will the winner of the tournament be the worst title winning team in the modern era
I know what you mean, like none of these teams that would win it all have ever displayed being the best team at any one point. Though, that being said you win a championship you were the best team all year around. The 4 teams in the final four have proven to be the most consistent teams all year wrong, and you can't be great w/o consistency.
yeah who ever wins it will deserve it but when i try to compare the four teams left to pass teams i just dont think they measure up. i think i rather have oneor 2 of the top number one seeds in the final four like kentucky or kansas or the cuse ahead of these teams
i hate to admit it but i kinda agree gators. i got in a debate with someone on here who i cant remember who was saying how its gonna suck once someone got eliminated( cant remember what team) but it was a good team with nba players and i was like " naw it dont matter im still gonna like watching and blah blah" now that we are at this point with these teams playing i agree with him. im still gonna watch but if i missed a game it wouldnt bother me as much as the past
Yep I would much rather watch Kansas vs. Kentucky in the finals instead of Butler/Mich St. vs. Duke/WV.
None of the 4 teams left really compare talent wise to most of the championship teams of the past decade like Florida, Kansas, UConn, UNC, etc..
well Duke is the #3 1 seed, so technically they're better than Syracuse by the committee's logic. I don't think the Final Four is that bad you have the WVU vs. Duke between the winners of there respective conference tournaments. On the other side you have Michigan State vs. Butler both teams are surprises to be there, which I think will be a great game.
Someone is hating this thread to me taking points away. If it was up to me it would be Syracuse,Kansas, Kentucky, and Baylor. With Kansas beating Kentucky. That's how I would have it because then it would make my bracket look great. Though I thought Maryland got a bad draw if they were in another region I do believe they could have made it to the final four.
This Final Four doesn't compare to the talent of years' past, but it'll still be some good, competitive basketball. I think Michigan State will play Duke in the final; I'm not gonna predict a winner.
Mysterious point stealer is at it again!
This is our leading suspect. However, he haven't been able to locate him. If you have any information on his whereabouts, don't hesitate to call 1-800-JONES, ext. 3, ext. 565, ext. 1.
Looks like Fred messed up the phone line again. That alley-cat-coat wearin' crumpcake is DISMISSED. You called the number, and that's all you heard, right? You're only supposed to hear that song while you're on hold, not for the entire call.
Where/when did you see Jermaine?
u guys r crazy.. the fact there r upsets makes it even better, and seeing teams that werent supposed to go this far like msu and butler, once agains makes it better. imagine seeing butler in the championship, which, no 1 even expected to be there in the 1st place
u guys r crazy.. the fact there r upsets makes it even better, and seeing teams that werent supposed to go this far like msu and butler, once agains makes it better. imagine seeing butler in the championship, which, no 1 even expected to be there in the 1st place
I think the biggest thing was that the comittee mismanaged seeds and that screwed everything up. Also all the top teams had holds. duke got the easier schedule of the number ones even though they were just the 3rd number one. WV is in the final four and many felt they should have been a number on so if you think about it. These match ups may be unlikely but they are not that farfetched. Tom Izzo is a great coach. Butler is a good team that over achieved and Duke had an Easy schedule to the top save Baylor who could have won. West Virginia is a good team with NBA prospects as well. They played a great Kentucky team that played their worst game and still had a chance to win.
I'll be rooting for MSU. I've always liked them a bit. I would root for WV as a Big East team but since I go to PITT that would be sacrilegious. I like Izzo alot though and think he and Jamie Dixon are arguably the 2 best coaches in the game.
I think West Virginia is going to win especially if Truck plays.....and furthermore if they were to win to call them the worst champion of this generation is absurd.....
Better than '05 Carolina
Better than '97 Arizona
Better than the Kentucky team that Tubby Smith coached
Better than Arkansas
Better than '93 Carolina
and that is only dating back 17 years and giving teams that are about equal like Maryland and '08 Kansas and the 1st Florida team that won it
I think it will be butler vs west virgina. ANd i think it will be one of those games where no matter who wins, i wont be convinced they are the best team in the nation. That doesn't mean they dont deserve it, but its just one of those years i guess. Im pulling for butler though. I go underdogs all the way through.
97- Arizona
95- UCLA
01- Maryland
08- Kansas
06- Florida
I wasn't convinced these were the best teams in the nation....but I got over it in about 2 minutes and decided to just deal......I will admit 08 was awesome when all 4 ones made it but its retarded to cry about it....there are going to be stories that you will find interesting that you didn't even know were stories.....I really wish Baylor would have made it b/c I love the Scott Drew story.....there will definitely be clips of Gene Hackman being a bad ass even though in 1951 Gene was probably older than Brad Stevens is now.....You will get to hear all about why they call Darryl Bryant "Truck".....you might get to see Bob Huggins smack around some reporters whether it be verbally or physically (whatever the situation calls for).....you have one of the best young coaches in the country and the other three are LEGENDS....did I mention Butler is at home???? you will get to learn about some guys that you don't know too much about....hell I cover recruiting in the midwest and I had never heard of half Butler's roster until the middle of this season.....
midwestbbscout-how can you call out UCLA's 95 team? They lost 1 game all year i believe, were ranked number 1 in the nation all year. They had the national player of the year in ed obanon and had 3 guys go first round in the 95 draft and 6 players on the team overall were drafted. They were one of the best teams in the last 20 years.
Well llperez it was his son who gave that mock course about basketball. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Harrick Read under controversies.
I knew I'd get some feedback from the guy with Toby Bailey as his Avatar.....UCLA was GREAT that year I just think Kansas was better.....the draft argument is pretty baseless because I bet every coach who picked a player off that team wishes they had a time machine so they could take a mulligan.....if you wanna start talkin turkey about drafted players UCLA will get a pretty nice beatdown from Kansas in that category.....once again, not UCLA hate, just ralk chalkin it....
what does my being a ucla fan have to do with anything? They were the number 1 team in the nation in all polls, had the best record were the number 1 overall seed in the tounrament and won the national title. They had 6 guys who played in the nba. If you wanna go back over the last 15 years and point out only 5 schools that won the title that you think were not deserving, im surprised you would pick that one. How far did kansas get that year?
I respect the choice of UCLA for '95 and I wasn't calling biased or anything.....I just thought Kansas was the best team and they just got upset in the tournament.....I know my argument has no logic really but its just kind of an eye test thing that's all.....I can't really do anything to support it even lol....I guess the main thing is that even though they did draft 6 players, all 6 of them hung around just about long enough for their respective teams to realize they made a mistake by drafting them and cut them...
fair enough. If you think kansas was better that's fine. That was the first year i watched college ball, so i cant really say how good kansas was. But i remember ucla was awesome that year. They were blowing teams out. What those guys did in the pros wasn't impressive, but it doesnt change what they did in college. Ed had like 31 and 19 in the title game that year i believe he was an incredible college player, he was just the defenition of a tweener forward and had some injuries as well that hurt his pro career.
I just heard a Lil Flip line the other day that went like this
Got guns, got cannons
they shoot like Ed O'Bannon
seriously was laughing so hard when I heard that....
'95 was a bad year for droppin NBA in general....Kansas wasn't all that great either, I was thinking of their team the next year that was + Paul Pierce.....I guess I am going to have to reverse my position on this and say UCLA WAS the best team that season....
Well, the worst team of the modern (64/65-team) era to win a title was, hands-down, Rollie Massimino's 1985 Villanova team.
That team went 25-10 and was a No. 8 seed. It was also a game played without a shot clock, so if we don't want to count it, I understand.
Sixth-seeded Kansas won in 1988, the lowest seed to do so in the shot-clock era. Still, that team had the best player in college basketball, Danny Manning, and a great coach, Larry Brown. Those two ingredients made it a serious title contender despite a 21-11 record entering the tournament.
In 1997, fourth-seeded Arizona won with a 19-9 record entering the tournament. But a good case can be made that in defeating great -- truly, great -- Kansas and Kentucky teams, Arizona proved its worth.
The No. 3 seed Syracuse team that won in 2003 is underrated. It was an underseeded team that finished the year 30-5.
It's also tough to hold anything against the 2006 Florida Gators, also a No. 3 seed, who went 33-6 overall and dominated down the stretch after a rough early patch.
Still, if Duke wins, the argument cannot be made that this is the worst champion ever. The Blue Devils would be 35-5, having won 18 of their last 19 games.
West Virginia would finish 33-6, but as Big East champions and a No. 2 seed, it would be a tough case to argue them as the worst, too.
Michigan State and Butler -- as No. 5 seeds in a down year for the NCAA -- could potentially be matched against that sixth-seeded Kansas team.
I don't know who brought up that 1995 UCLA team, but that team went 32-1.
how you figure they are better then the champs of the last 10 years midwest?..just because duke won in the acc when the acc isnt that strong like in the past?..and im guessing youre in youre 30's if you say they are better then ncstate since you wouldnt have to have seen them play back then if not then youre just making it up
and a arguement can be made for any team reguardless of win streaks because of who the teams played against compared to who other teams played against. if the competition is alot better in one year and a team finishes with 8 loses a arguement can be made that a team with 2 loses isnt as good
Adi Joseph started his comment with a reference to that monster Villanova upset over Georgetown. If I remember correctly, Villanova's FG percentage was incredibly high as they couldn't miss. It was one of those games where you knew if Villanova and Georgetown played another five times, Georgetown would beat them handily every time.
That brings me to my perspective on this thread. Other than the 18 TV commercial breaks per game, almost one every 2 minutes, the most predictable aspect of the tournament is to expect the unexpected. It happens every year. Most people root for the underdogs and love it when a team like Villanova, beats a powerhouse like Georgetown. That's what makes the NCAA Tournament so exciting.
I don't remember the year but I vividly remember another powerhouse Georgetown team, led by Alonzo Mourning, losing to Princeton the entire game. In the end GT came back and won by one 1 point. Wow! Was that ever exciting.
I understand why people are missing the big teams like Kansas and Kentucky, but it's those shocking upsets, like Northern Iowa over Kansas, that make the NCAA Tournament the most exciting sports event in America, despite the non-stop TV commercial breaks.
There's a reason that Villanova-Georgetown game was considered the biggest upset in NCAA history. Even watching that game, which used to be aired on ESPN Classic all the time, the disparity in talent is clear.
That wasn't some team that had one underachieving regular season, either. The year before, they went 19-12. The year after, they went 23-14.
There were three future pros on that team: Ed Pinckney, Harold Pressley and Dwayne McClain.
McClain played all of 45 games as a rookie, then was out of the league before he got to a second season.
Pressley played four seasons with career averages of 9 points and 4.5 rebounds per game.
Pinckney managed 793 games in the league, but his career high scoring average was 11.5 points per game and he finished at 6.8 and 5 boards.
That team is generally agreed upon by all experts as the worst to win the title. if you haven't seen that game, I recommend watching Ewing and Reggie Williams choke away that game they should have so easily won.
I just do not believe that this Duke team, which would finish 35-5 and on an incredible hot streak, could possibly be worse than that 25-10 Villanova team. Even if college basketball was stronger then, there was also less parity meaning more easy wins.
And it wasn't that much better.
^That Georgetown-Princeton game was in 1989.
Also, another point about Duke: In this 15 of 16 streak, almost every game has been fairly easy. Yesterday's Baylor game was probably the closest game they've played in. Even in close wins against Georgia Tech and Miami, Duke was in control before frantic finishes, and in both games, they finished it off on the line.
I know you're a Maryland fan, Quincey, but there's no reason to be blind. Duke is really, really good. Has been all year.
And you're right about the upset -- I'd probably say George Mason-UConn was the biggest upset ever, but what I meant was biggest title game upset ever.
knicksfan7, although that may have been the most significant upset in the history of the NCAA tournament, I don't think it qualifies in terms of what we generally classify a major upset. And that's when a team with inferior talent wins a big time game.
Several analysts predicted Texas Western would win. After the game, if you analyzed the talent level, it was clear Texas Western was every bit as good, and probably even more talented than Kentucky,
However, if you told me a school from Northern Iowa would beat Kansas, the number one team in the country, I would have referred you for psychological counseling.
opinion wise what do ya'll think?..i look at the four teams and i compare each of them to the past title winners and i have to be honest im not real impressed. also i love basketball and love watching it but im not as amped up about this final four as recent ones. it may be just me but it just doesnt feel the same to me