Interesting Comment About Duke/UK Players

[Random UK Fan]

There was a sports radio host that said if Cal and K would have switched players they’d both be in the final four today. His premise was that Cal is able to gel a team of kids that are more-highly ranked, and K is able to motivate the kids that are more mid-ranked.

What do you think about that?

Wasn’t sure I believe it, but we have all seen K do more with less.

 

[FearTheBeard_rivals208808]

It’s a single elimination tournament. I think if they did it 10 times with the same bracket, KY and Duke both make the Final Four multiple times, and don’t make it multiple times. There are too many variables with these tournaments.

I think they recruit kids they think they can coach and try to pair them up with other recruits that fit the team’s needs. Both coaches have proven they can get more from less talent and both have shown they can get less from more talent.

 

[dukiejay]

There was a sports radio host that said if Cal and K would have switched players they’d both be in the final four today. His premise was that Cal is able to gel a team of kids that are more-highly ranked, and K is able to motivate the kids that are more mid-ranked.

What do you think about that?

Wasn’t sure I believe it, but we have all seen K do more with less.

I think people look into this kind of stuff way too much.

This is a bold statement, I know....but if both K’s and Cal’s team each got one more stop or scored one more basket, they’d also both be in the Final Four. How’s that for mind-blowing?

 

[Captain_Kentucky]

It’s a single elimination tournament. I think if they did it 10 times with the same bracket, KY and Duke both make the Final Four multiple times, and don’t make it multiple times. There are too many variables with these tournaments.

I think they recruit kids they think they can coach and try to pair them up with other recruits that fit the team’s needs. Both coaches have proven they can get more from less talent and both have shown they can get less from more talent.

Please excuse the intrusion here but I am going to give my uninvited 2 cents. IMHO the OAD model is fools gold. Cals one title in 2012 we had Anthony Davis and Kidd-Gilchrist...two elite players. BUT we also had Terrance Jones (So) Doron Lamb (So) and Darius Miller (Sr.). We don’t win that title without the veteran experience. I am completely convinced you can NOT trust freshmen if you are relying on them to win a title. If you take the two rosters this year and switch Cal and K the outcome would not be different. You need a mix of elite fresh and veteran leadership. Each game in the tournament brings more pressure. The freshmen can melt at any time when on the big stage. I have seen it too many times over the last 10 years. Yes we are in the mix every year which is great but as the pressure mounts so does the disappointment.

 

[BeerPoisoning]

I think K’s success with team USA debunks this theory. K and Cal both are elite coaches. They both have had the cream of the crop and developed the other kids along the way. Both schools are (IMO) the best powerhouses this century, toss UNC in there too.

People say this that and the other about both coaches, it’s all garbage. K runs with 7-8 guys every year and uses an “Aces In Their Places” style. Cal will go 9-10 deep most seasons and give everyone an opportunity. Usually determing minutes by defensive effort, I think he calls it the “kill system” maybe? — These guys can coach anyone and they do it in their own unique way. There’s pros and cons to every coaching system. Ignoring depth can gas out the top dogs. In retrospect, utilizing your bench nearly entirely can soak up a lot of crucial possessions with lower talent. I don’t think either coach does it right or wrong, they just do it their way.

People fail to realize that the best team doesn’t always win, matter of fact it’s kinda rare. In 2015 I do think your team was a little better than us. In 2010, we were good but man I didn’t think we’d bring home the natty. y’all and Kansas both looked phenomal. This year, I think we’re the best. It just didn’t happen. ‘06 definitely too. Examples are endless.

Now I’m gonna go brush my teeth, I vomited in my mouth a little bit writing all of that.

 

[BeerPoisoning]

To add to my post above...
I hate the tournament layout, I think it sucks. There’s nothing worse than losing to a team that you’d beat 9/10 times. The system rewards mediocrity and although I’ve forced myself to ignore the cold hard truth — It makes regular season seem worthless. You can be a #1 seed and end up in a lower seed’s backyard. The NCAA T is never a layup but heck, a couple upsets in a region can advance an undeserving team.

It’ll never happen but I’d personally like to see a 4 week tournament where the best 16 teams in college basketball play a series of 3 games each round. Could you imagine the ratings for blueblood final 4 games? Holy cow. College basketball would be so much healthier. But, that’s all just a bunch of dreaming in fantasy land.

 

[Captain_Kentucky]

To add to my post above...
I hate the tournament layout, I think it sucks. There’s nothing worse than losing to a team that you’d beat 9/10 times. The system rewards mediocrity and although I’ve forced myself to ignore the cold hard truth — It makes regular season seem worthless. You can be a #1 seed and end up in a lower seed’s backyard. The NCAA T is never a layup but heck, a couple upsets in a region can advance an undeserving team.

It’ll never happen but I’d personally like to see a 4 week tournament where the best 16 teams in college basketball play a series of 3 games each round. Could you imagine the ratings for blueblood final 4 games? Holy cow. College basketball would be so much healthier. But, that’s all just a bunch of dreaming in fantasy land.

I agree. Would love to have some type of tourney model where one bad game doesn’t end your run but helps truly identify the best team. Almost like a pool play and bracket play system. Having said that it will never happen which is why the onus is on the COACHES (who are paid handsomely) to put together the best TEAM that has the fewest weaknesses that can be exploited by another team. Not the best players...but best team and all that encompasses.

In our game vs Auburn we made the decision to run their guards off the 3 pt line and into our rim protectors. Problem was our rim protectors couldn’t be trusted this game and hardly played and we lost because of it. And also because pg had 7 turnovers and we couldn’t make a feee throw. But I digress.

 

[FearTheBeard_rivals208808]

Please excuse the intrusion here but I am going to give my uninvited 2 cents. IMHO the OAD model is fools gold. Cals one title in 2012 we had Anthony Davis and Kidd-Gilchrist...two elite players. BUT we also had Terrance Jones (So) Doron Lamb (So) and Darius Miller (Sr.). We don’t win that title without the veteran experience. I am completely convinced you can NOT trust freshmen if you are relying on them to win a title. If you take the two rosters this year and switch Cal and K the outcome would not be different. You need a mix of elite fresh and veteran leadership. Each game in the tournament brings more pressure. The freshmen can melt at any time when on the big stage. I have seen it too many times over the last 10 years. Yes we are in the mix every year which is great but as the pressure mounts so does the disappointment.

I agree. Below was a post in another thread on pretty much the same issue (OAD).

I hated it when it started. HATED IT! After 2015, I opened up to it more but I don’t like how the teams have become all about the OAD talent. The two examples of NC OAD teams (2012 and 2015) still had a solid core of upperclassmen (Miller for KY, Cook for Duke). I’m good with getting an RJ or Zion, but I’d prefer the rest of the starting lineup be upperclassmen. The upperclassmen are the ones that pull a team out of a funk and make the right decisions at the end of the game.

What I really don’t like is how many players now think they’re OAD. Too many kids are leaving after a year when they shouldn’t, only to end up overseas or in the D League for their whole career.

I also don’t like the age limit the NBA has, but for political/philosophical reasons I won’t get into.

 

[FearTheBeard_rivals208808]

To add to my post above...
I hate the tournament layout, I think it sucks. There’s nothing worse than losing to a team that you’d beat 9/10 times. The system rewards mediocrity and although I’ve forced myself to ignore the cold hard truth — It makes regular season seem worthless. You can be a #1 seed and end up in a lower seed’s backyard. The NCAA T is never a layup but heck, a couple upsets in a region can advance an undeserving team.

It’ll never happen but I’d personally like to see a 4 week tournament where the best 16 teams in college basketball play a series of 3 games each round. Could you imagine the ratings for blueblood final 4 games? Holy cow. College basketball would be so much healthier. But, that’s all just a bunch of dreaming in fantasy land.

I think the current layout is what makes March Madness so much fun. Would we watch UC Irvine vs KState if it wasn’t winner take all? Probably not. It sucks when Duke is on the losing side of a single elimination game when we know they win 7/10 if they played the same team. But, Duke hasn’t won the national championship about 93% of the time. Not winning the national championship is the norm for every single school. It’s a blessing when your team does win it all bc it’s a mix of talent, coaching, and luck.

 

[Wiles2]

IMO, it's bizarre that either Duke or UK are labeled failures this year. They will probably finish #5 or #6 in the country and had kids that played with each other for a split second in time. Seems completely logical that a talent-rich MSU and/or AU with far more experienced players would have an advantage - especially in high pressure situations.

 

[BeerPoisoning]

I agree. Would love to have some type of tourney model where one bad game doesn’t end your run but helps truly identify the best team. Almost like a pool play and bracket play system. Having said that it will never happen which is why the onus is on the COACHES (who are paid handsomely) to put together the best TEAM that has the fewest weaknesses that can be exploited by another team. Not the best players...but best team and all that encompasses.

In our game vs Auburn we made the decision to run their guards off the 3 pt line and into our rim protectors. Problem was our rim protectors couldn’t be trusted this game and hardly played and we lost because of it. And also because pg had 7 turnovers and we couldn’t make a feee throw. But I digress.

One can dream. It doesn’t have to be an extensive 7 games like the NBA, but I think best out of 3 will really paint a good picture in identifying the best team. If you look at the 2017 NCAA tournament, it’s pretty fair to say that Oregon, UNC and South Carolina all were tested and didn’t get a shortcut. I don’t think South Carolina was that good, but they played good basketball and beat 2,3,4 seeds to get there. Gonzaga on the other hand virtually got bailed out. Playing 16,8,4,11,7 seed to reach the title game. In my eyes that’s completely unfair. They didn’t bounce Arizona, Duke or even Fl St themselves. They just happened to play all the teams that got lucky and did so. It’s just a really flawed system and pure dumb luck plays too big of a role.

Both Duke and UK lost to good teams, kind of the same narrative. Zion and PJ carried a huge load for their respective teams and we both shot poorly outside the arc. Winston got hot against us and Harper did the same against y’all. Sucks, but hey, there’s always next year.

 

[2 skerz 3_rivals208847]

There was a sports radio host that said if Cal and K would have switched players they’d both be in the final four today. His premise was that Cal is able to gel a team of kids that are more-highly ranked, and K is able to motivate the kids that are more mid-ranked.

What do you think about that?

Wasn’t sure I believe it, but we have all seen K do more with less.

K beat Cal’s players by like a hundred so....

 

[BeerPoisoning]

I think the current layout is what makes March Madness so much fun. Would we watch UC Irvine vs KState if it wasn’t winner take all? Probably not. It sucks when Duke is on the losing side of a single elimination game when we know they win 7/10 if they played the same team. But, Duke hasn’t won the national championship about 93% of the time. Not winning the national championship is the norm for every single school. It’s a blessing when your team does win it all bc it’s a mix of talent, coaching, and luck.

The games are exciting to watch, but I’d personally rather see elite vs elite. Not that I’ve never enjoyed a Cinderella story (when it’s not at Duke’s expense lol) but I think luck and flukes play too big of a role. It’s really terrible to see an entire season of awesomeness flushed down the toilet because an automatic bid mid-major pulled off a career night. The seedings after #1’s getting geographic preference is garbage. If you aren’t a #1 then you go where you go.

I’m not complaining about single elimination because Duke lost yesterday. Besides, MSU is a legit team. I actually said this exact same thing a month ago on the main board. I’m just not a fan of rewarding mediocrity.

But that’s just a personal opinion kinda thing. I don’t blame you for loving all the madness.

 

[Captain_Kentucky]

I agree. Below was a post in another thread on pretty much the same issue (OAD).

It’s why the coaches need to be careful how they sell the OAD. Cal has created this monster because

One can dream. It doesn’t have to be an extensive 7 games like the NBA, but I think best out of 3 will really paint a good picture in identifying the best team. If you look at the 2017 NCAA tournament, it’s pretty fair to say that Oregon, UNC and South Carolina all were tested and didn’t get a shortcut. I don’t think South Carolina was that good, but they played good basketball and beat 2,3,4 seeds to get there. Gonzaga on the other hand virtually got bailed out. Playing 16,8,4,11,7 seed to reach the title game. In my eyes that’s completely unfair. They didn’t bounce Arizona, Duke or even Fl St themselves. They just happened to play all the teams that got lucky and did so. It’s just a really flawed system and pure dumb luck plays too big of a role.

Both Duke and UK lost to good teams, kind of the same narrative. Zion and PJ carried a huge load for their respective teams and we both shot poorly outside the arc. Winston got hot against us and Harper did the same against y’all. Sucks, but hey, there’s always next year.

Agreed. UCLA won’t the majority of their titles when the NCAA tournament field comprised of just 16 teams. A lot easier to win back then but also narrowed the field to the best teams thus taking a lot of the luck and randomness out of today’s tourney.

 

[Captain_Kentucky]

K beat Cal’s players by like a hundred so....

That was because your freshmen were way better than our freshmen.

 

[HeLooks2MuchLikeDave]

To add to my post above...
I hate the tournament layout, I think it sucks. There’s nothing worse than losing to a team that you’d beat 9/10 times. The system rewards mediocrity and although I’ve forced myself to ignore the cold hard truth — It makes regular season seem worthless. You can be a #1 seed and end up in a lower seed’s backyard. The NCAA T is never a layup but heck, a couple upsets in a region can advance an undeserving team.

It’ll never happen but I’d personally like to see a 4 week tournament where the best 16 teams in college basketball play a series of 3 games each round. Could you imagine the ratings for blueblood final 4 games? Holy cow. College basketball would be so much healthier. But, that’s all just a bunch of dreaming in fantasy land.

Not sure if I like your idea or not. But I would venture to guess that Duke is probably sitting on 10-12 titles easy right now if the tournament was only 16 teams. They’d have only missed the tournament 3 times in the last 35 years

 

[HeLooks2MuchLikeDave]

Not sure if I like your idea or not. But I would venture to guess that Duke is probably sitting on 10-12 titles easy right now if the tournament was only 16 teams. They’d have only missed the tournament 3 times in the last 35 years

UK would’ve missed a 16 team tourney 10 times in that span, UNC would’ve missed 8, and KU would’ve missed 5. Every other school would’ve missed it more times than they made it.

 

[BeerPoisoning]

Not sure if I like your idea or not. But I would venture to guess that Duke is probably sitting on 10-12 titles easy right now if the tournament was only 16 teams. They’d have only missed the tournament 3 times in the last 35 years

Good possibility of that being true. I’ve never cared for single elimination format or 64 teams, that’s just too excessive. There are not 64 teams annually that deserve to play for a title. I know the consensus enjoys March Madness, I just like watching the big dogs play.

 

[mo.st.dukie]

The games are exciting to watch, but I’d personally rather see elite vs elite. Not that I’ve never enjoyed a Cinderella story (when it’s not at Duke’s expense lol) but I think luck and flukes play too big of a role. It’s really terrible to see an entire season of awesomeness flushed down the toilet because an automatic bid mid-major pulled off a career night. The seedings after #1’s getting geographic preference is garbage. If you aren’t a #1 then you go where you go.

I’m not complaining about single elimination because Duke lost yesterday. Besides, MSU is a legit team. I actually said this exact same thing a month ago on the main board. I’m just not a fan of rewarding mediocrity.

But that’s just a personal opinion kinda thing. I don’t blame you for loving all the madness.

I get what you are saying and I don't totally disagree. However, almost all past national champions have been either a 1, 2, or 3 seed, meaning they were considered one of the top 12 teams in the country that season. The tournament is brutally tough and can absolutely be wild and random. But when you look at the past champions it becomes apparent that in most years, at least in the 21st century, it's not really all that wild and random who gets crowned champion. It's a list of all the big time programs and top seeds. Even the runner-up tends to be a 1-5 seed (i.e. one of the 20 best teams in the country) If Virginia wins it this year it would be the same thing. And MSU wouldn't be a surprise either.

But yes, for the teams that don't win the championship, it can be a random event which is why it's important for people to maintain perspective and not judge a team solely on which round of the tournament they reached.

2018: Villanova - by far the best team in America
2017 UNC - sucks to say but clearly one of the best teams in America
2016 Villanova - not the top team but still a 2 seed that only lost 4 regular season games
2015 Duke - one of the four best teams all season long
2014 Uconn - VERY weird tournament and total anomaly
2013 Louisville - even though it no longer officially counts, Louisville was by far the best team in America and the #1 overall seed
2012 Kentucky - by far the best team in America
2011 Uconn - kind of another odd tournament but still, they were a 3 seed with the best player in the country in Kemba Walker
2010 Duke - maybe not the best team but among the top 4 teams in the country
2009 UNC - by far the best team all season
2008 Kansas - one of the 4 best teams all season long and a Final Four that had the four best teams
2007 Florida - The best team all season long
2006 Florida - a bit of a surprise but still a 3 seed.
2005 UNC - one of the best all year
2004 Uconn - a 2 seed that was loaded with NBA talent
2003 Syracuse - a 3 seed with the best player in the country
2002 Maryland - one of the best all year
2001 Duke - the best team by far
2000 Michigan State - one of the best all year

Personally I don't want a postseason that is crowning the "best" team like what college football has. I want a postseason that crowns a team that is among the best because in college basketball there are usually more than just 1 or 2 teams that are capable and worthy champions. I think we are pretty close to achieving that on an annual basis but I wouldn't be against a smaller tournament with best of 3 as long as the good mid-majors still get a shot and the location of the games are truly neutral

 

[2 skerz 3_rivals208847]

That was because your freshmen were way better than our freshmen.

Yeah we know, by 34!

 

[Captain_Kentucky]

Yeah we know, by 34!

And it wasn’t even really that close. We were outclassed by a bunch.

 

[BeerPoisoning]

I get what you are saying and I don't totally disagree. However, almost all past national champions have been either a 1, 2, or 3 seed, meaning they were considered one of the top 12 teams in the country that season. The tournament is brutally tough and can absolutely be wild and random. But when you look at the past champions it becomes apparent that in most years, at least in the 21st century, it's not really all that wild and random who gets crowned champion. It's a list of all the big time programs and top seeds. Even the runner-up tends to be a 1-5 seed (i.e. one of the 20 best teams in the country) If Virginia wins it this year it would be the same thing. And MSU wouldn't be a surprise either.

But yes, for the teams that don't win the championship, it can be a random event which is why it's important for people to maintain perspective and not judge a team solely on which round of the tournament they reached.

2018: Villanova - by far the best team in America
2017 UNC - sucks to say but clearly one of the best teams in America
2016 Villanova - not the top team but still a 2 seed that only lost 4 regular season games
2015 Duke - one of the four best teams all season long
2014 Uconn - VERY weird tournament and total anomaly
2013 Louisville - even though it no longer officially counts, Louisville was by far the best team in America and the #1 overall seed
2012 Kentucky - by far the best team in America
2011 Uconn - kind of another odd tournament but still, they were a 3 seed with the best player in the country in Kemba Walker
2010 Duke - maybe not the best team but among the top 4 teams in the country
2009 UNC - by far the best team all season
2008 Kansas - one of the 4 best teams all season long and a Final Four that had the four best teams
2007 Florida - The best team all season long
2006 Florida - a bit of a surprise but still a 3 seed.
2005 UNC - one of the best all year
2004 Uconn - a 2 seed that was loaded with NBA talent
2003 Syracuse - a 3 seed with the best player in the country
2002 Maryland - one of the best all year
2001 Duke - the best team by far
2000 Michigan State - one of the best all year

Personally I don't want a postseason that is crowning the "best" team like what college football has. I want a postseason that crowns a team that is among the best because in college basketball there are usually more than just 1 or 2 teams that are capable and worthy champions. I think we are pretty close to achieving that on an annual basis but I wouldn't be against a smaller tournament with best of 3 as long as the good mid-majors still get a shot and the location of the games are truly neutral

I’m cool with one of the best teams winning annually and not always the very best team. I mean usually there are heavy favorites anyway, it’s kind of rare to say one team is definitely the very best. That’s also a matter of opinion. Even though the NBA has 7 game series, there are still upsets. Mavericks in ‘11 over the Heat for example.

I’ll never like the fact that a really solid team loses their chance at a banner over a fluke, but that’s not my biggest problem with the layout. I don’t like the “lucky” aspect where a team draws a weak opponent in a late round game because of a previous fluke upset. Because normally, the big dog wins that late round game and are advancing at the courtesy of a fluke. They aren’t the ones who put the other big down, they’re playing the lucky Cinderella that did. Who likely isn’t going to play at that level twice in a row. Which makes advancing easy.

College hoops has been like this forever, it isn’t going to change. I don’t think people are wrong for enjoying the current layout, I just personally don’t care for it, but most do. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[LastWaltz]

I think the lack of experience at the 1 exacerbates the issues both teams have had with the one and done. You simply cannot have a revolving door at that position where you are forced to start from square 1 each August. As much as I liked Tre if you switch him and Winston Duke likely runs MSU out of the building. Starting 4 freshman every year, including a new point, kills your ability to implement sets and counters to those sets.

 

[BeerPoisoning]

I think the lack of experience at the 1 exacerbates the issues both teams have had with the one and done. You simply cannot have a revolving door at that position where you are forced to start from square 1 each August. As much as I liked Tre if you switch him and Winston Duke likely runs MSU out of the building. Starting 4 freshman every year, including a new point, kills your ability to implement sets and counters to those sets.

You are on the money. That’s why it worked in 2015 and didn’t this year.

Quinn Cook.

 

[Mr.Scary13]

I think the lack of experience at the 1 exacerbates the issues both teams have had with the one and done. You simply cannot have a revolving door at that position where you are forced to start from square 1 each August. As much as I liked Tre if you switch him and Winston Duke likely runs MSU out of the building. Starting 4 freshman every year, including a new point, kills your ability to implement sets and counters to those sets.

Maybe, but Winston is probably riding the pine in foul trouble the whole game if he had a Duke Jersey on. No way would a Duke player get away with pushing off on every single possession like that.

 

[Random UK Fan]

K beat Cal’s players by like a hundred so....

That was because your freshmen were way better than our freshmen.

Yeah we know, by 34!

. . . and I’ve heard several “experts” say they felt that Duke’s freshman didn’t necessarily improve as the season progressed, but UK’s did, so many (most?) feel that at the time it was UK that was overrated, but then worked their way back to a more accurate ranking As the season continued, yet Duke’s freshman didn’t necessarily progress. They didn’t regress, but not a lot of improvement was shown with a pattern of areas that could use work.

Oh well . . . only one trophy, so . . . It’s all pointless now.