Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 29
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    raleigh

    I'm tired of hearing that it's a "down year"...

    what does that mean?

    because there are no dominant teams? No one said it was a "down year" when Kansas and UNC were pre-season favs....did it become a "down year" cause texas fluttered out?

    or could it be that the level of competition is UP this year...harder for anyone to stand out..??

    this is a plot by the holes to minimize duke's season (and WV, Butler, and MSU.)

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North Raleigh
    Flip the script,
    If UNC wins the NIT we can use the same arguement back on them..
    "Well you didnt play anybody... you had a favorable bracket"

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    New Jersey
    Quote Originally Posted by moonpie23 View Post
    what does that mean?

    because there are no dominant teams? No one said it was a "down year" when Kansas and UNC were pre-season favs....did it become a "down year" cause texas fluttered out?

    or could it be that the level of competition is UP this year...harder for anyone to stand out..??

    this is a plot by the holes to minimize duke's season (and WV, Butler, and MSU.)
    Kansas and UK would have competed last season for the title, and either one could have beaten UNC, IMO. More of a chance for Kansas because of experience.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Bowie, Maryland

    Down year??

    This is exactly what college basketball wants and needs this year.

    Duke and North Carolina in the Final Four. Wow what a year for college basketball. The only problem is I do not think we will get to play North Carolina in this Final Four.
    The Terrapin Assassin

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Baltimore
    a title is a title.

    anyone who says otherwise is jealous because they're out of it.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Richmond, VA

    To show how irrelevant this arguement is...

    Name the top five "down" years in tournament history and the champions those years.


    My guesses are 1982, 1993, 2005 and 2009.

  7. #7
    Put it this way. No one will be qualifying the title that was won five years from now by saying the field was weak, etc.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by DevilHorns View Post
    a title is a title.

    anyone who says otherwise is jealous because they're out of it.
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkD83 View Post
    Name the top five "down" years in tournament history and the champions those years.


    My guesses are 1982, 1993, 2005 and 2009.
    Quote Originally Posted by ScreechTDX1847 View Post
    Put it this way. No one will be qualifying the title that was won five years from now by saying the field was weak, etc.
    I was thinking the same thing driving home today. In a few years, no one will *remember* the down year, Duke's easiest path to the FF, Zoub's controversial charge call, etc. But they will *know* Duke's 11 FF's, and hopefully 4 NC's...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    I'm OK hearing that it's a "down year" as long at it involves UNC losing and losing and losing...

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkD83 View Post
    Name the top five "down" years in tournament history and the champions those years.

    My guesses are 1982, 1993, 2005 and 2009.
    Concur. I'd also add 1924.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Southern Pines, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by McGrupp View Post
    Concur. I'd also add 1924.
    Ditto. I'd also add that the '24 title should be cause for calling them the Meatpackers, since they won the Helms title. Something else, I heard on this mornings news on ABC 11 that if UNC Meatpackers win the NIT a new record will be established. This will be the first time for back-to-back NCAA National title and NIT title. Can't wait to see that banner.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkD83 View Post
    Name the top five "down" years in tournament history and the champions those years.


    My guesses are 1982, 1993, 2005 and 2009.
    I wouldn't have put any of those years on my list of down years. There were some really good top-tier teams those years. Of the top of my head, 2006 and 2003 were more down than those years. And I'm sure there are plenty of years in the pre-64 team era which had down talent.

    The reason this year is considered a down year is because there are few top-tier teams and also because after the 6-8 pretty good/really good teams, the field was fairly weak. Remember all the discussion about how bad the bubble was? Well, that goes into it. From the 7 seeds on down, the field was awful. And the 3-6 seeds were, for the most part, not that great either.

    I don't think Kansas this year beats UNC last year (or even comes all that close). I don't think UK this year beats UNC last year, because I don't think they had the discipline to do it.

    But regardless, WHO CARES? If we win it, we win it. They won't put an asterisk on it. It's a championship for whomever wins it.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Quote Originally Posted by McGrupp View Post
    Concur. I'd also add 1924.
    Hey, don't belittle Butler's National Title... they won a post-season tournament fair and square...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythica..._championships

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhead View Post
    Ditto. I'd also add that the '24 title should be cause for calling them the Meatpackers, since they won the Helms title. Something else, I heard on this mornings news on ABC 11 that if UNC Meatpackers win the NIT a new record will be established. This will be the first time for back-to-back NCAA National title and NIT title. Can't wait to see that banner.
    However one team, City College (in New York), did it in the same year (1950)!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Shaker Heights, OH
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    I wouldn't have put any of those years on my list of down years. There were some really good top-tier teams those years.
    I think the intent of listing those particular years MAY have been to indicate the tournaments that the blokes at Chappa-Heeya won.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by gep View Post
    I was thinking the same thing driving home today. In a few years, no one will *remember* the down year, Duke's easiest path to the FF, Zoub's controversial charge call, etc. But they will *know* Duke's 11 FF's, and hopefully 4 NC's...
    Exactly. Nobody remembers that KU had to go through a 12 seed and a 10 seed to get to the 08 Final Four.

    Nobody remembers that UNC did not have to beat another #1 seed on their way to the title last year. Wasn't there a controversial call in UNC's 05 Sweet 16 or Elite 8?

    Nobody remembers that Michigan State won the 2000 title with two 8 seeds and a 5 seed in the Final Four.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Shaker Heights, OH
    Agree with all of the above, but isn't it nice that everyone DOES seem to remember that Deano can attribute his championships (in large part) to bonehead plays by the opposition? Fred Brown and Chris Webber live in infamy. . . .

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by moonpie23 View Post
    what does that mean?

    because there are no dominant teams? No one said it was a "down year" when Kansas and UNC were pre-season favs....did it become a "down year" cause texas fluttered out?

    or could it be that the level of competition is UP this year...harder for anyone to stand out..??

    this is a plot by the holes to minimize duke's season (and WV, Butler, and MSU.)
    I have to agree with moonpie. It becomes very hard to say it is a down year or an up year when the level of competition level is similar.

    In the NFL the announcer's say there is great parity. Is this parity because the level of competition so good or so bad.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2009

    Wink

    I would think that having only 2 teams from the ACC in the top 25 would characterize the ACC as being down. Also, many of the top tier schools are down, UNC, UCLA, UCONN, Arizona, etc...

    Parity may be part of the issue, but you must admit that only Kansas and Kentucky were dominate for the majority of the year. Had Texas been more of a force in the Big 12, then perhaps Kansas would have had a greater push for the regular season championship. Kentucky plays in the weak SEC, which only had 2 other teams in the tournament? Pac 10 had 2 teams while the Big 10 had a few. I guess it would be fair to say that the big power conferences were down as a whole and those conferences are usually the ones that win national championships.

    but, even though it may be a down year, teams have to play the games. regardless of whether or not Duke got preferential treatment this year, they are winning the games and have a great chance to win it all. I doubt anyone thought this was possible with this team. This is basically the same group as last year, minus GH and plus AD and MP. I would think that the subtraction of GH actually helped this team this year. Z's play this year as well as the big 3's consistency may be enough this year. If you say that you saw this coming in the preseason, I would say who are you trying to fool? Anyway, as a true UNC fan, I will pull against Duke this weekend.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Fayetteville, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by kong123 View Post
    I would think that having only 2 teams from the ACC in the top 25 would characterize the ACC as being down. Also, many of the top tier schools are down, UNC, UCLA, UCONN, Arizona, etc...

    Parity may be part of the issue, but you must admit that only Kansas and Kentucky were dominate for the majority of the year. Had Texas been more of a force in the Big 12, then perhaps Kansas would have had a greater push for the regular season championship. Kentucky plays in the weak SEC, which only had 2 other teams in the tournament? Pac 10 had 2 teams while the Big 10 had a few. I guess it would be fair to say that the big power conferences were down as a whole and those conferences are usually the ones that win national championships.

    but, even though it may be a down year, teams have to play the games. regardless of whether or not Duke got preferential treatment this year, they are winning the games and have a great chance to win it all. I doubt anyone thought this was possible with this team. This is basically the same group as last year, minus GH and plus AD and MP. I would think that the subtraction of GH actually helped this team this year. Z's play this year as well as the big 3's consistency may be enough this year. If you say that you saw this coming in the preseason, I would say who are you trying to fool? Anyway, as a true UNC fan, I will pull against Duke this weekend.
    I'm glad a heel fan is here. Maybe he would be so kind and answer this one question for me. I've read on IC a number of people try and belittle our team's accomplishments this year with the phrase, "It's a down year in the ACC." Considering the fact that your team was ranked dead last in the ACC, after the ACC Tournament, what does that say about your beloved heels?

Similar Threads

  1. "We stink!! I want a refund!" and the coach says, "ok"
    By JasonEvans in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-01-2010, 06:17 PM
  2. Icing the Shooter: "Good" play or "Bad"
    By greybeard in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-07-2008, 03:53 PM
  3. Pagliuca "Walk-On of the Year"
    By westwall in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-06-2007, 04:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •