Originally Posted by
gumbomoop
But the real reason I shifted away from the other thread [which we had taken off-track anyhow] is to think more about your other point: that because "Duke was such a matchup team that any number of outcomes could have resulted."
Here's my disagreement. It goes back, sort of, to my post #598 in this thread, re "just how good Duke actually was." It was only toward the end of last season that I began to wonder about whether Duke's NCAAT chances were matchup-dependent. It does seem to make sense, and I guess even more where UK is concerned.
But I resist the full implications of this, as you explained it on that other thread: foul trouble, different styles of play, etc. I can't deny that it's possible that UK might have gotten things going so well, with Duke's bigs in foul trouble, with Wall at super-speed, etc.
But not at all probable. Because.... well, I can't seem to explain it, other than to say Duke was much more likely - by late season, certainly not at the Georgetown-moment - to force opponents to play at Duke's pace. That means a half-court game, ball-possession efficiency, defensively intense, rebounding a/the key. By these 4 criteria, Duke was "better" than UK in 3 of the 4. I grant, perhaps too easily, a slight edge to UK in rebounding.