So Really - Who Out There is Good?

[Udaman]

This season just seems filled with mediocrity in college hoops. Teams that have been ranked high all year, just don't seem that impressive at all to me.

Not to be biased, but I think the ACC (especially Duke and a healthy UNC, and to a degree both Clemson and Maryland) is the strongest conference, with two legit teams capable of winning it all. But as for the rest:

Big East - seems so unbelievably overrated. Georgetown is living a total lie. They are a first or second round tourney upset just waiting to happen. They've played 3 ranked team all year, and lost to each. They just lost bad at an average at best Syracuse team. They don't impress me at all. UConn has nothing. Notre Dame, Pitt and Marquette are paper tigers. I think the best team in that coference is Louisville, and only because the shoot so many three's that if they get hot in a game, they will blow you out.

The Big Ten - once again is almost unwatchable. They have game after game where the final score is 56-50, or lower. Wisconsin, who is one of their "good teams" got blown out by us. They will do nothing in the tourney.

The Big 12 - has Kansas, who is legit. But Texas, Texas A&M and even Kansas State all have loses that make you scratch your head.

The Pac-10 is sort of like Texas, Texas A&M and Kansas State. The teams that are ranked just don't terrify you at all.

The SEC is a lot like the Big East. Tennessee is good, but other than that, just a bunch of average teams.

And then there's Memphis. I've watched them play, and they certainly have talent. If you look at their schedule, they have beaten USC, UConn, Arizona and Georgetown...but all four of those teams are so-so at best, if you ask me. They also played all but UConn at home. They should have lost to UAB last night. They get Tennessee at home as well next weekend. They will be a team that gets the life scared out of them in Round 2 of the tourney, and then struggles from there on out.

Bottom line - I just can't get a feel for things. Duke, UNC, and Kansas are all good enough to make the Final Four...but all have flaws as well. Given the state of everything else - could this be one of those years where 2 or more mid-majors actually make the Final Four - riding the wave of Senior leadership?

[mgtr]

Udaman-
I had not thought out the situation as well as you, but I agree with much of what you write. I had looked at it a different way -- outside of the ACC, it doesn't seem that teams play with much passion. It looks frequently as if they are just going through an obligatory ritual.
I will be very interested to see what Memphis does with Tennessee. Everybody should learn a lot from that game.

[loran16]

This season just seems filled with mediocrity in college hoops. Teams that have been ranked high all year, just don't seem that impressive at all to me.

Not to be biased, but I think the ACC (especially Duke and a healthy UNC, and to a degree both Clemson and Maryland) is the strongest conference, with two legit teams capable of winning it all. But as for the rest:

Big East - seems so unbelievably overrated. Georgetown is living a total lie. They are a first or second round tourney upset just waiting to happen. They've played 3 ranked team all year, and lost to each. They just lost bad at an average at best Syracuse team. They don't impress me at all. UConn has nothing. Notre Dame, Pitt and Marquette are paper tigers. I think the best team in that coference is Louisville, and only because the shoot so many three's that if they get hot in a game, they will blow you out.

Agreed on the big east...but as you say theres a bunch of teams in there who if they play lights out can stun a better team.


The Big Ten - once again is almost unwatchable. They have game after game where the final score is 56-50, or lower. Wisconsin, who is one of their "good teams" got blown out by us. They will do nothing in the tourney.

No argument here, though id suggest that Purdue may be slightly underrated an a possible tournament underdog.


The Big 12 - has Kansas, who is legit. But Texas, Texas A&M and even Kansas State all have loses that make you scratch your head.

Disagree here. Kansas is legit, and so is Texas (though they should've lost to baylor). Kstate's statistics show that it should be much better than its record indicates, so they should not be underestimated.

If they don't have a stupid game (See missouri) they can beat almost anyone.


The Pac-10 is sort of like Texas, Texas A&M and Kansas State. The teams that are ranked just don't terrify you at all.

Heavily disagree here. UCLA reminds me of Uconn from 2 years ago.....clearly the best team in the nation, except they just randomly get lazy and dont show up for some games (See Washington). They are a solid team in every way shape and form (and statistics bears this out). If they don't pull a UConn in the tournament they could be incredibly hard to beat.

The other schools in the Pac-10 of note (USC, Zona, Stanford, Wazzu etc) are imo slightly better than the respective ACC schools, and can beat anyone on a particular day, though i doubt final four capabilities.


The SEC is a lot like the Big East. Tennessee is good, but other than that, just a bunch of average teams.

Agreed here, though tennesee is streaky and if lofton is cold, they're in trouble.

Still, Vandy's thrashing over UK makes them deadly if they ever play like that again, though that was a rediculous performance.



And then there's Memphis. I've watched them play, and they certainly have talent. If you look at their schedule, they have beaten USC, UConn, Arizona and Georgetown...but all four of those teams are so-so at best, if you ask me. They also played all but UConn at home. They should have lost to UAB last night. They get Tennessee at home as well next weekend. They will be a team that gets the life scared out of them in Round 2 of the tourney, and then struggles from there on out.

The biggest problem memphis has is FTs. If they shoot them well, they have no problem with UAB last night. But they are a really really good team.

They're #1 in defensive efficiency, and are a strong offense as well. I think they're definitely a contender.


Bottom line - I just can't get a feel for things. Duke, UNC, and Kansas are all good enough to make the Final Four...but all have flaws as well. Given the state of everything else - could this be one of those years where 2 or more mid-majors actually make the Final Four - riding the wave of Senior leadership?

While its possible, I think the final four will likely come down to 4 of Duke, UNC, Kansas, Memphis, UCLA, Tennessee, or Texas personally. The A10 has a bunch of good teams but not great ones, and i dont see other mid majors (like St Mary's, Drake, or butler) being final four contenders.

And there's always a wild-card. My bet on that? Pitt of course. If they somehow get fully healthy and in a rhythm in time for the tourny, well, we've seen how good they are.

[YmoBeThere]

College basketball was better back in the day, more specifically the 4 years I was an undergrad...:)

[Troublemaker]

UConn has nothing....The Pac-10 is sort of like Texas, Texas A&M and Kansas State. The teams that are ranked just don't terrify you at all.

UConn has a scary good shotblocker, an emerging very good PG, talented size, good ball-handling, good role players, and a great coach. And I don't know if UCLA terrifies, but they're very, very good. I have other minor quibbles with your post but the UConn and UCLA statements stand out.

The NCAA tournament isn't a logical enough system for you to be able to examine good wins and bad losses by various teams and, from there, figure out what the Final Four will look like. You say you "can't get a handle on things" this year -- when have you EVER gotten a handle on things? When has the NCAA tournament NOT surprised you in one way or another? If the NCAA tournament were a machine that you can restart over and over again, every time you restarted, it would spit out a different set of four teams, and only very rarely would a set of four be reproduced on a re-start.

[GatorBait15]

I think Tennessee could do some damage this year in the tourny... MSU isn't bad either.

[JasonEvans]

I think the final four will likely come down to 4 of Duke, UNC, Kansas, Memphis, UCLA, Tennessee, or Texas personally.

I don't see Texas in a class with these other clubs. I'd put them in a grouping with about 6 or so other teams who could all catch a break thanks to an upset in their bracket or get hot or something like that and make the Final Four. I'd put UConn, Purdue, Louisville, and even Clemson in this same area.


And there's always a wild-card. My bet on that? Pitt of course. If they somehow get fully healthy and in a rhythm in time for the tourny, well, we've seen how good they are.

Pitt isn't nearly the same as the team that beat us in a game we gaacked away in December. Since then they have been playing without 2 of their best players.

That said, I have been so impressed at how Pitt has held it together since they lost Cook and Fields. Field just came back for this weekend's Marquette game and Pitt got their clock's cleaned. Still, if he gets back in a rhythm with the rest of the team they can be very solid again. I don't think there is any chance they will get Cook back before the season is done, is there?

The key for Pitt is getting the man-child DeJaun Blair to play consistently. He just shreds some teams, but then barely shows up against others. He was utterly dominated in the Marquete game by Ousmane Barro, who is not all that good of a player. I just don't seeing Pitt playing consistently enough to make a Final Four run. OTOH, if Barro is going to play well inside for Marquette, they could be a nice sleeper team.

--Jason "I really like Clemson as a NCAA sleeper-- they should be 2-0 versus UNC and ranked in the top 10" Evans

[throatybeard]

Wow, Udaman is saying people are overrated. This has never happened before.

[Wander]

I had looked at it a different way -- outside of the ACC, it doesn't seem that teams play with much passion.

Uh... really?

[Classof06]

I think the ACC is underrated in the fact even if the conference only gets 4 teams in the tourney (UNC, Duke, MD, Clemson), all four of those teams are capable of making serious runs in the tourney. For non-ACC teams that aren't familiar with Maryland and Clemson, those are not teams you want to play in the first weekend of the tournament.

[pamtar]

Wake?

[The Gordog]

Wake?
If Wake wins 2 more they are on the bubble (8-8 in conf.), 3 more and they could be a lock.

[hurleyfor3]

Wake?

Yes, this thread does smack a bit of weaufing now that we've lost to little old Wake.

[FerryFor50]

I disagree with the notion that the ACC is the best conference. I prefer the Pac-10 and Big 12 to the ACC.

[SharkD]

I disagree with the notion that the ACC is the best conference. I prefer the Pac-10 and Big 12 to the ACC.
I suggest you see your primary care physician as soon as possible -- you've obviously suffered some sort of head trauma. ;)

[FerryFor50]

I suggest you see your primary care physician as soon as possible -- you've obviously suffered some sort of head trauma. ;)

Heh.

Nah, I just see more depth in those conferences than ours.

ACC gets by more on name recognition.

[Indoor66]

Heh.

Nah, I just see more depth in those conferences than ours.

ACC gets by more on name recognition.

Me thinks I spotted a troll.

[FerryFor50]

Me thinks I spotted a troll.

Why? because I have an opinion that differs from someone else's?

Maybe you need to go read Wiki for a while and come back and apologize.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

It's not like I'm disparaging or insulting anyone... unlike some people.

[ugadevil]

Nah, I just see more depth in those conferences than ours.

ACC gets by more on name recognition.

Ok...I'm not sure I'll agree with your argument, but I'd hear it out. The depth in the Big 12 is better than the depth in the ACC? It seems like the ACC has some good teams near the bottom of the conference. What teams make the Big 12 deeper?

And when you talk about the Big 12, don't say anything bad about Ok State. Their football coach is a man! He's 40!

[CDu]

Ok...I'm not sure I'll agree with your argument, but I'd hear it out. The depth in the Big 12 is better than the depth in the ACC? It seems like the ACC has some good teams near the bottom of the conference. What teams make the Big 12 deeper?

The ACC has more teams that are at least mediocre, but it's a very reasonable argument to say that the PAC-10 and Big-12 are deeper in terms of teams that are actually good. That said, one could argue that the ACC has more elite teams than those conferences. The depth argument can be spun in multiple ways.

[FerryFor50]

Ok...I'm not sure I'll agree with your argument, but I'd hear it out. The depth in the Big 12 is better than the depth in the ACC? It seems like the ACC has some good teams near the bottom of the conference. What teams make the Big 12 deeper?

And when you talk about the Big 12, don't say anything bad about Ok State. Their football coach is a man! He's 40!

lol

He is a man!

Here's my argument for the other conferences in a nutshell.

Right now, the ACC has 2 locks for the NCAAs, with Maryland/Clemson just needing not to implode before the season ends to get in.

After that, you have a pack of mediocrity - Wake, GT, NCSU, Virginia, BC, Miami... basically the entire conference.

After UNC and Duke, you have an average RPI in the conference of 68.7, which is essentially a conference full of NIT teams. And if you take out Maryland and Clemson (the other near-locks), you have an average RPI of 76.875.

There have been a couple quality wins for ACC teams vs out of conference teams, but I'll concentrate mainly on the head-to-heads between the Big 12 and Pac 10.

Virginia scored an impressive win over Arizona.
BC got destroyed by Kansas.
Georgia Tech played Kansas tough, but lost.
Maryland got beat soundly by UCLA.

That's pretty much it for games between the ACC and Big12/Pac10. The ACC has a 1-3 record, which is a small sample size, so you start to look at the teams themselves.

In my far from expert opinion, here is who I think is well on their way "in" to the NCAAs (barring some freakish meltdown):

Pac-10
Arizona
Arizona St
Stanford
UCLA
Washington St

Big 12
Kansas
Kansas St
Texas
Texas A&M
Baylor
Oklahoma

Now, if we're talking sheer depth, like, can my last place team beat your last place team, then yes, the ACC wins that argument hands down.

But in terms of depth of QUALITY teams, ACC doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.

[ugadevil]

lol
Big 12
Kansas
Kansas St
Texas
Texas A&M
Baylor
Oklahoma

Now, if we're talking sheer depth, like, can my last place team beat your last place team, then yes, the ACC wins that argument hands down.

But in terms of depth of QUALITY teams, ACC doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.

Ok. Fair enough. I think we may have different definitions of depth. For the six Big 12 teams you mentioned, I'd take the top six in the ACC over them. Of course, this is completely hypothetical because we won't see the teams play it out, but I'd take the ACC if the top six from each conference played.

Duke vs. Kansas - push
UNC vs. Texas - UNC
Maryland vs. Kansas State - Maryland?
Texas A&M vs. Clemson - Clemson
Baylor vs. Miami - Baylor?
Wake vs. Oklahoma - depends on where it's played

[FerryFor50]

Ok. Fair enough. I think we may have different definitions of depth. For the six Big 12 teams you mentioned, I'd take the top six in the ACC over them. Of course, this is completely hypothetical because we won't see the teams play it out, but I'd take the ACC if the top six from each conference played.

Duke vs. Kansas - push
UNC vs. Texas - UNC
Maryland vs. Kansas State - Maryland?
Texas A&M vs. Clemson - Clemson
Baylor vs. Miami - Baylor?
Wake vs. Oklahoma - depends on where it's played

I can't see why you'd take Maryland over KSU. I see Michael Beasley taking KSU on a Weber St (Harold Arceneaux), Miami Ohio (Wally Sczerbiak) or Texas (Kevin Durant) type run.

And Texas vs UNC... I think that's a push, too.

[ugadevil]

I can't see why you'd take Maryland over KSU. I see Michael Beasley taking KSU on a Weber St (Harold Arceneaux), Miami Ohio (Wally Sczerbiak) or Texas (Kevin Durant) type run.

And Texas vs UNC... I think that's a push, too.

For KSU and MD, I think they match up well with each other. MD has Gist & Osby down low while KSU has Walker & Beasley. I know Walker & Beasley are more talented, but Gist & Osby outwork a lot of opponents. For both teams, it's a question of consistency. MD has shown that they have the potential to play with anyone, as has K. State. I'd give Maryland the edge with the point guard play.

As for Texas and UNC, it all depends on which UNC team shows up. When UNC wants to, they are as good as anyone in the country. When they play defense and get the ball inside, they're great. It's just a question of committment to those things.

[Duvall]

I can't see why you'd take Maryland over KSU. I see Michael Beasley taking KSU on a Weber St (Harold Arceneaux), Miami Ohio (Wally Sczerbiak) or Texas (Kevin Durant) type run.

I imagine KSU is hoping for more than that. Neither Weber State nor Texas made it out of the second round.


And Texas vs UNC... I think that's a push, too.

At a neutral site, I doubt it's close. Rick Barnes has beaten Carolina exactly once, and I don't expect there to be a second time.