How to Fill Out a Winning Bracket

[FirstTimer]

Memphis didn't win the National Championship so it proves the notion correct. Florida has Brewer and Horford both have solid careers thus far, Noah is a starter for the Bulls. Florida had a great team.

Brewer has not had a soldi career. He is averaging 5.9ppg and 3.9rpg and has been out since December.

LOL at "solid" career.

Noah blows.

Horford is about the only one you could make a case for.

[ralaw]

Noah has been decent. The article didn't article didn't say anything about the NBA players having to be perennial all-stars.....just guys who "will stick in the league" and Noah hasn't done anything to prove that he isn't a decent bigman. No one expected him to be anything more than a high energy, rebounding guy and this is what he is. At team could do much worse.

As for the article I've never been a fan of making declarations and than listing multiple exceptions to the rule and than trying to pass the logic off as a science.

[Senser81]

As for the article I've never been a fan of making declarations and than listing multiple exceptions to the rule and than trying to pass the logic off as a science.

Yeah, that was kinda my point too. They have a cutoff 'since 1990', which gives about 18 years, then there are 8 or 9 exceptions to every "rule"...well, thats like half the teams.

[Senser81]

It didn't say 3 NBA superstars...it just said 3 potential NBA players.

LOL, I don't think anyone has said 3 NBA superstars, and every basketball team, even high school teams, have 12 potential NBA players.

The guy went on to say "Not just guys who might get drafted, but players who will stick in the league." I would hope Scotty Thurman's cup-of-coffee in the NBA doesn't count as a 94 Arkansas player 'sticking in the league'.

[FirstTimer]

Noah has been decent. The article didn't article didn't say anything about the NBA players having to be perennial all-stars.....just guys who "will stick in the league" and Noah hasn't done anything to prove that he isn't a decent bigman. No one expected him to be anything more than a high energy, rebounding guy and this is what he is. At team could do much worse.

As for the article I've never been a fan of making declarations and than listing multiple exceptions to the rule and than trying to pass the logic off as a science.

I guess I could argue Noah has been "decent" but it would turn itno semantics. Noah has been below average IMO and the only reason he has "stuck" so far is that the team invested a Top 10 pick in this turd and is being stubborn. Noah belongs in the NBADL.

My issue is that he just said "Noah is a starter" as if that's some huge deal and makes his point. Noah is a start on perhaps the worst front court in the NBA, and he's a large reason for it. Noah may be a starter but it's only because he is the best turd in a pile of shit that includes Aaron Gray and an aging Brad Miller

[Kuzzy Powers]

Memphis didn't win the National Championship so it proves the notion correct. Florida has Brewer and Horford both have solid careers thus far, Noah is a starter for the Bulls. Florida had a great team.

It's hard to get it right for every single season but this is what you need the majority of the time.

Not to nit-pick.. but Brewer has had far from a solid career. After he was everyones darling underdog pick for ROTY last year, and flopped.. he went on to tear his ACL this year. I love his game, but hes been a bit of a let-down.

[Kuzzy Powers]

I guess I could argue Noah has been "decent" but it would turn itno semantics. Noah has been below average IMO and the only reason he has "stuck" so far is that the team invested a Top 10 pick in this turd and is being stubborn. Noah belongs in the NBADL.

My issue is that he just said "Noah is a starter" as if that's some huge deal and makes his point. Noah is a start on perhaps the worst front court in the NBA, and he's a large reason for it. Noah may be a starter but it's only because he is the best turd in a pile of shit that includes Aaron Gray and an aging Brad Miller

Brad Miller >>>>>>>>>>> Joakim Noah. Miller is still a very serviceable big-man.

[FirstTimer]

Brad Miller >>>>>>>>>>> Joakim Noah. Miller is still a very serviceable big-man.

Agreed. I didn't make it clear. I personally don't think Noah is better than Miller, I was just explaing why the Bulls would start Noah b/c in their view he is better.

[FirstTimer]

Holy shit, it said three guys that will STICK in the league... a.k.a. stay in the league. They are all in the league right?

So is Rob Kurz.........

Point being...

What is his definition of "stick" in the league? 2 years? 3 years? 4 years?

And don't you think it's a little tough to say whether these guys will stick in the league when they aren't even through their 2nd season yet and one just blew out his ACL?

Even still there are holes even to this theory still (ie 94 Arkansas)

[Senser81]

Holy shit, it said three guys that will STICK in the league... a.k.a. stay in the league. They are all in the league right?

Wow, nothing gets past you! It also misleadingly said "3 potential NBA players".

Which team is more impressive...a Georgetown team with 2 NBA players of Allen Iverson and Alonzo Mourning, or a Florida team with Horford, Noah, and Brewer? Trying to project/connect NCAA basketball team performance with that team's NBA potential is ridiculous. Two different games.

[FirstTimer]

Wow, nothing gets past you! It also misleadingly said "3 potential NBA players".

Which team is more impressive...a Georgetown team with 2 NBA players of Allen Iverson and Alonzo Mourning, or a Florida team with Horford, Noah, and Brewer? Trying to project/connect NCAA basketball team performance with that team's NBA potential is ridiculous. Two different games.

Ray Felton, Sean May, Rashad McCants, Marvin Williams>>>Alonzo Mourning, Allen Iverson

[FirstTimer]

It is basing things on talent level of the team by doing that. There are always exceptions to every rule. A team with 5 potential NBA players could definitely beat a team with 2 potential NBA SUPERSTARS because they can spread the floor out, and the whole team as a whole is better than the 2 guys on the other team.

And the team with two NBA Superstars could also beat the other team. It could just as easily go either way. That's the point. There is no formula for winning an NCAA title.

[mgoblue2290]

And the team with two NBA Superstars could also beat the other team. It could just as easily go either way. That's the point. There is no formula for winning an NCAA title.

Exactly, everyone has thinks they have some sorf of inside edge by using a bracket strategy. You don't, picking a bracket is a crapshoot.

The best strategy is just to pick the highest seed to advance, if you really want to have a winning bracket.

[FirstTimer]

Exactly, everyone has thinks they have some sorf of inside edge by using a bracket strategy. You don't, picking a bracket is a crapshoot.

The best strategy is just to pick the highest seed to advance, if you really want to have a winning bracket.

I know. It's laughable that saying "Well they have a freshman PG. Nope they can't win." Simply based on the idea that the PG is a Frosh then use Derrick Rose as your example.

Rose was the best player in the tourney last year not named Curry. He lead that team to the championship game and at times flat out carried that team. To say that memphis lost that game because Rose was a Frosh is laughable at best and at worst is basketball lunacy.

Memphis missed some free throws, Calipari had a massive brain fart in not telling his team to foul on the last possession in regulation and Chalmers hit an insanely difficult shot.

The Frosh PG example is off base for another reason as well. How many freshman PG's are good enough to come in and start for and lead a team to the Nat'l Championship game? You typically see the same teams succeed year in and year out. How many freshman guards are good enough to crack the starting lineup at schools like UNC, Duke, and other perrenial top 10 schools on a yearly basis? The sample size is so small it doesn't even make sense to have it be a "key" to winning a Nat'l championship.

Memphis lost that game not because Rose was a Frosh but because of some errors including one big one by their future HOF coach that IMO was an even bigger gaffe than a couple missed FT's.

[Senser81]

It is basing things on talent level of the team by doing that. There are always exceptions to every rule. A team with 5 potential NBA players could definitely beat a team with 2 potential NBA SUPERSTARS because they can spread the floor out, and the whole team as a whole is better than the 2 guys on the other team.

But obviously you two are just going to nitpick at everything and try to find every single thing about the article and scrutinize it, so I'll leave you to your fun.

Of course. A team with no potential NBA players could beat a team of 5 NBA players (see Austin Peay over Illinois in 1990). Thats my point...its retarded to predict college basketball team performance on individual NBA potential. College and NBA are two different games.

You seem to be implying that the number of potential NBA players is directly related to tourney success...as if a team with 5 potential NBA players would be better than a team of 2 NBA superstars. First, predicting that a guy like Tyus Edney gets his cup of coffee in the NBA is a crapshoot, and DEFINITELY not indicative of Edney being a better college point guard than a Tom Coverdale. Second, a team with a Carmelo Anthony, Danny Manning, Dwayne Wade is obviously going to have a huge advantage over a team with both Frank Williams and Robert Archibald.