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"
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.)
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"
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
a title is a title.
anyone who says otherwise is jealous because they're out of it.
Name the top five "down" years in tournament history and the champions those years.
My guesses are 1982, 1993, 2005 and 2009.
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...
I'm OK hearing that it's a "down year" as long at it involves UNC losing and losing and losing...
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.
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.
Hey, don't belittle Butler's National Title... they won a post-season tournament fair and square...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythica..._championships
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.
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. . . .
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?