***The Official College Basketball 08/09 Thread***

[FirstTimer]

Just for fun, and since I'm bored at work. Here's the "non elite program" or "mediocre" program Coach K has put together at Dook since 1980 when he took over and how it compares to UNC over the same span.

Dook:
National Titles: 3
National Title Runner ups: 4
Final Fours: 10
Tournament Appearances: 26
ACC Regular Season Crowns: 11
ACC Tournament Crowns: 11


UNC
Nation Titles: 3
National Title Runner Ups: 1
Final Fours: 10
Tournament Appearances: 28
ACC Regular Season Crowns: 13
ACC Tournament Crowns: 9


Yeah Dook has CLEARLY been mediocre under Coach K, meanwhile since his arrival UNC has been SO elite.

 

[FirstTimer]

lol...fail on my part. I always forget about 93...even though it's the most memorable one with Webber's timeout. I don't know how I did that, I'm blaming the hangover :S

So I'm supposed to take your fandom seriosuly when you forget about your teams most memorable championship?

Just stop posting.

the base of the 91 and 92 teams were the exact same. Laettner, Bobby Hurley,Grant Hill, Brian Davis, Antonio Lang, and Thomas Hill.

The base of the team was the same. The entire team was not.

The team was different. Sure the base was the same. But that doesn't always translate to success.

That's why you add new players, take new photos, some players change numbers.....as one Dook player did....and make new media guides. I don't recall ever talking about the 1990-1992 Duke basketball team was one entity.

Acc championship is completely irrelevant to anything, I put 0 stock in a team's success by ACC championships. Look at how many duke has won, and look where that's translated to.

Based on the numbers, since Coach K took over....Pretty much the same amount of success as UNC has had over the same period.

1991-2001=17 years? Anyways though...You're making my point for me. My argument is that Duke enjoyed a good stretch of elite play, but they're not an elite program. :

No 1991-2008 =17 years. People say the Bulls won 6 in 8 years. Time didn't somehow suspend for those two years until they won another one.

 

[FirstTimer]

That's like saying Notre Dame and Penn St aren't elite college football programs because they haven't won a NC in 15-20 years. STFU. Elite programs can ebb and flow. Duke for not being an "elite" program right now sure has a lot of people fooled because they keep bringing in McDonalds All Americans, are consistantly ranked in the top 10 and win conference titles and conference tourny titles regularly.

Saying that Duke isn't an elite program in basketball is fucking retarded.

 

[Bomberooski]

Just watched about 30 minutes of Gonzaga highlights. Ready to roll!

 

[FirstTimer]

I'm not saying dook isn't an elite program. But there is a difference between being an elite program and being a contender. I mean Indiana is an elite program and look at the season they put up.

That wasn't directed at you Heelswx. It was at the boi wunder.

I know you have a brain in your head and your point is right on.

But at the same time, you can't just say, "Hey look at all our wins, they make us an elite program". I mean fucking Penn is in the top 10 in wins. And there isn't a single poster here who would say with a straight face that they are an elite program. I mean they have more wins than fucking Indiana.

Point well taken but you also have to put it in context of tounry wins, etc. Which is obviously where Dook would seperate itself from the Penn St Indiana hypothetical.

I thourougly enjoyed you telling me to stop posting, when half the time I have to try and remember who you are in the first place

Your daddy.

You're correct...it doesn't always translate into success, see UNLV in 90 and then in 91. Granted, the 91 team was undefeated before their loss to duke, but still. However, to play it off like the 91 and 92 teams were completely different is utter nonsense...as they were nearly identical.

I never said they were "completely different". I said they were different teams. They obviously had many of the same players but that doesn't make them the same team.

Do I really need to say the point I've been making one more time? Are you really struggling to comprehend the "They had a dominant stretch, but that stretch is done?" part of all my posts?

Really? It's done? Have you been to the future? What are tomorrow's lottery numbers. You have no way of knowing if Dook is "done".

People were saying the same thing about UNC between 1982 and 1993(lack of Final Fours, etc.) and they won another title and came back and had success, so saying Dook is done something you should know better to say because of your own teams history.

So if the bulls don't win another championship until 2098...then they won 7 championships in the span of 100 years? You're calling that good logic? In a literal sense....yes that's truly what happened...but that completely desensitizes the unbelievable run they put together through the 90s.

Not when comparing programs over the same length of time. Duke, since 1991, when their history began(according to you) has won 3 championships during their 17year "history".

Even using your "logic" UNC has what? 3 Championships in 26 years. Two in 11 years (82 and 93) or Two in 12 years (93 and 05). Yeah that an elite run compared to those mediocre Dookies who only have 3 in 10, including one this decade

 

[Bomberooski]

I didn't know they had 30 minutes of highlights.

When you play against Loyola Marymount and San Fransisco twice a year you get at least 160 minutes of highlights.

 

[FirstTimer]

Notre Dame football. Dominance from 20s-2000s. Struggle through the 2000s
Penn State- Dominance from the 1960s to the 2000s. Struggle from 2000-2004. Back to dominance the last couple years.
Duke Basketball- alright play from the 30s-1985. Dominance from 85-94. Mediocre/Alright until 98. Dominance 98-2002. Nothing to show from 2002-present.

Which doesn't fit?

They all fit. All are elite programs.

 

[FirstTimer]

My definition of elite is what you do in tournament. You can do whatever you want in the regular season, but when it comes down to it. It's all about what you do with the 6 possible games you have in March/April. .

Ok Let's look at the tournament then:

Since the tournament era began here are the comparisons:

Dook
Appearances: 33
Final Fours: 14
Runner ups: 6
National Championships: 3

UNC
Appearances: 41
Final Fours: 17
Runner ups: 4
National Titles: 4

WOW, Yeah UNC is far and away WAY more elite than "mediocre" Dook.

So essentially you are saying UNC is an elite program which has had pretty much the same amount of success as a flash in the pan now mediocre program as Dook?

 

[FirstTimer]

Judging by the present it's done. Duke could easily redeem their elite status next year...but again. They haven't beat a top 4 seed in tournament since 2001...they haven't made it passed the sweet 16 since 2004. That's not what an elite team looks like in my book.

UNC had consistant success from the 20s-80s under both McGuire and the Dean. From 82-93, UNC made the tournament every year and never lost BELOW the sweet 16 and made the elite 8 6 times. Now, granted I wasn't alive until 89..and not old enough to remember the talk about UNC from 89-93...but that looks like a completely different situation to me. Judging by the rankings, the only real dissapointment from those seasons would be UNC being #1 overall Jordan's junior year and loosing in the sweet 16.





K...read through this entire post, with 1 question in mind. "How many times has Heelsox said duke had an elite stretch?" Come back to me with a number. That's been my entire argument...that their stretch was elite but now it appears to be done, unless the program goes in a new direction.

LOL at "redeeming elite status" like it's a fucking coupon.

Again I say....

So essentially you are saying UNC is an elite program which has had pretty much the same amount of success as a flash in the pan now mediocre program as Dook?

 

[FirstTimer]

Does the same definition above apply when determining if UNC = "elite"? If so, I guess you just concluded UNC isn't an "elite" program.

Same time span above (80-Present) UNC has failed to make it past the Sweet 16 on guess what 14 occassions (15 if they fall tonight).

Apparently no current program in the nation meets Heelsox's definition of "elite".

Pwnt.

The funny thing is I'm not a Dook. Fan. I fucking can't stand them. It's just funny to see idiot homers make absurd statements.

 

[FirstTimer]

I think dumbass is taking the alliteration "Elite 8" way too seriously.

 

[Sportsbuck]

Does the same definition above apply when determining if UNC = "elite"? If so, I guess you just concluded UNC isn't an "elite" program.

Same time span above (80-Present) UNC has failed to make it past the Sweet 16 on guess what 14 occassions (15 if they fall tonight).

Apparently no current program in the nation meets Heelsox's definition of "elite".

12 by my count but I agree with what your saying.

 

[FirstTimer]

You can pretend that outside of 1991-2001 duke has been an elite program, with a legit championship shot nearly every year...but the truth is, that's far from the truth. Anyone who knowns anything about basketball can tell you that.

So in: 63, 64, 66, 78, 86, 88, 89, 90, and 04 (which are over half their Final Fours and outside of your "stretch/flash in a pan" window) they weren't legit threats to win it all?

Meanwhile UNC with their whopping 3 more Final Fours since the tournament began clearly shows how much more of an elite program they are? Ha!

 

[FirstTimer]

I'll tell you right now that UNC is 3rd on the list after UCLA and Kentucky. You'd truly have to be completely blind not to see that.

My argument on the history is exactly what you said though...the consistency. Outside of the 1991-2001 stretch, there's little to be found. While UNC has been consistently winning since the 20s.
My argument on them being an elite program is their situation right now. They haven't been truly considered a national threat to win in almost a decade now...and they've found the current trend they're on has been a struggle to get passed the 2nd round.

Yeah UNC was so much more consistant than Duke since the tournament started that they made 3 whole more Final Fours and won an astounding one more National Championship!

.........then again Dook has made more National Championship games.

 

[FirstTimer]

exactly! Cause all 3 championships and 7 of their 14 final fours don't fall into the span of 1991-2001 that I've been talking about!

First off 9 of their Final Fours didn't come between 91-01.

Second, so for all that amazing consistant greatness UNC has barely anymore March-April success than Dook....which is all that matters....

So UNC's perceived consistancy doesn't really seem that impressive when you look at it during the only time thatmatters...

Dook=elite.

Deal with it.

 

[Sportsbuck]

I orginally tried to do it in my head which shows my utter lack of life and belief in my knowledge of college basketball. I was off one (Perhaps I mistakenly counted 79-80 in my head which was "Pre-K era")

1. 1983-84
2. 1985-86
3. 1988-89
4. 1989-90
5. 1991-92
6. 1993-94
7. 1995-96
8. 1998-99
9. 2000-01
10. 2001-02
11. 2002-03
12. 2003-04
13. 2005-06

And the #s for success for UNC Duke can be "spun" depending on how one defines "elite". Examples include Duke 7 title game Appearances UNC 5, Duke 10 Final Fours UNC 10, etc....

Again, UNC = Duke 80-Present and BOTH are "elite" programs in my book.

I'm going home now.

Go Zags!

In 83-84 they made it to the regional final.

 

[SuperNova854]

The ACC has looked horrendous in the tournament this year. Its weird how poorly coached nearly all the teams are...even UNC and Duke. UNC doesn't play defense, and Duke has no concept of team offense. FSU's coach didn't even participate in team huddles. Wake Forest's coach just sat down on the floor all game.

Clemson lost to a Michigan team whose frontline included two 6-3 white guys. A huge upset considering how much more talented Clemson was. Wake Forest lost to the last time put in the tournament. Florida State lost to one of the weakest Wisconsin teams in years. Duke probably should have lost to Texas (but hey, Rick Barnes used to coach in the ACC), and looked putrid against Nova. Boston College got dominated by USC. Ouch.

USC was a much better team after they won the pac 10 tournament. DeRozan finally played like the player eveyrone thought he would be. USC was a much better team and deserved a higher seed then what they were given. They would have been in the sweet 16 but two things went in there way. 1)Taj Gibson had what 4 points? USC only lost to michigan st by 4. if he would have stayed out of foul trouble USC would have made it.2) their worst offensive player just happened to have a career night dropping 18 points.

 

[Esjay]

I hate Duke as much as anyone.. that being said I still consider them an elite program. It wasn't that long ago they won the national championship. It takes longer than 7-8 years to lose that status IMO.

 

[Sportsbuck]

Sweet 16

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_NCAA_Men%27s_Division_I_Basketball_Tournament

Different # of tourney teams screwed me up.

 

[Point Blank]

HEELS!