Has DeCourcey lost his mind?

[Troublemaker]

And we'd have a very different view of Duke's dominance if Laettner doesn't hit a miracle shot off a perfect full-court pass in the Elite 8.

For sure. But the Elite 8 game against UK really is the ONLY argument against Duke 92 being an all-timer. And if anything, it can be turned around to BOOST Duke 92's credentials. I mean, Georgetown 85 was a GREAT team. But they couldn't survive Villanova's hot day. UK should have been Duke's Villanova or Duke's NCSU, but the fact that Duke showed the resiliency to make the clutch shots down the stretch to win against an opponent playing out of its mind made that team all the more memorable. They passed every test. Every test. (Also, keep in mind that many observers regard Duke-UK to be the best and most well-played game in college basketball history... certainly winning that game can't be regarded as any more a negative than Florida struggling to put Butler and Purdue away in this year's tournament).

When you look at Florida, you can pick at them for their **5** losses, including **3 blowouts** (vs Duke 92's two close losses, one when Hurley was playing on a broken foot, and the other when Hurley was out with the broken foot... yes, Duke was probably an injury away from going undefeated). You can pick apart at Florida's individual players and how they don't match up well with Duke 92's. You can pick apart the strength of the teams they played in the tournament during their two-year run and the overall weaker college basketball landscape now vs the early 90's. Duke has ONE argument against. Florida has SEVERAL compelling arguments against.

And I wouldn't say anyone in here is "pretending" to "know for sure." We're just giving opinions. Duke 92 kills Florida 07. Kills them.

[BDevilU]

Seeding the tourney: Florida loses some ground

(by Mike DeCourcey)
February 28, 2007


If you were concerned the college basketball season had gotten a little too predictable -- ha! -- the Florida Gators have seen fit to make this even more interesting.

The one thing we'd been able to count on for most of this year has been Florida's competence. They weren't sensational very often, and they had to come from behind too frequently, but they won most of the time. Now, that's out.

At this point, the only things we know for sure about the NCAA Tournament are that UCLA will be a No. 1 seed and the Final Four will be in Atlanta.

Florida's consecutive losses to LSU and Tennessee forced the Gators to finish strong to remain a serious contender for a No. 1 seed. They gave hope to Wisconsin, Kansas and Texas A&M, all of which are competing with Florida for that position.

They also forced me to rewrite a Gators story I'd already finished for the magazine, but I'll get over it.

[BDevilU]

For what it's worth, DeCourcey also picked Ohio State to beat Florida 68-67 in his Title game preview. Sounds like a guy who was really convinced about Florida's greatness. Again, it's nearsightedness and postgame hangover.

Duke was #1 in the polls from start to finish in '92. DeCourcey had Florida as a #2 SEED as little as two weeks before Selection Sunday.

Come on, the comparison is ridiculous.

Sure, anybody could beat anybody in a one game scenario... just as Duke beat UNLV in '91. Sure, Florida could possibly beat Duke '92... but it's just not as likely as the nearsighted and hungover would like to imagine.

[Troublemaker]

It really is a joke. LOL at Florida against Tennessee. http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaab/recap?gid=200702270580

"Tennessee had a 17-0 run in the first half and were ahead by 19 points at halftime and as many as 27 in the second half."

Can anyone imagine Duke 92 getting down 27 points to any team?

[Troublemaker]

Fla against last place LSU playing without Glen Davis http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaab/recap?gid=200702240319

"Tasmin Mitchell scored 11 for LSU, which outshot Florida 51.1 percent to 44.7 percent and outrebounded the Gators 35-22. Martin's jumper in transition ignited a decisive 8-0 LSU run that gave the Tigers their largest lead at 53-35 with about five minutes remaining."

LOL. All-time great team.

[Troublemaker]

Fla against Vandy. http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaab/recap?gid=200702170615

The Commodores won for the seventh time in nine games by beating the nation's best shooting team at its own game, outshooting the Gators 57.1 percent to 44 percent from the field. They took the lead in the first half and led by as much as 16 points late.

Fla against FSU http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaab/recap?gid=200612030213

"The Seminoles (5-2), who had lost their previous two games by a total of 37 points, led 36-31 at the half and built the lead to 55-41 before Walter Hodge's 3-pointer with 3:02 left got the Gators to 62-59. Hodge's shot capped an 18-7 Florida run."

[BDevilU]

Duke was 6 points from going undefeated in '92. Both losses were on the road. The first loss, by 2 at UNC (which won the '93 Title with essentially the same squad) saw Bobby Hurley play most of the second half with a broken foot. The second loss, without the injured Hurley, was by 4 at Wake Forest (with Rodney Rogers).

Florida, comparatively, was a mere 39 points from a perfect record this season. Errrrrr... well, anyway...

[BobbyFan]

My take is we'd have a very different view of Fla's dominance if UNC and Kansas hadn't choked in the Elite 8.

And an even more different view had Florida not won in 2006, in which case this year's Florida team would have been regarded as just another championship team.

The 1992 Duke team was vastly superior to the rest of college basketball and they brought it every night. They featured 2 All-Americans and a legitimate third star in an era in which Shaq was still playing college basketball as a junior and Alonzo Mourning as a senior. They didn't lean on their 1991 title to be considered a great team.

Florida's accomplishment of repeating is a remarkable one; however, it doesn't follow that this year's team was a remarkable one.

[dukeENG2003]

And we'd have a very different view of Duke's dominance if Laettner doesn't hit a miracle shot off a perfect full-court pass in the Elite 8.

True, but you DID watch that game, right? I mean, do you honestly think we needed that shot because we played bad, or b/c Kentucky played incredible basketball as well. It was arguably the greatest college basketball game of all time b/c both teams played incredibly high level basketball for 45 minutes. Defense was excellent, but players still hit tough shots. That KU team was stacked, top to bottom, and full of seniors (4 who got more than 20 mpg), along with super soph Jamal Mashburn. Heck, I think it would be an interesting game to see who would win between 1992 KENTUCKY (especially if they played like they did against us that night) and 2007 Florida. 1992 Duke versus 2007 Florida would be downright boring if you ask me.

[calltheobvious]

You have absolutely no way of knowing this. Need I remind everyone that Duke '92 needed a miracle shot just to make the Final Four? We're two seconds, a full court pass, and the most famous shot of all-time away from not even having this discussion.

Quoting arbitrary statistics from individual Duke players misses the point. The way Florida worked as a team was unbelievable.

Again - I personally think Duke '92 was better, but I'm sick of biased Duke fans pretending like they know for sure that Duke '92 would blow Florida out 9 times out of 10.

Wander, I think you've built a strawman here. You're right that no one can know for certain that Duke would win. You're also right that the '92 team would be viewed differently minus The Shot. But you undercut your own argument by using this line of reasoning. Laettner's shot didn't change the quality of that Duke team one whit...only its accomplishments. That he made that shot has no bearing on how that team would fare against this year's Florida team (except insofar as it provided us with two more games worth of data on which to base our predictions). The really absurd thing here is the bias that causes us to believe that winning a six-game, single-elimination tournament is actually dispositive of anything other than whether a really good team was able to avoid getting unlucky. UNLV('91) is still the best team I've ever watched, and I don't think it's even close. But that team is not in the discussion. The tournament is fun for bragging rights of teams and their fan, but to limit the discussion to those teams who have successfully negotiated a minefield is reallyl silly to me.

[Wander]

Florida's accomplishment of repeating is a remarkable one; however, it doesn't follow that this year's team was a remarkable one.

Yes, it does, actually. You don't have enough appreciation for how difficult to repeat these days, and any team that does so is in fact "remarkable."

True, but you DID watch that game, right? I mean, do you honestly think we needed that shot because we played bad, or b/c Kentucky played incredible basketball as well.

Kentucky played very well and you can't give Duke enough credit for pulling out the win because all that matters in the tournament is surviving and advancing. However, there are two sides to every statement like this. Behind every amazing comeback there is a choke job, behind every upset there is a favorite that didn't play to its potential, and behind every team that plays especially well there is an opponent that allowed that team to play that well. Florida never let a team play that well against them in the tournament.

That KU team was stacked, top to bottom, and full of seniors (4 who got more than 20 mpg), along with super soph Jamal Mashburn.

We didn't play KU. KU lost in the second round. UK, however, was a very good team, but every team that makes the Elite 8 is a very good team.

I don't really know why you guys are trying to convince me Duke was better - as I've said multiple times, I believe Duke was better. Really though, the fact that you guys are quoting AP recaps of Florida's losses and citing worthless/arbitrary statistics like Brian Davis having a 30 point game against Clemson earlier in the season speaks for itself.

[Troublemaker]

Yes, it does, actually. You don't have enough appreciation for how difficult to repeat these days, and any team that does so is in fact "remarkable."

Not this Florida team, though. Remarkable teams don't get blown out by Tennessee, Vanderbilt, and last-place LSU. Remarkable teams don't have 5 losses against watered-down present-day competition.

Behind every amazing comeback there is a choke job, behind every upset there is a favorite that didn't play to its potential, and behind every team that plays especially well there is an opponent that allowed that team to play that well. Florida never let a team play that well against them in the tournament.

Like I said, the UK game is really the only argument anyone can make against Duke 92 being an all-timer, or head and shoulders above the pack. And even that argument can be turned around in 92's favor, which I did above. Duke-UK is widely considered one of the best games ever played, so no, Fla did not ever face an opponent playing that well. However, they did let Butler and Purdue hang around way too long for comfort.

I don't really know why you guys are trying to convince me Duke was better - as I've said multiple times, I believe Duke was better. Really though, the fact that you guys are quoting AP recaps of Florida's losses and citing worthless/arbitrary statistics like Brian Davis having a 30 point game against Clemson earlier in the season speaks for itself.

I don't think anyone's trying to convince "you", per se. This is a thread about Decourcy's column, which many feel ridiculously places Fla 07 on par with Duke 92. So we're saying "here's why that's ridiculous" and doing a pretty good job with it. I'm not sure what you mean by "speaks for itself." What does my usage of AP recaps to demonstrate Fla's unworthiness say? How does it speak for itself? Is it saying that no team that is considered on par with Duke 92 should be blown out three times?

[Wander]

Not this Florida team, though. Remarkable teams don't get blown out by Tennessee, Vanderbilt, and last-place LSU. Remarkable teams don't have 5 losses against watered-down present-day competition.

If you honestly believe this Florida team isn't remarkable, then you are far more biased than I realized and I really don't have any interest in having this discussion with you.

[Troublemaker]

If you honestly believe this Florida team isn't remarkable, then you are far more biased than I realized and I really don't have any interest in having this discussion with you.

No sweat off my back. We'll agree to disagree then. Now, I do believe Fla had an excellent team that plays well together. I was impressed by them. But I'm also of the opinion that they are in no way on par with Duke 92. The gap is wide. To be more precise, I think Duke 92 would win 9 out of 10 against Fla 07, and the average margin of victory would be around 10-15 points.

Teams that can compete with Duke 92 don't get blown out three times. They don't lose 5 times to watered-down competition.

[AnotherNYCDukeFan]

I'm joining in a bit late in the debate of Grant vs. Brewer, but I thought that DeCourcey's statement about Brewer's defense being better than Hill's was ludicrous.

In the 91, UNLV game, Grant completely shut Stacy Augmon down. He was nowhere to be found. For those that can't remember that far back, for most of the season, Augmon was considered the Player of the Year, until LJ overtook him in the last month and half. He was also the National Defensive Player of the Year.

So it seems to me that if Grant won the match up with a first team All-American senior at the time, he would win the match up with an All-American Honorable Mention this year.

(As an aside, I do like Brewer's game. He reminds me a lot of Augmon. It's funny how years later I can finally respect the members of that UNLV team.)

[_Gary]

If you honestly believe this Florida team isn't remarkable, then you are far more biased than I realized and I really don't have any interest in having this discussion with you.

I've never denied being biased, but in this case bias has very little to do with it. Fact is that this Florida team is a very good team, but it's nowhere close to Duke '92. I believe anyone who entertains the thought that Duke '92 and Fla '07 are in the same league is the one who is biased. This current Florida team would have a tough time hanging with many of the championship teams of the last 20 years (and many of the runners up - such as Duke '99 & Arizona '01), much less the great teams before that.

Gary

[rsvman]

I agree with whomever posted above that navigating through the minefield of the NCAA tournament, by itself, is a somewhat ridiculous qualifier for what teams were the greatest.

You want to talk about greatest college basketball teams of all time? That list would include, in my opinion, AT LEAST three teams that didn't win the championship. Larry Bird's Indiana State team won 33 games in a row before losing the championship game to Michigan State. UNLV 1991 has already been mentioned. Duke 1999 has already been mentioned. Does anybody really think that this year's Florida team is a better basketball team than the 1999 Duke team? I might add the 1983 Houston team to the list of teams that didn't win the title, but were better teams than this year's Florida squad.

Why no mention of 1976 Indiana team? If memory serves, they went undefeated and won the title.

Sure, it's remarkable to win back-to-back national championships, and Florida deserves to be recognized. But to mention this year's Florida squad as one of the greatest teams in college basketball history is very shortsighted, indeed.

[barjwr]

. . . would be the 1997 Kansas team that started Jacque Vaughn, Jerod Haase, Paul Pierce, Raef LaFrentz, and Scot Pollard. Their only two losses of the season were a double OT loss at archrival Missouri and a three-point loss to the Arizona team that went on to beat two other #1-seeds to win it all. Say what you want about Ol' Roy (and I certainly have since his departure from the Land of Oz), but that team could play.

[DevilAlumna]

Yes, it does, actually. You don't have enough appreciation for how difficult to repeat these days, and any team that does so is in fact "remarkable."

Not this Florida team, though. Remarkable teams don't get blown out by Tennessee, Vanderbilt, and last-place LSU. Remarkable teams don't have 5 losses against watered-down present-day competition.

Troublemaker, what's your definition of "remarkable," then?

American Heritage gives this definition:

adj.
1. Worthy of notice.
2. Attracting notice as being unusual or extraordinary.

Worthy of notice? Ding! Ratings for the tournament were fairly high this year; all the press coverage on the repeat would indicate lots of people feel the accomplishment was quite noteworthy.

Attracting notice as being unusual Ding! Not too many teams repeat.

To me, it seems "remarkable," indeed. So, to you, what part of either of those two definitions do not fit what Florida just did?

[Troublemaker]

"Remarkable" in the context of this thread was defined here by BobbyFan:

The 1992 Duke team was vastly superior to the rest of college basketball and they brought it every night. They featured 2 All-Americans and a legitimate third star in an era in which Shaq was still playing college basketball as a junior and Alonzo Mourning as a senior. They didn't lean on their 1991 title to be considered a great team.

Florida's accomplishment of repeating is a remarkable one; however, it doesn't follow that this year's team was a remarkable one.

In the context of this thread, remarkable means being an all-time great team / on par with Duke 92. So no, I don't believe Fla 07 is remarkable in that context.