Jump to content

The NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament aka "March Madness" (1939-), Mar 19 - Apr 8, 2019


lovehockey

Recommended Posts

Watched NorthEastern just miss an opportunity to tie #3 Notre Dame with seconds left in the game;  Last offensive play of the game.  Havoc on the court; ND sending players into the defense to disrupt;  one NorthEastern player wide open by the basket and they miss him.  ND gets the ball back, gets fouled and hits 2 foul shots changing the final score from a tie to a veritable rout by all of 4 points.

Its great to watch the fans live and die on each effort.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ugh.  First time I watched U Kentucky play this year.  The team should be banned.  They have 2 classes of "one-and-done"  which warps the "one-and-done" concept.   The team is immensely tall.  U Cincinnati sort of matched up, but every shot they took was under immense pressure and height.  U K's height alone creates offensive spacing for unobstructed shots from the outside and slashing and driving.

U K...they should have outlawed that team from the NCAA's this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DaveO, you might be interested in this column in the NY Post.

There are many POV's on this one and done thing, paying college athletes, treating them as athletes or scholar athletes, etc.

As it regards Kentucky and this years tournament, U of K has essentially 2 teams of all americans, and possibly up to 10 players or so that could be draftable in the pros.  They are stacked.  There are a couple of Kentucky transfers having excellent years in other colleges.   Its a machine compared to any other team.  I was looking at their array of talent, of height, etc.  Compared to any other team they are stacked.  They could lose.  But it would be an upset.

On a different level, I wish these players would stay in college and develop.   Off the top of my head the last great center that went into the NBA from a US college and started playing great from the start was Tim Duncan, who played 4 years in college, kept developing, and I believe was told he'd be a high draft choice after his first, 2nd and 3rd years.

If the players stayed longer they'd develop more, and enter the pro's with more skills.  Kentucky's big men have a lot of developing to do, as does the Duke freshman center who is the most touted of all.  I suspect they'll all enter the NBA draft after a year.

Of course that doesn't confront the issue of whether they should get paid in college or not, or whether they should go for the money as soon as they have the chance--all fair questions, and one I'm not addressing.

As to that article in the NY Post, lovehockey, its a fair discussion.   I do think though that both the college game and its competitiveness loses, and many of these "one-and-doners" lose as they don't have ample time to develop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone in the pre-game or halftime mentioned that Kentucky can beat the Knicks.

Perhaps true but Cincinnati gave them a game for a half today.  They even looked a bit unnerved at times.  That's gong to be the key if any tieam knocks them off, however unlikely.  Much of their talent is very young and haven't yet known adversity.  Working inside and frustrating them is probably the formula but very few teams in this tourney have the personnel to do it.  Maybe Arizona or even UVA, since the latter is great defensively this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps true but Cincinnati gave them a game for a half today.  They even looked a bit unnerved at times.  That's gong to be the key if any tieam knocks them off, however unlikely.  Much of their talent is very young and haven't yet known adversity.  Working inside and frustrating them is probably the formula but very few teams in this tourney have the personnel to do it.  Maybe Arizona or even UVA, since the latter is great defensively this year.

For someone who hasn't followed this season as closely as they would have liked, is Kentucky *that* good? Are they being heralded as the best college team ever? I saw highlight clips, and I seriously doubt they could consistently beat any NBA team, but who knows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For someone who hasn't followed this season as closely as they would have liked, is Kentucky *that* good? Are they being heralded as the best college team ever? I saw highlight clips, and I seriously doubt they could consistently beat any NBA team, but who knows?

"Best college team ever?" Many would agree and a pragmatic look at the roster and backgrounds would support that since it wasn't really possible to compose a team like this until fairly recently.

"...could consistently beat any NBA team..."? No one with any credibility is saying or believes that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For someone who hasn't followed this season as closely as they would have liked, is Kentucky *that* good? Are they being heralded as the best college team ever? I saw highlight clips, and I seriously doubt they could consistently beat any NBA team, but who knows?

They may be heralded, but I and many would argue that the best teams of history were made up of stars, and many who were upperclassmen.  This team lacks upperclassmen.

"Best college team ever?" Many would agree and a pragmatic look at the roster and backgrounds would support that since it wasn't really possible to compose a team like this until fairly recently.

"...could consistently beat any NBA team..."? No one with any credibility is saying or believes that.

While current fans might argue that I think many would argue that the spread of one and done has seriously reduced the quality of the players, the teams and the overall level of competition.

I've been watching  for decades now.  (oh gawd....decades....way too long).  I think the "stars" in college that entered the pros after 3 years, entered with generally far greater skills than the majority of "one-and-doners" that are so commonplace now.  I believe that makes a tremendous difference.

But who can tell.  This Kentucky team won't play the old UCLA teams, the old UNC or Duke or other legendary teams.  They won't play the Florida Gators that won 2 National Championships in a row in the mid 2000's with teams primarily comprised of first Sophomores and then Juniors, two of whom, Noah and Horford, who are now NBA stars.

This Kentucky team has amazing height;  4 guys at 6-10 to 7 foot and they seem to play 2 of them at one time most of the time.  They have a raft of high school all americans.  How good are they all?   I find it hard to tell.  The team does get its players to blend without any showing amazing skills above all others.  Their defense is excellent, and at least in what I watched of their game against Cincinnati they ran their offensive sets well, and were able to easily get shots, while Cincinnati played valiantly and hard but really struggled all the time against a team with superior talent and far more height.

Best ever???   I'd vote no.  Too many players too young and not fully developed in my book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They may be heralded, but I and many would argue that the best teams of history were made up of stars, and many who were upperclassmen.  This team lacks upperclassmen.

They also don't have an offensive superstar - their leading scorer only averages 11.1 PPG, and does it on only 38.9% shooting.

post-2-0-33024400-1427049635_thumb.png

I'm a firm believe in defense winning games, so despite that people may have never even heard of some of their players, I suspect playing Kentucky is an absolute nightmare for other teams.

You know the old saying, "Dean Smith is the only person who could hold Michael Jordan to under 20 PPG."

It's also pretty scary that they were ahead of UCLA 24-0.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duke won solidly and convincingly.   After watching it on and off I looked at the quick review on espn and saw these statements:

........Duke -- holding a No. 1 seed for the 11th time in 18 seasons but its first since 2011 -- advanced to face fifth-seeded Utah in Houston's South Region semifinals.

Mike Krzyzewski's Blue Devils are pushing for their 12th Final Four

That is a freaking lot of year in year out dominance in the regular season.  Coach K is an amazing recruiter and an excellent coach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They may be heralded, but I and many would argue that the best teams of history were made up of stars, and many who were upperclassmen. This team lacks upperclassmen.

While current fans might argue that I think many would argue that the spread of one and done has seriously reduced the quality of the players, the teams and the overall level of competition.

I've been watching for decades now. (oh gawd....decades....way too long). I think the "stars" in college that entered the pros after 3 years, entered with generally far greater skills than the majority of "one-and-doners" that are so commonplace now. I believe that makes a tremendous difference.

But who can tell. This Kentucky team won't play the old UCLA teams, the old UNC or Duke or other legendary teams. They won't play the Florida Gators that won 2 National Championships in a row in the mid 2000's with teams primarily comprised of first Sophomores and then Juniors, two of whom, Noah and Horford, who are now NBA stars.

This Kentucky team has amazing height; 4 guys at 6-10 to 7 foot and they seem to play 2 of them at one time most of the time. They have a raft of high school all americans. How good are they all? I find it hard to tell. The team does get its players to blend without any showing amazing skills above all others. Their defense is excellent, and at least in what I watched of their game against Cincinnati they ran their offensive sets well, and were able to easily get shots, while Cincinnati played valiantly and hard but really struggled all the time against a team with superior talent and far more height.

Best ever??? I'd vote no. Too many players too young and not fully developed in my book.

I agree one-and-done has hurt competitiveness and thus "the game." The aggregation of so many of the best high schoolers on a small number of super teams led by rock star recruiters, like Calipari, has created a division of a few haves and legions of have nots in the college game. And, given the Wildcats' youth, it's definitionally correct to say they are "less developed" than teams with more upperclassmen and thus more years of experience, on paper.

But that's all separate and apart from the question of Kentucky and whether they may be "the best of all time."

To assess that, I'd think you need to consider team performance against the best rivals of the day. And, we're seeing them absolutely bulldoze the other programs day after day. Just a few games away from an undefeated season, an exceedingly rare thing assuming they pull it off as the oddsmakers clearly believe they will. Only 7 teams have ever accomplished that, with Indiana the last, nearly Forty Years Ago! Another good measure will surely be the number of players who go on to the NBA and they may well set an all-time record for that as well.

We may not like it; I don't. But, looking at it objectively to answer a subjective question, they have to be considered very much in the conversation. It's not an equal playing field. The great teams of the past (UCLA, UNC, Duke, even 'Nova in '88) simply couldn't, and thus didn't, stockpile the amount of talent Calipari has.

I think best ever has to be either UCLA (who, under John Wooden, finished undefeated 4 of those 7 instances) or this Kentucky team but depends very much on the criteria used.

P.S., Coach K surely has to be in the discussion (with likely winner Wooden) and Dean Smith, for Best Coach Ever. But, again, different thing from the best team, if assessed on a single-season basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They also don't have an offensive superstar - their leading scorer only averages 11.1 PPG, and does it on only 38.9% shooting.

I'm a firm believe in defense winning games, so despite that people may have never even heard of some of their players, I suspect playing Kentucky is an absolute nightmare for other teams.

You know the old saying, "Dean Smith is the only person who could hold Michael Jordan to under 20 PPG."

It's also pretty scary that they were ahead of UCLA 24-0.

It's actually a somewhat analogous situation to the Miami Heat once LeBron and Chris Bosh joined Wade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check out this dunk!

I can honestly say that's the first time I've ever seen this.

The caption says, "Sam Dekker Slams Alley-Oop That Scored Twice, Didn't Count" which I initially took to mean that he only got credit for one of the two baskets (duh), but a closer look shows the official waving off the play before Dekker goes up, so I guess this whole thing took place after the whistle was blown.

Nevertheless, a fascinating phenomenon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, back on topic with the tourney still underway and referencing back to our discussion upthread about Calipari's Wildcats and their place in collegiate hoops history.

Since we last discussed this, a very strong West Virginia team faced the hometown, and very talented Terrapins of College Park.  WV plays a very aggressive defensive game and basically manhandled Maryland, earning the right to face Kentucky in the Sweet 16.  Those following the tourney know what happened. A historic dismantling with final score 78-39 Kentucky. The game was effectively over in the 1st quarter.  A sweet 16 game!  A 5-seed versus the 1-seed! No first round 1 over a 16 here.

I won't source this since I'm not sure where it originated and has appeared on many website.  Mind boggling and may make many reconsider the early positions taken about Kentucky.

1. That final score was crazy, sure. But you saw when the game started off with Kentucky ahead 18-2, right? Other scores during the night included 30-9, 54-19, 60-26. It was never a game.

2. It was the first and only time that a team got doubled-up in the Sweet Sixteen. The last time a team got doubled-up in the tournament was when six years ago, when No. 1 seed UConn defeated a No. 16 seed Chattanooga 103-47.

3. West Virginia's 39 points are the lowest ever in the Sweet Sixteen, since the adoption of the shot clock.

4. West Virginia didn't eclipse 20 points until the 11:41 mark of the second half.

5.  West Virginia shot only 24.1 percent (13-of-54) against the Wildcats.

6.  West Virginia's leading scorer had 14 points, which is the same as Kentucky's leading scorer. How telling is it about Kentucky's depth that UWV's Juwan Staten had the same points as Kentucky's Trey Lyles? A LOT of Wildcats scored in that game.

7. It's one of the biggest blowouts in tournament history. In history, though, Loyola's  111-42 win over Tennessee Tech in the 1963 South regional first round still holds the mark for largest margin of victory;  UNLV 103, Duke 73 in the 1990 final still also has significance, with the most points scored by a team in a title game.

8. Daxter Miles, Jr. scored no points. The West Virginia freshman who boasted that Kentucky would be 36-1 after the game scored zero points and had one rebound.

If you still don't think Kentucky worthy of inclusion in a "best ever" conversation, it's fairly factual that this game was, indeed, historic.  And, Kentucky now marches on to face Notre Dame.  Only the 5th time since 2000 that one team is a double-digit favorite in an Elite-8 matchup as Kentucky is according to the odds makers. Eegads--I'll be watching with one eye shut tonight after recording it!

* For accuracy, I pasted the above list verbatim from an Alabama site here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article discusses the "best college team ever" argument in two ways:  As the absolute best ever and as the best ever against its competition that season.  A strong statistical case can be made on the "best against its competition" for Kentucky.  Kentucky has a tremendous defense anchored by an extremely tall front line and then an ability to chase on the outside.

In general I believe the overall quality of the college game has dropped as one and done players have become common place.  As such it would lead one to question this team's place against great teams from the past that also featured seniors.

But since time travel has yet to be perfecetd, and the only chance I could see it occurring is if the Bill Walton led UCLA Bruins attended a Grateful Dead concert and engaged in a "long strange trip"  we won't have an opportunity to make that determination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt.  I'd think the conclusion that this 2015 Kentucky squad is the best relative to its current competition pretty uncontroversial.  Virtually all the stats, win/loss record chief among them, make that very tough to argue.

It's the All-Time debate that will rage for quite some time and be the most fun in pubs across the land, especially assuming they roll to a title.  Of course, if the Irish, Blue Devils or whomever knock them off, that'll change everything. But I think it pretty unlikely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember Montgomery County High School basketball, circa late 1970s. There were maybe ten people in the *entire county* who could dunk, and even then, just barely - now, there are probably a couple hundred. One of these players in the late 1970s, Tracy Jackson, went on to be a star forward for Notre Dame, and a journeyman NBA player for the Bulls and Celtics.

What does this show? Well, it shows just how much athletes have gotten *more athletic* in the past forty years. I watch my son's high-school tennis team play, and despite the fact that I played #1 singles for 2 years in high school, I wouldn't have even played singles on this team. (In tennis, much of the change is due to equipment, of course, but still, this is something that I can speak of from personal experience.)

Fast-forward to the early 1980s. Our college football team went 12-0, defeating Nebraska in the Orange Bowl for the National Championship. We had William "The Refrigerator" Perry as our nosetackle, who was drafted by the Chicago Bears where he became one of the NFL's first 300-pound linemen and a cultural phenomenon, not to mention a TV star. Now? He'd be an above-average lineman in the NFL, but that's about it. To put things in perspective, there are 44 lineman in the *SEC* (not the NFC; the SEC!) who weighed at least 325 pounds as of last year. Baylor has a 6'7", 410-pound *Tight End* who is catching passes!

Alcindor was a once-in-a-generation exception, and Walton was the most effective college center I've seen in my lifetime. Top-level high-school basketball players of today's era are as good as top-level college players from forty years ago. They just are. These "one-and-done" players might not have had the "as-a-unit" cohesion that the great UCLA teams had from 1970, but they're better players. (Refer to the Olympics: Many foreign teams had terrific cohesion, even forty years ago; but they didn't have the talent, so they got killed; the USA teams were a bunch of "one-and-dones," and had no cohesion, but loads of talent, so they were the ones who did the killing). Forget Alcindor and Walton, these guys from Kentucky are better than everyone *but* Alcindor and Walton. Scott May? Kent Benson? No way.

All this to say: If Kentucky runs the table and goes 40-0, they'll get my vote as G.O.A.T.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a scrub gym-rat wannabe basketball player who who knows full well how good top players were back then (2 friends made it to the NBA), I can't tell you how much better I think the current college game is & how unbelievably better the players today are. In my opinion, not one of the great UCLA teams would fare as well against Kentucky as WV did, let alone have a chance of winning. UCLA's teams may not have even earned a high seeding in the tournament. Is my opinion on this clear?

And, since Don brought up tennis, I'll add my 2 cents there as well. I was Capt. of my HS tennis team & we won the NYC championship my Junior & Senior year ('69 & '70). My partner & I were the #1 doubles team in NYC my Senior year. I love telling people that... it's great for my aged ego, even though it's ancient history. However, I am 100% sure that, at my peak, I couldn't compete with today's 13 year old tournament players & probably wouldn't make my High School's current team, even though they are no longer even a NYC playoff team.

In conclusion: I agree with Don.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a scrub gym-rat wannabe basketball player who who knows full well how good top players were back then (2 friends made it to the NBA), I can't tell you how much better I think the current college game is & how unbelievably better the players today are. In my opinion, not one of the great UCLA teams would fare as well against Kentucky as WV did, let alone have a chance of winning. UCLA's teams may not have even earned a high seeding in the tournament. Is my opinion on this clear?

And, since Don brought up tennis, I'll add my 2 cents there as well. I was Capt. of my HS tennis team & we won the NYC championship my Junior & Senior year ('69 & '70). My partner & I were the #1 doubles team in NYC my Senior year. I love telling people that... it's great for my aged ego, even though it's ancient history. However, I am 100% sure that, at my peak, I couldn't compete with today's 13 year old tournament players & probably wouldn't make my High School's current team, even though they are no longer even a NYC playoff team.

In conclusion: I agree with Don.

I don't want to get off-topic, but you're right about today's 13-year-old tournament players. There are *hundreds* of them nation-wide that are hitting two-handed, topspin backhands, deep into the court, and with great velocity and accuracy. As much as it kills me to say this, even Rod Laver couldn't have done that when he was 13 (and he even admits it - I've heard him). The advances in equipment have been so dramatic in tennis (like an HK416 vs. a Colt .45), that they even outweigh the advances in nutrition and training (plus an earlier start) in basketball and other sports, including tennis. It hurts to admit, but all you have to do is keep your eyes open, and you can reach no other conclusion. We did the best we could with what we had to work with; kids today have *much more* to work with, and they're just a lot better.

But we're wiser and sneakier. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the counter argument:

Physical training.  Players today have significant advancements and advantages with regard to outright physical training that players back in the day did not have.  Outright training, diet, supplements, techniques, physical training enhancements give huge boosts to the outright physicality in comparing athletes of old with current athletes.

Worse training in the US.   US players from today go into this AAU program.  They come out with worse fundamental skills.  They compare poorly with European developed players or those from South America who train more like the US used to train.  Today's American players are more athletic and better at driving, and dunking.  European players come out with overall better skills to play the team game.  Its often seen in the early development of European players in their early years in the NBA than in players in the US.

The development that takes place over a couple of years of college.   Willie Cauley Stein might be the great example on Kentucky and in general.  He is a starter on the Kentucky team, the center,and unlike other players with a lot of minutes on Kentucky he is a Junior.  This is his third year of playing a LOT.

He has developed in 3 full years plus long tournament runs.  Currently, without any injuries he is probable to be picked in the first 5 or 6 players in the NBA draft.  He has developed a lot.

He is not a fully developed star in the making.  He is the main guy on the Kentucky defense which highlights two very tall good defensive players.  Yet he is not exceptional.  He is good.  He doesn't appear to be a huge leaper or someone with superb timing.  He has good foot speed.  He is good at taking on the smaller players who penetrate.  He is good.  He is not exceptional.  He has developed a lot though in the 3 years.  He has really improved.   He is not great at offense.  Watch him, mediocre center moves and not a great shot.

What is tough to call on this Kentucky team is that they have so many good players relative to the college game and the 7 or 8 of them that play a lot basically platoon.   Maybe one is  a killer.  Its very difficult to tell.  Nobody needs to take over the game.  Nobody gets extraordinary minutes

Nobody knows how good they are individually.  But they have more very good players than most teams.  I find it a tough call, extremely so because the team is dominant in this season and nobody plays lots of minutes.  I think they would fall if they had to play older teams with superstars.

But that is just argument and conjecture.  Its the kind of thing that makes for fun debates in bars and pubs around the land.  Of course if they lose in the next two games....all discussions on this point are moot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the counter argument:

I'm not sure what you're arguing. Nobody is saying any of these guys will turn out to be an Abdul-Jabbar or a Jordan; only that they're the best team, mainly because of their depth and their defense (I do agree that to be unanimously considered the G.O.A.T. you probably need to go undefeated at this point, even though that might not be reality).

That said, I do think if you could transport Cauley-Stein back to the 1970s and stick him on a Top 20 team, he'd be a consensus first-team All-American, and maybe even the Naismith Player of the Year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a tangent: do we think that's true of, given the primary purpose of this board, chefs or high level restaurants? I'd find it hard to assert that our top chefs rival those of previous generations, let alone surpass them. How about the top restaurants? Seems to me that the positive movement is in the middle and the general accessibility. Just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a tangent: do we think that's true of, given the primary purpose of this board, chefs or high level restaurants? I'd find it hard to assert that our top chefs rival those of previous generations, let alone surpass them. How about the top restaurants? Seems to me that the positive movement is in the middle and the general accessibility. Just a thought.

No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Fast-forward to the early 1980s. Our college football team went 12-0, defeating Nebraska in the Orange Bowl for the National Championship. We had William "The Refrigerator" Perry as our nosetackle, who was drafted by the Chicago Bears where he became one of the NFL's first 300-pound linemen and a cultural phenomenon, not to mention a TV star. Now? He'd be an above-average lineman in the NFL, but that's about it. To put things in perspective, there are 44 lineman in the *SEC* (not the NFC; the SEC!) who weighed at least 325 pounds as of last year. Baylor has a 6'7", 410-pound *Tight End* who is catching passes!

...

All this to say: If Kentucky runs the table and goes 40-0, they'll get my vote as G.O.A.T.

Have to react to the Fridge mention though seems a bit tangential also (a fun one). He was one of the first 300 pounders but I'd have to disagree he'd be "an above average NFL lineman today." William Perry was an alcoholic who struggled tremendously every offseason to control his weight, even risking his life with unaddressed ailments later. The same profile as a lineman today would be lucky to even make it to a second season. The game moves too much faster and the size less a novelty. A better debate would be whether the much higher demands of the game might have driven better off season habits and a healthier career and retirement. Maybe.

I'm not sure what you're arguing. Nobody is saying any of these guys will turn out to be an Abdul-Jabbar or a Jordan; only that they're the best team, mainly because of their depth and their defense (I do agree that to be unanimously considered the G.O.A.T. you probably need to go undefeated at this point, even though that might not be reality).

That said, I do think if you could transport Cauley-Stein back to the 1970s and stick him on a Top 20 team, he'd be a consensus first-team All-American, and maybe even the Naismith Player of the Year.

Agree on Kentucky as already posted upthread but realize I should clarify my own view. Obviously can't argue that this year's Kentucky squad is the greatest of all time period. That's Wooden's UCLA due to the endurance over multiple seasons. My argument is that, if they run the table (and tonight's nail biter with The Irish was as close as it gets!), it will have been the greatest season of all time or the team that had the greatest season if all time. Or, could also call them the greatest team of all time using a single season to measure. Maybe this is what DaveO meant upthread with the two articles; not sure.

Wisconsin/Kentucky will be another good game. Likewise the two tomorrow to set the Final Four.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have to react to the Fridge mention though seems a bit tangential also (a fun one). He was one of the first 300 pounders but I'd have to disagree he'd be "an above average NFL lineman today." William Perry was an alcoholic who struggled tremendously every offseason to control his weight, even risking his life with unaddressed ailments later. The same profile as a lineman today would be lucky to even make it to a second season. The game moves too much faster and the size less a novelty. A better debate would be whether the much higher demands of the game might have driven better off season habits and a healthier career and retirement. Maybe.

He wasn't an alcoholic in college. He could dunk it backwards (he was only about 5'11"), and was as fast as a sprinter (he was the sixth-fastest player on his high school team at 295 pounds). Also, I *think* some of his ACC weightlifting (leg press?) records still stand today. I'm assuming, of course, that he maintained his health when I say he'd be an above-average NFL lineman. Don't forget his little brother ("little" in every sense of the word) was an All-Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, I do think if you could transport Cauley-Stein back to the 1970s and stick him on a Top 20 team, he'd be a consensus first-team All-American, and maybe even the Naismith Player of the Year.

Consensus all american???   I wouldn't know or remember.

Naismith Player of the year???

1970  Maravich   greatest scorer in all of college basketball

1971  Austin Carr  another unbelievable scorer...no way.  John Shumate an excellent player/all american and pro played with him.  I don't recall other players...but that was a great team.

1972-1974  Bill Walton.   Silly comparison.  Not even close

1975 David Thompson  One of the greatest college basketball players ever.  (Michael Jordan's inspiration)

1976, 77, 78  Scott May Indiana;  Marques Johnson UCLA; Butch Lee Marquette   Each of these guys was the star on a national championship team  (Indiana had quite a few star quality players).  All were multi talented on several levels of their play

Cauley Stein is  player with primarily one dimension wrapped up in his height and ranginess.  He plays good defense.   That is mostly it.

1979;   Larry Bird--ever hear of him?

I think the Naismith claim is silly.

Kentucky plays 8 or 9 players and splits time among them.  Is any a startling star like the Naismith players above?  On one hand its hard to say, as nobody dominates, the team generally platoons.  I actually think that the entire competitive level of the game is diminished by many of the best players leaving with one-and-done   and thereby reducing the overall level of quality and competition.

By the way, Cauley Stein is probably not their best player.  The big guy who scored a lot last night is better on offense, probably a better rebounder...Cauley Stein is probably better at defense.  As to the Kentucky mid sized guys and guards....I can't tell how good they are.

Its my opinion.  I think the overall competition is lessened and the game is worse because of it.  What is different is that training, diet, supplements etc, of this era do help accentuate already great levels of athleticism.  But are they better basketball players???   I don't think so.

Too bad we can't have time travel.

btw:  Too bad Jerian Grant didn't hit that last shot for Notre Dame.  First off it would have been unbelievable.  He had defenders all around him.  From a local perspective, he grew up in this area, all his brothers are good basketball players and his father is Harvey Grant, former pro, former Washington Bullet/Wizard.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consensus all american???   I wouldn't know or remember.

Naismith Player of the year???

1970  Maravich   greatest scorer in all of college basketball

1971  Austin Carr  another unbelievable scorer...no way.  John Shumate an excellent player/all american and pro played with him.  I don't recall other players...but that was a great team.

1972-1974  Bill Walton.   Silly comparison.  Not even close

1975 David Thompson  One of the greatest college basketball players ever.  (Michael Jordan's inspiration)

1976, 77, 78  Scott May Indiana;  Marques Johnson UCLA; Butch Lee Marquette   Each of these guys was the star on a national championship team  (Indiana had quite a few star quality players).  All were multi talented on several levels of their play

Cauley Stein is  player with primarily one dimension wrapped up in his height and ranginess.  He plays good defense.   That is mostly it.

1979;   Larry Bird--ever hear of him?

I think the Naismith claim is silly.

Kentucky plays 8 or 9 players and splits time among them.  Is any a startling star like the Naismith players above?  On one hand its hard to say, as nobody dominates, the team generally platoons.  I actually think that the entire competitive level of the game is diminished by many of the best players leaving with one-and-done   and thereby reducing the overall level of quality and competition.

By the way, Cauley Stein is probably not their best player.  The big guy who scored a lot last night is better on offense, probably a better rebounder...Cauley Stein is probably better at defense.  As to the Kentucky mid sized guys and guards....I can't tell how good they are.

Its my opinion.  I think the overall competition is lessened and the game is worse because of it.  What is different is that training, diet, supplements etc, of this era do help accentuate already great levels of athleticism.  But are they better basketball players???   I don't think so.

Too bad we can't have time travel.

btw:  Too bad Jerian Grant didn't hit that last shot for Notre Dame.  First off it would have been unbelievable.  He had defenders all around him.  From a local perspective, he grew up in this area, all his brothers are good basketball players and his father is Harvey Grant, former pro, former Washington Bullet/Wizard.

Thanks for the info - very informative and enlightening. Yes, I remember Harvey from Clemson, where he played with his brother Horace (and his son Jerai played there, too).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, speaking of Marques Johnson he was a high quality basketball player.  He played on Wooden's last national championship team at UCLA, won the Naismith trophy and had all around skills in shooting, passing rebounding.  He had a strong professional career with a number of all star mentions, then had problems with drugs and suffered a neck injury that ended his playing days.

He also is an articulate and entertaining fellow:  Take a look at him becoming the first to dunk at the new Pauley Pavilian at UCLA just a wee bit ago:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He wasn't an alcoholic in college. He could dunk it backwards (he was only about 5'11"), and was as fast as a sprinter (he was the sixth-fastest player on his high school team at 295 pounds). Also, I *think* some of his ACC weightlifting (leg press?) records still stand today. I'm assuming, of course, that he maintained his health when I say he'd be an above-average NFL lineman. Don't forget his little brother ("little" in every sense of the word) was an All-Pro.

True he wasn't diagnosed as an alcoholic until later but the thing is the seeds were planted much earlier than diagnosis. Without getting into a tangential and extensive convo about alcoholism, Perry clearly struggled a ton to control his weight immediately on entry to the NFL, and likely prior. Simply can't assume he'd have "maintained his health" since that was the whole point. He could have been Canton-bound given the strength, speed and receptivity to coaching. He fell way short of that due to the off field struggles. Instead he was a tremendously loved "cultural phenomenon" who had some really memorable moments. He only stayed with the Bears as long as he did because Ditka protected him. Once Wannestedt took over, Perry was shipped to the Eagles and his career soon ended. We all loved him as fans. He was such a memorable player with seemingly huge heart and great smile. But, real lessons to be learned from what happened to him for younger, aspiring players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True but not enough second half. This over with a minute left. Will be three #1s next weekend with Michigan State, the token "underdog," a #5. Too bad. Was kind of pulling for the Zags.

Well 3 #1's.  Good job by the seeding committee.  Meanwhile, Izzo, the Michigan State coach has a remarkable record in the NCAA tournament.   I must admit to being of the "anyone but Kentucky crowd".  The fact that Notre Dame gave them such a tough game speaks to opportunities for the other teams.

Its not that I think Kentucky is so great.  I spoke my piece on that upthread.  Its simply that U K has stockpiled high school all Americans at a never before seen level, and as I stated above I think overall levels of competition are lower than say a decade and longer ago.  So if another team beats them I think it will be sweet justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well 3 #1's.  Good job by the seeding committee.  Meanwhile, Izzo, the Michigan State coach has a remarkable record in the NCAA tournament.   I must admit to being of the "anyone but Kentucky crowd".  The fact that Notre Dame gave them such a tough game speaks to opportunities for the other teams.

Its not that I think Kentucky is so great.  I spoke my piece on that upthread.  Its simply that U K has stockpiled high school all Americans at a never before seen level, and as I stated above I think overall levels of competition are lower than say a decade and longer ago.  So if another team beats them I think it will be sweet justice.

I'll be rooting for ABK also. My views on Kentucky's place in history are more pragmatic and not reflective of personal preferences. I'll be more rooting for great games since fairly indifferent between MST, Wisconsin and Duke for different reasons. Any one of the three would be great in my book.

On Izzo's record, he is now evidently the only coach ever to make the Final Four three times with a team seeded fifth or lower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of a team with players who are looking to hopscotch to the NBA?

Sure, just like the original Dream Team, waltzing into Barcelona, winning their gold medals, and disbanding immediately afterwards - a team that will be argued about in the year 2300 - when the average forward is 7'2", as the greatest team ever assembled in the history of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Various men's and women's all american teams are being announced.  Here is an article describing players from the AP all american list.  Among them are members of teams that are still in the tournament and players from teams that were eliminated.   Among those is Willie Cauley Stein, referenced upthread, who is the starting center and main defensive presence from Kentucky's team.  He is first team.  His teammate Karl Anthony Towns, the other starting "big" on the team, and the guy who scored a lot of points against Notre Dame in the last game is 2nd team.  Incidentally as potential draft choices Towns is often mentioned as 1 or 2 and Callie Stein is referenced in the top 10, possibly the top 5.  Besides Towns, the other person referenced as 1 or 2 in the draft is Jahlil Okafor, Duke's center, still in the tournament and also a Freshman as is Towns.  Also, still in the tournament and a Senior is Frank Kaminsky, the 7 footer from Wisconsin.

From my perspective, I tend to try and ignore statistics and focus on qualitative measures or evaluations of these players.  When I look at Cauley Stein I simply see a player with limited skills on the offensive side and not a great rebounder.  On the other hand he is active and rangy on the defensive side and most importantly effective in the college game.  Is he or will he be a great shot blocker...in my mind to be determined.   When I watch Towns and Okafor I see players that are highly touted and who have good moves, but I've seen them easily flustered during the season.  These are talented players with what I think are skills that need a lot of refinement.  My opinion no more no less.  Kaminsky is a guy who probably doesn't have the athletic talent or upside of any of the other 3 aforementioned bigs...but he has developed his game in 4 years.

The other two on the first team are Grant, referenced upthread, from Notre Dame, who has looked skilled to me, and a freshman guard from Ohio State D'Angelo Russell from Ohio State.  I watched bits and pieces of Big 10 basketball this year, as the team I like Maryland is now a member.  Maryland had an excellent freshman guard, Trimble, with excellent skills.  Russell, similarly a freshman was far more skilled...by a good bit.

Finally, from watching the Duke/Gonzaga match, and referencing the AP All American team Wiltjer a Gonzaga big and a transfer from Kentucky and Kevin Pangoss a guard made the third team.   Didn't realize Pangoss had such a strong season.   What amazed me in the Duke game was how completely neutralized Pangoss was during that game.

Oh well.  Here is hoping for good games in the semi's and the finals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure they'll hold on but Wisconsin, up 8 early in the 2H and ahead most of the game so far, is making this The Game of this tourney. Kentucky is more on the ropes than they've been all year. Wow. And, to think, a kid of Polish descent is the difference maker so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure they'll hold on but Wisconsin, up 8 early in the 2H and ahead most of the game so far, is making this The Game of this tourney. Kentucky is more on the ropes than they've been all year. Wow. And, to think, a kid of Polish descent is the difference maker so far.

10 seconds left, Kentucky down by 4.

Since the lack of Flagrant, the officiating has been *terrible*.

Wisconsin deserves this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prior to the game, I thought it would be a lopsided Kentucky win.  I thought the # of Kentucky big men would tire out the big Wisconsin guys, as they'd have to defend the entire game against fresh legs and would, in turn, be guarded by a rotating group of physical players.  I thought Kentucky had the edge on shooting guards as well -- although I didn't think their defense would cause problems for Wisconsin, I thought Kentucky would out rebound Wisconsin and keep them to one shot while the Kentucky guards would be more open when Wisconsin had to collapse inside to counter the Kentucky big men.

I might as well have thought the moon was made of cheese.  I was entirely wrong.

Great game plan by Wisconsin, great composure by Wisconsin &, most of all, better playing by Wisconsin.  Except for a few exciting runs by Kentucky (too few), an all Wisconsin game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...