Milan-Mitchell-Kepnang is great on paper.
We’ll see how Pope can goof that up.
We’ll see how Pope can goof that up.
College Sports (Basketball)
Kentucky’s demise had been greatly exaggerated. Their team is loaded.
Would love to see them in them in the Sweet 16 to exorcise that 2025 loss like we just did with Houston.
And Malachi Moreno (very likely he starts over Kepnang).
To be fair, he and Walker probably won't be too far off in earnings for 2026-2027.
It's a new world.
Big test for Pope, as this is a no excuses roster. The SEC will be the best conference this year and he better finish top 3-4. I'm not sure a S16 is going to do it either. The roster looks a lot like Texas where they are bringing back their center surrounded by 4 transfers. Starting lineup will have three McD AA's on it. I like their backcourt better than most - Zoom is a true PG and the kid Wilkins is a really nice CG with PG skills, so they'll have two legit ballhandlers. I don't have a lot of faith in Pope, but on paper I like this team better than Ville & Texas. I'd easily have the in the top ten if I trusted Pope.
lstewart53x3
- Scottsdale, Arizona
Are we sure the SEC will be the best conference this year?
Torvik had the B1G as the best conference last year. The B1G had 9 teams in the top 30 and the SEC had 7. This year, Torvik once again projects the B1G to have 9 teams in the top 30 and the SEC to have 7.
Last edited:
I thought they were better than people thought before but Mitchell will have to win two cases to be eligible.
First has to win the 5 in 5 judgement allowing him another year. Im pretty 50/50 on this but I wouldn't be surprised to see the NCAA actually win this.
Then has to beat the SEC rule that does not allow transfers within the conference unless it happens in the portal window.
Has Pope proven he can win with a “loaded” roster?
first year, he did.
last year, he didn’t because it wasn’t a “loaded” roster and they had a rash of injuries.
next year’s team is better than both teams.
Your first point isn’t that much of a hurdle, because he was granted eligibility via the state of Kentucky (not the class wide Colorado ruling).
The second point maybe is an obstacle (?)
The problem that the Big Ten has is that the bottom of the conference (12-18) isn't up to par. It's true in basketball and especially true in football.
It's a three tiered Conference:
1)National contenders
2)Reputable programs
3)Just flat out bad.
I think the Big Ten has more teams in that #3 category than any other of the power conferences.
I expect the NCAA(maybe with a little help from Washington) to get all of the appeals wrapped up in one case and heard at the appellate court level and get a ruling from there.
Now they have lost a bunch in recent years but they seem to be digging their heels in here. Wouldn't be surprised to see them actually win this one(though wouldn't be surprised the other way though either).
What do you consider the power conferences? Because the ACC is absolutely worse in basketball like Virginia probably finishes between 8-10 last year in the Big10.
It's a big conference so you're going to have some bad programs but I don't think the bottom part is as week as you think(or at least won't be consistently).
Medved has Minnesota going the right direction and I thought he was a good hire initially. Oregon was bad but still have Altman and a ton of resources. USC had a nightmare season but brought in a ton of talent. Maryland was terrible but it was year 1 of Buzzball, he should make them competitive.
Penn State is in a bad spot, Northwestern has a good coach but will be up and down because of lack of resources/NIL, Rutgers seems like they are in a spiral with Pikiell, and Washington just seems like a meh program. That's only 4 schools and I wouldn't even classify Washington or Northwestern as true bottom feeders.
The ACC has been bad after Duke, it's truly awful after it's top 4-5 programs.
The big12 has Utah, K-state, Oklahoma st, and Colorado. Plus, I don't think Cinci or UCF would succeed in the Big10.
There is an argument to be made for the SEC being the deepest and they have a lot of good coaches at some of their worst schools but basketball plays 2nd fiddle here and whoever shakes out at the bottom each year is pretty bad(maybe more variability though and less true bottom feeders).
“Any of the power conferences” is a stretch because the Big East had some awful teams last year (and a large quantity of them).
In general, the point might be valid. I think there’s 3 teams that will be stuck at that bottom next year: Northwestern, Penn State, Rutgers.
3 of those teams is not terrible amount, but the problem for last year was that schools like Maryland, USC, Washington, Oregon also had likewise down years. (perhaps these teams can be a bit better next year)
….
I know we shouldn’t take teams for granted, but it is somewhat a silver lining if it means 4 gimme games: 2 against NW, 1 against PSU, 1 against Rutgers. Truth is it would take completely laying an egg to lose those game
Add in playing Oregon and Washington on the west coast — two teams next in line for that bottom tier — you’re AT LEAST not losing both those games. Should in all likelihood win both, but at worst you’re splitting if things do go wrong, and one of them ends up better than expected.
This Lithuania team is pretty good?
Having those bad teams are better than having a bunch of middling teams. It’s what we talk about with the non conference:
A middling team - beating them doesn’t help you that much. losing to them hurts you quite a lot.
Really good teams and really bad teams is what’s best from an Illinois standpoint.
Last edited:
I don't think the scheduling concept applies as far as overall conference strength, those those are two vastly different things:
1. Loading up on top 25 competition and sub-250 doormats is optimal for scheduling.
2. Having sub 250 doormats isn't optimal (is really bad, actually) for overall conference strength.
By KP rating:
Big Ten 3 worst teams were Maryland (119), Rutgers (125) and Penn St (139).
SEC 3 worst teams were Ole Miss (64), South Carolina (96) and Miss St (102).
Big East 3 worst teams were Butler (84), Xavier (94) and DePaul (99).
None of the major conference teams get anywhere close to that sub-250 range. The bottom-rung in major conferences are precisely the type of teams that are just good enough to pull the upset, but bad enough it gets stapled to your resume.
Ahh yes. The $20 million roster he managed to not make loaded.
Is a sweet 16 with that roster cost all that impressive?
Last edited:
It was loaded, but they had lots of injuries. you can't blame the coach for injuries (as you have stated many times about Brad).
his first year was pretty good, yes.
Right. Twenty million dollar roster wasn’t loaded. I’ll be a little harsh because the situation requires it: that’s a braindead take.
Brad lost Ty for the season and had 4-5 other guys go down and still made a F4.
Pope had 3 guys injured who averaged 8ppg, 6ppg and 5ppg and finished the season 22-14 topped off with an absolute thrashing by a Jefferson-less Iowa St team.