if kansas loses this game (which it seems they most likely will) who gets number one?..purdue?..hummel got hurt so will they decide not to put them number one because of that?..does kansas stay number one since uk lost?..does the cuse get the spot if they win since they are playing a very good villy team
I think Purdue gets it til they lose. Losing Hummel is a huge hit to Purdue, but who knows? Maybe E'Twaun Moore and JaJuan Johnson will step it up
well, this is both Kansas and Kentucky's second loss of the season only. Purdue already has three losses. AND with Hummel's injury I can't see Purdue going number one at all.
yeah but it doesnt matter about how many loses they have. if uk would have had 3 and kansas had one and uk won today and kansas lost then uk would be number one in the next ranking. when you lose you lose youre spot unless the teams right below you also lose
i suppose you're right. And trust me, as a Purdue grad and die-hard fan I would like nothing more for the Boilermakers to be ranked no. 1. I guess we'll have to see how they handle Mich. St tomorrow.
damn i forgot that they play mich st tommorrow... if they win that game they got the number one
I say if 'cuse can beat #7 'nova....they are #1
It is entirely possible the top four all drop their games this weekend, and that fifth ranked Duke squad is pretty far off in the distance. If Cuse wins tonight, they'll probably be ranked number one. If they lose, I think that Kansas-Kentucky will remain 1-2.
If syracuse wins tonight and purdue loses tomorrow then I think syracuse takes the number 1 spot ... nobody's going to drop purdue down just because of hummel's injury though if they beat michigan state!
Why does every post have negative points? Dang.
If Purdue beats Michigan State, they'll probably get it simply because the people who fill out those polls often do so without real thought or care.
It's tough to look at resumes and not feel the best team in the country is still one of the four No. 1 seeds: Kansas, Kentucky, Syracuse and Duke. Yes, Duke has a significantly better NCAA Tournament resume than Purdue, not factoring in the Hummel injury.
But Syracuse probably deserves the top spot in the polls. They have a 27-2 record, compared to 26-3 for Purdue, and a significantly better strength schedule. Before today's action, Purdue sat seventh in RPI. Kansas was tops, then Duke, then Kentucky with Syracuse fourth.
I think the Orange deserve the top spot, and I'm pretty sure they will earn it. Best strength of schedule of any two- or three-loss team in the country. That says something.
why'd you delete my 2004 class post?
Your post was deleted because we prefer you don't post full stories from our competitors on our website. With that said, I believe 2007 has clearly eclipsed 2004 in terms of depth even in the NBA, already.
Consider: by the 2007-08 season, only five members of the class of 2004 were NBA starters: Howard, Jefferson, Smith, Aldridge, Ellis.
In its third year, the 2007 class has already produced six: Rose, Beasley, Mayo, Gordon, Hickson, Flynn. That list does not include Blake Griffin or Kevin Love (who plays starter minutes), and it comes despite the fact that this draft class was not afforded the luxury of declaring straight out of high school. As a result, you're comparing third year players to second year players.
In addition, look up and down the list you posted. The number of players who didn't even become college standouts is significantly great than the top 100 prospects from 2004.
Anyway, I hope this answers your question.
We encourage debate on this board. But in the future, please refrain from posting full stories from our main competitor. If there is a good reason to link to them, that's a different matter.
2007 has depth but that's taking quantity over quality.
The best players all left early in their careers, and the few stragglers who are now juniors haven't been able to separate themselves from the pack.
I would argue that if u took the #1 picks from 2004 then they would beat out the 2007 class in an actual game of basketball.
Additionally if you threw the top prospects together then most of 2004 would beat out 2007 of the lottery imo.
PG: Rajon Rondo, Shaun Livingston, Toney Douglas
SG: Rudy Gay, J. R. Smith, Antony Morrow
SF: *Josh Smith,*Jeff Green,Marvin Williams
PF:*Al Jefferson, *Al Horford
C: Dwight Howard, Roy Hibbert, Joakim Noah
2004: has too much size and length and athleticism
what's your team look like?
PG: Rose, Flynn, Evan Turner
SG: Mayo, Gordon, Dominique Jones
SF: Beasley, Anthony Randolph, JaJuan Johnson
PF: Griffin, Love, Hickson
C: Solomon Alabi, Deandre Jordan
You said it yourself: "The best players made sure they would get playing time"
So essentially the best players never beat out anyone in college, the same goes for here.
*Take into consideration that Horford and Smith have yet to play their true positions! So essentialy they have not yet reached their [mismatch] potential as far as being able to operate in the post against smaller defenders in the halfcourt setting.
Basically they havent played alongside a center like Dwight Howard that prevents longer defenders from switching onto them yet:
*Josh Smith,*Jeff Green, *Marvin Williams
*Al Jefferson, *Al Horford
Even though 2007 has a lot of good players I think in an actual game of basketball 2004 has 2007 beat on talent.
but what makes you think they arent playing there true position? i think hortford will always play center unless hes playing with howard. he's big enough and strong enough to play center. charles barkley was 6'5 does that mean he never played his true position?. magic was 6'9. i think a player liek lee isnt playing his true position but if a guy is a allstar at center then i cant say hes not playing his true position... but that might just be me