In-depth "analysis" of UNC - UK

Had to post an excerpt from this column by Peter Bukowski of SI.com, apparently a college basketball/NBA draft expert.  Based on his analysis of UNC - UK as a "game to watch" its apparent that he's never actually watched a UNC game, at least this year:

Saturday, Dec. 14: No. 11 Kentucky vs. No.18 North Carolina
Julius Randle has yet to face a frontcourt player with the type of skill James Michael McAdoo possesses, so seeing him try to defend Carolina's talented forward will be critical for NBA scouts who want to see Randle defend stretch fours. It's also a great test for the Harrison twins who will face a Carolina backcourt capable of outshooting and potentially outscoring them. If they want to make a statement after underperforming most of the year, this is the time to get back in the good graces of NBA scouts and front offices.

McAdoo is UNC's third best big man on offense (behind Johnson and Meeks) and he has no post game to speak of - so in terms of the test UNC poses to Julius Randle's draft status in the scouts' eyes, I'm not sure the array of hurried turn-around jumpers UNC's third post option is going to throw up will factor in.

Similarly, I personally love what Marcus Paige is doing this year, Britt has been a pleasantly solid surprise, and Luke Davis certainly...plays...basketball, but I don't think I would necessarily identify Carolina's backcourt - without Hairston and McDonald - as a particularly important test of the Harrison twins' draft status.  Also - they are capable of "outshooting and potentially outscoring" Kentucky?  Wow - that is some really insightful, cogent analysis.  So let me get this straight, they are "capable" of outshooting Kentucky but only "potentially capable" of outscoring them?  That is fascinating...nonsense.  I'm hearing UNC is going to try to dribble and run too; surprised he didn't mention that as well.

I'm actually not sure this author watches college basketball, period, and I'm only half joking.  I've always been amazed at the sheer persistence of wrong-headed analysis in the national media when it comes to college basketball.   A guy like McAdoo has a storyline written for him early on, and that becomes the reference point, the established narrative, by which he is discussed thereafter.  It probably has something to do with the fact that people who appear on tv or write for established media outlets simply don't have time to watch a lot of games, so they have to fall back on secondary sources.  And if everyone is relying on secondary sources, well, then you start to have an echo chamber that doesn't necessarily bear much of a resemblance to reality. 

I understand they're under pressure to keep producing content - but, c'mon, they can do better than this.