Todd Mitchell quote.
-
orangeandbrown
- Peregrine
- Posts: 3542
- Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: Saline, MI
- Contact:
Todd Mitchell quote.
Todd Mitchell is a Toledoan who played at Purdue sometime in the 80's, I believe. I understand he recently said that the #10 man at Duke would be MAC POY!! On Wamer the other day, Dakich laid him out good. That's simply ridiculous.
Who is Duke's 10th man this year? I don't find it that hard to believe, honestly.
At schools like Duke, UNC, Kansas, etc, every player was a nationally touted guy who will quite likely make a look in the NBA. Oftentimes their 10th man just happens to be a FR or SO who is not quite ready yet.
Honestly, I think the individual talent differential is much wider in hoops than it is in football. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the 10th guy at Duke could dominate the MAC. Heck, I'd almost expect him to if he made the move. That said, I do think that the "mid-majors" have some distinct advantages over the major powerhouses. One big one is teamwork. Our teams generally play together for multiple seasons, and the players get to know one another. At the big time programs (Duke not as much as others, but its catching on there as well) they have to worry about every good FR they get taking off for the NBA. I also think that we have an easier time filling our needs through recruiting to fit the team we have. At Duke they may go all year thinking they have a PG sewn up only to find never come to college and go to the NBA (Livingston?). They are then forced to possibly get a PG that isn't up to their "standard" We can generally rest assured that a verbal/signed recruit is going to be coming to BG, and not skipping college for the NBA.
I think individually, that Mitchell may have a point. You look at individual talent alone there is not one BG player that I'd rather have than anyone on Duke's roster. But when you put the whole packages together, it is possible to create a TEAM that can compete with the big boys (see: State, Kent).
At schools like Duke, UNC, Kansas, etc, every player was a nationally touted guy who will quite likely make a look in the NBA. Oftentimes their 10th man just happens to be a FR or SO who is not quite ready yet.
Honestly, I think the individual talent differential is much wider in hoops than it is in football. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the 10th guy at Duke could dominate the MAC. Heck, I'd almost expect him to if he made the move. That said, I do think that the "mid-majors" have some distinct advantages over the major powerhouses. One big one is teamwork. Our teams generally play together for multiple seasons, and the players get to know one another. At the big time programs (Duke not as much as others, but its catching on there as well) they have to worry about every good FR they get taking off for the NBA. I also think that we have an easier time filling our needs through recruiting to fit the team we have. At Duke they may go all year thinking they have a PG sewn up only to find never come to college and go to the NBA (Livingston?). They are then forced to possibly get a PG that isn't up to their "standard" We can generally rest assured that a verbal/signed recruit is going to be coming to BG, and not skipping college for the NBA.
I think individually, that Mitchell may have a point. You look at individual talent alone there is not one BG player that I'd rather have than anyone on Duke's roster. But when you put the whole packages together, it is possible to create a TEAM that can compete with the big boys (see: State, Kent).
-
BleedOrange
- Falcon Hoops Lifer
- Posts: 3026
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 9:51 pm
- Location: Copley, Ohio
Heh
Hammbone, in my 3 or so years of frequenting this site, I've never seen a post that I disagree with more intensely than yours. Let me just say that I think your completely on Mars, and leave it at that.
Hammb, I agree with your teamwork perspective but do not agree with Duke's tenth player being the best player in the entire MAC conference. That is crazy. So that 10th guy was a mcdonalds all american? Pleanty of those guys end up being flops and that is why they are sitting at the end of the bench. If you are a star basketball player you are playing immediately. Too many players get lost to the NBA. If you are a stud BB player, there is no way you are the fifth player off the bench.
-
orangeandbrown
- Peregrine
- Posts: 3542
- Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: Saline, MI
- Contact:
Just an asinine comment by Mitchell. Duke isn't even a top five team this year. Compare their second guy off the bench this year, Lee Melchionni, to your typical MAC player of the year (Chris Kaman, Antonio Daniels) and you realize Mitchell is an idiot.
Duke's 10th man, Pat Johnson, is a senior and a walk-on.
Duke's 10th man, Pat Johnson, is a senior and a walk-on.
I think you guys are taking this too literally in naming the 10th man for Duke. I would interpret his point to mean that guys sitting on the bench for top 10 programs could play in the MAC and win POY honors. To some extent I agree with him in that some schools have some pretty decent players that don't get to see much playing time because of the overall talent at that school. But I also think this is not always the case. There are plenty of top programs that aren't all that deep and would love to have some "MAC-type" guys to fill out their roster.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools."
- Ernest Hemingway
- Ernest Hemingway
-
orangeandbrown
- Peregrine
- Posts: 3542
- Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: Saline, MI
- Contact:
Sorry you guys disagree, and I'm sorry that I'm not intimate with the details of Duke's current roster. As Warthog said, its not the specifics, its the rhetorical.
Look at Kansas this year. Their #10 guy in minutes played is Sasha Kaun who is a true freshman center. He was ranked in the top 25 total prospects last year, and was #6 of all centers. He's got far more talent than any one playing his position in the MAC, but has yet to get much of a shot at Kansas due to their other talent. Arizona currently has a pair of FR tied for their #10 spot in minutes. One was a top 25 recruit the other guy is considered the "sleeper of the class"
For most teams, you're right, 10 is too deep. My bad. However, if you look at almost every major program's 8th player you're going to see someone who would be one heckuva MAC player. At that position they're almost always young up & coming players that were highly touted from HS, but just haven't had an opportunity due to depth yet. Either that or they're role playing vets that would likely step right in and start in the MAC.
I'm sorry that the original comment was a little over the top, and I should've prefaced my agreement with it as such. However, the POINT of the quote, and my opinion, remains to be true, IMO. You look deep on the bench of most major colleges and you'll find players who could be very good, maybe even POY, MAC players. I'm sorry if you find it that hard to believe, but I think its true.
Again, I'm speaking purely on individual talent. Look at last year's team. Ronald Lewis was clearly our most individually talented player. It doesn't appear as though we're much worse off for losing him though does it?
Look at Kansas this year. Their #10 guy in minutes played is Sasha Kaun who is a true freshman center. He was ranked in the top 25 total prospects last year, and was #6 of all centers. He's got far more talent than any one playing his position in the MAC, but has yet to get much of a shot at Kansas due to their other talent. Arizona currently has a pair of FR tied for their #10 spot in minutes. One was a top 25 recruit the other guy is considered the "sleeper of the class"
For most teams, you're right, 10 is too deep. My bad. However, if you look at almost every major program's 8th player you're going to see someone who would be one heckuva MAC player. At that position they're almost always young up & coming players that were highly touted from HS, but just haven't had an opportunity due to depth yet. Either that or they're role playing vets that would likely step right in and start in the MAC.
I'm sorry that the original comment was a little over the top, and I should've prefaced my agreement with it as such. However, the POINT of the quote, and my opinion, remains to be true, IMO. You look deep on the bench of most major colleges and you'll find players who could be very good, maybe even POY, MAC players. I'm sorry if you find it that hard to believe, but I think its true.
Again, I'm speaking purely on individual talent. Look at last year's team. Ronald Lewis was clearly our most individually talented player. It doesn't appear as though we're much worse off for losing him though does it?
-
BleedOrange
- Falcon Hoops Lifer
- Posts: 3026
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 9:51 pm
- Location: Copley, Ohio
Nyet !!!!
Hammb, you're propagating one of the biggest myths in all of sports, which is this media created perception of a "strata" between "mid-majors" and "majors". Yes, there is a difference in average talent levels between the MAC and the the bigger programs, but the difference is VERY exagerrated, mostly due to (IMHO) the media.
I understand the the bigger programs recruit higher off of the lists, and sometimes elite programs can assemble incredible rosters (and, yes, this year's Kansas is an example), but there are some very important things to remember about those lists:
a) they are TOTALLY subjective, and vary widely from one scout to next. Each scout has his own set of standards for ranking, and they are trying to rank from among 100's of kids from across the entire nation.
b) even if they were accurate, the difference between the #200 player and #100 player isn't that much, and that difference (and often is) eliminated/reversed by skill development and the #200 player getting PT earlier at the smaller program.
c) there's plenty of recruiting overlap among the "levels"
d) players plateau and peak at different ages. Kids lower on the list, as the progress through college, pass kids that were higher up. Other kids mature early and not improve at all after their junior years.
e) the mental component (smarts, toughness), usually isn't reflected in these lists, and a kid with great speed/hops with a high ranking might neglect the mental components and skill development in the off-season.
It's one thing for someone unfamiliar with MAC hoops to spew this poppycock. It just kills me when another fan of my program, which has been victimized these misperceptions, propogates it on our own board. (Also, if we're THAT inferior, what motivates you to come to games?) I've spent my entire life watching MAC, Big 10, and ACC basketball, and I realized early on that exagerrated perceptions just aren't in line with reality.
I understand the the bigger programs recruit higher off of the lists, and sometimes elite programs can assemble incredible rosters (and, yes, this year's Kansas is an example), but there are some very important things to remember about those lists:
a) they are TOTALLY subjective, and vary widely from one scout to next. Each scout has his own set of standards for ranking, and they are trying to rank from among 100's of kids from across the entire nation.
b) even if they were accurate, the difference between the #200 player and #100 player isn't that much, and that difference (and often is) eliminated/reversed by skill development and the #200 player getting PT earlier at the smaller program.
c) there's plenty of recruiting overlap among the "levels"
d) players plateau and peak at different ages. Kids lower on the list, as the progress through college, pass kids that were higher up. Other kids mature early and not improve at all after their junior years.
e) the mental component (smarts, toughness), usually isn't reflected in these lists, and a kid with great speed/hops with a high ranking might neglect the mental components and skill development in the off-season.
It's one thing for someone unfamiliar with MAC hoops to spew this poppycock. It just kills me when another fan of my program, which has been victimized these misperceptions, propogates it on our own board. (Also, if we're THAT inferior, what motivates you to come to games?) I've spent my entire life watching MAC, Big 10, and ACC basketball, and I realized early on that exagerrated perceptions just aren't in line with reality.
I watch plenty of basketball over the course of the year. I watch BG hoops, because I'm a BG alum & BG fan. I have actually grown to prefer MAC level hoops, because I like to at least be able to follow the same players for 3-4 years.
When I watch the other teams bring in their benches when the starters need a rest I see guys who are usually raw, but have as much or more talent than anyone on our roster. I'm talking PURELY individually here, but I don't think that the talent level is as close as you do. If I were holding a draft of all the players in college basketball I'd go a LOOOOOONNNNGGG way into it before drafting a MAC guy.
At the same time I'm not saying there is some great difference in the talent of the players either. My thinking is that the starters for nearly every major program are better than our starters across the board, with the exception of a few Great mid-major players on any given year. They aren't drastically better, but they are better. The big difference then comes when they go to their bench their 2nd tier guys are still at least as good as our starters in most instances.
My comment has nothing to do with the talent differential of starters to starters, because I'm in agreement with you that there's not as large a gap as many believe. My point is that a backup at North Carolina or Kansas could usually walk into a MAC team and become a very productive player/starter. In some cases that backup on a major program could even become a star in the MAC.
When I watch the other teams bring in their benches when the starters need a rest I see guys who are usually raw, but have as much or more talent than anyone on our roster. I'm talking PURELY individually here, but I don't think that the talent level is as close as you do. If I were holding a draft of all the players in college basketball I'd go a LOOOOOONNNNGGG way into it before drafting a MAC guy.
At the same time I'm not saying there is some great difference in the talent of the players either. My thinking is that the starters for nearly every major program are better than our starters across the board, with the exception of a few Great mid-major players on any given year. They aren't drastically better, but they are better. The big difference then comes when they go to their bench their 2nd tier guys are still at least as good as our starters in most instances.
My comment has nothing to do with the talent differential of starters to starters, because I'm in agreement with you that there's not as large a gap as many believe. My point is that a backup at North Carolina or Kansas could usually walk into a MAC team and become a very productive player/starter. In some cases that backup on a major program could even become a star in the MAC.
-
orangeandbrown
- Peregrine
- Posts: 3542
- Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: Saline, MI
- Contact:
-
CincyFalcon
- Egg
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:01 am
- Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
If you look over the years there have been several players who have transfered into a MAC school from a "major" program (Ohio St, Mich. St, etc) and were dominant in the MAC. Those players many times are stuck on the bench and look to go somewhere to play or go closer to home. Overall I agree with some of the other posts that believe the difference between the athletes in D 1 basketball is much greater than in football.
