PDA

View Full Version : Has DeCourcey lost his mind?



dkbaseball
04-04-2007, 09:30 AM
Or was he old enought to follow hoops in the early '90s?

First of all, he should get some facts straight. Brian Davis got most of the minutes at the forward spot opposite Grant, though Koubek may have been the nominal starter in '91. Lang seldom got off the bench during the national championship seasons. DeCourcey also seems to suggest that McCaffrey and Parks were part of the same bench. They never played together. And Grant is generally thought of as having played the four for Duke.

With those corrections, on to the most egregious of DeCourcey's calls. Whether you match Grant against Brewer or Horford, it is simply no contest. Why does this guy not get the respect he deserves. He's the best player ever to play for Duke. If you put the question to K I don't think he'd hesitate a moment in responding. Great as Laettner and Hurley were, they lost to UNLV by 30. Add Grant to the mix and you get a far more athletic and versatile team that beats the same UNLV bunch. Then Grant nearly carries the '94 team on his back to a NC. Before he was hurt, he was one of the top half dozen players in the NBA. Come on hoops conventional wisdom -- Grant Hill was one of the all-time greats.

Also, I don't think Humphries launches nearly as many of those threes with THill all over him.

HK Dukie
04-04-2007, 09:37 AM
I completely agree. Grant Hill was absolutely amazing. What he did in '94 was absolutely mind-blowing. He almost singlehandedly won the NC.

I will give Brewer a lot of credit though. I think he will be the best NBA player out of the Florida bunch. However, I do not believe he was even close to Grant, even during Gran't soph season (nor should they be compared because they play different positions).

I would submit that we had three players better than ANYONE on this Florida team. That should end the discussion right there.

kexman
04-04-2007, 09:41 AM
I agree that grant is one of the all time greats, but to be fair the comparison should be of grant hill as a freshman and soph. He did not have much of an outside game until his junior and senior years.

The part that I liked about florida is that there was not much fall off in talent 1-6. They were a great "team".

To belittle all of current college basketball...we saw this year the true lack of talent in college basketball due to early entry by the way the freshman came in and dominated college basketball. I'm guessing that championship teams of today would barely crack the top 10 in the era before early entry. Same with the all american teams. The talent level of the players and teams is considerably lower. Duke 91-92 versus florida is really no contest...but it sells papers or add clicks

dukeENG2003
04-04-2007, 10:03 AM
yeah, I like how he talks about how amazing it was that Brewer shut down Aflalo (sp?) but doesn't mention G-Hill's defense. G-Hill, if you remember, shut down "Big Dog" Glenn Robinson in 1994, a far more potent offensive force. The only reason you can possibly give Brewer the edge is that Brewer played his sophomore and junior years during the back to back NC, while G-hill was frosh and sophomore in Dukes NC years. Compare the overall quality of player he was though, G-Hill was a far better player than Brewer in his NCAA career.

Tom B.
04-04-2007, 10:25 AM
Lang seldom got off the bench during the national championship seasons.



I don't disagree with most of your points, but this one is simply not true, especially when you look at the 1991-92 season.

As a freshman, Lang averaged 11.8 minutes per game and started eight games, which is a good bit more PT than "seldom getting off the bench." True, his playing time went down in the 1991 postseason, but he still played in every game and averaged 5.25 minutes per game.

As a sophomore, his playing time went up significantly, especially late in the year and in the postseason. After Bobby Hurley broke his foot in the game at Chapel Hill in early February, Grant Hill took over the point guard spot and Lang moved into the starting lineup. Later in February, Grant sprained his ankle in practice and missed a few games (he actually sprained it just a day or two before the game that Hurley was due to return), so Lang stayed in the starting lineup. Grant came back from the injury in time for the last regular season game (the home game against UNC), but Lang stayed in the starting lineup -- not just for that game, but for the entire postseason.

Over the whole season, Lang averaged 22.4 minutes per game. Starting with the game following Hurley's injury, however, and continuing through the entire postseason, Lang started every game and averaged over 26 minutes per game. Looking at the 1992 postseason alone, Lang averaged 23.9 minutes per game.

Grant actually averaged more minutes per game (28.9) than Lang during the 1992 postseason, despite coming off the bench (except for the national title game against Michigan, in which Grant started because Brian Davis had sprained his ankle in the semifinal). However, it's highly inaccurate to say that Lang "seldom got off the bench" during that season.

Patrick Yates
04-04-2007, 11:59 AM
I agree with many of the points made regarding the FL and Duke comparisons.

Guess who wrote a (very good) article that reflects all of our points, and states that the Duke teams were superior?


Gregg Doyel


Ain't that a B***h.

Patrick Yates

dkbaseball
04-04-2007, 12:02 PM
I stand corrected (and surprised at how my memory betrayed me). Props to Tony Lang for his contribution. But DeCourcey should be assessing a very physically and emotionally mature Brian Davis as a starting forward for those teams rather than "Lang/Koubek," because Brian is who would have been in there in crunch time when he was healthy.

Tom B.
04-04-2007, 01:09 PM
I stand corrected (and surprised at how my memory betrayed me). Props to Tony Lang for his contribution. But DeCourcey should be assessing a very physically and emotionally mature Brian Davis as a starting forward for those teams rather than "Lang/Koubek," because Brian is who would have been in there in crunch time when he was healthy.

I agree with that. In fact, from a perspective of minutes played, the five primary players for Duke in the 1990-91 and 1991-92 seasons were basically the same -- Bobby Hurley, Thomas Hill, Brian Davis, Grant Hill and Christian Laettner. Greg Koubek technically was a starter for the 1990-91 team, but Davis played more minutes -- and Tony Lang was technically a starter for the 1991-92 team, but Grant Hill played more minutes.

That's why I'm not particularly bowled over by the whole "Florida is the first team to repeat with the same starting five" thing. Not that Florida hasn't accomplished something great by repeating as champions -- they have, and they deserve to be listed among the great teams in college basketball history for it. I just think there are plenty of other ways to recognize their achievements and give them the praise they deserve, so it's not necessary to invent a distinction for them that, while technically true, doesn't really set them very far apart from other teams that have accomplished the same feat.

hurleyfor3
04-04-2007, 05:25 PM
That's why I'm not particularly bowled over by the whole "Florida is the first team to repeat with the same starting five" thing.

The only guy who has made a big deal about it has been Billy Packer, so consider the source.

Wander
04-04-2007, 05:44 PM
I would submit that we had three players better than ANYONE on this Florida team. That should end the discussion right there.

And Ohio State had two. So what?

It's amazing to me how many people still don't "get" this Florida team. They're great - yes, great - because of the way they play perfectly as a team, not because they have any really jaw-dropping individuals.

I personally think that Duke 91/92 would beat this Florida team, but no one knows this for sure, and it is extremely debatable.

vick
04-04-2007, 09:49 PM
And Ohio State had two. So what?

It's amazing to me how many people still don't "get" this Florida team. They're great - yes, great - because of the way they play perfectly as a team, not because they have any really jaw-dropping individuals.

I personally think that Duke 91/92 would beat this Florida team, but no one knows this for sure, and it is extremely debatable.

While I agree that this Florida team had impressive chemistry, and a game against Duke '92 would be at least competitive, DeCourcy's article used the methodology of matching up each position (plus the bench) to see which was better. In that case, having three players better than any of the other teams' players does effectively "end the discussion."

mapei
04-04-2007, 10:20 PM
I thought the article was written in good fun and was pretty fair to Duke. Sure, we can argue a couple of points (Grant and Brewer were/are both terrific players) but he's probably right in saying the teams would be fairly evenly matched. And we'll never know. No need to be hyper-sensitive about it.

What I liked best was that there wasn't even a whiff of Duke-hating in the article. That's getting pretty rare.

Wander
04-04-2007, 10:57 PM
While I agree that this Florida team had impressive chemistry, and a game against Duke '92 would be at least competitive, DeCourcy's article used the methodology of matching up each position (plus the bench) to see which was better. In that case, having three players better than any of the other teams' players does effectively "end the discussion."

The point remains that everyone here who suggests that they know for sure that Florida '07 wouldn't have stood a chance against Duke '92 and would have been blown out of the water is just being a completely biased Duke fan. I agree with mapai that the article was "just for fun" and there's no need to get worked up about it.

dukemsu
04-04-2007, 11:13 PM
I find DeCourcy to be one of the fairest-minded columnists out there. I remember an article he wrote back in either 03 or 04 about how "old" he thought Duke bashing was getting. Ahead of his time. He actually thought that people should start asking why Maryland never got taken to task for Dukeitis, that dreaded Terrapin disease whose symptoms are Maryland playing horrible basketball in the games immediately following Duke-their annoying habit of making the latest Duke game the end-all, be-all of human existence. Gary's guys did a little better with this in 07, though.

Like I said, ahead of his time. He doesn't necessarily line up to toss bouquets at Duke's collective feet, but he is most assuredly not a chronic Duke basher. That's Forde, Doyel, etc......

dukemsu

BDevilU
04-04-2007, 11:14 PM
The position-by-position analysis is a simpleton's ploy for the casual fan. Anyone who actually watched Duke in the early 90's would know that the lineup was routinely called "four guards and a forward"... meaning Hurley, GHill, THill, and Davis as the guards with Laettner as the forward. They forced other teams to play their style, to try to matchup with them instead of vice versa. They had the ability to defend multiple styles, thanks to the versatility of the Hills, Davis, and Lang. Hurley's on-the-ball defense was as good as I've ever seen, and Laettner was underrated as a defender despite ending his career as the NCAA Tournament career steals leader.
The '92 team could also play virtually any offensive tempo and style as well, thanks to that aforementioned versatility and the mastery of Hurley. They could run the break or carve you up in the halfcourt with equal ease.

One stat that I keep hearing to tout Florida's greatness is that they had five players who averaged double-figures in scoring. Duke '92 can also claim that statistic. Everyone on the floor was dangerous for Duke despite what current gurus claim.
Brian Davis rarely gets enough credit and is almost completely discounted, although he started all but the title game in that '92 season (due to that high ankle sprain suffered vs. IU in the Semifinal). Davis had a high game that season of 30 points in a tough 1 point win at Clemson (shortly after a gritty 19pt 11reb performance at highly-touted UCLA). Not bad for a 5th option. Any one of the starting five (Hurley, GHill, THill, Davis, Laettner) could go for 25 pts if the matchup or gameplan determined it.

As far as Humphrey's shooting prowess, I submit that Laettner averaged 55.7% from 3pt range during his senior season (compared to Humphrey's 45.9%). I'll take Laettner any day. If some consider this to be an apples to oranges argument, I'd say they are still stuck thinking in terms of positions. It all depends on the system and who is taking the shot. For Duke, it happened to be Laettner.

Despite DeCourcey's comments about Thomas Hill's inability to shoot, THill averaged just over 40% from 3pt range in both of Duke's championship seasons. True, he did only attempt 3 threes in the two title games, but he hit 2 of those 3 attempts. In addition to his 9.5 point average in the championships (compared to Humphrey's 14.5 ppg), Hill brought in 5.5 boards and a couple of steals (to LH's 1 and 0, respectively). Depends on what you need, I guess, but Hill was a better day-in, day-out, all-around player, and contributed far more to his team's success. THill also just happened to average 4 more ppg than Humphrey over the course of their respective second title seasons. But hey, let's judge a player's greatness based on one game (right, Toby Bailey?)

Duke was also a much better Free Throw shooting team. This is a crucial and often overlooked deciding factor in tournament games. The entire '92 Duke starting five (ranging from 73-81%) was better than anyone else from Florida with the exception of Green (84%). This doesn't include McCaffrey for Duke (who was comparable to Green) Lang was the only significant contributor for Duke to average under 70% while only two Gators averaged over that.

--------------
Also:

Championship Game averages:

Grant Hill *
14pts 9reb 4ast 2bk 3stl

Corey Brewer (37.5 minutes)
12pts 7.5reb 2.5ast 1bk 3stl

*unable to locate minutes

Even a slight edge to Hill just on stats. I fail to see where DeCourcey can give an edge to Brewer anywhere except in the heat of the moment and nearsightedness (so to speak). Hill also completely demoralized opponents with his acrobatics above the rim (see amazing dunk vs. Kansas that set the tone early, and the baseline reverse vs. Michigan that popped their balloon)

Don't get me wrong, Florida deserves incredible praise for doing what few have been able to do... but it does them a disservice to compare them to one of the greatest teams of all-time. They beat who they had to beat to repeat, but they would not have beaten Duke '92.

Troublemaker
04-04-2007, 11:20 PM
Doing it Decourcy's way (player vs player), the matchups really should go:

Laettner > Horford
GHill > Noah
BD < Brewer
THill > Humphrey
Hurley >> Green
Lang/Parks = Richard/Hodge

So Duke takes 4 out of 5 matchups, winning one (Hurley vs Green) by a wide margin.

The one Decourcy really missed the boat on was the THill/Humphrey matchup since he gave Humphrey the edge. That's stupid. THill was so underrated back in the day (and obviously still is). He was 6'5" to Humphrey's 6'2". He could shoot the three well (though obviously not like Humphrey) but he could so much more: slash, post up, and play very good defense. It's idiotic to give Humphrey the edge.

dukemsu
04-04-2007, 11:26 PM
Doing it Decourcy's way (player vs player), the matchups really should go:


The one Decourcy really missed the boat on was the THill/Humphrey matchup since he gave Humphrey the edge. That's stupid. THill was so underrated back in the day (and obviously still is). He was 6'5" to Humphrey's 6'2". He could shoot the three well (though obviously not like Humphrey) but he could so much more: slash, post up, and play very good defense. It's idiotic to give Humphrey the edge.

Two points here. I'd give Laettner a wide edge over Horford. Horford's an outstanding player, but Laettner is one of the 10 best collegians ever.

T Hill was also an opportunistic rebounder-I recall especially in the 92 final against Michigan he had some big offensive boards that helped blow that game open. Just a very versatile player. Humphrey, sound as he is fundamentally and as lights out a shooter as he is, is nowhere near the total player T. Hill was.

Wander
04-04-2007, 11:32 PM
They beat who they had to beat to repeat, but they would not have beaten Duke '92.

You have absolutely no way of knowing this. Need I remind everyone that Duke '92 needed a miracle shot just to make the Final Four? We're two seconds, a full court pass, and the most famous shot of all-time away from not even having this discussion.

Quoting arbitrary statistics from individual Duke players misses the point. The way Florida worked as a team was unbelievable.

Again - I personally think Duke '92 was better, but I'm sick of biased Duke fans pretending like they know for sure that Duke '92 would blow Florida out 9 times out of 10.

Troublemaker
04-04-2007, 11:33 PM
The point remains that everyone here who suggests that they know for sure that Florida '07 wouldn't have stood a chance against Duke '92 and would have been blown out of the water is just being a completely biased Duke fan. I agree with mapai that the article was "just for fun" and there's no need to get worked up about it.

Nobody knows for sure, but yeah, Duke 92 blows Fla 07 out of the water.

My take is we'd have a very different view of Fla's dominance if UNC and Kansas hadn't choked in the Elite 8. Fla ducked two very tough matchups for them there, and while they might've won the championship anyway, I doubt they'd be remembered for dominating a second consecutive Final Four. For that matter, UConn would've played a much more competitive game than George Mason last season. I know you can't change results, and it is what it is (and I obviously prefer that UNC choked). Just saying.

Wander
04-04-2007, 11:42 PM
My take is we'd have a very different view of Fla's dominance if UNC and Kansas hadn't choked in the Elite 8.

And we'd have a very different view of Duke's dominance if Laettner doesn't hit a miracle shot off a perfect full-court pass in the Elite 8.

Troublemaker
04-05-2007, 12:03 AM
And we'd have a very different view of Duke's dominance if Laettner doesn't hit a miracle shot off a perfect full-court pass in the Elite 8.

For sure. But the Elite 8 game against UK really is the ONLY argument against Duke 92 being an all-timer. And if anything, it can be turned around to BOOST Duke 92's credentials. I mean, Georgetown 85 was a GREAT team. But they couldn't survive Villanova's hot day. UK should have been Duke's Villanova or Duke's NCSU, but the fact that Duke showed the resiliency to make the clutch shots down the stretch to win against an opponent playing out of its mind made that team all the more memorable. They passed every test. Every test. (Also, keep in mind that many observers regard Duke-UK to be the best and most well-played game in college basketball history... certainly winning that game can't be regarded as any more a negative than Florida struggling to put Butler and Purdue away in this year's tournament).

When you look at Florida, you can pick at them for their **5** losses, including **3 blowouts** (vs Duke 92's two close losses, one when Hurley was playing on a broken foot, and the other when Hurley was out with the broken foot... yes, Duke was probably an injury away from going undefeated). You can pick apart at Florida's individual players and how they don't match up well with Duke 92's. You can pick apart the strength of the teams they played in the tournament during their two-year run and the overall weaker college basketball landscape now vs the early 90's. Duke has ONE argument against. Florida has SEVERAL compelling arguments against.

And I wouldn't say anyone in here is "pretending" to "know for sure." We're just giving opinions. Duke 92 kills Florida 07. Kills them.

BDevilU
04-05-2007, 12:04 AM
Seeding the tourney: Florida loses some ground

(by Mike DeCourcey)
February 28, 2007


If you were concerned the college basketball season had gotten a little too predictable -- ha! -- the Florida Gators have seen fit to make this even more interesting.

The one thing we'd been able to count on for most of this year has been Florida's competence. They weren't sensational very often, and they had to come from behind too frequently, but they won most of the time. Now, that's out.

At this point, the only things we know for sure about the NCAA Tournament are that UCLA will be a No. 1 seed and the Final Four will be in Atlanta.

Florida's consecutive losses to LSU and Tennessee forced the Gators to finish strong to remain a serious contender for a No. 1 seed. They gave hope to Wisconsin, Kansas and Texas A&M, all of which are competing with Florida for that position.

They also forced me to rewrite a Gators story I'd already finished for the magazine, but I'll get over it.

BDevilU
04-05-2007, 12:16 AM
For what it's worth, DeCourcey also picked Ohio State to beat Florida 68-67 in his Title game preview. Sounds like a guy who was really convinced about Florida's greatness. Again, it's nearsightedness and postgame hangover.

Duke was #1 in the polls from start to finish in '92. DeCourcey had Florida as a #2 SEED as little as two weeks before Selection Sunday.

Come on, the comparison is ridiculous.

Sure, anybody could beat anybody in a one game scenario... just as Duke beat UNLV in '91. Sure, Florida could possibly beat Duke '92... but it's just not as likely as the nearsighted and hungover would like to imagine.

Troublemaker
04-05-2007, 12:22 AM
It really is a joke. LOL at Florida against Tennessee. http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaab/recap?gid=200702270580

"Tennessee had a 17-0 run in the first half and were ahead by 19 points at halftime and as many as 27 in the second half."

Can anyone imagine Duke 92 getting down 27 points to any team?

Troublemaker
04-05-2007, 12:24 AM
Fla against last place LSU playing without Glen Davis http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaab/recap?gid=200702240319

"Tasmin Mitchell scored 11 for LSU, which outshot Florida 51.1 percent to 44.7 percent and outrebounded the Gators 35-22. Martin's jumper in transition ignited a decisive 8-0 LSU run that gave the Tigers their largest lead at 53-35 with about five minutes remaining."

LOL. All-time great team.

Troublemaker
04-05-2007, 12:28 AM
Fla against Vandy. http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaab/recap?gid=200702170615

The Commodores won for the seventh time in nine games by beating the nation's best shooting team at its own game, outshooting the Gators 57.1 percent to 44 percent from the field. They took the lead in the first half and led by as much as 16 points late.

Fla against FSU http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaab/recap?gid=200612030213

"The Seminoles (5-2), who had lost their previous two games by a total of 37 points, led 36-31 at the half and built the lead to 55-41 before Walter Hodge's 3-pointer with 3:02 left got the Gators to 62-59. Hodge's shot capped an 18-7 Florida run."

BDevilU
04-05-2007, 12:42 AM
Duke was 6 points from going undefeated in '92. Both losses were on the road. The first loss, by 2 at UNC (which won the '93 Title with essentially the same squad) saw Bobby Hurley play most of the second half with a broken foot. The second loss, without the injured Hurley, was by 4 at Wake Forest (with Rodney Rogers).

Florida, comparatively, was a mere 39 points from a perfect record this season. Errrrrr... well, anyway....

BobbyFan
04-05-2007, 06:07 AM
My take is we'd have a very different view of Fla's dominance if UNC and Kansas hadn't choked in the Elite 8.

And an even more different view had Florida not won in 2006, in which case this year's Florida team would have been regarded as just another championship team.

The 1992 Duke team was vastly superior to the rest of college basketball and they brought it every night. They featured 2 All-Americans and a legitimate third star in an era in which Shaq was still playing college basketball as a junior and Alonzo Mourning as a senior. They didn't lean on their 1991 title to be considered a great team.

Florida's accomplishment of repeating is a remarkable one; however, it doesn't follow that this year's team was a remarkable one.

dukeENG2003
04-05-2007, 07:20 AM
And we'd have a very different view of Duke's dominance if Laettner doesn't hit a miracle shot off a perfect full-court pass in the Elite 8.

True, but you DID watch that game, right? I mean, do you honestly think we needed that shot because we played bad, or b/c Kentucky played incredible basketball as well. It was arguably the greatest college basketball game of all time b/c both teams played incredibly high level basketball for 45 minutes. Defense was excellent, but players still hit tough shots. That KU team was stacked, top to bottom, and full of seniors (4 who got more than 20 mpg), along with super soph Jamal Mashburn. Heck, I think it would be an interesting game to see who would win between 1992 KENTUCKY (especially if they played like they did against us that night) and 2007 Florida. 1992 Duke versus 2007 Florida would be downright boring if you ask me.

calltheobvious
04-05-2007, 08:38 AM
You have absolutely no way of knowing this. Need I remind everyone that Duke '92 needed a miracle shot just to make the Final Four? We're two seconds, a full court pass, and the most famous shot of all-time away from not even having this discussion.

Quoting arbitrary statistics from individual Duke players misses the point. The way Florida worked as a team was unbelievable.

Again - I personally think Duke '92 was better, but I'm sick of biased Duke fans pretending like they know for sure that Duke '92 would blow Florida out 9 times out of 10.

Wander, I think you've built a strawman here. You're right that no one can know for certain that Duke would win. You're also right that the '92 team would be viewed differently minus The Shot. But you undercut your own argument by using this line of reasoning. Laettner's shot didn't change the quality of that Duke team one whit...only its accomplishments. That he made that shot has no bearing on how that team would fare against this year's Florida team (except insofar as it provided us with two more games worth of data on which to base our predictions). The really absurd thing here is the bias that causes us to believe that winning a six-game, single-elimination tournament is actually dispositive of anything other than whether a really good team was able to avoid getting unlucky. UNLV('91) is still the best team I've ever watched, and I don't think it's even close. But that team is not in the discussion. The tournament is fun for bragging rights of teams and their fan, but to limit the discussion to those teams who have successfully negotiated a minefield is reallyl silly to me.

Wander
04-05-2007, 10:53 AM
Florida's accomplishment of repeating is a remarkable one; however, it doesn't follow that this year's team was a remarkable one.

Yes, it does, actually. You don't have enough appreciation for how difficult to repeat these days, and any team that does so is in fact "remarkable."



True, but you DID watch that game, right? I mean, do you honestly think we needed that shot because we played bad, or b/c Kentucky played incredible basketball as well.


Kentucky played very well and you can't give Duke enough credit for pulling out the win because all that matters in the tournament is surviving and advancing. However, there are two sides to every statement like this. Behind every amazing comeback there is a choke job, behind every upset there is a favorite that didn't play to its potential, and behind every team that plays especially well there is an opponent that allowed that team to play that well. Florida never let a team play that well against them in the tournament.




That KU team was stacked, top to bottom, and full of seniors (4 who got more than 20 mpg), along with super soph Jamal Mashburn.


We didn't play KU. KU lost in the second round. UK, however, was a very good team, but every team that makes the Elite 8 is a very good team.

I don't really know why you guys are trying to convince me Duke was better - as I've said multiple times, I believe Duke was better. Really though, the fact that you guys are quoting AP recaps of Florida's losses and citing worthless/arbitrary statistics like Brian Davis having a 30 point game against Clemson earlier in the season speaks for itself.

Troublemaker
04-05-2007, 11:16 AM
Yes, it does, actually. You don't have enough appreciation for how difficult to repeat these days, and any team that does so is in fact "remarkable."

Not this Florida team, though. Remarkable teams don't get blown out by Tennessee, Vanderbilt, and last-place LSU. Remarkable teams don't have 5 losses against watered-down present-day competition.



Behind every amazing comeback there is a choke job, behind every upset there is a favorite that didn't play to its potential, and behind every team that plays especially well there is an opponent that allowed that team to play that well. Florida never let a team play that well against them in the tournament.


Like I said, the UK game is really the only argument anyone can make against Duke 92 being an all-timer, or head and shoulders above the pack. And even that argument can be turned around in 92's favor, which I did above. Duke-UK is widely considered one of the best games ever played, so no, Fla did not ever face an opponent playing that well. However, they did let Butler and Purdue hang around way too long for comfort.



I don't really know why you guys are trying to convince me Duke was better - as I've said multiple times, I believe Duke was better. Really though, the fact that you guys are quoting AP recaps of Florida's losses and citing worthless/arbitrary statistics like Brian Davis having a 30 point game against Clemson earlier in the season speaks for itself.

I don't think anyone's trying to convince "you", per se. This is a thread about Decourcy's column, which many feel ridiculously places Fla 07 on par with Duke 92. So we're saying "here's why that's ridiculous" and doing a pretty good job with it. I'm not sure what you mean by "speaks for itself." What does my usage of AP recaps to demonstrate Fla's unworthiness say? How does it speak for itself? Is it saying that no team that is considered on par with Duke 92 should be blown out three times?

Wander
04-05-2007, 11:32 AM
Not this Florida team, though. Remarkable teams don't get blown out by Tennessee, Vanderbilt, and last-place LSU. Remarkable teams don't have 5 losses against watered-down present-day competition.


If you honestly believe this Florida team isn't remarkable, then you are far more biased than I realized and I really don't have any interest in having this discussion with you.

Troublemaker
04-05-2007, 11:43 AM
If you honestly believe this Florida team isn't remarkable, then you are far more biased than I realized and I really don't have any interest in having this discussion with you.

No sweat off my back. We'll agree to disagree then. Now, I do believe Fla had an excellent team that plays well together. I was impressed by them. But I'm also of the opinion that they are in no way on par with Duke 92. The gap is wide. To be more precise, I think Duke 92 would win 9 out of 10 against Fla 07, and the average margin of victory would be around 10-15 points.

Teams that can compete with Duke 92 don't get blown out three times. They don't lose 5 times to watered-down competition.

AnotherNYCDukeFan
04-05-2007, 11:48 AM
I'm joining in a bit late in the debate of Grant vs. Brewer, but I thought that DeCourcey's statement about Brewer's defense being better than Hill's was ludicrous.

In the 91, UNLV game, Grant completely shut Stacy Augmon down. He was nowhere to be found. For those that can't remember that far back, for most of the season, Augmon was considered the Player of the Year, until LJ overtook him in the last month and half. He was also the National Defensive Player of the Year.

So it seems to me that if Grant won the match up with a first team All-American senior at the time, he would win the match up with an All-American Honorable Mention this year.

(As an aside, I do like Brewer's game. He reminds me a lot of Augmon. It's funny how years later I can finally respect the members of that UNLV team.)

_Gary
04-05-2007, 11:51 AM
If you honestly believe this Florida team isn't remarkable, then you are far more biased than I realized and I really don't have any interest in having this discussion with you.

I've never denied being biased, but in this case bias has very little to do with it. Fact is that this Florida team is a very good team, but it's nowhere close to Duke '92. I believe anyone who entertains the thought that Duke '92 and Fla '07 are in the same league is the one who is biased. This current Florida team would have a tough time hanging with many of the championship teams of the last 20 years (and many of the runners up - such as Duke '99 & Arizona '01), much less the great teams before that.

Gary

rsvman
04-05-2007, 12:18 PM
I agree with whomever posted above that navigating through the minefield of the NCAA tournament, by itself, is a somewhat ridiculous qualifier for what teams were the greatest.

You want to talk about greatest college basketball teams of all time? That list would include, in my opinion, AT LEAST three teams that didn't win the championship. Larry Bird's Indiana State team won 33 games in a row before losing the championship game to Michigan State. UNLV 1991 has already been mentioned. Duke 1999 has already been mentioned. Does anybody really think that this year's Florida team is a better basketball team than the 1999 Duke team? I might add the 1983 Houston team to the list of teams that didn't win the title, but were better teams than this year's Florida squad.

Why no mention of 1976 Indiana team? If memory serves, they went undefeated and won the title.

Sure, it's remarkable to win back-to-back national championships, and Florida deserves to be recognized. But to mention this year's Florida squad as one of the greatest teams in college basketball history is very shortsighted, indeed.

barjwr
04-05-2007, 12:31 PM
. . . would be the 1997 Kansas team that started Jacque Vaughn, Jerod Haase, Paul Pierce, Raef LaFrentz, and Scot Pollard. Their only two losses of the season were a double OT loss at archrival Missouri and a three-point loss to the Arizona team that went on to beat two other #1-seeds to win it all. Say what you want about Ol' Roy (and I certainly have since his departure from the Land of Oz), but that team could play.

DevilAlumna
04-05-2007, 12:44 PM
Yes, it does, actually. You don't have enough appreciation for how difficult to repeat these days, and any team that does so is in fact "remarkable."


Not this Florida team, though. Remarkable teams don't get blown out by Tennessee, Vanderbilt, and last-place LSU. Remarkable teams don't have 5 losses against watered-down present-day competition.

Troublemaker, what's your definition of "remarkable," then?

American Heritage gives this definition:

adj.
1. Worthy of notice.
2. Attracting notice as being unusual or extraordinary.

Worthy of notice? Ding! Ratings for the tournament were fairly high this year; all the press coverage on the repeat would indicate lots of people feel the accomplishment was quite noteworthy.

Attracting notice as being unusual Ding! Not too many teams repeat.

To me, it seems "remarkable," indeed. So, to you, what part of either of those two definitions do not fit what Florida just did?

Troublemaker
04-05-2007, 12:52 PM
"Remarkable" in the context of this thread was defined here by BobbyFan:



The 1992 Duke team was vastly superior to the rest of college basketball and they brought it every night. They featured 2 All-Americans and a legitimate third star in an era in which Shaq was still playing college basketball as a junior and Alonzo Mourning as a senior. They didn't lean on their 1991 title to be considered a great team.

Florida's accomplishment of repeating is a remarkable one; however, it doesn't follow that this year's team was a remarkable one.

In the context of this thread, remarkable means being an all-time great team / on par with Duke 92. So no, I don't believe Fla 07 is remarkable in that context.

BobbyFan
04-05-2007, 05:20 PM
Yes, it does, actually. You don't have enough appreciation for how difficult to repeat these days, and any team that does so is in fact "remarkable."

You are completely missing the point, as are the others who are ranking this year's Florida team among the all-time greats.

What Florida did last year has no bearing on how good this year's team is. Let's say Noah went down with an injury last year and Florida was knocked out early. But that they came back and played this year exactly the way they otherwise just did. Would last year's lack of a title have changed where this year's team ranked among other champions? No. Just like the 1992 Duke team was a great one because of their dominance and superiority, not because they won the 1991 title.

Kentucky 1997 wasn't close to being a great team. But if they made 1 more free throw in regulation in the title game and repeated as champions, would that have qualified them as an all-time great team? I would hope not.

mapei
04-05-2007, 09:35 PM
This is one of the most pointless arguments of all time, but I suppose it's fun.

Here's another question for you: if Duke 92 had played Duke 99 ten times, how many games would each win? What about Duke 01?