born2reign

I'll take one of Lee or Skal but not both. I'd rather get Bolden and take my chances with him.

Does anyone really believe Skal is coming back? He is still projected to be a lottery pick and, at worst, a first rounder. I think he is gone.

Briscoe is who I have questions about. Is he thinking one and done? It would be nice to have him coming back to play with Fox. Mathews, Hawkins and Mulder can be worked into the backcourt, as well.

I assume Skal is gone. Lee, Willis, Humphries and Wynard to mix with the freshman- we should be able to have a deeper and, hopefully, a more consistent front court next year.

If Texas A&M and UK were flipped, there would have been zero argument from either side. EXCEPT that UK fans would have then lost their mind about being in the West. Honestly, I think Cal has conditioned the UK fan base that anything outside of being the best possible seed, and playing in Louisville, is an outright shafting. It borders on comical.

As a UK fan, I was PRAYING to go west as I saw that bracket unfold. That was the path of least resistance for UK, IMO. We match up well versus the top 4 seeds in that bracket, assuming A&M was switched with UK.

Yawn

I answered the question. I didn't cop out by writing who I thought were the two weakest one seeds like some

In all seriousness, for me it is about matchup and I think UK was mis-seeded and is playing UNC maybe a round earlier than they should. I think the next most likely is Oregon losing its second round match up to St. Joe's, but I think UC could be a tough matchup for them, as well.

When you compare Duke to the other 4's (Iowa St., Cal, UK), I think they fit fairly well. The one that stands out is UK. By comparison, there is no way they should be a 4.

I think it was Bruce Pearl who said it yesterday. Something about how the way this played out with Simmons is only going to hurt other schools from recruiting "the next Ben Simmons". Sounded like he put Johnny Jones on blast.

Jay Bilas was the first I heard say that the whole Ben Simmons experience helps schools like UK and Duke that handle the one and done players fairly well.

What does the NCAA have anything to do with this? To me it accomplished exactly what the NBA wanted. It gave a year for teams to evaluate his play and attitude on the collegiate level with all attention on him. When the going got tough, Simmons didn't want any part of it. He most likely will go #1, but this season cast some doubt on that. To take a player of this caliber, he is to be your franchise cornerstone for X amount of years. Does everyone still believe Simmons is that guy? A franchise difference maker?

1. I think it exposes LSU more than anyone or anything else. I think there are valid points from the article that infer exploitation of these one and done athletes.

2. I'm taking Ben Simmons and not looking back if this is my NBA franchise. He starts on the wing from day one for my franchise.

13 with Iona knocking off Iowa St.

UNC losing to UK.

Since I created this thread, Simmons has been suspended by his coach, failed to make the NCAA tourney, been declared ineligible for the Wooden Award and his team will not play in the post season.

I'm not saying some of this wasn't of his own doing, I'm saying he should have high-tailed it from LSU a month and a half ago.

I've watched plenty of NBA games this century, I just don't watch it as often as I used to. If someone would get out and get in Steph's face he wouldn't be putting up the numbers he does. But they just let him shoot, knowing he's one of the best shooters in the world. I call that bad defense, but to each their own.

I have seen people close out on Steph Curry. I have seen Steph hit contested shots.

[video=youtube_share;MsrRHmJHSrE]

Again, I feel your statements are over exaggerated.

I've already stated I don't watch a ton on NBA games since they decided to go on strike. I have watched every game Booker played in during his college year though. Like I said, he's good, great even. But the fact that he kept similar percentages from his year in college to his year in the NBA (on a terrible team) tells me that the NBA as a whole doesn't play great defense. If they did, his percentages would have taken a hit.

The conclusion that you are drawing about an entire league based on one player is fallacious in nature.

You picked one of the five rookies in the NBA that is averaging double figures in scoring and saying that his performance, offensively, is emblematic of the entire league's lack of defense.

How about the other rookies? How come the number two pick in the draft is struggling, offensively?

How come only Booker and Towns from UK's team are having offensive success? Based on your logic, Aaron Harrison should be able to score at the same level as he was able to at UK.

Watch a game from this century, @JDEaston. You are an intelligent basketball fan. You will see that you premise is wrong and that your statement about NBA defenses is over exaggerated.

I'm not underestimating him one bit, I know he's good. What I don't get is if the NBA defense is so good, why didn't his percentages drop off given the fact that he was thrown to the wolves with little experience.

The fact that you wrote the bolded, IMO, means a. You don't watch a ton of NBA games and b. You haven't watched a ton of Devin Booker.

The simple answer to your query is: He's good!

With all this talk about him, you need to watch the Golden State vs. Phoenix game that is on right now, @JDEaston. Devin Booker is significantly better than he was last year at UK.

I'm talking about percentages. If the NBA defense is as good as some say, why is a rookie carrying the same percentages from college to the NBA?

Maybe because he got better from the time he was a freshman in college to being a rookie in the league?

He has even gotten better within this season. Look at his scoring and shooting before the All Star break to after. He is improving. He has a new head coach within this season and one of the major scoring options on his team was traded away, allowing him to get more shooting and scoring opportunities.

Let's also keep in mind some obvious facts:

1. NBA games are 8 minutes longer.

2. 24 second shot clock vs. 35 second shot clock

3. The NBA has the best offensive basketball players in the world.

1 and 2 seed locks: KU, UNC, Mich St., Villanova, Oregon, UVA

In the mix for 2 or 3 seed: Oklahoma, Xavier, Purdue, Miami, Xavier, Utah, WVU, IU, Maryland, A&M, Arizona, UK

That's 18 off of the top of my head assuming no obvious omissions that are in the running for top 3 seeds. That means UK has to pass at least six of those teams to get to the three line. If they don't beat A&M, this is a moot point. It might be even with the conference tourney title.

I think a win tomorrow will go a long way toward a 3 seed, but they are most likely a 4 seed.

I would agree, but watching the one and done's come in and put up 30 point games in their first year tells me there isn't much defense being played. You can use Devin Booker as an example.

Not to thread jack, but Devin Booker is one of the best rookies in the NBA this year and one of the best scorers in the league in the second half of the year. Why does an NBA first round pick scoring 30 in a single game speak to the lack of defense at the NBA level?

IMO, Ben Simmons is clearly the best player in this draft. We will look back in a few years and wonder how Johnny Jones and LSU didn't win more with him. He will be a star in the NBA, where a coach will actually build the team and offense around his talents.

While I like Murray's game, he isn't someone NBA teams will take over Simmons. Murray is a defensive liability at the next level. I also have concerns with whether he is a point at the next level. That being said, Steph Curry drew the same critiques coming out of Davidson. Murray is a lottery pick, no doubt, but he will go between 6-10 in the draft, IMO.

Seattle selects Cody Whitehair- Guard from Kansas St.

Looking at UK's roster who are these guys? I am sure they could find 5 kids in Kentucky that are better?

 

E.J. Floreal

Tai Wynyard

Mychal Mulder

Jonny David

Charles Matthews

Am I missing something, or are you actually questioning John Calipari's recruiting?

ALL technical fouls have some grey area involved. Every coach knows that you can say more to some refs than others. It is almost impossible to have "letter of the law" when defining most technicals.

Except that there is actual letter of the law. The NCAA rule book outlines 11 instances that warrant a technical foul, according to what I read in the Courier Journal. While I agree that all of these behaviors must be judged at the discretion of the official, what happens on behaviors that are not overtly listed in the rule book? Spiking the ball isn't listed. How should this be judged, especially when it isn't an act that overtly is unsportsmanlike in nature? Could an official call a delay of game?

With NCAA basketball referees disagreeing as to how the Humphries situation should be judged it is worth a review to clarify this particular type of situation, especially since this call can be game altering.

In every level of basketball from 2 yr old diaper leagues to college its always a T when a player spikes the ball into the floor. Why should it be different because a UK player did it?

 

UK deserved to loose that game yesterday, plain and simple.

Whether or not UK deserved to lose is irrelevant.

At issue is whether or not a review of the play and the rule is warranted. The fact that officials disagree about the call means, to me, that it is worth clarification to allow referees to have no hesitation should this instance present itself in the future.

Has anyone topped former UK players in individual scoring games this season? Davis' 59 and Cousins' 56 are the top scoring games this season, if memory serves me correctly.

Whats wrong with the call. The official ask for the basketball, he clearly decides to spike it into the floor. He earned his T. Call was right.

The fact that reporters and analysts have spoken to referees and those referees have said that they would have ruled differently means that there is grey area. The review is less about the call that was made, since it will not be reversed, as much as it is about providing clarification for referees should a situation like this present itself going forward.