This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
oh. sorry.i'm not seeing it. Duke has a significant relative competitive disadvantage in their academic standards, whereas the Yankees have a significant relative competitive advantage in their payroll.Everyone else's comparisons have been spot on though
I think "standards" may be the wrong word here. It may apply to a school like Stanford, or Notre Dame, or maybe Duke at one point. But Duke recruited John Wall (2.6 GPA in HS), who is no great shakes academically and who'd stun the entire college basketball world if he completed more than one semester's worth of credits in college, no matter where he went. And this lack of a "standard" goes back as far (at least) to Sean Dockery.Certainly Duke has more guys on their basketball team who are decent students than your average D1 power, but I think it's a bit silly to consider it a "disadvantage" when they throw out standards for guys like Wall.i'm not seeing it. Duke has a significant relative competitive disadvantage in their academic standards, whereas the Yankees have a significant relative competitive advantage in their payroll.
Everyone else's comparisons have been spot on though
I understand, but from what I saw of the Plumlees, if Scheyer was struggling, he has got to look for them more. I understand being scared to pass to Zoubek or Thomas unless they are wide open, but the Plumlees look like the best Duke big men offensively since Boozer.
One thing I said early in the season was JS, KS, and NS were going to play too many minutes throughout the season and be worn down in March and it's going to cost them. K is going to have to find a way to get those guys more rest and look at the big picture, IMO.Other all ACC candidates so far are G Lawal, T Booker, G Vazquez and probably should consider Landesberg but UVA will need to win more than expected for him to stay there.
Completely forgot about Booker and should have thought of Lawal after Saturday's game. I had written off Vazquez based on his non-conference play, but apparently he's getting raves for his play in the FSU game and might have righted his ship.
UNC went to a 4-defender rotation on Delaney in the second half (according to the article in the paper). One of the advantages of depth is the ability to do weird stuff like that, although certainly I have to think Delaney wasn't 100% either. Also, the defensive effort from UNC in the first half was sorely lacking. Slow first halves are a trademark of the Roy Williams era, but this team is worse than normal out of the gate. Aside on UNC-Tech: I feel for Marcus Ginyard, a senior who has had major injury struggles and had to sit out last season's title run,with most figuring he'd be this year's team leader as some sort of consolation for that. But at this point he's just not getting the job done. He's a turnover machine. Sad to see a good ballplayer and a good guy end things like this; really hope he gets it together over the next month.
Re: #2 and #3 above, I don't think it's that Scheyer doesn't trust the front line - he had some great passes to both Plumlees and one even to Zoubek. And quite frankly, passes to Zoubek that result in dunks should count as 2 assists. I think Scheyer took more shots than usual on Saturday because someone that looked like me trying to play was wearing Kyle Singler's jersey. Duke got what they know they're going to get out of Scheyer - exceptional play for the balance of the game. They even got a better than average game out of the front line despite Thomas' abysmal performance - 0 points, 1 rebound, 5 fouls. In particular, they got a break out game from Mason Plumlee, who I mentioned earlier I think will be a key determinant for how far this team is capable of making it. What was noticeably lacking was Singler's play. Easily the worst game from him since his freshman year. Re: getting tired, I completely agree with you, and it's been a constant source of discussion for more than a decade re: K and his players. If someone is tiring, rest them. There's no way Dawkins or anyone else could have done any worse than Kyle Singler did during a the middle 20 minutes of that game.
Allegedly, the change in defensive style that requires them to press the ball slightly less aggressively than in years past was done in part to keep them from wearing down in March/April. However, many Duke fans are skeptical as to if/how this will work.
Unless your donation gets your name on a building just throwing money around without the student having the grades isn't going to get you in anymore (we do have standards...$TANDARD$ I say). In all seriousness, being a legacy is generally more useful in the admissions process than just some person throwing around money. Having said that if you're a legacy who's parents have thrown around money there's basically no way you're not getting in.I think "standards" may be the wrong word here. It may apply to a school like Stanford, or Notre Dame, or maybe Duke at one point. But Duke recruited John Wall (2.6 GPA in HS), who is no great shakes academically and who'd stun the entire college basketball world if he completed more than one semester's worth of credits in college, no matter where he went. And this lack of a "standard" goes back as far (at least) to Sean Dockery.Certainly Duke has more guys on their basketball team who are decent students than your average D1 power, but I think it's a bit silly to consider it a "disadvantage" when they throw out standards for guys like Wall.i'm not seeing it. Duke has a significant relative competitive disadvantage in their academic standards, whereas the Yankees have a significant relative competitive advantage in their payroll.
Everyone else's comparisons have been spot on though
And in general, can't a normal student get the bar lowered to Duke if a donation is made to the school by said student's parents? I think I remember reading this somewhere, so I might be talking out of my ###. Will research later.
I've "heard" that for non-legacy you basically would have to pony up 4x the annual tution bill (ie you'd need to pony up north of a 100K), but that just rumors. In actuality, they aren't going to do anything unless you have a longer legacy of giving (ie sponsored a scholarship or some such thing). Legacy is about 100x more important than $$$.Getting back to basketball, I hope Singler is getting his shooting woes out of his system now as opposed to later in the year. Nice win for UNC, but TOs are still a big concern. Having said that after watching a bunch of ACC games this weekend, a whole lot of these teams look decidedly average and as such temas on the road will look "bad" all year.10K wasnt enough for a non-legacy with a 3.0 GPA and 1300 SAT's.Someone I uh "know" told me that
On the topline, UNC again had double digit turnovers, but I think the underlying stats say something a little different. First, UNC had 11 in the first half and only 6 in the second. Also, Drew/Strickland only had 3, the rest were credited to frontcourt players. I still think the soft play of the UNC big men is hurting them more than the guards.I've "heard" that for non-legacy you basically would have to pony up 4x the annual tution bill (ie you'd need to pony up north of a 100K), but that just rumors. In actuality, they aren't going to do anything unless you have a longer legacy of giving (ie sponsored a scholarship or some such thing). Legacy is about 100x more important than $$$.Getting back to basketball, I hope Singler is getting his shooting woes out of his system now as opposed to later in the year. Nice win for UNC, but TOs are still a big concern. Having said that after watching a bunch of ACC games this weekend, a whole lot of these teams look decidedly average and as such temas on the road will look "bad" all year.10K wasnt enough for a non-legacy with a 3.0 GPA and 1300 SAT's.Someone I uh "know" told me that
Sure it was....
I know Coach K has said in the past that he's intentionally scheduled 2 games in 48 hours, though usually its been with one non-conference game. I actually think the coaches like that as it also gives them something new to coach and a new challenge.
For the most part I like Maryland fans and I actually root for Maryland as my second-favorite ACC team. But living in DC, I can tell you that they whine more than any sports fans in the country (not including Boston sports fans, who are of course in their own stratosphere of whininess).
There is a story in the Baltimore Sun from Tuesday where an ACC official says the league does not like making teams make the quick turnaround but "they are unavoidable." What a load of crap. It's only unavoidable because the league doesn't want to have many nights when there aren't televised game. The Pac-10 has a scheduling system that minimizes travel issues (hard to explain in a short time but I like the system), but it means that they don't have games Tuesday or Wednesday. If the ACC wants to minimize travel issues, it just has to tell ESPN and Raycom that teams will only play Wednesday, Thursday, Saturday and Sunday and then make sure no team plays Thursday and Saturday.And I love the fact that I can watch ACC games 5 nights a week. I just hate when officials try to pawn off blame on an issue they could have complete control over.TobiasFunke said:
This. It's 100%, absolutely and completely avoidable whenever Swofford wants to avoid it. TV revenue is the straw that stirs the ACC drink, we all know that, and it flatly insults our intelligence to hear officials insist otherwise.
Interesting stuff here. I'd never really thought about it. I could certainly do without the Tuesday night games.
It became a talking point amongst my friends several years ago when they started doing the Sunday night games on Fox. It became a talking point first because the Fox basketball coverage is only marginally better than handing an 8th grader a hand held camera, because of the odd timing of Sunday night games, and finally because of their insistence that there's only 2 hours between games, meaning you're going to miss 20% of the second game. Also, Sunday night for most college students is a pretty busy time getting ready for the coming week.
I've become less of a fan of the KenPom ratings recently. They don't seem to have nearly the predictive value that other advanced comparative stats in other sports have. Maybe it's because the sample size is small, maybe its because college kids are less consistent, I dunno, but I used to swear by them, and recently I find myself questioning their value. One thing I've noticed in particular is that the ratings seem to overvalue good teams from weaker conferences. Just looking at last season, you had Memphis at #1 all season and finishing at #2 even after their tourney flameout, Gonzaga at #7, and BYU (again) at #21 despite having no wins over any team rated higher than 30 and losing to a pretty ordinary A&M team in the first round of the tournament in a game that was never really that close.
Yeah, I jumped off the Memphis wagon last year when it came time to fill out my bracket, correctly. The other thing I don't like about the KP rankings is that it doesn't take into account how well a team is playing currently, instead just focusing on the entire season as a whole. UK, for instance, got off to a pretty shaky start (2 point win over Miami Ohio, OT win against Stanfurd), but has been making up a lot of ground lately. But they're still not in the Top 10.Greg Echenique's list of schools is Maryland, IU, Creighton, Miami and G-Tech. He was off to a pretty good start before his injury, he would be a pretty big score for any of those schools.I've become less of a fan of the KenPom ratings recently. They don't seem to have nearly the predictive value that other advanced comparative stats in other sports have. Maybe it's because the sample size is small, maybe its because college kids are less consistent, I dunno, but I used to swear by them, and recently I find myself questioning their value. One thing I've noticed in particular is that the ratings seem to overvalue good teams from weaker conferences. Just looking at last season, you had Memphis at #1 all season and finishing at #2 even after their tourney flameout, Gonzaga at #7, and BYU (again) at #21 despite having no wins over any team rated higher than 30 and losing to a pretty ordinary A&M team in the first round of the tournament in a game that was never really that close.
Well, that'll teach me to not crack jokes about injuries.
I also enjoyed - "The first drive Carolina has stopped all year."
Nicely played.A twist on the one at Yahoo sports:
If I'm not mistaken, I believe Pomeroy also doesn't take injuries into account, which is sort of a corollary to what you're saying about not taking trends into account. Obviously there's no quick fix for that, but it does limit the value quite a bit.Yeah, I jumped off the Memphis wagon last year when it came time to fill out my bracket, correctly. The other thing I don't like about the KP rankings is that it doesn't take into account how well a team is playing currently, instead just focusing on the entire season as a whole. UK, for instance, got off to a pretty shaky start (2 point win over Miami Ohio, OT win against Stanfurd), but has been making up a lot of ground lately. But they're still not in the Top 10.Greg Echenique's list of schools is Maryland, IU, Creighton, Miami and G-Tech. He was off to a pretty good start before his injury, he would be a pretty big score for any of those schools.I've become less of a fan of the KenPom ratings recently. They don't seem to have nearly the predictive value that other advanced comparative stats in other sports have. Maybe it's because the sample size is small, maybe its because college kids are less consistent, I dunno, but I used to swear by them, and recently I find myself questioning their value. One thing I've noticed in particular is that the ratings seem to overvalue good teams from weaker conferences. Just looking at last season, you had Memphis at #1 all season and finishing at #2 even after their tourney flameout, Gonzaga at #7, and BYU (again) at #21 despite having no wins over any team rated higher than 30 and losing to a pretty ordinary A&M team in the first round of the tournament in a game that was never really that close.
A mod has already posted in here.
Let me introduce you to a man named Ripleys.Regarding my Heels last night: Ouch. We knew there would probably be days like this, but that doesn't make them hurt any less. A perfect storm last night: an inexperienced team- the backcourt in particular- playing against a pressing team in a hostile environment without their swiftest big man (although Lew Alcindor wouldn't have helped us win last night). If you're gonna take a beating like that, it's nice that at least it came at the hands of a school, coach, team and fans who have usually been classy and who've had their hearts ripped out by the Heels multiple times in the last few years. Nice to see Dexter Strickland coming along. This team was never going to do big things this year, so it's nice to see that someone on this team can play on what hopefully will be a title contender in 2011 and 2012.Congrats to the Hoos. Great to see Bennett possibly turning around a program that was one of the elites in my first childhood memories of ACC basketball from the early 1980s. It would be great to see them make the tournament this year.
They looked extremely well-coached last night. UVA found a great one. Other than Landesberg and Scott, I'm not sure how much talent they have but they were fundamentally sound and will be a force in upcoming years.Who wins Saturday? One of us has to.
I like our chances to bounce back on Saturday. We're a completely different team at home, not surprising considering our youth and our tendency to poop our pants when presented with any obstacle whatsoever. And I think Zeller should be back, which gives us another competent body to throw at that front line of yours. I think it'll be a tight one, though.They looked extremely well-coached last night. UVA found a great one. Other than Landesberg and Scott, I'm not sure how much talent they have but they were fundamentally sound and will be a force in upcoming years.Who wins Saturday? One of us has to.
I should have gone with my heart and picked him first overall.Seaman Ropes said:
