So Valentine won't make it in the pros or won't even get the chance?

We never said that. He will probably be a top 15-20 pick. I've seen one mock that has him as high as 11th. The argument wasn't really ever Denzel, but the rest of the roster. Costello will get a look and Deyonta Davis in a few years. The rest of the players are 3-star or low 4-star recruits who won't ever play professionally.

...and his argument still doesn't address the point. "The team is great this, they are a title contender that, look how they are playing...etc." Nowhere in any of that does it change the fact that there are many, many more talented teams.

More talented teams, not in the NCAA's.

UCLA
Florida State
LSU
Ohio State
Florida
Georgetown
Louisville
UNLV

Notice a theme with most of these teams? Awful coaches or coaches who seem to get less than what their talent level indicates.

Azubuike24;1786426 wrote:We never said that. He will probably be a top 15-20 pick. I've seen one mock that has him as high as 11th. The argument wasn't really ever Denzel, but the rest of the roster. Costello will get a look and Deyonta Davis in a few years. The rest of the players are 3-star or low 4-star recruits who won't ever play professionally.

I never meant it that way. I really don't know myself and was just asking.

A little bracket help...how good is Oregon? High chance at elite 8?

Purdue/Iowa St...winner beat UVA? Midwest is full of 50/50 picks to me.

Oregon is really good. But they also have off nights, like losing to Stanford or by 20 to Cal. I see them meeting Baylor in the Sweet 16.

Ironman92;1786434 wrote:A little bracket help...how good is Oregon? High chance at elite 8?

Purdue/Iowa St...winner beat UVA? Midwest is full of 50/50 picks to me.

I could see Purdue beating UVA just because of style of play. But fuck ISU they can go to hell.

ISU will lose to Yale

Iliketurtles;1786440 wrote:I could see Purdue beating UVA just because of style of play. But fuck ISU they can go to hell.

Personal hate or did they screw someone over or something? Iowa St seems like that team I pick incorrectly every year. I tend to struggle a bit with middle Big 12 and Pac 12 teams

Ironman92;1786444 wrote:Personal hate or did they screw someone over or something? Iowa St seems like that team I pick incorrectly every year. I tend to struggle a bit with middle Big 12 and Pac 12 teams

I think he had 3 of their players in the pick em last year

SportsAndLady;1786443 wrote:ISU will lose to Yale

Heh?

Ironman92;1786444 wrote:Personal hate or did they screw someone over or something? Iowa St seems like that team I pick incorrectly every year. I tend to struggle a bit with middle Big 12 and Pac 12 teams

I've never really been a fan of them but last year I went all in on them picked them to go to the finals in all my brackets and had 3 of there guys in our tournament player pickem.

Ironman92;1786446 wrote:Heh?

Damnit meant Iona.

I do have Yale winning first round though lol

Azubuike24;1786431 wrote:...and his argument still doesn't address the point. "The team is great this, they are a title contender that, look how they are playing...etc." Nowhere in any of that does it change the fact that there are many, many more talented teams.

More talented teams, not in the NCAA's.

UCLA
Florida State
LSU
Ohio State
Florida
Georgetown
Louisville
UNLV

Notice a theme with most of these teams? Awful coaches or coaches who seem to get less than what their talent level indicates.

Thats just untrue. Haha no way can you tell me these teams are more talented than Michigan State I don't care what recruiting services say

Ah, Classy simply ignoring how MSU (much like Wisconsin last year) is anchored by a veteran senior class and that teams with strong senior classes at the DI level are that way because said seniors aren't considered highly-regarded NBA prospects.

Or that some coaches of highly-regarded programs that aren't regularly grabbing elite one-and-done prospects tend to have a really strong system in place and tend to grab recruits who are strong fits for said system and often develop those players over the course of 3-4 years. If anyone actually looks at Valentine's career with MSU, he went from 5 points, 4 rebs and 2.5 assists in 21 minutes as a freshman (ie: not on the level of a lot of recent OSU incoming freshmen over Matta's tenure) to 8/6/4 in 29.5 as a sophomore, 14.5/6/4 in 33 as a junior and 19/7.5/7.5 in 33 this year. Costello also made leaps from year to year from role player to good player and, while only there two years, Forbes had much better stats this year than last.

Izzo doesn't win because of great talent; he wins because he has a great system, gets guys who both fit his system and will be around for most or all of their college eligibility and then develops those players to be great college players that may or may not have an actual NBA future. Meanwhile, a lot of teams with superior talent either don't have the coaching or system OR those players don't develop in the college game because they're counting the minutes until they can enter the NBA draft. It's really, really simple.

Heretic;1786508 wrote:
Izzo doesn't win because of great talent; he wins because he has a great system, gets guys who both fit his system and will be around for most or all of their college eligibility and then develops those players to be great college players that may or may not have an actual NBA future. Meanwhile, a lot of teams with superior talent either don't have the coaching or system OR those players don't develop in the college game because they're counting the minutes until they can enter the NBA draft. It's really, really simple.

reps

Classyposter58;1786494 wrote:Thats just untrue. Haha no way can you tell me these teams are more talented than Michigan State I don't care what recruiting services say

It's a tireless argument. You're simply turning "talent" into a subjective argument because of what you see with your eyes. I'm actually using expert recruiting rankings and mock drafts, while not exact, are at least tangible sources to argue from.

Do I need to lay out composite recruiting rankings from all those teams vs MSU to show you you're wrong?

Iliketurtles;1786447 wrote:I've never really been a fan of them but last year I went all in on them picked them to go to the finals in all my brackets and had 3 of there guys in our tournament player pickem.

Yeah...that's the tone I was guessing. They torched me last year as well. In my big money one with hundreds of entries I had them all the way lol.

Look at how many guys he puts into the NBA. Not many. 6 current and 3 are on rookie contracts. Outside of the championship team in 02, 3 guys have played more than 164 games (2 seasons) in the NBA.

Laley23;1786569 wrote:Look at how many guys he puts into the NBA. Not many. 6 current and 3 are on rookie contracts. Outside of the championship team in 02, 3 guys have played more than 164 games (2 seasons) in the NBA.

Would you say it's similar to old school Duke that rarely produced an NBA guy that actually played?...though there wasn't any 1 and done back at that point.

Heretic;1786508 wrote:Ah, Classy simply ignoring how MSU (much like Wisconsin last year) is anchored by a veteran senior class and that teams with strong senior classes at the DI level are that way because said seniors aren't considered highly-regarded NBA prospects.

Or that some coaches of highly-regarded programs that aren't regularly grabbing elite one-and-done prospects tend to have a really strong system in place and tend to grab recruits who are strong fits for said system and often develop those players over the course of 3-4 years. If anyone actually looks at Valentine's career with MSU, he went from 5 points, 4 rebs and 2.5 assists in 21 minutes as a freshman (ie: not on the level of a lot of recent OSU incoming freshmen over Matta's tenure) to 8/6/4 in 29.5 as a sophomore, 14.5/6/4 in 33 as a junior and 19/7.5/7.5 in 33 this year. Costello also made leaps from year to year from role player to good player and, while only there two years, Forbes had much better stats this year than last.

Izzo doesn't win because of great talent; he wins because he has a great system, gets guys who both fit his system and will be around for most or all of their college eligibility and then develops those players to be great college players that may or may not have an actual NBA future. Meanwhile, a lot of teams with superior talent either don't have the coaching or system OR those players don't develop in the college game because they're counting the minutes until they can enter the NBA draft. It's really, really simple.

I'm not ignoring it or saying you're wrong. Im saying that Laley and Azu were being absolutely asinine by saying stuff like this

Azubuike24;1777329 wrote:You clearly don't follow college basketball if you don't think talent is the issue.

MSU doesn't have even top 30 talent in the sport. What they have is a phenomenal coach, a Senior leader who is extremely versatile and experience.

I'm not saying they're the most talented players in the nation but it's a damn good group with damn good players



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Upsets I went with:
South Dakota State over Maryland
UNC Wilmington over Duke
Gonzaga over Seton Hall

Final four: Kansas, Oklahoma, UNC, MSU
Kansas over MSU in the final

NCAA experience with current players and NCAA tournament minutes played.

Was not expecting to see Dayton at 800+ minutes. Pretty interesting stuff though.

Iliketurtles;1786727 wrote:Was not expecting to see Dayton at 800+ minutes. Pretty interesting stuff though.

I could see Dayton making a run, they will be a very tough match up for Michigan st in the second round.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk