Final AP poll

[Olympic Fan]

The latest -- and last of the season -- AP poll is out today and Duke finishes at No. 4 (behind Kentucky, Villanova and Wisconsin).

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rankings

That's significant because it's the eighth straight year that Duke has finished in the top 10. It's also the 19th time in 20 seasons (we were unranked in the final 2007 poll)

It's the 26th time Coach K has done it (in 35 years) and the 35th time in school history (once under Hal Bradley, once under Bill Foster and seven times under Vic Bubas).

K also had three teams early in his career that finished in the second 10 -- so 29 of his 35 Duke teams have been ranked in the final poll. His misses -- 1981, 1982, 1983, 1995, 1996 and 2007.

Duke is No. 5 in the latest coaching poll -- but that one is not final. They vote again after the NCAA Tournament.

[Reilly]

I started with the AP Top 25, and compared where those teams were ranked in the USA Today Coaches Top 25 poll, the “SRS” at sports-reference.com, in Kenpom, and via NCAA seed.

Team .... AP Top 25 ... USA Today Coaches Top 25 .... sports-reference.com SRS rank .... Kenpom rank ... NCAA rank based on seed

KY ... 1 ... 1 ... 1 ... 1 ... (1-4)

Villanova ... 2 ... 2 ... 5 ... 5 ... (1-4)

Wisconsin ... 3 ... 3 ... 2 ... 3 ... (1-4)

Duke ... 4 ... 5 ... 4 ... 7 ... (1-4)

Arizona .. 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ... (5-8)

Virginia ... 6 ... 6 ... 6 ... 4 ... (5-8)

Gonzaga ... 7 ... 7 ... 7 ... 6 ... (5-8)

ND ... 8 ... 8 ... 13 ... 10 ... (9-12)

ISU ... 9 ... 9 ... 14 ... 13 ... (9-12)

Kansas ... 10 ... 11 ... 12 ... 11 ... (5-8)

Northern Iowa ... 11 ... 9 ...42 ... 12 ... (17-20)

Maryland ... 12 ... 12 ... 29 ... 33 ... (13-16)

Oklahoma ... 13 ... 15 ... 11 ... 9 ... (9-12)

Wichita State ... 14 ... 13 ... 24 ... 14 ... (25-28)

UNC ... 15 ... 14 ... 8 ... 16 ... (13-16)

Baylor ... 16 ... 17 ... 15 ... 15 ... (9-12)

L’ville ... 17 ... 16 ... 16 ... 18 ... (13-16)

SMU ... 18 ... 19 ... 35 ... 19 ... (21-24)

Utah ... 19 ... 18 ... 9 ... 8 ... (17-20)

WVU ... 20 ... 21 ... 20 ... 25 ... (17-20)

Arkansas ... 21 ... 20 ... 25 ... 29 ... (17-20)

G’town ... 22 ... 24 ... 21 ... 22 ... (13-16)

Mich State ... 23 ... 22 ... 17 ... 17 ... (25-28)

Butler ... 24 ... 23 ... 19 ... 23 ... (21-24)

VCU ... 25 ... 26 ... 37 ... 30 ... (25-28)

Oregon ... 26 ... 25 ... 52 ... 46 ... (29-32)

********************

These four teams were not in the AP Top 25 but were in the SRS top 25:

OHIO STATE = 10 in SRS, 30 in AP, 34 in Coaches; 21 in Kenpom; (37-40) in NCAA
TEXAS = 18 in SRS, unranked in AP, 38 in Coaches; 20 in Kenpom; (41-44) in NCAA
IOWA = 22 in SRS, 40 in AP, unranked in Coaches; 24 in Kenpom; (25-28) in NCAA
XAVIER = 23 in SRS, 28 in AP, 33 in Coaches, 26 in Kenom; (21-24) in NCAA

Things that stuck out to me:

1. The AP Top 25 and USA Today Coaches Top 25 are in lockstep: Oklahoma (13, 15) and G’town (22, 24) are the only schools ranked more than 1 slot apart, and they’re only two spots apart.

2. The computers (SRS, Kenpom) would’ve given Arizona a #1 seed over Duke.

3. Virginia’s #2 seed seems right.

4. Gonzaga is for real – with uniformity in how it is considered by humans (AP, USAT, seed) and computers (SRS, Kenpom): 7, 7, 7, 6, 5-8

5. The humans (poll voters; seeders) love ND a smidge more than the computers do.

6. The NCAA seeders love Kansas more than the poll-voters or the computers.

7. The humans love MD a good bit more than the computers do.

8. The computers really love Utah (8 and 9), but not the humans.

9. G’town got a better seed than the poll voters or computers would’ve given it.

10. Northern Iowa was not given as much credit by the seeders as human voters and Kenpom would have given them; yet SRS ranks UNI even lower (42).

11. Humans think much more highly of Oregon than the computers (52, 46) do.

12. The computers like Ohio State (10, 21) but they are out of the polls and have a 37-40 NCAA rank.

[Bay Area Duke Fan]

Does any of this still matter? The tournament decides who's best, not the computers, writers, and "experts."

[Kedsy]

Does any of this still matter? The tournament decides who's best, not the computers, writers, and "experts."

I disagree. The tournament decides the champion. That's very different from deciding who's best.

[roywhite]

I disagree. The tournament decides the champion. That's very different from deciding who's best.

Okay, I'll bite.

Who decides "who's best"?

[Jderf]

Okay, I'll bite.

Who decides "who's best"?

Posters on message boards, of course.

[Kedsy]

Okay, I'll bite.

Who decides "who's best"?

Nobody "decides" it. It's a matter for debate, with empirical evidence supporting one team or another.

A week or two ago, at DBR we were having an argument about the importance of the ACC tournament, and I thought it was generally agreed that the tournament decided the ACC champion, but the regular season (less so than when it was a round robin but more than a one-and-done tournament) was a better indicator of the best team. Why would the NCAA tournament be any different?

Does anybody really think UConn was the best team in the country last season? They finished the regular season tied for third/fourth/fifth in the AAC, for goodness sake. Or in 2011, when UConn finished tied for 9th/10th/11th in the Big East, but won the national championship -- would anyone argue with a straight face that the Huskies were the best team in the country that year? They finished 10th in their conference.

Actually, I would argue that the best team rarely wins the NCAA championship. That doesn't minimize the importance of the accomplishment, or suggest the winner of the tourney is anything less than the champion.

To me, it's an easy distinction to make. When the Giants beat the undefeated Patriots in the Super Bowl a few years back, the Giants were the champs but the Patriots were still the best team. When Duke beat UNLV in 1991, do you think that Duke team would have won more than two or three games if they'd played a ten game series? When a wild card team wins the World Series in baseball, of course they're the "world champions," but they clearly weren't the best team -- they couldn't even win their division over the course of a 162 game schedule. When the last place team in my kid's little league won the league playoffs, that last place team was the champion, but a pretty decent argument could have been made that the team was the worst team in that particular league.

Upsets happen all the time in sports. That's why we play and why we watch. But can anyone seriously argue that the winner of every game is the "best team"? That makes no sense whatsoever.

[camion]

It's pretty simple really. I decide who's best.

And I have never been wrong. If you doubt it just ask me. :)

[jv001]

Nobody "decides" it. It's a matter for debate, with empirical evidence supporting one team or another.

A week or two ago, at DBR we were having an argument about the importance of the ACC tournament, and I thought it was generally agreed that the tournament decided the ACC champion, but the regular season (less so than when it was a round robin but more than a one-and-done tournament) was a better indicator of the best team. Why would the NCAA tournament be any different?

Does anybody really think UConn was the best team in the country last season? They finished the regular season tied for third/fourth/fifth in the AAC, for goodness sake. Or in 2011, when UConn finished tied for 9th/10th/11th in the Big East, but won the national championship -- would anyone argue with a straight face that the Huskies were the best team in the country that year? They finished 10th in their conference.

Actually, I would argue that the best team rarely wins the NCAA championship. That doesn't minimize the importance of the accomplishment, or suggest the winner of the tourney is anything less than the champion.

To me, it's an easy distinction to make. When the Giants beat the undefeated Patriots in the Super Bowl a few years back, the Giants were the champs but the Patriots were still the best team. When Duke beat UNLV in 1991, do you think that Duke team would have won more than two or three games if they'd played a ten game series? When a wild card team wins the World Series in baseball, of course they're the "world champions," but they clearly weren't the best team -- they couldn't even win their division over the course of a 162 game schedule. When the last place team in my kid's little league won the league playoffs, that last place team was the champion, but a pretty decent argument could have been made that the team was the worst team in that particular league.

Upsets happen all the time in sports. That's why we play and why we watch. But can anyone seriously argue that the winner of every game is the "best team"? That makes no sense whatsoever.

I will always believe Duke had the nations best team in: 1964, 1992, 1994, 1999, 2001 and I believe I'm leaving out one other year. We won the title in two of those years, 1992 and 2001. But that's my opinion and from my eye test. GoDuke!

Not 1994 but 2004 team. GoDuke

[MCFinARL]

I will always believe Duke had the nations best team in: 1964, 1992, 1994, 1999, 2001 and I believe I'm leaving out one other year. We won the title in two of those years, 1992 and 2001. But that's my opinion and from my eye test. GoDuke!

And we won in 2010 when, at least arguably, we didn't have the nation's best team (though we had a team that was much closer to the nation's best than Kedsy's UConn example from last year).

[jv001]

And we won in 2010 when, at least arguably, we didn't have the nation's best team (though we had a team that was much closer to the nation's best than Kedsy's UConn example from last year).

The 2010 team peaked at the right time and was a very good team but probably not the best team that year. GoDuke!

[Duvall]

The 2010 team peaked at the right time and was a very good team but probably not the best team that year. GoDuke!

You could make a case for Kansas, but that's about it.

[Indoor66]

I will always believe Duke had the nations best team in: 1964, 1992, 1994, 1999, 2001 and I believe I'm leaving out one other year. We won the title in two of those years, 1992 and 2001. But that's my opinion and from my eye test. GoDuke!

Not 1994 but 2004 team. GoDuke

You forgot 1966.

[Bluedog]

You could make a case for Kansas, but that's about it.

And Kentucky...They were 32-2 entering the tournament, but shot orribly from 3 against WVU in the Elite 8 (thankfully!). They won their first three games on the tournament by an average of 25 points.

[Olympic Fan]

I will always believe Duke had the nations best team in: 1964, 1992, 1994, 1999, 2001 and I believe I'm leaving out one other year. We won the title in two of those years, 1992 and 2001. But that's my opinion and from my eye test. GoDuke!

Not 1994 but 2004 team. GoDuke

I could make a case for 1966 as the nation's best team I'd also argue that 1986 was definitely the nation's best ... and 2002 might have been.

[Duvall]

And Kentucky...They were 32-2 entering the tournament, but shot orribly from 3 against WVU in the Elite 8 (thankfully!). They won their first three games on the tournament by an average of 25 points.

No. Duke played a much tougher schedule that year and was rated higher by all the metrics, including the ultimately determinative "beating West Virginia" metric.

[jv001]

You forgot 1966.

Yes, I did forget about that team. I was in the Army in 1966 and didn't see any games until I came home in January, 1967. That team had Marin, Verga, Lewis, Vacendak and Reidy in the starting lineup. They could have been the best team and if not the list was short. GoDuke!

[Duvall]

I could make a case for 1966 as the nation's best team I'd also argue that 1986 was definitely the nation's best ... and 2002 might have been.

You can make a case for Duke being the best team in 1966, but you probably shouldn't.

[subzero02]

I could make a case for 1966 as the nation's best team I'd also argue that 1986 was definitely the nation's best ... and 2002 might have been.

I was going to bring up 1986... I didn't watch that team because I was 5/6 years old that season but from the descriptions and record, they were truly elite amongst our final four squads. 2002 Duke was a great team and should've made the final four but nothing compares to the dominance of the 1999 squad. That squad went through the ACC season with a lot more ease than this year's Kentucky squad went through the SEC

[MarkD83]

K also had three teams early in his career that finished in the second 10 -- so 29 of his 35 Duke teams have been ranked in the final poll. His misses -- 1981, 1982, 1983, 1995, 1996 and 2007.


I'm Irish and supposed to be lucky but 3 of those years are when I was a sophomore, junior and senior.

[Wander]

The problem is that the AP poll doesn't do a post-tournament poll, which makes stats like "8th straight year we've finished in the top 10" the absolute lamest thing to brag about ever. It's our equivalent of UNC's NIT 3rd place banner. We should never even mention it.

[jv001]

I could make a case for 1966 as the nation's best team I'd also argue that 1986 was definitely the nation's best ... and 2002 might have been.

How could I forget the '86 team with Dawkins, Amaker, Alarie, Henderson, Ferry and Bilas. If my memory serves me correctly our biggest weakness was in the middle, with Bilas. The best group was probably the first five I named. Bilas was an undersized center and Ferry had not become the All American Danny Ferry yet. Bilas averaged 6.8ppg and 4.9rpg. Ferry averaged 5.9ppg and 5.5 rpg. Mark Alarie was our top rebounder at 6.2 rpg playing forward. This was the first great Coach K team and jump started Duke's run to the top. GoDuke!

[Kedsy]

The problem is that the AP poll doesn't do a post-tournament poll, which makes stats like "8th straight year we've finished in the top 10" the absolute lamest thing to brag about ever. It's our equivalent of UNC's NIT 3rd place banner. We should never even mention it.

I hear what you're saying, but I don't entirely agree. The regular season should count for something. Being #1 in the final AP poll (which Duke does hang banners for) or being in the top 10 in the final poll n years in a row is an accomplishment, like the regular season ACC champion. Just because a team might stumble in a one-and-done post-season tournament (and, by the way, the final AP poll takes conference tournaments into account, just not the NCAA tournament) doesn't invalidate the accomplishment.

[jv001]

I hear what you're saying, but I don't entirely agree. The regular season should count for something. Being #1 in the final AP poll (which Duke does hang banners for) or being in the top 10 in the final poll n years in a row is an accomplishment, like the regular season ACC champion. Just because a team might stumble in a one-and-done post-season tournament (and, by the way, the final AP poll takes conference tournaments into account, just not the NCAA tournament) doesn't invalidate the accomplishment.

Yes, the same thing that many posters are saying, the winner of the NCAAT is not always the best team in the country. Duke could actually be the 10th best team in the country at season's end and stumble to a lessor team in the NCAAT. That could knock them from the top ten. The regular season should count for a lot but not be considered the official champ(ACCT). GoDuke!

[sagegrouse]

The problem is that the AP poll doesn't do a post-tournament poll, which makes stats like "8th straight year we've finished in the top 10" the absolute lamest thing to brag about ever. It's our equivalent of UNC's NIT 3rd place banner. We should never even mention it.

Not a problem. The AP scores the regular season through the conference tournaments. A post-season poll just parrots back the NCAA Tournament results.

Similarly, POY, A-A and COY awards are all based on voting prior to the NCAA Tournament to give full credit to the refular season. I agree with all of the above.

[luvdahops]

How could I forget the '86 team with Dawkins, Amaker, Alarie, Henderson, Ferry and Bilas. If my memory serves me correctly our biggest weakness was in the middle, with Bilas. The best group was probably the first five I named. Bilas was an undersized center and Ferry had not become the All American Danny Ferry yet. Bilas averaged 6.8ppg and 4.9rpg. Ferry averaged 5.9ppg and 5.5 rpg. Mark Alarie was our top rebounder at 6.2 rpg playing forward. This was the first great Coach K team and jump started Duke's run to the top. GoDuke!

I think Bilas, Alarie and Ferry were all solid interior defenders, but none were shot blockers or rim protectors in the classic sense. Alarie's 6.2 rpg were more a function of tempo and, especially, higher shooting percentages in the pre-3 pointer era (Duke shot 51.3% and our opponents 47.7% that year). We outrebounded opponents a per game basis 36.0 to 30.1. Pervis Ellison going off in the Championship Game was an aberration in my view. IIRC, we had defended guys like David Robinson, Brad Daugherty and John Salley pretty effectively up to that point.

[Wander]

I hear what you're saying, but I don't entirely agree. The regular season should count for something. Being #1 in the final AP poll (which Duke does hang banners for) or being in the top 10 in the final poll n years in a row is an accomplishment, like the regular season ACC champion. Just because a team might stumble in a one-and-done post-season tournament (and, by the way, the final AP poll takes conference tournaments into account, just not the NCAA tournament) doesn't invalidate the accomplishment.

I agree regular season success should count. It's just that "top 10 in the final poll N years in a row" is no different to me than saying "top 10 in the second to last poll N years in a row." Sure, being in the top 10 is better than not being in the top 10, but both metrics are incomplete, not taking all the games of a season into account. Using the "final poll" metric of a poll without a postseason ranking feels to me like a cheap technicality for fans to pretend like the Mercer loss never happened.

I think that the final coaches poll does a reasonable job of a final ranking of teams while still giving a lot of weight to the regular season - maybe not at the VERY top since they automatically vote the tournament winner at #1, but otherwise. I'd be OK with us bragging about being in the top 10 of that one N years in a row.

[Bluedog]

No. Duke played a much tougher schedule that year and was rated higher by all the metrics, including the ultimately determinative "beating West Virginia" metric.

I agree; I'm just saying it could be argued. Kentucky was ranked ahead of Duke by the AP and Coaches Poll (and by the selection commitee). So, according to all the humans, Kentucky was better than Duke (going into the tournament). I, for one, was really glad when they lost!

[Bay Area Duke Fan]

I'd much rather be National Champion than be the "best" team.

[Kedsy]

I'd much rather be National Champion than be the "best" team.

Nobody's arguing that. My point was simply that the tournament doesn't "decide who's best."

[westwall]

Not 1994 but 2004 team. GoDuke

Why are you throwing out 1994 without comment?? Just curious -- Don't recall the season record, but only a last-second 3 deprived Duke of another NCAA Championship.

[Kedsy]

Why are you throwing out 1994 without comment?? Just curious -- Don't recall the season record, but only a last-second 3 deprived Duke of another NCAA Championship.

That's true, but Duke wasn't really the best team that year. I think Arkansas was. Duke struggled valiantly, but I was fairly amazed we kept it as close as we did.

[subzero02]

That's true, but Duke wasn't really the best team that year. I think Arkansas was. Duke struggled valiantly, but I was fairly amazed we kept it as close as we did.

I distinctly remember my dad(born and raised in Arkansas) going crazy during this game. I remember that Grant struggled and Lang had a great game. This was the last game I cheered against Duke... I became a fan the next season; during the unc game in Cameron. I agree that 94 Duke shouldn't be on this list, Arkansas was the best squad that year. I was surprised Duke got past Robinson and Purdue.

[westwall]

That's true, but Duke wasn't really the best team that year. I think Arkansas was.


Bill Clinton thought so too. But it was very close in the championship game. On the other hand, I was in Cole Field House in 1966 and although I cheered for Duke -- which struggled valiantly despite Verga's problem -- I thought the guard play of both Kentucky and Texas Western made them better teams. And the '66 team was not dominant, having reached the Final Four only by a two point win over St Joseph. So how do we distinguish 1966 from 2004??

[ice-9]

Does anybody really think UConn was the best team in the country last season? They finished the regular season tied for third/fourth/fifth in the AAC, for goodness sake. Or in 2011, when UConn finished tied for 9th/10th/11th in the Big East, but won the national championship -- would anyone argue with a straight face that the Huskies were the best team in the country that year? They finished 10th in their conference.

I agree with your point, but differ slightly on the above -- the NCAA tournament is great for deciding who's best at that time. Sure, over the course of the season UConn was hardly that good, but by the end of the season they obviously gelled into something great.

Were they the best over the season? No.

Were they the best by the end of it? Yes.

That's why winning the tournament matters above all else.

[sagegrouse]

That's true, but Duke wasn't really the best team that year. I think Arkansas was. Duke struggled valiantly, but I was fairly amazed we kept it as close as we did.

IIRC Duke had a ten-point lead with seven minutes left.

And then at the end, I thought we were in control of a tie game, with our defense shutting down Arkansas, until a slight bobble caused Tony Lang to momentarily leave Scotty Thurman open. Then, Chris Collins just barely missed a three at the other end. This was a winnable game, and I thought we were gonna win until Thurman's shot.

[ricks68]

Bill Clinton thought so too. But it was very close in the championship game. On the other hand, I was in Cole Field House in 1966 and although I cheered for Duke -- which struggled valiantly despite Verga's problem -- I thought the guard play of both Kentucky and Texas Western made them better teams. And the '66 team was not dominant, having reached the Final Four only by a two point win over St Joseph. So how do we distinguish 1966 from 2004??

I was also in Cole Field House for that game and I believe our team was definitely better than Kentucky had Verga been O.K. We barely lost that game, and that would not have happened if he would have been well. No one in the FF, however, could have won over Texas Western that day. No one. So, I believe we were not the best team.

TV coverage of college bball back then was almost non-existent outside of the FF, and all we had for decent coverage and analysis were the newspapers. Of course, we Duke students followed the newspapers constantly to find out information on other teams. Week in and week out, we saw Texas Western begin to climb the polls about halfway into the season, yet we knew their conference was weak. So, obviously, we figured that their rank was based on their W-L record only, at only one loss after starting 23-0. Who were they? We certainly didn't know. Well, after watching both Bobby Joe Hill at 5-10 and even Willie Worsley at 5-6, both fly through the air and dunk the ball during warm-ups, along with all the other starters, we became educated really fast. During the game, it seemed like their man-mountain center (in those days at only 6-6, 225), David Lattin, was grabbing offensive rebounds and stuffing the ball back in the basket with Kentucky players still hanging on to the ball. Nope, I don't think even big Mike could have handled that even though he was listed as the same weight and 1 inch taller.

ricks

[Kedsy]

I agree with your point, but differ slightly on the above -- the NCAA tournament is great for deciding who's best at that time. Sure, over the course of the season UConn was hardly that good, but by the end of the season they obviously gelled into something great.

Were they the best over the season? No.

Were they the best by the end of it? Yes.

That's why winning the tournament matters above all else.

Well, I'd argue there's a difference between outplaying your opponent and being the better team. For example, Miami clearly outplayed Duke when the teams played in Cameron, but I don't think Miami was a better team than Duke that day or at any other point this season. Getting back to Connecticut, the Huskies beat a 4-seed to get to the Final Four and an 8-seed to win the championship. In my mind that doesn't make them the best team in the country, even at that time, it merely makes them the winner of the tournament.

[ice-9]

Well, I'd argue there's a difference between outplaying your opponent and being the better team. For example, Miami clearly outplayed Duke when the teams played in Cameron, but I don't think Miami was a better team than Duke that day or at any other point this season. Getting back to Connecticut, the Huskies beat a 4-seed to get to the Final Four and an 8-seed to win the championship. In my mind that doesn't make them the best team in the country, even at that time, it merely makes them the winner of the tournament.

This might just be semantics, but yeah, I'd argue Miami was better than Duke that day. I mean, what other purpose is there to play games if not to determine who's better? If for at the very least that point in time?

[jv001]

Why are you throwing out 1994 without comment?? Just curious -- Don't recall the season record, but only a last-second 3 deprived Duke of another NCAA Championship.

The 1994 Duke team went 28-6, 12-4 conference, 14-2 home, 8-2 away, 6-2 neutral courts. I think it was a good team and maybe a very good team, but not one of our best. But that's just me. GoDuke!

The players were: Grant, Chris Collins, Jeff Capel, Antonio Lang and Marty Clark. Eric Meek was on the team but didn't contribute very much. GoDuke!

[arnie]

The 1994 Duke team went 28-6, 12-4 conference, 14-2 home, 8-2 away, 6-2 neutral courts. I think it was a good team and maybe a very good team, but not one of our best. But that's just me. GoDuke!

The players were: Grant, Chris Collins, Jeff Capel, Antonio Lang and Marty Clark. Eric Meek was on the team but didn't contribute very much. GoDuke!
Uh- the Chief was pretty important.

[jv001]

Uh- the Chief was pretty important.

Man, I can't believe I left off Cherokee Parks. He was probably our 2nd best player behind Grant. This old memory ain't what it used to be. GoDuke!

[bob blue devil]

This might just be semantics, but yeah, I'd argue Miami was better than Duke that day. I mean, what other purpose is there to play games if not to determine who's better? If for at the very least that point in time?

...i'm not exactly onboard with this. i agree that the winner is the winner and to the victor belong the spoils (including bragging rights of being "better" that day). but in reality, the winner isn't always the best team. of course, the "winner of a game is the best team" approach ignores match-ups (which may favor one team while not reflecting their being any more or less strong in general), but also it ignores fluke plays, officiating biases (as well as bad calls - distinction being biases favor one team, while bad calls are more fluke plays), who came down with a cold, or got dumped by a girlfriend, or was up all night studying for a test, or didn't take the opponent seriously given perceived superiority, and on and on - the winner is very particular to the culmination of circumstances present the moment of the game. as a fan, i wouldn't claim one team better than another unless i expected them to perform better going forward against general competition (in reality or hypothetically if the season has concluded). so, were you anticipating miami to do better going forward after beating duke? if not, than yes, i agree it is semantics and we don't agree on what it means to be a "better team".

[mr. synellinden]

I am surprised nobody mentions 1998 in these discussions. But for an epic meltdown against Kentucky, that team likely would have won the title in a relatively weak final four. It was a 32-4 team (15-1 in the ACC) with an experienced, balanced and deep team - McLeod, Langdon, Carrawell, Chappell and Wojo, with freshmen Brand, Avery, Battier and Burgess.

Other than a blowout loss at UNC and another loss to UNC in the ACC championship game (you could argue that UNC was the best team that year) - the only other loss before the tourney was to Michigan. That team generally destroyed opponents, including a 120-84 win over UCLA, 78-47 and 88-52 over Wake, 86-59 and 104-72 over Maryland, 94-66 over Villanova, and 103-59 over UVA!