Would the best college teams ever beat the Nets?

[Zenigundam]

Quote: Originally Posted by cima

I assume you meant the college team at the time and not say now? Cause 2010 Kentucky with Wall, Cousins, Bledsoe, Patterson, Liggins, and Daniel Orton present-day would whoop the Nets.

Yeah I think 2010 Kentucky as they were might beat my Nets, but that team had no chemistry, it was just a classic collection of egos and buffoons. That's the team that got threatened by unathletic Cornell, yeah fine Cornell players had been together three or four years and dominated the Ivy League, senior laden, but all those guys were scrubs relative to NBA players. Yeah, but still would beat the Nets..


Ya know what we're like 2010 Kentucky chemistry wise except with no talent. It's really sad. Traded away Favors for a PG who is washed up D-Will, and I liked D-Will on the Nets, but Favors is at least a very solid bench player, even though a ttotal bust given his HS prestige and GT pedigree and #3 overall.

[z Revis]

I would say no. College teams aren't deep enough to go 48 minutes with an NBA squad. I'll say this though, it's at least not as much of a joke to question it as much as it is when these topics get brought up in the NFL.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[ProfessaPackMan]

Brook would put up 40-20 against that 2010 squad(remember, we're getting THOSE players, not what we see of them NOW)and Lin would look like Wall does NOW against that team.

We go thru these silly discussions of can (insert college team) beat the worst NBA team(did this last year with the Sixers and everyone still had the Sixers getting the win)every year when we all know the answer and this year isn't any different. Stop with this tomfoolery, lol.

[Zenigundam]

Quote: Originally Posted by ojandpizza

The gap is just massive. Every year you've got maybe 2-3 guys from the lottery that can produce with decent production at the NBA level.

We have none of those guys though. We stole Lopez in the draft, a beast at Stanford, and a Top 10 NBA Center. Bogdonavic, don't really know his story coming from Eastern Europe or whatever, but he's a beast.


But look at the rest of our players- Acy very good at Baylor not a dominant star though, Booker same at Clemson, Kilpatrick same at Cincy, Dinwiddie same at CU, Hollis-Jefferson basically an overrated bum at Zona, Levert sucked at Michigan imo, Lin beast at Harvard but he's OUT with injury, Whitehead overrated at Seton Hall, very overrated will be playing overseas in three years.


So you act like we have all these studs and lottery picks, but it's a really sad excuse for an NBA team. The only reason I think we MIGHT beat the top college teams is because of prototype size and wingspan to exploit matchups and our bench will be far more talented, but it's really sad cause I still think we'd lose to the best NCAA teams ever.

[Zenigundam]

Quote: Originally Posted by z Revis

I would say no. College teams aren't deep enough to go 48 minutes with an NBA squad. I'll say this though, it's at least not as much of a joke to question it as much as it is when these topics get brought up in the NFL. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Yeah true, because basketball is a sport that relies heavily on confidence over physicality. Like, for example in the NCAA you take '95 Nebraska, '01 Miami, '12 Alabama etc and put them against the 2008 Lions and the reason they'd lose is because Lions' have 350lb behemoths on the offensive and defensive lines to disrupt everything from happening even though some of the actual skill positon players for the Huskers, Canes, and Tide are way better than the people guarding or playing offense against them.

[Zenigundam]

I actually wish my Nets would set up an exhibition game against a team like UCLA, I would definitely watch it. Would be very entertaining lol watch Lonzo Ball cook Lin.

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by Zenigundam

The Nets aren't talented at all. Only Lopez and Bogdonavic. The rest of our players weren't even that good in college such as Kilpatrick at Cincy and Booker at Clemson. They were above average but overrated, and now they suck in the pros, but you say they won't lose to a Top 5 all-time college team just because they're "in the pros" lol.

No, not because they're "in the pros"... but yes, because they're in the NBA specifically. And no matter how much you want to say you hate them right now, it's not a team of 12/15 end of the bench players. We're talking about grown men who train around the clock to be bigger, stronger and faster with more consistent shots and skills overall.

In the over the top, "I hate my Nets" world, it may be a funny throw away line (and not worth it's own thread, btw... can bitch about the Nets in the team thread or Off Topic). But in the real world the vegas line would be 20+ to whatever NBA team you want to put up against any of these college teams.

[cima]

So if we are talking the college team as they were then, I think you might be able to find a team in the 80s/90s because dudes stayed in school longer back then and thus were more developed. Still a tough find though.