If Kentucky played the worst NBA team, what would the score be?

Yeah even a crap NBA team would smoke UK. Really the crap NBA teams only look like crap because they're playing against insane competition. So Charlotte or Washington beat UK by 40 points, but they're not so impressive because Miami or OKC would beat them by 80.

I watched Charlotte get pummelled by the NJ Nets last week and noted that even so they have Corey Maggette, Gerald Henderson, DJ Augustin, Kemba Walker, and Tyrus Thomas, among others, in their line-up. All of these were big-time college stars, and all played on teams that went deep into the college play-offs. Assuming they were trying and in-shape, the Charlotte players would kill Kentucky.

Mick Lovin wrote:

2 points.

1- The worst NBA team is still a college all star team.

2- You ended your sentence with a preposition.

Acutally, 1 point. The second is a myth. As long as the preposition is not extraneous, it is ok. Example, "What did you jump on?"

So for the third time I am going to interject running into this thread.

The thing about comparing basketball is that it is very subjective.

Whereas running is objective.

I can score 100 points in a basketball game against the right competition.

When you have 4 guys that can average 45s flat splits it doesn't matter who they are competing against. There is no defense in track.

Is it possible that some of these pro basketball players that ride the bench haven't improved since college?

How would we know?

Do undrafted college kids get a legitimate tryout to take the place of some these bench riders who have contracts?

We know the pro players can't go back and compete for colleges.

Of course, physical maturity is a big advantage in basketball so the pros have a big advantage there.

In track, we know there are collegiates fast enough to beat pros.

But maybe that is because there is not a great quantity of people that pursue track as a profession.

Basketball surely has much more competition of people fighting to continue as a professional.

Just thinking out loud.

Some of these pro basketball teams just don't have any team chemistry and the players seem complacent with their paycheck.

In a one game scenario, a good college team may have a shot at a bad pro team in a 40 minute game.

Calipari just commented on this on ESPN. "this team would not beat any NBA team. Period."

The Bobcats would have no quality big men to mark Davis, but they would still crush Kentucky. Kemba Walker lit up the NCAA last year and he's shooting 37% from the floor in the league. It's a completely different level. People forget that guys like Patrick O'Bryant were dunking on everyone in college and go on to play ten minutes over three years in the NBA.

http://www.basketballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=906

The Bobcats would not score less than 140; the Wildcats would not score more than 40.

toro wrote:

But maybe that is because there is not a great quantity of people that pursue track as a profession.

Basketball surely has much more competition of people fighting to continue as a professional.

I think this is the biggest reason why any comparison of running to "major" college ball sports is suspect. Look at the number of people who play at each level of football and basketball in this country. At each step up, from high school to college to pro, huge numbers of people get "cut" from the sport. That means there's an enormous difference in the average level of talent between any two adjacent levels. So any given college team will only have a few players who will get a shot at the next level, just like any given high school only has a few players who get scholarships.

Kentucky - 88 Lakers - 94

Who cares if they could beat the worst NBA team, they won't even win the NCAA championship this year.

KU has two sure thing NBA players, but neither would start -- even for Charlotte -- right now.[/quote]

Seriously? Have you recently seen the Charlotte starting lineup? Because anybody who would put Bismack Biyombo in the lineup over Anthony Davis has been smoking something. Sure Charlotte is an NBA team, but they're one of the worst ones in NBA history. Kentucky has three lottery picks on their roster, any of whom could start and do well for all except the elite teams. I'm sure a game, set in Rupp arena, easily could go either way.

Bobcates would absolutely blow them out of the water.

Yeah France wrote:

Mick Lovin wrote:

2 points.

1- The worst NBA team is still a college all star team.

2- You ended your sentence with a preposition.

Acutally, 1 point. The second is a myth. As long as the preposition is not extraneous, it is ok. Example, "What did you jump on?"

All he said was "You ended your sentence with a preposition" which, technically is true.

You realize Biyombo was a lottery pick last year? Meaning he is or was (in some folks eyes) as good or better than Davis is currently. You don't know much about professional basketball. "Start and do well"? What does that even mean. We talking 20/10 (for a big) or 15/10 (for a guard)? Idiot.

College rules, UK loses 80-65. They have six guys who are within a year of being NBA contributers with three guys who will be capable of starting. Davis is a beast and is a better player than the best player on lots of bad teams. So anyone who claims they would lose by 50 doesn't know what they are talking about. The most lopsided loss in the NCAA tournament was 34 points, and only a handful of games were decided by 25+. The talent gap between the Wizards and Wildcats is MUCH smaller than the gap between, say, UK and a mediocre mid-major. Still, UK is a step behind bad NBA teams, so they would lose nine times out of ten.

This is one of the stupidest debates done just about every year.

The Kentucky guys that will be drafted were HS players recently.None that I have seen would have been huge impact guys in the NBA out of HS let alone after one year in Calipari free for all, where he just has so many good guys it is barely even fair. It makes the 1 and done a College joke, an idea I even agree with Bobby Knight on.

No college team , if the pros took it seriously today would even be close to an NBA team, most folks have no idea what it is to play at 24 second shot clock velocity, it is so much different.

You have not watched the game long enough or understand it enough to think differently.

Guys who play guard for Kentucky, today, not in three years would struggle to even get into an offense against real NBA players within 10 seconds, the game is so much faster.

Go back to way better teams that this Kentucky group and make an analogy, and they still would get thumped. taking a bunch of 1-2 year HS phenoms and dump them in against pros, you have no idea how bad that would look.

I have a very very good friend who was captain of a DI hoops team who played with and against Hardaway, Mitch Richmond, and he said you simply have no idea how fast the game is, pick up games? You need oxygen.

Why are you assuming NBA rules? Obviously if we stack the deck for the NBA team, it won't be that competitive. If the rules favor UK it might be a little more interesting.

Byron Mullens would have a 20-20 game against Kentucky. DJ Agustine would shoot 15+ FT's. NBA vs Amateurs people.

As much as people say they don't play defense in the NBA, watch how rarely a pro player gets a wide-open look, almost everything at that level is completely contested. Then watch a college game and see what closing out on a shooter looks like. Two different things. If NBA players can rise up on college players playing defense they would knock down shots all night. UK gave up 90 points to Indiana last week, how many would the give up to an NBA team?