FWIW, the '07 Duke team was much younger than this year's UNC team. No recruited seniors and one recruited junior (Nelson). McRoberts, Paulus, McClure, and Pocius were sophomores, Scheyer, Henderson, Thomas and Zoubek freshmen.
By contrast, a healthy 2010 UNC starts three upperclassmen, fifth-year senior Ginyard, fourth-year junior Graves and true senior Thompson.
As far as the '06 Duke team is concerned, that team won the ACC regular season at 14-2, won the ACC Tournament, was ranked number one in the final AP poll, had the consensus national POY, the national defensive player of the year and finished the season 32-4. The disappointing and premature end to that season shouldn't obscure its many accomplishments.
I understand why UNC's struggles have resulted in much mirth on this board. For the record, I voted them number two in the ACC preseason and may well have overrated them.
But I'm more than a little wary of those 7-9 ACC prognostications. There are some real back-court issues and Roy Williams has the public persona of someone preparing for a tax audit. But this team still has considerable resources and I expect them to come back from the abyss and be a credible ACC team this season, maybe more than credible.
Best line of the week...on local Charlotte sports radio (The Chris McLain show, or Mac Attack, or whatever they call it).
Host 1: "When was the last time Carolina lost in front of 5,000 people?"
Host 2: "The Meineke Car Care Bowl"
This is true (your overall post, not necessarily that last part quoted ), but let's look at it another way (although this is more a Rivalry Thread segue, I'd imagine).
How many Final Fours has Duke been to? Fourteen? Take the last win away from each of those, be it championship or elite eight. Duke would still be the fourth winningest program in history and would still have the most wins of last decade. But would you be the same elite program that you are on a national scale? Does Syracuse belong in the "Blue Blood" conversation along with Kansas and UCLA and Indiana? Because the Orange have the fifth most wins overall, ahead of two of those. On the national scene, the national championship is what makes all those regular season wins count.
Another example: Say a team from, I don't know, a really long time ago goes undefeated for the season while playing in arguably the most difficult conference, or say, region. And an organization decides to go back and recognize that team years later as the nation's best, even though the dominance really only played out in region. Should that team's accomplishment be lauded on a national scale, or in the grand scheme, is that team just the best team in conference at the time?
Duke's sustained excellence, with or without championships, is definitely an admirable accomplishment. But without the championships, I'm not sure it would matter to anyone outside Tobacco Road.
Coach K wasn't awarded the fifth best coach of last decade. Duke, the program, was considered fifth best (by ESPN, I believe is what was said).
So Dean Smith kept the program of North Carolina very good prior to '82, just as Krzyzewski did with Duke in the late 80's, but I feel it's the championships that make both schools elite. Once again, Syracuse. Boeheim was certainly an elite coach prior to 2003. But is Syracuse an elite program in the same way that Duke, Carolina, Kansas, etc. are?
Now I do think it's a combination of sustained winning and championships. NC State won it all with the greatest player our conference has ever had. And then won it again through magic. Two championships make them better than most programs, as far as that metric goes. But I wouldn't consider them elite.
Kansas is the opposite. Prior to 40-12, how long had it been since Manning's group won the school's second, and how long had it been in between those two? But their overall wins during that time and continued post season success (Final Fours) kept them elite, in my mind.
I know this is late to the party, but I made this up for my work neighbor buddy, huge Carolina fan.