A pox upon your Feldspar!! Your post closes this debate. It is impossible for either side to win.
And anyone who compares this year's OSU to Duke 99 is crazy. I thought early in the season that OSU might take that kind of path, but they have been erratic and have had trouble scoring at times. As a result, they are a favorite, but not nearly the odd-on kinda fave that 1999 Duke or 1991 UNLV were.
-Jason "I really though the team that played UNC in November, once it got a full-strength Oden, would be close to unbeatable" Evans
Agreed. We'll revisit this debate when someone invents the time machine.
One correction on my previous posts. I mentioned that Duke was 4-for-4 as far as close games against Elite 8 competition. I forgot that Kentucky actually made the Elite 8 that season, and Duke beat them by 11. I also didn't count Duke's own Elite 8 opponent, 6 seed Temple, which we beat by 21. So, make that 4 close games in 6 chances against the Elite 8, and 3 close games in 3 chances against the Final Four. I want to build up Duke 92 some more so let me just say that 92 far outclassed their Final Four opponents. We played a sluggish first half against IU, then we put together a 31-6 burst to demoralize them. We held them to 3 points total in the first 10 minutes of the second half, and IU only made the final margin close due to Leary hitting a bunch of frantic, lucky 3-pointers in the final minute. Duke did the same thing in the championship. Played a sluggish first half, then destroyed the opponent with defense and penetration. It's those bursts of dominance against Final Four teams from that year that really separate 92 onto another level. And while we did need Laettner's shot to beat UK in the Elite 8, I consider that to be Duke surviving its version of Villanova(1985) or NCSU(1983).
I agree with Feldspar that we will never be able to settle this debate, as it despite statistics/results, the passage of time makes it subjective. It wasn't the same environment in '92 or '85 or '86 as it was in '99. Troublemaker, I understand what you are saying, but I happen to disagree (wouldn't it be boring if everyone on a message board always agreed?) Thank you for your civil explanation of your thoughts.