Who are you rooting for in the Final?

[chipdouglas]

Duke just creamed Michigan State and it looks like Wiscy (where I am right now oddly enough) is about to snap UK's historic season.

Who are you rooting for?

None of us has a dog in this fight, but it annoys the s--- out of me that there is always some cockamamie team with [limited] potential who always plays the foil to the destiny team. I would like to witness history and see UK go 40-0 just to see it in my lifetime. The Hoosiers doing it when Gerald Ford was President means nothing IMO, just like the early days of the "NFL." This is the era of cradle-to-grave athletes and one-and-dones. This UK team--and really a lot of teams in this era--would obliterate the undefeated Hoosiers team by at least 40, and to see 40-0 in my lifetime would be a treat.

Course, there is always a team that gets hot with the 3s at exactly the right time, or uncharacteristically begins to miss a bunch of layups etc. (like UK).

i think the lesson from UK's now-imminent loss is, it is so much easier to play to win (35-3 Wiscy) than it is to play not to lose.(38-0 UK).

 

[How_did_this_happen?]

Wisconsin is really tough. They led most of the game.

I like coach K, but the final is a no brainer for me. I'm pulling for the real UW.

Their only national championship in men's basketball was in 1941. They beat us then 39-34.

 

[Coug1990]

I have never cared for Kentucky basketball ever. So, I did not want to see them win it all. I hated the talk of them being the best basketball team in history. In my opinion, they would not be in the top 50 teams of all time. So, I am glad that they lost.

Honestly, it does not matter to me who wins the championship. I have rooted against Duke in the past. So, maybe when the game starts, perhaps I will root against them. But tonight, I do not have a feeling one way or another.

 

[Glad Cougar]

Not sure what is meant by labeling Wisconsin as a team with limited potential....seems to me they are one win away from tapping the ultimate potential of any team....a national championship. The Badgers are good and IMO nearly as athletic as the Wildcats....Granted the key in this matchup was probably the experience factor. Wisconsin has a lot of upper classmen whereas the Wildcats never have a lot of upper classmen with the one-and-done formula used by Calipari.

Two great teams in a classic game last night. Really enjoyed watching it and I hope the NC game will be as entertaining. I'll pull for Wisconsin.

Glad Cougar

 

[wazzubruce]

A lot of folks like me like Duke, but we're sick of them....... go Badgers! Win the Natty !!

 

[CougSinceBirth]

I grew up running Bo Ryan's offense in grade school. I like Bo Ryan. I like Wisconsin. But, I can't stand Frank Kaminsky and for that reason alone, I'm rooting for Duke.

 

[Observer11]

Originally posted by chipdouglas:
Duke just creamed Michigan State and it looks like Wiscy (where I am right now oddly enough) is about to snap UK's historic season.

Who are you rooting for?

None of us has a dog in this fight, but it annoys the s--- out of me that there is always some cockamamie team with [limited] potential who always plays the foil to the destiny team. I would like to witness history and see UK go 40-0 just to see it in my lifetime. The Hoosiers doing it when Gerald Ford was President means nothing IMO, just like the early days of the "NFL." This is the era of cradle-to-grave athletes and one-and-dones. This UK team--and really a lot of teams in this era--would obliterate the undefeated Hoosiers team by at least 40, and to see 40-0 in my lifetime would be a treat.

Disagree.

The reason Kentucky got beat is because they met a TEAM that played TEAM basketball. Too many squads these days are five kids thrown together who play drive and kick. If they can't get all the way to the rim, they kick and jack a three. Things like moving without the ball, setting solid screens, etc. are an anomaly. Consequently, it's going to come down to who can out-talent whom athletically and that's exactly what Kentucky did all year long.

Wisconsin has 7 pretty good players. Dekker is likely the only one who will make long-term money in the NBA. But they made Kentucky defend in places they weren't accustomed to doing and negated the athletic advantage through old-school methods.

Teams like 1976 Indiana would have exploited every single mistake Kentucky made defensively. Same with the UCLA squads of Wooden. And the talent gap wouldn't have been near as great as between Kentucky and Wisconsin.

 

[chipdouglas]

Originally posted by Glad Cougar:
Not sure what is meant by labeling Wisconsin as a team with limited potential....seems to me they are one win away from tapping the ultimate potential of any team....a national championship. The Badgers are good and IMO nearly as athletic as the Wildcats....Granted the key in this matchup was probably the experience factor. Wisconsin has a lot of upper classmen whereas the Wildcats never have a lot of upper classmen with the one-and-done formula used by Calipari.

Two great teams in a classic game last night. Really enjoyed watching it and I hope the NC game will be as entertaining. I'll pull for Wisconsin.

Glad Cougar

Answered your own question there -- they have "limited potential" because they melt every time they get too close to the sun. We'll see if they have a repeat in the title game, but they've certainly earned that pedigree.

Otherwise, it doesn't matter that it's Wisconsin, specifically. Wisconsin is simply a stand-in for a million underdog upset teams that spoil the team-of-destiny's destiny only to faceplant in the end.

Even if they don't, the annals of college basketball are littered with mid-round seeds who overcame adversity to win. Some people act like it's never been done before--but it's done about every 2nd or 3rd year.

If Wisconsin pulls it off, will we remember them in 50 years? Will we talk about them like the Hoosiers? Will every team be compared to them? No, no, and no.

I'd rather see history (40-0) than see Duke overcome some shaky games, or see another plucky 'elite underdog' take home the hardware. YMMV.

 

[chipdouglas]

Originally posted by Observer11:

Disagree.

The reason Kentucky got beat is because they met a TEAM that played TEAM basketball. Too many squads these days are five kids thrown together who play drive and kick. If they can't get all the way to the rim, they kick and jack a three. Things like moving without the ball, setting solid screens, etc. are an anomaly. Consequently, it's going to come down to who can out-talent whom athletically and that's exactly what Kentucky did all year long.

Wisconsin has 7 pretty good players. Dekker is likely the only one who will make long-term money in the NBA. But they made Kentucky defend in places they weren't accustomed to doing and negated the athletic advantage through old-school methods.

Teams like 1976 Indiana would have exploited every single mistake Kentucky made defensively. Same with the UCLA squads of Wooden. And the talent gap wouldn't have been near as great as between Kentucky and Wisconsin.

Not clear which part you disagree with.

Regarding playing as a team, maybe, maybe not. Looking at points, rebounds, assists and the top 5 statistical categories, UK had something like 4 players owning one or more apiece. Wisconsin is almost entirely Kaminsky (he owns 3 of 5). Add in (I think) Jackson (the other 2 of 5) and that's your entire team. UK also doesn't score a lot per player whereas Wisconsin does (Kaminsky, again). I'm not a savvy observer of basketball in general, so I'll leave it to those more qualified to pick those apart, if possible.

I'm in the school of thought that says modern guys who are being trained from cradle-to-grave to be elite athletes in their chosen sport are better all around players than white guys in highwaiters who may or may not have gone on to add the ABA to their resume, right below simultaneously working at a car dealership. The caliber of play across sports is just better--hence why the UKs and Dukes of the world can get so far in just one year with a stable of McDonald's All-Americans.

Anyway, as I write, Duke just won their 5th national title and Wisconsin--who wrecked UK's title run (deservedly)--will join UK in future anonymity. Great game, but wrecking the destiny run only to lose in the big game, and then the powerhouse notching another one, feels like a REALLY unsatisfying end to the season. I'll just have to be happy for our office Duke grad, who had the good fortune of attending the game tonight.


This post was edited on 4/6 8:37 PM by chipdouglas

 

[CougSinceBirth]

Originally posted by Observer11:

Disagree.

The reason Kentucky got beat is because they met a TEAM that played TEAM basketball. Too many squads these days are five kids thrown together who play drive and kick. If they can't get all the way to the rim, they kick and jack a three. Things like moving without the ball, setting solid screens, etc. are an anomaly. Consequently, it's going to come down to who can out-talent whom athletically and that's exactly what Kentucky did all year long.

Wisconsin plays team basketball. Their system is built for that. But just because a bunch of McDonald's All-Americans go to the same school (in this case: Kentucky), doesn't mean they didn't play team ball. You could use your argument for plenty of teams in college basketball. I don't know if I necessarily agree with the Kentucky argument, however.