OPEN SHOT: SEC Tourney & more ...

by JL Blue on Mar 13, 2008 10:32 AM EDT in Open Thread

While Tru and I gather ourselves for some posting over this busiest of tournament weekends, here's a little someplace to post your thoughts.

A few nuggets to get us started:

TCP has a new interview up with Texas JUCO forward Roderick Flemings that puts the Cats in the driver's seat for this former Oklahoma St. signee and scoring machine. A second JUCO, this time as a scorer, would seemingly close the door on Scotty Hopson (or not), and would mean a 2008 class of DeAndre Liggins, Darius Miller, Kevin Galloway and this Flemings dude.
JUCO signings are an interesting choice for Gillispie, who got a late jump on recruiting for 2008 (and even 2009, in some ways) when he came over from Texas A&M. They upgrade the overall talent level immediately, and they don't clog up your recruiting for 2010, where the Cats already have two verbal commitments.
Kentucky plays Friday evening's late game, against the winner of Ole Miss-Georgia. Everyone seems to think Ole Miss is a shoo-in, I do not.

What else you got, BBN?

Tweet Comment 14 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

This conference tourney

there is no shoo-in. I would rather UK face Ole Miss than Georgia.

As far as a JUCO goes, as long as they don't turn out like ol boy from E-Town we'll be okay. I know he broke his hand his first season at UK and didn't get his mojo back, but it was a real disappointment to see an in-state kid end up at UK through the JUCO scene and flop. Maybe the fault was T....ha ha ha !!! NAH!!!

by bluecrip on Mar 13, 2008 11:22 AM EDT reply actions

Crikey! I've lost my mojo!

I'm from the E'town area so obviously I'm a little biased for Barbour... but the kid got on an amazingly hot streak just before the tournaments started his senior year and carried EHS to the state title over a heavily favored Lexington Catholic. (Funny local angles on that too... there was a kid who's family was from Etown that xferred to LexCath for his last two years so he'd have a chance to win a state title and play at Kentucky... only to watch his hometown school beat him in the championship and their best player ended up on the Wildcats.)

He carried that same momentum all the way through JUCO and into his first handful of games at Kentucky. I'm a firm believer that the broken hand and a shattered confidence due to a coach who shall remain nameless killed that hot streak.

IIRC, he's actually playing over in Europe now.

by chirop1 on Mar 13, 2008 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions

I remember

Barbour really stepped up his game when Gerald Fitch was out for a few games, but you're right, the hot streak did suddenly turn pretty cold.

by kentuckygirl0724 on Mar 13, 2008 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions

I would ...

dearly love to see Brooks get a 5* WR because he wants to play basketball as well. Extra über-athlete on the basketball team that costs us no scholly?

Love that. I sure hope it happens.

by Glenn Logan on Mar 13, 2008 11:54 AM EDT reply actions

Liggins

As I posted on another thread, I think Liggins may be in trouble as it pertains to qualifying.

This may be why Clyde is continuing to recruit similar type players for next year. Liggns has been very non-committal, and "soft" when asked about his academic standing in regards to his eligibility for next year.

Many, with more knowledge than myself, have theorized that Liggins may not qualify. Let's hope they are wrong.

I would still love for Clyde to bring in Hopson. He is, without a doubt, an immediate impact player.

by Ken Howlett on Mar 13, 2008 12:05 PM EDT reply actions

Liggins

Turned 20 this winter. Was ineligible for Illinois HS competition as a result.

When he was at Washington HS here, unlikely to qualify. Academics not good in HS.

Improved academics at Findlay Prep. Still iffy to qualify. 50-50 at best.

by FortyYearCatFan on Mar 13, 2008 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions

2 questions

On the way home from work last night I was listening to espn radio and whoever was hosting that particular segment (his name escapes me) was talking about how many teams should the tournament be made up of. Apparently both Wright from 'nova and Boehiem from syracuse feel the tourney should be expanded. He went on to say there is growing numbers in support of this. What's the general concensus here, should the number of teams in the dance be increased?

For what it's worth, I think it should stay as is with the exception of doing away with the play in game. What a lousy way of rewarding a small school for winning their conference tourney, make them play one more game for the right to play a #1 seed.

Also, so far only 9-10 people have signed up for the tourney bracket over at yahoo, is anyone else gonna play?

by wldcatsfreak on Mar 13, 2008 9:29 PM EDT reply actions

The person responsible...

...for expanding the Tournament should be ceremoniously hung from the Courthouse steps.

It is fine, perfect, without flaw as it is now.(Except for Duke and Carolina never having to leave their home state the first two, sometimes three rounds)

by Ken Howlett on Mar 13, 2008 9:46 PM EDT up reply actions

In a column on ESPN.com...

By Gene Wojo-what's his name-howski, he makes a few suggestions for improving March Madness. Some are silly, some are legit. Starting the title game early than 9:30 on the east coast on a Monday for instance...

He actually suggests expanding the play in game to 4 games and having them be an event unto themselves. It would require adding 3 more teams to the tourney. I think that's actually not a bad idea.

I remember when they added the play-in game due to the split of one of those many low-majors out there I originally thought "Pshaw. They should just drop an at large team. The 6th team out of the ACC doesn't need in anyways!" Now that I've experienced a year on the bubble... I don't feel quite the same way!!!

The article can be found here:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=3291117&sportCa t=ncb

by chirop1 on Mar 13, 2008 10:03 PM EDT up reply actions

Additional comment

In the comments thread of the linked article above, there was an interesting point made by one of the board trolls:

"Also, expand to 96. Top 32 seeds get byes and have a great Tuesday and Wed of action at the tournament sites. One round and you are down to 64. Rationale? When the tournament first expanded to 64, there were 256 Division I schools, now there are over 340. There is actually a lower percentage of schools that now make the dance, and a higher percentage of good teams that get no post-season action. Expanded to 96 will have about the same percentage of teams make the tournament as there were in 1985."

I'm not in favor of major expansion either... but its an interesting point.

by chirop1 on Mar 13, 2008 10:05 PM EDT up reply actions

Percentages

The author makes a good point about the percentage of teams making the Dance being lower, but adding mediocre and/or undeserving teams does not make a better Tournament, in my opinion.

Also, expanding on the current number of 65 would go a long way toward rendering the regular season meaningless ala the NBA.

I personally like the setup as is. I suppose valid arguments can be made for expansion, but hopefully the Dance will remain the same numbers wise.

by Ken Howlett on Mar 13, 2008 10:34 PM EDT up reply actions

No!

No more.

It is perfect as it is. The most I would ever support is a play-in game for each bracket, and only one.

It isn't broken. Before we know it, we will be having all 300+ D-I teams playing off for the damn thing. 19% of teams already get invited, and there are plenty of other post-season opportunities.

Enough!

by Glenn Logan on Mar 13, 2008 10:42 PM EDT up reply actions