SI's All-Decade College BB Team

[roywhite]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/magazine/specials/2000s/12/15/cbb.all.decade.team/index.html?xid=si_topstories

Some familiar names. :)

Jason Williams
JJ Redick
Shane Battier
Tyler Hansbrough
Emeka Okafaor

This should create a stir among the anti-Duke fans.

Maybe Steph Curry belongs in there somewhere?

[dukelifer]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/magazine/specials/2000s/12/15/cbb.all.decade.team/index.html?xid=si_topstories

Some familiar names. :)

Jason Williams
JJ Redick
Shane Battier
Tyler Hansbrough
Emeka Okafaor

This should create a stir among the anti-Duke fans.

Maybe Steph Curry belongs in there somewhere?

Wow - three Duke starters and coached by Ol' Roy. Who was on the all decade team in the previous decade? Had to be a few Duke players on that as well.

[shoutingncu]

The links at the bottom of the article are pretty cool, too.

Highlights and Lowlights:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/magazine/specials/2000s/12/08/cbb.highlights.lowlights/index.html

Signature Moments:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/magazine/specials/2000s/12/16/cbb.signature.moments/index.html

[nmduke2001]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/magazine/specials/2000s/12/15/cbb.all.decade.team/index.html

Three Devils in the starting five...

[UrinalCake]

Hard to argue with that list; all of the guys either won a national championship or had amazing individual achievements. Durant is a guy I might have left off, since he was only in school for a year and didn't do much in the tourney, but I'm hard-pressed to think who I'd replace him with. Maybe Curry.

[uh_no]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/magazine/specials/2000s/12/15/cbb.all.decade.team/index.html

Three Devils in the starting five...

I find it amusing that just about every list of best games/moments in the decade, whether just basketball or overall feature the huskies twice.....losing both times.

[ChicagoCrazy84]

That's got to be a tough list to come up with. I can't say I disagree with any of his picks. Gotta like the 3 Dukies and 4 ACC players in the starting 5 though!

[Richard Berg]

The lists look about right to me.

[juise]

The links at the bottom of the article are pretty cool, too.

Highlights and Lowlights:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/magazine/specials/2000s/12/08/cbb.highlights.lowlights/index.html
[/URL]


Biggest recruiting bust: Shav

Ouch. I'm not sure how the 14th highest rated recruit (http://home.roadrunner.com/~rsci/RSCI_100_PostSeason_2002.htm) could be the bust of the decade (I realize he was rated higher in the fall of his senior year). The guy ranked ahead of him couldn't qualify for UCLA and then spent one year at San Diego State. How is that more valuable (to UCLA or San Diego St.) than what Shav gave Duke? I would never let Michael Jordan put on one of my t-shirts... expectations just go crazy. ;)

[huied]

I find it funny that the headline is that Hansblah leads the team when it's dominated by Duke players. UNC bias anyone?

[Acymetric]

I find it funny that the headline is that Hansblah leads the team when it's dominated by Duke players. UNC bias anyone?

Not really, the they say he leads the team because, at least according to them he was the best player. It may be UNC bias to say he's the best player (I don't think it is, there are legitimate arguments for him among several others), but once you say that it only makes sense to say he leads the team.

[huied]

Not really, the they say he leads the team because, at least according to them he was the best player. It may be UNC bias to say he's the best player (I don't think it is, there are legitimate arguments for him among several others), but once you say that it only makes sense to say he leads the team.

Gotcha. I actually didn't read his section, it's still too painful to read about him. :p

I also don't think he was the best player among the class - I don't even think he was the best player on his team. UNC was clearly a different team with Lawson off the floor. I can't say the same for Hansblah.

[dukelifer]

Biggest recruiting bust: Shav

Ouch. I'm not sure how the 14th highest rated recruit (http://home.roadrunner.com/~rsci/RSCI_100_PostSeason_2002.htm) could be the bust of the decade (I realize he was rated higher in the fall of his senior year). The guy ranked ahead of him couldn't qualify for UCLA and then spent one year at San Diego State. How is that more valuable (to UCLA or San Diego St.) than what Shav gave Duke? I would never let Michael Jordan put on one of my t-shirts... expectations just go crazy. ;)

I would go with Kelvin Torbert. He was the number 2 player out of high school in 2001. But if you look closely at that group- not many of them really did much at any level. Hodge and Lee had decent college careers and only Lee is really a consistent NBA player from that group. Interesting.

Eddy Curry
Kelvin Torbert
Dejaun Wagner
Tyson Chandler
Ousmane Cisse
Kwame Brown
Julius Hodge
Desanga Diop
Rick Rickert
David Lee
Jawad Williams
Carlos Hurt
David Harrison

[Bostondevil]

Much as I love Duke, I am not exclusive when it comes to watching games. I am a college hoops junkie to the core. Sure, football on Thanksgiving is nice, but the best part of the week is the Maui Invitational and the Great Alaska Shootout. I watched both the Michigan State/Gonzaga 3OT and the Syracuse/UConn 6OT games live. The whole games.

[JasonEvans]

I've been having an interesting discussion via email with some friends about the choice of UNC as Team of the Decade. I initially felt Carolina was a solid choice, but the more I think about it the more I feel it is a choice that reflects a strong bias toward the past few years versus looking at the big picture of the entire decade.

It is a pity the early-mid decade dominance by Duke did not translate into more Final Fours. I actually think Duke from 1998-2006 was as good a run as any team has had since the UCLA teams of the 1960. I am not talking only about NCAA tournament success, but about the whole package -- regular season, conference tourney, and NCAA tourney. We were freaking off the charts during that run... we just had an inordinate number of seasons end in shocking NCAA losses.

Sadly, it seems that NCAA success is all anyone cares about when reflecting on seasons and that is a shame. If Indiana, LSU, or the absurd UConn ref-stealing game turn out differently, it likely would have added greatly to Duke's post-season resume and given us a very strong case (IMO) for team of the decade.

It is also worth noting that we never had a "down" year this decade as compared to other Team of the Decade contenders. Our worst year, we still went 22-11. Carolina had a 3 year run where they failed to win 20 games each year. I see that as a big, big black mark against them -- especially when you consider how bad one of those years was. Michigan St had 2 sub-20 win seasons and was bounced from the NCAA tourney in the first round 3 times this decade. Don't even get me started on Florida. Aside from their back-to-back titles (which is impressive) they missed the NCAA tourney twice and did not advance to the Sweet 16 any other times. Heck, they only won their DIVISION of the SEC three times this decade. They are not even in the conversation.

Actually, if I take off my Duke blinders for a moment, I think the Team of the Decade should probably be Kansas. Their worst season was 24-9. They won the Big 12 regular season 7 of the 9 years and were 2nd the 2 years they did not win it. They made 3 Final Fours and 2 more Elite Eights-- that is really impressive. And they did it while not missing a beat after getting the shaft from their longtime coach mid-decade. They close out the decade as the clear #1 team in the land too, presumably on their way to another deep post-season run.

Being truly objective and looking at the entire body of work -- not just national titles won and not just the past 4 or 5 years -- I think the list should be: Kansas, Duke, and then UNC.

--Jason "Duke is a lot closer to Kansas than UNC is to Duke... if you catch my drift" Evans

[mapei]

Yeah, but in the media and in most fans' minds - even here, frequently - it is about the tournament. I don't like that, but Google the phrase "come March" in the basketball context and you'll be overwhelmed with hits.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Like the choices for team of the decade. That said, I really think that Hansblah is the player of the decade. It makes sense: broke the ACC record, went to multiple FFs, led his team in scoring for 4 straight years, won a NC, always played hard - he has a similar profile to Battier, except much less defense and more offense. And considering that more people like offense, it makes sense to put him ahead.

The Shav pick, while it hurts, also makes some sense. It was an enormous recruiting battle with Duke vs UNC at the forefront. To many, he was the "prize" of our amazing recruiting class. When he didn't fulfill expectations, everyone was shocked (I was a freshman at Duke in 2003-2004, when Shav just didn't improve and the student body gave up on him and moved to Luol and JJ).

[Welcome2DaSlopes]

If JJ won an NC he would have been the player of the decade.

[JasonEvans]

Like the choices for team of the decade.

Are you saying you like my choices or that you like the choice SI made?

:)


If JJ won an NC he would have been the player of the decade.

Concur. Pity. Not sure which hurt worse, the UConn game or the LSU game. Grrrrr.

-Jason

[yancem]

If JJ won an NC he would have been the player of the decade.

Had Duke won the nc in 2002 or if Jason Williams had come back for his senior year, he would have been player of the decade. Of course there are several what if scenarios that could have lead to other pod selections.

I'm not sure about May as a reserve. His selection is based almost entirely on the championship game. I would say that Baxter for MD, Boozer for Duke, Dunleavy for Duke, Lawson for UNC (heck maybe even Ellington for UNC) would be more deserving. There are probably some other non acc players but my mind is drawing a blank.

I kinda question Noah as well because his numbers were not that impressive but he did win two nc's so I guess you have to include someone from that team.

[Richard Berg]

Not sure which hurt worse, the UConn game or the LSU game. Grrrrr.
The Maryland game (2006), and it's not close.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Are you saying you like my choices or that you like the choice SI made?

:)

-Jason

SI ;). All of those ACC players provided a huge plus to the game of college basketball. Everyone knew those players and some (JJ and Hansblah) were the most polarizing players this decade. Okafor wasn't a very interesting player, but the guy dominated college ball. I'm a little surprised that there isn't a point guard on that list. I guess elite point guards don't graduate from college much.

[dukemsu]

I would go with Kelvin Torbert. He was the number 2 player out of high school in 2001. But if you look closely at that group- not many of them really did much at any level. Hodge and Lee had decent college careers and only Lee is really a consistent NBA player from that group. Interesting.

Eddy Curry
Kelvin Torbert
Dejaun Wagner
Tyson Chandler
Ousmane Cisse
Kwame Brown
Julius Hodge
Desanga Diop
Rick Rickert
David Lee
Jawad Williams
Carlos Hurt
David Harrison

Respectfully disagree on Torbert. A disappointment to be sure, but to me, a bust is a guy who is thrown out of school, a consistent discipline problem, or just can't play. Torbert struggled mightily with his shot for four years, but was a starter and a big factor on the 2005 MSU team that went to the Final Four before meeting their doom at the paws of the Cookie Monster. Torbert was a good player in transition, a solid rebounder and a good on-ball defender.

Torbert was overrated to be sure. But a bust? A bit harsh in my opinion.

Shav wasn't a bust in my opinion either. He was derailed by injury early and never quite got on track.

dukemsu

[NSDukeFan]

I've been having an interesting discussion via email with some friends about the choice of UNC as Team of the Decade. I initially felt Carolina was a solid choice, but the more I think about it the more I feel it is a choice that reflects a strong bias toward the past few years versus looking at the big picture of the entire decade.

It is a pity the early-mid decade dominance by Duke did not translate into more Final Fours. I actually think Duke from 1998-2006 was as good a run as any team has had since the UCLA teams of the 1960. I am not talking only about NCAA tournament success, but about the whole package -- regular season, conference tourney, and NCAA tourney. We were freaking off the charts during that run... we just had an inordinate number of seasons end in shocking NCAA losses.

Sadly, it seems that NCAA success is all anyone cares about when reflecting on seasons and that is a shame. If Indiana, LSU, or the absurd UConn ref-stealing game turn out differently, it likely would have added greatly to Duke's post-season resume and given us a very strong case (IMO) for team of the decade.

It is also worth noting that we never had a "down" year this decade as compared to other Team of the Decade contenders. Our worst year, we still went 22-11. Carolina had a 3 year run where they failed to win 20 games each year. I see that as a big, big black mark against them -- especially when you consider how bad one of those years was. Michigan St had 2 sub-20 win seasons and was bounced from the NCAA tourney in the first round 3 times this decade. Don't even get me started on Florida. Aside from their back-to-back titles (which is impressive) they missed the NCAA tourney twice and did not advance to the Sweet 16 any other times. Heck, they only won their DIVISION of the SEC three times this decade. They are not even in the conversation.

Actually, if I take off my Duke blinders for a moment, I think the Team of the Decade should probably be Kansas. Their worst season was 24-9. They won the Big 12 regular season 7 of the 9 years and were 2nd the 2 years they did not win it. They made 3 Final Fours and 2 more Elite Eights-- that is really impressive. And they did it while not missing a beat after getting the shaft from their longtime coach mid-decade. They close out the decade as the clear #1 team in the land too, presumably on their way to another deep post-season run.

Being truly objective and looking at the entire body of work -- not just national titles won and not just the past 4 or 5 years -- I think the list should be: Kansas, Duke, and then UNC.

--Jason "Duke is a lot closer to Kansas than UNC is to Duke... if you catch my drift" Evans

I have to agree with your analysis and top ranking of Kansas. The thing I noticed recently is that if Arizona and UCLA miss the tournament this year, I believe there would be one team with a longer streak of making the tournament than Duke. (I'm not positive about this, but I think it is true.) It is a very solid program that has had success for a long time, and that is Kansas.

[J_C_Steel]

I don't know if anybody is a bigger Shane Battier fan than I am, but can you really call him one of the top five players of the decade when he played during ONE YEAR of the decade? Three quarters of his college playing career was in the 1990s.

[blazindw]

I don't know if anybody is a bigger Shane Battier fan than I am, but can you really call him one of the top five players of the decade when he played during ONE YEAR of the decade? Three quarters of his college playing career was in the 1990s.

The 2000s is 2000-2009...he played 2 years.

[J_C_Steel]

The 2000s is 2000-2009...he played 2 years.

One and a half, actually. The last half of 1999-2000 and the whole 2000-2001 season.

That's enough to be one of the top players of the decade?

Hey, I'm a huge Duke fan, but I don't think one and a half seasons is enough...

[UrinalCake]

I've been having an interesting discussion via email with some friends about the choice of UNC as Team of the Decade.

Which "choice" are you referencing? The series of links from this thread calls Michigan State their "Best School" of the decade. They don't even list Kansas in the top three (picking MSU over Florida and UNC) which I think is a mistake. Florida shouldn't even be in the discussion.

Also they name Saint Joseph's in 2004 as their "best single season team." While they did go undefeated in the regular season, I would have instead picked last year's UNC team (sorry, I just threw up a little). Hard as it is to admit, they really dominated, especially in the Final Four.

[Duvall]

One and a half, actually. The last half of 1999-2000 and the whole 2000-2001 season.

That's enough to be one of the top players of the decade?

Hey, I'm a huge Duke fan, but I don't think one and a half seasons is enough...

As opposed to who, though? That's about as much time as was spent by other consensus Players of the Year like Kenyon Martin, T.J. Ford, Kevin Durant, Blake Griffin. More, really.

[brevity]

One and a half, actually. The last half of 1999-2000 and the whole 2000-2001 season.

Two seasons. If we take a decade of college basketball to mean 10 seasons, then it's 1999-2000 to 2008-2009. Michigan State was the first champion of the decade, etc.

Put it another way: does anyone really think that the 1999-2000 season is part of the 1990s? That's the decade that started with UNLV over Duke and ended with Connecticut over Duke. Fortunately, we have a few better memories in between.

Quick reminder that this forum touched upon the Player of the Decade subject here (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16713).

[JasonEvans]

Which "choice" are you referencing? The series of links from this thread calls Michigan State their "Best School" of the decade. They don't even list Kansas in the top three (picking MSU over Florida and UNC) which I think is a mistake. Florida shouldn't even be in the discussion.

Also they name Saint Joseph's in 2004 as their "best single season team." While they did go undefeated in the regular season, I would have instead picked last year's UNC team (sorry, I just threw up a little). Hard as it is to admit, they really dominated, especially in the Final Four.

Oooops-- in the email conversation it was posited that Carolina was the team of the decade and tht is what got me into the debate. I totally spaced on the fact that SI actually chose Michigan State, which, as my post indicates, was a poor choice in my mind. They were -- at best -- the #4 team of the decade behind Kansas, Duke, and UNC.

--Jason "I fail to see any metric that allows someone to pick MSU as team of the decade -- neither their regular-season nor their post-season records are superior to Duke or Kansas or UNC" Evans

[brevity]

--Jason "I fail to see any metric that allows someone to pick MSU as team of the decade -- neither their regular-season nor their post-season records are superior to Duke or Kansas or UNC" Evans

I can think of one: what program reached its peak in this decade?

You could argue that the programs at Duke, UNC, and Kansas have been better in other decades. Even if UNC (for example) were the team of the decade, it did not peak as a program during this time frame. But Michigan State did. It sustained a high level of excellence with its best head coach over a period that aligns nicely with 1999-2009. Second place, by that measure? Gonzaga.

I do not particularly agree with this line of logic, but it's one way to defend SI's choice.

[sagegrouse]

I don't know if anybody is a bigger Shane Battier fan than I am, but can you really call him one of the top five players of the decade when he played during ONE YEAR of the decade? Three quarters of his college playing career was in the 1990s.

I believe that SI adopted the convention of evaluating a player's entire college career based on when it ended. Thus, Shane's four years get counted, and, of course, JWill's three as well.

That logic works for me; it seems absurd to penalize a player because his career was part in one decade and part in another.

Now team records are a different matter....

sagegrouse

[dukemsu]

I can think of one: what program reached its peak in this decade?

You could argue that the programs at Duke, UNC, and Kansas have been better in other decades. Even if UNC (for example) were the team of the decade, it did not peak as a program during this time frame. But Michigan State did. It sustained a high level of excellence with its best head coach over a period that aligns nicely with 1999-2009. Second place, by that measure? Gonzaga.

I do not particularly agree with this line of logic, but it's one way to defend SI's choice.

I can see this line. However, I would probably also rank MSU fourth, based upon their relative regular season struggles. Tournament success and not missing tournament don't make up for the fact that State didn't win a Big 10 for a long gap in the decade.

At the same time, UNC has to be taken down below Kansas and Duke in my opinion based on the 8-20 season. No mulligans.

KU
Duke
UNC
MSU

dukemsu

[dukelifer]

Respectfully disagree on Torbert. A disappointment to be sure, but to me, a bust is a guy who is thrown out of school, a consistent discipline problem, or just can't play. Torbert struggled mightily with his shot for four years, but was a starter and a big factor on the 2005 MSU team that went to the Final Four before meeting their doom at the paws of the Cookie Monster. Torbert was a good player in transition, a solid rebounder and a good on-ball defender.

Torbert was overrated to be sure. But a bust? A bit harsh in my opinion.

Shav wasn't a bust in my opinion either. He was derailed by injury early and never quite got on track.

dukemsu

I also do not like using the term bust. This was to counter that Shav was the biggest bust of the decade - which was more about living up to the hype than about ability. I agree Torbert was a decent player but never lived up to the massive hype and expectations of being the number 2 player of a class.

[NMYMND]

I've been having an interesting discussion via email with some friends about the choice of UNC as Team of the Decade. I initially felt Carolina was a solid choice, but the more I think about it the more I feel it is a choice that reflects a strong bias toward the past few years versus looking at the big picture of the entire decade.

It is a pity the early-mid decade dominance by Duke did not translate into more Final Fours. I actually think Duke from 1998-2006 was as good a run as any team has had since the UCLA teams of the 1960. I am not talking only about NCAA tournament success, but about the whole package -- regular season, conference tourney, and NCAA tourney. We were freaking off the charts during that run... we just had an inordinate number of seasons end in shocking NCAA losses.

Sadly, it seems that NCAA success is all anyone cares about when reflecting on seasons and that is a shame. If Indiana, LSU, or the absurd UConn ref-stealing game turn out differently, it likely would have added greatly to Duke's post-season resume and given us a very strong case (IMO) for team of the decade.

It is also worth noting that we never had a "down" year this decade as compared to other Team of the Decade contenders. Our worst year, we still went 22-11. Carolina had a 3 year run where they failed to win 20 games each year. I see that as a big, big black mark against them -- especially when you consider how bad one of those years was. Michigan St had 2 sub-20 win seasons and was bounced from the NCAA tourney in the first round 3 times this decade. Don't even get me started on Florida. Aside from their back-to-back titles (which is impressive) they missed the NCAA tourney twice and did not advance to the Sweet 16 any other times. Heck, they only won their DIVISION of the SEC three times this decade. They are not even in the conversation.

Actually, if I take off my Duke blinders for a moment, I think the Team of the Decade should probably be Kansas. Their worst season was 24-9. They won the Big 12 regular season 7 of the 9 years and were 2nd the 2 years they did not win it. They made 3 Final Fours and 2 more Elite Eights-- that is really impressive. And they did it while not missing a beat after getting the shaft from their longtime coach mid-decade. They close out the decade as the clear #1 team in the land too, presumably on their way to another deep post-season run.

Being truly objective and looking at the entire body of work -- not just national titles won and not just the past 4 or 5 years -- I think the list should be: Kansas, Duke, and then UNC.

--Jason "Duke is a lot closer to Kansas than UNC is to Duke... if you catch my drift" Evans

Jason, I am intrigued by your argument, and while this probably oversimplifies it, you acknowledge titles as a component but give a lot of weight to consistency and penalize bad years heavily. Using those guidelines, how do you rank the 80s and 90s?

80s - Louisville and Indiana has two titles each, but Louisville missed the tourney twice and Indiana once. Of the one-title teams, only Georgetown and UNC made the NCAA all 10 years. I would go with the Hoyas - 1 title, 3 final games, 6 Big East tourney titles, then UNC - 1 title, 2 final games and 3 ACC tourney titles.

90s - Kentucky and Duke were the multiple winners, but Kentucky missed 90 and 91 and Duke missed in 95 and bounced in 1st round in 96. Of the remaining title winners, Arizona, UCLA and UNC never missed the tourney (though apparently both Zona and UCLA had their 99 appearances vacated by the NCAA. I don't know why.) Ignoring the vacated appearance, it looks like Arizona is the team - 1 title, 2 Final Fours, 5 Pac-10 titles, then UNC - 1 title, 5 Final fours, 4 ACC titles.

Thoughts?

[UrinalCake]

Duke is the team of the 90's, even with the couple down years. 2 championships, 3 additional final fours, only 2 ACC championships but 6 regular season ACC titles. And remember, this was before everybody hated us.

[turnandburn55]

You could make an argument that Shav wasn't even the biggest bust at Duke this decade... Josh McRoberts fell well short of the expectations of the #1 rated HS player in the country and only stayed 2 years.

Then again that entire recruiting class never quite lived up to the hype... :( Only compounded by the fact that Hansblablah came in that year..