confidence that the following games are defeats for U of L:

Michigan St. is better.
UK owns Pitino's soul.
Duke might be an okay team next season.
@UNC is going to be strong.
@FSU is going to actually get it together (it has to happen at some point... probably...).
N.C. State is going to be pretty good.
UVa
@UVa is second place for "soul ownership."

If the Cardinals finish second in the ACC next season, then Pitino should be the national coach of the year, and I will feel bad for UVa, UNC, and State, because that would mean all three teams confronted significant injury/chemistry issues.

I appreciate the kind words and your thoughts on the Louisville situation, but I continue to disagree -- strongly.

You spend a lot of time talking about how Louisville was not that good last season -- but considering what they were trying to deal with -- I'm talking about replacing four starters from their 2015 Elite Eight team, not the Hookergate scandal -- I think they did quite well -- 23 wins (the same as Duke had in the regular season), No. 16 in the final AP poll (ahead of Duke) and a 12-6 ACC finish (one game better than Duke). They did that despite a crippling injury to their best recruit and major injuries to two of their three big men.

Yes, they played a weak non-conference schedule -- but they did lose close ones on the road at Michigan State (by four) and at Kentucky (by two). And, as noted, they did finish ahead of Duke in the ACC.

I think that was a terrific job by Pitino -- using two fifth-year transfers as stopgaps while he developed his young players. Lee actually played very well ... I don't think Lewis (11 points a game at 41 percent shooting; almost as many TOs as assists) was especially effective. BTW: I think Hicks is closer to Lee than Lewis -- the two are old buddies from the Philly playgrounds (Lee is why Hicks is at Louisville)

I agree that 3-point shooting could be an issue -- but Hicks was a 37 percent 3-point shooter in his last season at Penn, McMahon was the best shooter on the team last year (even if he couldn't play), Snider was 40.4 percent from from 3 and Deng, while he got little chance to show it, was also considered a good 3-point shooter. Besides, UNC was the worst 3-point shooting team in the ACC last season (and one of the 10 worst in college basketball) and it didn't hurt them that much. Is UNC doomed this year after losing their best 3-point shooter off a bad 3-point shooting team?

The strength of Pitino's teams has always been his pressure defense ... and Louisville has the depth and athleticism to be an excellent defensive team. Onuaku is gone with his backline defense, but in 2015 when they were both healthy, Mathiang was a better shotblocker.

Is there a problem on the perimeter? Let's see how Deng and Mitchell look as second-year players. I think you'll be surprised.

There is a reason that Vegas has Louisville as the ACC's second best team ... and that an expert such as Pomeroy has them in the top 10. It's pretty obvious that Duke is going to be the consensus No. 1 in the ACC (and nation), but Louisville, Virginia and UNC are the next level -- nationally top 10.

BTW: I think your high opinion of NC State is a bit out there ... yes, if everything works right -- if Yurtseven is eligible and Smith is instant magic at the point -- NC State could be very, very good. But a lot of question marks -- more than for most teams. I don't see anybody projecting them as a top 10 or even top 20 team.

Of course, none of what we say matters. But I think you and several others on this board are guilty of seriously underestimating Louisville ... again, it's possible they still get hammered by the NCAA, but on the court, I think they are MUCH better than last year ... and last year's team was not bad.

PS I'll be willing to make an internet bet -- meaning nothing at stake but pride -- that Louisville wins more than 22 games next season.

[Wahoo2000]

I think U of L is behind the following teams, with FSU, Virginia Tech, and Clemson possibly pulling in front of them:

Duke.
UNC.
N.C. State.
UVa.

I have significant confidence that the following games are defeats for U of L:

Michigan St. is better.
UK owns Pitino's soul.
Duke might be an okay team next season.
@UNC is going to be strong.
@FSU is going to actually get it together (it has to happen at some point... probably...).
N.C. State is going to be pretty good.
UVa
@UVa is second place for "soul ownership."

If the Cardinals finish second in the ACC next season, then Pitino should be the national coach of the year, and I will feel bad for UVa, UNC, and State, because that would mean all three teams confronted significant injury/chemistry issues.

I like the majority of this post, but way disagree with the NCSU stuff. As much as I believe a really good coach makes his team GREATER than the sum of its parts, I think it's been demonstrated (by Gott especially) that a poor X's & O's coach is doomed to disappoint during the regular season if you base your predictions on the talent level of the team. Now conversely, I believe elite talent IS capable of carrying you to good tourney results, and that's the reason I think State has "overperformed" in the tournament the last few years (and one of the reasons UVA has struggled, not coincidentally). So while I think NCSU may be one of the last 4 ACC teams standing if they make the tournament, I think the prospect that they'll finish in the top 4 of the standings nearly laughable.

It also seems funny that for my team (UVA), this is the year we've lost the most production over the last 3/4, yet the year that people just seem to finally be buying into the hype that we're a "top 10 program". I think we take a step back this year, because I just don't think Hall or Shayok have the ability to step up to play anywhere near the Harris/Anderson/Brogdon level, and the freshmen certainly just won't be ready yet (especially in our system). If we do maintain top 10-15 status throughout the season, this will have been without a doubt Bennett's best coaching job since he arrived (including the year we went 28-2). If I had to guess, we'll drop about 8-10 regular season games this year. Probably 2-3 noncon, and 6-7 league games. The only way I see us doing better than that is if all 3 of these things happen: 1)Perrantes is able to be a MUCH more efficient and aggressive scorer & set-up guy off the bounce. Just being a 3pt sniper won't get it done. 2) Nichols has to be one of the top 3-4 bigs in the ACC right out of the gate, and pick up the nuances of the pack line VERY quickly (usually takes about 600-800 minutes at least) compared to the average player. 3) One of Shayok or Hall must REALLY surprise me and take a leap forward as a capable/reliable scorer - even against top-flight competition.

If we have to have a "down" year though, I'm glad it's next season - when I don't think anybody in the league has a chance against you guys anyway. Barring injury issues even BIGGER than last season (your frontcourt is almost "injury-proof", I suppose if you lost TWO wings/guards for the season you might have some issues). I doubt you drop more than 2-3 games all through the regular season, win the ACC tourney, and AT LEAST make a final 4 - if not win it all.

[Troublemaker]

More updates:

NBC (http://collegebasketball.nbcsports.com/2016/05/26/the-nbc-sports-2016-17-way-too-early-preseason-top-25/) - #1 Duke, 2. UK, 3. Kansas, 4. Nova, 5. Oregon, 7. UVA, 8. UNC, 10. Lville

CBS (http://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/no-1-duke-no-2-kentucky-hold-steady-in-post-draft-decisions-top-25-and-one/) - #1 Duke, 2. UK, 3. Nova, 4. Kansas, 5. Xavier, 7. UNC, 10. UVA

247 (http://247sports.com/Article/updated-way-too-early-top-25-for-2017-45499898) - #1 Duke, 2. Kansas, 3. UK, 4. Nova, 5. Oregon, 6. UNC, 7. UVA

Big Lead (http://thebiglead.com/2016/05/26/college-basketball-top-25-2016-2017/) - #1 Duke, 2. Nova, 3. Oregon, 4. UK, 5. Wiscy, 7. UNC, 8. UVA

Yahoo (http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the-dagger/a-post-draft-deadline-look-at-the-2016-17-season-s-top-20-teams-161234296.html) - #1 Duke, 2. UK, 3. Nova, 4. Kansas, 5. Oregon, 6. UNC, 9. UVA

[CDu]

Just to be clear, because I have seen at least one complaint and at least one reference as evidence of support based on Pomeroy's preseason ranks. There is no expert analysis or subjectivity to Pomeroy's ranks. They are purely formulaic based on returning players, recruiting rankings, and most relevantly the teams' historical performance.

So when Pomeroy shows UK as #3, it has no relevance to how good Pomeroy thinks UK will actually be. It is just what the math says. And that math is heavily driven by UK's recent history of being a top-5 team each year, plus a top-2 recruiting class.

Similarly, when Pomeroy ranks Louisville #2 in the ACC it is the same story. It is largely driven by Louisville's recent history as a top-notch team.

Until I see otherwise, I would put UVa ahead of Louisville. And honestly, I would probably have another team or two jump them as well. I think they will be a little bit worse than last year's Louisville team. A good team, but probably not #2 in the conference.

As for UK, they will have plenty of talent. But they will have no experience and no leadership. It could turn out fine, but more likely it will bite them. Sure, they will do well in conference because the SEC stinks. But against real teams I have real questions about them.

[Faustus]

Actually, remember that Louisville and UNC may not even be eligible by NCAA time next season. UNC isn't *entirely* off the hook yet with Five Level One violations still hanging out there...


(a guy can hope, anyway...)

[Olympic Fan]

I don't get the Kentucky love. Their recruiting class isn't any better than it was last year when they lost in the 2nd round. Or the year before, when they had a stacked team there already, but they played in a terrible conference and were totally unprepared when they hit March Madness and faced real competition. This year they have nothing there and will once again play in a terrible conference. It's like the worst parts of the last two seasons combined into one.

UVA, Kansas, Oregon, Arizona, Wisconsin,Nova, Duke - those all make sense. NC might be top ten, but definitely not top five.

But LVille and Kentucky have no business being anywhere near that high.

While I think you -- and many others on this board -- are seriously underrating Louisville, I sympathize with your evaluation of Kentucky.

I do disagree with your assessment of their recruiting class -- I think this class is MUCH better than last year's class. Yes, the rankings are similar, but the 2015 prep class is one of the weakest in memory, while the 2016 class is strong and deep.

I like Kentucky's freshman class -- I think Fox and Monk will make up a strong backcourt, while Bam and Gabriel will combine for a potent post duo. I imagine that Briscoe ends up starting in a three-guard alignment. Willis and Killeya-Jones give them some depth in the post. I don't see another quality guard on the roster, but their three guards are versatile and can pay in almost any combination.

Where I have a problem with Kentucky's high preseason ranking is the quality of the returning base that the freshmen will join. When you look at Calipari's teams at Kentucky, you see that his good teams have had strong upper class support:

2010 -- No. 2 in the final regular season poll and Elite Eight -- started three great freshmen, but got strong support from starters Patrick Patterson and Darius Miller, plus sixth man Darnell Dotson.
2011 -- No. 11 in the final regular season poll and Final Four -- three key freshman again, but Miller and senior center Josh Harrellson also started and played key roles.
2012 -- No. 1 and national champs -- Davis, Kidd-Gilchrist and Teague were freshman studs, but senior Darius Miller, soph Terrance Jones and soph Dorian Lamb were the next three guys in the rotation
2013 -- Unranked and a first-round NIT loser -- an unproductive freshman class to be sure (especially after Noel got hurt), but the real problem with the team were the three upperclassmen who saw significant action - NC State transfers Ryan Harrow and Julius Mays and soph Kyle Wiltjer
2014 -- Unranked and a Final Four -- Julius Randle and James Young were the real studs from the freshman class, but the slow developing team got support from sophs Willie Cauley-Stein and Poythress
2015 -- No. 1 and Final Four -- "the greatest team ever assembled" had a good freshman class with Karl Towns, Trey Lyles and Devin Booker, but junior Cauley-Stein, soph Dakari Johnson and the sophomore Harrison twins were also key players.
2016 -- No. 10 and out in the Round of 32 - The best player on the team was soph Tyler Ullis. Junior Willis and junior Lee were better in he post than celebrated freshman Skal Labissere.

Look at that list again -- after four Final Fours and an Elite Eight over the last seven years, Kentucky is going to get the benefit of the doubt from the voters preseason -- and they should.

But I don't see the veteran studs to go with the freshman class -- Briscoe, maybe ... but Willis is just a filler. Hawkins and Humphries played less than 10 minutes and combined for 4.2 ppg and 3.2 rpg.

Like I say, I like their freshman class. It's very close to ours (either slightly better or slightly worse, depending on who you check with -- but close either way). But their veteran core isn't close to Duke's quartet of Allen, Jefferson, Jones and Kennard. I think Kentucky will do very well, especially in a conference that might not have another ranked team. If everything goes right, they might be a force to be reckoned with in March.

But I don't see them as a preseason top five team. I have them in my second five.

[gurufrisbee]

Spot on Olympic Fan. A great freshman class only gets you so far - you still need to have significant contributions and leadership from upper classmen.

Kentucky's one title had amazing freshman but really good returners there too. Even their almost undefeated season wasn't because of a great freshman group, but because so many freshmen the year before stunk until the tournament that they had to stay another year.

Duke's most recent title came with a great freshman class, but we never come close without a remarkable season for Cook and help from Amile, Jones, and MP.

[NashvilleDevil]

I predict that Duke will have a stretch where they lose 2 of 3 or 3 of 4 and COSprings will post that Duke will be lucky to make the post season. It's happened the last two years so I'm pretty confident in this projection.

[Indoor66]

I predict that Duke will have a stretch where they lose 2 of 3 or 3 of 4 and COSprings will post that Duke will be lucky to make the post season. It's happened the last two years so I'm pretty confident in this projection.

And I am sure that this cofidence is fueled by that infallible process that says the past results invariably project future performance. :rolleyes::cool:

[NashvilleDevil]

And I am sure that this cofidence is fueled by that infallible process that says the past results invariably project future performance. :rolleyes::cool:

Should have said IF Duke has a bad stretch. I don't think next year's team has the rough patches of last year or the blip from two years ago.

[Olympic Fan]

I know it's just Coachspeak, but since I'm the guy arguing that many of you are underrating Louisville going into next season, I found it interesting that Pitino is comparing his 2017 Louisville team with his 1996 national championship Kentucky team:

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/15858235/rick-pitino-likes-louisville-cardinals-potential-continuing-investigations

[CDu]

I know it's just Coachspeak, but since I'm the guy arguing that many of you are underrating Louisville going into next season, I found it interesting that Pitino is comparing his 2017 Louisville team with his 1996 national championship Kentucky team:

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/15858235/rick-pitino-likes-louisville-cardinals-potential-continuing-investigations

Of course, a key quote in that article is that "by no means do I say we have that type of talent." He is just saying they'll play that style because they have that type of length and athleticism.

They'll still have height, but it's a definite step backwards from Onuaku to Mathiang. Mathiang is a better midrange shooter, but Onuaku is the better passer, post scorer, rebounder, and shotblocker. Mathiang is a skinny dude, not really suited to anchor a defense like Onuaku. Behind Mathiang, they have Mahmood, who is rail thin and lacking in skill, and Stockman who is a big body but the least skilled of the three.

Adel will be asked to make a huge step forward this year in replacing Lee. He had a rough freshman year, so it's asking a lot of him. VJ King is a talented incoming player, but we'll see how ready he is (Pitino hasn't typically had impact freshmen).

And they will have to find a PG to fill the role Lewis left, as Louisville's offense is quite dependent on a lead guard. Maybe Snider will finally make that leap, or maybe Mitchell will really expand his ballhandling skills to take on that role. But that's a big question mark.

Basically, they will have very long and lanky wings/forwards, but not very skilled wings/forwards. Maybe that translates into an overwhelming defense, but the question will be whether or not they can score.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Of course, a key quote in that article is that "by no means do I say we have that type of talent." He is just saying they'll play that style because they have that type of length and athleticism.

They'll still have height, but it's a definite step backwards from Onuaku to Mathiang. Mathiang is a better midrange shooter, but Onuaku is the better passer, post scorer, rebounder, and shotblocker. Mathiang is a skinny dude, not really suited to anchor a defense like Onuaku. Behind Mathiang, they have Mahmood, who is rail thin and lacking in skill, and Stockman who is a big body but the least skilled of the three.

Adel will be asked to make a huge step forward this year in replacing Lee. He had a rough freshman year, so it's asking a lot of him. VJ King is a talented incoming player, but we'll see how ready he is (Pitino hasn't typically had impact freshmen).

And they will have to find a PG to fill the role Lewis left, as Louisville's offense is quite dependent on a lead guard. Maybe Snider will finally make that leap, or maybe Mitchell will really expand his ballhandling skills to take on that role. But that's a big question mark.

Basically, they will have very long and lanky wings/forwards, but not very skilled wings/forwards. Maybe that translates into an overwhelming defense, but the question will be whether or not they can score.

So... what you're saying is that Louisville is the opposite of Duke: our talent translates into an overwhelming offense, but the question will be whether or not we can defend.

[Olympic Fan]

Of course, a key quote in that article is that "by no means do I say we have that type of talent." He is just saying they'll play that style because they have that type of length and athleticism.

They'll still have height, but it's a definite step backwards from Onuaku to Mathiang. Mathiang is a better midrange shooter, but Onuaku is the better passer, post scorer, rebounder, and shotblocker. Mathiang is a skinny dude, not really suited to anchor a defense like Onuaku. Behind Mathiang, they have Mahmood, who is rail thin and lacking in skill, and Stockman who is a big body but the least skilled of the three.

Adel will be asked to make a huge step forward this year in replacing Lee. He had a rough freshman year, so it's asking a lot of him. VJ King is a talented incoming player, but we'll see how ready he is (Pitino hasn't typically had impact freshmen).

And they will have to find a PG to fill the role Lewis left, as Louisville's offense is quite dependent on a lead guard. Maybe Snider will finally make that leap, or maybe Mitchell will really expand his ballhandling skills to take on that role. But that's a big question mark.

Basically, they will have very long and lanky wings/forwards, but not very skilled wings/forwards. Maybe that translates into an overwhelming defense, but the question will be whether or not they can score.


I disagree with almost everything you say in this post, but especially the bolded part: Did you watch Louisville last year? You think Lewis played point guard?

Snider was the lead guard last season. He led the team in assists with 109 (vs. 40 TOs) -- much more than Lewis (72 assists and 50 turnovers in almost exactly the same minutes). Snider isn't a great player, but he's a solid lead guard who has played the position since Chris Jones was kicked off the team late in the 2015 season. he started during Louisville's Elite Eight run that year and most of last season. He doesn't have to make "a jump" -- but I would expect him to be even better as a junior than a soph.

As for Mathiang vs. Onuwaku, you seem to be hung up on comparing the 2016 Onuwaku with the 2015 Mathiang. For the record, that season, when they split time almost equally, Mathiang was the better rebounder and shotblocker (not by much, but he was better in both categories). Neither was much of a scorer, although Mathiang's jump shot could give him an edge. They were essentially the same player in 2015 ... then Mathiang got hurt and Onuwaku blossomed in the fulltime role. It's not farfetched to expect Mathiang to put up similar numbers in 2017.

And the comment that Mahmoud "lacking in skills" makes me believe you didn't see much of Louisville last year. Wow, just, wow! There is a reason that he was rated the 35th best sophomore NBA prospect in the country by DraftExpress. There is a reason he had just moved into the stating lineup last season when he hurt and lost for the last part of the season. He has exceptional passing skills for a big man, he's fast and has great hands. He IS rail thin, however,

As for the rest, it's true that a couple of kids have to make a jump. You are right that Pitino is traditionally tough on impact freshmen, although it's worth noting that King is the highest rated freshman to enter Louisville since 2011. But that statement works the other way -- Mitchell and Spalding actually make a solid impact as freshmen -- how much more will they make as sophomores next season? And last year's sophs -- Johnson, Snider, Mahmoud and Stockman, how much better will they be as juniors? If Pitino has traditionally held back freshmen, he has traditionally developed them into outstanding players by their later years. Why shouldn't that process continue?

One of the key's will be Deng Adel. Going into last season, one NBA web site listed Adel as the 12th best NBA prospect in the ACC. But he was hobbled all season and barely got a chance to play. It is asking a lot to expect him to be an impact guy this season, but I think it's more likely than not.

Louisville was a VERY young team last year. Pitino bought his kids time to grow up by bringing in Lee -- who was a top 10-15 player in the ACC last year -- and Lewis, who was very so-so (11 pp, 40 percent shooting). The newcomer Hicks will be an upgrade over Lewis.

There is reason that Vegas has installed Louisville as the ACC's second-best bet to win it all -- at 12-1, their odds are twice as good as UNC at 24-1 or Virginia at 25-1.

Pitino's team might get gobsmacked by the NCAA, but if they are eligible, the Cards will be Duke's toughest challengers in the ACC.

[CDu]

I disagree with almost everything you say in this post, but especially the bolded part: Did you watch Louisville last year? You think Lewis played point guard?

Snider was the lead guard last season. He led the team in assists with 109 (vs. 40 TOs) -- much more than Lewis (72 assists and 50 turnovers in almost exactly the same minutes). Snider isn't a great player, but he's a solid lead guard who has played the position since Chris Jones was kicked off the team late in the 2015 season. he started during Louisville's Elite Eight run that year and most of last season. He doesn't have to make "a jump" -- but I would expect him to be even better as a junior than a soph.

Yeah, I watched Louisville last year, and I stand by what I said. Lewis was their lead guard last year. Snider led in assists, but only of the swing-the-ball-around-the-perimeter variety. He was absolutely not a playmaker form them. Lewis and to a lesser degree Lee were the guys creating offense for Louisville.


As for Mathiang vs. Onuwaku, you seem to be hung up on comparing the 2016 Onuwaku with the 2015 Mathiang. For the record, that season, when they split time almost equally, Mathiang was the better rebounder and shotblocker (not by much, but he was better in both categories). Neither was much of a scorer, although Mathiang's jump shot could give him an edge. They were essentially the same player in 2015 ... then Mathiang got hurt and Onuwaku blossomed in the fulltime role. It's not farfetched to expect Mathiang to put up similar numbers in 2017.

No, I was comparing 2016 with 2016. Onuaku averaged 2.5 more rebounds, 2.4 more assists, and 1.1 more blocks per 100 possessions this year than Mathiang, despite playing 7 more mpg. And this was Onuaku's sophomore year versus Mathiang's junior year. They were comparable in 2015... when Onuaku was a frosh and Mathiang a soph. But Mathiang has never topped 19 mpg in 3 years. I have no confidence that Mathiang is suddenly going to play like Onuaku did last year.


And the comment that Mahmoud "lacking in skills" makes me believe you didn't see much of Louisville last year. Wow, just, wow! There is a reason that he was rated the 35th best sophomore NBA prospect in the country by DraftExpress. There is a reason he had just moved into the stating lineup last season when he hurt and lost for the last part of the season. He has exceptional passing skills for a big man, he's fast and has great hands. He IS rail thin, however,

Yeah, not skilled. Mahmoud had a true shooting % of just 45.7% and an eFG% of 46.8%. That is awful for anyone, but especially a big. he also doesn't rebound well, and for a terrific passer he generated very few assists. The only thing he did well last year was block shots, and he did that quite well. But in terms of skill, he has exhibited very little of that in actual performance.


As for the rest, it's true that a couple of kids have to make a jump. You are right that Pitino is traditionally tough on impact freshmen, although it's worth noting that King is the highest rated freshman to enter Louisville since 2011. But that statement works the other way -- Mitchell and Spalding actually make a solid impact as freshmen -- how much more will they make as sophomores next season? And last year's sophs -- Johnson, Snider, Mahmoud and Stockman, how much better will they be as juniors? If Pitino has traditionally held back freshmen, he has traditionally developed them into outstanding players by their later years. Why shouldn't that process continue?

One of the key's will be Deng Adel. Going into last season, one NBA web site listed Adel as the 12th best NBA prospect in the ACC. But he was hobbled all season and barely got a chance to play. It is asking a lot to expect him to be an impact guy this season, but I think it's more likely than not.

Louisville was a VERY young team last year. Pitino bought his kids time to grow up by bringing in Lee -- who was a top 10-15 player in the ACC last year -- and Lewis, who was very so-so (11 pp, 40 percent shooting). The newcomer Hicks will be an upgrade over Lewis.

There is reason that Vegas has installed Louisville as the ACC's second-best bet to win it all -- at 12-1, their odds are twice as good as UNC at 24-1 or Virginia at 25-1.

Pitino's team might get gobsmacked by the NCAA, but if they are eligible, the Cards will be Duke's toughest challengers in the ACC.

we shall certainly see.

[-jk]

Now that we know most of the rosters, it's time for someone to start a new, not-so-way-too-early thread...

And put some context into it, too!

(locks, ducks, and runs...)

-jk