NCAA Tournament Playalong Thread

[SCUDSBROTHER]

This Nova got T-Boned. http://www.break.com/usercontent/200...ed-601010.html

[King Glorious]

I am going to change my stance from the beginning of the season and suggest that UNC actually has a chance to win the title. Jay Wright said it was their defense that killed them. Imagine that. So did Jeff Capel. They don't lock you up for 40 minutes a night but they have such great athletes all over the floor that they can tighten the screws for several minutes at a time and make life miserable for you. You can play them even for 32 minutes but there will be two four minute stretches where they will go on a 12-2 or 18-4 run and that's the game. Michigan St. got out and ran with UConn and had success. Izzo has to know that they can't beat UNC that way and will try to slow the game down but the problem will be just like the one Illinois had a couple of years ago. It's the natural instinct of the players to run and with a team dominated by perimeter players like Michigan St. is, they are going to be lulled into a track meet for a few minutes here and there and that's where they will lose the game. I think UNC wins by about 15.

[Crown@club]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I am going to change my stance from the beginning of the season and suggest that UNC actually has a chance to win the title. Jay Wright said it was their defense that killed them. Imagine that. So did Jeff Capel. They don't lock you up for 40 minutes a night but they have such great athletes all over the floor that they can tighten the screws for several minutes at a time and make life miserable for you. You can play them even for 32 minutes but there will be two four minute stretches where they will go on a 12-2 or 18-4 run and that's the game. Michigan St. got out and ran with UConn and had success. Izzo has to know that they can't beat UNC that way and will try to slow the game down but the problem will be just like the one Illinois had a couple of years ago. It's the natural instinct of the players to run and with a team dominated by perimeter players like Michigan St. is, they are going to be lulled into a track meet for a few minutes here and there and that's where they will lose the game. I think UNC wins by about 15.

Ask Louisville how that worked.

[SniperSB23]

Was just looking at Michigan State guys from the Izzo era and he's had exactly three players that went on to average 10 PPG any season in the NBA. Mo Peterson was there all four (actually five) years but Richardson was only there two (and averaged 5 PPG in his first) and Zach Randolph was only there for one season. Has any coach had such a level of success in the past 15 years with less NBA talent? Anyone even close?

[gales0678]

scott - give me a winner tonight

i say carolina wins and covers

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by gales0678

scott - give me a winner tonight

i say carolina wins and covers

That is the most likely scenario in my mind, they are just too good and Michigan State can't score with them when Lawson is healthy. If I do make a play it will be to parlay Michigan State on the moneyline with the under. There is no way in hell that Michigan State can win in a high scoring game. Even with that I'd still need at least +1000 on the parlay to make the bet (which I suspect I can probably get).

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

That is the most likely scenario in my mind, they are just too good and Michigan State can't score with them when Lawson is healthy. If I do make a play it will be to parlay Michigan State on the moneyline with the under. There is no way in hell that Michigan State can win in a high scoring game. Even with that I'd still need at least +1000 on the parlay to make the bet (which I suspect I can probably get).

Not even close and I'm pretty shocked. Only +645 for Michigan State and the Under. I'm going the opposite and throwing the money on Carolina to cover and the over, that +260 seems much better value to me. Seems like the bettors are trying to outsmart themselves tonight.

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Was just looking at Michigan State guys from the Izzo era and he's had exactly three players that went on to average 10 PPG any season in the NBA. Mo Peterson was there all four (actually five) years but Richardson was only there two (and averaged 5 PPG in his first) and Zach Randolph was only there for one season. Has any coach had such a level of success in the past 15 years with less NBA talent? Anyone even close?

Coach K has had an extraordinary number of NBA failures.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Coach K has had an extraordinary number of NBA failures.

I was just about to type that same thing. I know part of the reason though. He doesn't recruit NBA players. He recruits good high school players that he thinks will form a good college team but not necessarily the top high school players that are great pro prospects. Kobe Bryant and LeBron James being the big exceptions but I remember when Baron Davis was available and Coach didn't want him because he didn't think he was a good fit. Some coaches, Calipari and Bobby Cremins, for instance, will look specifically to get a superstar player and work around him and let that player take them as far as he can for as long as he can before moving on. I look at the all-Americans that Duke has coming in next year and I don't think either of them are close to being pro prospects.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Coach K has had an extraordinary number of NBA failures.

Only counting players that didn't enter the NBA until 1995 since that is when Izzo started you have all of the following that have averaged 10+ PPG in a season in the NBA:

Shane Battier
Carlos Boozer
Elton Brand
Chris Duhon
Mike Dunleavy
Grant Hill
Corey Maggette
Luol Deng

That's a lot more NBA talent than what Izzo has had to work with and that doesn't even include Jay Williams who averaged 9.5 as a rookie before the accident ruined his career.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Only counting players that didn't enter the NBA until 1995 since that is when Izzo started you have all of the following that have averaged 10+ PPG in a season in the NBA:

Shane Battier
Carlos Boozer
Elton Brand
Chris Duhon
Mike Dunleavy
Grant Hill
Corey Maggette
Luol Deng

That's a lot more NBA talent than what Izzo has had to work with and that doesn't even include Jay Williams who averaged 9.5 as a rookie before the accident ruined his career.

No doubt that Duke has had more NBA level players but I think the point was that based on their expectations in the NBA compared to how much success the program has had, they haven't reached it. A few players here and there but not the great success people have expected. Personally, I believe that the expectations have been too high and the Duke players have done pretty well for themselves in the NBA.

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Only counting players that didn't enter the NBA until 1995 since that is when Izzo started you have all of the following that have averaged 10+ PPG in a season in the NBA:

Shane Battier
Carlos Boozer
Elton Brand
Chris Duhon
Mike Dunleavy
Grant Hill
Corey Maggette
Luol Deng

That's a lot more NBA talent than what Izzo has had to work with and that doesn't even include Jay Williams who averaged 9.5 as a rookie before the accident ruined his career.

Now give the failures.
Start with the superstar Laettner. The Spurs drafted Johnny Dawkins and Gene Banks. They were big disappointments. The list is long... I dont want to go through them all. Many highly reguarded going into the draft. The guys you put up are hardly superstars.

I will give you that Hill and Brand could be remembered as very good players but because they are so injury prone. They are hardly superstars.
Maggette would be the anti-Duke type.
Putting Dunleavy up there... sort of embarassing.
Deng... has just not played long enough to make any statement.

Boozer has been a nice the nice surprise imo.
Sorry thats a very short list for a team that is tops in college
basketball. Which I must give K credit for. He does a good
job with the kids he gets.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Only counting players that didn't enter the NBA until 1995 since that is when Izzo started you have all of the following that have averaged 10+ PPG in a season in the NBA:

Shane Battier
Carlos Boozer
Elton Brand
Chris Duhon
Mike Dunleavy
Grant Hill
Corey Maggette
Luol Deng

That's a lot more NBA talent than what Izzo has had to work with and that doesn't even include Jay Williams who averaged 9.5 as a rookie before the accident ruined his career.

Ive always hated Duke, but Jay Williams was a stud and it was sad to see his career end. He had unlimited potential.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Was just looking at Michigan State guys from the Izzo era and he's had exactly three players that went on to average 10 PPG any season in the NBA. Mo Peterson was there all four (actually five) years but Richardson was only there two (and averaged 5 PPG in his first) and Zach Randolph was only there for one season. Has any coach had such a level of success in the past 15 years with less NBA talent? Anyone even close?

The tough part of this is that over the last 15 years, few have had as much success as Izzo has...PERIOD.

You did forget about Charlie Bell who averaged double figures for Milwaukee at least one season. I get your point though.

I dont think its ENTIRELY fair to judge the level of talent a coach recruits by how many guys he has that end up being successful in the NBA. Tom Izzo has exactly half of the last ten Michigan Mr. Basketball award winners. He has had 8 mcdonalds all americans. Sounds to me like he is getting some players.

NBA talent and College talent are two different things. There are players who's games are extremely effective at the college level but arent effective at the next level (Cleaves!). Look at Hansborough. Is he not an extremely successful college player? He has been one of the top 10 players in college basketball for the last four years.

Look at the last North Carolina team to win the championship before this one. Felton is the only one that looks like he will have a decent NBA career. May, Mccants, et al were uber talents in college and coming out of high school. Can we look back and say that Roy Williams did a great job with little talent that year?

Izzo has had an abundant amount of college level talent and has done a masterful job with it. The accomplishments of those players at the next level, or lack thereof, is no reflection of how good they were while at State.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

The tough part of this is that over the last 15 years, few have had as much success as Izzo has...PERIOD.

You did forget about Charlie Bell who averaged double figures for Milwaukee at least one season. I get your point though.

I dont think its ENTIRELY fair to judge the level of talent a coach recruits by how many guys he has that end up being successful in the NBA. Tom Izzo has exactly half of the last ten Michigan Mr. Basketball award winners. He has had 8 mcdonalds all americans. Sounds to me like he is getting some players.

NBA talent and College talent are two different things. There are players who's games are extremely effective at the college level but arent effective at the next level (Cleaves!). Look at Hansborough. Is he not an extremely successful college player? He has been one of the top 10 players in college basketball for the last four years.

Look at the last North Carolina team to win the championship before this one. Felton is the only one that looks like he will have a decent NBA career. May, Mccants, et al were uber talents in college and coming out of high school. Can we look back and say that Roy Williams did a great job with little talent that year?

Izzo has had an abundant amount of college level talent and has done a masterful job with it. The accomplishments of those players at the next level, or lack thereof, is no reflection of how good they were while at State.

remmeber that powerful '85 gtown team - does that make JT a bad coach because only Pat Ewing made it big time on the next level, wingate and reggie williams were busts and the other guard didn't even make the pros after 1 yr

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by gales0678

remmeber that powerful '85 gtown team - does that make JT a bad coach because only Pat Ewing made it big time on the next level, wingate and reggie williams were busts and the other guard didn't even make the pros after 1 yr

I think Snipe was saying that makes izzo a good coach because he wins with little talent. I dont disagree (double negative-bad,bad,bad) that he is a good coach. He's a wonderful coach. I just scoff at the idea that he does it with not a lot of talent.

Your example is an excellent one. Look at that georgetown team. They were amazing. They pressed people out of existence. Any of those players could have started for virtually any team in the country. So they didnt do well in the pros? Doesnt matter.

I use to say that the 87 Indiana hoosier team was a testament to how great a coach Bob Knight was. They were the only NCAA champ that i recall that won a title with no 1st round draft picks (present or future) on the team. Think about that. But on further review, they had excellent college talent. Steve Alford was a 4 year all american, olympian and one of the best players ever to come out of the state of indiana. Daryl Thomas was a wonderful college player. Ricky Calloway was a good college player. There was plenty of talent on that team. Its just that none of that talent translated into pro talent.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Crown@club

Ask Louisville how that worked.

Louisville is NOT UNC. They don't have the overall talent that the Heels do.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Louisville is NOT UNC. They don't have the overall talent that the Heels do.

agree king - louisville can't shoot

[horseofcourse]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I am going to change my stance from the beginning of the season and suggest that UNC actually has a chance to win the title. Jay Wright said it was their defense that killed them. Imagine that. So did Jeff Capel. They don't lock you up for 40 minutes a night but they have such great athletes all over the floor that they can tighten the screws for several minutes at a time and make life miserable for you. You can play them even for 32 minutes but there will be two four minute stretches where they will go on a 12-2 or 18-4 run and that's the game. Michigan St. got out and ran with UConn and had success. Izzo has to know that they can't beat UNC that way and will try to slow the game down but the problem will be just like the one Illinois had a couple of years ago. It's the natural instinct of the players to run and with a team dominated by perimeter players like Michigan St. is, they are going to be lulled into a track meet for a few minutes here and there and that's where they will lose the game. I think UNC wins by about 15.

you suck...two points off.

[King Glorious]

The game went exactly like I thought it would. MSU was playing at a pace that's too fast for them. That's what UNC does. They score so fast and press the issue that it lulls you into a false sense of thinking that this is how you should be playing too. They'll give you some open shots that you'll take early and that in turn gets them going at the pace they want. You could see MSU was playing way too fast early and turning the ball over way too much. They were taking a ton of jump shots. UNC got it from all over. The killed them inside and Ellington was big from outside. In the first few minutes of the game, all five UNC starters had scored. This was like a carbon copy of the Illinois game.