WSU Versus UNLV Predictions and Pregame Discussions

[Dave Stalwart]

Can somebody explain to me why Vegas has WSU opening up as 7 point favorites against the most athletic team in the history of college basketball?

Vegas must be on crack.

and the added irony that it's their home town that is the focal point of gambling and ends up being the name associated with the prediction. I know it's unrelated, but there's something funny about it. Like "wichita has wichita state losing by about 7". Not the fans... Just everyone else that is betting on the game...

[jdshock]

Serious question on the whole "greatest team ever" ideas. With the way training is today, would any (left as they were) of the old great teams beat a good team today? For example, in swimming the world records of 50 years ago are matched by really good HS age swimmers today. Just because of better training. Do you think the same is true for basketball?

This probably isn't the thread for this discussion, but I really enjoy this argument. I think training is so much better now that the best players in the 50's and 60's couldn't compete with the best players today if they time travelled to today's game. If you could bring back Wilt, or Bill Russell, or whoever and have them grow up with today's training, though, they'd still be some of the best of all time. Even aside from training, the game is just so much more complicated today than it used to be. Players today have to know so many offensive and defensive schemes, and coaches have more knowledge than ever before.

To relate this back to the topic at hand, I believe the best college teams today are better than the best college teams around 1990-1992.

[im4wsu]

This probably isn't the thread for this discussion, but I really enjoy this argument. I think training is so much better now that the best players in the 50's and 60's couldn't compete with the best players today if they time travelled to today's game. If you could bring back Wilt, or Bill Russell, or whoever and have them grow up with today's training, though, they'd still be some of the best of all time. Even aside from training, the game is just so much more complicated today than it used to be. Players today have to know so many offensive and defensive schemes, and coaches have more knowledge than ever before.

To relate this back to the topic at hand, I believe the best college teams today are better than the best college teams around 1990-1992.

I think I recall that Red Auerbach said the Celtics had only 7 or 8 offensive plays. But each had 40-50 options as the plays progressed. Defensively, one primary objective, force the ball into the lane and meet Mr. Russell.

When I attempt to evaluate great players or great teams, I try to compare them to their contemporaries, those that they competed against. If they stand out against their peers, they would stand out in other periods as well. So I don't see today's stars so much replacing former athletes, but rather adding to the mix.

[Hurley]

This probably isn't the thread for this discussion, but I really enjoy this argument. I think training is so much better now that the best players in the 50's and 60's couldn't compete with the best players today if they time travelled to today's game. If you could bring back Wilt, or Bill Russell, or whoever and have them grow up with today's training, though, they'd still be some of the best of all time. Even aside from training, the game is just so much more complicated today than it used to be. Players today have to know so many offensive and defensive schemes, and coaches have more knowledge than ever before.

To relate this back to the topic at hand, I believe the best college teams today are better than the best college teams around 1990-1992.

I don't know. Have you watched that ESPN 30 for 30 about NC St? Watching some of those teams like Houston Phi Slamma Jamma, and watching Virginia with Ralph Samson, and UNC with Jordan and Perkins, I'm not sure that's true. Think about the Big East in the mid80's with guys like Patrick Ewing, Chris Mullen, etc. Doesn't seem like we see that kind of skillset anymore.

[asiseeit]

I'm afraid UNLV's front line is just longer, stronger and faster than our own. I just don't feel
good about this one so I am picking them 84-81.

[WSUwatcher]

A few notes from Twitter:

Fred is sore and didnt' practice yesterday, but will play tomorrow. Marshall says hes about 75%

If true, then the question is, Is he sore because of the hamstring or because of his long period of relative inactivity? And the same applies to the 75% estimate -- is it his hamstring that's 75%, or his game conditioning? (By the way, when Bill Walton was at UCLA, he frequently didn't practice because of his bad knees, but he still knew what to do once game time rolled around.)

Either way, let's hope Frankamp is available -- for a relatively small guy, he could be a big, big gap-filler until LeFred reaches 100%.

[WuShock16]

I'm afraid UNLV's front line is just longer, stronger and faster than our own. I just don't feel
good about this one so I am picking them 84-81.

I seem to remember from the last Creighton game in Wichita that there were consequences for those who picked Creighton to win that game after the Shockers were indeed victorious. Calling into the coaches show and 'fessing up to 3G was one of those consequences.

I'm not saying. I'm just saying.

[BostonWu]

GOOD MORNING SHOCKERS !!

Flying in today staying at the team hotel. How about RESTURANT suggestions and bar ideas. Bar should be around campus RESTURANT can be anywhere downtown near Waterman Street, We have a car so no biggie driving.

How far is Waterman st.,from the arena ?? The bars, they close at 1am ?? Any men's clubs around worth going to ? Not a priority, but just incase.

Short trip to Wichita from Vegas looking for gentlemen's establishments is sort of like traveling from Wichita to SF Fisherman's Wharf looking for steakhouse...I would think???

[Stickboy46]

If true, then the question is, Is he sore because of the hamstring or because of his long period of relative inactivity? And the same applies to the 75% estimate -- is it his hamstring that's 75%, or his game conditioning? (By the way, when Bill Walton was at UCLA, he frequently didn't practice because of his bad knees, but he still knew what to do once game time rolled around.)

Either way, let's hope Frankamp is available -- for a relatively small guy, he could be a big, big gap-filler until LeFred reaches 100%.

My guess is that its all of the above. He hasn't played or even practiced hard for a month. So he's probably sore from that along with stretching out a bad hamstring.

[ShockBand]

I know better than to click on links that @WstateU posts while on my work computer.

Yeah, if WStateU isn't posting something directly, proceed with caution!

[jdshock]

I don't know. Have you watched that ESPN 30 for 30 about NC St? Watching some of those teams like Houston Phi Slamma Jamma, and watching Virginia with Ralph Samson, and UNC with Jordan and Perkins, I'm not sure that's true. Think about the Big East in the mid80's with guys like Patrick Ewing, Chris Mullen, etc. Doesn't seem like we see that kind of skillset anymore.

I certainly think it's been a gradual progression over the years. Great players from the 80s would transition into today's game more easily than great players from the 50s. As an example, when Bill Russell and Wilt played, tons of players smoked cigarettes. Aside from any other metric, their lung capacity had to be less than these crazy athletic and healthy guys we see today.

In regards to some of your examples, though, it's hard to compare because it's such a different game now. There aren't that many top players who look like Shaq, Charles Barkley, etc. in the NBA. There are a few, but none are particularly dominant. I don't think it's because humans are less capable of producing behemoths like those guys, which means that there must be a reason we aren't seeing them anymore. They're guys that are in the Hall of Fame, but players like them just don't exist any more. I don't think it's an accident. I'm not sure Charles Barkley could have guarded Kevin Durant or Paul George, you know?

The more I argue about this, I think we hit prime college basketball around 2013-2014. A team that could go undefeated in 2013-2014 would beat a team that went undefeated in 1990-1991 by like 25, maybe 30 points.

[ShockBand]

Maybe WStateU could start using Let Me Google That For You. Then you can see what rabbit hole you're headed down before it actually gets there! For example:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bars+with+craft+beer+in+wichita+kansas

[ShockBand]

I certainly think it's been a gradual progression over the years. Great players from the 80s would transition into today's game more easily than great players from the 50s. As an example, when Bill Russell and Wilt played, tons of players smoked cigarettes. Aside from any other metric, their lung capacity had to be less than these crazy athletic and healthy guys we see today.

In regards to some of your examples, though, it's hard to compare because it's such a different game now. There aren't that many top players who look like Shaq, Charles Barkley, etc. in the NBA. There are a few, but none are particularly dominant. I don't think it's because humans are less capable of producing behemoths like those guys, which means that there must be a reason we aren't seeing them anymore. They're guys that are in the Hall of Fame, but players like them just don't exist any more. I don't think it's an accident. I'm not sure Charles Barkley could have guarded Kevin Durant or Paul George, you know?

The more I argue about this, I think we hit prime college basketball around 2013-2014. A team that could go undefeated in 2013-2014 would beat a team that went undefeated in 1990-1991 by like 25, maybe 30 points.

Here is Len Dawson's halftime refresher for Super Bowl I

[pinstripers]

I certainly think it's been a gradual progression over the years. Great players from the 80s would transition into today's game more easily than great players from the 50s. As an example, when Bill Russell and Wilt played, tons of players smoked cigarettes. Aside from any other metric, their lung capacity had to be less than these crazy athletic and healthy guys we see today.

In regards to some of your examples, though, it's hard to compare because it's such a different game now. There aren't that many top players who look like Shaq, Charles Barkley, etc. in the NBA. There are a few, but none are particularly dominant. I don't think it's because humans are less capable of producing behemoths like those guys, which means that there must be a reason we aren't seeing them anymore. They're guys that are in the Hall of Fame, but players like them just don't exist any more. I don't think it's an accident. I'm not sure Charles Barkley could have guarded Kevin Durant or Paul George, you know?

The more I argue about this, I think we hit prime college basketball around 2013-2014. A team that could go undefeated in 2013-2014 would beat a team that went undefeated in 1990-1991 by like 25, maybe 30 points.

Cigarettes or no, those teams ran constantly, far more than these guys today, where many stand around while the star goes one on one.

[AndShock]

Can somebody explain to me why Vegas has WSU opening up as 7 point favorites against the most athletic team in the history of college basketball?

Vegas must be on crack.

That line seems a bit ridiculous especially considering our unknowns (Conner and Fred.) I would expect money to pour in on UNLV which means Vegas is fairly confident WSU will cover.