Official 2010-2011 NCAA Basketball Thread

[danman31]

I refuse to call a team with a 2-5 record against major competition a good win.

[hitlesswonder]

Gonzaga.

 

They've actually looked pretty good this year. They aren't a perfect team, definitely have some weaknesses, but they could be a top 15 team when you look at the rest of the college basketball landscape.

 

Gonzaga is not a a good team. The truth is that Illinois hasn't beaten anyone noteworthy and they got exposed as the fringe tournament team they are yesterday. I fully expect Mizzou's press will destroy them, given their inability to dribble, which should be entertaining to watch.

 

Illinois has a bunch of 4 year players and some very athletic players, so it's easy to see why in the preseason they were expected to be good. But the season doesn't lie and they have not improved significantly from last year.

 

If any coach needed any negative recuiting material against Illinois, they only need to look at what has happened to DJ Richardson's ability slash and drive to the hoop (which he excelled at before college), and how Weber has handled Brandon Paul and Richmond. Hell, even Mike Davis has a wealth of athleticism and he is worse now than he was as a freshman. People have said that Weber is a system coach and his system works well to get the most out of mid-major talent, and I think that appears to be true now. He has a very athletic team whose offense is simply jump-shooting. They have shot one of the lowest number of per possession free-throws in the nation for a while, and it's no longer possible to blame that on the players. It's too bad, because the talent to be an exciting team is there.

 

 

[Buehrle>Wood]

If any coach needed any negative recuiting material against Illinois, they only need to look at what has happened to DJ Richardson's ability slash and drive to the hoop (which he excelled at before college), a

...Seriously? Who gives a s*** what he was in high school? He's was Big Ten FotY and looks to be the next great player at Illinois.

 

I don't know how much negative recruiting you're going to get done there.

[Jenksismyhero]

Gonzaga is not a a good team. The truth is that Illinois hasn't beaten anyone noteworthy and they got exposed as the fringe tournament team they are yesterday. I fully expect Mizzou's press will destroy them, given their inability to dribble, which should be entertaining to watch.

 

Illinois has a bunch of 4 year players and some very athletic players, so it's easy to see why in the preseason they were expected to be good. But the season doesn't lie and they have not improved significantly from last year.

 

If any coach needed any negative recruiting material against Illinois, they only need to look at what has happened to DJ Richardson's ability slash and drive to the hoop (which he excelled at before college), and how Weber has handled Brandon Paul and Richmond. Hell, even Mike Davis has a wealth of athleticism and he is worse now than he was as a freshman. People have said that Weber is a system coach and his system works well to get the most out of mid-major talent, and I think that appears to be true now. He has a very athletic team whose offense is simply jump-shooting. They have shot one of the lowest number of per possession free-throws in the nation for a while, and it's no longer possible to blame that on the players. It's too bad, because the talent to be an exciting team is there.

 

Wow. Back off the ledge buddy. It's one bad loss, it's not the end of the world. National championship teams have had equally bad losses before. Illinois was an explosive team up until this point (scoring 70+ points in all games...only Duke and Kansas have done that). It's pretty hard to win when you shoot 33%. Not an excuse for the loss, but come on. If you watched the game UIC was hitting some ridiculous 3's too.

 

As for Weber, you're insane. You give him too much criticism for these types of losses and no credit for his good wins. Fact is he can't put the ball in the hoop. He can't physically restrain people from making stupid fouls. He can't get his players amped up/excited to play the game. This loss was on the players, not the coach.

 

And yeah, I have no idea what you're talking about with Richardson. Not sure how his game could be any better at this point. He's a sophomore on a team with 3 seniors starting. He's not going to suddenly take the Lebron James role on this team. He finds his niche like any good player does. Perhaps next year he makes that leap, but you can't expect him to do that now.

 

What's he done wrong with Richmond? Seems to me he's having a very solid freshman season so far (12 games remember). Paul is all athletic talent, but is totally inconsistent. Again, he's a SOPHOMORE. If you were expecting something more then that's on you.

 

IMO Illinois is a top 10-top 15 team. I think they have the potential to make a deep run in the tourney. It obviously all depends on if they show up to play. These players, lead by the worthless Mike Davis and the soft Mike Tisdale, have always played down to their competition. That's been the theme of their tenure here.

[nitetrain8601]

Don't be mad that the RoboCop, Robo Kreps led his team to victory

[fathom]

...Seriously? Who gives a s*** what he was in high school? He's was Big Ten FotY and looks to be the next great player at Illinois.

 

I don't know how much negative recruiting you're going to get done there.

 

I agree Richardson shouldn't be used for negative recruiting, but as a one-dimensional player, I don't think he's going to ever be a great player for Illinois.

[Buehrle>Wood]

I agree Richardson shouldn't be used for negative recruiting, but as a one-dimensional player, I don't think he's going to ever be a great player for Illinois.

We'll see next year when he has more control over the offense with McCamey gone. He's already a good defender though too.

[danman31]

IMO Illinois is a top 10-top 15 team. I think they have the potential to make a deep run in the tourney. It obviously all depends on if they show up to play. These players, lead by the worthless Mike Davis and the soft Mike Tisdale, have always played down to their competition. That's been the theme of their tenure here.

Wow, so to you the UIC game didn't happen? I find it interesting the range of reactions here. Some saying Illinois is a bubble team, some saying top 10-15 team. It's probably somewhere in the middle though. I don't think Illinois is a second week of the tourney team, but you never know what the draw gives.

[RockRaines]

Wow. Back off the ledge buddy. It's one bad loss, it's not the end of the world. National championship teams have had equally bad losses before. Illinois was an explosive team up until this point (scoring 70+ points in all games...only Duke and Kansas have done that). It's pretty hard to win when you shoot 33%. Not an excuse for the loss, but come on. If you watched the game UIC was hitting some ridiculous 3's too.

 

As for Weber, you're insane. You give him too much criticism for these types of losses and no credit for his good wins. Fact is he can't put the ball in the hoop. He can't physically restrain people from making stupid fouls. He can't get his players amped up/excited to play the game. This loss was on the players, not the coach.

 

And yeah, I have no idea what you're talking about with Richardson. Not sure how his game could be any better at this point. He's a sophomore on a team with 3 seniors starting. He's not going to suddenly take the Lebron James role on this team. He finds his niche like any good player does. Perhaps next year he makes that leap, but you can't expect him to do that now.

 

What's he done wrong with Richmond? Seems to me he's having a very solid freshman season so far (12 games remember). Paul is all athletic talent, but is totally inconsistent. Again, he's a SOPHOMORE. If you were expecting something more then that's on you.

 

IMO Illinois is a top 10-top 15 team. I think they have the potential to make a deep run in the tourney. It obviously all depends on if they show up to play. These players, lead by the worthless Mike Davis and the soft Mike Tisdale, have always played down to their competition. That's been the theme of their tenure here.

So do you see Richardson and Richmond being 4 year players then? Because you seem to really expect their development to take place a year or so down the line if not more.

[Buehrle>Wood]

Wow, so to you the UIC game didn't happen? I find it interesting the range of reactions here. Some saying Illinois is a bubble team, some saying top 10-15 team. It's probably somewhere in the middle though. I don't think Illinois is a second week of the tourney team, but you never know what the draw gives.

Up until Saturday, UI was one of just a few teams to score 70+ in all of their games. Then they gave UIC a game because they dipped down to 54. I'm guessing it was just a huge aberration.

[Buehrle>Wood]

So do you see Richardson and Richmond being 4 year players then? Because you seem to really expect their development to take place a year or so down the line if not more.

What do you mean? What development does Richardson even need? He's all ready almost as good as you can expect him to be.

 

 

Richmond has a long ways to go. I like him as the point forward with McCamey coming off the ball. He should have been used that way much more on Saturday. The few times he was, it seemed like Illinois scored. Worked in NY too.

[RockRaines]

What do you mean? What development does Richardson even need? He's all ready almost as good as you can expect him to be.

 

 

Richmond has a long ways to go. I like him as the point forward with McCamey coming off the ball. He should have been used that way much more on Saturday. The few times he was, it seemed like Illinois scored. Worked in NY too.

I have no idea, thats why I was asking Jenks why he thought they may "take a leap" and pointed out the age of those guys. The only guy I am familiar with talent-wise is Richmond and frankly if he is a 4 year player at Illinois than that is a pretty bad job of coaching by the staff. You would assume most players that come in being the best player in a hugely talented state would be one or two and done.

[Jenksismyhero]

I have no idea, thats why I was asking Jenks why he thought they may "take a leap" and pointed out the age of those guys. The only guy I am familiar with talent-wise is Richmond and frankly if he is a 4 year player at Illinois than that is a pretty bad job of coaching by the staff. You would assume most players that come in being the best player in a hugely talented state would be one or two and done.

 

Richardson I think will be, only because he probably doesn't have the body to be an NBA 2. I think his "leap" is going to be moving from a 3 pt specialist (which he is now) to a guy that can take someone off the dribble and create his own shot. Be more of an offensive leader. With the talent around him though he might want to stay out on the perimeter and hit the open shots. That's why next years team will be interesting. I have no idea what their strength will be. They'll have a freshman PG or a couple of upperclass combo guards handling the ball. They'll have a ton of athletic wings and a couple of young big guys. I think they'll just be talented, without a specific inside/outside strength.

 

Richmond should stay at least one more year. He has raw skill and talent, and is very intelligent. However I think he can improve his draft stock a lot (going from, say 1st round to lottery pick) if he can show scouts his ability to be more of a point forward. His shooting also needs some work. But I'm stuck in the late 90's to early 00's draft thinking. Nowadays you take a chance on raw talent over proven veterans early in the draft. I'm sure if scouts are saying first round Weber will advise him to go. Though with the lockout pending I'm not sure how that works. Do the guys that get drafted still get their paychecks if the lockout happens?

[RockRaines]

Richardson I think will be, only because he probably doesn't have the body to be an NBA 2. I think his "leap" is going to be moving from a 3 pt specialist (which he is now) to a guy that can take someone off the dribble and create his own shot. Be more of an offensive leader. With the talent around him though he might want to stay out on the perimeter and hit the open shots. That's why next years team will be interesting. I have no idea what their strength will be. They'll have a freshman PG or a couple of upperclass combo guards handling the ball. They'll have a ton of athletic wings and a couple of young big guys. I think they'll just be talented, without a specific inside/outside strength.

 

Richmond should stay at least one more year. He has raw skill and talent, and is very intelligent. However I think he can improve his draft stock a lot (going from, say 1st round to lottery pick) if he can show scouts his ability to be more of a point forward. His shooting also needs some work. But I'm stuck in the late 90's to early 00's draft thinking. Nowadays you take a chance on raw talent over proven veterans early in the draft. I'm sure if scouts are saying first round Weber will advise him to go. Though with the lockout pending I'm not sure how that works. Do the guys that get drafted still get their paychecks if the lockout happens?

The lockout presents an interesting question. I know OSU fans are hoping that keeps Sullinger on the team for at least 2 years, and maybe DeShaun Thomas 3 years.

Edited December 21, 2010 by RockRaines

[zenryan]

I wonder how many Euro teams will try to sign the better college players for a season if there is a lockout.

 

 

 

Also wont there still be a draft if there is a lockout? I thought that you could still draft a player but not sign anyone.

[Soxbadger]

Lock out presumably would happen after the draft, so a player would already have had to declare before there is any certainty about a lockout. Unless the NCAA grants some exemption, they would be ineligible to return to NCAA.

 

Should make the decision easy for fringe first round players. But I think the top guys are still going to declare and let the chips fall where they may.

[ZoomSlowik]

The CBA doesn't expire until early July, so yeah, there would still be a draft. I would imagine a fair number of guys would still declare. The guys that are still top-5 locks, the guys that are too dumb to keep their eligibility for an extra two semesters, the guys that are desperate to get whatever money they can as soon as possible, and a handful of guys that aren't likely to see their stock increase for some reason (lack of ideal size or athleticism mostly).

 

 

[Heads22]

Bring it on, Chicago State!

[Jenksismyhero]

The CBA doesn't expire until early July, so yeah, there would still be a draft. I would imagine a fair number of guys would still declare. The guys that are still top-5 locks, the guys that are too dumb to keep their eligibility for an extra two semesters, the guys that are desperate to get whatever money they can as soon as possible, and a handful of guys that aren't likely to see their stock increase for some reason (lack of ideal size or athleticism mostly).

 

But are they going to get paid? Seems dumb for the NBA to hold the draft, start the lockout and then be on the hook for the millions-a-year rookie contracts.

[Balta1701]

But are they going to get paid? Seems dumb for the NBA to hold the draft, start the lockout and then be on the hook for the millions-a-year rookie contracts.

No players get paid (or even signed to contracts) once the lockout starts.

[Soxbadger]

They will have to hold the draft because up until the last possible minute it is going to be "business as usual."

 

They will be drafted, not have a signed contract and whenever the new CBA kicks in, they will have a contract. A possible benefit would be that as they are already drafted, they would have a stake in the new CBA and most likely will get more favorable treatment as compared to players who have yet to declare.

[danman31]

Up until Saturday, UI was one of just a few teams to score 70+ in all of their games. Then they gave UIC a game because they dipped down to 54. I'm guessing it was just a huge aberration.

I agree, but it still needs to be noted. UIC isn't supposed to beat a top 15 caliber team even on a bad night.

[Heads22]

So, Chicago State might be the worst team I've ever seen.

 

Iowa State has 45 points 12 minutes in.

[whitesoxfan99]

I agree, but it still needs to be noted. UIC isn't supposed to beat a top 15 caliber team even on a bad night.

I think Illinois could very well be a top 15 team this year, but I don't think they would be most years. Outside of Duke and a couple of other teams I don't think anyone is all that good.

[RockRaines]

I think Illinois could very well be a top 15 team this year, but I don't think they would be most years. Outside of Duke and a couple of other teams I don't think anyone is all that good.

ILL SHOULD be a top 15 team, I honestly think they have top 10 talent, and I'm not sure why they havent put it together.