Quote:
Originally posted by Hawks Coach
tomegun
1. You speak of failing to win the entire championship with talent as though that should determine a 1 seed. Fab Five went to two consecutive NCAA finals with arguably the most talent ever on one team. They lost to . . . Duke and UNC. Hmmmm - is that a pattern?
2. How many times do I have to agree that Duke could be lower than a 1 seed because of both the 6-4 finish and the conference final loss? I could go with OSU or UCONN as a sub for Duke. With that in mind, Duke still is #1 in the RPI, which is a very strong determining factor, and should mean a 2 seed at a minimum (remember 1 up, 1 down as a rule of thumb). and Duke played a stretch run schedule that was far stronger than any othe contender for the #1 seed, something the committee must have considered.
3. Past performance. You say Duke is overrated traditionally. I say there are 4 #1 seeds every year, and Final Four appearance is the sole factor to consider when validating a 1 seed. All 1 seeds should arguably make the Final Four every year. GUESS WHAT - Duke has more consistently made the Final Four under K than any other team in the entire history of NCAA basketball with one exception - John Wooden's UCLA teams. Not just current teams, we are talking about all teams for all time. I wasn't a UCLA fan when they were at the end of their run, but I wouldn't think of arguing that they were overrated. Similarly, I am not a Duke fan, but they clearly are not overrated - they are consistently better than any other team currently playing, and better than any other team in history other than UCLA. How a team with that track record can be overrated is beyond me.
As for UNC this year, they are Top 20 RPI (which justifies a 5 seed), they are a 6 seed, which again can be defended from the 1 up, 1 down theory - but should be defended in terms of why they are lower than their RPI justifies, not why they are too high.
|
1. Although they were very talented, if you think the Fab 5 had the most talent ever you need help my friend. Let me throw some teams out there: UNLV 90', UNC 82', G'town (all Ewing years), Illinois 89', UM 89', Kentucky 84' and on and on. In my lifetime I think the most college talent was either G'town 84' or UNLV 90'.
2. Michigan State played a tough schedule. Where are they?
3. Duke has had the most talent in the history of college basketball other than maybe UCLA and North Carolina. They are supposed to win with talent for crying out loud! For me, getting to the Final Four is not enough. I guess Coach Knight sort of spoiled Indiana fans by winning it when he went. UCLA had talent and won a lot of championships. Duke and North Carolina has had talent and IMHO their championships are not in line with their talent pool. Jordan, Worthy, Black, Dougherty, Doherty, Stackhouse, Montross, Wallace, Vince Carter, Jamison, K. Smith, Rick Fox, Hubert Davis, Williams, Sam Perkins, Haywood, Popson, Wolfe................Laetner, Hurley, B. Davis, G. Hill, T. Hill, the guy on ESPN, Dawkins, Ammaker, Brand, Battier, Burgess, Ferry, Wojohoweveryouspellit, Jay Williams and many others. Name me one other program that has had the level of talent that North Carolina and Duke has had in the last 20 years? Talent + so-called coaching greatness + not enough trophies = overated!