I was perusing ESPN at work when I saw the story.. "Come read a debate between Jay Bilas and Jeff Goodman on whether Kentucky can beat the 76ers".
My hope was that both would almost instantly say 'NO', but Bilas tried his best to say Kentucky had a shot. He pointed how the 76ers of this year are more crappy than any similar tankalicious team in years past. That half of their team really shouldn't be in the NBA. That Kentucky is more loaded then ever. Goodman took none of it and said the 76ers would sweep a series of any length. Look, Goodman is right. The Wildcats would have no shot. They would lose quite easily. This isn't really the first time we've been down this road.
Just two years ago, with Kentucky fresh off of its dominant romp to the 2012 Title, the question was asked of them against the Charlotte (then) Bobcats, who were about to set a record for worst winning percentage (not most losses since that was the lockout season). The question seemed valid. That Kentucky team had five starters who would be drafted, including the #1 and #2 picks in Anthony Davis and Michael Kidd-Gilchrist. They question was dumb them to. It will never happen. Not in the modern landscape.
There are so many reasons why Kentucky would have no shot, but let's run through some of the best ones:
My hope was that both would almost instantly say 'NO', but Bilas tried his best to say Kentucky had a shot. He pointed how the 76ers of this year are more crappy than any similar tankalicious team in years past. That half of their team really shouldn't be in the NBA. That Kentucky is more loaded then ever. Goodman took none of it and said the 76ers would sweep a series of any length. Look, Goodman is right. The Wildcats would have no shot. They would lose quite easily. This isn't really the first time we've been down this road.
Just two years ago, with Kentucky fresh off of its dominant romp to the 2012 Title, the question was asked of them against the Charlotte (then) Bobcats, who were about to set a record for worst winning percentage (not most losses since that was the lockout season). The question seemed valid. That Kentucky team had five starters who would be drafted, including the #1 and #2 picks in Anthony Davis and Michael Kidd-Gilchrist. They question was dumb them to. It will never happen. Not in the modern landscape.
There are so many reasons why Kentucky would have no shot, but let's run through some of the best ones:
- NBA players are, surprisingly enough, NBA players. Now, that sounds like a childhood tautology, but how often people forget. College Analysts trump up Kentucky becuase they have '8' or '10' NBA players on the roster. Well, the 76ers have 15 NBA players on the roster. Now, this 76ers team does have a few guys that probably shouldn't be in the NBA, but Kentucky has some of them too. Take that 2012 team. Anthony Davis is probably the best player in the NBA this season, but the guy picked right behind him has been a sound disappointment on the NBA level. The 76ers have a handful of guys that were great in college, that could have played for this Kentucky team.
- NBA players have Men, with stronger bodies. This also sounds a bit sophomoric, but it is true. A man at 23 is far stronger than a 'man' at 18-19. Had Kentucky kept these guys for a few years and had they all been 22-23, maybe they get close. However Kentucky doesn't. They have guys 18-20. The physical difference between even 20 and 23 is staggering. That's why rookie's rarely play well at all in the NBA. LeBron was a great rookie, but still had by far the worst season of his career as a rookie. Tim Duncan and Kobe Bryant types are incredibly rare. Kentucky's best players are 2-3 years away from making a real impact in the NBA.
- NBA actually runs plays. Watch a college game and you immediately see just how badly college offenses are designed. Teams play way too fast, never let anything develop, and pass the ball aimlessly. Even the 76ers offense is degrees ahead of what the Wildcats are running. NBA offenses are smart, not running 100% all the time, and limiting themselves to short burts of movement that will cut up any college offenses.
But it did get me thinking, in what sport would the best college team have the best shot. Basketball is probably the lowest on the list. Due to the nature of the sport, with the high scoring, upsets are rarer in the NBA as it is. How about the other sports, though:
Football: A College Football team too would have no shot at all. All the reasons from the NBA hold, but are even more heightened in a sport where depth matters even more. The Raiders could go play Alabama tomorrow and beat them 77-0. NFL defenses and offenses are far more complex. NFL players are far smarter and more gifted. It won't be close. I don't even think that they could make it any closer than basketball.
Baseball: Probably the closest of the three big sports, simply because one great pitcher can really even things. We have seen dominant college pitchers. They'll likely have a bunch of problems going through an order a 2nd or 3rd time, but Strasburg in college could have gone 2-3 effective innings against MLB competition. Hitters would have a much harder time, but it will still be a closer game that they could steal.
Hockey: The only way a college team can do anything in this scenario is if they have a dominant goalie. They would have to get lucky, adn have a goalie truly stand on its head. They'll get dominated in possession, likely have 4-5 times fewer shots, and probably commit umpteen penalties out of desperation, but if the goalie has a Hasek-like game, they could conceivably win.
Whatever the matter is, the talent and training level between major college sports and professional is a giant chasm that is really hard to quantify. It definitely is closer in Baseball and Hockey, but Kentucky never had a shot against Charlotte in 2012, and doesn't have a shot this time either.
