College Basketball 2004-2005

Printable View

11-02-2004, 08:14 PM
Dingo Jellybean

College Basketball 2004-2005

I know there aren't many college b-ball fans here, but this is just a season long topic made for college b-ball discussion.

The coaches poll currently has Kansas #1. I agree with that, what I don't agree with is Maryland's ranking as #16. I have them at #10, since they only lost one starter in Jamar Smith. Anyways, here's my Top 25:

1-T. Kansas
1.-T Wakeforest
1.-T North Carolina
4. Georgia Tech
5. UConn
6. Syracuse
7. Arizona
8. Kentucky
9. Michigan State
10. Maryland
11. Florida
12. Oklahoma State
13. Stanford
14. N.C. State
15. Gonzaga
16. St.Joseph's
17. Duke
18. Illinois
19. Louisville
20. Tennesee
21. Oklahoma
22. Texas
23. Texas Tech
24. Miss State
25. Cincinnati

ACC Order:

Wakeforest
North Carolina
Maryland
Georgia Tech
Duke
N.C. State
Virginia
Clemson
Florida State
Virginia Tech
Miami

Obviously being a Maryland student I'm picking Maryland to win the title this year...with my heart. My head says Roy Williams will win it. They have all their starters back, the best starting 5 in the nation with a ton of NBA prospects.

My Final Four looks like this:

Maryland, North Carolina, Arizona, Michigan State

St. Joe's should win the A-10 again, Gonzaga the WCC, Wakeforest the ACC, Arizona the Pac-10, Michigan State the Big 10, Oklahoma State the Big 12, Kentucky the SEC, Louisville the CUSA, Syracuse the Big East...and some other conferences I don't care to talk about.

Best conference: ACC*
Most Conference bids: ACC-SEC - tie, with 7 teams each.
Least bids from major conference: Pac-10, I only see 3 teams going.
Weakest major conference: Pac-10
Dark Horse: Memphis
Most Overated: Florida (isn't this perennial?)

*Don't even dispute that, you ACC-haters know it. Discuss, bitches.
11-04-2004, 06:09 AM
darkchrono

How did Duke get so low. They are generally always a top 5 team no matter how many players they lose.
11-04-2004, 06:11 AM
Nino Brown

I'm a North Carolina and Maryland fan, so I'm rooting for them.

But as long as Duke loses, I'll be happy.
11-04-2004, 07:17 PM
Dingo Jellybean

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkchrono

How did Duke get so low. They are generally always a top 5 team no matter how many players they lose.

A lot of pollsters felt that losing Luol Deng hurt a lot...as well as not getting Shaun Livingston. They also lost critical Chris Duhon. If Duke had Deng and Livingston, they would have been #1 probably. But that's the poison you take by investing on super-talented HS players. You might get them for 1 year or not at all...but with so-so HS players you can develop them in 4 years. That's why Duke keeps losing players. Look at Michigan State and Arizona...those 2 schools always stockpile on talent, but end up holding onto them for 1 or 2 years, leaving Izzo and Olson in a scramble for other talents.

At Maryland and Kansas, talent is generally not like what Duke or North Carolina gets, but it's close. Yet not too close to the point where the players are so good that they'll jump. Gary Williams learned his mistake from acquiring Joe Smith and Steve Francis. I'm glad he's picking solid players instead of athletic players.
11-04-2004, 08:44 PM
darkchrono

that is why I prefer college football over college basketball. Players stick around longer. If a player leaves early it will generally only be after his junior year. And you will usually only get a handful of players or so a decade who leaves after their sophomore year.

In basketball you have players leaving after their freshman and sophomore years all the time.
11-04-2004, 09:51 PM
Dingo Jellybean

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkchrono

that is why I prefer college football over college basketball. Players stick around longer. If a player leaves early it will generally only be after his junior year. And you will usually only get a handful of players or so a decade who leaves after their sophomore year.

In basketball you have players leaving after their freshman and sophomore years all the time.

On the outside, it seems like players only stay for 1 or 2 years. But actually if you took 20 players from around the nation...only 1 or 2 of them jump early. It's the really talented players that leave college early.

In college football, they're pretty much forced to stay 3 years...a luxury college b-ball doesn't have. The only sophmores that leave football are those who are 20 years old. The NFL won't let anyone in their draft unless they've played 3 years of college football or they're 20 years old. The only requirement for all the other 3 major sports is that you just have to graduate high school.
11-05-2004, 03:04 AM
Nino Brown

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkchrono

that is why I prefer college football over college basketball. Players stick around longer. If a player leaves early it will generally only be after his junior year. And you will usually only get a handful of players or so a decade who leaves after their sophomore year.

In basketball you have players leaving after their freshman and sophomore years all the time.

The NFL also has rules to stop players from entering at such an early age.

Look at Mike Williams from USC. He tried to enter the NFL Draft after his freshman year and ended up losing his amateur status.

College football players are staying longer because they have to.*

*This is just a generalization. Obviously this isn't the case with all college football players. Many of them stay for 4 years because they want to.
11-21-2004, 04:15 AM
Dingo Jellybean

Man, it's tough to watch North Carolina lately.

Just as you think they're a Top 5 team, they lay an egg to Santa Clara. While the likes of Duke, Maryland, Kansas, Michigan St, Wakeforest, and even Florida are blowing out Cupcakes, UNC just wilts. They have 7 games in 16 days, which is A LOT in college basketball.

Maybe UNC was overated after all...I know they have been the past 3 years. I'm still sticking with them as my national champ...but man, that is an ugly loss. I hope they don't turn out to be the 2002-2003 Alabama Crimson Tide, where they went #1 but fell out of the rankings in just 4 weeks and I don't recall them making the NCAA tournament that year.
11-21-2004, 07:51 AM
eestlinc

Once again Cincinnati will need to work hard to claim it's 9th and final CUSA title. Still, a deep tourney run is a much bigger need. Jason Maxiell should be ready to dominate and Eric Hicks could be a solid center. Now can Armein Kirkland and James White step up?
11-21-2004, 10:19 PM
Kirobaito

I don't get how UNC can be so bad, though I do love it.

I mean, Raymond Felton is a solid PG. Many say Rashad McCants is the best player in the country. With Jawad Williams and Sean May on top of that, they should very good.

I hate Shaun Livingston. I just hate the crap outta the guy. *kills*
11-21-2004, 10:34 PM
eestlinc

coaching.
11-21-2004, 10:36 PM
Kirobaito

Roy Williams
11-21-2004, 10:54 PM
eestlinc

well he hasn't done such a good job, now has he?
11-21-2004, 10:56 PM
Dingo Jellybean

Yeah, but you can't fault him for it. You look at the past 5 years at UNC, the basketball program hasn't really made a dent in the NCAAs. It might of had a couple of #1 rankings and such, but it's not the recruiting...that's for sure. It's the system. Bill Guthridge was a great coach but a poor recruiter. He went to 2 Final Fours in 3 years, then Matt Doherty came in...great recruiter, but an average coach. Roy Williams...great coach and recruiter. He had tremendous success at Kansas. But now when you look at UNC, I can't even explain it.
11-21-2004, 11:14 PM
eestlinc

Why can't you fault Roy Williams for his very talented team underperforming?
11-21-2004, 11:32 PM
Dingo Jellybean

Quote:

Originally Posted by eestlinc

Why can't you fault Roy Williams for his very talented team underperforming?

Because you can't fault him for taking over players who are use to Doherty's play it safe system. Roy Williams teams have always been known as risk it all offensive teams. It costs him some games, but it works great if you have a lot of talent...which he does. If Roy Williams had these players from the start, you'd see a different outcome.
11-22-2004, 03:20 AM
eestlinc

so then why don't you get how UNC can be so bad?
11-22-2004, 06:43 AM
Dingo Jellybean

Quote:

Originally Posted by eestlinc

so then why don't you get how UNC can be so bad?

Because they have more talent, both coaching and player, to be able to lose to Santa Clara.
11-23-2004, 12:20 AM
eestlinc

well, they must not have tried very hard. Maybe Roy Williams knew they would lose but didn't coach them so hard in hopes the loss would wake the team up? Or maybe he just didn't motivate them very well. Or maybe they aren't as talented as we think.

Or maybe Santa Clara is a lot better than we are giving them credit for being.
11-23-2004, 12:48 AM
Dingo Jellybean

Quote:

Originally Posted by eestlinc

well, they must not have tried very hard. Maybe Roy Williams knew they would lose but didn't coach them so hard in hopes the loss would wake the team up? Or maybe he just didn't motivate them very well. Or maybe they aren't as talented as we think.

Or maybe Santa Clara is a lot better than we are giving them credit for being.

If Santa Clara goes to the NCAAs, I'll...well, eh. I just know they won't.

But Wakeforest jumped Kansas for the #1 spot. First time in school history. That's 6 ACC teams now. Florida State, Clemson, and Maryland are the only original ACC schools never to have a #1 ranking. However, Maryland's 23 #2 rankings are the most of any school in the nation without a #1 ranking.

But trust me, UNC is very talented...they're talented every year. Even the 8-20 year. I look for Maryland to finish 3rd behind Wakeforest and UNC for the league regular season title. Either Wake or N.C. State will grab the ACC Postseason Tournament title.
11-23-2004, 01:24 AM
muchacho

go UCONN!