EagleOutsider.com

That's 5 of the last 10 by three different teams and 10 of the last 30 by four different teams.

Basketball -- It's what we do.

BC '00 {l Wrote}:

BC '00 {l Wrote}:Butler by 1 (not really, just hoping) 62-61

Whichever team wins, this final is just an indictment of the quality of college hoops this year. Who really thinks either of these teams would have made it competitive with the last 5 national champs? Disgraciad.

That last shot goes in and I would have been dead on...and much much much happier. Not only did the biggest bunch of whiny douchebags in college basketball win the tournament, but I was this close to a great call. I still say they are the weakest champs I can remember.

I understand you not liking Duke, but the weakest champs you can remember? Like them or not you have to give credit where it is due. At no point this season was anyone picking them to win the championship and they surprised everyone. Most on this board were predicting an early exit as I recall. They had to beat some good teams to get there as well. I personally like seeing an ACC team raising the trophy. It shuts up the douchebags from the Big Least.

Art Vandelay {l Wrote}:

BC '00 {l Wrote}:

BC '00 {l Wrote}:Butler by 1 (not really, just hoping) 62-61

Whichever team wins, this final is just an indictment of the quality of college hoops this year. Who really thinks either of these teams would have made it competitive with the last 5 national champs? Disgraciad.

That last shot goes in and I would have been dead on...and much much much happier. Not only did the biggest bunch of whiny douchebags in college basketball win the tournament, but I was this close to a great call. I still say they are the weakest champs I can remember.

I understand you not liking Duke, but the weakest champs you can remember? Like them or not you have to give credit where it is due. At no point this season was anyone picking them to win the championship and they surprised everyone. Most on this board were predicting an early exit as I recall. They had to beat some good teams to get there as well. I personally like seeing an ACC team raising the trophy. It shuts up the douchebags from the Big Least.

I can't imagine them beating any of the recent champs...maybe the Cuse in 03? They definitely weren't given a lot of credit this year, but there's a reason for that. They were never a team that people looked at and said "that looks like a potential championship team". I think the only teams that really looked like championship-caliber this year were Kansas, Kentucky, Cuse, Purdue (before Hummel was hurt), and maybe Nova early this year. This was just a weak year overall for college hoops. Maybe I really am blinded by my hatred of Duke, but I also saw an atrocious BC team control Duke for a half at Cameron (before getting destroyed in the second half).

TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:hey art - is this you thinking about duke/the acc?

Looks more like ATL when he thought Coen was going to take over for Al.

BC '00 {l Wrote}:I can't imagine them beating any of the recent champs...maybe the Cuse in 03? They definitely weren't given a lot of credit this year, but there's a reason for that. They were never a team that people looked at and said "that looks like a potential championship team". I think the only teams that really looked like championship-caliber this year were Kansas, Kentucky, Cuse, Purdue (before Hummel was hurt), and maybe Nova early this year. This was just a weak year overall for college hoops. Maybe I really am blinded by my hatred of Duke, but I also saw an atrocious BC team control Duke for a half at Cameron (before getting destroyed in the second half).

That's fine except you know how often Duke was outside the Top 10 this season? Not once. Seems to me that plenty of people thought they might be championship caliber during the season and after an ACC tourney victory. Duke was anything but flashy, but they were very, very consistent. Jesus, their losses were to UMD, G'town, GT, Wisconsin, and NCSU. That's one loss to a non-tourney team. The others? Just a 3 seed, 4 seed, 4 seed and 10 seed.

pick6pedro {l Wrote}:

BC '00 {l Wrote}:I can't imagine them beating any of the recent champs...maybe the Cuse in 03? They definitely weren't given a lot of credit this year, but there's a reason for that. They were never a team that people looked at and said "that looks like a potential championship team". I think the only teams that really looked like championship-caliber this year were Kansas, Kentucky, Cuse, Purdue (before Hummel was hurt), and maybe Nova early this year. This was just a weak year overall for college hoops. Maybe I really am blinded by my hatred of Duke, but I also saw an atrocious BC team control Duke for a half at Cameron (before getting destroyed in the second half).

That's fine except you know how often Duke was outside the Top 10 this season? Not once. Seems to me that plenty of people thought they might be championship caliber during the season and after an ACC tourney victory. Duke was anything but flashy, but they were very, very consistent. Jesus, their losses were to UMD, G'town, GT, Wisconsin, and NCSU. That's one loss to a non-tourney team. The others? Just a 3 seed, 4 seed, 4 seed and 10 seed.

Maybe I'm overstating it, but I don't think just because they were top ten means people thought they were a legit threat to win the title. When BC made it to #2 in FB, do you think that people really thought we were a championship-caliber team? Or when we made it to #4 (or whatever the highest ranking was) a few years back in hoops, same question?

It's impressive that they were so consistent, but they also were 5-5 on the road heading into the tourney, then had a pretty damn easy road.

BC '00 {l Wrote}:

pick6pedro {l Wrote}:

BC '00 {l Wrote}:I can't imagine them beating any of the recent champs...maybe the Cuse in 03? They definitely weren't given a lot of credit this year, but there's a reason for that. They were never a team that people looked at and said "that looks like a potential championship team". I think the only teams that really looked like championship-caliber this year were Kansas, Kentucky, Cuse, Purdue (before Hummel was hurt), and maybe Nova early this year. This was just a weak year overall for college hoops. Maybe I really am blinded by my hatred of Duke, but I also saw an atrocious BC team control Duke for a half at Cameron (before getting destroyed in the second half).

That's fine except you know how often Duke was outside the Top 10 this season? Not once. Seems to me that plenty of people thought they might be championship caliber during the season and after an ACC tourney victory. Duke was anything but flashy, but they were very, very consistent. Jesus, their losses were to UMD, G'town, GT, Wisconsin, and NCSU. That's one loss to a non-tourney team. The others? Just a 3 seed, 4 seed, 4 seed and 10 seed.

Maybe I'm overstating it, but I don't think just because they were top ten means people thought they were a legit threat to win the title. When BC made it to #2 in FB, do you think that people really thought we were a championship-caliber team? Or when we made it to #4 (or whatever the highest ranking was) a few years back in hoops, same question?

It's impressive that they were so consistent, but they also were 5-5 on the road heading into the tourney, then had a pretty damn easy road.

I don't consider Baylor, WVU and Butler an easy road. Obviously the first two are easy for all high seeds but the rest of the way they had it as tough as anyone.

Art Vandelay {l Wrote}:

BC '00 {l Wrote}:

pick6pedro {l Wrote}:

BC '00 {l Wrote}:I can't imagine them beating any of the recent champs...maybe the Cuse in 03? They definitely weren't given a lot of credit this year, but there's a reason for that. They were never a team that people looked at and said "that looks like a potential championship team". I think the only teams that really looked like championship-caliber this year were Kansas, Kentucky, Cuse, Purdue (before Hummel was hurt), and maybe Nova early this year. This was just a weak year overall for college hoops. Maybe I really am blinded by my hatred of Duke, but I also saw an atrocious BC team control Duke for a half at Cameron (before getting destroyed in the second half).

That's fine except you know how often Duke was outside the Top 10 this season? Not once. Seems to me that plenty of people thought they might be championship caliber during the season and after an ACC tourney victory. Duke was anything but flashy, but they were very, very consistent. Jesus, their losses were to UMD, G'town, GT, Wisconsin, and NCSU. That's one loss to a non-tourney team. The others? Just a 3 seed, 4 seed, 4 seed and 10 seed.

Maybe I'm overstating it, but I don't think just because they were top ten means people thought they were a legit threat to win the title. When BC made it to #2 in FB, do you think that people really thought we were a championship-caliber team? Or when we made it to #4 (or whatever the highest ranking was) a few years back in hoops, same question?

It's impressive that they were so consistent, but they also were 5-5 on the road heading into the tourney, then had a pretty damn easy road.

I don't consider Baylor, WVU and Butler an easy road. Obviously the first two are easy for all high seeds but the rest of the way they had it as tough as anyone.

You forgot about Purdue, who was missing their best player. Baylor was in their first tournament in god knows how long, and WVU was missing their starting PG. That being said, I thought both Baylor and WVU would beat Duke, and they exceeded my expectations. But I certainly don't think that they had a "tough road" to the championship.

BC '00 {l Wrote}:

pick6pedro {l Wrote}:

BC '00 {l Wrote}:I can't imagine them beating any of the recent champs...maybe the Cuse in 03? They definitely weren't given a lot of credit this year, but there's a reason for that. They were never a team that people looked at and said "that looks like a potential championship team". I think the only teams that really looked like championship-caliber this year were Kansas, Kentucky, Cuse, Purdue (before Hummel was hurt), and maybe Nova early this year. This was just a weak year overall for college hoops. Maybe I really am blinded by my hatred of Duke, but I also saw an atrocious BC team control Duke for a half at Cameron (before getting destroyed in the second half).

That's fine except you know how often Duke was outside the Top 10 this season? Not once. Seems to me that plenty of people thought they might be championship caliber during the season and after an ACC tourney victory. Duke was anything but flashy, but they were very, very consistent. Jesus, their losses were to UMD, G'town, GT, Wisconsin, and NCSU. That's one loss to a non-tourney team. The others? Just a 3 seed, 4 seed, 4 seed and 10 seed.

Maybe I'm overstating it, but I don't think just because they were top ten means people thought they were a legit threat to win the title. When BC made it to #2 in FB, do you think that people really thought we were a championship-caliber team? Or when we made it to #4 (or whatever the highest ranking was) a few years back in hoops, same question?).

Fine, then how about the fact that they were top 5 for 6 of those weeks (mostly at the end of the season - when it matters more)? They were still one of the 4 most popular champion picks from any bracket selection site in the world. Yet, you claim they were not championship-caliber.

BC '00 {l Wrote}:It's impressive that they were so consistent, but they also were 5-5 on the road heading into the tourney, then had a pretty damn easy road.

Again all but one of those 5 losses were to high level teams. And the 5-5 on the road has what exactly to do with in Greensboro or neutral games?

pick6pedro {l Wrote}:

BC '00 {l Wrote}:

pick6pedro {l Wrote}:

BC '00 {l Wrote}:I can't imagine them beating any of the recent champs...maybe the Cuse in 03? They definitely weren't given a lot of credit this year, but there's a reason for that. They were never a team that people looked at and said "that looks like a potential championship team". I think the only teams that really looked like championship-caliber this year were Kansas, Kentucky, Cuse, Purdue (before Hummel was hurt), and maybe Nova early this year. This was just a weak year overall for college hoops. Maybe I really am blinded by my hatred of Duke, but I also saw an atrocious BC team control Duke for a half at Cameron (before getting destroyed in the second half).

That's fine except you know how often Duke was outside the Top 10 this season? Not once. Seems to me that plenty of people thought they might be championship caliber during the season and after an ACC tourney victory. Duke was anything but flashy, but they were very, very consistent. Jesus, their losses were to UMD, G'town, GT, Wisconsin, and NCSU. That's one loss to a non-tourney team. The others? Just a 3 seed, 4 seed, 4 seed and 10 seed.

Maybe I'm overstating it, but I don't think just because they were top ten means people thought they were a legit threat to win the title. When BC made it to #2 in FB, do you think that people really thought we were a championship-caliber team? Or when we made it to #4 (or whatever the highest ranking was) a few years back in hoops, same question?).

Fine, then how about the fact that they were top 5 for 6 of those weeks (mostly at the end of the season - when it matters more)? They were still one of the 4 most popular champion picks from any bracket selection site in the world. Yet, you claim they were not championship-caliber.

BC '00 {l Wrote}:It's impressive that they were so consistent, but they also were 5-5 on the road heading into the tourney, then had a pretty damn easy road.

Again all but one of those 5 losses were to high level teams. And the 5-5 on the road has what exactly to do with in Greensboro or neutral games?

So maybe some people did think of them as championship-caliber, but a lot of people also just pick Duke because they know the name and don't know anything about college hoops. And the road record is considered a good indicator of how teams will do in the tournament when they don't have home-court advantage. That's why the committee tends to emphasize it. It's great that they generally beat the teams they were supposed to beat, but they just weren't a particularly inspiring team, and I think they wouldn't hold up well against recent championship teams.

Let me ask you a question: if you put this year's Duke team against last year's UNC team or the prior year's Kansas team in a 1 game, do-or-die situation, who do you think would win.

You guys are both right. Duke had a ridiculously easy bracket - Nova as a 2 seed, really? Purdue as a 4? - and was not as talent laden as Cuse, Kentucky or Kansas, but they were clearly one of the top 5-6 teams in the country all year. They would struggle against some recent past champions, but hoop was down all the way around this year.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:You guys are both right. Duke had a ridiculously easy bracket - Nova as a 2 seed, really? Purdue as a 4? - and was not as talent laden as Cuse, Kentucky or Kansas, but they were clearly one of the top 5-6 teams in the country all year. They would struggle against some recent past champions, but hoop was down all the way around this year.

This is basically what I've been trying to say, although with a bit more venom.

BC '00 {l Wrote}: but they just weren't a particularly inspiring team...

I agree with this as the reason that they weren't a heavy favorite, but that's just because they weren't flashy or trendy like a 2009 UNC or other champs - which I believe is the really only reason they weren't as highly regarded. There was a lot to indicate they were more than capable of pulling it all off - including one of the few teams who could play at both ends and a coach who's been there time and again.

BC '00 {l Wrote}:Let me ask you a question: if you put this year's Duke team against last year's UNC team or the prior year's Kansas team in a 1 game, do-or-die situation, who do you think would win.

Not Duke. I haven't argued against the point that they might not be as good as past champions. I'm talking about them within their own field this year, not within a hypothetical past field. Just because they might not have had the same success in 2007 doesn't mean they shouldn't have been considered a favorite or championship-caliber in 2010. It's all relative.

pick6pedro {l Wrote}:

BC '00 {l Wrote}: but they just weren't a particularly inspiring team...

I agree with this as the reason that they weren't a heavy favorite, but that's just because they weren't flashy or trendy like a 2009 UNC or other champs - which I believe is the really only reason they weren't as highly regarded. There was a lot to indicate they were more than capable of pulling it all off - including one of the few teams who could play at both ends and a coach who's been there time and again.

BC '00 {l Wrote}:Let me ask you a question: if you put this year's Duke team against last year's UNC team or the prior year's Kansas team in a 1 game, do-or-die situation, who do you think would win.

Not Duke. I haven't argued against the point that they might not be as good as past champions. I'm talking about them within their own field this year, not within a hypothetical past field. Just because they might not have had the same success in 2007 doesn't mean they shouldn't have been considered a favorite or championship-caliber in 2010. It's all relative.

I personally went into the tournament thinking that only Kentucky, Kansas, and Cuse were legit title contenders, and anyone else would be a fluke. Obviously I was wrong. And they were definitely solid on both ends, and have a top coach. But they weren't a particularly high level team in my opinion.

I must have confused you with the people arguing the point that this was a weak championship team. Maybe saying the weakest in memory was a bit of hyperbole (can't imagine seeing that on this site!) but my initial point was that they wouldn't really stand up in comparisons to other recent champions.