I am going to change my stance from the beginning of the season and suggest that UNC actually has a chance to win the title. Jay Wright said it was their defense that killed them. Imagine that. So did Jeff Capel. They don't lock you up for 40 minutes a night but they have such great athletes all over the floor that they can tighten the screws for several minutes at a time and make life miserable for you. You can play them even for 32 minutes but there will be two four minute stretches where they will go on a 12-2 or 18-4 run and that's the game. Michigan St. got out and ran with UConn and had success. Izzo has to know that they can't beat UNC that way and will try to slow the game down but the problem will be just like the one Illinois had a couple of years ago. It's the natural instinct of the players to run and with a team dominated by perimeter players like Michigan St. is, they are going to be lulled into a track meet for a few minutes here and there and that's where they will lose the game. I think UNC wins by about 15.

Ask Louisville how that worked.

Was just looking at Michigan State guys from the Izzo era and he's had exactly three players that went on to average 10 PPG any season in the NBA. Mo Peterson was there all four (actually five) years but Richardson was only there two (and averaged 5 PPG in his first) and Zach Randolph was only there for one season. Has any coach had such a level of success in the past 15 years with less NBA talent? Anyone even close?

scott - give me a winner tonight

i say carolina wins and covers

That is the most likely scenario in my mind, they are just too good and Michigan State can't score with them when Lawson is healthy. If I do make a play it will be to parlay Michigan State on the moneyline with the under. There is no way in hell that Michigan State can win in a high scoring game. Even with that I'd still need at least +1000 on the parlay to make the bet (which I suspect I can probably get).

Coach K has had an extraordinary number of NBA failures.

I was just about to type that same thing. I know part of the reason though. He doesn't recruit NBA players. He recruits good high school players that he thinks will form a good college team but not necessarily the top high school players that are great pro prospects. Kobe Bryant and LeBron James being the big exceptions but I remember when Baron Davis was available and Coach didn't want him because he didn't think he was a good fit. Some coaches, Calipari and Bobby Cremins, for instance, will look specifically to get a superstar player and work around him and let that player take them as far as he can for as long as he can before moving on. I look at the all-Americans that Duke has coming in next year and I don't think either of them are close to being pro prospects.

Only counting players that didn't enter the NBA until 1995 since that is when Izzo started you have all of the following that have averaged 10+ PPG in a season in the NBA:

Shane Battier
Carlos Boozer
Elton Brand
Chris Duhon
Mike Dunleavy
Grant Hill
Corey Maggette
Luol Deng

That's a lot more NBA talent than what Izzo has had to work with and that doesn't even include Jay Williams who averaged 9.5 as a rookie before the accident ruined his career.

Louisville is NOT UNC. They don't have the overall talent that the Heels do.

agree king - louisville can't shoot

No doubt that Duke has had more NBA level players but I think the point was that based on their expectations in the NBA compared to how much success the program has had, they haven't reached it. A few players here and there but not the great success people have expected. Personally, I believe that the expectations have been too high and the Duke players have done pretty well for themselves in the NBA.

Now give the failures.
Start with the superstar Laettner. The Spurs drafted Johnny Dawkins and Gene Banks. They were big disappointments. The list is long... I dont want to go through them all. Many highly reguarded going into the draft. The guys you put up are hardly superstars.

I will give you that Hill and Brand could be remembered as very good players but because they are so injury prone. They are hardly superstars.
Maggette would be the anti-Duke type.
Putting Dunleavy up there... sort of embarassing.
Deng... has just not played long enough to make any statement.

Boozer has been a nice the nice surprise imo.
Sorry thats a very short list for a team that is tops in college
basketball. Which I must give K credit for. He does a good
job with the kids he gets.

Laettner's first five seasons in the NBA:
18.2 and 8.7 boards
16.8 and 8.6
16.3 and 7.6
16.4 and 7.3
18.1 and 8.8

I'd HARDLY call putting up those kinds of numbers in the NBA as a failure. He even made the All-Star game once.

Dawkins barely played as a rookie but after that, in seasons 2-4:
15.8 and 7.4 assists
14.2 and 7.0
14.3 and 7.4
He was at 15.8 and 7.0 before getting hurt after four games in the next year.

Again, you don't put up those kinds of numbers at the NBA level if you are a failure.

Dunleavy has averaged double figures every season in the league after his rookie year, including 19.1 a game last year. You think scoring 19 a game in the NBA is embarrassing?

Hill is not a superstar? You are letting his years since the injuries cloud your judgement. Starting with averaging 20 a night as a rookie and being named co-rookie of the year, look at what he did after that:
20 points, 10 board, 7 assists (10 triple doubles)
21, 9, and 7 (13)
21, 8, and 7 (4)
21, 7, and 6 (1)
26, 7, and 5

He was an all-star every season. He made second team all-league in his second season and first team in his third. He was second team the next three years. He was second in the league in defensive rebounds one year (top 10 overall), top 10 in the league in assists the next year, then third in scoring a few seasons after that. There wasn't a thing Grant couldn't do on the court. He also had 29 triple-doubles in that period.

Brand has only averaged 20-10 four times and his career averages are 20 and 10. Compare him to a guy like Tim Duncan:

Duncan 21.4, 11.7, 3.2 asts, 2.4 blks, .507 fgp
Brand 20.0, 10.1, 2.6 asts, 2.1 blks, .503 fgp

One is a first ballot hall of famer and the other isn't even a star? Please.

Michigan St. +7.5

330/300

How could you even put those guys up there as failures when compared to Mateen Cleaves and Shawn Respert? Either way, that isn't the point. Duke has had far more successful NBA players than Michigan State in the past 15 years yet Michigan State has been almost as successful. Can you really think of anyone else that had three solid pros or less that has been anywhere remotely close to as successful as Michigan State in that time? I think the job Izzo does there is extremely underrated.

Can I get an over/under on Hansbrough flops tonight?

Not even close and I'm pretty shocked. Only +645 for Michigan State and the Under. I'm going the opposite and throwing the money on Carolina to cover and the over, that +260 seems much better value to me. Seems like the bettors are trying to outsmart themselves tonight.

Oh hell I agree. BTW Matteen Cleaves was exactly who I was thinking of.

But Duke has been bad compared to what they have done
in the NCAA. Look at the past 20 years and look at Duke's record.
Look at UNC, and look a their players in the pros.

Actually Magic would make up for all Michst. failures,
but he was with Judd Heathcombovercoat.




My point is Duke has NC type NCAA numbers, but pros...
no way. Something amiss.

ahhh you with the numbers.
I watched Dawkins played.
He did not come close to expectations.
He was a decent player, but we expected wins with
him... those were in the days of hyped up numbers (had to play man to man)
and the Spurs a run and gun team.

Hill is not a superstar. He could not possibly be.
He has been injured. I am not sure what a superstar is.
He definitley had the talent. But he was out soo much.
I cannot put him there, not his fault.

Laettner the same as Dawkins. Decent numbers,
but hardly as expected. Laettner would have been #1 in draft,
Shaq and Mourning went ahead of him. He was thought to be a franchise
player. If you have to put those guys
up against NC guys, its a laugher.

Dunleavy is not a failure, defintely not compared to expectations.
But he aint that good.

I don't think there is any doubt. Duke is a college basketball program. North Carolina is an NBA factory. I'm pretty sure Rashad McCants went to North Carolina for three years without ever intentionally throwing a pass once.

Michigan State really nutted up tonight. I love losing money on basketball.


Football starts in 5 months!!!

The team that was a strong and deserving favorite won like they were supposed to. Too much athleticsm and talent across the board. For all the talk about the Big East this year, it's funny that the best team came from the ACC yet again. Duke has a title, UNC has two, and Maryland has one in this decade.

you suck...two points off.

The game went exactly like I thought it would. MSU was playing at a pace that's too fast for them. That's what UNC does. They score so fast and press the issue that it lulls you into a false sense of thinking that this is how you should be playing too. They'll give you some open shots that you'll take early and that in turn gets them going at the pace they want. You could see MSU was playing way too fast early and turning the ball over way too much. They were taking a ton of jump shots. UNC got it from all over. The killed them inside and Ellington was big from outside. In the first few minutes of the game, all five UNC starters had scored. This was like a carbon copy of the Illinois game.

Ive always hated Duke, but Jay Williams was a stud and it was sad to see his career end. He had unlimited potential.

While the big East was so much better than the other conferences, its been known all year how good UNC was... pretty much the only real good team in the ACC. this was no surprise.

for all the big east fans that thought lousiville was a legit #1 team - UNC scored more points in a half a game than Louisville scored in the entire game against MSU

now if that don't convince you that they were a fraud i don't know what will , i picked wake in that region and was wrong , but , lousiville could have been the most overated #1 team ever in the tournament

oh shut up

no in all seriousness , louisville was a good scrappy team that played great defense and could only score via fast break and to's

they couldn't score in a 1/2 court game , i think coach pitino should get coach of the year for getting this team to be a #1 seed with this glaring inability

The closest any team was to UNC at the finish was 12 points. That was Oklahoma. UNC also scored 11 fewer points in that game than they did in any other game.

:tro: :tro:

well, that 12 point margin was very deceiving. That game was no more compelling than the Villanova or Mich State games.

Exactly what happened. I just don't get it when they slowed the pace against Louisville, picked up the pace against UConn, but not slow it back down against UNC.

how do you slow them down , no one did all year ? they had 20 points in the 1st 5 minutes and the game was over

You slow it down against Louisville because the Cardinals are a team that has trouble scoring. They have good athletes though so you want to contain them and not let them get out on runouts and get easy baskets. You want to make them play the halfcourt game and that's not their strength. Against UConn, you don't want to slow it down because that plays to their strength which is their halfcourt defense. You have no chance consistently trying to score baskets in the halfcourt against Thabeet and Adrien so you want to force the issue with them and try to get them scrambling around and out of position. Against UNC, you don't have either option. They have size and speed. You try to slow it down but they invite you to shoot because they'll leave you open opportunities. It's reminiscent of a Paul Westhead kind of defense where he'll give you some shots just so he can have the opportunity to get the ball back. He used to preach how he'd give you a layup so that you'd take it and he'd get the ball back to shoot three's and even if you had every intention of trying to slow it down, those open looks would get too inviting. Next thing you know, you are playing at a faster pace than you want to and UNC has jumped out on one of those 12-2 or 18-4 runs and now you HAVE to up your tempo and come of out your game plan because you have score more.

The tough part of this is that over the last 15 years, few have had as much success as Izzo has...PERIOD.

You did forget about Charlie Bell who averaged double figures for Milwaukee at least one season. I get your point though.

I dont think its ENTIRELY fair to judge the level of talent a coach recruits by how many guys he has that end up being successful in the NBA. Tom Izzo has exactly half of the last ten Michigan Mr. Basketball award winners. He has had 8 mcdonalds all americans. Sounds to me like he is getting some players.

NBA talent and College talent are two different things. There are players who's games are extremely effective at the college level but arent effective at the next level (Cleaves!). Look at Hansborough. Is he not an extremely successful college player? He has been one of the top 10 players in college basketball for the last four years.

Look at the last North Carolina team to win the championship before this one. Felton is the only one that looks like he will have a decent NBA career. May, Mccants, et al were uber talents in college and coming out of high school. Can we look back and say that Roy Williams did a great job with little talent that year?

Izzo has had an abundant amount of college level talent and has done a masterful job with it. The accomplishments of those players at the next level, or lack thereof, is no reflection of how good they were while at State.

remmeber that powerful '85 gtown team - does that make JT a bad coach because only Pat Ewing made it big time on the next level, wingate and reggie williams were busts and the other guard didn't even make the pros after 1 yr

Gales, you take your shot that's it. MSU was not doing that.

Against Louisville, they stayed under control against Louisville's full court press. They got through the press, and then slowed it down. Last night was no where near that. They pressed themselves and didn't give themselves any chance whatsoever.

crown - lousiville can't score in the half court like UNC

unc scored more points in 20 minutes than louisville did in 40 minutes against msu - don't you think there is a large talent gap between the 2 teams

I think Snipe was saying that makes izzo a good coach because he wins with little talent. I dont disagree (double negative-bad,bad,bad) that he is a good coach. He's a wonderful coach. I just scoff at the idea that he does it with not a lot of talent.

Your example is an excellent one. Look at that georgetown team. They were amazing. They pressed people out of existence. Any of those players could have started for virtually any team in the country. So they didnt do well in the pros? Doesnt matter.

I use to say that the 87 Indiana hoosier team was a testament to how great a coach Bob Knight was. They were the only NCAA champ that i recall that won a title with no 1st round draft picks (present or future) on the team. Think about that. But on further review, they had excellent college talent. Steve Alford was a 4 year all american, olympian and one of the best players ever to come out of the state of indiana. Daryl Thomas was a wonderful college player. Ricky Calloway was a good college player. There was plenty of talent on that team. Its just that none of that talent translated into pro talent.