This season gets even crazier

[4decadedukie]

I truly dislike Steve Lavin; however, Saint John's achievements this seasons -- especially against top-tier clubs, including our beloved Devils -- have been remarkable. In fact, it appeared that the Red Storm was headed for Big East nirvana, their Tournament's "double bye." Until yesterday, that is, when Seton Hall (having a mediocre season at best and in a five-for-six loss slump) decisively knocked off Lavin's club 84 to 70. It truly has been the least predictable year I can remember, which certainly suggests that the impending conference and NCAA tournaments should be amazing.

[Chard]

All the more reason for us fans to just relax and enjoy the ride. There are several teams that could win it all this year with a handful of good teams that are favorites; that includes Duke.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a team like Kansas State, Xavier or UCLA show up in the EE or even the final four. It all depends on seeding and match ups.

Captain Obvious, out.

[cspan37421]

I get tired of hearing that there are no great teams in college basketball this year. First, I'm not sure what meaning it has. How do you know when a team is great? Just their record? What if they built up their resume in a weak conference, or if their OOC schedule turned out to be weaker than they expected? By championships? That's only known in retrospect.

I noticed that over the last 25 years, the NCAA champ had, on average, 5 losses. I believe the most we can have now is 6. Perhaps what is often meant by great teams are those whose losses come early but they finish the season strong. What we see now is the opposite - we have top teams stumbling late, generally on the road, within conference. Does this make them not great? Do you really have to have a few undefeated & one-loss teams to have "great" college basketball teams?

It doesn't really matter ... I just hope we have about 10 great games left in us.

[dukelifer]

I get tired of hearing that there are no great teams in college basketball this year. First, I'm not sure what meaning it has. How do you know when a team is great? Just their record? What if they built up their resume in a weak conference, or if their OOC schedule turned out to be weaker than they expected? By championships? That's only known in retrospect.

I noticed that over the last 25 years, the NCAA champ had, on average, 5 losses. I believe the most we can have now is 6. Perhaps what is often meant by great teams are those whose losses come early but they finish the season strong. What we see now is the opposite - we have top teams stumbling late, generally on the road, within conference. Does this make them not great? Do you really have to have a few undefeated & one-loss teams to have "great" college basketball teams?

It doesn't really matter ... I just hope we have about 10 great games left in us.

I think folks look at teams and wonder how they might match up against Duke 1991 or UNC 2009 or some such to determine greatness. The fact that there are few NBA caliber stars in the NCAA right now is a big, big factor. Last year the KY freshman were the talk of the NCAA. This year's KY players are just average. Of course all this changes in a week when teams and players start getting hyped. If Harrison Barnes has several game winners in a row now- folks will anoint him the greatest Freshman since Carmello. If by some miracle Kyrie is back- the hype machine will be in full force. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[Chard]

I think folks look at teams and wonder how they might match up against Duke 1991 or UNC 2009 or some such to determine greatness.

I thought the same thing. I guess it is partially semantics we're playing with here.

I think there is 5-6 "great" teams if you look at the teams this year against the rest of the field. However, from what I've seen watching all of the current top 6 teams, I'm not ready yet to anoint anyone of them as being truly great.

Unfortunately, at the beginning of the year, Duke was easily a great team. I think most of us know that was apparent. Right now I think they are a very good team that can win 6 straight against the tournament field especially if they get another #1 seed. I think they have a better chance than anybody else this year but that is before seeing the seeding, before seeing how Duke performs in the ACCT and before seeing who is in Duke's bracket.

Record can be a good indication of how good a team has been over the season but the competition does effect the perception. For example: BYU and San Diego State. I do think they deserve high seeds for the success against their schedule but I'm not buying.

I also agree that a good team dropping games on the road is to be expected and too much weight can be placed on the number of losses vs. the quality of the loss, if you will.

So, to clarify my earlier post; when I mention there are a handful of good teams that could win it all, I'm talking about the cream of the crop!

[PADukeMom]

As much as it pains me to say this UNC is playing really good right now too. Did I just say that?

[cspan37421]

As much as it pains me to say this UNC is playing really good right now too. Did I just say that?

Hopefully in a few days we will look back and say that UNC was playing really well until they had to play Duke again.

Seems to me that if no team in college basketball is great, we either have a great deal of parity or we have a problem with our definition of greatness.

[PADukeMom]

Hopefully in a few days we will look back and say that UNC was playing really well until they had to play Duke again.

Seems to me that if no team in college basketball is great, we either have a great deal of parity or we have a problem with our definition of greatness.

I agree with you about this season. As much as I loathe UNC even I have to admit they are playing good ball right now & HWNSNBM, after a rough start, is playing pretty good. It pains me to think about the season that could have been but I will still take the team I have on the court right now.

Parity stinks like rotten eggs.

[AZLA]

Other than his slicked back hair, I really never understood why Lavin has been so disliked and didn't get more credit than he did. He became INTERIM head coach at UCLA under difficult circumstances and quite young. All the while, he never had the confidence of UCLA fans and boosters, in fact, he always had a few knives in his back the entire time he was there -- which had to affect recruiting credibility. Especially with Arizona dominating the Pac 10 at that time. Yet, he'd always surprise and get his teams into the tournament and win a few. Then come back the next year with the threat of being fired and doing so in the big shadow cast by the UCLA Dynasty. I don't think anyone ever treated him any but as interim.

I never heard him whine or make excuses or compare a bad season to a global humanitarian tragedy while getting a back massage -- unlike a certain big-name coach just down the road.

I'm not a proponent of Lavin, I just appreciate that he has consistently accepted untenable situations and moved forward without looking back.

His coaching in the defeat against Duke this year was a job well-done.

I think I remember years back him talking about taking cues from Coach K when it comes to integrity etc...

So, am I missing something -- why so much dislike?