Sooners not in Lunardi's 2014 early bracketology

[WTSooner]

I like that this post points out weaknesses in every player we lose, but says nothing but strengths of all returning and incoming players. It's great that we lost 4 weak players and only gained strengths.

Exactly.

And in college basketball, maybe moreso than any other sport, experience matters. You have to be a considerably better talent to be a better player as a freshman/sophomore, than a guy that is a junior/senior. I'm not sure that guys like Cousins/Woodard/Hornbeak, and probably even Hield/Booker are so talented at basketball, that their overall contributions will be more than the seniors that we lost. We'll find out in 8-9 months.

I don't think there is any doubt our young guys will be more talented than the departing players, by the time they are upperclassmen.

 

[Dr Sleep]

All the returning players will be better obviously, but some seem to forget that. The freshmen guards got a lot of exp last year. Spangler will be adequate.

 

[5hrenergy]

Not surprised that we will be underrated again. Who is rated high other than Kentucky when you lose 4 starters and 5 overall.

Well based on Lunardi's bracket I would say Kansas is rated as the highest Big 12 team at a 3 seed, and they lost all 5 starters.

 

[SoonerinNC]

Kansas like Kentucky, UNC, and Duke have enough recruits coming and enough national all-stars to reload every year. So Kansas gets downgraded from their usual lofty first seed.

the Sooners don't have many if any of those type athletes.

Possibly one of the overlooked things in discounting Booker because of his small school background, is that he was MVP of two December tournaments (amittedly we don't know the quality of competition here) and MVP of the south team in the Georgia state all-star game. Certainly that game must have included most of the best players in Georgia.

 

[5hrenergy]

. Certainly that game must have included most of the best players in Georgia.

Unfortunately Georgia isn't exactly loaded with talent. 4 players are in Rivals top 150. Highest being Greene at #29 who is headed to Kansas. The others come in at #71, #113, and #133.

 

[DenverSooner]

Unfortunately Georgia isn't exactly loaded with talent. 4 players are in Rivals top 150. Highest being Greene at #29 who is headed to Kansas. The others come in at #71, #113, and #133.

Isn't that about the number that should be on the list from Georgia? The United States population is about 316 million. Georgia's population is about 9.9 million. That means Georgia represents approximatley 3.13% of the US population. I would interpret that to mean Geoergia should, over the long term have about 3.13% of the Top 150 high school basketball players in the nation. 4/150 is 2.66. 5/150 is 3.33.

 

[5hrenergy]

Isn't that about the number that should be on the list from Georgia? The United States population is about 316 million. Georgia's population is about 9.9 million. That means Georgia represents approximatley 3.13% of the US population. I would interpret that to mean Geoergia should, over the long term have about 3.13% of the Top 150 high school basketball players in the nation. 4/150 is 2.66. 5/150 is 3.33.

Perfect example of where stats lie. It's has Atlanta and is a state that normally produces a ton of basketball and football talent. For example 2012 class had 13 players in the top 150. 2011- 7 players from Georgia. 2010-8 players from Georgia. 2009-10....... I can keep going. Point is this year's crop of players in Georgia is really down.