Better Seasons than Final Four Seasons?
I racked up all the seasons since 1984 and counted NCAA wins, ACC record, and ACC champions.
It was a bit of work but insightful.
The question is, do any of the non-Final Four seasons measure up to any of the 12 Final Four seasons? Here are the best tests of that.
The 1989 Final Four team (big win over Georgetown in the regional finals) was 9-5 in the ACC (0.643) and lost to UNC in the ACC finals.
There are two obvious challengers. The 2000 team was 15-1 in the ACC and won the championship. The team won its first two matches but lost in the regional semis to Florida -- this team had a short bench and Mike Dunleavy was suffering from mono.
Then there is the 14-2 2006 team that won the ACC championship. JJ's final team lost to LSU in the regional semis.
A third might be the 1998 team, 15-1 in the ACC, that almost made the Final Four, giving up a big lead over Kentucky in the regional finals. This team lost to UNC (Jamison and Carter) in the ACC finals.
I would rate the 2000 and 2006 team as better (more rewarding to this fan) than the 1989 team -- but look at the trade-off: ACC champions and a much, much higher conference winning percentage.
With respect to the other years -- most teams with good NCAA results had good conference records, so winning goes along with winning.
Sage Grouse
---------------------------------------
'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013