CBSSports.com Top 100 College Bball Players

[tsywake]

You're looking at the here and now and completely ignoring what got us to this point. When we started the new boards, you, like many others came over with a new handle and got a fresh start ( I dont recall seeing a KA on scout). People didnt just start arguing with you because it was you. They started arguing with you because of your posting style and the comments you were making. There are tons of posters on here who cant stand each other, but their threads dont all go where yours have been lately. You're definitely a lightning rod and there are plenty of people who have problems with you and vise versa. At what point do you begin to notice a pattern? As Jaybone said in one of the other threads, you bring a lot of good insight and information, but the issue is how you project said information. That is what is causing the problem.

 

[KanhojiAngre]

The problem with my good insight and information is that it runs contrary to the party line here, and some people don't like that and attack me as a result of it, no matter how much sense my good insight and information makes.

Doesn't seem like that insight is a very valuable currency here. Not as valuable as things like alumni status, being an elitist, bashing West Virginians, holding up the ACC as the be all and end all of sport, etc.

 

[GQCoolest]

First time I've ever heard of USC being favorably compared with Gonzaga in basketball over the last decade or so. Something new every day on this board, someone stretches a little further every day to try to argue a point of mine.

You probably also thought Durant played in a better league than Fredette, judging from this "high major school" baloney. Not according to the RPIs from the respective seasons.

Yes, you're right. Never mind the fact that USC was a 5 seed in 2007 while the mighty Zags were an 11 seed this past year. USC in 2007 was a significantly better team than Gonzaga in 2011. Not sure why a decade long comparison of which team has had more overall success has anything to do with that.

I do appreciate you putting words in my mouth in that second paragraph in order to espouse another talking point though, that was cool.

 

[KanhojiAngre]

And oh yeah, I'm definitely noticing the pattern here.

Anything I say has someone trying to disprove it or argue against it, no matter how ridiculous the argument has to be or how divorced from actual data or other forms of evidence.

 

[TWDeac]

The problem with my good insight and information is that it runs contrary to the party line here, and some people don't like that and attack me as a result of it, no matter how much sense my good insight and information makes.

Doesn't seem like that insight is a very valuable currency here. Not as valuable as things like alumni status, being an elitist, bashing West Virginians, holding up the ACC as the be all and end all of sport, etc.

There is no overarching party line here, you are just a contrarian to every viewpoint that isn't your own.

 

[KanhojiAngre]

Yes, you're right. Never mind the fact that USC was a 5 seed in 2007 while the mighty Zags were an 11 seed this past year. USC in 2007 was a significantly better team than Gonzaga in 2011. Not sure why a decade long comparison of which team has had more overall success has anything to do with that.

I do appreciate you putting words in my mouth in that second paragraph in order to espouse another talking point though, that was cool.

Then why did you make it a point to say they lost to a "high major school", whatever the fuck that is, rather than saying they lost to "higher seeded Florida"? Obviously because you were trying to dig at BYU's conference affiliation, even though the Mountain West had been a really good league the last couple of years. Go ahead, deny it now, but it's obvious I'm right -- otherwise, you wouldn't have made the distinction.

BYU played to seed. Texas didn't.

 

[GQCoolest]

Then why did you make it a point to say they lost to a "high major school", whatever the fuck that is, rather than saying they lost to "higher seeded Florida"? Obviously because you were trying to dig at BYU's conference affiliation, even though the Mountain West had been a really good league the last couple of years. Go ahead, deny it now, but it's obvious I'm right -- otherwise, you wouldn't have made the distinction.

BYU played to seed. Texas didn't.

You seriously have never head the term "high major"? In comparison to "mid major?"

Mid-majors, such as BYU, often get out-athleted by high major teams in the tourney. My point is that when teams like BYU (see, Mid-Major) who rely on beating teams with similar athleticism by having more talent, face teams with better athleticism and a similar amount of talent, will often lose.

The overarching point is that the tournament is a crapshoot and matchups have way more to do with advancing than do seed numbers. BYU was fortunate to not face one of those more athletic teams typical of High Major (A.K.A. major conference team, A.K.A., BCS Conference Team, A.K.A. Big 12, Big 10, Big East, ACC, SEC, or Pac-12) until the 2nd weekend. When they did, they lost. That's my point.

Comparing Conference RPI across years is ridiculous, because Conference RPI depends on a multitude of factors. I guess the 2010-11 MWC was also better than the 2007-2008 Big East as well?

 

[KanhojiAngre]

You seriously have never head the term "high major"? In comparison to "mid major?"

I've heard it. I think it's horsecrap and I can't imagine how anyone still makes the distinction. Xavier, Butler, VCU, George Mason, Davidson, Gonzaga, St. Mary's, San Diego State...I guess these all mean nothing.

Mid-majors, such as BYU, often get out-athleted by high major teams in the tourney.

And often don't as well. More horsecrap. SDSU was more athletic than many teams in the tournament, regardless of conference affiliation. But they're in the same conference as "mid major" BYU, and so obviously are mid-major as well.

My point is that when teams like BYU (see, Mid-Major) who rely on beating teams with similar athleticism by having more talent, face teams with better athleticism and a similar amount of talent, will often lose.

I don't even know how to respond to this. If I don't I'll be accused of agreeing with it. But it's so amateur that I don't even have a response.

The overarching point is that the tournament is a crapshoot and matchups have way more to do with advancing than do seed numbers.

Playing winning basketball has a lot to do with winning.

BYU was fortunate to not face one of those more athletic teams typical of High Major (A.K.A. major conference team, A.K.A., BCS Conference Team, A.K.A. Big 12, Big 10, Big East, ACC, SEC, or Pac-12) until the 2nd weekend. When they did, they lost. That's my point.

Yeah Florida really showed them they didn't belong on the court. What a load of malarkey. If anything, Fredette showed in that game that he can play against more athletic players. His 3s weren't falling, but he shot 8 for 14 inside the arc and kept his team in the game in other ways. You're not accounting at all for how much worse the rest of the BYU team was compared to Florida without whoever you want to say was their best player. Florida knew they had one guy they needed to stop, and to their credit they made him work for his points and did a really good job against him. But that the game was even close is a tribute to Fredette and the skill and ability he showed. Fredette shot 11 for 29 and still shot much better than the rest of the team. Florida was the better team, but Fredette was easily the best player on the court because if he hadn't been, BYU loses by 30.

..

 

[jaybone]

Did someone say Brain Scalabrine? Or the Jewish bomber?

Where IS Sam Mack?

 

[Deacsfan27]

Sullinger is easily the best returning player. Barnes was inconsistent and inefficient but if improved would be valuable. Still, I think I like Zeller better off that team -- guy just doesn't do very much wrong and does a lot right.

Jordan Taylor is a fabulous player who plays for one of my favorite coaches. But I don't think he's as good as Devin Harris who played in the same system and was picked in the draft in about the same place as he's put on this list. So to me that's an indication of weakness, considering Harris wasn't a "potential" pick when he was drafted.

But two people who will be picks based on potential are both named Jones: Terrance Jones is unreliable in his effort, much like Perry Jones. Both are great athletes, but neither are aggressive enough and seem to think they can coast on their talent. I'm not even sure P. Jones would be my first pick of tall people named Jones at Baylor. Anthony Jones is a heckuva college player. Gary Parrish is a crack-smoker if he thinks Perry Jones is leading anything. The team's seniors -- Acy and Anthony Jones -- might, but I doubt that too. If they can improve the amount of time they stay on the court, guys further down the list like Josh Smith, Tarik Black and Festus Ezeli would be guys I'd like less to see opposing my favorite team than Perry Jones. Jamichael Green too probably, though I actually cannot remember having seen him play (most of the non-FR major-conference guys on this list I have, plus some smaller school guys).

Ashton Gibbs is a one-trick pony but he's really good at that one trick, I will grant. Compare his numbers to #60 rated Doron Lamb on the draftxpress page linked (which I agree is useful, but you have to consider that no one plays 40 minutes and most don't come close).

I love Robbie Hummel but have no idea how he'll come back after injury again. I've already mentioned that I really like Jenkins.

Tim Abromaitis...lol. Wasn't even as good last year as he was as a soph.

Here's what I really look at though. Is anyone on that list likely to be as good at guard as Kemba Walker was? Or Kyrie Irving would have been had he been healthy all year? I don't think there is anyone. Taylor will be very productive but some of that has to do with playing for an outstanding coach. Jenkins is an off guard, so you're telling me no worse than the 3rd best lead guard is a guy that averaged 6 a game last year? From this list, one could deduce that either this panel has no respect for guys who like to pass the ball or good players who pass well are almost extinct. And you've got guys listed in the top 20 despite being "sleepers" or guys that need to "break out" yet? Weak.

Some of the best post guys were Derrick Williams, Jon Leuer, JaJuan Johnson, and Marcus Morris. They were all good scorers, rebounders and passers, and all were solid even well into the midrange and beyond. Sullinger has the quality to be in that class. Jones won't be -- doesn't rebound enough, turns it over too much. Henson won't be, mediocre on offense. Maybe Anthony Davis will be. I've mentioned how much I like Zeller, but wonder if he'll get as many shots as he should with Barnes on his team. I like Draymond Green a lot too, if he becomes a bit more efficient on offense he could suddenly become one of the most important and omnipresent players in the country.

If you look at per 40 pace adjusted, WVU's Casey Mitchell was one of the leading scorers in major college basketball last year too. So not buying this Thomas Robinson stuff just yet. Robinson's gonna have to cut back on his fouls, which will probably also cut back on his rebounding, if he's going to be a starter this year. So we'll see I guess. But for such a spectulative pick to be rated as high as he is, again, indicates weakness. I'd put a chip on Travis Relaford to be KU's leading scorer considering the odds I'd get.

I agree that McKie should be on this list.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/player/_/id/46114/thomas-robinson

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/team/stats/_/id/2305/kansas-jayhawks

Two swings and misses.

 

[HalIncandenza]

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/player/_/id/46114/thomas-robinson

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/team/stats/_/id/2305/kansas-jayhawks

Two swings and misses.

I won't give him too much grief for not buying into the Thomas Robinson stuff (although I'm looking damn good for saying he'd be 18 and 12) since it was truly speculative, but the Releford thing was crazy at the time and actually is looking worse for how well Withey has been playing.

 

[Strickland33]

I won't give him too much grief for not buying into the Thomas Robinson stuff (although I'm looking damn good for saying he'd be 18 and 12) since it was truly speculative, but the Releford thing was crazy at the time and actually is looking worse for how well Withey has been playing.

Most folks in the know were pretty sure that Robinson... Releford was never going to be good. Biggest surprise on that team, in my opinion is either Withey or EJohnson. Both far overperforming relative to expectations.

 

[Strickland33]

So, Robinson is averaging 17.7 points per game (52.8% FG, 33% 3FG), 12.2 rebounds, 1.4 steals, and 1.1 blocks per game. Believe me now?

Withey and Johnson are eclipsing their past and pre-season expectations, as well...

:thumbsup: