I'm big on talent.
Why?
Because the teams with the best players usually win.
|
|
| Corey Brewer was part of a talented Gators team that won two titles. (Getty Images) |
That's how you go from 35-5 to 24-12.
You downgrade in talent.
So with that in mind I decided to conduct a little experiment, though I'm not sure experiment is the correct term. Honestly, I'm not sure of the correct term. But what I did was go through every college roster and identify "NBA talents" to see which schools have assembled the best pro prospects, idea being that such an exercise would also shed light on which schools should be competing for the national title because, like I said, the schools with the most NBA talents are usually the ones playing on the first Monday in April. For proof, consider that Kansas won last season's championship with five players who were subsequently drafted (Brandon Rush, Darrell Arthur, Mario Chalmers, Darnell Jackson, Sasha Kaun) and two more who will likely be drafted in the future (Sherron Collins and Cole Aldrich).
Bottom line, it takes pros to win championships.
So I went looking for rosters with pros.
Now this is where it gets complicated: Rather than inject by own opinion that would undoubtedly lead to an endless debate about which players are and are not legitimate pro prospects, I turned to DraftExpress.com and let it be the decider. The site has mock drafts for 2009 and 2010, both the first and second rounds. So I counted every player listed and then assigned point values to them based on whether they are projected as first-round picks or second-round picks, and in what year they are projected to be selected.
Here's the points system:
• 2009 first-round pick: 4 points
• 2010 first-round pick: 3 points
• 2009 second-round pick: 2 points
• 2010 second-round pick: 1 point
My logic here is simple -- that first-round picks are the most talented, and someone projected to go in the first round of the 2009 draft should be a better college player in the 2008-09 season than someone projected to go in the first round of the 2010 draft. That makes sense, right? The same logic applies to second-round picks, that someone projected to go in the second round of the 2009 draft should be a better college player in the 2008-09 season than someone projected to go in the second round of the 2010 draft.
So that's how I established the points system.
And I hope you're still with me.
Because if you are, what you'll find is that there are nine teams with a combined total of at least eight points. Some of the teams are surprises; others are not.
And just so we're clear, I'm not trying to claim this is an exact science because, you know, it's not. For starters, it's impossible to accurately project any draft in any sport eight months in advance because things constantly change and players who aren't currently projected as pros will undoubtedly develop into lottery picks, like Russell Westbrook, Jason Thompson and Joe Alexander did last season. Consequently, the teams that seem to be the most talented now might not be the most talented come January.
But either way, it's still kind of interesting. And I bet you won't have a hard time guessing which school tops the list.
North Carolina
Number of projected draft picks: 6
Number of points: 16
2009 first round: Ty Lawson, Tyler Hansbrough (8 points)
2010 first round: Ed Davis (3 points)
2009 second round: Wayne Ellington, Danny Green (4 points)
2010 second round: Deon Thompson (1 point)
Comment: Now you see why the Tar Heels are the clear favorite to win the national title. They have pros at every position, a Hall of Fame coach and plenty of experience. Seriously, they should never lose a game. Ever. Not even at Cameron Indoor with two refs working against them.
Louisville
Number of projected draft picks: 3
Number of points: 11
2009 first round: Earl Clark, Terrence Williams (8 points)
2010 first round: Samardo Samuels (3 points)
2009 second round: N.A.
2010 second round: N.A.
Comment: The funny thing about Louisville trailing only North Carolina using this criteria is that Louisville is trailing only North Carolina in the preseason Top 25 (and one). This suggests I knew what I was doing when I put those rankings together, and it's always good to feel like I know what I'm doing.
Ohio State
Number of projected draft picks: 4
Number of points: 11
2009 first round: B.J. Mullens (4 points)
2010 first round: William Buford, David Lighty (6 points)
2009 second round: N.A.
2010 second round: Evan Turner (1 point)
Comment: This is what happens when a school signs back-to-back top 10 recruiting classes: It ends up with a lot of talented recruits. That said, I'm not ready to project OSU as a serious national title contender just yet because all of the talent is young. But if you look up in March and see the Buckeyes about to win the Big Ten, you'll understand why, I suppose.
UConn
Number of projected draft picks: 4
Number of points: 10
2009 first round: Hasheem Thabeet (4 points)
2010 first round: Kemba Walker (3 points)
2009 second round: A.J. Price (2 points)
2010 second round: Stanley Robinson (1 point)
Comment: This total deserves an asterisk because Robinson isn't actually on the team right now. However, he is expected to rejoin the Huskies in December. And even if he doesn't they'll still be a contender to win it all, which would make a nice story given Jim Calhoun's recent medical woes.
Duke
Number of projected draft picks: 3
Number of points: 8
2009 first round: Gerald Henderson (4 points)
2010 first round: Kyle Singler (3 points)
2009 second round: N.A.
2010 second round: Nolan Smith (1 point)
Comment: Duke is the program readers most often told me I ranked too high in the preseason Top 25 (and one), but this suggests they aren't too high at all. Remember, this is a power-conference team that returns every relevant player (sans DeMarcus Nelson) from a 28-win campaign. So while there's an obvious problem in the middle, the talent and experience is in place to make a Final Four run.
UCLA
Number of projected draft picks: 2
Number of points: 8
2009 first round: Darren Collison, Jrue Holiday (8 points)
2010 first round: N.A.
2009 second round: N.A.
2010 second round: N.A.
Comment: With Collison and Holiday, it's possible the Bruins have the best backcourt in the nation. It's also possible a fourth consecutive Final Four is on the way.
Wake Forest
Number of projected draft picks: 3
Number of points: 8
2009 first round: N.A.
2010 first round: Al-Farouq Aminu, Tony Woods (6 points)
2009 second round: James Johnson (2 points)
2010 second round: N.A.
Comment: Somebody e-mailed a few weeks ago, claimed Wake Forest should be considered a national title contender and I sort of dismissed it as fandom. But you know what? Maybe that person was correct. Clearly, Dino Gaudio has talent. But my instincts tell me the most likely scenario has Wake Forest being good (yet not great) this season before becoming a serious title contender in 2009-10, provided Gaudio can get his heralded freshmen (Woods and Aminu) to return for their sophomore years.
Gonzaga
Number of projected draft picks: 4
Number of points: 8
2009 first round: N.A.
2010 first round: Austin Daye (3 points)
2009 second round: Josh Heytvelt, Jeremy Pargo (4 points)
2010 second round: Matt Bouldin (1 point)
Comment: Mark Few has always had good talent relative to his West Coast Conference peers. But now he has great talent relative to anybody (except North Carolina, of course), which is why this could be the year the Zags break through and make their first Final Four in what would be a victory for non-BCS-affiliated programs everywhere.
Arizona
Number of projected draft picks: 2
Number of points: 8
2009 first round: Chase Budinger, Jordan Hill (8 points)
2010 first round: N.A.
2009 second round: N.A.
2010 second round: N.A.
Comment: Oh, what could've been had Brandon Jennings made it to campus. In that case, Lute Olson's return to the sideline could've yielded a national title. Such is unlikely now. But it still appears the Wildcats' streak of NCAA tournament appearances should remain intact.
