Yes, Villanova was the best team. Why? Because when the championship was determined, when the chips were down, they won the game. That has to be the answer. Otherwise, why bother with a tournament? Just do what college football does. Forget about deciding championships on the field and all that nonsense. Let's just have everyone guess who the best team is and give the trophy to them. Everyone gets the same deal: you win, you advance, you lose, you go home. Villanova had several losses that year but by the time the tournament rolled around, nobody was able to beat them. So yes, they were the best.
Just like NC State in 1983 and every other winner that wasn't a no.1 seed. Don't talk to me about what somebody did two months ago. You can argue that the team that won the tournament didn't accomplish as much as somebody else did during the regular season or whatever but when a team goes 6-0 in a single-elimination championship tournament, in which everyone entered is on equal footing and knows every time they step on that floor may be their last, they're the best and to suggest that they aren't is bogus and cheap.
This isn't a matter of not understanding you. It's a matter of simply disagreeing. Vehemently.
the tournament format wasn't chosen because it determines the best team. It was chosen because it's the easiest/clearest/most entertaining way to try to determine a champion given that we can't have a round-robin with everyone. Just because it has become the format of choice doesn't mean that it's a fool-proof way of determining who the best team was.
So saying "that has to be the answer because it's what we chose to do" is questionable logic. Villanova was the NCAA champion in 1985. They won the tournament. That makes them the champion (which was the point of the tournament). It does not make them the best team. Those are two different things.
But my biggest issue with saying things like "don't talk to me about what somebody did two months ago" is the implication that only the tournament matters. The 2006 Duke team can go 30-3 going into the NCAAT and if they happen to lose a third-round tournament game then the team was "fatally flawed," as so many people have said on these boards. The 2010 Kentucky team can go 32-2 before losing in the Elite Eight, and people present that as definitive evidence that the coach is substandard and they can never win using their current recruiting strategy. It's ridiculous.
In fact, that is one of the reasons why my two favorite sports are college basketball and the NFL -- the best team does not always win the championship. Far too often, the World Series and NBA Finals have no drama, despite the underdog winning a game or two, even in exciting fashion. In the best of 7 format, it is much harder for the lesser team to come out on top.
With all of the variables in sports (players having exceptional/off nights, luck, vagaries of the whistle), you can't really determine the "best team" in a one and done format.
I think 2010 Duke was a really good team and deserving of the championship, but I still believe that there were ten other years that Duke was better.
ACC Season Champs
17-0 at Home
ACC Tourney Champs
South Regional Champs
Most satisfying Duke season since 1991.
Why is still hard for people to accept that this Duke team was no worse than one of the top three teams in the country? Duke's championship was not a fluke of the tournament, it was a sign of the success the team enjoyed all year.
So the best team, in your estimation, is frequently the one that couldn't perform when it was most important. That makes no sense. Performance is all that matters when you discuss who is best. Coming up with reasons for why team X is really the "best team" when team Y is the one that performed when it mattered is just what fans do when things don't work out the way they want.
There's a reason there is no NCAA banner hanging anywhere that says "Best Team 2010".
FYI, the game is on CBSC right now until 8
Cream and Crimson on the outside.
Duke blue on the inside.
The 2006 Duke team was fatally flawed. It was overwhelmingly dependent upon the scoring of one player. Said player had a bad shooting night and that was the end of the story. Contrast that with the 2010 team, on which Kyle Singler goes something like 1-for-10 in a FF game and the team still wins.
The 2006 accomplished a lot but it did have a fatal flaw. That doesn't mean everything it accomplished out the window, though. I've made no statements about Kentucky, other than that experience still counts and they didn't have any of it.
You seem to want to equate my statement about the champion being the best with saying something like "and everybody else is crap". There is no reason that one has to mean the other.
How does declaring the winner of the tournament the best mean that you're not analyzing the regular season?
OK then, what does make someone the best team then? Your position assumes there is some metric, other than performance when it counts most, that makes sense. I contend that is a fallacy. The only thing that matters is the result. The point of a team isn't to impress. It's to win.
And with that, I'm leaving this topic. Posting too often about one thing can get you into trouble around here.
Maybe the worst thing to happen to Duke was Dockery hitting the half court shot that year. It's always good to have a game that rattles you and brings you back down to earth. That team really didn't have that (not that I recall at least). And as you mentioned, they were a lot of times just simply watching J.J. or more focused on getting J.J. open instead of playing as a team
Cream and Crimson on the outside.
Duke blue on the inside.
For example, in 1985 there were a lot of teams that won a lot more games than Villanova. Villanova happened to get hot for a couple weeks at the end (and also very lucky; they won their first three games in that tournament by a total of 9 points, even before they shot 79% in the championship game and only won by 2 points).
I'll take it further. In 1985, Villanova was 19-10 going into the NCAAT, finished 4th in their conference (9-7 record), lost in the semifinals of their league tournament, and lost twice (out of two) to Georgetown.
Georgetown was 30-2 going into the NCAAT, finished 2nd in their conference (14-2), won their league tournament, and swept Villanova.
Villanova was certainly the national champion. There is no rational argument that would say they were the best team.