I'm tired of hearing that it's a "down year"...

[moonpie23]

what does that mean?

because there are no dominant teams? No one said it was a "down year" when Kansas and UNC were pre-season favs.....did it become a "down year" cause texas fluttered out?

or could it be that the level of competition is UP this year....harder for anyone to stand out..??

this is a plot by the holes to minimize duke's season (and WV, Butler, and MSU.)

[wilko]

Flip the script,
If UNC wins the NIT we can use the same arguement back on them..
"Well you didnt play anybody... you had a favorable bracket"

[Dukeknights]

what does that mean?

because there are no dominant teams? No one said it was a "down year" when Kansas and UNC were pre-season favs.....did it become a "down year" cause texas fluttered out?

or could it be that the level of competition is UP this year....harder for anyone to stand out..??

this is a plot by the holes to minimize duke's season (and WV, Butler, and MSU.)

Kansas and UK would have competed last season for the title, and either one could have beaten UNC, IMO. More of a chance for Kansas because of experience.

[Bluedevil114]

This is exactly what college basketball wants and needs this year.

Duke and North Carolina in the Final Four. Wow what a year for college basketball. The only problem is I do not think we will get to play North Carolina in this Final Four.

[DevilHorns]

a title is a title.

anyone who says otherwise is jealous because they're out of it.

[MarkD83]

Name the top five "down" years in tournament history and the champions those years.


My guesses are 1982, 1993, 2005 and 2009.

[ScreechTDX1847]

Put it this way. No one will be qualifying the title that was won five years from now by saying the field was weak, etc.

[gep]

a title is a title.

anyone who says otherwise is jealous because they're out of it.


Name the top five "down" years in tournament history and the champions those years.


My guesses are 1982, 1993, 2005 and 2009.


Put it this way. No one will be qualifying the title that was won five years from now by saying the field was weak, etc.

I was thinking the same thing driving home today. In a few years, no one will *remember* the down year, Duke's easiest path to the FF, Zoub's controversial charge call, etc. But they will *know* Duke's 11 FF's, and hopefully 4 NC's... :)

[elvis14]

I'm OK hearing that it's a "down year" as long at it involves UNC losing and losing and losing....

[McGrupp]

Name the top five "down" years in tournament history and the champions those years.

My guesses are 1982, 1993, 2005 and 2009.

Concur. I'd also add 1924.

[Jarhead]

Concur. I'd also add 1924.

Ditto. I'd also add that the '24 title should be cause for calling them the Meatpackers, since they won the Helms title. Something else, I heard on this mornings news on ABC 11 that if UNC Meatpackers win the NIT a new record will be established. This will be the first time for back-to-back NCAA National title and NIT title. Can't wait to see that banner.

[CDu]

Name the top five "down" years in tournament history and the champions those years.


My guesses are 1982, 1993, 2005 and 2009.

I wouldn't have put any of those years on my list of down years. There were some really good top-tier teams those years. Of the top of my head, 2006 and 2003 were more down than those years. And I'm sure there are plenty of years in the pre-64 team era which had down talent.

The reason this year is considered a down year is because there are few top-tier teams and also because after the 6-8 pretty good/really good teams, the field was fairly weak. Remember all the discussion about how bad the bubble was? Well, that goes into it. From the 7 seeds on down, the field was awful. And the 3-6 seeds were, for the most part, not that great either.

I don't think Kansas this year beats UNC last year (or even comes all that close). I don't think UK this year beats UNC last year, because I don't think they had the discipline to do it.

But regardless, WHO CARES? If we win it, we win it. They won't put an asterisk on it. It's a championship for whomever wins it.

[Pacer]

Concur. I'd also add 1924.

Hey, don't belittle Butler's National Title... they won a post-season tournament fair and square...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythical_national_championship#Schools_that_offici ally_claim_pre-NCAA_Tournament_basketball_championships

[DoubleDuke Dad]

Ditto. I'd also add that the '24 title should be cause for calling them the Meatpackers, since they won the Helms title. Something else, I heard on this mornings news on ABC 11 that if UNC Meatpackers win the NIT a new record will be established. This will be the first time for back-to-back NCAA National title and NIT title. Can't wait to see that banner.

However one team, City College (in New York), did it in the same year (1950)!

[barjwr]

I wouldn't have put any of those years on my list of down years. There were some really good top-tier teams those years.

I think the intent of listing those particular years MAY have been to indicate the tournaments that the blokes at Chappa-Heeya won.:D

[mo.st.dukie]

I was thinking the same thing driving home today. In a few years, no one will *remember* the down year, Duke's easiest path to the FF, Zoub's controversial charge call, etc. But they will *know* Duke's 11 FF's, and hopefully 4 NC's... :)

Exactly. Nobody remembers that KU had to go through a 12 seed and a 10 seed to get to the 08 Final Four.

Nobody remembers that UNC did not have to beat another #1 seed on their way to the title last year. Wasn't there a controversial call in UNC's 05 Sweet 16 or Elite 8?

Nobody remembers that Michigan State won the 2000 title with two 8 seeds and a 5 seed in the Final Four.

[barjwr]

Agree with all of the above, but isn't it nice that everyone DOES seem to remember that Deano can attribute his championships (in large part) to bonehead plays by the opposition? Fred Brown and Chris Webber live in infamy. . . .

[noyac]

what does that mean?

because there are no dominant teams? No one said it was a "down year" when Kansas and UNC were pre-season favs.....did it become a "down year" cause texas fluttered out?

or could it be that the level of competition is UP this year....harder for anyone to stand out..??

this is a plot by the holes to minimize duke's season (and WV, Butler, and MSU.)

I have to agree with moonpie. It becomes very hard to say it is a down year or an up year when the level of competition level is similar.

In the NFL the announcer's say there is great parity. Is this parity because the level of competition so good or so bad.

[kong123]

I would think that having only 2 teams from the ACC in the top 25 would characterize the ACC as being down. Also, many of the top tier schools are down, UNC, UCLA, UCONN, Arizona, etc....

Parity may be part of the issue, but you must admit that only Kansas and Kentucky were dominate for the majority of the year. Had Texas been more of a force in the Big 12, then perhaps Kansas would have had a greater push for the regular season championship. Kentucky plays in the weak SEC, which only had 2 other teams in the tournament? Pac 10 had 2 teams while the Big 10 had a few. I guess it would be fair to say that the big power conferences were down as a whole and those conferences are usually the ones that win national championships.

but, even though it may be a down year, teams have to play the games. regardless of whether or not Duke got preferential treatment this year, they are winning the games and have a great chance to win it all. I doubt anyone thought this was possible with this team. This is basically the same group as last year, minus GH and plus AD and MP. I would think that the subtraction of GH actually helped this team this year. Z's play this year as well as the big 3's consistency may be enough this year. If you say that you saw this coming in the preseason, I would say who are you trying to fool? Anyway, as a true UNC fan, I will pull against Duke this weekend. :D

[ncexnyc]

I would think that having only 2 teams from the ACC in the top 25 would characterize the ACC as being down. Also, many of the top tier schools are down, UNC, UCLA, UCONN, Arizona, etc....

Parity may be part of the issue, but you must admit that only Kansas and Kentucky were dominate for the majority of the year. Had Texas been more of a force in the Big 12, then perhaps Kansas would have had a greater push for the regular season championship. Kentucky plays in the weak SEC, which only had 2 other teams in the tournament? Pac 10 had 2 teams while the Big 10 had a few. I guess it would be fair to say that the big power conferences were down as a whole and those conferences are usually the ones that win national championships.

but, even though it may be a down year, teams have to play the games. regardless of whether or not Duke got preferential treatment this year, they are winning the games and have a great chance to win it all. I doubt anyone thought this was possible with this team. This is basically the same group as last year, minus GH and plus AD and MP. I would think that the subtraction of GH actually helped this team this year. Z's play this year as well as the big 3's consistency may be enough this year. If you say that you saw this coming in the preseason, I would say who are you trying to fool? Anyway, as a true UNC fan, I will pull against Duke this weekend. :D

I'm glad a heel fan is here. Maybe he would be so kind and answer this one question for me. I've read on IC a number of people try and belittle our team's accomplishments this year with the phrase, "It's a down year in the ACC." Considering the fact that your team was ranked dead last in the ACC, after the ACC Tournament, what does that say about your beloved heels?

[kmmk]

What bothers me about the "down year" criticism is simple. It seems that just because Duke is winning and now in the Final Four, the critics are coming up with every excuse in the book as to why that happened. "Duke got an easy bracket," "Duke's getting all the calls," "Duke benefitted from other teams' injuries," etc, etc.

But if Duke had lost any of these games, these same people would be saying Duke was overrated and it was inevitable that they were going to lose at some point.

The clear flip flop in the feelings of the critics is what bothers me the most. Either Duke "cheated" their way there or they sucked all along. They have to pick one side because you really can't be on both.

But those of us thinking intelligently can choose neither one because they're both wrong anyway.

Kelly

[arnie]

What bothers me about the "down year" criticism is simple. It seems that just because Duke is winning and now in the Final Four, the critics are coming up with every excuse in the book as to why that happened. "Duke got an easy bracket," "Duke's getting all the calls," "Duke benefitted from other teams' injuries," etc, etc.

But if Duke had lost any of these games, these same people would be saying Duke was overrated and it was inevitable that they were going to lose at some point.

The clear flip flop in the feelings of the critics is what bothers me the most. Either Duke "cheated" their way there or they sucked all along. They have to pick one side because you really can't be on both.

But those of us thinking intelligently can choose neither one because they're both wrong anyway.


Kelly

All the criticisms are used to simple discredit anything Duke does. Be it the refs, NCAA committee conspiracy, down year, home court advantage in Texas, injuries to other teams, new moon; whatever it serves the same purpose for all the morons out there.

The funniest one is on the IC site - The holes road through the NIT is harder than Duke's road through the NCAA. Of course, a couple of Holes fans did post that that thread is an embarassment.

[kong123]

I'm glad a heel fan is here. Maybe he would be so kind and answer this one question for me. I've read on IC a number of people try and belittle our team's accomplishments this year with the phrase, "It's a down year in the ACC." Considering the fact that your team was ranked dead last in the ACC, after the ACC Tournament, what does that say about your beloved heels?
this season has been a complete disaster in almost every way. watching those kids play basketball last night was a complete nightmare. this team is horrible. They are capable of being good in short bursts, they have the physical ability to
be good basketball players, but it seems the mental side of things is completely missing. errant passes, lack of effort on defense, dribbling the ball off of their foot, and the lack of common basketball fundamental- these examples have been apart of every single game the heels have played this year. after the 36th game of the season last night, we see that very little improvement has been made. sure, we are winning games, but these are games we should be winning. Last years team would have beaten URI by 30 or more points. This UNC team couldn't get out of their own way. They out-rebounded the team by 27. The had more shot attempts, missed all but 2 three pointers. URI even had more turnovers, but in the end, with a missed call, UNC won the game. Does that mean the team has gotten better? Maybe a little, but not enough to make me feel very confident going into next year. The 3 guys coming in next year are just what the Dr ordered, but will they drastically improve the basketball IQ of this team that appears to be hovering around retard? Not sure about that. We will be better though. So, as to your question, if the ACC is down and UNC finished at the bottom of the heap, then what does that say about UNC? That we were horrible. That we played our worst at times when we needed to play our best. It was a shock to the UNC fans because we have been riding on such a high from our recent success, and so hard to swallow because of the way we acted while things were so good. Truth be told, we over celebrated our recent success because of the success you had against us early in the decade. It all comes back to bite you in the end. So, we deserve all of the nasty things you guys have said about us this year. But, we will remember these things and remind you once we recover from our nasty fall. Thats why this rivalry is so fun.

[CDu]

What bothers me about the "down year" criticism is simple. It seems that just because Duke is winning and now in the Final Four, the critics are coming up with every excuse in the book as to why that happened. "Duke got an easy bracket," "Duke's getting all the calls," "Duke benefitted from other teams' injuries," etc, etc.

But if Duke had lost any of these games, these same people would be saying Duke was overrated and it was inevitable that they were going to lose at some point.

The clear flip flop in the feelings of the critics is what bothers me the most. Either Duke "cheated" their way there or they sucked all along. They have to pick one side because you really can't be on both.

But those of us thinking intelligently can choose neither one because they're both wrong anyway.

Kelly

Actually, the thought that "Duke was handed a path to the Final Four" and "Duke stinks" aren't in any way contradictory to one another. You can fully believe that Duke didn't deserve the easy draw it got. And if you do, then losing before the Final Four would be evidence of Duke choking or being overrated. The thoughts perfectly complement each other.

Now, where I think the incongruity lies is when someone says "Duke got handed a Final Four ticket" and then predicts Duke to get beaten by Louisville, Villanova, and/or Baylor. In that case, it's either one or the other.

I do think that, irrespective of matchups and location, our draw was easier than most. We had a weaker 4/5 and a weaker potential 2/3 than a lot of brackets. But I don't think it was a landslide in anyway, and it is somewhat offset by having a tougher 8/9 opponent. It certainly wasn't the easiest bracket in 25 years.

[Kedsy]

I do think that, irrespective of matchups and location, our draw was easier than most. We had a weaker 4/5 and a weaker potential 2/3 than a lot of brackets. But I don't think it was a landslide in anyway, and it is somewhat offset by having a tougher 8/9 opponent. It certainly wasn't the easiest bracket in 25 years.

As it played out, though, we ended up with a tougher path than any other top two seed. You can say Purdue was the weakest #4, but none of the other #1 seeds even had a #4 in their path, and only Ky and WVa had even one top four seed on their path, while Duke played two.

--Duke's path was 16,8,4,3
--Kentucky's was 16,9,12,2
--Kansas's would have been 16,9,5,6, if they could have beaten the #9
--Syracuse's would have been 16,8,5,2, if they could have beaten the #5
--West Virginia's path was 15,10,11,1
--Kansas State's path was 15, 7, 6, 5
--Ohio State's path would have been 15,10,6,5, if they could have beaten the #6
--Only Villanova's path, which would have been 15,10,3,1, rivals ours, but since they went into OT against the 15 and lost to the 10, it's hardly worth discussing.

I know you all know all this, but for me at least it helps to see it written down to see that while Duke's path looked easiest, it ended up being the hardest, no matter whether Purdue was the worst #4 and Villanova was the worst #2 or not.

(Although I would also note that I think Baylor was the best #3, which should largely negate that Nova was the worst #2.)

[CDu]

As it played out, though, we ended up with a tougher path than any other top two seed. You can say Purdue was the weakest #4, but none of the other #1 seeds even had a #4 in their path, and only Ky and WVa had even one top four seed on their path, while Duke played two.

--Duke's path was 16,8,4,3
--Kentucky's was 16,9,12,2
--Kansas's would have been 16,9,5,6, if they could have beaten the #9
--Syracuse's would have been 16,8,5,2, if they could have beaten the #5
--West Virginia's path was 15,10,11,1
--Kansas State's path was 15, 7, 6, 5
--Ohio State's path would have been 15,10,6,5, if they could have beaten the #6
--Only Villanova's path, which would have been 15,10,3,1, rivals ours, but since they went into OT against the 15 and lost to the 10, it's hardly worth discussing.

I know you all know all this, but for me at least it helps to see it written down to see that while Duke's path looked easiest, it ended up being the hardest, no matter whether Purdue was the worst #4 and Villanova was the worst #2 or not.

(Although I would also note that I think Baylor was the best #3, which should largely negate that Nova was the worst #2.)

Yes, retrospectively we had what would have been a tougher path than any of the other #1 and #2s, and the second-toughest path of any of the Final Four teams. Only Butler had a truly awful path to the Final Four.

I was strictly referring to our potential path at the start of the tournament. In hindsight, I'm sure our actualized path was harder than MANY of the Final Four participants over the years.

[NSDukeFan]

I don't think it is unreasonable to assert that it is a down year the same way you could say that the ACC had a down year. This is true if you look at dominant teams. I would disagree with those who claimed that this year's UK or KU teams were in any way stronger than last year's UNC team.
The flip side of course is that, like the ACC (which had a strong bottom of conference compared to any other conference), there is a lot of parity this year. Many people were saying at the start of the year that Duke was not a great team but there were only 3 or 4 teams that looked to be stronger (KU, UK, Texas?) and another 3-5 (Purdue, Nova, UNC, WVU, MSU, I'm going by memory here) that looked to be of similar strength. At that time, many seemed to think that Duke wasn't the most talented team, but might be in the mix for a final four berth, as much as anyone else, in a one and done tournament. I think it has played out this way. You could say that it is a down year at the top, as there is no dominant team. But, there were a lot of good teams who could beat other teams on a given day. The tournament is the ultimate "on a given day" situation.
Duke hasn't overwhelmed any of the better teams this year, but has been a solid team all year. If Duke wins the tournament, they may not be one of the stronger teams to ever win, but they will have been the most consistently good team in the tournament this year. There have also been a lot worse teams win the tournament than this year's Duke team.
I guess this is just a long-winded way of saying that there weren't any dominant teams this year; Duke has been one of a handful of teams that had the best chance of winning or near best chance of winning this year and they have played well enough that if they play two of their better games this year, they may end up deservedly as national champions.

[MarkD83]

Each NCAA team starts each season with dreams of making the Final 4 and a chance at a Nat'l Championship. Only 4 teams have realized that dream and have a chance at taking home the trophy. If all 300+ teams are not as good as last years or next years 300+ teams who cares.

I will date myself but the 1983 NCSU team and the 1985 Villanova team don't have an asterisk on their trophy's saying NCAA Champion (*but would have lost if it had been a different year).

[hurleyfor3]

People, people, people. The folks trotting out the down-year/Duke had a easy road arguments are immune to the use of logic or careful seed analysis to refute their claims. Phrases such as "actualized path" serve only confuse them, making them dislike us more. :)