History Books

[House G]

I am curious how people think this year's 2009-10 MBB team will be viewed 15-20+ years down the road. When I look back on our 3 previous NC teams after a number of years, I remember greatness. Will this team be considered a great team, a good team that overachieved, a good team that got lucky/caught some breaks, or perhaps a team that was fortunate to have played in a year when "there were no great teams"?

Certainly it was not a dominant team like some of the previous ones. Although they were capable of dominating (e.g. West Virginia, Gonzaga), many of their games against good teams were close and they got dominated at least once (Georgetown).

I will always consider this team to be a fine team that was underestimated because they won with great defense, rebounding, smart team basketball, and great coaching. They had depth, senior leadership, multiple scorers, etc. They played their best basketball as the season progressed. They didn't always put up big numbers and didn't win with flashiness and didn't have any lottery picks. But you know what? They have a National Championship. And I will always remember the little things that made them a champion.

[DevilWearsPrada]

This was a good team, that got better every week. A team that had great leadership and no egos, and a different player stepped up each game. A good team that developed into a great team. A great team with amazing talent, and great character. A team that loved each other and played collectively as One. A team that was unified and very humble. 2010 NCAA Natiional Champs!!! Forever!

[CDu]

I am curious how people think this year's 2009-10 MBB team will be viewed 15-20+ years down the road. When I look back on our 3 previous NC teams after a number of years, I remember greatness. Will this team be considered a great team, a good team that overachieved, a good team that got lucky/caught some breaks, or perhaps a team that was fortunate to have played in a year when "there were no great teams"?

Certainly it was not a dominant team like some of the previous ones. Although they were capable of dominating (e.g. West Virginia, Gonzaga), many of their games against good teams were close and they got dominated at least once (Georgetown).

I will always consider this team to be a fine team that was underestimated because they won with great defense, rebounding, smart team basketball, and great coaching. They had depth, senior leadership, multiple scorers, etc. They played their best basketball as the season progressed. They didn't always put up big numbers and didn't win with flashiness and didn't have any lottery picks. But you know what? They have a National Championship. And I will always remember the little things that made them a champion.

I think it depends on which "people" you mean. Honestly, 15-20 years later, most championship teams are largely forgotten. Does anyone think all that much about the 1995 UCLA team? The 1994 Arkansas team? The 1993 UNC team? Heck, even the 1996 Kentucky team (which was a really dominant team) is probably not all that well-remembered by the average fan.

People remember the 1990 UNLV team because they were unbelievably awesome and probably should have one back-to-back titles. People remember the 1991-1992 Duke teams because they were awesome and won back-to-back titles. But lots of championship teams kind of fall into that "they won a championship" category.

Duke fans will probably still really appreciate this team for what it was, but fans in general will probably not - just like they don't for many previous champions.

The good news is that it really doesn't matter how the team is remembered. They'll still be the champions, and that's all that matters.

[kingboozer]

who cares what everyone else will remember, we will remember every time we look in the rafters and see the banner hanging:D

[Kedsy]

When I look back on our 3 previous NC teams after a number of years, I remember greatness.

If you look beyond the national champion thing, the 1991 team was hardly a great team. They lost 7 games, including a 22 point shellacking by UNC in the ACC tournament. They were beaten handily in the semifinals of the pre-season NIT and lost to 3 of the first 4 ranked teams they played (and were only 5-5 against top 20 teams for the season going into the NCAAT). They were a #2 seed in the NCAAT who got to play a #11 seed and a #4 seed to get to the Final Four (instead of a #3 and #1) and were not given serious consideration by anyone outside the Duke locker room to beat UNLV in the national semifinal game.

So if you remember greatness, you may have already answered your own question.

[roywhite]

Yeah, I doubt the 2010 Duke national champs will be more prominent in the collective consciousness than any number of championship teams. A fond memory for Duke fans, to be sure, with Zoubek IMO playing a very prominent role in the retelling.

Now, if that Hayward shot had gone in, we would have seen endless stories and replays.

[Olympic Fan]

People remember the 1990 UNLV team because they were unbelievably awesome and probably should have one back-to-back titles. People remember the 1991-1992 Duke teams because they were awesome and won back-to-back titles. But lots of championship teams kind of fall into that "they won a championship" category.

Interesting point about Vegas and Duke in the early 1990s.

The thing is that Vegas in 1990 and Duke in 1991 have a lot in common. Both were developing teams that made the jump to greatness late, then followed that with an awesome season ...

Vegas in 1990 started the year as the preseason No. 1 team, but only spent one week at No. 1 before they lost and started to tumble in the polls. They fell as far as No. 14 in early December and were still just 12th in the last week of January. Then they started to climb and were ranked No. 2 (with five losses) going into the NCAA Tournament. In the tourney, they survived a two-point thriller against Ball State, then got lucky in the national semifinals when Kenny Anderson was whistled for a bogus fourth foul early in the second half with Georgia Tech leading them ... obviously, they blew out Duke
in the title game.

It was in 1991 that Vegas was awesome -- dominating everybody without exception until a tough NCAA second round game against Georgetown and, of course, their semifinal loss to Duke. They spent every week of the season at No. 1.

Duke in 1991 was -- like Vegas in 1990 -- a developing team. They started No. 6 in the rankings and fell as far as No. 14 (same as 1990 Vegas) ... remember that ugly loss at Virginia? Duke got better as the season wound down and was No. 6 again (with seven losses) entering the NCAA Tournament ... we all know what happened then.

In 1992, Duke was a truly awesome team -- one that spent every week of the season at No. 1. They didn't dominate as thoroughly as 1991 Vegas, but I would suggest part of that were injuries (both losses came when Hurley broke his foot; Grant Hill also missed significant time), plus the ACC was a lot tougher conference than the Big West. Still, they blew out some very good teams -- St. Johns, at LSU (with Shaq), at UCLA (the last two without Hurley).

That team had to win that miracle game against Kentucky in the East finals, then rally in the second half to win both games in the Final Four.

We'd remember those two Vegas teams and those two Duke teams a lot differently if a couple of shots had fallen either way in the 1990-91-92 NCAA Tournaments.

I guess my point is, that the 2010 Duke team may be defined to at least a small degree by what the 2011 Blue Devils accomplish. If they prove to be a truly dominant team and win it all, we'll look back at 2010 like we see 1991.

I would like to add one thinjg -- the perception that Duke was some kind of overachieving -- or in the haters' view, lucky -- longshot that happened to win the title rankles me. Duke finished the season ranked No. 3 in both the AP and the USA Today polls. Duke was in the top 3 in all three major computer polls (No. 1 in Pomeroy). Duke won both the regular season and tournament titles in one of the nation's three best conferences.

It's not like the Devils were some out-of-nowhere champion. The third-best team over the course of the season is hardly a longshot.

[CDu]

We'd remember those two Vegas teams and those two Duke teams a lot differently if a couple of shots had fallen either way in the 1990-91-92 NCAA Tournaments.

I guess my point is, that the 2010 Duke team may be defined to at least a small degree by what the 2011 Blue Devils accomplish. If they prove to be a truly dominant team and win it all, we'll look back at 2010 like we see 1991.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to get at with my post, but probably did a poor job of doing. We remember the 1990 team largely because they could/should have won in 1991, and we remember the 1991 team because they won and followed it up with the repeat. But you're right. If we don't win in 1992, that team may get remembered for upsetting UNLV, but probably doesn't fall in the pantheon of great teams.

And I completely agree that revisionist history for the 2010 team will likely depend upon the success of the the 2011 team (which is silly, but probably reality).

[roywhite]

I would like to add one thinjg -- the perception that Duke was some kind of overachieving -- or in the haters' view, lucky -- longshot that happened to win the title rankles me. Duke finished the season ranked No. 3 in both the AP and the USA Today polls. Duke was in the top 3 in all three major computer polls (No. 1 in Pomeroy). Duke won both the regular season and tournament titles in one of the nation's three best conferences.

It's not like the Devils were some out-of-nowhere champion. The third-best team over the course of the season is hardly a longshot.

Good summary and a good point how another win in 2011 could enhance the legacy.

As to the inaccurate media perception that surrounded this team:

The Talking Heads had their talking points, and they had to do with Duke's not good in the Tournament, look what's happened the last few years, doesn't play well on the road, can't handle a team with good guards, etc. etc. Most were simply not paying attention to what was happening in the latter part of the season especially and to the statistical analyses like KenPom. This reached the peak of foolishness in my view when on Selection Sunday, most of the Bristol crowd picked Villanova to beat Duke in our region. Hello---Duke was playing very well and Villanova was in a serious tailspin.

One of my take-aways from this year is that a good portion of national college basketball commentators don't have much interesting or accurate to say.

[The Gordog]

I am curious how people think this year's 2009-10 MBB team will be viewed 15-20+ years down the road. When I look back on our 3 previous NC teams after a number of years, I remember greatness. Will this team be considered a great team, a good team that overachieved, a good team that got lucky/caught some breaks, or perhaps a team that was fortunate to have played in a year when "there were no great teams"?

Certainly it was not a dominant team like some of the previous ones. Although they were capable of dominating (e.g. West Virginia, Gonzaga), many of their games against good teams were close and they got dominated at least once (Georgetown).

I will always consider this team to be a fine team that was underestimated because they won with great defense, rebounding, smart team basketball, and great coaching. They had depth, senior leadership, multiple scorers, etc. They played their best basketball as the season progressed. They didn't always put up big numbers and didn't win with flashiness and didn't have any lottery picks. But you know what? They have a National Championship. And I will always remember the little things that made them a champion.

Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Singler the MOP, Scheyer and Smith,
Zoubeck and Thomas, the Plumlees and Dawkins-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

[Olympic Fan]

Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Singler the MOP, Scheyer and Smith,
Zoubeck and Thomas, the Plumlees and Dawkins-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

Awesome take on the Bard's most rousing pre-game speech.

[Reilly]

I am curious how people think this year's 2009-10 MBB team will be viewed 15-20+ years down the road....

I guess, down the road, those who know basketball might remember the NIT Season Tip-Off Championship, the ACC Regular Season Championship, the ACC Tournament Championship, the Final Four, and the NCAA National Championship, all forged with toughness, togetherness and skill.

And those who don't know will remember them as alarmingly unathletic.

[shoutingncu]

...The 1993 UNC team?

There have been comparisons of 2010 and 1993 and you're probably right that fans without a rooting interest won't think much about either of them.

In '93, the Heels won with solid, good-but-not-great talent that worked hard and played well together, after having watched Duke win back-to-back after going to five straight Final Fours.

Now, Carolina didn't have that kind of success leading up to 2010, but similar enough to compare an experienced but not overwhelming Duke team taking some (all?) of that momentum back.

So the real question is... should history repeat... Go Boston College?

[Billy Dat]

Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Singler the MOP, Scheyer and Smith,
Zoubeck and Thomas, the Plumlees and Dawkins-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

That freaks me out...I watched this clip many times before each of Duke's last 4 games:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRj01LShXN8

And gentlemen in England now-a-bed (Henderson, King, Czyz)
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon National Championship day.

[chrishoke]

That freaks me out...I watched this clip many times before each of Duke's last 4 games:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRj01LShXN8

And gentlemen in England now-a-bed (Henderson, Williams, King, Czyz)
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon National Championship day.

FIFY

[Newton_14]

and were not given serious consideration by anyone outside the Duke locker room to beat UNLV in the national semifinal game.
.

Just one correction Kedsy. In 1991 ESPN had added a very enthusiastic, smart, and witty former coach as a in studio college basketball analyst. Once the Sweet 16 was set, ESPN had a show to discuss the matchups and each analyst made his arguments and then pick to come out of all that and win the title.

All picked Vegas except for the new, enthusiastic, smart, and witty former coach. He picked Duke. The other's were like what? Then he gave a compelling argument about the improved Hurley, the dominant Laettner, and the athletic Hill and Davis. They scoffed at him but he stuck with his pick the rest of the tournament, and as we all know he ended up being correct.

His name was Jim Valvano.

[DevilHorns]

Simple.

Great team.

[sagegrouse]

The chapter on the 2010 team in the next great history of Duke basketball will be titled, "Alarmingly Unathletic." Right? How could it be anything else? This will be the catchphrase always attached to this National Champion.

The chapter will begin with a brief review of the team's accomplishments. Then go to the Doug Gottlieb quote during the Duke-Wisconsin game. Then spend a page or two refuting his contention.

The next section will talk about Jon Scheyer and his importance to the team. There will be later sections on Nolan, Kyle, and Zoubs. There really is a lot to talk about relative to this team, isn't there?

There will be object lessons from the bad losses to State and Georgetown. The insertion of Zoubek into the starting lineup will almost read like the cavalry is coming to rescue the wagon train.

The final section will talk about the NCAAs and the exploits of a team that didn't penetrate the top five until the final week of the regular season.

How this team compares to other Duke teams is totally irrelevant. A National Champion stands alone. If it wasn't the best Duke team ever, then the accomplishment is all the greater. As K told the team on the night of the championships, "You are National Champions forever."

Anyway, just my opinion.

sagegrouse

[Lord Ash]

I think it depends on which "people" you mean. Honestly, 15-20 years later, most championship teams are largely forgotten. Does anyone think all that much about the 1995 UCLA team? The 1994 Arkansas team? The 1993 UNC team? Heck, even the 1996 Kentucky team (which was a really dominant team) is probably not all that well-remembered by the average fan.


All the damned time, thanks very much.

[Verga3]

Ask Coach K in a few years......He has not stated it directly, but it sure has sounded to me that this is his all-time (best) team. He may have felt the same way if Hayward makes the shot....

[basket1544]

History books give a paragraph to each champion on what they accomplished. Memories are what you may be asking for.
I will never ever forget specific moments from 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2005, 2007, 2010. All for many different reasons. Some you remember because they are things you want to relive over and over; some because you unfortunately can't forget.
I'll never forget Bobby's face in the closing minutes of the 1990 game and the contrast in the closing minutes of 1991 game. Now, I'll very likely never forget the contrast of Jon's face at the end of the VCU game and at the end of the Butler game.

[Welcome2DaSlopes]

This may all change if our next year team wins it all as well.

[Newton_14]

I am curious how people think this year's 2009-10 MBB team will be viewed 15-20+ years down the road. When I look back on our 3 previous NC teams after a number of years, I remember greatness. Will this team be considered a great team, a good team that overachieved, a good team that got lucky/caught some breaks, or perhaps a team that was fortunate to have played in a year when "there were no great teams"?

Certainly it was not a dominant team like some of the previous ones. Although they were capable of dominating (e.g. West Virginia, Gonzaga), many of their games against good teams were close and they got dominated at least once (Georgetown).

I will always consider this team to be a fine team that was underestimated because they won with great defense, rebounding, smart team basketball, and great coaching. They had depth, senior leadership, multiple scorers, etc. They played their best basketball as the season progressed. They didn't always put up big numbers and didn't win with flashiness and didn't have any lottery picks. But you know what? They have a National Championship. And I will always remember the little things that made them a champion.

I think the legend of this championship team will live for years to come.

For one, it was one of the best title games of the decade if not the best.

Best title game in years and tremendously high tv ratings.

The game was played within an 8 point differential (2nd closest game of the entire college basketball season)

Another factor is the opponent. Butler made for a great story win or lose. How many times did the movie Hoosiers get mentioned?

Fantastic finish. The last 34 seconds of the game were incredible. Filled with drama. Great defensive stand by a team that lived and died with defense and rebounding. The almost steal by Nolan, the held ball on the almost steal by Lance, and Butler can't get the ball inbounds and has to call their last timeout.

The first Hayward shot attempt to win it and the great D by Singler and Zoubek, and rebound by Zoubek.

K's decision to have Zoubek intentionally brick the free throw..

And finally, the events of the final 3.2 seconds, with the crack back block on Singler and the halfcourt shot by the star player, all zero's on the clock with the ball in the air, the winner and loser to be decided by the result of the shot and somehow it almost goes in? But it bounces harmlessly off the rim and Duke is National Champions.

Duke blue eyes I do have but this game and this champion will be remembered for a long long time.