Wake Forest is getting dominated by a HORRIBLE Nd team:
- Thread starter JackStorm
- Start date
EvilMonkeyInTheCloset
Well-Known Member
I don't know my man...I see a boatload of posters coming to the defense of the ACC on this forum...if you say the ACC sucks, they come out in full force.
As for determining which conference is the best (which again, I couldn't care less about, would absolutely love it if UK was the sole NCAA Tourney rep from the SEC), one would probably have to go by the amount of teams selected to the field.
I personally don't use tournament performance as a referendum on a conference's strength. As just one example, the ACC was loaded in 2017...but UNC was the only ACC team to get out of the first weekend. The SEC sucked that year, but managed to get 3 teams to the Elite 8. Just because the SEC had exponentially better tourney success, I would never come close to saying "See!! The SEC is better!!"
Just how I look at it.
Again, you already know what I mean. We have discussed this in depth in other threads, as well as this one. You are being disingenuous at this point. I even bolded my claim and capitalized everything for you in the other thread, so I am not going to explain it a 10th time dude.
And of course you bring up UK. This conversation has nothing to do with UK. Me saying the ACC sucks, just like I have said the SEC has sucked for the majority of the 21st century, has nothing to do with UK. Sheesh.
As for metrics, majority of sites I look at have SEC rated first or second. But again, for the millionth time, I couldn't care less where there conferences are rated...but it does not preclude me from saying the ACC blows again this yr, or from saying early season Nov/Dec games mean absolutely nothing when determining which conferences/teams are playing better in March. They mean nothing!
Which sites have the SEC #1? I haven't seen any.
I mentioned Kentucky because you and others have said they're a different team than they were a few months ago, based mainly on the results of two games. And with a lot of freshmen, it would make sense that they'd improve more than a lot of teams. If you're not talking about Kentucky, then who in the SEC has greatly improved over the last two months? And if they haven't improved greatly, why would games played a few months ago be meaningless now?
None of the games played this year are "completely meaningless." They all help to create a full picture.
You've still never answered the question...if all the games but recent ones are meaningless, how do you determine a conference's strength? If you're throwing out most of the season to date, then you also have to throw out the metrics. So that leaves us with what...your eye test?
I've never said that the ACC is good this year (relative to other power leagues), but I'm not convinced that the SEC is on a different level than the ACC either. I don't think that having a few more fringe tourney teams moves the needle that much.
The first link below had the SEC first when I looked yesterday. But rankings update every five min...so SEC is now second. The other one has the SEC second as well.
RealTimeRPI.com Men's College Basketball Rating Percentage Index (RPI) Ratings - A leading sports ratings and resources community on the Internet
RealTimeRPI.com: RPI, RPI Rankings, college basketball rpi, Real Time NCAA College Basketball and Sports Ratings - the most accurate independent analysis of the NCAA college basketball Rating Percentage Index (RPI)
realtimerpi.com
NCAA College Basketball RPI Rankings (updated today)
NCAA college basketball RPI rankings and ratings for 2024, updated daily for all teams and available historically for every day of the 2024 season.
www.teamrankings.com
That aside, again, I am throwing out Nov and Dec games because teams are not the same, at all. Some are playing much better. Some worse. Some have had injuries, some have had players kicked off the team. Some have gotten players back from early season injuries. So again, those early season games tell you nothing about how teams/conferences are performing 3-4 months later. It is ridiculous to say otherwise.
Also, by the time conference play is over, teams will have played 60 to 70% of their games against conference teams, and exponentially more recently then Nov.
If you dont think the SEC is on a different level then the ACC, not sure what to tell you. You would be in the incredibly small minority nationally to have that opinion.
But if you take that viewpoint, then you have to take the same in regards to the Big 12 and ACC. Exact same logic, especially when considering how the ACC steamrolled the Big 12 in non conference play.
Oh, and I already answered the question about determining which conference is strongest. See my response to Awilli....
But if November and December games don't matter, how do we know that the SEC is better than the ACC?
How do you know that Tennessee is better than UNC?
How do you know that Alabama is better than Duke?
How do you know that Auburn is better than Clemson?
How do you know that Kentucky is better than Wake Forest?
How do you know that Florida is better than UVA?
How do you know that the Cocks are better than Pitt?
I see all these being literally PICK EM matchups if they were to play each other on neutral floors.
Because the efficiency numbers tell us those schools are better.
Wake and UVA are on the bubble, UK is a 4 seed, Florida is a 5, UT is in line for a 1 seed, uNC is a 3, duke might be better than Bama, it would be a great game and Auburn is in line for a 4 seed, Clemson… I'm not sure, but I don't believe they are a top 4 seed.
You seriously can't possibly think the ACC is on par with the SEC. Is there a metric that is telling you they are?
How do you know Duke is better then Arkansas? After all, Duke lost to Arkansas, w/out Arky's best player even playing? Remember, you are saying Nov/Dec games matter. That is your language...so prove to me that Duke is better then Ark...
Also, WF and UVA are firmly on the bubble. And Pitt isn't even on the bubble, right?
Meanwhile you are comparing those teams to UK, USC, and FL, teams that are all probably going to be no worse then a six seed??
Tennessee 88 UNC 75
Alabama 91 Duke 72
Auburn 72 Clemson 71
Kentucky 97 Wake Forest 67
Florida 66 UVA 62
Cocks 71 Pitt 69
The metrics are largely affected by non-con numbers, and we're supposed to throw those out, right?
Kinda doubtful, considering the SEC is 3-16 vs ranked non-con teams.
OH right....everyone in the SEC has improved massively over the last couple months and no other league has improved at all. 🤣
The first link below had the SEC first when I looked yesterday. But rankings update every five min...so SEC is now second. The other one has the SEC second as well.
RealTimeRPI.com Men's College Basketball Rating Percentage Index (RPI) Ratings - A leading sports ratings and resources community on the Internet
RealTimeRPI.com: RPI, RPI Rankings, college basketball rpi, Real Time NCAA College Basketball and Sports Ratings - the most accurate independent analysis of the NCAA college basketball Rating Percentage Index (RPI)realtimerpi.com
NCAA College Basketball RPI Rankings (updated today)
NCAA college basketball RPI rankings and ratings for 2024, updated daily for all teams and available historically for every day of the 2024 season.
RPI? I guess you're the one guy left on Earth who gives any credence to RPI numbers. 🤣
Or, of course, you're just cherrypicking whatever fits your argument, and in another argument you'd laugh if someone brought up RPI.
The difference between the ACC and SEC is the middle. Again, who really cares if the SEC has a few more bubble teams? Which, in itself, means nothing, because we've all seen conferences that outperformed their seeding, and others that got 9 teams in and fell on their faces.
I've already explained this multiple times. The top 5 in the Big 12 played 1 game vs the ACC. The top three played none. Most of those matchups involved top half ACC teams vs teams like WV and Ok St. If you think that tells you anything about either league, I'd have to question your IQ.
The top teams in the SEC, meanwhile, had a really poor record vs quality teams on in non-con, and losses to weak teams like App St, Wilmington and Ohio St.
The metrics are affected by everything each team does in every game and it evaluates the level of your competition.
The non-con games, to me, are where it gets sketchy, because teams go throw ups and downs and injuries. So a team that had great metrics in December and was a quad 1 win, can go through injuries in January that can lower their numbers and now, that quad 1 win you thought you had, is no longer a quad 1. So I think it's a disservice to put equal weighting on games played 3 and 4 months ago.
Everyone improves, or gets worse at different levels and timeframes. If it was up to me, I would find a way to put more weight on the here and now and.less weight on Nov/Dec games.
If UK and KU played right now (minus McCullar), the outcome would be completely different, would it not? UK has their full team and KU doesn’t, which is a 180* flip from the November matchup.
If UK played UNCW right now, how do you think that would go?
The middle, the top and the bottom.
Remember, Louisville is at the bottom of the ACC and they've actually won a couple of games, Missouri can't buy a win and they would crush UofL.
Duke and uNC are FF contenders, but the SEC has 4, maybe 5 FF contenders.
Clemson and Wake are the middle of the ACC, Wake might not even get in and Clemson is all over the place. The SEC has more teams at the top and more teams in the middle. The ACC has more teams at the bottom.
As far as bubble teams, both leagues have 2 and thanks to Ole Miss and aTm having to play usc and Bama last night, they aren't getting in. This was the wrong time to play those teams. Meanwile, UVA and Wake are playing garbage teams… .and struggling, but they'll get in because they get to play Pitt and ND type teams.
The point was that your buddy is claiming that non-con results mean nothing now. So if you believe that, you have to also believe that the metrics are meaningless, because the non-con heavily impacts those numbers.
Yeah, KU is temporarily down because McCullar's out. Not sure why we would dismiss all non-con results because one team is missing its best player for a period of time. Or because Kentucky was missing a few bigs who have barely contributed.
Okay, but what he is saying is, as far as conference strength goes, you can't really look at what happened in Nov/Dec.
He’s not saying to ignore it with regards to NCAAT seeding.
For conference strength discussion, how can you rely on games played 3 and 4 months ago? Everyone improves at different rates. Do you think the ACC thumps the BIG12 right now? Hell no.
Do you think Clemson beats Alabama in Tuscaloosa right now?
Also, you were saying the better ACC teams beat up on the middle of the BIG12, but why does that matter? You brag on how strong the BIG12 is from top to bottom, so given that fact, the fact that the ACC beat the middle BIG12 teams is still a huge accomplishment, right?
This is all opinion, and biased opinion at that.
Who's to say that Missouri would crush Louisville? Based on what? Who's to say that the SEC has 5 final four contenders? Did anyone think that before conference play started? A few months ago, the average person would have probably said they had two at best.
Do you agree that the Big 10 and other leagues have been overrated at times because they beat each other up? And that they got more teams into the tourney than they deserved? Is there a reason that logic couldn't apply to the SEC this year? Based on their non-con, there's every reason to think that's possible.
Two years ago, everybody was hyping the SEC and shitting on the ACC. Just like you are now. What happened in March? The ACC didn't get many teams into the field, but they all made runs, while the SEC fell on their faces.
10 seed Miami went to the Elite 8, blowing out 2 seed Auburn (winner of the SEC) along the way. Kentucky lost to St Peter's, 3 seed Tennessee lost to 11 seed Michigan, 6 seed Alabama lost to 11 seed Notre Dame. Duke went to the final four and 8 seed UNC was a few points away from winning the whole thing.
Dude...I am not sure how many times, across so many different threads I have said what you bolded up above. It really is not a tough concept to grab...appreciate the fact that you can understand.
I'm not talking about seeding either....I'm asking how you determine the strength of a conference if you completely throw out non-con and the tourney hasn't happened yet?
Auburn beating Alabama or Kentucky beating Auburn doesn't tell us a damn thing about how those teams compare to teams from other leagues. And it doesn't help your case that Kentucky lost to an average Gonzaga team at home recently.
Where does this question even come from? Why would the 5th best team in the ACC be expected to do something that no one in the SEC has done?
Mostly it was upper half ACC teams beating bottom tier Big 12 teams. Nobody's bragging on West Virginia or Oklahoma St. WV is more talented than most teams at the bottom of a conference, but that doesn't mean they should be expected to beat two of the top teams from the ACC. And I'm not the one saying the ACC is garbage anyway, so this really makes no sense.
LOL. You think I've been talking about seeding? Thanks for proving again who struggles with simple concepts.
It’s also the opinions of every basketball analyst out there
Common sense
Every analayst out there says the SEC has 4 - 5 contenders.
I really don't know what everyone thought before conference play started, why does that matter? I didn’t know that was going to be on the test.
Okay, fine, the average person thinks only 2 SEC teams are contenders, but can we get the opinions of those that watch college basketball now?
I agree that the BIG10 is overrated, but to be fair, I'm basing it on tournament results from the past 20 years and the eye test. Anything can hapoen in a one game, winner takes all scenario.
I said the BIG10 was overrated, I never said they shouldn't get 7 or 8 teams in. But no league should get more than that and since we're talking about the Rutgers' of the world and not contenders, I would rather see another league get one or two more in instead.
Not sure why this matters, teams go on runs all the time (VCU, George Mason, Illinois Chicago, Auburn, UK 2014, FDU, etc… ). South Carolina made it to the FF in 2017, nobody saw that coming. It’s not like everyone is playing a tound robin in the tournament, matchups matter.
Congrats, you just described Match madness, do you now want me to go over all the times ACC (Norfolk state and Lehigh over duke) & the BIG12 (Bradley, Bucknel, Northern Iowa, Wichita state over KU, Hampton over Iowa State) teams were upset? Those two leagues have had their fair share.
Hell, the only 2 times a 16 beat a 1, happened to an ACC team and a BIG10 team.
The BIG10 was being hyped as the king of all conferences two years ago, got 10 teams in iirc and none made it to the E8. No conference is bulletproof, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Trust me, I know what you're going through. Even if you say you give up, he goes out of his way to keep it going and he does it by twisting what you say, so you have to go back and defend yourself.
But you are talking about seeding, go back and check. He was talking about conference strength, but you're trying to twist it.
Because the metrics are telling you. Yeah, UK lost to Gonzaga and UNCW, and the metrics are punishing UK for those losses. Good luck to the 1 seed that gets UK in the sweet 16. UK, being a freshmen based team that has dealt with injuries all season, is not going to have accurate metrics, if that team is fully healthy when.the tournament starts, throw their metrics out.
But it’s up to you to choose how you want to evaluate teams, nobody is stopping you. This is all opinionated shit.
Because the 5th best team in the SEC… UK, is a FF contender, Clemson is not.
But that doesn't matter, you have always bragged about the entire big12, saying it is strong top to bottom. Also, Wva and BYU beat KU, that’s bottom and middle, so again, what's the issue?
Seeding doesn't determine how good a team is because its based on your resume and not the strength of your roster or quality of play. A team that won a lot of close games and have some impressive victories will be seeded higher than a team that won more games, has fewer bad losses but have no marquee home wins or solid road wins.
The efficiency numbers are all actually pretty close man. A difference of 5-10 spots isn't really that noteworthy.
UNC already beat Tennessee H2H and and is only behind them by 5 spots or so in the metrics. UNC is a consensus 2 seed by the way and is contention for the last 1 seed. Arizona is still the 1 seed in a lot of brackets.
Clemson is a solid 5 seed with the chance to move up to #4 along with Auburn.
Wake Forest is significantly underseeded and Pitt is a tournament caliber team.
If UK played Wake they'd only be 2-3 point favorites at most on a neutral floor.
I know Duke is better than Arkansas because Duke is a 22-6 basketball team while the Hogs are 14-14. Duke is top 10 in most advanced metrics while Arkansas falls in the 120s.
Any more brain busters?
Wake Forest would be slightly favored over Florida and South Carolina. Bracketologists evaluate resumes not how good a team is playing at any given time.
5-10 spots is actually a lot, it could be the difference between a 2 and a 4 seed.
Yeah and UK beat unc, had them down by double digits most of the game. UT is better than UK, beat our asses in Rupp. Matchups matter.
Arizona shouldn't be a one seed. They look no different than when Sean Miller was coaching them. They lost to Oregon state and WASU at home, recently too.
There's a logjam right now to see who gets the 4, 5 and 6 seeds. Auburn and UK have more quality teams to play than Clemson does
Pitt sucks, they had 2 good weeks, you're only saying they're good, because they won in Cameron.
And dude, Wake just lost to ND. They’re good at home, but they're an NIT team. Again, you think they're good because they beat duke.
UK was just a 4.5 point dog at MSU, how did that work out? They were an 8.5 point dog at Auburn, won by 11.
The metrics for UK are nowhere close to accurate. UK has had at least one starter out for all but 32 minutes this year. Didn't have any of their three 7 footers for almost half the season and every player except for 4, is a freshmen and out of those 4, 2 are sophomores that rarely played last year.
The thing is, Mitchell is a 5th year senior, he’s been out for 5 or 6 games now, Ado was out 6 games with back spasms, DJ Wagner was out 5 or 6 games with a bad ankle and it took the NCAA 3 months into the season to clear big Z. How the hell are the metrics going to be accurate with all that going on? If you think Clemson is on par with UK, I want some of what you're smoking.
Exactly...you proved my point. Duke has gotten better as the season has progressed, and Ark has gotten worse, thus proving their Nov (or Dec, don't remember when they played) game is absolutely pointless when determining which team would be better in March.
Same exact logic applies to a conference.
Keep thinking those Nov games matter, they don't...they literally have no bearing on which teams will truly be contenders at year end, or which conference will be the strongest year end.
Thanks for proving my point.
Every analyst thinks that the SEC is on a totally different level than the ACC? I kinda doubt that, especially given east coast bias and their tendency to favor Kenpom, which has the ACC rated slightly below the SEC. Did you take a poll?
It's common sense that one 8-20 team would crush another? Interesting. Who the hell is studying Missouri or Louisville's games this year anyway? Somehow I doubt you are.
Why's it matter? If the perception of the teams was much different at the start of conference play, obviously that could mean that the perception is skewed by results against each other.
Yeah, upsets happen. No kidding. But an entire conference drastically exceeding expectation or falling on their face? That's probably not just the randomness of March. And the Big 12 had some overhyped seasons in the past too. Never said otherwise. The league wasn't at the same level a decade ago.
Exactly the point. They weren't "bulletproof"...the league was overrated. Even Big 10 fans admit that, and I guarantee you were saying the same during that tourney. Every year, fans make judgments about conferences based on the NCAA tourney. If a league either kills it across the board or the opposite, that tells you something.
The hilarious thing about this is you've argued in the past that the Big 12 was overrated solely because KU had some early tourney losses. Now you're claiming that it's meaningless and totally random if an entire league falls on its face or excels. It's clear as day that you guys just pick and choose whatever fits the narrative. If the SEC were 16-3 vs ranked teams in non-con, instead of the opposite, would you be screaming from the rooftops to ignore non-con games? GMAFB. 🤣
Again, seeding isn't determined by ranking teams based on their efficiency metrics. Its a combo of using them and your resume with valuing recent results more.
If the committee just used KenPom, Michigan St and Gonzaga would be 5 Seeds.
Of course matchups matter, no one's disputing that. I can't say as confidently as you can that the Vols are better than the Heels since they literally lost H2H and the efficiency metrics and the W/L record are really close.
I'd favor UT in a rematch but would probably not bet that game.
You're joking about Arizona right? They have a few bad losses but have looked dominant all season.
Zona beat Duke in Cameron, Alabama, Michigan St, Wisconsin, Utah on the road and Colorado on the road.
Losing to Wazzu isn't really a bad loss. Wazzu in the Mississippi State bucket and I wouldn't consider UK losing to them on Tuesday a bad loss either which is what would have happened if Reed Sheppard didn't go God Mode.
I think they have a really small edge over UT for the 1 Seed. Now if UT knocks off Bama on Saturday, UT should take Arizona's spot imo.
Sure but Auburn and UK need to win those games. Clemson has an opportunity @ Wake at the end of the year and in the ACC Tournament. Their resume is already loaded though and their metrics are really solid.
Clemson has already beaten Alabama on the road, South Carolina, TCU and UNC on the road.
I'm not biased for Pitt and Wake because Duke lost to them. I'm just looking at their metrics.
Pitt is #52 on KenPom while the Cocks are #46. You seem to respect the Cocks a lot but think Pitt is a trash team for some reason.
Evan Miya: South Carolina: #54, Pittsburgh: #55
Torvik:
SEC bias much?
Wake is a bubble team for resume purposes but they're certainly a clear NCAAT team.
This would be likely the highest ranked KenPom team to be ever left out of the tournament.
Wake had a bit of a hangover after the big Duke win and laid an egg at ND who's been playing better, it happens.
You keep choosing metrics when they favor your argument but then go back to defending seeding when it fits your narrative next.
What's your point here? Do you think the Vegas lines were inaccurate? You would be a multimillionaire then exploiting these bad lines. Kentucky also lost to Gonzaga, LSU, A&M and Florida when they were the betting favorites.
Do you think UK is the only team that's dealt with injuries and roster turnover? No other team has dealt with adversity?
UK would be favored by maybe 3 vs Clemson but it would be a hell of a game. UK doesn't have an answer for PJ Hall who would eat you guys alive. Clemson struggles vs good 3 point shooting teams so UK could light them up from deep. Clemson is solid defensively though and doesn't give up a lot of 2nd chance opportunities.
Jeff you're acting like UK would smoke Clemson when the Tigers beat Alabama @ Bama, UNC @ UNC and almost knocked off Duke in Cameron.
Clemson would be a really tough 2nd round game for UK and you'd have to earn a hard fought win.
Show me one that says the ACC is stronger. I certainly haven't seen anyone say that. It’s common knowledge that the ACC is down and really, it just takes a little common sense. Most of that league is not good.
Well, Louisville is rated at 191, Missouri is 145. That’s quite a difference and that’s factoring in that Missouri is 0-15 in SEC.league play. Both teams are 8-20, but Missouri, who is clearly better, is 46 spots higher. Find me something that tells me different. You can't.
When it comes to metrics, perception doesn’t matter.
So what's the point you're trying to make? Every league has suffered bad, bad upsets and since it's basketball and any team could go on a heater and beat a team that is way better, this conversation really makes no sense.
Cool, just look at the numbers. There are 6 SEC teams in the top 30. There are 6 BIG12 teams in the top 30. There are 4 ACC teams in the top 30 and there are 4 BIG10 teams in the top 30. One of those BIG10 teams (Michigan state) totally gamed the system, so they shouldn't be there. In my opinion, there are only 3 BIG10 teams that are worth a shit.
Any of those teans can go on a run, anyone outside that, well, not so much.
The numbers don't lie.
Huh? There you go twisting words again. All I'm saying is the ACC is down again this year and the SEC is better. The BIG10 is down too, but guess what… it changes every year. The ACC might be the best conference next year and the BIG12 could be the worst. Players are moving to different teams every year, so whatever I said about the BIG12 in the past, doesn't apply to this year.
But I'm not changing my narrative, I'm saying the exact same shit I have always said.
I don't give two shits about seeding. I think it's you that needs to go back and re-read. He said:
And yet the SEC will get 8+ teams in the tourney...how is that possible with such a poor showing (according to you) in the non conference?? Almost like those early Nov/Dec games mean jack...
Sure seems like he's implying in that sentence that early games won't be meaningful when the field is set and seeded. But I'm sure in your mind, I "twisted" his words by posting an exact quote.
Wait....I thought they were too young and that more experienced teams had a big advantage? Now the top teams in the nation should be terrified to play them? Can't keep up with the daily narrative shifts...
Like you actually believe they're the 5th best team in the SEC. 🤣
I'd sure as hell bet on Clemson to go to the final four before South Carolina. The fact that South Carolina sits alone in third place in the SEC is a pretty major indictment on the league.
The issue seems to be that you struggle with reading comprehension. I'm not going in circles again, only to have to listen to you crying and blaming me for going in circles. Holy shit.
Correct, but they still use the metrics and efgiciency numvers to seed teams, don't think they don't. Heck, the efgiciency numbers are a big part of why teams are rated where they are in KP, or whatever service you want to use (Fluoxentine LOL)
I never said the Vols were better than the Heels. Now. Don't get me wrong, right now, the heels seem to be struggling a bit and UT appears to be getting hot. But, the Vols have games @ Bama, @ S. Carolina and UK to finish out, so they might lose one or two, but it won't be to anyone like Syracuse.
Hell no, I wouldn't even put a dollar on that one.
They looked strong in the pre-con, but got swept by WASU, lost to Oregon state and lost to Stanford. They look no different than when Sean Miller coached there, strong early, dominate a terrible conference and get bounced early.
Those wins were 3 and 4 months ago, since then, multiple eye popping losses in a bad league.
UK swept MSU, so maybe UK and Arizona should share that KP 4th rating. Joking
Agreed
Injuries suck
Yup, 3+ months ago, but it is what it is.
That just tells you how much scheduling matters. South Carolina has 5 losses in the season and have just as many great wins. I mean, Wake has 10 losses with what, one great win?
Well, Pitt has 10 losses, S. Carolina has 4. Something tells me the metrics are flawed if usc is that low as they're beating damn good teams on the road.
Pitt lost to Missouri, Syracuse twice, Miami and Wake. That might explain why they are so low.
LOL, yes, I choose facts that prove my argument… isn’t that how it works?
As far as Wake, all they have to do is take care of business, everyone is losing.
But damn, you can't lose to Notre Dame and complain because you didn't get in.
You were the one talking about lines and how UK would only be favored by 2 over one of your ACC teams. The only teams in that league that would be that close to UK on a neutral court, would be duke and unc, especially after the betting public got going.
Ihm telling you, with the injuries and youth, the metrics aren't getting a good eval on UK.
Name another team that has only.had their full roster for 32 minutes total in 28 games. Heck, there has been a lot of games where UK was down 4 guys. So no, I don't think there are any teams out there dealing with that.
LOL, UK has three 7 footers + Mitchell.
Who has an answer for UK's 4 guards? Who is going to check 7'2" Ivicic out at the 3 point line? Ihm sure it would be a good game, but it would take a lot more than Hall to beat UK.
Common opponents. UK smoked Bama and Miami, UK beat uNC and UK smoked Louisville. Somehow, Clemson lost to Miami and only beat Louisville by 6 at home. Not impressed.
UK had Bama down by 37. UK had uNC down by 10+ most of the game and since when does almost beating someone matter? If we're going to say that, well, Louisville almost beat Clemson on their own court.
I have no doubt. I'm not saying Clemson sucks, but what I am saying is, UK is a very bad matchup for them. I fear duke, uNC and Wake much more Clemson them.
