3 most overrated teams in college basketball this year
This year the three most overrated teams in college basketball by far have been Duke, Kansas, and Kentucky. It seems like all three of these teams lose a bunch of games yet fail to drop much, if at all in the rankings if they lose (especially duke). I don't see either of these 3 teams getting past the second round of the ncaa this year. The freshman Wiggins, Embiid, Parker, and Randle all have great nba potential but not one of them is a consistently great college player, which I guess goes with being freshman.
None getting past the 2nd round really ?
Kentucky- no chance in hell
Duke- Will get dismantled by a physical team
Kansas- Has the best chance to get past the 2nd round but I don't see it.
Kansas won the best conference in college basketball outright... How can you say they are overrated?
Maybe if you mean at the start of the season but Oklahoma State is currently a bubble team and Ohio State is unranked.
Kentucky is possibly the most overrated team in the history of college basketball. 22-9, 12-6 in the SEC, 1-4 against ranked teams all year, with their lone win coming against Louisville. All that talent, none of the comraderie, cohesiveness, play for each other, team first mentality. Thats'a risk you take when you bring together all that talent with alpha dog mentalities and try to get them to play together. The Harrison twins.......oh dear god. Duke has lost four times this year to unranked teams. They lost both their games to elite opponents in Kansas and Arizona. They beat Syracuse at home, but the Cuse has lost 4 of 5 down the stretch with head scratching losses to Georgia Tech and Boston College at home. Duke's best win is probably against Michigan. To have 7 losses, 4 against unranked opponents and be a top 5 team is embarrassing and laughable. They were taken apart at Wake last week and have shot like 22 percent from 3 in the last 5 games. A win against Carolina tonight would be huge for them. Duke is a good basketball team, but a top five team and a number one seed they are far from.
Florida, Villanova, and San Diego State
How is Florida overrated? Not bashing you for it but curious to your reason cuz I don't see how they are.
I could for sure see UK out in the first round, but Bill Self is one of the best NCAA tourney coaches and well K is Coach K. Highly unlikely Duke and Ku get knocked out early.
Kentucky - overrated
Kansas/Duke - a tad bit overrated. Kansas has played a tough schedule, but some of their losses have been downright awful. Duke's mix of experience with young talent I thought would lead to a better season than they've had.
And please stop calling the Big 12 the best conference in America. Kansas is the best team with 8 losses, Iowa State and OK State are the next two best, and both of those teams are okay at best, and then you have Texas and K State which are both unranked. Best conference in America? C'mon.
I would like to ask who you think is the best conference?
According to Lunardi the Big 12 has 7 teams in the tourney which is the most of any conference. With that in mind the Big 12 is one of if not the deepest conferences. It's between them and the Big 10 that are the best conference but for sure the Big 12 is up there. I personally believe the Big 12 is the best conference because of its depth and the teams at the top.
Especially as a conference where every team plays the same, home and home schedule? The depth in the Big 12 this year has been awesome. Two teams have not been fantastic, though the parity from 3-8 has been pretty darn impressive. If you are going to guffaw at the Big 12 being the best conference this season, at least tell us who is or are better?
The Big Ten has 3 really good teams, than a bunch of question marks. The ACC is super top heavy, plus most teams got out of having to play the top teams more than once. Tell me who has had a harder schedule than Kansas this season and that they would not be doing just as well, if not better, in the ACC. They at the very least would be amongst the top 4 teams. Pitt has been wildly inconsistent, just do not think they put the ACC over the top. SEC has looked like a 2 bid league, maybe with a 3rd if they are lucky. Pac-12, as a Duck fan, we just beat Zona, so.....
Therefore, did I miss a better league? Like the Big East or AAC more? Some other secret conference out there better. Is the MVC the best conference because their best team has no losses? Again, does schedule mean nothing? Glad you did your research on how bad the Big 12 is, you know, without leaving a viable alternative as to which conference is actually better.
I like the ACC better, because there is little importance to me to what conference has the most 8+ seed teams/bubble teams.
They have 4 teams in the top 15, Duke, Syracuse, Virginia, and UNC.
Those are 4 teams that legitimately could make the final four.
The Big 12 has 1, maybe 2 teams of serious contention this season. I like Iowa State, but beyond that, what? OU? There best non-conference win was Alabama.
The ACC has a ton of teams, a lot of them bad, hence why it is easy to look at the "parity" of a 10 man conference and say it is deeper. But the 6 teams behind KU and ISU are all fairly mediocre. None of them have super impressive resumes, except that they have played each other.
I prefer a conference that has 4 really good teams over one that has 1-2, with 6 mediocre teams that are slightly better than the mediocre teams in other conferences.
And I don't care about how hard Kansas' schedule has been. Kansas is not the problem, they are the one good team. How that has anything to do with how good the conference is as a whole, I don't know.
The Big Ten has 3 really good teams, than a bunch of question marks.
So what is the difference between that and the Big 12? How are Ohio State, Iowa, and Nebraska question marks, while K State, Texas and OK State aren't? What is the definition of a question mark?
If all of those top 4 teams played each other twice during the conference regular season, you would be right. But they don't. Duke only played Virginia, than they split with Cuse and now Carolina. The Pitt road win was nice, though I feel they have been pretty damn underwhelming of late. KU played home and home with every team and yes, I do think that is where playing "8+ seeds" makes them better. The Big 12 conference as a whole, had a major strength of schedule advantage. That is where the playing of "mediocre" teams makes it tougher. ACC is more top heavy, sure, but that does not mean that Duke had a tougher 18 game conference schedule than Kansas.
The issue with the rankings and going by Top 25 teams is that they sometimes do not take the strength of conference or schedule into account. If Duke had played 8 games against Tournament teams in conference, you might have a point, but they played 6. With one of those teams not necessarily being a tournament lock in Pitt. Baylor, for as much as they struggled, beat a Colorado team with Spencer Dinwiddie, beat Kentucky and gave Syracuse a decent game. They struggled to get to .500 in the Big 12.
You are writing off the difficulty of Kansas' schedule and saying "their were only two good teams besides them". Just know, Kansas was 4-0 against those teams. Oklahoma didn't have a major non-conference win, but they were 12-6 in a conference that is fighting for 7 NCAA spots. What makes Nebraska more questionable than both Oklahoma and Iowa State is that they played an even worse non-conference schedule and started off conference play 1-6. They have been impressive since than, but their win at decimated Michigan St. has the whole "injury factor" to it. If you want to still say that makes them better than a Texas team that was fighting with Kansas for a while and a Kansas St. team that took some nice wins, so be it. Don't see it that way.
This has been a year of parity in most of college basketball, so it is hard to really pinpoint giant separation. Yes, the ACC has 4 schools at the top of the conference who have been very impressive. Than they have a couple other guys and a lot of schools who were bottom feeders. The Big 12 had a bunch of teams killing each other in home and homes with 7 teams likely to make the tournament. My whole thing is you than trying to discount that this could make a conference more difficult. I think playing 6 games against (likely) tournament teams is not more impressive than 12. Even if 5 of those games were against really awesome teams. If you think that the 6 games top the 12, again, that is on you.
I know you hate stats and metrics (well, unless they support you), but here is one that factors in how many games Duke and Kansas played against BPI (Check to see what the system factors in before you write it off) Top 50 teams:
BPI Top 60:
As far as the Big 10, they no longer do home and home's with every team either. This leaves some schedules uneven. So Nebraska maybe playing Michigan St. at a more full strength, even at home, could have been damn tough. They beat an Ohio St. team that has playing like a damn mess and who crushed them when they came to Columbus. They split with bottom of the conference Purdue and beat the other team at the bottom of the conference twice.
Nebraska's also 2-7 against BPI Top 50 (3-7 against RPI Top 50), while Oklahoma St. was 5-9 (so, yeah, they played 4 more games there and the same record in RPI) and Baylor was 6-8. West Virginia was 4-12 (5-12 with the win over Kansas today, without Embiid granted, however a win and another game against a good team), though that kind of makes one say, "they played 6 more games against BPI top 50 teams than Nebraska". Ohio St. was 3-3 against BPI Top 50, that whole "awful non-conference" thing caught up with them, big time. Iowa, 3-8. Though they played a lot more tough teams on the whole than Ohio St., just not as many as the Big 12 teams you mentioned.
That is why I think the Big 12 was a tougher conference this year. It may not have 4 teams as good as the top of the ACC, but they certainly played against more high level teams than teams did throughout the year playing in the ACC or Big Ten. Here are the number of games Kansas played against BPI Top 50 as compared to that of the 4 top ACC teams:
Kansas: 18 games (11-7)
Virginia: 11 games (7-4)
Duke: 11 games (7-4)
Syracuse: 10 (8-2)
North Carolina: 10 (7-3)
So Kansas does not have the best record and they may not have had to play NC and Cuse twice. Though on the whole, they played a lot more good teams than Duke and the top of the ACC in general. Especially in conference play. Maybe that is not your definition of "the best conference in America" at work, though I think that tends to be what made the Big 12 just that, in general. The fact that the Big 12 had as many teams ranked highly in the RPI and BPI rankings is a testament to how tough the conference was as a whole. Playing good teams may not make one better than another team, though it definitely seems to help. Guess we will ultimately find out how good they are by tournament performance, though am going to say, the Big 12 teams definitely seemed to have been more battle tested, even without having 4 teams in the top 15.
Maybe, based on pre-season ranking and these teams being ranked, lol. A guy lists viable alternatives and they are "too bad to be overrated":
Maybe if you mean at the start of the season but Oklahoma State is currently a bubble team and Ohio State is unranked.
So you have to be ranked now, to be considered overrated? Plus, none of those teams have match-up issues that make them really tough outs in neutral locations? Kentucky lost twice to a Florida team that has been awesome, to an Arkansas team that had their number, than a few neutral losses and away losses. They may not have lived up to the #1 billing that most gave them, but to say they have "no chance in hell" of getting past the 2nd round seems a little shortsighted considering we have no idea who they are playing as of yet. Their shooting is worrisome, though they have some talent and I doubt teams are dying to play them in the NCAA tournament.
As far as Duke and Kansas, they have both been pretty damn solid. Duke lost in neutral locations to KU and Arizona, than had some road bumps. We knew they were going to take some lumps inside, though they still provide a lot of versatility and match-up issues. Kansas had to break in all new starters, while playing an awesome non-conference schedule, losing to the Big East champ, a tough road game on a Colorado team that had Spencer Dinwiddie at the time (plus still turned out not falling apart without him), the SEC champ and depending on how they do at home, the possible MWC Champ. The San Diego St. loss is their only one at home, the rest are on the road.
I think Duke and Kansas still look like top 10 teams to me, I am guessing neither is lower than a 3 seed, with Duke possibly going to a 4 if they lose to NC and early in the conference tournament. They still can get a 3, though and Kansas looks like a 3 at least with the record they played. Both of them are teams I am guessing people are not loving in neutral settings, hence the NCAA Tournament. You can point to tons of tournament upsets and that could happen. Just think that you are probably wrong about these 3 ending up being that overrated when it comes down to how they finish off the season.
One should be 'cuse. Syracuse almost lost at Pitt and then almost lost at home to N.C. State. Then they lost 4 of their next 5 to date, and the game they won @Maryland was only by 2 pts.....So, they are 3-4 in their last 7 and the 3 games they won are by a combined 5 pts, and they are currently ranked #7.
I agree that Kansas is over-rated in some ways. Mainly they're just very young, but more importantly there's a lot of guys on that team that play no D. Embid and Wiggins are the only good defenders and Embid is very foul prone. What's going to happen when they run into a team that has multiple guys playing well offensively and then Embid pick up a few cheap fouls?
Still think they make it past the first weekend pretty easily though, too much talent. Also every single guy on that team is streaky in terms of hitting outside shots. They could beat anyone on a good day, and lose to anybody on a bad one.
1) Wisconsin (2)
2) Villanova (2)
3) Michigan (2)
Oddly enough, these are all 2-seeds; I fully expect two of these three to go down in the 1st round to a 15-seed, which would be unprecedented.
Wisconsin is weak down low, particularly on the offensive glass, and they're mediocre at defending the 3.
Villanova is mediocre at the point, lacks a dependable post presence (although they do gang rebound), and they're terrible against the 3.
Michigan...oh God, where do I begin? Michigan is mediocre at the point, atrocious down low, mediocre defensively, and has no size (overlaps with the fact they're awful down low).
Not being able to hit the offensive glass is a death sentence come March.
R.I.P. these three teams...and R.I.P. Creighton, Iowa State, and St. Louis.
UCLA is also really bad on the offensive glass but I think they may be just masterful enough at the point and on the wing to offset this deficiency.
Last year you made claims like this and it led to me having the worst bracket in history. So until these happen I'm taking all of this with a grain of salt!
Sorry about last year, bud.
After last year's Tourney I created a statistical model for picking teams based on over a decade of data and I'm very confident it will translate to great success.
Wisconsin pulls the monumental upset!
Over the final 30 minutes they outscored American 65-18, it's not like it was a nail-biter.
3 straight games go into OT and I get all of them wrong.
Mark Gottfried is an excellent recruiter but I'll be damned if he isn't one of the worst head coaches in the game. Always brings in 4 and 5-star talent yet his teams never seem to do much. 8-seed last year bounced in the 1st round. 12-seed this year bounced in the 1st round.
NC State was up 16 and the dope kept all the poor free throw shooters in, had his team play ZERO perimeter defense, and allowed TJ Warren to foul out in OT.
Mark Gottfried is a complete and utter buffoon.
Wisconson, Villanova, and Virginia imo.
Kentucky no chance in hell of making the sweet sixteen?
Kentucky was overrated ?