Iowa State and Wisconsin for sure.

All are better in some ways than Rupp Arena.

If UK plays their best the only team I think would have a shot is Duke. Mainly because they could still score even if UK's D was at its best.

 

If UK played average to good. I would Iowa state Arizona Wisconsin and Virginia .

 

But if UK plays like they did for a stretch this year a lot of team could beat them.

 

Duke has the formula though with an elite inside presence and multiple shooters. But I also believe UK's guards would live in the paint because Duke's guards couldn't check them. The real question is would Coach K pull out that zone.

If Kentucky doesn't play hard and overlooks any opponent on their sched they can be beat.

Gonzaga is a laugh; I think the other three could. IMO, Wisconsin and Virginia would have the best chances.

Virginia, Duke, and Wisconsin are the only teams that would have a chance if UK played a good game. Personally I think Gonzaga is extremely overrated, but it won't show for a while. As far as teams that could beat UK on an off night, there are several.

 

I could see UK losing to an unranked team before any of the above. The cats seem to come out and play focused against the top teams.

 

IMO, it would take a team shooting lights out from 3 to beat this UK team. Even then, UK would have to have a poor offensive game.

 

See, we can agree sometimes!

Virginia,Wisconsin,Iowa State and Gonzaga seem to be the popular choices among the Gameday crowd. Do you agree? Has anyone seen several games of these teams? I haven't watched one game of any of those 4.

 

Have seen Iowa State quite a bit since I'm now living in Big XII country. I definitely think that they could beat us. Can be inconsistent (see yesterday's loss to Texas Tech), but they have a lot of talent. Most of their kids are transfers, many of which have been cast-offs from other programs, but their coach, Fred Hoiberg is a former NBA front office guy who gets the most out of them.

 

They've just recently got another kid eligible who plays on the interior and brings some rebounding and shot blocking that they'd been lacking before.

 

Biggest obstacle for Iowa State to overcome, in my opinion, would be that they are primarily a "man" team, which I don't really think plays into the other team's favor if we're talking best chance to beat us in a series of games. In a one-off though, I could definitely see them out-scoring us, especially if they were hot and we weren't.

Have seen Iowa State quite a bit since I'm now living in Big XII country. I definitely think that they could beat us. Can be inconsistent (see yesterday's loss to Texas Tech), but they have a lot of talent. Most of their kids are transfers, many of which have been cast-offs from other programs, but their coach, Fred Hoiberg is a former NBA front office guy who gets the most out of them.

 

They've just recently got another kid eligible who plays on the interior and brings some rebounding and shot blocking that they'd been lacking before.

 

Biggest obstacle for Iowa State to overcome, in my opinion, would be that they are primarily a "man" team, which I don't really think plays into the other team's favor if we're talking best chance to beat us in a series of games. In a one-off though, I could definitely see them out-scoring us, especially if they were hot and we weren't.

 

I go back and forth on Iowa State, because they do have the talent but they are inconsistent. As far as them being a M-2-M team, I would think Hoiberg would have the sense to adjust accordingly and play zone. I mean, Duke never plays zone but they zoned the hell out of Louisville all game, which was a very wise choice.

If Kentucky doesn't play hard and overlooks any opponent on their sched they can be beat.

 

Agree with this. Somehow I don't think an "obvious" team like Duke or Virginia would beat UK. I think if they lose, it will be to an "under the radar" team that they may overlook.

Don't know what team that is, but I think UK is vulnerable only if they overlook someone.

They wouldn't overlook Duke IMO.

He is, as a shooter, but he's Charmin soft. The same could be said about the rest of Gonzaga's team. I wouldn't be surprised if they drop a game in conference to a determined team while having a bad night shooting. But even if they don't lose in conference, they will be the first #1 seed out.

 

Edit: For the record I like Wiltjer, wish he was still at UK. But imo, he is a good go to guy in spurts, a zone buster. You can't give him a lot of minutes like Cal did in the NIT year though because he gets abused on defense. He could come out and go 5-5 from three, but that doesn't help if you give up 16 points in free throws and layups.

 

Seems to be doing very well with Gonzaga and averaging 16 points per game. Which i could be wrong but I think alot of his points this year are coming from inside the three line. We get so caught up now in having freshman come in right away and do great. That now if a freshman comes in and not great right away, we forget that people can actually get better over time. Shoot Josh Harrelson was exactly what you just describes Wiltjer as being until his senior year. WCS if you look back to his freshman year and even during parts of last year people were saying he is athletic but he is terrible. However now look at him, he is out only non McDonald's all american who plays and arguably has a case to be player of the year in college basketball.

 

To many people make quick assumptions of people. Wiltjers last year at UK was with a team that wasn't as talented and had no chemistry. It was his first year at UK playing lots of minutes. Now he had a full season to work on his game since he transferred and had to sit out. What we remember of him at UK doesn't mean that is still him.

 

See, we can agree sometimes!

 

 

We can agree to agree.

 

Seems to be doing very well with Gonzaga and averaging 16 points per game. Which i could be wrong but I think alot of his points this year are coming from inside the three line. We get so caught up now in having freshman come in right away and do great. That now if a freshman comes in and not great right away, we forget that people can actually get better over time. Shoot Josh Harrelson was exactly what you just describes Wiltjer as being until his senior year. WCS if you look back to his freshman year and even during parts of last year people were saying he is athletic but he is terrible. However now look at him, he is out only non McDonald's all american who plays and arguably has a case to be player of the year in college basketball.

 

To many people make quick assumptions of people. Wiltjers last year at UK was with a team that wasn't as talented and had no chemistry. It was his first year at UK playing lots of minutes. Now he had a full season to work on his game since he transferred and had to sit out. What we remember of him at UK doesn't mean that is still him.

 

 

I'm not saying he's a bad player by any means, I wish he were still at Kentucky. IMO, he would have had a similar role on this UK team as he had on the 2012 team. With Gonzaga being on tv a lot I've seen several of their games, he looks like the same player to me, again, I'm not saying that's a bad thing. His issue is his athleticism and unfortunately that's something you can't teach, you either have it or you don't.

Most Likely To Beat UK in a One-and-Out:

 

Cliff's Notes:

 

1. Notre Dame

2. Louisville

3. Iowa State

4. Duke

5. Wisconsin

6. Wichita State

7. Virginia

8. Kansas

9. Arizona

 

 

 

#1. Notre Dame:

 

This might be a head scratcher to some, but hear me out. They have the highest assist-to-turnover ratio in the nation, which is indicative of how well they pass, shoot, and protect the basketball. As a team, they've shot 40% from 3 on the season and average 16 assists per game. They have good enough size at the guard and wing spots. I really like Jerian Grant's game, and at 6'5 with crazy athleticism, he's someone that we just couldn't afford to put Ulis on, which isn’t a killer considering that they play 4 guards and a forward, one of which is 6’1 Demetrius Jackson. A Ulis/Jackson matchup could be concerning given that he’s their second leading scorer and a guy who makes them go. Quite frankly, I don’t know if Ulis, as pesky of a defender as he is, is really someone you’d ideally have chasing him, though it’s probably what it’s going to come to if he’s in. Even if that matchup goes well, there’s still going to be a huge clash in styles when the two try to match up. Our bigs would have to chase guys out on the floor because ND likes to spread it and has range at every position. On the flip side, they have to match up with us too, and are probably going to give up lots of rebounds and points in the paint, but that might not be as great of an advantage as you’d think given the number of long rebounds that can accompany lots of deep looks. Kentucky can't pound them on the defensive glass if they aren't missing shots. Think of Notre Dame as a much more talented Ole Miss team. It's an awkward matchup and two contrasting styles in lots of respects, and while it would take a hot-shooting night, they can play and win the three-point lottery. That alone makes them someone that I wouldn't be thrilled to see us drawing opposite of.

 

 

#2. Louisvillle:

 

Probably gave Kentucky the best game of the season so far in terms of being able to do what they did against us successfully in the first meeting again in a rematch. I know Ole Miss and Texas A&M played us closer, but I don’t see Ole Miss shooting such a ridiculous percentage from three in a rematch. Yes, UK’s defense had a lot to do with it, but they were only 26% from the floor, 21% from 3, and 70% from the line against us. Harrell didn’t have a great game and was coming back from a two game suspension. Kentucky also outscored Louisville in points off turnovers, despite the Cat's committing 18 to the Cards' 9. While their ability to turn us over was offset by the Cats killing them on the glass, I sincerely doubt it'd be possible to hold them to only 1 assist, which was 11 shy of their per game average. To understand what an anomaly that was, one assist is the lowest total for any ranked team in the past 19 years and was Louisville's lowest of the shot clock era. Kind of an unusual game, and again, UK's defense definitely had something to do with Louisville's statistical output, but I'll also say that I wouldn't really relish meeting them in a rematch, especially knowing that they were capable of forcing so many turnovers.

 

 

#3. Iowa State:

 

Iowa State has a lot of talent and is well coached (see the post above on Fred Holberg, an ex-NBA front office guy). Offensively, he’s way ahead of the curve and they’ll get their points regardless of how well UK can defend—that’s just what they do. Overall, they’re not what you'd call a "big" team, but they are pretty long overall. Monte Morris is 6'2, Naz Long 6'4, Bryce Dejean-Jones 6'6, Dustin Houge 6'6, Georges Niang 6'8, and Jamel McKay, who plays starter minutes, 6'9. Two guys they bring off the bench in Abdel Nader (6'6) and Matt Thomas (6'4) have decent size as well. What I'm trying to get at here is that while we'd be bigger than them on the blocks, they probably have just as much, if not more, size than us at many other positions depending on the lineups. Kind of a continuing theme for me, but I think that their size at the guard spots could create some problems with whoever we assign Ulis to defensively, as he’s giving up a lot of size to the 6’4 Long, and while Morris is 6’2, he’s a fairly thick dude who grew up in Flint, MI and attacks the boards like it (he had 22 points, 19 rebounds, and 14 assists in a two game stretch, both against quality teams). As I said in the post above, one of their biggest downsides is that they usually play nothing but man, and I'm not really sure how well that would work out against UK. If nothing else, I’d imagine that they modify their usual look and use more match-up zone and “help” principles than usual. Hoiberg’s defensive philosophy is to try and force you into taking long twos, but they aren’t really what I’d consider to be a great (or even pretty good) team on the defensive end. They’re okay with lots of possessions and trying to outscore you. They are definitely capable of doing that, but UK is just as capable. I really like what Hoiberg does strategically late in close games, and that’s what scares me most about them. As you can probably infer from what I’ve already said, he’s much more of an NBA guy in terms of philosophy. That means he wants to play both percentages and the foul game(s) (i.e., his strategies with fouls to give, situational fouls where he knows you want to take a three but will put you on the line for two, using the shot or game clock against you). If they kept it close late, I shudder to think about us having to go to the line late to protect our lead, but that’s what we’ll be doing. If it's a close inside two and a half minutes, plan on blocking off a good 20 to 30 minutes for the game to finish. I know people are probably thinking: just keep it in Harrison, Booker, Ulis, and Lyles’ hands, but they’re pretty good at forcing the ball to someone you probably don’t want on the line, or at least making you adjust your lineup accordingly.

 

 

#4. Duke:

 

Can match athleticism and have an advantage over us inside with Okafor regardless of who we put on him. Winslow and Sulamion on the wings bring athleticism that not only matches, but possibly exceeds ours; maybe sacrilege for me to say, but I think that Winslow and Sulamion at the 2/3 are a more athletic duo than Aaron Harrison and Trey Lyles. Harrison and Lyles are more fundamentally sound, and are a better pair of shooters, but Duke's wings are definitely more explosive (know Sulamion doesn't start, but he plays starter minutes). At the point, Tyus Jones turns the ball over a little too much for a guy that gets the love he does, but by the end of the year may still progress to the point of matching up with Harrison/Ulis well enough. Coach K has shown that he isn't afraid to zone, doing so against Louisville, and have been using it since with a fair degree of success. Their other starters, Quinn Cook and Amile Jefferson, were both fairly recruited kids who can do some things. Same goes for their depth, as Matt Jones and Grayson Allen are young but seemed to be rated fairly high. Marshall Plumee isn't either of his brothers, but gives them some size and fouls off the bench, which translates into his being serviceable enough for a #9 guy that you might have to call on for 5-8 minutes in a game. They seem to lose some games and/or have subpar efforts against inferior competition. Either they are inconsistent, which is good for UK, or they play to the level of their competition, which isn't as great.

 

 

#5. Wisconsin:

 

Last year's game gave them the confidence that they could play with, and even beat us. The revenge factor would also give them plenty of additional motivation, as if anyone wouldn't be up for the game enough already. Kaminsky could draw at least one of our bigs out away from the goal. I can see all of the motion in their system having the potential to take advantage of Ulis' size when UK was on defense. I don't know how great they are though, as yesterday they were taken to OT by a horrible Michigan team who'd just lost their best player. I think that losing their PG, Jackson, for the season is going to have a HUGE effect on them.

 

 

#6. Wichita State:

 

See last season's classic. They've struggled some lately, but are starting to get back on track. I think it's fair to say that you can envision a scenario where they beat us, though they definitely wouldn't be the favorite and a win would be called a pretty big upset. Still, they have the same team back minus Cleanthony Early and maybe a guy or two who came off the bench. I know that Kentucky this year is a better team than Kentucky last year, but given where both were last year and what they have this year, I think it's fair to say that they COULD. Kind of like UK in that they play lots of people and have some guys who can do different things, but obviously not as talented. Regardless, they play their system, play it well, and play it together.

 

 

#7. Virginia -

 

Solid defensively. They would grind and try to make the pace slow to a halt, which could lead to UK's making some mistakes and/or trying to take quick shots. I don't know how they'd be able to withstand some runs UK is capable of going on. The Cavaliers are definitely NOT a team built to play from behind, so if UK blitzes them and goes on a quick 8-10 point run, especially if it’s one that puts them ahead by 8 or 10, UVA is in real trouble. Against Virginia Tech earlier today they were down by a considerable margin at one point before coming back to win. They pulled it out and seem to know how to win close games, but so do the Cats. More importantly though, today was the type of game that they likely wouldn't have been able to come back in against an elite team. I have them lower than most others because I can’t see them scoring enough to ever really put the game out of reach against a UK, whereas a Notre Dame could at least get hot and run up a lead that puts tons of pressure on us. Bottom line: I think they defend exceptionally well, but it’s probably not going to be enough to completely shut UK down; on the other hand, they could completely shut UK out for 10-12 minutes, but probably still wouldn’t be able to score enough against our defense to put the game out of reach.

 

 

#8. Kansas:

 

Everyone can laugh at this one, but here it goes. I think that they have improved tremendously since our first meeting. Cliff Alexander and Kelly Oubre were freshmen playing in one of their first big games then, and last year gave UK fans an opportunity to see how long it can take teams who rely on talented freshmen so heavily to reach their potential. I know that you can say most of our freshmen were in the same boat, but we also have more veteran players who'd at least been in a game of that magnitude before in WCS, Poythress, the Harrisons, Dakari, Lee, & Hawkins. Since our game, Cliff Alexander, who was the #2 center in this year's class, has begun to assert himself and plays more minutes than some of their starters. Same goes for 6'7 sophomore guard Brannen Greene. Kelly Oubre, who, like Alexander, was a top recruit who'd received interest from UK, was only playing his 3rd collegiate game and only saw 13 minutes. He logged 35, 26, 29, & 21 over the past four games, all of which were against ranked teams (and despite his finishing with 3-4 fouls in each). The point I'm trying to make is that the Jayhawks we saw in their third game just went to Texas and beat a talented team that gave UK all they wanted in Rupp, and in this one, Texas had PG Isaiah Taylor, who is one of their better players and sat out the UK game with injury. Yes, they lost to Temple in a game where the Owl guards combined for 54, and their only other loss that I haven't discussed is on the road to an Iowa State team that's on this list. Those three losses are the only blemishes, and their current win total sits at 16, of which 6 were ranked.

 

 

#9. Arizona:

 

Pretty talented at the top. As far as their starters, McConnell would be out of his league in terms of athleticism, but everyone else that they play a lot would probably be fine. Caleb Tarczewski and Brandon Ashley make up a front line that matches up with us well. I really like Ashley's game and what he brings to the table-- extremely athletic and has enough skill that I'd like my chances with him dragging Towns, Dakari, or Lyles out on the floor and driving around them if they got too close or knocking down jumpers if they gave him too much space. Considering that, we probably put WCS and Lee on him. WCS checking him means that he's not at the rim to block shots and that Dakari/Towns is going to be occupied with Tarczeski. If we're using Lee on him, then we're trading defense for offense. Stanley Johnson is a crazy-athletic wing that could be an X-factor by locking up Booker on one end and attacking him with penetration on the other. Rondae Hollis-Jefferson is playing better this season. At the end of the day, I think Arizona has lots of talent at the top of their rotation if Tarcezski can stay out of foul trouble, but I have serious doubts as to whether or not they're deep enough to be able to stand and trade punches with UK because I've seen them a few times and didn't really think anyone they bring off the bench really set the world on fire.

Toughest SEC Games:

 

#1. LSU:

 

The SEC game I'm probably most worried about. I've seen them a few times, and while those games were some of their more impressive results, they seem to have well defined roles, play within those roles and themselves, and have solid chemistry. They definitely have some guys that can shoot from deep in Hornsby and Quarterman. Jordan Mickey could create some match-up problems for us given that Poythress is now out and that at 6'8, Lyles, who isn't the world's most athletic dude, would be the guy who is closest to him in size. I expect WCS, not Lyles, to draw Mickey, meaning that Towns or Lyles will draw Jarrell Martin, a 6'10 big with some range on his shot. If LSU starts the same lineup they did against Vandy, it's probably Lyles drawing Martin and Towns on Darcy Malone, a 7'0 center who is just starting to play more. Not guaranteeing that Mickey and Martin cause match-up problems by any means, but it's fair to say that it wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility if they did, especially if WCS were to get in foul trouble.

 

 

#2. Georgia:

 

Marcus Thornton and JJ Frazier can both score enough to carry them. I respect Mark Fox and think he's one of the better coaches in the SEC, so I won't be shocked if they have a solid game plan. Wouldn't shock me at all if they were the one to get UK, especially if they catch us on the right night.

 

 

Not In My Teams, But Maybe In Yours:

 

Gonzaga:

 

Maybe they could, but they'd need lots of things to go right, and I won't give them nearly the chance that others do. They have lots of size, but their size is also pretty slow and stiff, especially compared to ours. I don't see Wiltjer stepping out onto the floor and guarding Lyles, Towns, or WCS, nor do I see Karnowski being even close to mobile enough to cover anyone, and that's a problem. Karnowski is strong and the size of a tree, but he's not going to be able to just stand under the goal and have an effect on bigs that can jump over him. I like Pangos and Domantas Sabonis (the son of former NBA center Arvydis Sabonis), but don't really think that Gonzaga is the kind of team that'd get UK on a neutral floor. I'll mention them because other people might. They shoot the ball well and are accustomed to playing zone, so I guess they have a puncher's chance when considering that they are a good team and that the system they play regularly (i.e., packing in a zone defense and trying to use lots of ball movement to get open shots) is the one that lots of teams will use because they think it's what gives them the best chance to upset UK.

 

 

Villanova:

 

Ranked high, but I also think they're overrated. Kind of a Notre Dame-type team in terms of the system they play, and they normally play by trying to do what they'd have to do to beat UK in terms of the number of threes they take. There’s always the chance they just catch fire and are a more talented Ole Miss team, but at the same time, I don't think they're good enough defensively, nor do I think they have the size and athleticism to match up with Kentucky. Maybe it’s odd that I have Notre Dame so high and Nova so low, but I see the 6’11 Ochefu as more of a traditional back to the basket big than the type of finesse “stretch” forward that the 6’8 Auguste at ND. If you are going to play a system like that and ask me which I think is more likely to beat us, then I’ll give the edge to the team that plays it by going for broke in Notre Dame instead of the slightly more conservative one that is Villanova’s 4-In, 1-Out. In my opinion, matchup wise, UK neturalizes Ochefu at the rim. Pinkston could be a matchup problem for Lyles, Booker, or whoever would be asked to guard him, but he’s also more of a slasher than shooter, and our length at the rim is a safety net that will catch and even erase mistakes where other teams would have had to rotate harder and leave one of their shooters. Finally, Ulis on Enis or Archiadiacono is more likely to be successful than asking him to check ND’s Jackson.

 

 

Random Teams Who Do At Least One Thing Well:

 

Defensively:

 

San Diego State, Wyoming

 

Both would grind the game to a halt and can defend well enough to beat most anyone they play. Wyoming is actually fun to watch sometimes and are a team I’ve kind of adopted because they’re on TV a lot here and I like how hard they play. Wyoming definitely a "system" team. They run most of their stuff through Larry Nance’s son, but have some guards who can hit open shots and even finish at the rim. I don’t think they could beat Kentucky because they don’t have the talent or depth to hang for forty minutes, but if they were shooting well, then their style of play, particularly the amount of clock that they use on each possession, plus the way they rebound and keep possessions alive by filling up hustle stats means that they could make it a lot closer than most fans would like to see. Larry Shyatt is a defensive mastermind and while he might not beat us, he could show someone else the blueprint to apply to their own talent to find a way to slow UK down enough to have a chance at beating them.

 

San Diego State is a much more athletic version of a team that plays the same principles as Wyoming, they just do it with more athleticism and less execution offensively. Horrendous percentages whether it be FG %, 3 Pt %, FT %, but they get after you so much defensively and rebound the ball so well that they'll stay in almost any game despite that.

 

 

Offensively:

 

Texas, Oklahoma

 

Fun to watch these teams when they’re clicking. If Barnes could stay out of his own way, Texas would be dangerous, because they have some talent. He’s just beginning to play Myles Turner enough minutes, but it’s also the end of January. Oh well, sorry about your choice Myles, because you definitely would have been used better if you’d chosen Kentucky or Kansas.

 

Oklahoma has pretty good guard play and some guys in Buddy Heild and Tyshawn Thomas who can put up a lot of points. Oklahoma has been sliding hard lately though. Usually on TV a decent amount down here, but I haven’t seen them in a few weeks either.

Iowa State and Wisconsin for sure.

 

I was clearly not in form to be posting last night. I have no idea what I was talking about here but it was not what this thread is about. I would take Kentucky to beat both of these teams by double digits. Smh. My apologies.