In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 464
Online now 672 Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
As I said in the twitter thread:
Are people selecting Kentucky ignoring the fact that the NBA has back-to-back-to-back games this year? The Wizards actually play back-to-back-to-back next week!
Wed 04 vs Indiana
Thu 05 @ Detroit
Fri 06 @ New Jersey
If your life depending on winning that New Jersey game (assume you can transfer it to Rupp), who would you select? The Wizards or Kentucky's team?
If you say Kentucky, you deserve to lose your life. On April 6, the Wizards will be a better option than Kentucky, whether they play head-to-head or some other opponent.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by terps99 2 years ago
Nene alone wins this game.
This post was edited by luckyterp3 2 years ago
John Wall and Jordan Crawford would torch their back court
Cody Zeller gave Anthony Davis problems imagine what Nene would do
This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by OxSeeMoron 2 years ago
Inferior teams can NEVER win at home. Especially in such a raucous atmosphere. Yep, that sounds about right.
People who argue that a great college team could beat a terrible pro team need to remember that pretty much every player on that terrible pro team(such as the Wizards or Bobcats) were great in college and the NBA experience makes them WAY better than the college guys. Even the NBA guys who dominated college basketball last season are either struggling to get playing time(Derrick Williams, Jimmer Fredette, Tristan Thompson) or are on teams who rarely win(Brandon Knight, Kyrie Irving).
What does this even mean? Yes, they play in those games, but this is the first year. Their quality of play is certainly going to be significantly lower in game 3 than game 1.
Anyway, of course you would bet on the Wizards. If you played a fifteen game series the Wizards would be a good bet to be 15-0. But COULD Kentucky win? Absolutely, and it's not like you couldn't find bigger upsets in basketball in the last year or two.
This is absolutely correct.
Lol at 210 lb Anthony Davis playing D on Nene and Seraphin
im sorry i was confusing...your "Superbowl" was the Redskins losing since you know that the Ravens cant win it all.
I would love if it some sort of game did happen. It would be cool for the sport. Take the NCAA champ vs. the worst NBA team.
For some reason Charlotte radio was discussing Kentucky vs. the Bobcats today. It seems people forget how good Kemba Walker was in college and now he doesn't even start on a 7-40 NBA team.
Kemba Walker might literally be the worst player in the league this year and he was the best college player last year.
So then why do college stars like Adam Morrison struggle so much? Because the defense is worse? That doesn't make any sense.
You know someone is a dumb sport fan when they say something like this.
Your example has nothing to do with my original point. Please go back and read my response in context. We were talking about praising PPG in the NBA. I could give you a large list of players that have higher PPG in the NBA than they ever did in college. You factor in increased MPG among other things and you can see what I mean.
Everyone of those players there are 100 Juan Dixon's who are college scoring studs and score for shit in the pros.
the college vs pro debate is so stupid. UK gets dominated
I'm convinced that at some point in the 3rd quarter, Nene might accidentally murder Anthony Davis with a power move/inadvertent elbow.
That guy is built like Juggernaut.
"And I try to har-mo-nize with songs the lonesome sparrow sings...
There are no kings inside the Gates of Eden."
Havax is retarded.
The games are 20% longer.
And of course there are individual players that develop over time in the NBA. They used to say that the only guy who could hold Michael Jordan under 20 ppg was Dean Smith. You don't let a 18-year old kid take that much control of an offense, but you do by the time he's 25.
LOL at the idea that they don't defend in the NBA and double LOL ay using "but I know 5 guys whose ppg went up in the NBA" to defend it.
As for the main idea, the gap between the worst team in the NBA and the best team in college has widened significantly in the last decade or so. No team of talented youngsters is going to beat a team of pros now.
However, if you go back a few years when the greats stayed longer and the NBA bottom feeders were worse, it might be possible. A more interesting question might be, "how far back do you have to go to find a college team that could beat that year's worst NBA team?"
For example, 1996 Kentucky would have a chance against the first-year-expansion 95-96 Vancouver Grizzlies. Is there a more recent team that might do the same?
GREAT comparison!! That 1996 Kentucky team will definitely goes down as one of the most talented college teams of all time, but if you look at that TERRIBLE Vancouver Grizzlies team they had Greg Anthony, Bryant BIG COUNTRY Reeves, Lawrence Moten, Cuonzo Martin and Erik Murdock who were all elite/Conference Player Of The Year type college players not long before that 1996 season. And despite how great that Kentucky team was, it looks like Antoine Walker was the only one who became an All-Star in the NBA, maybe Ron Mercer and/or Derrick Anderson made it once.
Even other elite college teams('82 UNC, '84 UNC, '85 Georgetown, '91 UNLV, '92 Duke, '99 Duke) during the era where great players stayed in school for 3 or 4 years would have a very difficult time beating the worst NBA team due to lack of physical strength, speed and NBA experience. The best players from the college teams I mentioned had great rookie years but for the most part were on bad teams. If those guys lost a lot of games as rookies surrounded by NBA players, they'd have NO CHANCE of beating NBA teams with their college team.
One thing is certain, they're all being paid a nice salary...Wiz & UK alike.
This post was edited by shellsupporter 2 years ago
Better question to debate:
Who's getting paid more: the highest paid player at Kentucky or the lowest paid player on the Wizards?
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports