1. UCLA- The Bruins struggled mightily through the early part of their schedule. They have won 4 in a row and 6 of their last 7. They have also defeated Arizona twice.The Bruins are 22-7 and 12-4 in the PAC-12.Are you buying the Bruins as new and improved or are you selling based on the strength of their conference?

2. North Carolina-The Tarheels have won 5 in a row following a close loss at duke.They are now 21-8 and 11-5 in the ACC.Have they adjusted favorably to the smaller line-up and bench or are you selling based on the strength of their conference?

1. Buying. They will make the sweet 16.
2. Selling. ACC isn't strong this year with really only Miami and Duke being the standouts. Miami is the best team in the conference by far but other than that just garbage.

I'm buying both as potential Sweet 16 teams. Both took a while to gel but I think they're both playing their best ball as of late and are much more dangerous now than they were in January.

How is Miami by far the best team in the ACC? They have split head-to-head with Duke and the Hurricanes' win over the Blue Devils was without Ryan Kelly on the court. With Ryan Kelly on the court, the Blue Devils beat the Hurricanes and owned a 10-point lead at one point in the second half. Saturday's game tells me that Miami and Duke are pretty much on par when both teams are at full strength.

Also, with Ryan Kelly in the lineup, Duke is 16-0 with a 4-0 record against the AP Top 5 and additional wins over VCU, Minnesota and Temple.

With Ryan Kelly, Duke is right there with any top team in America.

It took an epic game at home for a white guy for Duke to only win by 3 points. Miami is a well balanced team that had an off game and still almost won. I'll take them 99.999 time out of 100 against Duke or any ACC school.

Are you insinuating that white guys are not elite basketball players? Four out of the last eight Wooden Award winners would probably strongly disagree.

reclegend22;1399831 wrote:Are you insinuating that white guys are not elite basketball players? Four out of the last eight Wooden Award winners would probably strongly disagree.

Not at all. I'm insinuating that Miami is the better team and lost only because some white guy got hot. The next time they play, Duke will bend over and take it like the trouncing in Miami. :laugh:

sleeper;1399836 wrote:Not at all. I'm insinuating that Miami is the better team and lost only because some white guy got hot. The next time they play, Duke will bend over and take it like the trouncing in Miami. :laugh:

You indicated in your post above that Miami had an off night. Well, so did three of Duke's biggest contributors on the year. Rasheed Sulaimon (normally 12 ppg) scored just 7; Seth Curry (normally 17 ppg) scored just 7; and Mason Plumlee (normally 17 ppg) scored just 12. That's 46 points per game that Duke only got 26 out of against Miami. So whatever difficulties Miami had from the field from Durand Scott and Reggie Johnson, it's a wash. Duke had an overall subpar game from its season leaders as well. Ryan Kelly did what good players do when their teammates are having subpar nights -- he picked up the slack.

Also, Kelly being on the floor completely changed the dynamics of the first matchup and created a tougher defensive matchup for Miami. The Hurricanes were forced to get out and guard Kelly on the perimeter, which allowed for open paths to the basket for Quinn Cook, something that was completely lacking for Duke in the first game in Coral Gables. And Cook took advantage of them, scoring 15 points. The take away from the game last Saturday night is that, with Kelly in the lineup, the first Duke-Miami game would have gone much differently.

Again, Duke had a 10-point lead at one point, and, if it weren't for some uncharacteristic shooting from the charity stripe and an onslaught of turnovers in the final minutes (also atypical of Duke), the Blue Devils could easily have won by 10 to 15 points.

reclegend22;1399900 wrote:You indicated in your post above that Miami had an off night. Well, so did three of Duke's biggest contributors on the year. Rasheed Sulaimon (normally 12 ppg) scored just 7; Seth Curry (normally 17 ppg) scored just 7; and Mason Plumlee (normally 17 ppg) scored just 12. That's 46 points per game that Duke only got 26 out of against Miami. So whatever difficulties Miami had from the field from Durand Scott and Reggie Johnson, it's a wash. Duke had an overall subpar game from its season leaders as well. Ryan Kelly did what good players do when their teammates are having subpar nights -- he picked up the slack.

Also, Kelly being on the floor completely changed the dynamics of the first matchup and created a tougher defensive matchup for Miami. The Hurricanes were forced to get out and guard Kelly on the perimeter, which allowed for open paths to the basket for Quinn Cook, something that was completely lacking for Duke in the first game in Coral Gables. And Cook took advantage of them, scoring 15 points. The take away from the game last Saturday night is that, with Kelly in the lineup, the first Duke-Miami game would have gone much differently.

Again, Duke had a 10-point lead at one point, and, if it weren't for some uncharacteristic shooting from the charity stripe and an onslaught of turnovers in the final minutes (also atypical of Duke), the Blue Devils could easily have won by 10 to 15 points.

That's a load of baloney. I can't wait until Duke gets CLOWNSTOMPED in the ACC tournament and then in the NCAA tournament. The Duke apologists can then start rooting for a different football team during the fall since they aren't true Duke fans; only bandwagon hoops fans. I'll be curious to see where all the Duke fans go once Coach K(the rat douchebag) retires; perhaps UNC or Kentucky? I'd love to hear all the stories about how they were once Duke fans but had a son who met an ex-Kentucky Lacrosse cheerleader who watched a few basketball games and have been fans every since. :laugh:

sleeper;1399904 wrote:That's a load of baloney. I can't wait until Duke gets CLOWNSTOMPED in the ACC tournament and then in the NCAA tournament.

Airtight argument.

UCLA doesn't have "it".

Carolina is a tough call. I haven't seen them enough since the lineup switch.

I think both teams are good enough to pull some upsets in the tourney, and even advance pretty far if they get hot. But neither will make it past the Elite 8, even if playing well.

Buy UNC. They have more talent and a better coach, imo and are starting to really play well.

UCLA is winning, but I wouldnt say playing all that well. Still inconsistent, and even though Arizona is a solid 2 wins, its nothing special despite the rankings. Ill take the consistent ACC wins over the Pac-12 wins, eben though UNC lost to the one "good" team they have played. They are dominating the teams they should be, as of late.