Duke/Davidson
 

Come on Curry....light that ass up:tro: :tro:

I'd love to see Curry go for 50 in a loss.

Come KG....have a heart man.

I love Steph as much as anybody, but Davidson has no chance tonight.

I know they don't, but it's against my religion to root for Duke

And it's against mine to go against them. I don't always think they are that good (I don't think they are a top 5 team this year) but I never root against them.

Really? What five teams are better than Duke this year?

UNC
UConn
Oklahoma

Ok, after giving it some thought, maybe they are. I think they are right with Pitt.

Duke's way better than Oklahoma. The other three you mentioned may have cases, but Duke has to be considered top five.

Poll: has Davidson "done enough" to get an at-large if by some fluke they lose in the SoCon final?

It'd be close but I'd have to say yes right now- they pass the smell test and have a marquee win @ West Virginia.

Really depends how they do in conference. If they finish with 1 loss or less and then lose the championship game to Charleston they should be safe thanks to the All American and the run last year. Lose a couple in league and it gets a little more dicey. Finishing the year with one top 100 win makes it tough.

I dont think that Curry is that good. feel free to flame me....

Curry's that good, but doesn't have the supporting cast he had last year..... so he's basically in the same position that Jordan was in his first few years with the Bulls..... he scores 40, but if nobody else pitches in, you lose.

unless they have a total collapse, they'll get in the NCAA's, but will not be anywhere near the danger they were to the top teams last year.

I can't flame you if you don't back up your argument with anything.

I think he is a one dimensional guy who is a fine college player but wont be much of a factor at the next level. Intangibles and all those other things people talk about rarely translate in the NBA.

You should smash your left hand with a hammer for putting Jordan in this discussion.

I think he's far from one dimensional but I agree his game won't translate great to the NBA. He's a very good college point guard and a great college shooting guard but not good enough at the point to be a top NBA point guard and not big enough to be a top NBA shooting guard. I think he could be a very valuable 6th man on a championship team where he can back up at both the 1 and 2 but any team he starts for and is expected to star for is doomed to mediocrity.

I don't really know or care how successful of a pro he'll be, but if you're suggesting that he's a mocha J.J. Redick, you're wrong.

Unlike one-dimensional shooters, Steph has great handle and quickness, so he can create for himself off the dribble. He also makes up for his lack of height by having one of the quickest releases I've ever seen. He's a terrific passer and considering how often he sees double- and triple-teams, he's ridiculously efficient and doesn't turn the ball over a lot. The guy from the past few years that I'd compare him to is Rodney Stuckey, another tweener from an inferior conference. Steph's numbers are easily better than Stuckey's were at EWU across the board, and Stuckey's turned into a solid pro. Not to mention the kid is stupid clutch and has a short memory when it comes to missed shots.

I'm not going to say for sure that he'll be an NBA star, but his ability to get his shot off will give him the chance to prove himself.

No way he can create his own shot in a meaningful NBA game. He isnt quick enough or strong enough. He may fit in as a spot up shooter and backup backcourt player but is very weak defensively which is a major flaw for an NBA backup. Passing out of double teams is not a skill he will need to utilize in the NBA. Rodney Stuckey is a true one, Curry isn't. He not only wont be an NBA star, I dont see him even having a chance to be a starter. As for the numbers in college and how they translate I give you Adam Morrison.

He's definitely not a weak defender, and he's quick enough to get off his own shot in the league, if not as often. I guess you haven't watched him very much. Stuckey didn't play like a true one in college either, by the way. Steph may not fit a certain mold, but neither did Allen Iverson or Charles Barkley. Not saying Steph's going to be as good as either, but I wouldn't dismiss him just because he doesn't fit a certain body type.

Joey he is a bulk shooter who doesnt have NBA strength. When solid NBA guys decide to lock him down he is toast. Hell he had a big problem with Purdue. He may wind up a niche shooter in a Steve Kerr mold who can play off of others and not turn the ball over. Comparing him to Iverson who had superior quickness or barkley who had superior strength and spring is strange. He is a nice college player on a second division program that gets to shoot alot. Who exactly is he guarding at the NBA level? He really is like a version of Larry Hughes except not as big, strong or athletic.

Stick to baseball. He's nothing like Larry Hughes and he shoots as many twos as threes. He's not playing against junior high kids, so he knows how to get his shot off against taller players one way or another. Just like I assumed, you completely missed my point with the Iverson/Barkley analogy.

He's like Eddie House with better handle, passing and defense. He does need to get stronger, but Steph's biggest problem in the league will be mental, not physical. Generally it's hard for guys who are relied on for all of their team's offense to adjust into playing a distinct role at the next level, and he's such a bizarre player, it'll be tough for a coach to figure out what that role is.

Again, I don't think he'll be a superstar in the NBA, but he won't be the scrub you think he'll be either.

And like I said, I don't know or care what kind of pro he'll be. The NBA sucks ass, I'm not a scout and I don't profess to be.

But he's not the one-dimensional spot-up shooter you say he is.

I already told you what his role will be, it is pretty clear. The only type of system that he would be able to put in a lot of minutes is a D'antoni or Golden State type offense. However Golden state is falling apart and will have a new coach soon which leaves only the Knicks. He is a guy who plays with the ball who needs to learn to play without it. That is a big adjustment. The pro game is about matchups, endurance, speed and strength. Curry does not score high in any catagory. I understood your point with Iverson/Barkley but both had physical gifts that allowed them to overcome their lack of size. Curry has no such gifts. His ceiling is probably Sleepy Floyd.

The NBA is true basketball at the highest level. Real basketball fans could understand the greatness of the players and the game without a band playing stupid songs and a student section painting their faces.

The NBA is f'ing boring, packaged nonsense. Of course the players are great, but with some exceptions, they're all set for life trillionaires with guaranteed contracts whose biggest concerns are not spraining their ankles and what cheerleader they can bang after the game. The crowds are terrible, the announcers are worse and all the league cares about is marketing its superstars. The game is secondary, so the ability of the players really doesn't get me off.

Maybe you enjoy hearing about how epic every one of LeBron's bowel movements was, but I don't.

And you're wrong about Curry.

Go to a game and watch 2 good teams play and tell me that the basketball isn't amazing. I'm sure all those major college teams are full of great student athletes who help grandmas cross the street and volunteer at food kitchens for the poor in their spare time. College basketball is all about fake drama and the coaches. All college basketball cares about is exploiting the "student athletes" in order to score a big TV deal with the networks.

The fact is except in rare instances in college basketball you are simply watching uniforms play each other, the good players dont stay long enough to where you get to know them and who wants to watch bad players.

I am not wrong about Curry and we will revisit this again. Ricky Rubio, now there is a guard to get excited about.

Curry hopes to be as good

Thanks for telling me to go to an NBA game. I've never been.

Again, you've missed my point. I don't care if NBA guys are assholes, my problem is that the NBA is so dry. It largely doesn't matter to these players whether they win or lose. That's gay, no matter how good the players are.

I cover high school basketball in the city and I enjoy the hell out of it, moreso than NBA games. Why? Because these kids live and die for basketball. Many of them are trying to play their way into a scholarship, others are just doing it because they love it. It's basketball at its purest, if not at its cleanest. There aren't seven zillion TV timeouts, halftime show inanity, or players that are treated like Gods. It's more than just some **** they have to do in order to get paid eight figures a year and secure endorsement deals.

College hoops is similar. Most kids aren't going to the NBA, and every season, thousands of players take their last steps on a basketball court in front of a crowd. Therefore, they're going to want to win more than NBA players, to keep their careers going. So they bust their asses and give us great games against other kids not wanting their careers to end. That's fake drama? What the hell would be real drama then?

More like it

We get to watch the Knicks play.

It's less entertaining than watching brainless pidgeons chase stale bread around a McDonald's garbage.

I think that it is funny that you think that the best players in the world are not trying, they just go through the motions. You are letting all the periphrial stuff get in the way of the game on the court. College games are not well played basketball in most cases. The game was far better when the players stayed for 4 years. A team like North carolina is dominant simply because the players stay around and are talented for the NCAA level. Compare this period of UNC to the priod in the mid 80's where they has Jordan, Worthy, Perkins, etc and were not nearly as dominant. The game is just played at a lower level than it used to be. And dont bother with the NBA was better with Bird, magic etc because the truth was that there were only a few competitive clubs back then. There are 3 serious teams in the NBA this year and about 10 that arent far behind.

The knicks dont count...still radioactive due to isiah poisoning...need a few more years to be safe to watch on a regular basis again.

Yeah that pretty much sums it up for me.

I never get the sense that NBA players care whether they win or lose. Getting paid is really all that matters. There are a smattering who still play with the passion that would indicate the final tally is wins and losses rather than dollar signs (Dwayne Wade, KG come to mind) but for ever DW there is two Stephon Marburys. I don't doubt the fact that these guys are superior athletes, and that's about the only reason to watch IMO.

College hoops (and Chuck I'm surprised you don't feel the same way, being an alumni of an elite basketball school) inspires passion and pride in people and the players. You rarely see kids "take a night off", let alone a possession. The NCAA Tournament is the best team sporting event in the world- the NBA playoffs can't touch that, ever. I don't care if I cheer for a jersey in college hoops because it's MY jersey.

Also, they unceremoniously ripped the NBA teams out of my hometowns because "the TV market wasn't big enough" and moved them to San Diego and Cincy, I'll never forgive them for that, even if the first one was well before my lifetime.

I didn't say they're not trying, but theoretically it doesn't really matter if they win or lose. Some players get torn up over losses, I don't think most do. It can't be as important to them as it is to college hoops players. Plus like I said, the fans, announcers and referees are all terrible. There's more to basketball than the quality of play.

I watch more NBA games than is probably healthy and rarely get the sense that players arent playing hard. Most dont engage in fake hustle but the on the court game is far superior to college. To me college basketball is now like a watered down grade 1, maybe the race will be close but that doesnt mean it was a great race. The ironic part about the whole issue is that college coaches have less control than ever over thier good players which has led to the game being played at a lower level. Maybe you guys are too young to see it but college basketball aint what it was. The tourney is great but the rest of the season is pretty much the same crap over and over.

And if you think that clooege players get torn up over each loss you are sadly mistaken. You simply are repeating a myth that is untrue. Why wouldn't their JOB be more important than a college players? They have contracts that they are also playing for, they dont have lifetime deals. And I dont know what games you watch but the quality of announcers in the college game is pitiful.

Unless you're on a 10-day contract or an undrafted rookie, nobody's playing for any jobs in the NBA, and those guys barely get any playing time anyway. The amount of guaranteed money in the NBA is one of the reasons it's such a joke and so boring. It's also another reason why football kicks the crap out of it.

I give up....

Updated my tourney projection Phil, these are all based on final predicted records and final predicted RPI from RPIforecast.com which uses the Sagarin predictor to determine a probability for every game and likely final records. So if you have a gripe with the final records that isn't my call. For instance, I don't think Arkansas is an 8-8 team in the SEC like Sagarin does. Regardless, Notre Dame probably gets in but Cincy and Providence won't even be sniffing the bubble.

Last teams in

Seed Team Conf RPI Rec
11 Purdue B10 41.2 21-10
11 San Diego St. MWC 42.0 19-8
11 Notre Dame BE 53.3 18-11
11 Utah St. WAC 43.2 25-4
12 Rhode Island A10 50.8 23-8
12 Stanford P10 58.7 20-9
12 Arkansas SEC 59.7 20-9
12 Boston College ACC 63.8 20-11

First teams out
South Carolina SEC 62.7 20-9
Nevada Las Vegas MWC 53.9 21-9
Minnesota B10 54.9 19-10
Florida St. ACC 47.0 19-12
Michigan B10 47.2 18-12
Evansville MVC 57.2 17-9
Temple A10 46.0 18-12
Niagara MAAC 50.5 24-6
Creighton MVC 68.4 22-8
Southern California P10 68.7 18-12
Maryland ACC 57.1 18-12

Full list:

1 North Carolina ACC 4.5 25-4
1 Pittsburgh BE 3.5 26-4
1 Duke ACC 1.7 26-5
1 Connecticut BE 5.4 25-5
2 Oklahoma B12 10.3 25-6
2 Clemson ACC 9.3 25-5
2 Georgetown BE 10.3 22-7
3 Michigan St. B10 16.1 22-8
2 West Virginia BE 9.7 24-7
3 Arizona St. P10 18.0 24-6
3 Wake Forest ACC 16.7 23-6
3 Tennessee SEC 10.9 21-9
4 Gonzaga WCC 32.5 23-5
4 Missouri B12 18.8 24-6
4 Xavier A10 17.0 24-6
4 Memphis CUSA 21.1 24-7
5 Texas B12 21.4 21-9
5 Butler HOR 18.0 24-3
5 Illinois B10 22.8 23-8
5 Syracuse BE 22.6 22-8
6 Kansas B12 22.7 22-9
6 Villanova BE 28.5 22-9
6 California P10 31.6 23-8
6 UCLA P10 35.3 23-8
7 Brigham Young MWC 26.4 23-6
7 Washington P10 31.4 21-9
7 Marquette BE 31.6 22-9
7 Davidson SC 45.3 25-4
8 Dayton A10 32.8 25-6
8 Kentucky SEC 35.4 22-9
8 Utah MWC 25.0 21-8
8 Ohio St. B10 36.7 20-9
9 Baylor B12 25.9 21-8
9 Illinois St. MVC 38.5 25-4
9 Louisville BE 36.0 20-10
9 Florida SEC 39.7 23-8
10 Oklahoma St. B12 30.6 20-10
10 Miami FL ACC 40.3 18-10
10 Kansas St. B12 47.4 22-8
10 St. Mary's WCC 58.3 21-5
11 Purdue B10 41.2 21-10
11 San Diego St. MWC 42.0 19-8
11 Notre Dame BE 53.3 18-11
11 Utah St. WAC 43.2 25-4
12 Rhode Island A10 50.8 23-8
12 Stanford P10 58.7 20-9
12 Arkansas SEC 59.7 20-9
12 Boston College ACC 63.8 20-11
13 Siena MAAC 44.9 21-8
13 George Mason CAA 52.0 21-7
13 Miami OH MAC 52.3 19-9
13 Western Kentucky SB 85.5 18-10
14 Belmont ASUN 95.8 20-9
14 American PAT 96.5 18-10
14 Virginia Military Inst BS 98.0 19-6
14 Portland St. BSKY 98.0 19-7
15 Stephen F. Austin SLC 100.5 16-8
15 Vermont AE 104.5 21-8
15 North Dakota St. SUM 118.5 18-8
15 Cornell IVY 130.4 19-9
16 Pacific BW 131.3 17-9
16 Mount St. Mary's NEC 135.9 17-12
16 Jacksonville St. OVC 140.2 15-10
PI Morgan St. MEAC 153.3 17-12
PI Jackson St. SWAC 235.3 14-16