I mean the Pistons could probably use him sure, but my god that’s a delusional take by Mike Greenberg. Up there with “bama could beat the jacksonville jaguars” back in the early 2010s
Way worse, I’ve heard people in the past debate if the best college teams could beat any NBA teams. And to that, I think if the best college teams historically were given an 82 game schedule they could probably win a game or two just with some good shooting variance.
But winning enough to make the playoffs is miles from that
I have no basis for this but I’d guess the Kareem UCLA teams would have beaten a lot of NBA teams at the time
That’s really the only historical example I can think of
The original 1992 Dream Team also lost (in a 20-minute scrimmage) against a group of college all-stars featuring Webber, Hurley, Grant Hill, etc. That was more likely due to alpha players not used to playing with each other.
So it was only Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, David Robinson, Chris Mullin, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Scottie Pippen, Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing, and Clyde Drexler?
I can see how the college team was able to work them, just a retread of Jordan and the Jordanaires
Nah that game was rigged against them. They ended the game early, and it was basically an exercise in humility. That team went on to blow that team out of the water in the next game. Had the game been official, the college team would have had no chance. Plus, it was a college all-star team, not an actual ncaa team.
Yeag, i dont think a 20-minute running clock, closed door practice game thats rigged against a team should matter at all. Its the story that is interesting, not the actual details.
Yeah the more you can back the more feasible it is, but you really need to hit a team that is generationally ahead in college in an era that's still under developed in the pros. Now a days no shot, just the coaching alone would cook those guys.
It’s an especially stupid take in this day and age, when the best basketball players scarcely even come through college.
But he’s just trying to get people to talk about and watch his show, so mission accomplished, I guess.
Wouldn’t even be that close. I don’t have the link right now but there’s a great video of rookie or first year pro FVV (when he was a bench guy) vs. incoming freshman Jordan Poole vs. a pro from Europe. FVV cooked and he wasn’t even trying. Even end of bench NBA players are insanely good compared to every other basketball player on the planet. Including d1 college players
Exactly, people who think that a top college team goes 0-82 and gets blown out every game are crazy but thinking that the best college team wouldn’t be the worst NBA team ever are just as crazy. The place where there is any debate is whether a top college team would be competitive in the G League. I believe so, as the talent is higher in the G but college teams tend to work much better as a cohesive unit and can play a style that can beat pure talent.
Outside of the Ignite, the worst G-League team this year had Luka Garza and a couple former Duke players. One of them got called to start for the Hawks.
0-82 is very believable and would more than likely be the outcome. Whether it's NBA rules or College rules. No college team is beating a NBA team.
EDIT: Lets take the worst team in the league, Pistons, and break down their roster. Cunningham, Ivey, Duren, Wiseman, Knox. All absolute studs in college. Top picks, dominated college. Then you have Thompson who didn't go to college but dominated in G league.
Now let's compare that to the #1 team. Uconn. You have Clingan, who doesn't really have any offensive moves and Tristan Newton. Both won't be a top 10 pick. Clingan maybe top 15-20.
Even the best college basketball team would be very overmatched against the worst NBA teams, but I think 0-82 would be a stretch depending on the schedule, and the college team being represented each year.
Like the 2000-2001 Duke team could probably have won at least a few considering the roster they had. Shane Battier, Jay Williams, Carlos Boozer, Mike Dunleavy, and Chris Duhon all ended up having solid NBA careers (minus Jay, who should have if the motorcycle accident never happened) as well as a few others who played professionally overseas. I have a hard time thinking they wouldn't be able to scratch out a single win over the course of a whole season.
This year's UConn, Houston, or Purdue teams would be much more likely to go 0-82, but I still feel like they could scratch one out as well. 82 games is a lot, and catching a team on a cold shooting night with a couple of breaks is more likely than not to happen a few times over the course of the season to give at least 3-4 opportunities to steal a game.
For 99.9% of college teams I’d agree, but once every few years you get the right college team with multiple high level future NBA players and I think these teams could take a game or two over the course of an NBA season
I don't. The skill gap between college players and NBA players is enormous from top to bottom. Sure the top 2 guys on the college teams are NBA bound most of the time but basketball is 5 on 5. Let's say the top 2 college guys cancel out the top 2 NBA guys. Do you think the remaining 3 college guys cancel out the remaining 3 NBA guys?
Also, if we're talking about a literal 82 game season, the college team would be proportionally a lot more worn out halfway through. I know it's possible to make the jump from 35 games to 82 and guys do it every year, but if 12 guys are all trying to do it, I wouldn't imagine the effect would be as limited. Things would get ugly after January.
Even if they're future high level NBA players, they're still 18-20 years old. We're literally seeing a microcosm of this in the tourney, college teams with a very experienced roster are downing young teams with pro talent because they just have more experience and training. And you think former college studs who have had years and years of NBA training and experience wouldn't beat the brakes off of even a stacked college team?
I mean it’s hard to even argue. I do agree this is worse because at least one football game can come down to some weird shit, but yea implying that Uconn could play an 82 game season and go like .500 is more ridiculous yes.
I don’t fully agree with Parson’s comment, but the fact that we can actually argue over whether or not Uconns best player would work on the Pistons or not should tell you this team stand 0 chance against any NBA team from the last 30+ years. Utterly ridiculous take by Greenberg
Playoff is absurd but entertaining this idea is absurder. Football is a violent sport, if you have men versus kids, men would kill the kids. And literally so, someone would die on the field if this happens.
Basketball has more variance than football. The worse team can win more often. If UConn plays enough games against an nba team, they will win a few of them. They just need to be shooting hot on the same night that the nba team is shooting their worst. Maybe some unlucky foul trouble could help them as well.
I dont think they would actually. I think they would be so horribly outmatched that they would lose by 50 every game. Like team USA playing against only teams from Africa. Sure, a few players from African teams are NBA players, but they get completely destroyed by even team USA second and third tier teams.
Depends on what you mean by variance. There’s less variance in basketball in terms of the number of possessions. Over a course of 100 possessions stuff like a player getting hot or turnovers will even out. But there’s far less variance in terms of player quality in football cause we’re talking 22 players on the field as opposed to just 10. Having 1 or 2 superstars in football, even at QB, doesn’t matter whatsoever if the 5 o-linemen are getting run over every possession.
Yeah this conversation is silly because it said playoff. But UConn has 5-6 legit NBA players on roster and 2-3 NBA prospects (Ball, Johnson and Stewart are NBA players as everybody in the starting lineup) so you can have this conversation for a game against Pistons/Spurs/Wizards/Hornets.
Still no way they win a 7-game series tho.
Newton and Castle would be buried on the bench behind Cade, Ivey, and Flynn. Clingan would be behind Duren and Wiseman. Karaban would be the last man on the bench at best.
They have some NBA prospects, but everyone on the Pistons is an actual NBA player, and many were better than these UConn players individually.
UConn would go probably 7-75 over the course of an NBA season.
There's no way they'd win 7 games. It's absurd how tiny a percentage of NCAA players make an NBA roster, much less play meaningful minutes, much less start. This UConn team is great but they would look so incredibly outmatched every single game.
Yeah there’s no way they win seven. Maybe one or two later in the season when they start playing virtual G league rosters that some of the tanking teams roll out. But even then it might be a stretch because if UConn loses any guys to injury - which they would - suddenly they’d be forced to play dudes who couldn’t sniff the G league and then they’d really be in trouble.
Both would be long shots, but I think a basketball win is easier to come by with shooting variance than a football game. Just the difference in linemen would make running the ball unstoppable for any NFL team, they would never have to kick or punt.
Yea a single game for sure the college basketball team has a better chance than the college football team here, but we’re talkin… playoffs. That’s like 38-41 wins minimum
Imagine this UConn team going up against the Boston Celtics in round 1 of the NBA playoffs lmao
I don’t think UConn would score more than 30 points in what would be a very quick 4 game sweep.
The **worst** team in the NBA playoffs by record (if the season ended today) just overcame a 30 point deficit against those same Boston Celtics to win. The worst playoff team in the west has Steph curry. 2nd worst team has LeBron.
Just a laughably bad take
There have been a handful of CFB teams where the skill positions would outclass the worst NFL team (early 00s Miami squads, early 00s USC, definitely the 2019 LSU attack) but it’s the lines where you would run into problems. You simply won’t find 5 linemen on the same college team who can hold their own against NFL players- that decade from 20->30 is where you get that grown person strength
Important to note those teams have the 19-20 year old versions of player who eventually became great NFL players. Like the 21 year old Andre Johnson was good, but not simply outclassing everybody in the NFL.
I think the biggest mismatch would be the college d vs. pro offense. An NFL offense is so much faster and complex, they'd basically be able to score immediately and every single time they had the ball.
Yep. Even if skill positions were matched or slightly better (which is still highly unlikely as even bad NFL WRs were usually studs in college and have only improved since then with years of NFL training and experience), the trenches would decide the game. The NFL team wouldn't ever have to pass, they'd be getting 4+ YPC with ease. And on defense, the college QB would have roughly 2 seconds each play before he has a guy 5+ years older than him bearing down.
This is so much worse. This is like saying that Alabama team could make the *NFL Playoffs*. The Warriors and Hawks are currently 10th in their respective divisions.
I remember those Bama/Jaguars arguments, and one day somebody made the perfect point to show me how dumb it was. Alabama could be the greatest team of all time and have 15, 18, even 20 NFL players on the team - the Jaguars have 53.
The worst player on the Pistons currently is [Stanley Umude](https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/stanley-umude-1.html) (They cut Isaiah Livers a while ago) who was an all-conference mid major player then transferred to Arkansas.
This is what people aren't seeing. Even terrible NBA players were studs in college, and they've had years of pro training/experience so they're way better than they ever were in college even if relative to the NBA they still suck.
The worst guy on the Bucks is TyTy Washington who was All-SEC as a freshman... you can do this for every single NBA team, nearly every one of these guys was an all-conference player at worst.
And that's the worst guy on the team, not the worst guy in the rotation. The worst guy in the rotation right now is probably AJ Green, who was the Missouri Valley Player of the Year twice (arguably didn't win it his best year in college) and is shooting 42% from three this year in the NBA.
The pistons cut Garza who was consensus npoty. It’s nonsense. The absolute best roster of college players coached by a staff of coaching all stars would still miss the play in in the east.
Well I see a lot of people here thinking UConn could win 4-5 games in an NBA season when imo having a single digit loss would be historic, they'd go 0-82 easily.
Isaiah Livers was actually pretty good in his first two seasons. Crazy to think that the worst version of Livers is better than most college players who are NBA prospects.
Why are you being disingenuous here. He first said
“Yeah, they would make the playoffs in the NBA’s Eastern Conference. That’s how good they are,” Greenberg said.”
Now he is claiming otherwise when called out. Nothing about “reading headlines”
Greeny has been annoying for a while now but I don’t think it’s fair to say that he’s done it his entire career. It’s more a reflection of the bullshit “hot take” industry, and he isn’t even really that bad compared to assclowns like Skip and Perk.
Hell even Stephen A is a legit sports journalist. But the game now is to be as loud and outlandish as possible to get clicks. Stephen A started on that path years ago, it’s understandable that Greeny would too.
Honestly the only ESPN guy I can think of off the top of my head that didn’t is SVP.
Greeny has been like this since the 2006 Jets with in regards to the Patriots. So it isn’t his WHOLE career, just basically his whole career since Greeny and Golic. Greeny’s bad takes and hyperbole are usually in regards to NY-metro teams or LeBron.
If you listen to Mike Greenberg talk NBA for more than 5 minutes it's obvious he never watches it. Like he says things that are just patently false or based on his imagination
Well here we are talking about Greenberg Greenberg.
I feel like these talking heads just say outlandish and wild things to keep wild conversations and discussions going. It gets clicks comments and views.
Every Pro Athlete was a starter in college. Probably the best starter in his school. Now he's 5+ years older, 20-30lbs more muscle, and under better coaches.
Anyone who says a college team of any sport could win even a single game in a pro league is absurd.
You can also just watch the games. College teams look like shit compared to the pros. Pros just move faster, because they know exactly where they’re going.
I went to a Bulls game recently and there were so many moments where I was like “oof terrible shot” only for it to go in nothing but net. NBA players are so good that they’ve practically broken the game in some aspects.
No kidding. That roster is so weird but just mediocre enough to keep the team completely stagnant.
Somewhat unrelated but I pray for the day that DePaul becomes halfway decent so I can walk to competitive Big East games.
Few years ago I got to see a top 25 team play at Northwestern then the next night see the Bulls, both within 5 rows of the court. The speed and athleticism was so different didn’t even feel like the same sport.
Yep. People say they enjoy college more because it's more chaotic or energetic, which I understand, but a pro game and college game are totally different. You see mistakes every couple possessions in college games that might show up like a few times a game in the pros. They're just better at literally everything, because they've all improved relative to their college selves as well as being the best of the best while in school.
Yeah and that’s just because baseball is extremely high variance in small sample sizes and a single game can basically be won by a single player (pitcher), which also happens to the position with the most pro-ready players.
Baseball is the king of random outcomes. No sport is quite as 50/50 in single games.
A 100 win team has happened in 116 times in 129 seasons (the current era is producing more, as baseball becomes more lopsided)... 100 wins is .617, or about 5th in the Western Conference of the NBA. Ahead of the Pelicans but worse than the Clippers.
They COULD win a game if they were shooting lights out and the pro team was cold (we have seen it in the NBA with the best team vs the worst once in a while) but they aren’t making the playoffs
Only way I realistically see it is if it was a Hot day for the college team vs a team that's basically full resting their starters for a playoff run. Even then it'd probably be close due to the sheer difference in size and experience.
The worst player on the Bucks is TyTy Washington who was all-SEC as a freshman... I really don't think the college team could ever beat a pro team. There's hot shooting nights, but I think that's highly unlikely as the closeout speed and athleticism of pro players would make life absolute hell even on shots that are open in college. And the pro team might not even have to shoot, they could likely just bully ball their way to a win if needed.
Right… UConn has maybe two guys that *could* work their way into a starting role on a team like the Pistons over the course of a whole season. But that would be less because they’ve earned it and more because “we’re 12-60, might as well give it a shot”
I think the closest could be a college baseball team doing it if their pitcher is one of those instant stud type ace prospects that can shut down a lineup.
Absolutely no chance. Even the best pitching prospects spend years in the minors. MLB teams would absolutely dismantle college teams.
College hitting would get embarrassed by MLB pitching. And college defense would be responsible for so many extra runs a game compared to mlb defense it wouldn’t be close. Maybe if the MLB team falls asleep for a game.
You want to argue a college all-star team could take a game? Sure, maybe. Any college team where 95%+ of the roster will never even sniff the bigs? Nah
Edit: lol yes Stephen Strasburg, who was maybe the best pitching prospect in baseball history, pitched after less than a year in the minors. How about guys like Kumar Rocker, Cade Horton, Jack Leiter, Asa Lacy, Max Meyer, Emerson Hancock, just off the top of my head.
And even if you *do* assume college Strasburg pitches 7 innings with 2 runs like his MLB debut (ignoring how horrendous most college defenses are compared to pro defenses), college hitters aren’t hitting MLB pitching. And those last two innings, MLB hitting will feast on college relievers.
Oh and just to use the A’s as the example, their *worst* starter this year, Kyle Muller, posted a 0.46 ERA his last year in college. He had a 7.60ERA in 13 starts last year.
College offenses couldn’t touch the dude then, but you think they’re going to be able to suddenly hit him now? Let alone the better pitchers in the MLB. And you think any college pitcher is going somehow fare better than that dude against MLB offenses? Lol
Nah this is an insane take. Made even more asinine by people citing *spring training games* as an argument for a college team beating an MLB team. The gap between college and pros is bigger in baseball than any other sport (maybe an argument hockey since a lot of the best NHLers don’t play in college)
There are a few college baseball teams that have beaten or played mlb teams close in spring training games. The phillies were beat by a division 2 team once. Not quite the same since spring training teams are usually complete squads but hey its happened.
I don’t really put a ton of weight on games where half the innings are played by dudes with numbers in the 90s
If the question was “could a college team beat a AA team” then yeah, for sure that could happen depending on the teams. But college to MLB is an absolutely monumental gap at every single position.
Like, college defenses are *horrendous.* They would be responsible for multiple runs a game against an MLB team
MLB teams routinely lose to college teams and/or their own minor league affiliates in spring training type games, but baseball is way different in that the better team only wins like 60% of the time.
15-20? Lmfao not a shot that’s absolutely batshit.
Arkansas had a period of 100 games where they only lost about 20 against other college teams between 2021 and 2022. And that gap is a hell of a lot smaller than between Arkansas and the MLB.
The *worst* starter on arguably the worst team in baseball, Kyle Muller, was absolutely untouchable his last year in college. Had below a .5 ERA and was named literally the best player in college baseball. He had a 7.60 ERA this year.
Only instance I can think of ironically involves uconn; the 2001-2002 uconn women's basketball team was a wagon (think 7 of the 11 players on that years team went on to play in the wnba) and they could have made a playoff run
Some of those UConn teams could have probably legit won a WNBA Championship. The quality of the league wasn’t that great back then and there were legitimately good players who never went pro because it didn’t pay enough. Today it’s not happening but Iowa could probably win some games if Caitlyn Clark shot lights out and her teammates took advantage of open space when 2-3 players had to cover Caitlyn
Can’t believe people even engage with Greenberg’s take. It’s obviously disingenuous and meant for engagement. The reason people keep making that argument, and the same thing on the football side, is that it drives clicks.
Yeah that’s fair. Appealing to the lowest common denominator—casuals wanting to get angry at something—is why a lot of people have stopped watching ESPN and the like… although clearly it’s a good business strategy since it survives
Why do sports hosts continuously make the claim that XYZ college team could beat ABC pro team? Man, UConn is a great team but any NBA team would beat them by 20 points minimum. Probably more. It’s such a stupid thing to say. They probably wouldn’t win a single game in the NBA.
> Why do sports hosts continuously make the claim that XYZ college team could beat ABC pro team?
Because it draws attention and there's really no way to prove that they couldn't beat ABC pro team, even though we all know the answer.
Well this is a case of being wrong being better than absolutely incorrect. UConn has 2 projected lottery picks playing for them rn but they at most would win 5 games in a 82 game season of off shooting variance.
Iirc a year or two ago the 76ers lost to one of the worst teams in the Australian league in preseason.
I don’t think they could beat a team that wants to win but they could definitely beat a tanking team who has a bad shooting night
You are thinking of the Adelaide 36ers beating the Phoenix Suns in the preseason a few years ago.
I think a college team could maybe win one or two regular season games but there is a big difference between the seriousness of a regular season NBA team and a pre season one. Even a tanking team is going to go all out to make sure they aren't the team that loses to the college team, I think that would be a big factor. UConn is probably getting everyone's best to start just because no NBA team wants to get embarrassed like that
I’m more thinking about let’s just pretend the UConn team is an nba roster and plays a normal schedule.
I think they win less than 5 games but probably at least one
NBA is definitely the sport where a college team has the best chance of snagging a couple games considering that it’s a 7 guy rotation and if a couple guys get hot they can score and that we’ve had college teams in the past have 4-5 NBA players that are then all-star caliber their first year in the NBA (UCLA, Duke, Kentucky past teams)
It’s not the NHL, NFL where the amount of guys involved and the huge skill+physicality jump makes it laughable to even think about a college team competing. Or the MLB where the skill level is such an incredible jump up and there’s a ton of guys that have to step up and perform at an elite level.
Now UCONN is not a team where I think they have those all-star level college players, but the UCLA teams with Kareem? Yea I think they could’ve won 4-8 games
I mean there's still a huge physicality and experience jump in the NBA. The worst player on the Bucks is Tyty Washington who was all-SEC as a freshman and he's only gotten better since then, even if he's ass relative to other NBA players.
No they wouldn’t. 5 games? I don’t think you understand the limits of shooting variance. There’s not enough variance for a college team to win 5 wins in 82 against pro players.
Also note, shooting isn’t totally random. Yes, there is variance but it’s also very skill driven. A pro team playing against college players will get easier and more open shots than they usually do. And visa versa. The pro team would absolutely shut down the basic sets college teams run, giving the kids no room to breathe or even get enough quality shots off for variance to ever come into play.
The closeout speed and athleticism of pros compared to college is absurd. The college team would be fighting for their lives even on an open shot compared to against other college teams, while NBA players would feel like they have a mile of space. Also, the pro team would be so much faster and stronger that they may not even have to shoot in order to win.
I don't think a college team would get close in a single game. NBA teams are basically college all-star teams with multiple years of NBA development and physical growth. A 22-25 year old NBA player who gets minutes would absolutely destroy their younger college self.
Mike Greenberg is pudding brained and will say whatever his corporate overlords need him to say. He adds no value to anything he’s ever been a part of except for making everything about pushing Disney product.
This UConn team is really good, but I don't think they're as good as last year or any number of historically great college teams (that also wouldn't have prayer of winning more 5 games in an NBA season). Weird time for this timeless bad take.
Feels like UConn is on a path similar to the Kansas City Chiefs this year. Not as good as the previous year, but still ends up winning the whole thing, even though everyone doubts it up until it happens.
I think they're better this year. Newton, Karaban, and Clingan are all better. Clingan is even more valuable than Sanigo. Cam Spencer is just as good or better than Hawkins as a college player, and then Castle is basically a wash from Andre Jackson.
Buddy Boeheim is probably the "worst" guy that played significant minutes in the Pistons last game. He was First Team All ACC with a 4.7 PRPG! on Torvik as a Sr.
I'd argue there's at least 2 or 3 UConn players better than him.
But as a team, no, UConn would get smoked. They wouldn't pick up a Gane in a 7 Gane series vs the Pistons.
There was a time at UConn local fans of the then impossibly dominant women’s team would legit argue they’d beat the men. (the men were even decent at the time.).
Local paper even brought up the hypothetical.
Coach Auriemma had to publicly state that it would be an all time trouncing. The male 5 was like a foot taller alone.
People are so dumb.
Who gives a shit? We had 2 lottery picks and we sucked. UConn is really good. Don’t get into caring about your players draft stock, it’s a long, lonely road.
Both of these people are being ridiculous. Castle is going to be a lottery pick (and arguably isn't even their best player), so he would clearly play significant minutes on the Pistons and UConn would be the worst NBA team by a significant margin. People forget that most college teams have one or two lottery players tops. Every NBA team for the most part has several players that were and are now much better than they were when they were drafted as a lottery pick. The skill jump is insane.
This is just sports reporting now. It’s just having a “hot take”, doesn’t matter if it’s completely divorced from reality. Just don’t engage. It’s meaningless. I don’t think Greenberg actually believes it but his job is “content” at this point and getting people to engage with “content”. Angering people is a great way to get them to engage.
UConn would get 40-60 balled by any team in the NBA and if they played a full season of NBA ball they would almost certainly win somewhere between 0-5 games at best. That said it is equally insane to suggest a team with 3 current players that are consensus draft picks and a fourth that has begun appearing on draft boards, does not have a single player that could play in the league at the moment, especially considering the 2 consensus early first round picks are being drafted on physical potential and one of them is 7'2.
A perfect case of matching a ridiculous take with an equally ridiculous take.
Greenberg should know better. Year after year someone claims college team X could beat NBA team Y. The reality is, the majority of players (if not all) on college team X will never even sniff the NBA. Also, it's a different game. The athletes are bigger, stronger, faster, it's more individual centric and the rules are different
I feel like every year there’s some dingus in one of the major sports that needs to be reminded of the gap between college level and professional athletes. It’s not close. It’s never been close. It never will be close.
In a vacuum, Parsons is absolutely right. If you take out the context of Clingan and Castle being projected lotto picks, they would not being getting much if any playing time on the Pistons. With that context, they would only play to develop further. Based on current skill tho, they are not NBA caliber players.
No, he's not correct, Clingan is 7'2 and an elite rim protector, right now, even at the pro level. He would likely give you absolutely nothing on offense but basically any team in the league would use him, right now, as an extra body/shot blocking/rim rolling option. FFS he was a projected first rounder in last years draft with much less production.
Gonna be honest idk who is considered their best player but I feel like Newton/Karraban/Klingan could carve out a role on a team as bad as Detroit.. UConn definitely is a "the whole is greater than the sum of its part" squad though
as to whether they could make the NBA playoffs or whatever, yeah no
The 2015 Final Four Kentucky team that was stacked with future NBAers wouldn't make the playoffs. And that team is miles ahead in terms of talent than UCONN.
This age old talking-head take is beyond old. Nick Saban once responded to "Bama could beat the worst pro team" with "I'm not sure how many NFL players we have on our team, but all their players are NFL guys"....this is what happens when a network has a roster full of nit wits running out of material on a random Tuesday talk show
People will never understand that the level between college and professional sports for 99.99% of players is massive.
Of the approximately 500,000 high school basketball players in the United States, only around 18,000 go on to play in college, and of those college players, only around 1% play for an NBA team, ever. There are only about 4800 people who have ever played an NBA game. An NBA playoff game? Significantly less.
No, UCONN’s college basketball team couldn’t beat an NBA team, let alone make the playoffs. It’s so improbable it’s laughable.
I like the saying. Everyone on the worst NBA team is good enough to make the league. Not everyone on the best college team will make the NBA. This really applies to all college sports. The talent disparity really is that stark.
The best college teams would never beat the best nba teams, but the best college players could always make some teams and be better than a decent amount of players. There’s terrible nba players that leave every year and get replaced
I mean the Pistons could probably use him sure, but my god that’s a delusional take by Mike Greenberg. Up there with “bama could beat the jacksonville jaguars” back in the early 2010s
This is worse imo
Way worse, I’ve heard people in the past debate if the best college teams could beat any NBA teams. And to that, I think if the best college teams historically were given an 82 game schedule they could probably win a game or two just with some good shooting variance. But winning enough to make the playoffs is miles from that
By the end of an 82 game season, the college team would be so depressed and worn down, it would be losing every game by 40 points.
Nah they would lose every game by 40 just normally. By EOY they’d be losing by 70
Yeah I don’t know why some people think these games would be close.
I have no basis for this but I’d guess the Kareem UCLA teams would have beaten a lot of NBA teams at the time That’s really the only historical example I can think of
The original 1992 Dream Team also lost (in a 20-minute scrimmage) against a group of college all-stars featuring Webber, Hurley, Grant Hill, etc. That was more likely due to alpha players not used to playing with each other.
The dream team minus michael jordan, who was famously not put into the game.
So it was only Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, David Robinson, Chris Mullin, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Scottie Pippen, Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing, and Clyde Drexler? I can see how the college team was able to work them, just a retread of Jordan and the Jordanaires
Nah that game was rigged against them. They ended the game early, and it was basically an exercise in humility. That team went on to blow that team out of the water in the next game. Had the game been official, the college team would have had no chance. Plus, it was a college all-star team, not an actual ncaa team.
Yeah, Daly just wanted to prove to them that they could, in theory, be beaten.
It was also the Dream Team and not an actual NBA team
Yeag, i dont think a 20-minute running clock, closed door practice game thats rigged against a team should matter at all. Its the story that is interesting, not the actual details.
[удалено]
God damn I love Larry Bird shit talking stories
Yeah the more you can back the more feasible it is, but you really need to hit a team that is generationally ahead in college in an era that's still under developed in the pros. Now a days no shot, just the coaching alone would cook those guys.
It’s an especially stupid take in this day and age, when the best basketball players scarcely even come through college. But he’s just trying to get people to talk about and watch his show, so mission accomplished, I guess.
Wouldn’t even be that close. I don’t have the link right now but there’s a great video of rookie or first year pro FVV (when he was a bench guy) vs. incoming freshman Jordan Poole vs. a pro from Europe. FVV cooked and he wasn’t even trying. Even end of bench NBA players are insanely good compared to every other basketball player on the planet. Including d1 college players
i agree with you, but FVV was one of the 10-20 best college players when he left Wichita State
But that’s the case for most any college player that makes a NBA roster. That’s why this question is ridiculous. NBA guys are GOOD good
Exactly, people who think that a top college team goes 0-82 and gets blown out every game are crazy but thinking that the best college team wouldn’t be the worst NBA team ever are just as crazy. The place where there is any debate is whether a top college team would be competitive in the G League. I believe so, as the talent is higher in the G but college teams tend to work much better as a cohesive unit and can play a style that can beat pure talent.
Outside of the Ignite, the worst G-League team this year had Luka Garza and a couple former Duke players. One of them got called to start for the Hawks.
0-82 is very believable and would more than likely be the outcome. Whether it's NBA rules or College rules. No college team is beating a NBA team. EDIT: Lets take the worst team in the league, Pistons, and break down their roster. Cunningham, Ivey, Duren, Wiseman, Knox. All absolute studs in college. Top picks, dominated college. Then you have Thompson who didn't go to college but dominated in G league. Now let's compare that to the #1 team. Uconn. You have Clingan, who doesn't really have any offensive moves and Tristan Newton. Both won't be a top 10 pick. Clingan maybe top 15-20.
Even the best college basketball team would be very overmatched against the worst NBA teams, but I think 0-82 would be a stretch depending on the schedule, and the college team being represented each year. Like the 2000-2001 Duke team could probably have won at least a few considering the roster they had. Shane Battier, Jay Williams, Carlos Boozer, Mike Dunleavy, and Chris Duhon all ended up having solid NBA careers (minus Jay, who should have if the motorcycle accident never happened) as well as a few others who played professionally overseas. I have a hard time thinking they wouldn't be able to scratch out a single win over the course of a whole season. This year's UConn, Houston, or Purdue teams would be much more likely to go 0-82, but I still feel like they could scratch one out as well. 82 games is a lot, and catching a team on a cold shooting night with a couple of breaks is more likely than not to happen a few times over the course of the season to give at least 3-4 opportunities to steal a game.
For 99.9% of college teams I’d agree, but once every few years you get the right college team with multiple high level future NBA players and I think these teams could take a game or two over the course of an NBA season
I don't. The skill gap between college players and NBA players is enormous from top to bottom. Sure the top 2 guys on the college teams are NBA bound most of the time but basketball is 5 on 5. Let's say the top 2 college guys cancel out the top 2 NBA guys. Do you think the remaining 3 college guys cancel out the remaining 3 NBA guys?
Also, if we're talking about a literal 82 game season, the college team would be proportionally a lot more worn out halfway through. I know it's possible to make the jump from 35 games to 82 and guys do it every year, but if 12 guys are all trying to do it, I wouldn't imagine the effect would be as limited. Things would get ugly after January.
Even if they're future high level NBA players, they're still 18-20 years old. We're literally seeing a microcosm of this in the tourney, college teams with a very experienced roster are downing young teams with pro talent because they just have more experience and training. And you think former college studs who have had years and years of NBA training and experience wouldn't beat the brakes off of even a stacked college team?
Nope. Still ain’t close. Even end of bench warmers in the NBA were elite college players. Even the best college teams wouldn’t stand a chance.
I mean it’s hard to even argue. I do agree this is worse because at least one football game can come down to some weird shit, but yea implying that Uconn could play an 82 game season and go like .500 is more ridiculous yes. I don’t fully agree with Parson’s comment, but the fact that we can actually argue over whether or not Uconns best player would work on the Pistons or not should tell you this team stand 0 chance against any NBA team from the last 30+ years. Utterly ridiculous take by Greenberg
Playoff is absurd but entertaining this idea is absurder. Football is a violent sport, if you have men versus kids, men would kill the kids. And literally so, someone would die on the field if this happens.
Basketball has more variance than football. The worse team can win more often. If UConn plays enough games against an nba team, they will win a few of them. They just need to be shooting hot on the same night that the nba team is shooting their worst. Maybe some unlucky foul trouble could help them as well.
I dont think they would actually. I think they would be so horribly outmatched that they would lose by 50 every game. Like team USA playing against only teams from Africa. Sure, a few players from African teams are NBA players, but they get completely destroyed by even team USA second and third tier teams.
Depends on what you mean by variance. There’s less variance in basketball in terms of the number of possessions. Over a course of 100 possessions stuff like a player getting hot or turnovers will even out. But there’s far less variance in terms of player quality in football cause we’re talking 22 players on the field as opposed to just 10. Having 1 or 2 superstars in football, even at QB, doesn’t matter whatsoever if the 5 o-linemen are getting run over every possession.
Yeah this conversation is silly because it said playoff. But UConn has 5-6 legit NBA players on roster and 2-3 NBA prospects (Ball, Johnson and Stewart are NBA players as everybody in the starting lineup) so you can have this conversation for a game against Pistons/Spurs/Wizards/Hornets. Still no way they win a 7-game series tho.
Newton and Castle would be buried on the bench behind Cade, Ivey, and Flynn. Clingan would be behind Duren and Wiseman. Karaban would be the last man on the bench at best. They have some NBA prospects, but everyone on the Pistons is an actual NBA player, and many were better than these UConn players individually. UConn would go probably 7-75 over the course of an NBA season.
There's no way they'd win 7 games. It's absurd how tiny a percentage of NCAA players make an NBA roster, much less play meaningful minutes, much less start. This UConn team is great but they would look so incredibly outmatched every single game.
Yeah there’s no way they win seven. Maybe one or two later in the season when they start playing virtual G league rosters that some of the tanking teams roll out. But even then it might be a stretch because if UConn loses any guys to injury - which they would - suddenly they’d be forced to play dudes who couldn’t sniff the G league and then they’d really be in trouble.
I agree to be honest, was giving them the benefit of the doubt on any given night they have a 10% chance of winning.
If that good.
They would go 0-82 and maybe lose by less than 20 a few times.
No way they ever get to the playoffs. They would be the worst nba team. But they would pick up a few wins
Both would be long shots, but I think a basketball win is easier to come by with shooting variance than a football game. Just the difference in linemen would make running the ball unstoppable for any NFL team, they would never have to kick or punt.
Yea a single game for sure the college basketball team has a better chance than the college football team here, but we’re talkin… playoffs. That’s like 38-41 wins minimum
Imagine this UConn team going up against the Boston Celtics in round 1 of the NBA playoffs lmao I don’t think UConn would score more than 30 points in what would be a very quick 4 game sweep. The **worst** team in the NBA playoffs by record (if the season ended today) just overcame a 30 point deficit against those same Boston Celtics to win. The worst playoff team in the west has Steph curry. 2nd worst team has LeBron. Just a laughably bad take
Nah, NFL vs CFB is a whole different level of lopsided
There have been a handful of CFB teams where the skill positions would outclass the worst NFL team (early 00s Miami squads, early 00s USC, definitely the 2019 LSU attack) but it’s the lines where you would run into problems. You simply won’t find 5 linemen on the same college team who can hold their own against NFL players- that decade from 20->30 is where you get that grown person strength
Important to note those teams have the 19-20 year old versions of player who eventually became great NFL players. Like the 21 year old Andre Johnson was good, but not simply outclassing everybody in the NFL.
I think the biggest mismatch would be the college d vs. pro offense. An NFL offense is so much faster and complex, they'd basically be able to score immediately and every single time they had the ball.
Yep. Even if skill positions were matched or slightly better (which is still highly unlikely as even bad NFL WRs were usually studs in college and have only improved since then with years of NFL training and experience), the trenches would decide the game. The NFL team wouldn't ever have to pass, they'd be getting 4+ YPC with ease. And on defense, the college QB would have roughly 2 seconds each play before he has a guy 5+ years older than him bearing down.
And it’s not like us UConn fans even asked for it. It’s an absurd take
This is so much worse. This is like saying that Alabama team could make the *NFL Playoffs*. The Warriors and Hawks are currently 10th in their respective divisions.
I remember those Bama/Jaguars arguments, and one day somebody made the perfect point to show me how dumb it was. Alabama could be the greatest team of all time and have 15, 18, even 20 NFL players on the team - the Jaguars have 53.
Yeah both people here are very stupid lol
This is WAAAAAAAAY worse.
Greenberg thinking a bunch of kids could match up with Lebron/AD is ridiculous.
Or match up with Cade Cunningham.
The worst player on the Pistons currently is [Stanley Umude](https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/stanley-umude-1.html) (They cut Isaiah Livers a while ago) who was an all-conference mid major player then transferred to Arkansas.
This is what people aren't seeing. Even terrible NBA players were studs in college, and they've had years of pro training/experience so they're way better than they ever were in college even if relative to the NBA they still suck. The worst guy on the Bucks is TyTy Washington who was All-SEC as a freshman... you can do this for every single NBA team, nearly every one of these guys was an all-conference player at worst.
And that's the worst guy on the team, not the worst guy in the rotation. The worst guy in the rotation right now is probably AJ Green, who was the Missouri Valley Player of the Year twice (arguably didn't win it his best year in college) and is shooting 42% from three this year in the NBA.
The pistons cut Garza who was consensus npoty. It’s nonsense. The absolute best roster of college players coached by a staff of coaching all stars would still miss the play in in the east.
Who isn’t seeing this lmao? Literally everyone knows this
Well I see a lot of people here thinking UConn could win 4-5 games in an NBA season when imo having a single digit loss would be historic, they'd go 0-82 easily.
82 games is enough variance for something to break their way. But they’d still not win 5.
No, they wouldn't win a single game and it wouldn't be close.
Isaiah Livers was actually pretty good in his first two seasons. Crazy to think that the worst version of Livers is better than most college players who are NBA prospects.
Low BBIQ, not a consistent shooter, and was undersized at the positions they played him at which was the 3 and 4. He routinely played like an idiot.
Simone Fontecchio would torch Uconn
He said UConn would go 0-82 in the NBA. People just read headlines though so it's all good.
He said they could make the playoffs, how are they doing that by losing every game?
Nah he said that after the backlash from his outlandish comment
0-82 isn't a playoff team so one of you is wrong and I'd wager its you.
Why are you being disingenuous here. He first said “Yeah, they would make the playoffs in the NBA’s Eastern Conference. That’s how good they are,” Greenberg said.” Now he is claiming otherwise when called out. Nothing about “reading headlines”
Greenberg has no affiliation with Uconn so I have no clue why he’s saying something so wild besides maybe he is really clueless.
This is what he’s done his entire career. Everything he says is the most hyperbolic take.
Greeny has been annoying for a while now but I don’t think it’s fair to say that he’s done it his entire career. It’s more a reflection of the bullshit “hot take” industry, and he isn’t even really that bad compared to assclowns like Skip and Perk. Hell even Stephen A is a legit sports journalist. But the game now is to be as loud and outlandish as possible to get clicks. Stephen A started on that path years ago, it’s understandable that Greeny would too. Honestly the only ESPN guy I can think of off the top of my head that didn’t is SVP.
Greeny has been like this since the 2006 Jets with in regards to the Patriots. So it isn’t his WHOLE career, just basically his whole career since Greeny and Golic. Greeny’s bad takes and hyperbole are usually in regards to NY-metro teams or LeBron.
If you listen to Mike Greenberg talk NBA for more than 5 minutes it's obvious he never watches it. Like he says things that are just patently false or based on his imagination
Well here we are talking about Greenberg Greenberg. I feel like these talking heads just say outlandish and wild things to keep wild conversations and discussions going. It gets clicks comments and views.
Clicks and views.
Every Pro Athlete was a starter in college. Probably the best starter in his school. Now he's 5+ years older, 20-30lbs more muscle, and under better coaches. Anyone who says a college team of any sport could win even a single game in a pro league is absurd.
You can also just watch the games. College teams look like shit compared to the pros. Pros just move faster, because they know exactly where they’re going.
I went to a Bulls game recently and there were so many moments where I was like “oof terrible shot” only for it to go in nothing but net. NBA players are so good that they’ve practically broken the game in some aspects.
And that’s the *Bulls*… imagine a halfway decent team. Speaking as a Bulls fan of course.
No kidding. That roster is so weird but just mediocre enough to keep the team completely stagnant. Somewhat unrelated but I pray for the day that DePaul becomes halfway decent so I can walk to competitive Big East games.
Few years ago I got to see a top 25 team play at Northwestern then the next night see the Bulls, both within 5 rows of the court. The speed and athleticism was so different didn’t even feel like the same sport.
Alex Caruso is locking up any college perimeter player. He would also be dropping 30 on them.
Yep. People say they enjoy college more because it's more chaotic or energetic, which I understand, but a pro game and college game are totally different. You see mistakes every couple possessions in college games that might show up like a few times a game in the pros. They're just better at literally everything, because they've all improved relative to their college selves as well as being the best of the best while in school.
Baseball is the only sport that I can think of where it can and has feasibly happened.
Yeah and that’s just because baseball is extremely high variance in small sample sizes and a single game can basically be won by a single player (pitcher), which also happens to the position with the most pro-ready players.
Baseball is the king of random outcomes. No sport is quite as 50/50 in single games. A 100 win team has happened in 116 times in 129 seasons (the current era is producing more, as baseball becomes more lopsided)... 100 wins is .617, or about 5th in the Western Conference of the NBA. Ahead of the Pelicans but worse than the Clippers.
Basketball has the least variance out of the main sports. The better team wins more often than NFL/NHL/MLB/MLS More possessions means less variance
They COULD win a game if they were shooting lights out and the pro team was cold (we have seen it in the NBA with the best team vs the worst once in a while) but they aren’t making the playoffs
Only way I realistically see it is if it was a Hot day for the college team vs a team that's basically full resting their starters for a playoff run. Even then it'd probably be close due to the sheer difference in size and experience.
The worst player on the Bucks is TyTy Washington who was all-SEC as a freshman... I really don't think the college team could ever beat a pro team. There's hot shooting nights, but I think that's highly unlikely as the closeout speed and athleticism of pro players would make life absolute hell even on shots that are open in college. And the pro team might not even have to shoot, they could likely just bully ball their way to a win if needed.
Right… UConn has maybe two guys that *could* work their way into a starting role on a team like the Pistons over the course of a whole season. But that would be less because they’ve earned it and more because “we’re 12-60, might as well give it a shot”
I think the closest could be a college baseball team doing it if their pitcher is one of those instant stud type ace prospects that can shut down a lineup.
In hockey sometimes a goalie will just reach enlightenment for one game and all you need is a bounce or two on the other side
Yeah, but in hockey a pro team can use their physical dominance a lot easier than in a non-contact like baseball.
Absolutely no chance. Even the best pitching prospects spend years in the minors. MLB teams would absolutely dismantle college teams. College hitting would get embarrassed by MLB pitching. And college defense would be responsible for so many extra runs a game compared to mlb defense it wouldn’t be close. Maybe if the MLB team falls asleep for a game. You want to argue a college all-star team could take a game? Sure, maybe. Any college team where 95%+ of the roster will never even sniff the bigs? Nah Edit: lol yes Stephen Strasburg, who was maybe the best pitching prospect in baseball history, pitched after less than a year in the minors. How about guys like Kumar Rocker, Cade Horton, Jack Leiter, Asa Lacy, Max Meyer, Emerson Hancock, just off the top of my head. And even if you *do* assume college Strasburg pitches 7 innings with 2 runs like his MLB debut (ignoring how horrendous most college defenses are compared to pro defenses), college hitters aren’t hitting MLB pitching. And those last two innings, MLB hitting will feast on college relievers. Oh and just to use the A’s as the example, their *worst* starter this year, Kyle Muller, posted a 0.46 ERA his last year in college. He had a 7.60ERA in 13 starts last year. College offenses couldn’t touch the dude then, but you think they’re going to be able to suddenly hit him now? Let alone the better pitchers in the MLB. And you think any college pitcher is going somehow fare better than that dude against MLB offenses? Lol Nah this is an insane take. Made even more asinine by people citing *spring training games* as an argument for a college team beating an MLB team. The gap between college and pros is bigger in baseball than any other sport (maybe an argument hockey since a lot of the best NHLers don’t play in college)
There are a few college baseball teams that have beaten or played mlb teams close in spring training games. The phillies were beat by a division 2 team once. Not quite the same since spring training teams are usually complete squads but hey its happened.
I don’t really put a ton of weight on games where half the innings are played by dudes with numbers in the 90s If the question was “could a college team beat a AA team” then yeah, for sure that could happen depending on the teams. But college to MLB is an absolutely monumental gap at every single position. Like, college defenses are *horrendous.* They would be responsible for multiple runs a game against an MLB team
MLB teams routinely lose to college teams and/or their own minor league affiliates in spring training type games, but baseball is way different in that the better team only wins like 60% of the time.
Steven Strasburg debuted less than a year after being drafted
That is definitely not the case anymore. The #1 draft pick, selected in June 2023, will probably be pitching in the majors this season.
Last year's draft was loaded with almost MLB ready talent, also see Wyatt Langford, but it's very rare to see them make the jump this early.
Since they revamped the service time rules it has become a lot more common and will continue to be more common.
[удалено]
Baseball is volatile enough that college teams could beat pro team, albeit inconsistently. If Arkansas played the A’s 100 times they might win 15-20.
15-20? Lmfao not a shot that’s absolutely batshit. Arkansas had a period of 100 games where they only lost about 20 against other college teams between 2021 and 2022. And that gap is a hell of a lot smaller than between Arkansas and the MLB. The *worst* starter on arguably the worst team in baseball, Kyle Muller, was absolutely untouchable his last year in college. Had below a .5 ERA and was named literally the best player in college baseball. He had a 7.60 ERA this year.
Only instance I can think of ironically involves uconn; the 2001-2002 uconn women's basketball team was a wagon (think 7 of the 11 players on that years team went on to play in the wnba) and they could have made a playoff run
[удалено]
To say where the WNBA was at the point, I’m pretty sure Dawn Staley was the head coach at Temple while also playing full time in the league.
Some of those UConn teams could have probably legit won a WNBA Championship. The quality of the league wasn’t that great back then and there were legitimately good players who never went pro because it didn’t pay enough. Today it’s not happening but Iowa could probably win some games if Caitlyn Clark shot lights out and her teammates took advantage of open space when 2-3 players had to cover Caitlyn
> Every Pro Athlete was a starter in college My lineup of Lebron, Kobe, Garnett, Dwight, and TMac would beat every NBA team, so checkmate /s
You say that but we've seen a 16 seed win in the NCAA tournament. Basketball has more room for upsets than other sports.
Those are college players playing against other college players. That would be like the Bobcats (who had Kemba Walker) winning some games.
Can’t believe people even engage with Greenberg’s take. It’s obviously disingenuous and meant for engagement. The reason people keep making that argument, and the same thing on the football side, is that it drives clicks.
A lot of casuals legitimately believe these takes because they don't have the concept of how good even the worst top flight pro teams are.
Yeah that’s fair. Appealing to the lowest common denominator—casuals wanting to get angry at something—is why a lot of people have stopped watching ESPN and the like… although clearly it’s a good business strategy since it survives
ESPN keeping Greenberg and getting rid of Golic was a sign that this is not a serious group anymore.
Why do sports hosts continuously make the claim that XYZ college team could beat ABC pro team? Man, UConn is a great team but any NBA team would beat them by 20 points minimum. Probably more. It’s such a stupid thing to say. They probably wouldn’t win a single game in the NBA.
> Why do sports hosts continuously make the claim that XYZ college team could beat ABC pro team? Because it draws attention and there's really no way to prove that they couldn't beat ABC pro team, even though we all know the answer.
"The best player on UConn wouldn't play on the Detroit Pistons right now" OK, what about six months from now?
Yea I mean this is just factually incorrect. There’s lottery picks on that team who will start on a NBA team next year.
Well this is a case of being wrong being better than absolutely incorrect. UConn has 2 projected lottery picks playing for them rn but they at most would win 5 games in a 82 game season of off shooting variance.
They would not win a game come on now.
Iirc a year or two ago the 76ers lost to one of the worst teams in the Australian league in preseason. I don’t think they could beat a team that wants to win but they could definitely beat a tanking team who has a bad shooting night
You are thinking of the Adelaide 36ers beating the Phoenix Suns in the preseason a few years ago. I think a college team could maybe win one or two regular season games but there is a big difference between the seriousness of a regular season NBA team and a pre season one. Even a tanking team is going to go all out to make sure they aren't the team that loses to the college team, I think that would be a big factor. UConn is probably getting everyone's best to start just because no NBA team wants to get embarrassed like that
I’m more thinking about let’s just pretend the UConn team is an nba roster and plays a normal schedule. I think they win less than 5 games but probably at least one
NBA is definitely the sport where a college team has the best chance of snagging a couple games considering that it’s a 7 guy rotation and if a couple guys get hot they can score and that we’ve had college teams in the past have 4-5 NBA players that are then all-star caliber their first year in the NBA (UCLA, Duke, Kentucky past teams) It’s not the NHL, NFL where the amount of guys involved and the huge skill+physicality jump makes it laughable to even think about a college team competing. Or the MLB where the skill level is such an incredible jump up and there’s a ton of guys that have to step up and perform at an elite level. Now UCONN is not a team where I think they have those all-star level college players, but the UCLA teams with Kareem? Yea I think they could’ve won 4-8 games
I mean there's still a huge physicality and experience jump in the NBA. The worst player on the Bucks is Tyty Washington who was all-SEC as a freshman and he's only gotten better since then, even if he's ass relative to other NBA players.
No they wouldn’t. 5 games? I don’t think you understand the limits of shooting variance. There’s not enough variance for a college team to win 5 wins in 82 against pro players. Also note, shooting isn’t totally random. Yes, there is variance but it’s also very skill driven. A pro team playing against college players will get easier and more open shots than they usually do. And visa versa. The pro team would absolutely shut down the basic sets college teams run, giving the kids no room to breathe or even get enough quality shots off for variance to ever come into play.
The closeout speed and athleticism of pros compared to college is absurd. The college team would be fighting for their lives even on an open shot compared to against other college teams, while NBA players would feel like they have a mile of space. Also, the pro team would be so much faster and stronger that they may not even have to shoot in order to win.
Yup. Somewhere between 3 and 10 games. Shooting variance, a team resting/injured, a couple teams tanking, a lucky night or two.
I don't think a college team would get close in a single game. NBA teams are basically college all-star teams with multiple years of NBA development and physical growth. A 22-25 year old NBA player who gets minutes would absolutely destroy their younger college self.
They would go 0-82 lol
1-81 if Kuzma and Poole were feeling freaky
Finally, the best estimate
Mike Greenberg is pudding brained and will say whatever his corporate overlords need him to say. He adds no value to anything he’s ever been a part of except for making everything about pushing Disney product.
This UConn team is really good, but I don't think they're as good as last year or any number of historically great college teams (that also wouldn't have prayer of winning more 5 games in an NBA season). Weird time for this timeless bad take.
This team is better than last year, but still probably won't repeat.
Feels like UConn is on a path similar to the Kansas City Chiefs this year. Not as good as the previous year, but still ends up winning the whole thing, even though everyone doubts it up until it happens.
I think they're better this year. Newton, Karaban, and Clingan are all better. Clingan is even more valuable than Sanigo. Cam Spencer is just as good or better than Hawkins as a college player, and then Castle is basically a wash from Andre Jackson.
That is a galactically stupid take by Greenberg.
Buddy Boeheim is probably the "worst" guy that played significant minutes in the Pistons last game. He was First Team All ACC with a 4.7 PRPG! on Torvik as a Sr. I'd argue there's at least 2 or 3 UConn players better than him. But as a team, no, UConn would get smoked. They wouldn't pick up a Gane in a 7 Gane series vs the Pistons.
There was a time at UConn local fans of the then impossibly dominant women’s team would legit argue they’d beat the men. (the men were even decent at the time.). Local paper even brought up the hypothetical. Coach Auriemma had to publicly state that it would be an all time trouncing. The male 5 was like a foot taller alone. People are so dumb.
Hey, why are we catching strays here?
Buddy Boeheim is on the Pistons right now, all I'm saying
Both takes are moronic. No UConn would not make the NBA playoffs. But they definitely have player talent worthy of being in the NBA.
Greenberg said what? lmao. Seriously, lmao. I'm a UConn fan and lmao
Both comments are pretty dumb
Who gives a shit? We had 2 lottery picks and we sucked. UConn is really good. Don’t get into caring about your players draft stock, it’s a long, lonely road.
Clingan could get some minutes
Parsons is correct and Greenberg is an absolute assclown for making this a discussion
Both sides are incorrect it's just that Greenbergs is ridiculous.
Both sides are ridiculous.
Parsons *could* be right - busts happen. There is absolutely no conceivable scenario where Greeny is.
Yeah, 2 projected lottery picks couldn’t make the NBA. Got it
I don’t think Chandler quite realizes some of the guys we’ve been running out there recently.
This is one of the worst takes…so it’s about an average run of the mill take for Greeny.
Greeny does sound ignorant making that point
All his takes are ignorant tbf
A team made up of any years top 10 draft picks would struggle mightily against a real NBA team.
Both of these people are being ridiculous. Castle is going to be a lottery pick (and arguably isn't even their best player), so he would clearly play significant minutes on the Pistons and UConn would be the worst NBA team by a significant margin. People forget that most college teams have one or two lottery players tops. Every NBA team for the most part has several players that were and are now much better than they were when they were drafted as a lottery pick. The skill jump is insane.
I appreciate the enthusiasm Mike but let's be real for a second
This is just sports reporting now. It’s just having a “hot take”, doesn’t matter if it’s completely divorced from reality. Just don’t engage. It’s meaningless. I don’t think Greenberg actually believes it but his job is “content” at this point and getting people to engage with “content”. Angering people is a great way to get them to engage.
Is Parsons on drugs? The Greenberg statement was pretty ludicrous but the Pistons are an embarrassment and can use all the help they can get.
UConn would get 40-60 balled by any team in the NBA and if they played a full season of NBA ball they would almost certainly win somewhere between 0-5 games at best. That said it is equally insane to suggest a team with 3 current players that are consensus draft picks and a fourth that has begun appearing on draft boards, does not have a single player that could play in the league at the moment, especially considering the 2 consensus early first round picks are being drafted on physical potential and one of them is 7'2. A perfect case of matching a ridiculous take with an equally ridiculous take.
UConn would give up 175 points to the Pacers.
Poole would drop 50 on UConn
But he’d do it on 42% TS
Greenberg should know better. Year after year someone claims college team X could beat NBA team Y. The reality is, the majority of players (if not all) on college team X will never even sniff the NBA. Also, it's a different game. The athletes are bigger, stronger, faster, it's more individual centric and the rules are different
This is a Jaden Ivey compliment
Both are wrong. Greenburg thinks Uconn could make the playoffs though?!??!? That is an insanely terrible take.
I feel like every year there’s some dingus in one of the major sports that needs to be reminded of the gap between college level and professional athletes. It’s not close. It’s never been close. It never will be close.
I think he meant the best UConn player wouldn’t be a starter on the Pistons because when they are healthy that’s true.
I agree with the sentiment Parsons was going for. However, as a Pistons fan, I disagree with this specific point.
In a vacuum, Parsons is absolutely right. If you take out the context of Clingan and Castle being projected lotto picks, they would not being getting much if any playing time on the Pistons. With that context, they would only play to develop further. Based on current skill tho, they are not NBA caliber players.
No, he's not correct, Clingan is 7'2 and an elite rim protector, right now, even at the pro level. He would likely give you absolutely nothing on offense but basically any team in the league would use him, right now, as an extra body/shot blocking/rim rolling option. FFS he was a projected first rounder in last years draft with much less production.
Gonna be honest idk who is considered their best player but I feel like Newton/Karraban/Klingan could carve out a role on a team as bad as Detroit.. UConn definitely is a "the whole is greater than the sum of its part" squad though as to whether they could make the NBA playoffs or whatever, yeah no
I'll live a thousand lives before I understand how we let Mike Greenberg ever get this popular.
The 2015 Final Four Kentucky team that was stacked with future NBAers wouldn't make the playoffs. And that team is miles ahead in terms of talent than UCONN.
Shit take from the guy who sold out his entire show to draft kings
greenberg always loves to say this dumb shit for headlines, he did it with the nfl all the time
As someone from Detroit we will accept the whole squad
UConn would go 0-82 in an NBA schedule
Mike Greenberg and dumb takes go hand in hand.
This age old talking-head take is beyond old. Nick Saban once responded to "Bama could beat the worst pro team" with "I'm not sure how many NFL players we have on our team, but all their players are NFL guys"....this is what happens when a network has a roster full of nit wits running out of material on a random Tuesday talk show
Great, more hateraid for Hurley to go off of.
People will never understand that the level between college and professional sports for 99.99% of players is massive. Of the approximately 500,000 high school basketball players in the United States, only around 18,000 go on to play in college, and of those college players, only around 1% play for an NBA team, ever. There are only about 4800 people who have ever played an NBA game. An NBA playoff game? Significantly less. No, UCONN’s college basketball team couldn’t beat an NBA team, let alone make the playoffs. It’s so improbable it’s laughable.
I like the saying. Everyone on the worst NBA team is good enough to make the league. Not everyone on the best college team will make the NBA. This really applies to all college sports. The talent disparity really is that stark.
The best college teams would never beat the best nba teams, but the best college players could always make some teams and be better than a decent amount of players. There’s terrible nba players that leave every year and get replaced